UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

DYAL SINGH COLLEGE (M)

Core Paper: History of Modern Europe - I

Internal Assessment Assignment

Topic/ Question: Defining the concept of

"Revolution" in context of France, analyse the
principal causes of the French Revolution of 1789.

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Shantanu Kumar Das Mansi Rautela

Department of History B.A. (H) History
Dyal Singh College (M) Semester: V
University of Delhi Roll no. 18/85023
 Introduction

A dethroned king, a flamboyant queen, the storming of a fortress prison

and the terror of the guillotine – the French Revolution had all of the
ingredients of an engrossing drama. Yet to delve beneath the surface of
these characters and symbols is to discover the complexity of this trans
formative era. The French Revolution of 1789 struck the first solid blow
in continental Western Europe against monarchical absolutism on behalf
of popular sovereignty. The roots of revolution extend back to the second
half of the seventeenth century, an era of hitherto unparalleled absolute
monarchical authority. The monarchs of France, Russia, Prussia, Austria,
Spain, and Sweden had reinforced their authority to the extent that they
stood clearly above any internal challenge to their power.The French
Revolution mounted the first effective challenge to monarchical
absolutism on behalf of popular sovereignty. The creation of a republican
government in France and the diffusion of republican ideals in other
European countries influenced the evolution of European political life
long after the Revolution ended. Issues of the rights of the people, the
role of the state in society, the values of democratic society, notions of
“left” and “right” in political life, the concept of the “nation at arms,” the
place of religion in modern society and politics, and the question of
economic freedom and the sanctity of property came to dominate the
political agenda. They occupied the attention of much of France during
the revolutionary decade of 1789-1799. The political violence of that
decade would also be a legacy for the future. The events of the French
Revolution, transpiring over the span of a decade, were part of a grander
Age of Revolutions and at the same time, were comprised of a series of
smaller stories of individual French citizens becoming politically engaged
amidst tremendous poverty, intellectual transformation, and ultimately...
violence. A combination of factors including rising expectations spurred
by the Enlightenment, massive starvation, and frustration with the
mismanagement of an inept monarchy pushed the Revolution’s initial
aims. These aims were worn down as political conflicts splintered
revolutionary groups and led to a frenzy of executions by guillotine.

While the complexity of the French Revolution might seem to

present daunting challenges, its significance in shaping international
currents merits a careful exploration. Within the course of a decade, the
French monarchy was shorn of its political power, a framework was
created for a universal understanding of basic human and civil rights, and
countless French citizens across class backgrounds acted to achieve
political power in an era of repression and economic uncertainty. The
“Age of Reason,” better known as the “Enlightenment,” was the historical
context which gave birth to a host of new ideas particularly the rights of
individuals and the obligations of nations to their citizens. However, there
was a devastatingly dark undercurrent to the political instability ushered
in by the Revolution. The struggle to control the direction of the French
Revolution unleashed a bloodbath known as the “Reign of Terror” in
which tens of thousands of suspected political enemies were executed by
guillotine. What actually started with extraordinary hopes and ambitions,
turned into a horrific tragedy.

‘Revolution” in the context of 18th century France

French revolution, also called as Revolution of 1789, the revolutionary

movement that shook France, denotes the end of the ancien regime in
France and serves also to distinguish that event from later French
Revolution of 1830 and 1848.

The time period of 1789-1799, these vivid and often shocking years in
the history of France that altered the course of history. A phrase coined
by historian Georges Lefebvre, the ‘bourgeois revolution’ refers to the
first years of the Revolution (1789 to 1792), when the revolutionary
government and its policies were dominated by the bourgeoisie. Political
institutions and policies in this period reflected the moderate liberal
values and capitalist interests of the bourgeoisie.
The French celebrate their National Day each year on July 14 by
remembering the storming of the Bastille, the hated symbol of the old
regime. According to the standard narrative, the united people took the
law in its own hands and gave birth to modern France in a heroic
revolution. But in the view of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the famous
German philosopher, there was no real revolution, understood as an
unlawful and violent toppling of the old regime. Writing in the wake of
the events, he concluded that the King, by a “very serious error in
judgment” had unintentionally abdicated and left the power to the people.
Was it a revolution, or not? Kant’s view has often been derided as a
sneaky way to justify the revolution without being seen in public as doing
so. Defending the revolution publicly could attract the King’s ire. The
Prussian king, like all Europe’s sovereigns, feared the advancement of the
revolution, and endorsements by opinion leaders might hasten that
outcome. Kant, who was a professor at Königsberg, was Germany’s
premier philosopher. He had many followers and defended a highly
idealistic moral theory with clear affinities to the ideals of liberty,
equality, and fraternity. Thus, fear of censorship could have been Kant’s
reason for misrepresenting the event as something else than a revolution.

Causes of the Revolution of 1789

There is significant disagreement among historians of the French

Revolution as to its causes. Usually, they acknowledge the presence of
several interlinked factors, but vary in the weight they attribute to each
one. These factors include cultural change, normally associated with
the Enlightenment; social change; financial and economic difficulties;
and the political actions of the involved parties.
Beyond these relatively established facts regarding the social conditions
surrounding the French Revolution, there is significant dissent among
historians. Marxist historians, such as Lefebvre and Soboul, as the main
cause of the Revolution, as the Estates-General allowed them to manifest
into tangible political action; the bourgeoisie and the lower classes were
grouped into the Third Estate, allowing them to jointly oppose the
establishment. Others see the social issues as important, but less so than
the Enlightenment or the financial crisis; François Furet is a prominent
proponent of the former, Simon Schama of the latter.

The unlimited monarchy in France, despotic rule of the burbo

dynasty, anarchy in the administration, inefficiency of Louis XVII,
arrogant Queen Marie Antoinette, bad financial condition of the nation
and in addition to the climax of inequality. The French philosophers
like Rousseau, Montesque, Voltaire awakened people against this
injustice and them for revolution. The revolution had general causes
common to all the revolutions of the West at the end of the 18th century
and also particular causes that explain why it was by far the most violent
and the most universally significant of all the revolutions. The first of the
general causes was the very social structure of the West. The feudal
regime had been weakened step by step and had already disappeared in
parts of Europe. The increasingly numerous and prosperous elite of
wealthy commoners - merchants, manufacturers, and the professionals,
often called the bourgeoise - aspired to political power in those countries
where it did not already posses it. The peasants, many of whom owned
land, had attained an improved standard of living and education and
wanted to get rid of the last vestiges of feudalism so as to acquire the full
rights of landowners and to be free to increase their holdings.
Furthermore, from about 1730, higher standards of living had reduced the
mortality rate among the adults considerably. This, together with other
factors, had led to an increase in the population of Europe, unprecedented
for several centuries it doubled between 1715 and 1800. For France,
which with 26 million inhabitants in 1789 was the most populated
country of Europe, the problem was most acute.
A larger population created a greater demand for food and consumer
goods. The discovery of new gold in Brazil had led to a general rise in
prices throughout the West from about 1730, indicating a prosperous
economic situation. From about 1770, this trend slackened the economic
crisis, provoking alarm and even revolt became frequent. Arguments for
social reform began to be advanced. The peasants- intellectuals whose
writings inspired these arguments- were certainly influenced by 17th
century theorists such as Rene Descartes,Baruch Spinoza and John Locke,
bu they came to very different conclusions about political, social and
economic matters. A revolution or seemed necessary to apply the ideas of
educated classes by the many “societies of thought” that were founded at
that time masonic lodges, agricultural societies and reading rooms.

It is uncertain, however, whether revolution would have come

without the added presence of a political crisis. Faced with the heavy
expenditure that the wars of the 18th century entailed, the rulers of Europe
sought to raise money by taxing the nobles and clergy, who in most
countries had hitherto been exempt. To justify this, the rulers likewise
invoked the arguments of advanced thinkers by adopting the role of
“enlighted despots.” This provoked reaction throughout Europe from the
privileged estates in North America, this backlash caused the American
Revolution, which began with the refusal to pay a tax imposed by the
king of the Great Britain. Monarchs tried to stop this reaction of the
aristocracy and both rulers and the privileged classes sought allies among
the non privileged bourgeoise and the peasants.

Lets analyse the causes in terms of their nature, i.e., political;

socio-religious; intellectual; and economic.

Political causes: The political condition in France was grave due to

following political aspects.
(1) Despotic rule of Burbo dynasty: From 1553 onwards, there was a
despotic rule of Burbo dynasty in France. All rulers followed the “devine
right” theory. Every king ruled unlimitedly and exercised centralised
power. From 1614, the session of parliament (Estate General) was
discontinued. It can be argued that during the reign of Henry 4th, Louis
13th and 14th , some industrial, educational, cultural development was
done, different colonies were acquired. But rules of 15th and 16th Louis
were despotic in nature.

(2) Law and Judiciary: as mentioned before, all the power was
centralised with king. So his word was law and justice. Every province
had a different law system, feudals and clergy had their own laws as well.
So there were hundreds of law systems in nation. Laws were unwritten,
not exactly clear, unequal, and also unjust. Voltaire says that while
travelling in France he found many law systems than the number of
horses changed during the journey. Judiciary was also defective. Many
courts were on various levels such as military, political and religious
courts were there. And the Judges belonged to upper class and royal
family only. Uniformity was not present in judiciary. Judges were getting
salaries without working. There was corruption in judiciary and the
punishments were inhuman, the judgements were extremely partial, no
system of appeal existed.

(3) Divine right theory: There was unlimited monarchy in France. King
was part and representative of God. In that capacity only, nobody can
challenge him. So disloyalty to king was to God and this ultimately
created unrest.

(3) Aggressive policy : Bourbon rulers accepted imperial policy. They

established colonies in Africa, Asia. The French East India company also
helped to this policy. On this issue, France had to fight, sometimes
engage in wars with many European countries. It caused too much of an
economic loss. During 1748-60, France had to fight against England over
influence in India, in which France was defeated. At the same period,
1756 to 1763 for seven years, France fought and defeated against England,
better known as the Seven Years war. Due to economic loss, injustice in
taxes imposed upon people, the aggressive policy was not at all beneficial
to nation.

(5) Anarchy in administration : There was very much anarchy in the

administration. It was filled to the brim with corruption. No
responsibilities were present among the officials. There was heavy
influence of the upper class on administration. There was absolutely no
room for common people in administration. France was divided among
40 provinces and 36 generalities, again those were divided among
districts and commons. Higher posts were reserved for members of royal
family and upper class. So the inefficient, corrupt and oppressive
administration was also responsible for unrest.

(6) Queen Marie Antoinette 1755-1793: She was the daughter of

Austrian empress Maria Theresa. To build and strengthen dynastic ties
and friendship between Austria and France, she was married to Louis
16th, the king of France. John Merriman in his book, ‘A History of
Modern Europe’, writes, “The unpopularity of Louis’s elegant, haughty
wife, Marie-Antoinette (1755—1793), accentuated the public’s lack of
confidence in the throne (whether or not she really snarled “Let them eat
cake!” when told that the people had no bread). She never felt really at
home in France. Unhappy in her marriage, Marie-Antoinette lived
extravagantly and was embroiled in controversy. In 1785, she became
entangled in a seamy scandal when a cardinal offered her a fabulous
diamond necklace in the hope of winning favor. The necklace and some of
the prelate’s money were then deftly stolen by plotters, a strange scenario
that included a prostitute posing as the queen. The “diamond necklace
affair,” as it was called, seemed to augment the public image of the king
as a weak man, a cuckold. The queens reputed indiscretions and
infidelities seemed to undercut the authority of the monarchy itself. Her
detractors indelicately dubbed her the “Austrian whore.”

It was a popular belief among the public that Louis XVII always
remained under her influence. She was perceived as luxurious, arrogant,
egoist, making very much expenditure for pleasureful living that it
affected the national treasury. Hence why she was called Madam deficit.
Simon Schama points out Marie Antoinette to be the victim of ‘Sexual
Politics’, following the charge of incest to justify her execution.

(7) Louis the XVII : He was ruling France at the time of revolution. But
the background was already prepared for revolution. He was not
interested in politics, though he was king of nation. The hesitant and
naive Louis XVI was still in his twenties when he became king in 1774.
Louis knew little of his kingdom, venturing beyond the region of Paris
and Versailles only once during his reign. He preferred puttering around
the palace, and his hobbies were considered strange such as taking clocks
and watches apart and putting them back together. He excelled at hunting
too. He was not strong enough to administer the nation. He said to his ex
minister once, “how fortunate you are, I wish I could resign too”, which
hints at his lack of interest in being a king. But such king adopted policy
of his predecessor,and certainly did not care for people. But on the advise
of upper class, introduced oppressive policy and opposed revolution. But
revolution was inevitable.

Social causes : A leading cause of social stress in France during the

Revolution was its large population. At the beginning of the 18th century,
France had 20 million people living within its borders, a number equal to
nearly 20 percent of the population of non-Russian Europe. Over the
course of the century, that number increased by another 8 to 10 million,
as epidemic disease and acute food shortages diminished and mortality
declined. By contrast, it had increased by only 1 million between 1600
and 1700. Also important, this population was concentrated in the rural
countryside: of the nearly 30 million French under Louis XVI, about 80
percent lived in villages of 2,000 or less, with nearly all the rest in fairly
small cities (those with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants).
The foremost exception, of course, was Paris, which was home to about
600,000 by 1789. Only a handful of other cities—notably Lyons,
Bordeaux, and Marseilles—had more than 100,000 within their limits.
These demographics had an enormous impact, both inside and outside
France.
In addition, the eighteenth century saw the intrusion of capitalism into
everyday life. Thanks to a large expansion of overseas trade and a
longer-term development of domestic trade, the money economy
experienced continued growth. Although self-sufficiency or local
exchange remained the preponderant way of economic life, these
incursions of capitalism began drawing everyone into some form of
regional and even international exchange.
Amid these broad economic and population shifts, daily life in the
countryside remained much the same, particularly on small family farms.
Their owners and workers were known as peasants, although they
differed considerably in wealth and status. A few could claim to be
"living nobly," meaning they rented their land to others to work, but
many were day-laborers desperate for work in exchange for a place to
stay and food to eat. In the middle were others, including independent
farmers, sharecroppers, and renters. Historians have estimated that in lean
years 90 percent of the peasants lived at or below the subsistence level,
earning only enough to feed their families. Others inhabited the
countryside, most notably small numbers of noble and non-noble owners
of manors, conspicuous by their dwellings, at the least. Consequently,
documents on life in the countryside at this time reflect the omnipresence
of poverty. One of the most well-known observers of the
late-eighteenth-century French countryside, the Englishman Arthur
Young, considered these small farms the great weakness of French
agriculture, especially when compared with the large, commercial farms
he knew at home. Others commenting on the lot of impoverished peasants
before 1789 blamed the tensions between rich and poor on the country's
vast social differences.
Although home to the wealthy and middling, cities tended to be even
more unsavory places to live than the countryside. Exposed daily to dirty
air and water, urban dwellers could expect to have a shorter life span than
their country brethren. Louis-Sébastien Mercier, a writer who adored life
in Paris and wrote extensively about all aspects of it, often lamented not
only the poor health of city workers but also the strict conditions
governing their employment. Guilds regulated almost every sector of the
economy and thus limited the number who could enter a trade as an
apprentice, become a journeyman, or set up a workshop and retail store as
a master. With experience, a worker could theoretically move up the
social hierarchy, but in practice such ascent was extremely difficult to
achieve, as the limited number of masterships in any given industry
tended to be passed down within a family. Thus in some trades and in
some cities journeymen complained of feeling restricted and expressed
greater solidarity toward their counterparts in other trades than toward
their own masters.
Bread constituted the staple of most urban diets, so sharp price increases
were felt quickly and were loudly protested at grain markets or at local
bakers' shops. Most people directed their anger at bread suppliers rather
than political authorities, although it was often the municipal and royal
authorities who tried to alleviate shortages and prevent such protests. As a
result, the credibility and popularity of government officials came to be
linked to the functioning of the grain and bread markets.
In addition to economic differences, early modern French society was
legally stratified by birth. Its three traditional divisions, or "orders," were
the clergy, the nobility, and the common people. Nobles ruled over
commoners, but even among commoners, specific individuals (such as
officeholders) or groups (such as a particular guild or an entire town)
enjoyed privileges unavailable to outsiders. Because these privileges were
passed on primarily through inheritance, they tended to constrain social
mobility—although without preventing it, since they could also be bought
or sold. Thus individuals and groups constantly negotiated with one
another and with the crown for more and better privileges. Even as these
privileges maintained a close grip on eighteenth-century imaginations,
writers of the Enlightenment found them too rooted in tradition and
proposed that talent supersede birth as the main determinant of social
standing. Even when based on merit, they argued, social differences
should not be defined by law, as they were in the old regime's orders.
Traditionalists countered that a hierarchy of social orders was necessary
to hold society together.
When the King called for an Estates-General in 1789, the social tensions
plaguing the old regime emerged as a central issue of the Revolution.
Traditionally, estates representatives had belonged to one of the three
orders of society, and in principle each order had an equal voice before
the King. Because nobles dominated the clergy, however, the majority of
representatives actually came from the two privileged orders, even though
they stood for only 5 percent of the population at most. Because each
voter actually would exercise one vote in the assembly, this configuration
allowed the nobility two of the three votes. The King subsequently agreed
to double the size of the delegation of the Third Estate, but this move
failed to appease critics of the political system. Many pamphlets appeared
suggesting that representatives should vote by "head" rather than by
"order" (meaning all representatives should vote together as a single
assembly, rather than as three separate bodies representing three separate
orders).
The purpose of such pamphlets was not merely to win greater
representation for the Third Estate. Their authors were making the case
for a new concept of society, in which commoners, especially the
educated middle classes, had the same value as the other orders. Despite
the social rifts surrounding the political debate of mid-1789, most
contemporaries fervently sought social unity. This suggests that social
unrest may not necessarily have been the basic cause of the outbreak of
the Revolution. Indeed, one wonders if the nobility's fear of losing its
privileges, rather than the assertiveness of the middle classes, might have
been the most important factor in the events that followed.

Religious Cause:
(1) Luxurious Clergy: Roman catholic was the established and national
religion of France. And of course, like any society, religion had great
influence on King and its people. The clergy was the owner of 1/5th of the
land and all the religious centres. They collected their own tax. And as a
result, they were extremely rich and were free from any tax to the state.
They lived a luxurious life and were selfish much like the feudals and
often exploited the common people. All wrong and unjust things were
carried out under the name of god and religion. The clergy was also
politically strong and their existed a social chain from the priest of village
to the Pope of Rome. Their officials were Pope, Cardin, Archbishops,
Abbot, Bishop, etc
(2) Injustice by religious institutions: To do religious activities, to
maintain and increase social morality were among the duties of clergies.
But in reality, they just exercised power over government. Infact, consent
of clergy or religious authority was required during any coronation of any
king. So one can only imagine the condition of the common people
before such clergies. In return they got special rights, concessions,
ownership of land, money, and they became rich. So, naturally, there was
unrest among people against religious centres and clergy.

Intellectual cause: The Enlightenment occurred during the 18th century,

in the decades before the 1789 outbreak of the revolution and although
the Enlightenment took place many years before the outbreak of the
French Revolution, its ideas and achievements still had a profound effect
on the French Revolution.

​ The ideals of liberty and equality, that were needed to overthrow

Louis XVI, emerged first from the writings of important and influential
thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. Specifically, the writings of John
Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Baron de Montesquieu greatly
influenced the revolutionaries in France. Each of these three
Enlightenment thinkers questioned the traditional authority of an absolute
monarch and argued against the rigid class divisions of feudalism, or the
estates-system, present in France. Their questioning of authority and the
role of the government inspired the revolutionaries, and ordinary citizens,
of France. In fact, the ideas of many Enlightenment thinkers were
commonly discussed and debated in the salons of France, in which
intellectuals and would gather to discuss the ideas of the day. For
example, John Locke argued that a leader may only govern a society if he
has the consent of those he is governing. This idea caused people to
question the legitimacy of Louis XVI to rule when he did not have the
support of many of the citizens within France. For his part, Rousseau
argued against all class divisions in society, which caused French citizens
to question the absolute monarchy of Louis XVI and the unequal nature
of the estates-system.

Finally, Montesquieu advocated for a system of government based on a

separation of powers with three branches of government, including:
executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch. This model of
government directly challenged the authority of the king because it
involved his power being divided into three parts and others gaining more
authority. Again, this idea caused French citizens to begin to question
the authority of their own king and to begin to think of other ways of
government.

The impact of the Enlightenment on the French Revolution can be seen in

the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The document
was adopted by the National Assembly on August 26th, 1789. The
declaration was vitally important to the French Revolution because it
directly challenged the authority of Louis XVI. For example, the
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen set out a series of
individual rights protected by law. The basic principles of the
declaration can be seen in the ideas and arguments of the great thinkers of
the Enlightenment.

Conclusion
Many events happened in the course of French Revolution. It began
with very important role of National Assembly from 1789-91. Fall of
Bastille, Declaration of Human Rights including Liberty, Equality and
Fraternity: the principles of revolution. Reign of Terror, imprisonment of
King and Queen and putting them on guillotine, end of Terror with the
Thermidorian reaction were the main events of revolution. The
Revolution ended with the rise of Napolean Bonaparte, often referred to
the “child of revolution”, though to what extent is that true is something
that should be examined. As the 18th century drew to a close, France’s
costly involvement in the American Revolution, and extravagant
spending by King Louis XVI and his predecessor, had left the country on
the brink of bankruptcy.
Not only were the royal coffers depleted, but two decades of poor
harvests, drought, cattle disease and skyrocketing bread prices had
kindled unrest among peasants and the urban poor. Many expressed their
desperation and resentment toward a regime that imposed heavy taxes -
yet failed to provide any relief - by rioting, looting and striking. In the fall
of 1786, Louis XVI’s controller general, Charles Alexandre de Calonne,
proposed a financial reform package that included a universal land tax
from which the privileged classes would no longer be exempt.

On November 9, 1799, as frustration with their leadership reached

a fever pitch, Bonaparte staged a coup d’état, abolishing the Directory
and appointing himself France’s “first consul.” The event marked the end
of the French Revolution and the beginning of the Napoleonic era, in
which France would come to dominate much of continental Europe.

Bibliography

 https://www.history.com/topics/france/french-revolution#
  https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/israel-revolutionary-ideas
 https://blog.oup.com/2015/07/french-revolution-bastille/
 Merriman, John M. A History Of Modern Europe: From The
Renaissance To The Present. New York : W.W. Norton, 2010.
 Lefebvre, G., & Palmer, R. R. (1947). The coming of the French
Revolution, 1789.
 edited by Gary Kates. The French Revolution : Recent Debates and New
Controversies. London ; New York :Routledge, 1998.