Bolden 1

Desmond Bolden

Professor Frantz

Historical Research Methods

14 March 2018

Delving into the French Revolution

The French Revolution is an affair that can be an example of humanity at its worst or the

effects of reaching one’s breaking point and, thus, has garnered much attention throughout the

years. The obsession with it is understandable, especially among Americans. The revolution

marked a period of change modeled after the American Revolution, yet by grislier means. The

studied focal points have ranged from social to cultural to political, but one might wonder from

whence this information originated. Much of it is derived from French citizens who recorded

their experiences during the revolution. However, it seems that when looking for the recorded

experiences of foreigners, scholars may have a more difficult task ahead of them. Yet, though

they may be uncommon, foreign accounts of the revolution can be found.

An Englishman named Arthur Young journeyed to France three times for the sake of

logging the state of its agriculture, just happening to be present at the beginning of the

revolution. In addition to writing about French agriculture, Young also described much of what

he saw during the Great Fear, including violence, paranoia, and the conduction of the National

Assembly. His account took a sympathetic stance concerning the French Revolution, making it

stand out where others condemned the event. Because this was also a foreigner’s interpretation,

Young may have been less likely to be swayed by the nationalistic attitude that consumed France
 Bolden 2

and could offer a more honest representation of what occurred. The question one might pose is

whether or not historians are as sympathetic or more disapproving than he was.

Like Young, many foreigners gave their opinions on the revolution in France as it was

happening, especially an Irishman named Edmund Burke. In “Edmund Burke and the French

Revolution: Notes on the Genesis of the Reflections” (1984), William Palmer stated that the

English press sympathized with the plight of the commoners of France. However, their attitudes

towards the revolution changed after learning of the brutality involved in the sacking of the

Bastille and grew more disapproving through the violence of October in 1789. They believed

that the revolution could succeed if only it would mimic England’s government. Edmund Burke

chose not to take sides and simply kept up with the what happened in France. Like the press, his

views towards the Third Estate soured when he learned of their actions, becoming increasingly

unfavorable. His sympathies did, however, lay with the National Assembly, which he claimed

was being held hostage by the rioters. Palmer claimed that Burke typically ignored the factors

that led to the revolution in the first place, though he attributed this to the misinterpretation of

facts.1 Like Arthur Young’s journals, Edmund Burke’s thoughts offered a view of the revolution

through foreign eyes. However, while Young was sympathetic, Burke was harsh in his critique.

The two display the contrast that existed in how the French Revolution was perceived by

outsiders.

One of the leading authorities on the Great Fear is Georges Lefebvre, author of the 1973

book The Great Fear of 1789. His aim in the book was to examine the factors that led to the

Fear. He began by describing the economic situation of the purveyors of the Fear, the peasants,
1
William Palmer, “Edmund Burke and the French Revolution: Notes on the Genesis of the Reflections”, Colby
Quarterly 20, no. 4 (December 1984): 181-185, accessed March 20, 2018,
https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/
&httpsredir=1&article=2565&context=cq.
 Bolden 3

which involved how much land they owned, the taxes they paid, the state of their harvest during

the previous year, and an increase in the price of bread. However, while these factors helped start

the Great Fear, widespread belief in rumors allowed it to continue to thrive. Especially prevalent

among these rumors was the belief in an aristocratic plot that would annihilate the Third Estate

through starvation. Compounded with a fear that these aristocrats were working with brigands to

achieve this end, the peasantry felt as though they were left with little choice but to revolt. To

cement his point, Lefebvre also examined riots of a similar nature from before and even after the

Great Fear.2 In spite of Lefebvre’s informative interpretation of the Fear, his book only begins to

scratch the surface of understanding the French Revolution in its entirety. Most of his time was

spent on the causes of the revolution rather than encompassing its goals, as well, especially the

desire for increased participation in the economy and politics. However, other researchers have

frequently made use of this work to build a more comprehensive study of the period.

In Hilton L. Root’s “The Case Against George Lefebvre's Peasant Revolution” (1989),

argued against some of Lefebvre’s claims regarding the peasant uprising during the Great Fear.

Root’s first objective involved describing Lefebvre’s thoughts on the primary motive for the

peasants’ revolt, mainly their subsistent existence and desire to maintain a subsistent economy.

Root argued that, contrary to this notion, the revolutionaries in the countryside favored a market

economy, but one in which they were able to fully participate. Larger markets and an absence of

dues created precisely the environment to enable this participation. According to Root, peasants

engaged in subsistence because it involved the least amount of risk. Upon the elimination of

dues, involving themselves in the markets became the action with the least amount of risk. Not

only did Root refute some of Lefebvre’s claims, but he also called into question the evidence for

another. Lefebvre asserted that during the violent uprising in the countryside certain chateaus
2
Georges Lefebvre, The Great Fear of 1789 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), 11-64.
 Bolden 4

were destroyed. However, Root stated that some of them were in ruins before the uprising while

others were still standing until some years later. Despite these assertions, Root did not blame

Lefebvre for these mistakes, as he was simply restating the claims of past historians.3 Root’s

argument that the peasantry revolted in order to participate in the markets rather than continue to

subsist, as Lefebvre stated, was unexpected, yet plausible. Both authors introduced intriguing

arguments for the actions of the peasantry during the 1789, and this made the contrasting ideas of

their works complementary rather than causing one to reduce the significance of the other.

Henry Bertram Hill tackled the task of describing some of the immediate consequences

of the Fear in “An Aftermath of the Great Fear” (1950). He provided a brief background of the

event based on The Great Fear of 1789, including its characterization by the aristocratic plot to

disband the National Assembly, fear of brigands, and the eventual burning of chateaus. He then

mentioned a few possible explanations that arose during the next couple centuries for the Fear.

According to him, the best explanation was rooted in widespread hunger, rumors, and perceived

oppression. The Fear lasted only a short period, but similar conflicts in the countryside followed

in the subsequent years. To further his point, Hill included a document called “Observations sur

les Incendies Qui ont Lieu en Bretagne en 1790”. This document detailed the burning of feudal

documents and the responses of the negative responses of the lords. Also, it depicts a sense of

sympathy for the plight of the peasants.4 While this article is shorter than others, it provides

supplemental information on the recurring theme of peasant uprisings after the Great Fear,

especially through its inclusion of the contemporary document.

3
Hilton L. Root, “The Case Against George Lefebvre's Peasant Revolution”, History Workshop, no. 28 (Autumn
1989): 92-97, accessed March 14, 2018, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4288926.
4
Henry Bertram Hill, “An Aftermath of the Great Fear”, The Journal of Modern History 22, no. 4 (December 1950):
356-358, accessed March 14, 2018, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1875896.
 Bolden 5

One of the major scholars of the French Revolution is Timothy Tackett whose name is

attached to the book, Becoming a French Revolutionary (1996). The argument of the book was

that social, political, and intellectual experiences were the results of culture. Thus, Tackett’s

started by describing the backgrounds of the Estates-General’s deputies, for it is difficult to

understand a person’s culture without understanding their life first. This involved exploring the

gap between the Third and Second Estates that was based on wealth, status, and culture. Upon

presenting a backdrop of the Estates-General, Tackett detailed the activities of the body from

May to November of 1789. This was followed by an account of the National Assembly’s

dealings from the end of 1789 to the summer of 1790.5

One aspect of Becoming a Revolutionary that provided a view into the minds of the

revolutionaries was its exploration of how the people felt about King Louis XVI. Tackett

asserted that the people believed they had Louis’ support in their endeavor. Even when he took

actions to counter those of the National Assembly, people assumed that he was simply being

hoodwinked by the nobility. However, upon establishing a stronger allegiance with the Second

Estate, Louis lost the goodwill of the Third. This served as the beginning of his fall from grace,

culminating in his execution. In addition to presenting the people’s thoughts concerning Louis,

Tackett also described the views of the delegates on the violence in the country. The delegates

were appalled by this behavior but were willing to justify it when it led to Louis’

acknowledgement of the National Assembly. Yet, when the vicious actions of the peasants

continued, the delegates were unable to swallow their disgust any longer.6 The inclusion of this

tidbit showed the reader that everyone within the Third Estate did not agree with the violence.

5
Timothy Tackett, Becoming a Revolutionary (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996), 13-14.
6
Tackett, Becoming a Revolutionary, 151-167.
 Bolden 6

The internal opposition to actions during the Great Fear is telling in showing those who study it

the gravity of the people’s actions and the division it caused between France’s citizens.

Tackett has also devoted much focus to the paranoia that ran rampant at the time,

something he presented thoughts on in “Conspiracy Obsession in a Time of Revolution: French

Elites and the Origins of the Terror” (2000). According to him, mention of the term “conspiracy”

was rare during the eighteenth century. In fact, much of the earlier work on the revolution spent

little time entertaining thoughts of secret plots. However, something must have changed if there

was such a widespread paranoia raging through France during the revolution. At the time of the

convening of the Estates-General, Tackett stated that the deputies of the Third Estate refused to

entertain the existence of the widely-believed plot to starve out the lower classes, believing

themselves to be wiser than the common man. However, Tackett claimed that some of the plots

that concerned the citizens did, in fact, have some basis of truth. “‘There can be no doubt,’

announced Adrien Duport to the Assembly, ‘that plots are being organized against the state.’” 7

The delegates finally realized the validity of the people’s fears. However, they remained

hesitant to publicly acknowledge the existence of such conspiracies. Any who deigned to give

credence to this paranoia were marginalized. The obsession with conspiracies would persist

throughout the 1790s, and none were immune from its effects. Even the marquis de Lafayette,

the renowned leader during the American Revolution, eventually came under suspicion. 8 In

taking this approach, Tackett displayed the infectious manner in which paranoia began to

consume France.

7
Timothy Tackett, “Conspiracy Obsession in a Time of Revolution: French Elites and the Origins of the Terror”,
The American Historical Review 105, no. 3 (June 2000): 693-702, accessed March 15, 2018,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2651806.
8
Tackett, “Conspiracy Obsession in a Time of Revolution”, 702-705.
 Bolden 7

Most other examinations of the revolution view it as a whole rather than focusing on

specific events during the time. Even some non-historians have presented their thoughts, such as

the political theorist, Hannah Arendt whose views were presented by Jean Bethke Elshtain in

“Hannah Arendt’s French Revolution” (1989). Much of the article is spent comparing the French

Revolution to its American predecessor, specifically to compliment the latter. Arendt believed

that the American Revolution was a great model for others to follow. It was successful, the

revolutionaries had realistic expectations for the results, and Americans understood the benefits

of a balanced government. Contrary to the Americans, the French were too idealistic, allowed

unchecked power to flourish, and engaged in excessive violence, the latter point being heavily

emphasized. In fact, the revolution was even characterized as “disastrous”. 9

At one point, Elshtain mentioned that some readers could be turned off by fact that

Arendt seemed indifferent to the poverty of the revolution. Elshtain argued that Arendt was not

indifferent, but rather avoided discussing the matter because it was a perfect avenue for “cheap

sentiment and a politics of manipulation”.10 The comparison Arendt made between the French

and Americans during their respective revolutions was could make the reader view the French

one from a different angle. The French sought to mimic the American Revolution after helping

their allies stave off the British. Yet, Arendt drew attention to an interesting point, regardless of

whether or not it was intentional. If the French modeled their revolution after the Americans’,

one might ask how the two managed to take such radically different paths. Studying the

divergence between these two events could add new insights into the reasoning behind behavior

during the French Revolution.

9
Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Hannah Arendt’s French Revolution,” Salmagundi, no. 84 (Fall 1989): 206-212, accessed
March 12, 2018, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40548097.
10
Elshtain, “Hannah Arendt’s French Revolution, 210.
 Bolden 8

One of the more recent works on the French Revolution the 2014 book, A People’s

History of the French Revolution by Eric Hazan. In his brief introduction, Hazan mentioned that

his goal was to create a narrative of the event, to briefly cover the widely known occurrences

while spending more time on the lesser known ones. To begin, he presented the reader with the

environment that preceded the revolution before describing the Estates-General that was meant

to improve this situation. He briskly ran through the Great Fear and the night of August 4, when

feudal dues were eliminated, that so often arises in discussions about the revolution. At the end

of this section he brought up a question that many have asked about the French revolution: was it

a bourgeoisie revolution? Hazan described pouring over newspapers, speeches, and debates to

learn where the terms “bourgeoisie” and “bourgeois” came up; the verdict was that they typically

did not. Because of this, he concluded that the bourgeoisie was not yet a class. Thus, when faced

with the question of bourgeoisie revolution, it was one that Hazan refused “to ask, as it basically

ha[d] no meaning”.11

Much of the remainder of the book was spent describing the political unrest of late 1792

through 1793. This began with the trial and execution of Louis and the fall of the Girondins. The

fall of the Gironde, though unlikely to be the direct cause, helped fuel a series of federalist

uprisings throughout the country. This was followed by an account of the trial and executions of

the Girondist leaders. He finished the book with the dissolution of various revolutionary factions

and the rise of the Thermidor.12 An interesting decision that Hazan made when describing the

years leading up to the revolution and its first year was to rely on none other than Arthur

Young’s journals from 1787 to 1789 for information. In his journals, Young described

everything he saw from the poverty of the lower classes to the chaotic meetings of the National

11
Eric Hazan, A People’s History of the French Revolution (London: Verso, 2014), 4-83.
12
Hazan, A People’s History of the French Revolution, 6, 255-257.
 Bolden 9

Assembly to the riots in the countryside. Not only this, Young expressed his own horror on the

turmoil he saw during the first year of the French Revolution. As was mentioned earlier, the

insight of a foreigner is a welcome change in the study of this event. Hazan’s focus on the more

obscure aspects of the revolution was also helpful for building a more comprehensive view.

Perhaps it is too soon to tell, but Hazan’s work could potentially be one that future historians

look to as a source.

While many historians have focused on the political and economic effects of the French

Revolution, D. M. G. Sutherland chose to examine the religious impact in “Claude Langlois’s

French Revolution” (2013). Because most people in eighteenth century France were Christians,

Sutherland stated that religion was once a focal point for studying the upheaval, especially

because dechristianization played a significant part in shaking off the control of the clergy. For

the most part, Sutherland explained the influence of religion through the words of Claude

Langlois. Like Eric Hazan, Langlois preferred to spend his time studying the more obscure

aspects of the revolution. Also contrary to common practice, Langlois’ timeline encompasses the

years from 1790 to 1830 rather than the traditional 1790s.13

His goal was to research the effects of the revolution on religious practices and

institutions. During the 1790s, an anti-clerical attitude thrived, engendering an air of

disobedience among laymen through the use of birth control, working on Sundays, and any other

form of dechristianization that could be thought of. Despite this disagreeable view of the clergy,

Langlois concluded that the revolution did not make the country more secular. The church

simply had less power, which bred a sense of apathy among France’s Christians. 14 Examining

13
D. M. G. Sutherland, “Claude Langlois’s French Revolution”, Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques 39,
no. 1 (Spring 2013): 40-41, accessed March 14, 2018, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42703748.
14
Sutherland, 42-45.
 Bolden 10

religion is not simply an examination of Christianity, but of the culture of the revolutionaries, as

well, and how that culture shaped and was shaped by the French Revolution. At the same time, it

could serve as an examination of the social environment of the revolution, as religion pitted the

Third Estate against the Second, the clergy. Religion is an aspect of the revolution whose

significance should no longer go untouched.

Lynn Hunt, a respected scholar of the French Revolution, also took an unconventional

approach in claiming that the revolution resulted in a new political class in Politics, Culture, and

Class in the French Revolution (1984). She maintained that the symbolic imagery compounded

with politics and the environment of the revolution helped craft individuals and policies in a

unique manner. Half of the book was dedicated to presenting the new symbols and images that

emerged to usher in a transition from regular citizens to revolutionaries. Her claims are only

enhanced by the images that provided the reader with a window into they new symbols that the

French were adopting. The second half of the book covered the rise of the new political class,

which mainly consisted of artisans and merchants. Hunt concluded the book by tying together

her claims about France’s culture and politics, stating that the urban classes helped to mobilize

the revolutionary movement.15 Her assertions seemed similar to Hazan’s in that it appeared that

the bourgeoisie was a non-existent class; it only emerged during the revolution. An in-depth

study of how the bourgeoisie came to be, this book could be well-incorporated into any scholar’s

work regarding the bourgeoisie’s non-existence in the pre-revolutionary years and its rise during

the revolutionary ones.

A final important work on the French Revolution is Gustave Le Bon’s Psychology of

Revolution (1913), which aimed to determine the reasoning behind the revolution. Le Bon stated
15
Lynn Hunt, Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1984), 55-210.
 Bolden 11

that the psychology behind the French Revolution is often misinterpreted by academics because

the revolutionaries themselves were uncertain about what they were fighting for. Rather than

creating a new government as was intended, the French developed a religion that encouraged

them to justify and even celebrate atrocities, one that put optimism in the hearts of the people but

left only destruction in its wake. Le Bon spent time relaying the characteristics of revolutions

before moving into discussing France’s revolution. For this, he went over the mentality behind

the ancien régime, as well as its effects on the country’s people, and a growing sense of

discontent with the monarchy. Subsequently, the rise in revolutionary ideas and their basis in

philosophy were examined before ending the discussion with illusions of the revolution.16 Le

Bon’s examination of the ancien régime provided the reader with an explanation of how the

system failed and created a need in the people for change. Likewise, characterization of the

French Revolution as a religion was daring, though not untrue. Such vocabulary could aid the

reader in understanding the spirit of the people and just how important this uprising was to them.

While Psychology of Revolution is an older work, it still managed to describe the environment

that encouraged the revolutionaries’ desires for change, the very same one thatcan be found in

more modern works, such as those of Georges Lefebvre or Lynn Hunt.

The historiography of the French Revolution reveals a gripping truth: much of it,

especially during the Great Fear, was dominated by senseless violence and paranoia. Throughout

many of the narratives, the authors could not help but discuss the viciousness that ruled the

country for several years. Not only this, but in many cases, one might get the impression that

author’s own feelings leak into their words, evidenced by their choice of vocabulary in

characterizing the people’s actions. In many of the sources, the beginning of the revolution

appeared to stem from class issues, specifically a feudal system that put an undeserved burden on
16
Gustave Le Bon, Psychology of Revolution (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1913), 5-18.
 Bolden 12

the lower class. Upon entering the discussion of the actual revolution, one aspect that continued

to appear was the presence of paranoia. It appears to be commonly agreed upon that, while some

of the paranoia was warranted, the extent to which it took hold of France was not and most likely

played a significant role in the violence for which the revolution is known.

What sets these articles and books apart in the French Revolution’s historiography is a

focus on the oppression faced by the revolutionaries. They all sought to describe the settings that

encouraged such heinous actions from the French. In doing so, the authors of these works

actively engaged with not only the violence of the revolution, but the factors that contributed to

said violence. Like Arthur Young, they offered a more understanding view of the French

Revolution that seemed to have been atypical at the time. These sources carry much of the same

material that can be found in Young’s journals. It would appear that he was not alone in viewing

the French Revolution in a sympathetic light. This historiography puts anyone in a good position

to stake a claim in the validity of Arthur Young’s journals.