The Tragic Politics Of The French Revolution

It was Charles James Fox, leader of nan British Whig party, who first proclaimed of nan French Revolution: “How overmuch nan top arena that has happened successful nan history of nan world, and really overmuch nan best.” With nan use of hindsight, we whitethorn good disagree connected some counts, but location is nary denying nan indelible people that it has near connected humanity.

The Revolution is fixed everlastingly successful our corporate representation arsenic a bid of gruesome tableaux: nan storming of nan Bastille; nan executions of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette; nan assassination of Marat successful his bath by Charlotte Corday; Danton, Robespierre, and nan Committee of Public Safety; nan tumbrils, nan tricoteuses, and supra all, nan guillotine. Every governmental uprising since 1789 has striven, pinch greater aliases lesser success, to debar re-enacting nan primal revolutionary destiny of devouring its ain children.

Hence, nan communicative must beryllium retold for each generation, successful nan ray of modern experience. In John Hardman’s caller account, The French Revolution: A Political History, 2 hundreds of years of historiography are distilled into a concise, compelling, and vividly reimagined narrative. He is, of course, opinionated connected nan shoulders of giants. In nan mid-nineteenth century, Alexis de Tocqueville and Jules Michelet group nan standard—both are still cited by Hardman—while Thomas Carlyle’s monumental epic anticipated modern cinematic treatments.

In nan twentieth century, nan protector of communism fell complete nan danasiwa of nan French Revolution, mounting successful chromatic nan Marxist fixation connected nan people struggle and nan triumph of nan bourgeoisie. It was not until nan waning of nan Soviet Union that contrarian voices could make themselves heard supra a French statement that tended to ascribe a benignant of humanities inevitability to what had go nan mythical instauration of nan republic. After nan autumn of nan Berlin Wall—an arena arsenic cataclysmic successful its measurement arsenic nan autumn of nan Bastille—it became imaginable again to talk nan pathology of unit bequeathed by nan Revolution and, much generally, nan contingency of its course.

The old Marxist orthodoxy that impersonal forces, not individuals, make history was challenged, successful peculiar by François Furet (1927–97), who saw nan Revolution little arsenic a people struggle than a conflict of ideas. As a disillusioned Communist himself, he was acutely alert of nan totalitarian implications of nan revolutionary contented and its baleful effect connected nan French intelligentsia. His books dismantled their uncritical reception of nan Revolution, and successful The Passing of an Illusion, his precocious study of communism, he straight addressed nan sinister bequest of nan Terror.

“The French Jacobins of 1793, who were expected to inaugurate nan reign of nan bourgeoisie, supply nan first monolithic illustration of bourgeois who detest bourgeois successful nan sanction of bourgeois principles,” he wrote. “If they were truthful admired and imitated by nan European Left successful nan pursuing century, it was because they had lent an unforgettable shape to nan demolition of nan bourgeois spirit.”

In Roads to Modernity, Gertrude Himmelfarb famously compared nan British, French, and American enlightenments. She based on that nan French accent connected “the ideology of reason” helped explicate why nan overthrow of nan monarchy generated specified intolerant, bloody, and irreconcilable conflicts, while nan American attraction connected nan applicable authorities of liberty led to a very different benignant of revolution.

Indeed, Anglo-American historians of nan Revolution person tended to favour a much empirical attack than nan French themselves. When I was astatine Oxford successful nan 1970s, nan acknowledged maestro of this section was Richard Cobb, for whom nary item of “the people’s armies” and nan sans culottes was excessively insignificant. His was a “history from below” shorn of nan accustomed Marxist theory, but imbued pinch an experimental value that owed overmuch to nan novelist, poet, and patient Raymond Queneau. A Cobb lecture, moreover connected occasions erstwhile he was sober, was arsenic apt to veer disconnected into colourful autobiography arsenic nan minutiae of revolutionary politics.

Building connected Cobb’s documentary erudition and literate flair, but pinch an accent connected precocious politics, John Hardman has produced a superb synthesis that will bring nan Revolution live for wide readers. He seeks answers to nan mobility of really an endeavor that began pinch paeans to nan caller dawn from poets specified arsenic William Wordsworth could culminate successful nan unspeakable judgement of Madame de Staël, nan girl of Necker, 1 of Louis XVI’s past ministers, and who would later go 1 of Europe’s starring female celebrities. In October 1793, astatine nan tallness of nan Terror, she declared: “Hell stalks nan earth.”

In our time, erstwhile populist and republicanism person been taken for granted for possibly excessively long, it is worthy remembering that nan overwhelming mostly of nan French organization successful 1789 had nary anticipation of aliases desire for either. At most, they would person hoped for law government. By this, they meant that nan king’s prerogatives should beryllium limited, nan powerfulness and profligacy of nan tribunal checked, and nan load of taxation controlled and much reasonably distributed by astatine slightest indirectly typical institutions.

What really happened, however, was of people rather different. As successful nan lawsuit of nan alleged “Long Parliament” successful nan English Civil War, nan Estates-General summoned by nan King to raise taxes and aerial grievances became a Frankenstein’s monster. First it shape-shifted into a conveyance for nan 3rd property to dispense pinch nan first two, nan nobility and clergy. Then it reconstituted itself arsenic nan National Assembly. Having turned against nan monarchy, nether nan power of nan Jacobin Club, and declared France a republic, nan Assembly renamed itself nan National Convention. Having by now transformed France into an elective dictatorship, this sanguinary unit did not conscionable disregard dissent crossed overmuch of nan country—it sent armies to massacre nan insurgents.

What nan Revolution did lend to nan history of populist was a favoritism that has lasted to nan coming day: that betwixt Left and Right. The extremist “patriotic” statement sat to nan near of nan Assembly’s president, while nan blimpish monarchiens (monarchists) sat to his right. As nan gyration evolved, nan names, ideologies, and societal creation of nan 2 parties changed too—but nan binary building of authorities remained. Now known arsenic nan Montagne (mountain) because their deputies occupied nan highest seats successful nan Convention, nan Left confronted nan Right, now consisting of nan mean Girondins. What nan Revolution utterly grounded to clasp was nan British conception (also adopted by nan recently independent American colonists) of a “loyal opposition.” Any section successful what Rousseau had called nan “general will” of nan group was deemed by his disciple Robespierre to beryllium treasonous.

The astir Left-wing Jacobins aliases Montagnards, who formed Robespierre’s Committee of Public Safety, now unleashed nan Terror against their chap revolutionaries, nan Girondins. In nan bloodbath that followed, immoderate separation of powers betwixt nan legislature, nan executive, and nan judiciary was dissolved. By sidesplitting each its rivals, removing each accountability, and concentrating each powerfulness successful its ain hands, nan Left yet paved nan measurement for a young wide from Corsica, Napoleon Bonaparte, to equine a coup d’état successful 1799.

What of liberté, egalité, fraternité: nan 3 principles that were nan rallying outcry of nan Revolution? Fraternity, nan overmuch vaunted brotherhood of man, was sacrificed astatine nan first whiff of grapeshot. Robespierre and his lieutenants showed nary mercy to those who opposed him. When nan citizens of Lyons resisted, they were changeable en masse. “Lyon n’est plus” (“Lyons nary longer exists”) was his chilling epitaph. Louis XVI was allowed to dice pinch immoderate dignity, but Marie Antoinette was dispatched successful nan astir humiliating fashion.

Hardman makes nan acute study that astir of nan deputies successful nan original 3rd estate, and hence nan Assembly and Convention, had immoderate benignant of ineligible qualification. At first they took refuge successful procedure; later, erstwhile it came to putting nan king and queen connected trial, they had to improvise nan rules. No written grounds was admitted astatine nan proceedings of Marie Antoinette, for example. They mightiness warrant nan deposing of monarchs and aristocrats successful nan sanction of egalité, but earlier nan Revolutionary Tribunal, location was nary much equality earlier nan rule than anyplace else. By nan end, nan revolutionaries had whittled down nan ineligible niceties to nan bare minimum: erstwhile Robespierre fell, he was simply declared an outlaw and promptly executed without moreover a show trial. Hardman concludes: “The calamity of nan French Revolution is that nan norm of lawyers grounded to bring astir nan norm of law.”

If nan Revolution grounded to found nan norm of law, what astir nan citizens’ promised liberty? The “sea-green incorruptible”—as Carlyle dubbed Robespierre connected relationship of his zealous estimation and ghastly complexion—had nary much compassion for his comrades than for his enemies. “Whoever trembles is guilty,” he told nan Convention successful bid to soundlessness a speaker defending his friend and rival Danton. Imprisoned alongside Thomas Paine, Danton told him (he said amended English than Paine did French): “I tried successful vain to do what you did for nan liberty and happiness of your group [i.e. nan Americans].” In reality, nan Revolution was a disaster for some liberty and happiness. The France of nan Enlightenment, which had sown nan seeds of freedom, was brought to an untimely end. What emerged alternatively was a constabulary state, which continued to widen its powers moreover nether nan successors of Robespierre: nan “men of Thermidor,” nan Directory, and Bonaparte.

No fig comes amended retired of Hardman’s pages than Danton, nan only 1 of nan starring revolutionaries who displayed genuine civilized courageousness and governmental sense. But he was nether nary illusions astir nan havoc he and his chap Jacobins had wrought. “I americium leaving things successful a unspeakable mess. No 1 understands nan creation of government,” he lamented connected nan eve of his death. “Things mightiness stagger connected for a spot if I near my balls to Robespierre.” The man who yet inherited nan mantle of virility was, of course, Napoleon.

Nearly 2 and a half hundreds of years aft nan French Revolution, it is precocious clip to see conscionable really extremist nan translator it wrought was. Hardman focuses connected its effect connected France alternatively than connected Europe and beyond. Boldly, he makes usage of counterfactuals to explicate really events mightiness easy person taken a different turn. As nan writer of a definitive curriculum vitae of Louis XVI, he explains some why nan monarch and his consort made their cardinal decisions, specified arsenic fleeing Paris successful 1791, and really they mightiness person avoided not only their ain dismal destiny but that of France. Hardman moreover proposes a reside that nan depressive and taciturn king mightiness person fixed to nan Convention successful 1793 if he had not, arsenic truthful often, taken refuge successful silence.

Whatever his different faults, Louis was not vindictive: he accepted that “one tin ne'er govern a group against its inclinations” and begged his boy not to avenge his death. Despite nan aged adage that nan Bourbons had learned thing and forgotten nothing, aft nan restoration successful 1814, nan regicides were not executed (as they had been successful England successful 1660) but simply banished.

In his conclusion, Hardman agrees pinch Boissy d’Anglas, 1 of nan presidents of nan Convention, that France consumed six hundreds of years successful six years. If nan deputies gathering successful 1789 had been transported successful clip backmost to nan fourteenth century, they would person recovered nan governing institutions acquainted enough. But if they had travelled guardant conscionable seventy years, “they would person recovered themselves successful an chartless land.” As Tocqueville observed successful his awesome activity L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution française, published successful 1856, “the extremist Revolution … has obscured everything which it has not destroyed”.

This unrecognisable post-revolutionary France was ruled not by a Bourbon but a Bonaparte, Napoleon III. It was, however, dominated not by nan emperor but by a caller ruling class, immortalised by nan rising artists of nan Impressionist movement. As Louis had foreseen, by uniting nan aged authorities of commencement and position pinch nan newer ones of spot and wealth, nan precocious bourgeoisie and nan nobility had go nan “notables.” Richer, amended educated, and much galore than nan aristocracy of nan ancien régime, they would past each vicissitude. For amended aliases worse, these notables, nan bastard offspring of nan Revolution, are still moving nan state today. John Hardman’s elegant, erudite, and evocative French Revolution: A Political History explains really nan France we cognize emerged from nan grand guignol of nan guillotine.