Historiography of French Revolution
- Created by: Alasdair
- Created on: 28-05-18 18:56
View mindmap
- Historiography of French Revolution + other facts
- Edmund Burke
- Irishman who represented constituents of Bristol as their Westminster MP
- Also polemical writer who was a traditionalist in his views and a leading political thinker of his time
- Regarded as one of the founding fathers of the modern Conservative Party
- In his Reflections on the Revolution in France (published 1790)
- he warned that forces French had let loose in 1789 would eventually produce tyranny
- Burke viewed society as an organism that grew slowly
- and which allowed productive parts of organism to thrive whilst nonproductive parts would eventually decay and disappear
- Previously supported American revolutionaries of 1770s because he argued British government had broken with its traditional approach to governing that colony
- he said that the Americans were actually fighting for a return to former days
- seemingly radical because of his support for American revolutionaries, Burke's position was ideologically conservative
- as far as Burke was concerned, a disruptive, radical revolution such as French Revolution was disastrous break with kind of fruitful slow growth he espoused
- His opinion was that imposition of revolution as happened in France in 1789 (and this was before trial and execution of king) was extreme curable illness
- Anglo-Saxon interpretations
- An interpretation put forward in 1955 by R.R. Palmer and Jacques Godechot
- Palmer argued chief characteristic of age of revolutions was not rise of capitalist bourgeoisie but idea of democracy
- So French Revolution, like the American Revolution, was essentially about liberal democracy
- Alfred Cobban
- 1955
- Argued that if by French Revolution we mean a bourgeois capitalist revolution, then French Revolution was myth
- Provocative conclusion highlighted two key points
- The revolutionary bourgeoisie, far from being capitalist, was actually mainly composed of lawyers and officeholders
- This class of officeholders was in decline, not expansion
- Used evidence of Marxists' own studies to show eighteenth-century capitalism was not so very dynamic
- bourgeoisie as well as nobility was heavily involved in landownership and seigneurialism
- deliberate and hugely successful attempt to invite research on too-easy categories of analysis used by historians
- bourgeoisie as well as nobility was heavily involved in landownership and seigneurialism
- Robert Forster
- work on nobility of Toulouse also showed nobility behaving in investment and estate management very like 'bourgeois capitalists'
- French work on early industrial production
- showed higher noble investment was a crucial factor in heavy industry
- easy categories were becoming very blurred as bourgeois looked like nobles and vice versa, and it was later suggested they perhaps formed more or less single elite
- showed higher noble investment was a crucial factor in heavy industry
- George Taylor
- Dealt deathblow in Anglo-Saxon world to usefulness of Marxist categories of analysis for French revolution
- Research on types of capitalism in C18th France highlighted four types of capitalism, none of which was 'modern'
- Argued revolution was caused by rise of group of modern capitalists
- Argued revolution was essentially political event
- Such views had enormous impact on teaching and research in English-speaking academic world and virtually none at all in France
- Few French historians then read English and no-one was prepared to challenge orthodox views of entrenched Marxist establishment of top professors in French universities
- An interpretation put forward in 1955 by R.R. Palmer and Jacques Godechot
- Karl Marx
- Redefined role of bourgeoisie that was hero of tale
- His all-encompassing vision was of middle-class that was economically progressive, a vehicle for new ideologies of progress and equality, based on requirements of growing capitalism in early modern Europe
- Views evolved into orthodox view of revolution
- in hands of historians such as Albert Mathiez, George Lefebvre and Albert Soboul in C20th
- In their eyes, revolution was product of economic and social change in C18th as modern capitlaism developed
- led to more dynamic and ambitious middle class (bourgeoisie) that was frustrated by limited opportunities in a country still controlled by reactionary nobility whose wealth was still rooted in seigneurialsim and landownership and whose powr was supposed to have been limited by Louis XIV and state apparatus
- During ancien regime nobility hoped to regain its former role in state
- In 1787-88 noble resistance to reform amounted to 'noble reaction' as nobility took advantage of monarchy's weakness to retain its privileges and demand more power
- economic downturn and fiscal shortcomings of 1780s created motivation and opportunity for Third Estate to defeat reaction in 1789, and in a progressive and capitalist revolution
- Overall view only comprehensively challenged in mid-1950s
- economic downturn and fiscal shortcomings of 1780s created motivation and opportunity for Third Estate to defeat reaction in 1789, and in a progressive and capitalist revolution
- In 1787-88 noble resistance to reform amounted to 'noble reaction' as nobility took advantage of monarchy's weakness to retain its privileges and demand more power
- During ancien regime nobility hoped to regain its former role in state
- led to more dynamic and ambitious middle class (bourgeoisie) that was frustrated by limited opportunities in a country still controlled by reactionary nobility whose wealth was still rooted in seigneurialsim and landownership and whose powr was supposed to have been limited by Louis XIV and state apparatus
- In their eyes, revolution was product of economic and social change in C18th as modern capitlaism developed
- in hands of historians such as Albert Mathiez, George Lefebvre and Albert Soboul in C20th
- Edmund Burke
Comments
No comments have yet been made