Reva Dutta III Year History Hons.
French Revolution: Assignment
Q: To what extent did the French Revolution reflect the ideas of the Enlightenment? Do you think the Constitutions written between 1789 and 1796 reflected the ideas of the Enlightenment philosopher?
Ans: The forced summoning of the Estates Generals by the French monarch Louis XVI after more than a century and a half on the 5th of May 1789, is popularly see as marking the start of the French Revolution. However the French Revolution doesn’t refer to any one even or date, but a period of socio-political upheaval between 1789 an 1799, within which three regimes and three constitutions were established and overthrown, finally drawing to a close with the establishment of a monarchical dictatorship by Napoleon Bonaparte in end 1799.
Prior to 1789, France was an Absolutist State and the Old Regime or Ancien Regime as the revolutionaries referred to is, represented the last stage of this state for various reasons. According to Perry Anderson, the Absolutist State was the political outcome of the socio-political crisis of the 14-15th centuries in Western Europe, which reflected the limitations of the feudal mode of production. French Absolutist monarchs from the 15th century on, attempted a high degree of political centralization through the introduction of five major institutions- codified law, a permanent bureaucracy, national taxation, a standing army and a unified market. These institutions, which outwardly seemed “modern”, were according to Anderson essentially feudal in their functioning, since the French Monarchy was trying to hold onto its waning feudal, monarchical power.
Absolutism in France reached its peak under Louis XIVth, when the state was highly centralized. The institution of monarchy was based in the notion of divine kingship, which meant that the king was supreme and ruled by “Divine Right”. Thus the ideological basis of the state was religious ideology, which justified its existence and functioning, alluding to the important role the church played in the Ancien Regime. The king was the fountainhead of all public authority and legislation. More importantly as William.H.Sewell Jr. points out his office and functions were immortal and passed down to successive rulers. The King was answerable only to God who was the source of all laws and the king was his representative on earth. However Francois Furet points of that while this was true in theory the French monarchy was not only based only divine law and nor was it despotic, as over a period of time custom based principles developed, law of primogeniture which was inalienable developed, Catholic faith of the sovereign held sway, and a respect for people’s liberty and property developed, none of which this supreme ruler could ignore.
Furet points out that under Louis XVIth the absolutist state witnessed the peak of a process of deification of the king and a divine cult centred on the royal court in
Versailles which started with Louis XIVth. This in his opinion was a significant factor in the enfeeblement of the monarchy as ultimately this deification became an intrinsic part of Louis XVI’s self image and ultimately proved a burden which he couldn’t reconcile with the changing socio-political and philosophical trends in France.
By the 18th century the monarchy was far from centralized. A financial crisis developed as Louis XVIth has strained his finances, as firstly France was involved in three long wars during the century, secondly the king indulged in sale of public offices, titles and economic monopolies, as well as granting of privileges to the First and Second Estates (Clergy and Aristocracy) in society , in order to raise loans to finance the wars and the state. This resulted in a process of sale of the King’s sovereignty and power, especially to the bourgeoisies (which now bought its way into the aristocracy as nobles of the robe as well as public office.) By 1789 after many failed attempts at financial reform, due to the aristocracy not willing to accept reforms which a would eat into their fiscal privileges, Louis was left with no option but to summon the Estates Generals(Assembly of the three Estates or orders which comprised French society- First Estate-Clergy, Second Estate- Aristocracy and Third Estate- the rest of society.) As pointed out by Thomas Merriman, the summoning of the Estates Generals for the first time after 1614, placed Louis XVIth in a major dilemma. He was faced with either fixing the fiscal crisis by reducing the privileges of the nobility (eg: exemption from taxes), yet in doing so without its approval, he could be accused of despotism and loose support; On the other hand surrendering to the demands of the privileged classes in return for imposing new taxes on the third estate and by summ0ning the estates Louis would be compromising his own authority. The resolution of this dilemma with the summoning of the Estates makred the first stage of the Revolution.
According to Marvin Perry the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution of the 15th-17th centuries sparked off the move towards “modernity” within the conception of the physical world. The Enlightenment, was a social and philosophical movement in Western Europe during the 17-18th centuries which drew upon concepts such as Renaissance humanism, scientific and rational thought, Ancient Greek rational outlook, Stoic philosaophy of natural law as well as Christian belief of all being equal before God’s eyes. This philosophy stood opposed to medieval socio-political thought which saw theology as an avenue to the truth, laid great emphasis on privilege, position and tradition in society and divinity in politics. Enlightenment philosophers aimed to apply scientific methods to society and discover universal laws which governed society, just as Newton had for the physical world. Enlightenment philosopher- Hobbes, Locke Rousseau, Montesquieu and Voltaire, analysed human nature and society in order to suggest new political structures which would reform society.
Yet William. H. Sewell Jr. who studies the ideological basis of the Old Regime, points out that even though the old regime was medieval in its socio political outlook as opposed to the post revolution regimes which drew heavily upon the enlightenment, it is
still important to note that even the Old regime drew upon the Enlightenment. He points out that some members of the first two estates and the bureaucracy continued to conceive the state in traditional terms and yet upheld enlightenment principles such as reason and natural law to promote administrative unity. Yet what is unique about the French Revolution is that for the first time Europe witnessed a political articulation of the Enlightenment philosophies. To understand the French Revolution’s ideological basis one must briefly explore the philosophies of five major Enlightenment thinkers- Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu.
Thomas Hobbes the English philosopher in his work Leviathan believed that in order to build the correct political order it was first essential to study human nature. He held that human nature was flawed, in the state of nature (prior to the social contract and state formation), man was passionate, insecure and was thus corrupt and ambitious. In this state men were at war with one another, living in perpetual fear. The state was thus essential to provide security by enforcing law. The state could be created by all men giving up their individual wills to one man or assembly of men by entering a social contract amongst each other, after which they could only obey and not question the new sovereign’s actions. Hobbes’s ideal form of government was the Absolutist state, which seems antithetical to liberalism however Hobbes’s real aim was to provide security for the individual and more importantly by entering the social contract they would grant power to the sovereign to and not God.
John Locke, presented a different view on the state of nature, he said all men were born free, rational and equal and were endowed by nature (not god) with certain fundamental rights(right to life, liberty and property). Man was guided by morals and strived for, “Peace and preservation of mankind” (this was the law of nature). Yet due to lack of authority in the State of Nature, men transgressed the law of nature. Thus he advocated the establishment of a constitutional government, whose authority was derived from the governed and was limited in power. For Locke unlike Hobbes sovereignty resides with the people and they had the right to dissolves the government if it failed to ensure their fundamental rights and rule of law.
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) the French thinker was one of the most influential thinkers vis-à-vis the enlightenment and French revolution. He too held that man by nature was inherently good and more or less equal in the State of Nature. Yet with the emergence of private property both equality and man’s goodness ended. Civil Society was created by the rich to protect their property and dominate the poor. Thus the despotic French absolutist state deprived men of their natural freedom, equality and civic sense. Rousseau in his famous Social Contract presented the concept of the “General Will” i.e. that the state should be governed by the General Will which comprised of all individuals giving up their individual wills or rights to the community as a whole and submit to its authority. This will was not the majorities will but that which is best for humanity,
realization of equality and freedom. Thus Rousseau advocated a direct democratic state in which citizens participated in lawmaking.
Thinkers Montesquieu and Voltaire agreeing on the basic enlightenment principles such despised despotism and posited important concepts. Montesquieu provided us with “Separation of Powers” between an independent legislature, executive and judiciary, in a state to safeguard liberty from despotism. Each organ was meant to act as a check and balance on the other. Voltaire advocated the principle of “Rule of law”.
Various historians from Marxists such as Georges Lefebvre to post- revisionists such as Francois Furet have all to varying degrees explored the links between the French Revolution and the Enlightenment. William H. Sewell, who looks at autonomous dynamics of ideology in the French revolution, says that the summoning of the Estates Generals was of great significance and on one level it could be seen as the summoning of a corporate body of the Old Regime but at another level interpreted in Enlightenment terms, as a consultation of the National will or an invitation to revise the social contract. Moreover the developments of the Third Estate emerging powerful within the Estates General, demanding vote by head and finally its breaking away from the Estates General when it proclaimed its self as the National Assembly and was subsequently joined by the defection of “patriot” nobles and clergy, and later by all members of the first and second orders upon Louis XVIth’s order reflected the beginning of the fundamental recasting of the State in Enlightenment terms. The declaration of the National Assembly as the true representative body of National Sovereignty and its oath of, “not to separate and to reassemble whenever circumstances require until the constitution of the kingdom was established and consolidated upon solid foundations”, embodied the enlightenment spirit which was reflected in the decrees and constitution of the French Revolution.
According to Sewell as well as Francois Furet, the events of the night of 4th August 1789, were pivotal as far as the ideological transformation as well as class struggle was concerned. On the night of 3-4th August a hundred deputies of gathered in the Versailles cafe the Breton Club and decided to introduce inevitable reforms i.e. abolition of the privileges of the First and Second Estates so as to bind the majority of the third estate to the revolution, since abolition of serfdom and fiscal equality was not enough. Thus within measures for fiscal equality the corvees (unpaid labour), serfdom, tithe (a tax paid to the clergy) were all abolished without any compensation. Yet redemption of other feudal dues was at a low rate of 3.3% compensation. Amongst other measures, an end of sale of offices, equality in eligibility for jobs and free equal justice for all was established. Thus by the final decrees written by Du Port, “the National Assembly completely destroyed the feudal regime.” According to William Sewell the main significance of these decrees was that it marked the end of the old ideological dynamic in reality and inaugurated the start of a new ideological dynamic of Enlightenment, its metaphysical principles translated into a new revolutionary social and political structure.
For him it inaugurated the setting of the “Nation” on a firm course of “reason”, which drew directly upon enlightenment discourse of reason. According to Furet the main significance of the laws of 4th August was that it created a new legal society by making all equal before law, by instituting the universal nature of the property contract thus drawing essentially upon the enlightenment discourse that men were born equal. Yet Furet also points out that even though these laws on one hand were marked by “enthusiasm for civic equality”, the propertied men of the third estate and the “patriot” nobles who dominated the discussions of the legislative assembly still ensured that these laws favoured them, as the peasantry which owed any feudal dues had to do so at 3.3% interest. Thus the clergy lost out on the tithe which was abolished without compensation and the bourgeoisie benefitted from these decrees which were not equal in the true sense. Furet also points out that the decrees of the 4th August were accompanied by declaring Louis XVIth as the “restorer of French Liberty”, which was a signal for the constitutional monarchy that was set up by the French Constitution of 1791 and the difficulty those new patriot nobles such as Lafayette and Mirabeau would have in imagining a political order without a monarch figuring in it.
The most important development according to William .H. Sewell, Furet as well as Keith Michael Baker regarding the link between the 1789 Revolution and Enlightenment was the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and the constitutional debate revolving around this. For Sewell, the night of 4th August was followed swiftly by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (26thAugust,1789) which set forth the metaphysical principles of the new order-, “the natural inalienable and sacred rights of man”, drawing directly upon enlightenment discourse, in order to provide a firm base for the state.
However as Keith Michael Baker as well as Furet point out the drawing up of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was no easy task, nor was its passage a foregone conclusion. Looking at the link between the Enlightenment and the Declaration Baker points out that regarding the origin of the declaration historian George Jellinek critiqued the prevailing notions that the Declaration drew upon Rousseauian philosophy as well as was inspired by The American Declaration of Independence. On the contrary Jellinek argued that French declaration drew upon the Bills of American States between 1776-1783(such as Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland etc). He traces American defence of rights to two traditions prior to the Enlightenment- (i) German Teutonic conception of the State which advocated Common Law protection of the rights and (ii) Reformation- tracing the affirmation of individual rights to this.
Yet French historian Emile Boutmy contested this saying the people of France drew clearly upon Rousseau’s understanding of equality and universiality which were the essence of freedom under law. He also said that the French model did not owe directly to the American models but both embodied the general spirit of the Enlightenment. Boutmy points out fundamental difference between the American
and French declarations the first being regarding style- American had a difficult to read juridical idiom , while the French had a universalistic tone and regarding content the American drew upon Anglo-Saxon models and placed limits on power, while the French declaration enshrined Rousseauian affirmation of freedom through the common exercise of sovereignty. Nor did he ignore the influence of Montesquieu, Locke and Voltaire on the French model and their insistence upon Natural Rights.
Baker himself laid more emphasis on competing understandings of what the declaration should contain, as well as the impact of promulgating the declaration all of which were hotly debated issues in the Constituent Assembly from 27th June till August 26th 1789. In the final draft of the Declaration prepared by a Committee of Five lead by Comte de Mirabeau which was accepted after much debate- Baker shows the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen drew upon, Physiocratic discourse, Rousseau’s ideas and upon the discourse of Justice. The final draft conflated the Physiocratic vision of rationality and simplicity with Rousseauian ideal of collective freedom achieved by the exercise of a common political will. He holds that it’s Articles were strikingly Rousseauian as the Declaration stated,-(i) “All men are born free and equal”,(ii) it’s definition of political association came from the Social Contract and read, “Every political body receives its existence from a social contract, express or tacit, by which each individual places his person and his in faculties in common under the supreme direction of the general will and the body simultaneously receives each individual as a part.” The defining of the Constitution as an explicit expression of the “Will of the Nation” subject to change by that Will at any moment and the definition of Law as, “law being the expression of the general will, must be general in its object tending to assure all citizens their property and civil equality”, were both Rousseau’s ideas. Baker also points out that the Declaration drew upon the discourse of Justice which was merged with Rousseau’s principles, as Liberty was defined as, “being able to do anything that doesn’t injure another”, which was to be, “determined only by the law”(Article 4). Since law as mentioned earlier was an expression of the “General Will” their fore the law only had the right, “to forbid only actions harmful to society”(Article 5) and “every citizen summoned or seized by virtue of the law must obey at once; he makes himself guilty by resistance” (Article 7). Thus Baker illustrates that the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen drew heavily upon the Enlightenment, yet not exclusively upon and it.
However he also points out that the Declaration was ambiguous in certain areas such as the Separation of Powers- Article 16 stated that “a society in which the
guarantee of rights is not secured, or the separation of powers not clearly established, has no constitution.” Yet the Separation of Powers had two different interpretations at the time- firstly it could be interpreted as checks and balances as in the case of the American constitution or as the executive being subordinate to the General Will. Similarly Article 6 contradicted Rousseau’s conception of the General Will as Baker
points out Article 6 said that all citizens have the right to participate personally or through their representatives in the General Will’s formation, yet Rousseau had conceived the State as direct democracy and not as an indirect one as in the case of France, post the Declaration and the Constitution of 1791.
Thus at times where the Declaration and the Constitution drew upon the Enlightenment heavily it at times also contradicted those very Enlightenment principles it was meant to enshrine. This can also been seen in the adoption of limited suffrage, which Furet points out was extended only to 4 million “Active citizens” – men paying the equivalent of three days’ wages in direct taxes who had the right to vote in indirect elections for electors who were propertied men who in turn would elect representatives to the new legislature, in a population of 28million in 1789. Thus the new constitution was creating social inequality substituting ownership of property for noble title as the criterion for political rights. Furet says that limited suffrage stemmed from the Revolution of 1789 being a “bourgeoisie revolution” and so can the adoption of a Constitutional Monarchy and the “suspensive veto” over the assembly’s legislation which was extended to Louis XVIth seen in the same light. The royal veto earned a lot of criticism from the Patriots, whom were unanimous in excluding the kings from originating or holding sovereign power. The suspensive veto which was finally granted to the king gave him the right as head of the executive to verify the representatives were faithful to the general will. This its self went against Rousseau’s conception of the executive being subordinate to the “General Will”, expressed by the Legislature. The King by the new constitution also still directed foreign policy and commanded the army.
Furet also mentions the Civil Constitution of the French Clergy which was conceived by the Assembly as part of their attempt to build a new constitutional order. It redefined the relationship between the clergy and the state subordinating the earlier largely autonomous Catholic Church (answerable to Rome), now to the new constitution. Keeping with this the clergy was asked to take a civic oath swearing allegiance to the Nation, Law, King and the Constitution of 1791. This reflected the enlightenment’s idea of the people’s will being supreme and secularism. Furet also sees the sale of Church property by putting it up for auction which was ultimately bought up by urban bourgeoisie and wealthy peasants as an attempt to weld the French peasantry to the philosophy of Enlightenment and the Revolution. However soon enough the resistance to the oath of the clergy and Louis XVIth’s attempt at flight from France(June 1791), led to popular social unrest, turn of public opinion away from the king and supporters of constitutional monarchy (Feuillants), and growing demands for a Republic. The completion of the constitution of 1791 and Louis’s formal acceptance of the document on September 14th 1791, was a public mockery of his commitment to Constitutional Monarchy.
The Flight of Louis XVIth, the declaration of war on Austria (April 1792) by the Legislative Assembly (estb. after the first constitution), growing radicalism of the sans-culottes (Parisian revolutionaries who were dead against the old order and represented the popular revolt) and the increase in support for the Jacobins who stood against constitutional monarchy ushered in a second revolution. Soon a new Assembly called the National Convention was elected by universal adult male suffrage, it was dominated by the Jacobins (who stood for centralizing the authority in Paris to save the revolution from internal and external threat . The first act of the National Convention was the setting up of the first French Republic on September 21st 1792, and the preparation of a draft of a new republican constitution. These events of 1792 were significant as far as enlightenment ideology goes, since the National Convention was said to be elected by universal adult male suffrage, as compared restricted to male suffrage based on property, as previously seen, this seemed to reflect equality and adherence to building an egalitarian social order, which reflected the “general will.”However François Furet points out that while this marked the advent of universal suffrage in France at one level it was actually far from our understanding of free ballot in peace time in modern democracies, since only militant revolutionaries dared to appear at the assemblies. Finally the declaration of France as a Republic was significant according to Furet because it didn’t reflect the creation of a democratic republic as linked to direct democracy, which was never possible in a country like France. Nonetheless it had an ideological significance as it was said to mark the first day of Year I of Liberty, while liberty or freedom was an essential aspect of enlightenment ideology.
The Constitution of 1793, was ratified by the National Convention on June 24th 1793, after the Jacobins had expelled the Girondins (moderate Jacobins who believed in economic freedom), thus this constitution was also known as The Montagnard Constitution. This constitution was inspired by the declaration of right of man and citizen of 1798, but widened its scope as it proclaimed the superiority of popular sovereignty over national sovereignty drawing upon Rousseau’s “General Will” as the previous one did. It also added more rights to the Declaration such as right of association, right to work and public assistance, right to public education; the right of rebellion (and duty to rebel when the government violates the right of the people, as well as the abolition of slavery. This constitution also required the government to ensure a “right to subsistence,” while simultaneously reiterating the inviolability of personal property. Thus the constitution seemed if not more committed to enlightenment principles than the previous one by enlarging the scope of the constitution and introducing adult male suffrage with no property requirements, making if far more egalitarian. However the constitution was suspended almost immediately in October 1793, due to internal rebellion and international war that the Jacobins dealt with by setting up a revolutionary government to restore peace, with Maximilian Robespierre heading the Committee of Public Safety which unleashed The Terror and set
up a virtual dictatorship instead, which was far from any enlightenment principles.
Francois Furet while discussing the radicalization of the Revolution challenged the prevailing opinion that this radicalization and the Terror(1793-1794) were a product of exigencies of war. According to Furet the Terror developed out of the ideology of the Revolution which was set in place in 1789.He points out that the revolutionaries had borrowed heavily on Rousseau’s abstract notion of popular sovereignty or unity of the general will. According to him the notion of General Will could not be sustained without its “Manichean double”: the idea of an aristocratic plot, which was implicit in revolutionary ideology from the start. Thus Furet says that given the primacy of the abstract notion of the general will in France at the time, dissent couldn’t be understood as anything apart from a plot, treason against the Revolution. Thus dissenters (anyone who ranged from a royalist, to constitutional monarchist or even one who was unsympathetic) had to be destroyed.
The Terror came to an end with the Moderate Jacobins within the convention, establishing a new government, due to the fear of being purged by Robespierre who was finally arrested and shot. A new government known as the Directory was set up which produced a Constitution in 1795 which according to Furet was meant to be the “good one” an adjective which was excessive according to Furet as this constitution only lasted till 1799 coupe d’état. The Constitution of 1795 created a bicameral legislative assembly and a collective executive of five directors. The two assemblies included the Council of Ancients (250 members) which discussed and voted on measures proposed by the second assembly the Council of Five Hundred. The two councils elected the five directors who formed the executive or the Directorate. The Constituent Assembly vowed to render impossible any return to revolutionary government and anarchy. It debated on two important issues, firstly sovereignty of the people and secondly the content of the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen. Regarding the Declaration which was revised for the third time and inserted as a preamble, it upheld the supremacy of the law, which was the expression of the general will of the people, as the guarantee of rights, which seemed to draw upon Rousseau’s concept of positive law circumscribing the general will, seen in the first constitution. This constitution deleted the right of resisting oppression (1789) and insurrection(1793), to prevent any challenge to the laws. The enlightenment principle of Equality of all citizens before law was still upheld. However this constitution introduced “Duties” of the legislators and the citizens which had been rejected in 1789, on the grounds that neither the separation of powers nor the addition of duties should restrict the freedom of the general will which should only be limited by the law which is an expression of the general will, thus in including duties this document digressed from Rousseau’s conception of the General will.
The second issue was of popular sovereignty. Furet points out that the events of 1782-1783 had displayed the fearsome boundless power of sovereignty. The former Vicar-General of Chartres said that the Revolutions mistake was transferring the power of the king to the people. Thus Abbe Sieyes presented the idea of limiting sovereignty of the people by giving them power which was necessary for the existence of a nation of free and equal individuals. Thus Sieyes’s idea was incorporated by the assembly sin spirit through limiting suffrage to only propertied men who paid taxes thus limiting it to an “enlightened representation” which was far from keeping with the enlightenment principles of universal suffrage. It was also moderated and not limited by the Directory which had the power to conclude matters of war, diplomacy, police and administration. Yet the directory was elected from within the assemblies had 5 members which were elected from time to time. Thus the third constitution of the second Republic of France like the constitution of 1793 drew less upon the enlightenment as compared to the Constitution of 1791, and more upon the circumstances in which it was born, and what it sought to avoid- anarchy.
In conclusion Revolution of 1789 marked the start of a new autonomous ideological dynamic, which drew heavily upon the enlightenment and over a period of time the subsequent constitutions of 1793 and 1795, keeping the enlightenment as their broad framework more upon the exigencies of their present political context, as François Furet as well as William Sewell point out. However 1789 marked a major shift in world politics to enlightenment ideology, permeating majority of the Constitutions to follow, as new Nation states and democratic republics were born.
BIBLIOGRAPHY-
1. Furet, Fransois; Interpreting the French Revolution; Cambridge University Press, 1981
2. William.H.Sewell, Jr ; Ideologies and Social Revolutions:Reflections on the French Case; in Social revolutions in the modern world(Theda Skocpol ed.) Cambridge University Press, 1994
3. John Merriman; A History of Modern Europe; Second Edition, Volume 1; W.W.Norton and Company, New York.
4. Baker, Keith Michael; The Idea of A Declaration of Rights; in Kates, Gary ed. The French Revolution Recent Debates and New Controversies (Rewriting Histories), Taylor & Francis, 2006
5. Perry, Marvin; An Intellectual History of Modern Europe; Houghton Mifflin