To what extent did the French revolution reflect the ideas of enlightenment? Do you think that the constitution written during 1789 – 1796 reflected the ideas of the philosophers?
French revolution is one of the biggest events in the history which have attracted the scholarly attention of a large number of authors. Gary Kates even says, ‘whole forests have been cleared to make way for the historical literature on French revolution’. This statement itself reveals that the different aspects of this particular event have been discussed by scholars worldwide. Enlightenment and the role it played to cause the revolution is also a topic which deserves enormous attention. We will be discussing this particular aspect of the French revolution in the following pages. Before going into the details of it, it would be wise to discuss about this great incident of history which marked a change in the society and polity from the past not only in France but all over the world.
The 18th century was a period of general crisis in Europe; the challenges faced by the old regime were not a purely French phenomenon. But the origins of the Revolution must be sought not merely in the general conditions of Europe but in the specific situation within France. The Revolution can be said to have marked a breach between the existing Ancient Régime (Old Order) and the “new” French “nation”. This period witnessed the intensification of old socio-political struggles such as between the aristocracy and an absolutist monarchy; as well as the challenge of new forces such as the ideas of Enlightenment, prospering commerce and the beginnings of industrialization, resulting in the rise of new social groups, and increasing political tensions. The question of the origins of the French Revolution thus involves a study of these forces, keeping in mind the political, economic, social and cultural context that underlay the Revolution.
The French Revolution had a unique nature due to the peculiar character of the French social classes that played a role in the Revolution. Medieval France had divided society into three estates, each having a distinct function – the Church, the nobles, and the non-nobles, mainly the middle-class and the peasants. However, in practice, this legal classification had ceased to bear any close relation to social realities long before 1789. The ruling elite of France (the notables) comprised of the members of upper clergy (who were powerful nobles), the court nobility and sections of the wealthy upper bourgeoisie. Also, French society at this time saw the rise of various social groups which could not be fitted into this system. Social identity, as A Cobban has pointed out, was complex with several determinants – mode of life, profession, family, actual wealth, sources of income, social status and prestige, legal status, political orientation, economic function, personal aspirations and grievances, and so on, all not necessarily distinct.
As we have just discussed the French revolution was said to be the product of struggles by two different classes. One is the old nobles who lost their political as well as the economic control as a result of the ‘sale of office scheme’ brought by the new monarchy. This new initiative replaced old nobles with new rich people who came in utilizing the monitory needs of the monarchy. The second are the common people who were already fed up with the system of ruling and the suffrage they have been feeling since a lot of time. The main issue was over taxations. In order to cover up the deficit and the special privileges given to aristocrats and people in the upper layer, common people had to pay a large amount of their income as tax, which was unacceptable to them. They considered revolution as the only solution to end their unending problems.
The beginning of the Revolution can be seen, however, in the intensification of the age-old political struggle between a centralizing monarchy and an aristocracy resisting this effect, what precipitated into the “aristocratic revolt” (revolte nobiliaire) in 1788-89. The immediate context for this struggle was provided by the unprecedented fiscal burden that the court faced. Financial troubles were a recurrent concern for an extravagant court, with an expensive bureaucratic machinery and nobility that measured prestige through the extent of indebtedness. However, it was really the French participation in the American War of Independence that blew the royal crisis out of proportion. The state now faced a fiscal deficit of 112 million livers, excluding interest.
The strain on the French economy and the threat of bankruptcy obliged ministers to institute radical reforms. This reform took the form of the monarchical decision to infringe on the fiscal privileges of the Church and aristocracy, justified on the principles of Enlightenment, since the option of taxing the overburdened masses was ruled out. However, it was actually a result of the practical concerns of the monarchy, since it feared that such a decision could lead to popular revolts.
Now the main question that we need to answer would be to what extent the factors related to enlightenment and enlightened philosophers thought would have ignited the revolution rather than the economic and political factors we discussed briefly. 18th century was an age of great thinkers and philosophers. Thinkers like Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke did extensive works on the subject and were the advocators of a change from the medieval world to a modern one where they wanted people to use their rational mind to reason things around them rather than being a blind believer.
Perry was careful in stressing these facts in his article. He tries to explain the views of the three great thinkers I have just mentioned above and tells us how they not wanted church and religious persons to interfere in the matters of government and monarchy. He said ‘assisting a church in the salvation of souls was not the state’s function. So a move to demarcate religion and the role of priests in the affairs of the state was clearly being made. Earlier various privileges and exemptions were given to the priests and the church nobility. The king was considered to be inferior to the priests and the interests of the church and god were supreme to the ruler rather than the well being of the common people of the country.
One of the most famous political thinkers of modern Europe was Machiavelli who said the change and enlightened mind had initiated from the renaissance age itself and reached its zenith in the French revolution. Though he was basically focusing on the Italian city states, eventually it can easily correlated with that of the events occurred in France in the end of the 18th century. Like many of the thinkers of that age, he too rejected the pillars and concepts on which Christianity was based and requested people to live in a real world, obey the rule of natural law and not believe things blindly without reasoning them. He said Christianity undermined the values of state and strictly believed that it will be hard for a ruler to rule with a certain moral values which were prescribed by the church. Though we was criticizing Christianity for its unnecessary involvement in these matters, he did not forget to realize its value as something socially useful. So he differed from the medieval scholars and stressed that the churches should always remain subordinate to the interests of the state. So Machiavelli was indeed good in the sense he removed political thought from a religious frame of reference.
Thomas Hobbes, another renowned philosopher, considered the flaws and the helplessness of the human nature as the main reason for the existence of the state. It was to give its citizens protection and security from a violent world. He was the first one to draw a parallel for the politics of that time with the scientific revolution. He says that the man submits his will and strength to a powerful state which in turn are responsible to give its citizens a proper life. Regarding religion, he absolutely disagreed with the belief of ancient and medieval rulers that they derived their power from the god and are in turn only responsible to him. The example of English monarchy convinced him to believe that state should have its control over church.
John Locke, while sharing with Hobbes theory of secular approach to political thought, differed from his approach to study humanity as something which is completely helpless without the intervention of the state. Rather than giving importance to a monarchy, he believed that the best form of government would be the one which has the consent of the people. He said because of the uncertainties inherent in the state of nature, men consent to organize a civil government and to submit to the will of a majority. By stressing on this point he tries to say that human being create their own government and rejects the theory like Hobbes that the rulers derive their power from the god.
As we were discussing earlier, the views of these thinkers were very much important in shaping an enlightened view in the minds of people in the 18th century which indeed played a part in the French revolution. The enlightenment of the 18th century culminated the movement toward modernity initiated by the renaissance. The thinkers of the enlightenment, called philosophers, aspired to create a more rational and humane society. They considered the presence of Christianity and rejected radical theology saying that these were detrimental to the interest of a more sensible human society. Perry said ‘through the power reason, humanity was at last liberating itself from the fetters of ignorance, superstition, and despotism with which tyrants and priests had bound it in past ages’.