Historiography of The French Revolution - II
Summary
TLDRThis lecture series delves into the historiography of the French Revolution, examining how its narrative has evolved from the 1789 revolution to contemporary times. It discusses the initial writings that emerged during the revolution, the classical tradition that views the revolution positively, Marxist interpretations, and the rise of revisionist historians. The lecture also touches on the impact of political ideologies on historical writings and the varying perspectives on the revolution's significance.
Takeaways
- 📅 The lecture discusses the historiography of the French Revolution, focusing on how it has been viewed since 1789.
- 🎉 The centenary (1889) and bicentenary (1989) celebrations of the French Revolution showcased different heroes and emphasized various aspects of the revolution, reflecting the political climate of the time.
- 📜 Early writings on the revolution are considered the embryonic stage of historiography, with sources like pamphlets and publications playing a crucial role.
- 🤔 The French Revolution was self-conscious, with revolutionaries aware they were bringing about significant change, which generated anxiety and support.
- 📚 The Enlightenment period's writings, such as pamphlets and encyclopedias, were seen as a fundamental cause of the revolution by some early historians.
- 👨💻 Edmund Burke's 'Reflections on the French Revolution' (1790) is highlighted as a traditionalist critique that foresaw the revolution's darker aspects.
- 📈 The historiography of the French Revolution can be divided into two main traditions: the classical tradition viewing the revolution positively, and a critical tradition that is more hostile or ambiguous.
- 🌟 Prominent Marxist historians like Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul are part of the classical tradition, interpreting the revolution as bourgeois in nature.
- 🔄 Revisionist historians like Alfred Cobban and François Furet challenged the Marxist orthodoxy, with Cobban offering a softer revisionism focused on social interpretation, and Furet a harder revisionism focusing on political history.
- 🌐 Post-1989, the historiography of the French Revolution has become more diverse, including a range of viewpoints and interests, even giving voice to counter-revolutionary perspectives.
Q & A
What is the main focus of the lecture series on modern European history?
-The main focus of the lecture series is the historiography of the French Revolution, examining how the event has been viewed and written about over time.
How were the centenary and bicentenary celebrations of the French Revolution different in terms of the heroes and aspects emphasized?
-The celebrations differed in the way they brought different heroes into prominence and emphasized various aspects of the revolution, reflecting the political climate and ideologies of the time in France.
What is meant by the 'self-consciousness' of the French Revolution?
-The 'self-consciousness' refers to the revolutionaries' awareness that they were bringing about a significant change and were in the midst of a revolution.
What was the earliest school of thought regarding the cause of the French Revolution?
-The earliest school of thought attributed the cause of the French Revolution to the writings of Enlightenment philosophers and their reformist ideas.
What role did pamphlets play in the French Revolution?
-Pamphlets played a significant role as they were published in large numbers, serving as a medium for spreading ideas and contributing to the revolutionary fervor.
Who wrote 'What is the Third Estate?' and what does it reveal about the self-perception of the Third Estate?
-Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès wrote 'What is the Third Estate?', which reveals the self-perception of the Third Estate as confident and eager to transform into a new national assembly, representing France as citizens rather than members of a particular estate.
What are the key documents from the French Revolution that early observers relied on?
-Early observers relied on documents such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), and the three different constitutions published by 1795.
How does Edmund Burke's 'Reflections on the French Revolution' differ from other early writings on the revolution?
-Edmund Burke's 'Reflections on the French Revolution' is unique as it is written from a traditionalist perspective, critical of the revolution, and it anticipated the Reign of Terror and the excesses of the revolutionaries.
What are the two 'family lines' of writing about the French Revolution mentioned in the script?
-The two 'family lines' are the great tradition or classical tradition, which views the revolution positively, and a range of writings that are either hostile, critical, or ambiguous about the revolution.
What distinguishes 'soft revisionism' from 'hard revisionism' in the historiography of the French Revolution?
-Soft revisionism, represented by Alfred Cobban, still focuses on social interpretation and critiques the Marxist view but remains within the social framework. Hard revisionism, represented by Francois Furet, ventures into a non-Marxist arena of political history, offering a stark contrast to the established Marxist interpretations.
How did the Marxist historians like Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul view the French Revolution?
-Marxist historians like Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul viewed the French Revolution as a bourgeois revolution, with the nature of the revolution decided in favor of the bourgeoisie.
Outlines
📜 Introduction to French Revolution Historiography
This paragraph introduces the lecture series on modern European history, specifically focusing on the historiography of the French Revolution. It discusses how the revolution has been viewed and written about since 1789, emphasizing the self-awareness of the revolutionaries and the anxiety it generated. The lecturer mentions the importance of understanding the changing perspectives on the revolution over time, using the centenary and bicentenary celebrations as examples of how different political regimes emphasized various aspects of the revolution and critiqued others. The paragraph also touches on the role of Enlightenment thinkers and their writings in triggering the revolution, as well as the surge in pamphlet publications around the time of the revolution.
📚 Early Writings and Contemporary Sources
Paragraph 2 delves into the early writings about the French Revolution, highlighting the use of contemporary sources such as pamphlets, publications, and the works of philosophers like Arthur Young. It discusses how these sources were used to understand the revolution and the self-perception of the revolutionaries. The paragraph also mentions the publication of three different constitutions by 1795 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens in 1789. The lecturer notes that early observers like Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre wrote passionately but with bias, as they were participant observers without access to conventional historical sources. Their writings are described as the embryonic stage of French Revolution historiography.
🏛️ The Great Tradition and Critical Views
This paragraph discusses the two main streams of historical writing about the French Revolution: the Great Tradition (or Classical Tradition) and the Critical Views. The Great Tradition includes writings that view the revolution positively, as something pioneering and desirable, even though they may differ in the degree of their positive assessment. Examples include Marxist writings by Lafabre and Sobol. In contrast, Critical Views encompass writings that are hostile, critical, or ambiguous about the revolution's desirability, such as those by Tocqueville and Paine. The paragraph highlights the difference in attitudes towards the revolution and how these shape the historical narratives.
🔄 Revisionist Historiography
Paragraph 4 introduces the concept of revisionist historiography in the context of the French Revolution. It distinguishes between soft revisionism, represented by Alfred Cobban, who critiques Marxist interpretations while still focusing on social realities, and hard revisionism, represented by Francois Furet, who moves away from Marxist social interpretation to focus on political history. The paragraph discusses how these revisionist approaches challenge the established Great Tradition and provide alternative views on the revolution. It also mentions the influence of leftist writers like Joris Mathias, Georges Lefebvre, and Albert Sobol, who gave a Marxist interpretation to the revolution.
🌐 Diverse Perspectives in Modern Historiography
The final paragraph summarizes the diverse perspectives that have emerged in the historiography of the French Revolution, especially after the bicentennial celebrations in 1989. It notes that the interest in the revolution has led to a variety of viewpoints and interests, including counter-revolutionary sensibilities. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing the complexity and range of writings that have developed over more than two centuries since the event, reflecting the changing trends and interpretations of the French Revolution.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Historiography
💡French Revolution
💡Enlightenment
💡Pamphlets
💡Reign of Terror
💡Edmund Burke
💡Marxism
💡Revisionism
💡Bicentenary
💡Classical Tradition
💡Counter-revolutionary
Highlights
Lecture discusses the historiography of the French Revolution and its changing interpretations over time.
Emphasis on how political regimes emphasize different aspects of the revolution during centenary and bicentenary celebrations.
The French Revolution is unique as the revolutionaries were self-conscious of their historical role.
Early disillusionment with the revolution, particularly during the reign of terror.
The revolution was written about from its inception, with one theory attributing it to Enlightenment philosophers' writings.
Pamphlets and publications surged at the beginning of the revolution, influencing public opinion.
The Third Estate's self-perception and transformation into a new National Assembly is highlighted.
Three different constitutions were published by 1795, reflecting the turmoil in France.
Early observers' accounts of the revolution were passionate but potentially biased due to their involvement.
Edmund Burke's 'Reflections on the French Revolution' provided a traditionalist critique of the revolution.
The writings of Joseph de Maistre offer a critical perspective on the revolution's unfolding.
The classical tradition of French Revolution historiography views the revolution positively.
The revisionist approach to French Revolution historiography questions the established positive view.
Marxist historians like Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul provided a class-based interpretation of the revolution.
Alfred Cobban's soft revisionism critiques Marxist interpretations while still focusing on social reality.
Francois Furet's hard revisionism shifts focus to political history, diverging from Marxist economic focus.
Post-1989 historiography shows a diverse range of viewpoints, including counter-revolutionary perspectives.
Transcripts
[Music]
good afternoon viewers
welcome to the series of lectures on
modern european history
and uh we have earlier spoken about the
historiography of the french revolution
and that's what we are going to continue
the first segment of this lecture
has already been spoken about and in
that just to give you a sense of
continuity in that we
used the
two instances that is 100 years
of the french revolution and 200 years
of the french revolution that is
1889 the centenary celebrations and 1989
the bicentenary celebration of the
revolution
and
the
way different heroes were brought into
prominence uh in this celebration the
way ah different aspect of the
revolution were emphasized by the
political regime
which was uh there in france at that
point of time and the critique that it
was subjected to by
uh by uh you know political leadership
uh who
tended to oppose any kind of petrimony
france over certain
ideas and ideals of modernity say
liberty
individualism democracy human rights and
so forth so having done that having seen
uh the the changing fashion of
his history writing uh from these two uh
points as entry points
let's now uh blow it up that let's now
dilate it and have a more comprehensive
understanding of how
french revolution ever since 1789
has been viewed
till date right and that's what
historiography is all about so
as i said in the previous lecture in the
previous section of this
uh this uh lecture
that uh
you know this is uh
french revolution is one of such
revolutions where the revolutionaries
are very much aware
of
what they are going to do
not in terms of the blueprint for future
but certainly they were aware of the
fact that they are bringing about a big
change and they are in the middle of a
revolution
they are self-conscious of it
and therefore it had generated a lot of
anxiety at times
to begin with support also
but very soon with the beginning of the
reign of care
around 17 91 92 93 period uh
you know people are getting disenchanted
to this also
right so this revolution was written
about
right from its inception
right and one school of thought regards
the
written words
as the fundamental cause of the
revolution please remember
this is 1789 that we are talking of
marxism or several other
you know schools of history writing was
yet to evolve as a coherent set of
ideological strand around which
historians would interpret this
revolution so that is yet to come
but
people had started writing about it
probably the causes of revolution and so
forth
and
one school
one of the earliest schools regarded
that this revolution actually was
triggered
on account of the
writings of the philosophers of
enlightenment period
and the reformist ideas
ah contained therein
and
therefore the sources that one can lay
one's hands to
ah in
eliciting or in in trying to understand
as to what they were writing are the
contemporary publications the pamphlets
and pamphlets were written in huge
number there in fact is a surge in the
publication of pamphlets the printing
press being uh
having become very popular by this time
there is a surge certain surge
in the
publication of pamphlets right at the
beginning of the revolution say 1787
1788 period
you find a lot of benefits being written
there is a certain jump ah then there
are several other tises encyclopedias
itself
is a byproduct of the
of the enlightenment period and
whatever ideas were contained there in
they
were thought to be
the inspiring uh you know
sources for the revolutionaries a day
science
who
wrote about
what is the third state who wrote this
paper
by the title what is the third state is
so often quoted by historians today that
today third state is everything that
tells us about the self-perception of
the third state
right at the
start of the revolution itself right
how how glorious they felt how confident
they felt and how they essentially
undertook
to transform the three states into a new
national assembly
and
not vote and legislate or deliberate
as the member of a particular state but
as
a citizen of france of a uh of a nation
called france so uh the these are uh the
sources or the writings of arthur young
and uh by 1795 we all know that uh
france had come to have three different
constitutions published
right and so
uh you know
so
so
much in turmoil
was france at this point of time so in
quick succession you have three
different uh constitutions and this is
apart from the declaration of the rights
of man and citizens that was published
in 1789 which was the earliest document
of the revolutionary so these are the
sources
that these
early observers
who wrote about the revolution actually
relied on
and
overall if we see
the entire writings around french
revolution
or put them in some kind of a
perspective that is
more than 200 years of being written
about then
this
contemporary writing
around say 1789
and the subsequent couple of decades
represents the embryonic stage or you
can say pre-historiography of the
writings on french revolution
so
in terms of detailing it you can
you can
include
edmund burke's reflections of the french
revolution which was written in 1790 and
please understand that edmund burke is a
traditionalist
and uh he is not pro-change
and he is writing in 1790 and if you
read
edmund burke today
you would
not get an impression you would
feel as if he must have seen the reign
of terror he must have seen the
excesses committed by the sanskritis or
the jacobins and so forth because he had
almost anticipated it graphically
anticipated it
and edmund burke's reflections on the
french revolution uh went on to become
one of the best sellers during the
period of course we have come far ahead
of what his prepositions are today
but that is something that we can say
only with the advantage of the hindsight
but otherwise it's it's a brilliant book
to
actually study uh
and get to know
uh very very
sharp
you know observations that are made
there and some of them
in the immediate run
actually proved to be
prophetic
right so much before the
jacobins had become prominent
in the french revolution he had uh he
had almost predicted that uh very soon
uh the the revolutionary fervor is going
to uh you know degenerate into something
of this kind
right
then joseph damastra uh is yet another
uh author whose
works can be read with fair degree of
profit with fair sense of profit to
understand the flavor of the times that
the revolution was unfolding madame
destal
they constitute
the
set of early observers i would say
and they are writing at a time when the
dust had barely settled so the event
itself is unfolding all of us know that
all through the 1790s france was in
turmoil till around the coming of the
napoleon and
the way he embarked upon
empire building and so forth so
they are writing in the middle of
the unfolding of the revolution and
therefore they are quite involved they
are
they cannot be said to be very objective
and uh more importantly the traditional
sources
that a historian today has the
conventional sources like archives and
you know
correspondence papers and books about a
particular even they are they are just
not available to them say so
the
access to the orthodox historical
sources are not available to them and
therefore their accounts
end up being more passionate uh but a
little biased because they are partisan
participant observers they have their
own opinion now usually it is thought or
it is expected of a historian to be very
detached from the event in terms of time
space and
also
you know intent with which you are
writing so
you should not be colored by
your own choices in terms of
right and wrong or
you know
any favor or disfavor
uh
or you know leaning uh in terms of
ideology or support whatever so uh
that's not there in the writings of the
early observers nevertheless they ended
up giving us a very passionate account
of
the revolution in its
embryonic
stage
the second stage of writing
that we can
classify
around the french revolution uh actually
uh you know branches out into two
lines or that's what
is spoken of as the two family lines
right
one of course is the great tradition or
the classical tradition
of writing around the french revolution
when i say great tradition or classical
tradition of writing around the french
revolution please
understand that i'm classifying the
entire set of writing all across 200
years of
the french revolution
in fact the marxist writings of say
lafabr sobol and so forth are part of it
why they are part of it because
they are clubbed together as part of
great traditional classical tradition
because
you know you have one set of writers
till date who view this change
on account of the french revolution as
something positive as something
desirable as something pioneering as
something patriotic
and something good
right
something that was that should have
happened
and
though they
disagree in terms of its degree
and they
they don't give a monolithic
account of
you know the french revolution so all
these uh
writings
do not end up giving one muscular
monolithic picture of the revolution of
course they are
they are giving a different uh kind of
image of the revolution in their
writings nevertheless one thing that
binds them all together is that the
overall attitude towards
viewing the revolution is positive
as something that was pioneering as
something
that that
needed to happen right so that is
clubbed as the
great tradition or classical tradition
and
the second of course is ah
is different from this
and
this includes
the
range of writings that are either
hostile
critical uh
not approving
or even ambiguous in terms of
you know
its desirability or the desirability of
the french revolution so uh if you read
docuway
he appears to be uh you know in in terms
of the desirability it appears to be
ambiguous right uh whether it was it was
good
whether it was bad uh
or you know that
default uh understanding of the
revolution as desirable as good is
something that is missing
in a you know
you know
in a range of writings that i am talking
of and that constitutes the second
you know group of
writers around the revolution
so
tene also
is writing is
disapproving of the revolution
is very hostile to
the
the purpose with which the revolution
was undertaken the way in which it was
you know undertaken and the cost that it
incurred for humanity so all those
things
constitute or all those things actually
uh you know influence his attitude
towards
looking at the event and there is a
sense of hostility with which pain
paints
the picture of the french revolution
lastly
we have
the
writings
that we tend to
refer to in historiography as the one of
the revisionists no historian would like
to be
referred to as a revisionist
nevertheless that's how
uh it's
it comes across in
historical literature or in in
historiography rather so we have soft
revisionism and we have harder
revisionism
so
in the
late 20th century
the writings of alfred koban
and francois fiore
appear to be to be the one that can be
clubbed as revisionists of course koban
as the
soft revisionist and francois fiore as
as the hard revisionist
nevertheless their writings do
constitute a genuine alternative to the
established great tradition
within which the revolution was viewed
as something positive and desirable
so
in between
these two
polarity
of
viewpoints about or polarity of
treatment
rendered by historians
for french revolution that constitutes
the range of writings depicting changing
historiographical trends in the middle
of the two
you find
particularly in the middle decades of
20th century
this
great tradition
of history writing or as i said that
within
the
great tradition of history writing
of
revolutionary historiography
that was somewhat hijacked by a set of
leftist writers
that you can see on your screen
it includes joris mathias georges
lafabre albert sobol
for example georges lafabre
is the teacher
under whom sobol works
and sobol uh goes on to give a more
tight kind of marxist interpretation to
georges lafabre lafabe himself gave a
marxist treatment to to the french
revolution
and
the characteristic feature of this of
course
being
the marxist line of argument or marxist
historians they
uh painted the revolution as abujawa
revolution so the nature of the
revolution was
decided in favor of the bourgeoisie
right and this is how uh
the marxist scholars
lafabra talks of the great peasant
rebellion
and
sabol goes further than that and as i
said that
central to this kind of a treatment or
this monopolized marxist
assessment of french revolution was the
fact that these scholars were
holding
very important chairs in different
universities important to universities
in france and by this time history
writing about french revolution had
become
almost the monopoly of professional
historians the professors in different
universities they are the ones who are
they they are the ones who are dishing
out the
the mainstream uh
you know
history of the french revolution
and not the
journalists observers or thinkers or
people of literature or art and music
and so forth which was the case in the
first
instance of the writings that emerged
around the french revolution and we have
already spoken of it so
beyond that
uh the revisionism that i was just
talking of the marxist orthodoxy uh from
the second half of the 20th century
starts getting challenged uh and to
begin with it is the british historians
alfred koban
uh who uses the non-marxist social
interpretation
uh to give somewhat a different color
to to
the french revolution and therefore in
history writing it is clubbed under soft
revisionism why software revisionism is
because he
still latches on to social
interpretation all of us know that
marxist historians uh
you know put a lot of focus and
significance
on
the uh material aspect of
reality
the mode of production the economy and
society so despite critiquing it koban
uh still latches on all through his
interpretation to the social reality
and therefore his revisionism is
dubbed as soft revisionism whereas
if you uh see
what francois fiure has to write
he ventures into a totally unmarxist
arena of politics and political history
and therefore his writings uh come
across to us as hard revisionism
right and uh that takes care of and and
subsequently
as
if you could relate it with the first
leg of this discussion that is part one
where i spoke of the bicentennial
celebrations and so forth of the
revolution that is 1989
from there after the the interest that
the revolution has triggered or
the writings that have happened after
that appears to be a hodgepodge of
various viewpoints
and perspectives
and also interests right
and as i said that it wasn't only the
revolutionary part of it even the
counter revolutionary sensibilities are
getting a fair degree of audience and
adherence uh in terms of whatever is
being written thereafter so that's the
that's the overall
picture of the historiography that we
get to see
across more than 200 years of the
event itself that is the french
revolution
and that is what we tried to track and
get
a sense of through these two
lectures around the french revolutionary
historiography
thank you
[Music]
[Applause]
[Music]
you
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
Historiography of The French Revolution - I
Socialism in Europe and The Russian Revolution Class 9 | Class 9 History Chapter 2 | CBSE | NCERT
The French Revolution: Crash Course World History #29
WesternCiv105Ch18Lec10
The Rise of Nationalism in Europe class 10 full chapter (Animation) | Class 10 History Chapter 1
Was the Terror an inevitable outcome of the French Revolution? | Dr Robert Priest
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)