Historiography of The French Revolution - I

Summary

In this lecture series, Dr. Shankar Kumar explores the historiography of the French Revolution, focusing on how its narrative has evolved over two centuries. He discusses the 1889 and 1989 centenary celebrations, highlighting shifts in historical interpretation influenced by political and ideological contexts. The lecture touches on figures like Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, and the impact of Marxist thought on revolution historiography, setting the stage for a deeper dive in the next installment.

Takeaways

• 📚 Historiography is the study of how history is written, and today’s focus is on the historiography of the French Revolution.
• ⚔️ The French Revolution, which began in 1789, is considered a landmark event in history, influencing modern political ideologies and is still debated after 200 years.
• 🗓️ The lecture examines the centennial celebrations of the Revolution in 1889 and the bicentennial in 1989 to show how perspectives on the event have evolved over time.
• 🏛️ In 1989, President Mitterrand declared the French Revolution 'over,' but counter-revolutionary sentiments still persisted, showing that the debate over the Revolution’s legacy remains open.
• ⚖️ The French Revolution is tied to modern ideals of democracy, human rights, and freedom, but critics, like Margaret Thatcher, emphasized the darker aspects like the Reign of Terror.
• 🎓 During the 1889 centenary, the focus was on the marriage of republicanism and positivism, as France under the Third Republic celebrated the revolution’s contribution to political progress.
• 🧐 Historians from different ideological backgrounds—traditionalists, radicals, and Marxists—have interpreted the Revolution differently, reflecting the changing political climates.
• 📜 The early thinkers like Edmund Burke (traditionalist) and Thomas Paine (radical) presented polarized views on the Revolution, laying the foundation for ongoing historiographical debates.
• 🔨 Marxist interpretations of the French Revolution dominated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, emphasizing class struggle and the role of the bourgeoisie.
• 🧠 The evolution of French revolutionary historiography has been influenced by who holds academic chairs in history, with Marxist scholars dominating much of the 20th-century interpretation.

Q & A

What is the main theme of the lecture series?

The main theme of the lecture series is the historiography of the French Revolution, focusing on how the event has been written about and interpreted over time.

What is historiography?

Historiography is the study of the methods and practices of writing history, including the analysis of historical interpretations and the changing fashion of history writing.

Why is the French Revolution considered an iconic event?

The French Revolution is considered iconic because it is seen as a harbinger of modernity in political terms and has been written about extensively for over 200 years.

What are the two centenary celebrations discussed in the script?

The two centenary celebrations discussed are those of 1889 and 1989, marking 100 and 200 years after the French Revolution, respectively.

What was the political climate like in France during the 1989 bicentenary celebration?

In 1989, President Mithran declared the revolution as being over, and the celebration was marked by a counter-revolutionary commemoration, indicating ongoing social and political tensions.

How did the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher respond to the French Revolution bicentenary celebrations?

Margaret Thatcher countered the French claims to the paternity of human rights by reminding the world of the Reign of Terror and questioning the celebration's focus on human rights.

What is the significance of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens in the context of the French Revolution?

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens was a foundational document of the revolution, emphasizing principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and it was highlighted during the bicentenary celebrations.

What was the role of Condorcet and Hegel in the early writings about the French Revolution?

Condorcet and Hegel were among the first generation of writers who responded to the revolution, representing two polarities of opinion about the event.

How did the French Republic's political instability reflect in the historiography of the French Revolution?

The French Republic's political instability, with its shifts between dictatorship, monarchy, and republicanism, contributed to a fractured historiography of the revolution.

What was the impact of the creation of a new chair in history at the Sorbonne University on the historiography of the French Revolution?

The creation of a new chair in history at the Sorbonne University, with Alfred Rambaud elected to it, symbolized the Marxist grip over one particular version of the revolution and influenced the historiography for years to come.

What is the importance of Georges Lefebvre and Albert Sobol in the historiography of the French Revolution?

Georges Lefebvre and Albert Sobol were key figures who carried the Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution in the first half of the 20th century, significantly influencing the understanding of the event.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Introduction to Historiography of the French Revolution

The lecture series on modern European history, specifically focusing on the historiography of the French Revolution, is introduced by Professor Shankar Kumar from Hindu College, University of Delhi. He explains that historiography is the study of how history is written and interpreted over time. The French Revolution, starting in 1789, is considered an iconic event that has been written about extensively for over two centuries. The lecture aims to track the changing perceptions and significance of the event over time, particularly focusing on the centenary and bicentenary celebrations in 1889 and 1989, respectively. These celebrations provide a snapshot of how the revolution's memory and interpretation have evolved.

05:00

🏛️ Centenary and Bicentenary Celebrations: Shifting Perspectives

The lecture discusses the centenary and bicentenary celebrations of the French Revolution, highlighting how these commemorations reflect the changing interpretations of the event. In 1989, President Mithran declared the revolution 'over,' yet the bicentenary was followed by counter-revolutionary commemorations, indicating ongoing debates. The traditionalists and monarchists, who were against the revolution in 1789, continued to challenge its progressive aspects even in 1989. The lecture explores how the revolution's commemoration in Paris as the birthplace of modern democracy and human rights was challenged by figures like British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who questioned France's claim to these ideals, citing the Reign of Terror as a counterexample.

10:01

🎭 The Evolution of Revolutionary Heroes and Narratives

This section delves into how different figures from the French Revolution have been portrayed as heroes or villains over time, depending on the political climate and historiographical trends. In 1889, Danton was celebrated as a hero, but by 1989, it was Condorcet who was projected as the main character, representing a moderate revolutionary. The lecture discusses how the French government in 1989 sought to associate itself with the revolution's ideals, particularly the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens, despite the radicalism and Reign of Terror that followed the initial revolutionary period. The lecture also touches on the critique of including Russia in the 1989 celebrations, given its human rights record.

15:02

🏛️ The Influence of Political Regimes on Historical Interpretation

The lecture examines how the political regimes of the time influenced the interpretation of the French Revolution. It discusses the establishment of the Third Republic in France and how its creation was linked to a particular, positivist interpretation of the revolution. The celebration of the revolution in 1889 was fervent and symbolized the marriage between republicanism and positivism. The lecture also mentions the creation of a new chair in history at the Sorbonne University, which was a move to solidify the Marxist interpretation of the revolution. This interpretation, which focused on the role of the peasantry and the bourgeois revolution, was dominant until the mid-20th century when it began to be critiqued.

20:02

📚 Marxist Interpretation and its Critics in Historiography

This part of the lecture focuses on the influence of Marxist scholars like Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul, who carried the torch of Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution in the first half of the 20th century. The lecture sets the stage for the next part of the discussion, where Professor Kumar promises to elaborate on the broader historiographical understanding of the revolution. He uses the centenary and bicentenary celebrations as a lens to explore the changing trends in historical writing and the factors that influence these interpretations.

Keywords

💡Historiography

Historiography refers to the study of the methods and practices of historians in relation to the writing of history. It encompasses the analysis of historical interpretations and the changing ways in which history is written over time. In the video, the lecturer discusses how historiography of the French Revolution has evolved, reflecting different ideological circumstances and justifications by existing political regimes, as seen in the centenary celebrations of 1889 and 1989.

💡French Revolution

The French Revolution was a period of radical social and political change in France that lasted from 1789 until the late 1790s. It marked the decline of powerful monarchies and the rise of democracy and nationalism. In the script, the French Revolution is the central theme, with the lecturer exploring its historiography and the different ways it has been commemorated and interpreted over the past two centuries.

💡Modernity

Modernity, in the context of the video, refers to the period beginning in the mid-19th century, characterized by industrialization, modern science, and a break from traditional ways of life. The French Revolution is described as a harbinger of modernity, particularly in the political sense, as it introduced new principles of democracy and human rights that have come to define modern societies.

💡Bicentenary

Bicentenary refers to the 200th anniversary of an event. In the script, the lecturer uses the bicentenary commemoration of the French Revolution in 1989 as a starting point to discuss how the event has been remembered and reinterpreted over time. The celebration in Paris and the political statements made during this time are highlighted as significant for understanding the historiography of the revolution.

💡Counter-revolutionary

Counter-revolutionary refers to actions or movements that aim to reverse the effects of a revolution. The script mentions a counter-revolutionary commemoration following the bicentenary of the French Revolution, illustrating the ongoing debate and conflicting interpretations of the event. It shows that despite the official declaration of the revolution being 'over,' the social sensibilities and political debates continue.

💡Ideological Circumstances

Ideological circumstances refer to the set of beliefs and values that influence the way events are interpreted and commemorated. The lecturer discusses how the ideological circumstances of different periods have shaped the historiography of the French Revolution, with different political regimes seeking to justify their rule by promoting particular narratives of the revolution.

💡Reign of Terror

The Reign of Terror was a period during the French Revolution when the radical Jacobins came to power and implemented a policy of public executions and repression. The script contrasts the ideals of the French Revolution with the realities of the Reign of Terror, where the principles of liberty and equality were overshadowed by a totalitarian regime that executed its own citizens.

💡Positivism

Positivism is a philosophy that asserts that genuine knowledge can come only from logical analysis and empirical observation. In the script, the lecturer discusses how the discipline of history, influenced by positivism, sought to present itself as a scientific inquiry. This is exemplified by the creation of a chair in the history of the French Revolution at the Sorbonne University, symbolizing the Marxist interpretation of the event.

💡Marxism

Marxism is a social, political, and economic theory derived from the works of Karl Marx, advocating for the establishment of a classless society. The script mentions how Marxism influenced the historiography of the French Revolution, particularly in the interpretations of Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul, who emphasized the role of the peasantry and provided a class-based analysis of the revolution.

💡Third Republic

The Third Republic refers to the republican government of France from 1870 to 1940. In the context of the video, the lecturer discusses how the Third Republic's creation and its centenary celebrations in 1889 were used to justify its political ideology by promoting a particular version of the French Revolution that aligned with its republican and positivist values.

Highlights

Lecture series on modern European history, focusing on the historiography of the French Revolution.

Historiography is about the changing fashion of history writing, distinct from history itself.

The French Revolution is an iconic event, considered a harbinger of modernity in political terms.

The lecture discusses the bicentenary commemoration of the revolution in 1989.

Transcripts

[Music]

good afternoon viewers

welcome to this series of lectures on

european history modern european history

rather i'm shankar kumar i teach history

at hindu college here in university of

delhi

and

the theme that we would be taking up for

discussion today happens to be the

historiography of the french revolution

this is

divided into two parts and presently we

are discussing the first part of it

as you all

know

or probably i'll have to

explain little bit

historiography is little different from

history proper historiography

essentially is about the changing

fashion of history writing about

something and here the theme in question

is of course the french revolution of

course we know

that it happened in 1789 it began in

1789 in france

and we are more than 200 years

separated from the event now

and this happens to be an iconic event

ever since it unfolded so there have

been several writers who have written

about this event the criticality of this

event this is also written

in history as the harbinger of modernity

in political sense of the term

and

therefore it has a rich history of being

written about for more than 200 years

and that's what we'll be tracking today

you'd understand

as a student of history that the

significance of an event is not embedded

in the event itself the more we

go away from the event in terms of time

space we realize

in fact the unfolding of events

subsequent to the french revolution

made it all the more iconic or there

would be some critics who would say that

you know it it it is

it is nothing of that sort and we will

discover today

how it played out over its history of

more than more than 200 years of being

written about and that's why i want to

begin with bicentenary commemoration of

the revolution in 1989 as the entry

point to discuss this out so this part

would be the first part of the our

discussion would essentially be about uh

the two

uh centenary celebrations that is 1889

and 1989 and how

we will discover by

taking the snapshot of these two

points that is hundred years of the

revolution and 200 years of the

revolution and how

it was a changed uh situation over here

and that itself is a pointer to the fact

that uh the history writing about uh

french revolution has undergone a lot of

change what are the factors behind it

what kind of ideological uh you know

circumstances were there what kind of

justification the existing regime the

existing political regime at that point

of time that is 1889 in 1989 we're

trying to uh derive from from

commemoration of this event

and of course there are shared memories

and

new perspectives in the discipline of

history

that historians use to to analyze it in

a different way so all these things

converge

all through

you know more than 200 years of this

event and they have given a different

flavor

of historiography around the french

revolution that's what we are going to

track today so

in

17

sorry in

1989 that is by centenary celebration of

the event in paris uh

president mithran had

actually declared the revolution as

being over

so

uh the as you can see on your slide the

revolution having been declared over in

france but the revolutionary

commemoration was followed by a

counter-revolutionary commemoration so

the radical aspect of change the

progressive aspect of change of the

revolution was not the entire picture of

the revolution and as you would say that

the

counter-revolutionary or the

you'd say

the traditionalists the monarchists

those who were anti-change at that point

of time in 1789

that

that adherence

to their spirit of you know

participating in the revolution or

countering it

continues till date

and as

late as

1989 you find that

the

bicentenary commemoration is immediately

followed by a counter-revolutionary

commemoration so it's not closed it's

it's it's uh one thing to declare it

over declare and declare it as being

over by the political regime but

the social sensibilities were still live

and there is no closure to to this and

therefore the present state of history

writing around the revolution uh happens

to be a hodgepodge of uh quite a few

perspectives and sensibilities and

ideologies and we will discover that

so paris uh at this instance in

1989

which is 200 years after the revolution

was celebrated as the birthplace of

modern principles of democracy and human

rights and human aspirations to freedom

and dignity this is the official claim

that

the

french

president wanted to lay claim to uh

through the bicentennial celebrations of

course the traditional

the traditional

you can say

enemy of

of france that is england

would not take it lightly and we will

see that

these claims are being punctured these

claims are being pricked by the prime

minister of england at that point of

time margaret thatcher

so what

the french regime does

in 1989 is

it it time and again

cites the exalted ideals in the

declaration of the rights of man and

citizens which was the first document uh

that the revolutionaries produced

those who were those who had begun the

revolution they had produced as part of

the third state

getting transformed into the national

assembly and this was a very modern

document

although

the revolution was not only about it

we will see that or we already know that

beyond this

the the radicalism

which which hardly adhered to the

principles of or the burjwa principles

contained in the declaration of the

rights of man

that was uh that was something that uh

immediately followed uh

you know 1789 so it is uh followed by

the the

the ill ill-fated uh reign of terror

which is which is more

about dictatorship which is more about

totalitarian kind of regime which which

killed the citizens in the name of not

being patriotic enough the entire

battery of french revolutionary

leadership is exterminated glittened

on some flimsy ground or the other

and france was at war with the

neighboring states austria in particular

and

that was a pretext uh good enough for

uh the radical revolutionaries the

jacobins uh sanskolotis and so forth to

uh to um you know pick up any leader or

person who who was

not loyal enough and loyal within courts

so

those

about principles of freedom equality

and so forth fraternity and so forth

were just thrown out of the window for

those two years of the reign of terror

yet

uh in the bicentennial celebrations it

is the

ideals of the declaration of this rights

of men and citizens that

that assumes uh significance and

prominence

so there is a deliberate projection of

this phase of the revolution and that is

what happens

with every event

that is sought to be celebrated uh by

the subsequent regimes because they have

to derive legitimacy for their own uh

you know rule and their own

circumstances at that point of time so

the traditional protagonists and proxies

of the revolution

who who were participants in the great

debate over the revolutions character

and purpose like say danton and robert

speare were to be set aside in 1989

rather

it was kandorse who was projected as the

hero in 1989 we will see that when it

came to

1889 uh it was it was danton who was the

hero but in 1989 it is kandorse who is

supposed to be the the main character

who is projected as the main character

how he is projected he's projected as a

seventh his projector is a philosopher

reformer

as a moderate revolutionary who was the

victim of the revolution that he failed

to protect and control so it is this

milder version of the

radicalism of the revolution that is

sought to be grafted

on public memory through this by

centenary celebration of course

it must be serving the uh the then

nature and image of the government in

france uh in uh 1989. margaret thatcher

as i told you the british prime minister

at that point of time of course

countered it uh

she countered the claim the french claim

to the paternity of the rights of man

she reminded the world of the reign of

terror that

the celebration was just not

talking about right but that also is

very much part of the uh collective

memory of the revolution so she is time

and again equating 1789 this 1793 which

is the middle of the reign of terror and

and says that uh

what do we what do we understand of this

revolution what is it that it has break

with to humanity is it human rights

because

reign of terror was was all about

violation of the human rights and please

remember in the bicentennial celebration

it is the uh russia russia had or usar

had uh participated in the parade that

was uh organized

and

obviously the recent participation in

1989 celebration was critiqued in terms

of human rights issue and a question was

posed if it was any longer possible to

see the 1917 uh revolution in russia as

the authentic future of 1789. so

difficult questions uh with relation to

the exalted claims uh in

1989 is is posed

to to the uh people who are actually

pushing or organizing the celebrations

uh so

what do we find is that while the

tensions and contradictions of the

commemoration

had uh their own cultural and political

dynamic

they were no less nourished by the

tension and contradictions of the

historical interpretation it therefore

that is 1989 by central news celebration

it therefore reopened a very passionate

historiographical debate over the

revolution and this is something that

continues till date and uh

edmund burke thomas spain edmund burke

versus thomas paine that characterized

the initial part of the writings around

the french revolution edmund burke

representing the

uh the traditional

uh uh you know

point of view and thomas spain uh the

the radical point of view and they were

almost the participant of the observers

so they are writing at the time when the

revolution is unfolding and at that

point of time only

these these observers are are writing

about it uh similarly bernawi and

damastra so

they also represented

two polarity of opinions condorcet and

hegel so they are some of the

early writers almost the first

generation writers who were who had seen

the

event unfold who had seen the revolution

unfold by their own eyes

and

they are they constitute the first batch

of

writers or thinkers

who had responded to the need to accord

some kind of historical identity and

significance of a phenomenon

that has seemed from its very beginning

to demand

and yet defy historical comprehension so

you have a very very uh

polar opposite uh you know reactions to

to the event right from the beginning of

the event right right uh in the 1790s

people are writing about it in a

different way some are for example the

romanticists like william wordsworth uh

beethoven and so forth they are very

they they are welcoming

the the start of the revolution

with open arms

and and almost celebrating it as a you

know beginning of liberty and uh you

know realization of humanity and so

forth and very soon when uh the

when the reign of terror sets in or when

napoleon assumes dictatorial tendencies

they they get disenchanted with it and

that's that's something that represents

the first batch of writers and thinkers

who

shared their opinion uh about the

revolution so

even if we track the 19th century

history of france we find that thrice it

had to declare itself a republic

repeatedly

the french republic was relapsing into

dictatorship and monarchy back to

dictatorship back to monarchy back to

republicanism and so forth it is only

around 1870s that the third republic was

formed and

you know

it gave for example the the first five

years of the revolution itself gave

france three different constitutions

apart from the bill of rights and uh

citizens so

this is this is a very fractured kind of

opinion that we get to see now in 1889

which was the centenary celebration of

of uh

the french revolution in france that had

inaugurated we just spoke of 1989 so i'm

you know going back 100 years and when

we see 1889 uh as another

stopover to to understand the flavor of

historiography around the revolution we

find that it inaugurated a new age in

revolutionary historiography dedicated

to the marriage between republicanism

and positivism that underlay the very

creation of the third republic as i said

that it is the existing political

regime that seeks justification through

a particular version of the revolution

which somehow in the public memory

looms very large so everyone tries to

leverage that memory and

you know tweak that memory in a

particular way that ends up uh

justifying the regime that they are

serving so uh

this particular

1889 fervor with which the revolution

was celebrated or centenary celebrations

were carried out that symbolized in uh

that is symbolized in the creation of a

new chair in history remember by this

time history had become a discipline uh

empiricism and positivism did under

underpin historical writing as a

discipline

which was a borrow from natural sciences

and every uh every realm of social probe

or

you know subjects that dealt with human

domain or politics or society they

wanted to appear as scientific as

possible they wanted to ape almost the

methodological rigor of sciences if not

possible at least appear to be such and

history is no exception to that and

marxism is a byproduct of that right

marxism also takes a lot of pride in

proclaiming itself as the science or a

scientific inquiry

of past and so forth so that is very

much uh very much evident and we find

that

a new chair in history of the french

revolution at the sabone university

of which alfonso lard was elected

on that chair in 1899 that symbolized

the the marxist grip

over

over one particular version of the event

and that's why over the last 30 years

and even beyond we find that a series of

writers some his students

as we would discover lafabe sybol and so

forth

they represent a succession of marxist

scholars who have

you know who have given it the color of

abuja revolution or have talked about

the role of peasantry and so forth so

they they gave a particular

interpretation

interpretation uh to the revolution and

uh that survived uh well uh till around

the middle of uh or

i would say till around the first three

quarters of the 20th century it is only

subsequently that we

we find some kind of a robust critique

of

the marxist interpretation also so we

find that it is the creation of the

universities and chairs and who holds

that chair

uh would uh in ultimate analysis would

be the one who would uh exercise some

kind of a

monopoly over the mainstream version of

the revolution and that's that's what

happened to a french revolution and in

any case uh the first

quarter or the last quarter of the 19th

century in the first quarter of the 20th

century the world over

is is

is

representative

is is representative of uh

marxist grip in terms of analysis and

that's

that's what is is very much visible in

the interpretation and historiography of

the french revolution also we will talk

about uh

georges lafabre and

albert sobol who carried the

flag of marxist interpretation of the

french revolution in the first 50 years

of

the 20th century in the next series of

discussion or in the next

part of the discussion that i am having

with you so wait for the part 2 where we

would elaborate on this so i will begin

from this point and take it further to

give a

broader

uh you know outline of the the uh

historiographical uh understanding of

the revolution

so uh this uh particular uh segment of

the lecture was about the two centenary

celebrations the centenary celebration

by centennial celebrations of uh the

french revolution that is uh 17 1889 and

1989 and we used these two slices of

time

and circumstances to get a flavor

of the changing fashion of history

writing and other tangents that were

contingent at the as these two points

of time in uh

in the memory of the revolution

thank you

[Music]

you