Historiography of The French Revolution - II

Summary

This 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

00:00

📜 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.

05:01

📚 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.

10:02

🏛️ 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.

15:02

🔄 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.

20:03

🌐 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.

Keywords

💡Historiography

Historiography refers to the study of the methods and practices of historians in relation to the writing of history. In the context of the video, it is used to discuss how the French Revolution has been viewed and written about since 1789. The script explores the changing fashion of history writing and how different political regimes have emphasized different aspects of the revolution.

💡French Revolution

The French Revolution was a period of radical social and political change in France that lasted from 1789 until 1799. The video discusses the historiography of this event, examining how it has been interpreted and represented over the past two centuries, with a focus on how different writers and historians have portrayed its significance and impact.

💡Enlightenment

The Enlightenment was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 18th century. The script mentions the writings of Enlightenment philosophers as a fundamental cause of the French Revolution, suggesting that their ideas about liberty, individualism, and democracy inspired the revolutionaries.

💡Pamphlets

Pamphlets are small, often inexpensive, publications that were widely circulated during the Enlightenment and the period of the French Revolution. The script notes a surge in pamphlet publication around the time of the revolution, which served as a source of revolutionary ideas and were written in large numbers.

💡Reign of Terror

The Reign of Terror refers to a period during the French Revolution when the government carried out mass executions. The script mentions Edmund Burke's anticipation of such excesses in his writings about the revolution, which later became a reality during this period.

💡Edmund Burke

Edmund Burke was an Irish statesman and philosopher who wrote 'Reflections on the Revolution in France' in 1790. The video highlights Burke as a traditionalist who was critical of the revolution and whose writings were influential, despite his predictions of the revolution's negative outcomes.

💡Marxism

Marxism is a social, political, and economic theory derived from the works of Karl Marx. The script discusses how Marxist historians, such as Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul, interpreted the French Revolution as a bourgeois revolution, emphasizing its class struggle aspects and the role of the bourgeoisie.

💡Revisionism

Revisionism in historiography refers to the reinterpretation of past events with new perspectives or evidence. The video mentions 'soft revisionism' and 'hard revisionism' as terms used to describe the work of historians like Alfred Cobban and Francois Furet, who challenged the Marxist orthodoxy and offered alternative views on the French Revolution.

💡Bicentenary

The bicentenary refers to the 200th anniversary of an event. The script discusses the bicentenary celebrations of the French Revolution in 1989, noting how different heroes and aspects of the revolution were emphasized by the political regime at the time, and how these celebrations reflect the changing interpretations of the revolution.

💡Classical Tradition

In the context of the video, the classical tradition refers to the long-standing and conventional way of writing about the French Revolution, which generally views the event in a positive light as pioneering and necessary. This tradition includes a range of writers who, despite their differences, share an overall positive attitude towards the revolution.

💡Counter-revolutionary

Counter-revolutionary refers to ideas or actions that oppose a revolution. The script notes that after the bicentenary celebrations, there was a diversification of viewpoints in the historiography of the French Revolution, including a growing interest in counter-revolutionary sensibilities and perspectives.

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