The French Revolution generally refers to a period of social unrest and political reorganizations that occurred between the years 1787 and 1795. The activities leading up to this period have been widely discussed and studied, with a variety of theories and examinations claiming differing factions as playing a large part in the turmoil. One of the most popular theories includes the idea that the fall of the monarchy was simply a result of the fall of the social class with which it was most closely associated, that of the feudal nobles. According to this view, the nobility, led by the parliaments, challenged the monarchy as it had done several times in the past. This time, though, the rising urban class of shopkeepers and artisans, known as the bourgeoisie, continued the struggle, focusing it against the noble landowning class that had traditionally been the support of the monarchy. With the bourgeoisie’s success, the noble class was pulled down, the King along with it as its figurehead, and replaced by the First Republic. This, however, is not the view of modern historians such as E. J. Hobsbawm and George Rude feel the populace and small traders had at least an equal part in the disruption. Studies have indicated that the percentage of urban capitalist shopkeepers and artisans made up perhaps half of the revolutionary forces. “Cobb … found that the rank and file of the Parisian armies revolutionnaires was 35 percent artisan and 25 percent shopkeeper and smaller merchants” (Lewis 1998). Hobsbawm (1969) claims perhaps as many as one European out of every five was a Frenchman, and the majority of these Frenchmen were rural farmers or small shop workers.
Other reports indicate the monarchy enjoyed wide public approval (outside of the close court political circles) less than five years before the King was made powerless (Bosher, 1988).
French society at the time of the revolution was very similar to most of the other countries of Europe of the period in that it had an absolute monarchy that followed much the same pattern of rule that had been established by Louis XIV in the early 1700s. As a part of this system, there was an aristocratic class that held most of the status and wealth of the nation in a feudal-type system, and a merchant class called the bourgeoisie that, at times, held enough wealth to rival the nobles but had none of the political clouts.
There was “a vast peasantry accounting for one in seven or one in eight of the population, most of whom were legally free but bound to their seigneur … by a myriad of services and obligations surviving from the medieval past. … And, in cities, … a great urban population of innumerable crafts and occupations, for the most part, poor and depending for survival on cheap and plentiful bread” (Rude 1995). What made France different from these other countries that shared so many attributes was the fact that the French bureaucracy had been allowed to gain enough wealth to make them independent of the crown that had given them such success.
“All these social groups and classes were potentially revolutionary or committed to some form or other of political and social change. … The bourgeoisie wanted a higher social status and a share in government commensurate with their wealth” (Rude 1995) while the aristocracy was continuing its centuries-long struggle to regain political power that had been taken from them by King Louie XIV.
It was the counter-revolution that propelled the working people into open revolt. Although obligatory, the King’s resistance to change had many individuals inciting negative reactions and stirring up the oppressed sentiment of the people. Tensions were high in Paris in July of 1789 as the King continued to block initiatives proposed by the Estates-General, rumors began circulating that the assembly was about to be disbanded, and news spread that Jacques Necker, the popular finance minister, had been dismissed even as bread prices continued to skyrocket. (Lewis 1998). As crowds gathered outside the Bastille to protest the rising cost of bread and troops sent to disband them instead chose to join them, the crowd of protestors seized the Bastille, “a state prison symbolizing royal authority, where the revolutionaries expected to find arms. In times of revolution, nothing is more powerful than the fall of symbols. … What is more to the point, the fall of the Bastille spread the revolution to the provincial towns and the countryside” (Hobsbawm 1969). A miscommunication in the surrender of the fortress resulted in shots being fired, setting off a battle within the fortress’ outer walls that ended with the commander’s beheading.
Although the fall of the Bastille was a momentous event in the history of France, many people throughout the country at the time were unsure of exactly what had happened until the radical press of the day began telling its version of the story – loudly and often – as a successful blow to despotism. As the rumors spread regarding the fall of the Bastille, people in twenty-eight of the largest thirty cities in France were reported to have staged uprisings, and hundreds of thousands of peasants in the rural areas attacked lords’ manors and destroyed other symbols of the seigneurialism system throughout the summer of 1789. This gave rise to a widespread wave of mass panic, known now as the “Great Fear,” in which the people pulled down the old system of French feudalism “and the state machine of royal France lay in fragments” (Hobsbawm 1969) as the bourgeoisie drafted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen and limited the King’s power. The King was forced to sign the document arguably as a result of the power of popular protest as groups of market women from Paris, along with National Guard soldiers, occupied the King’s palace in Versailles, forcing him to return to Paris.
Shortly after his return, he signed the declarative document giving the impression that popular protest again carried the Revolution movement forward.
Throughout the French Revolution, then, one can see that it was the involvement of the popular classes and their continuous protest movements that propelled the revolution movement through the dissolution of the monarchy and beyond. Without the involvement of the peasant classes, the revolution would not have brought any significant changes for the lower classes, just as previous rebellions among the nobles had not led to significant changes in the past. With the widespread news of the events in Paris spread through various avenues, the peasants of the outlying districts and countrysides also revolted, adding further impetus to a rapidly deteriorating system and forcing change at the legislative level. Further popular involvement led to the King’s capitulation on limiting his own powers, and additional critical press further drove the people into more acts of aggression against a still broken system, finally leading to the emplacement of a popular government in place of the defunct kingdom.
However, this popular government quickly lost its popular support, resulting in a similar defeat and opening the way for the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Works Cited
Bosher, J.F. “The French Revolution.” New York: W.W. Norton and Company. (1988).
Hobsbawn, E.J. “The Age of Revolution.” New York: Praeger. (1969).
Lewis, G. “The ‘People’ and the French Revolution.” University of Warwick. (1998). Web.
Rude, G. “Ideology and Popular Protest.” Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. (1995).