“The French Revolution was simply a product of Enlightenment thought.” How accurate is this statement as a general comment on origin of the political ideas of the French Revolution?

Referring back to the significance of Enlightment thought as a causes of the French Revolution, it must be reiterated that the likes of Michelet did not let the fashionable 19th century trend towards economic history as an explanation overtake them. Even the growing popularity of Marxist history did not fit correctly with the matching of the petty bourgeoisie and the masses. Perhaps, considering this inability of 19th Century trends to fit with 18th century events, then it is not surprising that, even one hundred years after the Revolution, historians still saw the work of the Enlightenment as of paramount importance.

Perhaps, then, with the common theme of using Enlightenment thought as a major cause for the upheaval of the French Revolution, it would be useful to review exactly what we know were the consequences of the Enlightenment. It can be said, with some degree of certainty, that the Enlightenment was a reaction to the age of religious salvation and centuries of universal sin. Enlightenment thinkers enthused about the importance of mankind and professed that he was the master of his own destiny. Instead of living in constant fear of divine retribution people had the right and the ability to live their lives as they believed was correct. Instead of using personal fears and religious consequences to justify everyday life the Enlightenment's most prominent theme was the substitution of personal forces for impersonal, abstract and logical generalisations. Alfred Cobban, a 20th century writer, describes the effects of this trend upon western society in his book, "Aspects Of The French Revolution" .

"If we look for rational, physical causes of misfortune instead of attributing them to witchcraft, if accept the impersonal wage system in place of personal slavery, if we reject the torture of individuals as a means of eliciting the truth and use instead use the impersonal rules of law, if we do not regard personal salvation as so important that we are not prepared to burn people in order to achieve it for them as well as ourselves, if we do not believe that the stars are concerned with our individual fortunes, and so on, we are tacitly acknowledging the influence of the Enlightenment over our assumptions and actions..."6

Under this reasoning it is clear that the French Revolution and modern society is indebted to the effects of the Enlightenment. After the proclamation of the sovereignty of the National Assembly in 1789, the assertion of the supremacy of law over all other interests was accomplished.7 In this respect the ideas of the Enlightenment clearly shone through.

Cobban of course is part of the next generation writing in the 20th Century but despite Cobban's explanation of the Enlightenment and his provision of plausible ties to the French Revolution, he refuses to expressly acknowledge the influence of one of the most closely linked writers of the Enlightenment, Jean Jacques Rousseau.

"Rousseau's Contract Social had no ascertainable influence before the revolution and only a very debatable one during its course. True, there is the oft-repeated story of Marat reading it to enthralled crowds at street corners, but anyone who could believe this could believe anything."8

Cobban does not offer any explanation for his hostility towards Rouseau but there may be something of significance in his choice of John Locke as the biggest influence. That Locke's ideas played at least some part in the formation of revolutionary thought in France can hardly be question but Cobban's preference of his ideas over the more commonly acknowledged Rousseau may again be illustrative of the historians ability to remain completely objective. It is easy to put Cobban's choice down to the fact that like himself Locke was a Briton not a Frenchman. Perhaps this is a little simplistic but Cobban does not offer up any other reason for the rejection of Rousseau's ideas. Either way for the purposes of this essay both Locke and Rousseau are Enlightenment thinkers, which is obviously an acknowledgement of the Enlightenments role in the French Revolution.

Cobban though makes an extremely valid point when he states that the French Revolution was first and foremost a political revolution, in a country that had little in the way of political participation previously, which must cast doubt upon its relationship with the Enlightenment.9 Cobban then asks if the inspiration for the Revolution did not come from the Enlightenment then where did it come from? It should prove profitable to examine that briefly here.

In his investigation Cobban highlights the beginning of the Revolution as the revolte nobiliaire in 1787. Cobban believes that the precedent for this revolt can be found not in the ideas of the 17th Century but in a long history of tension between monarch and noble epitomised by the experiences of England in the 1600s. Cobban then states that the peasant revolt of 1789 was made possible by "a third revolutionary force", that of the tiers etat. The tiers etat, Cobban claims, were the source of all political idea in the French revolution. Their idea of an absolute sovereignty was filtered through to the masses by this revolutionary force. Cobban then attempts to show that there is very little of this notion in any of the philosophes. In Rousseau only, does he apparently even detect a hint of this, only to eventually call it a "...common misunderstanding of his thought."10

Cobban believes that the revolution was only possible when the Enlightenment concept of the interests of the people was fused with the idea of absolute sovereignty. He believes that the French did not get the notion of absolute sovereignty from the Enlightenment but, rather ironically, from their countries experiences under an absolute monarchy. Cobban's most convincing argument comes when he states that Locke and company believed that the state existed for the sake of the people but the theme of political ideology in the French Revolution was that the individual existed for the sake of the nation. That this, of course, wasn't the belief of the masses is almost as certain as it is that it was the belief of the illuminares. Whether this was the belief of the masses also is almost irrelevant, as Cobban says "...the Revolution ended the age of individualism and opened that of nationalism."11 As an extension of this it is certainly possible to see the two centuries previous to the French Revolution as an age of individualism and just as possible, in retrospect, to view the last two hundred years as an age of nationalism.

That this time period can in fact be categorised like this is of course convenient, however, in hindsight, there is more than an element of truth to it. In fairness though it would be rather unfair to judge earlier historians like Barruel and Michelet to harshly considering they did not have the benefit of two centuries of revisionist scholarship to rely upon. Barruel especially was clearly writing to close to the actual event to gain any accurate perspective or grasp on the event. Clearly the period of time that has passed since the Revolution has enable historians to remove themselves personally from the events to gain a more objective viewpoint. For the likes of Barruel this was not possible. In the interest of this objectivity though, the fact that Cobben's explanation appears most convincing is perhaps not a coincidence considering he is a more recent historian. There were people who firmly believed in the explanations of Barruel and Michelet and now it seems perhaps a little to convenient that the likes of Cobban seem more persuasive.

As it was stated at the beginning of this essay, history is written under the influence of current events and bias, so who is to say that to deem the French Revolution the beginning of the age of nationalism is not simply a vain attempt to justify events of our own time. After all is one of the main motivations for the study history not the search for explanations to present situations?

Whatever the case maybe it is clear that to give the credit for the ideas of the French Revolution to the Enlightenment only would be incorrect. Whether Cobban's suggestion of the part absolute monarchy is enough or not remains to be seen. Clearly though even the Enlightenment did not happen by itself. The years preceding it and the trends of that age inspired the thoughts and reflections of those thinkers, this in itself means that it would be naive to rely to heavily on the Enlightenment as the single explanation for the ideas behind the French Revolution.

Bibliography:

Alfred Cobban "Aspects of the French Revolution" Paladin, London. 1968.

Michelet, "Histoire de la revolution Fraincais". Paris, 1877.

A.de Barruel, "Memoires pour server a l'historie du jacobinisme" Hamburg, 1803.

Isser Woloch "The New Regime" New York, 1994

William Doyle "The Ancien Regime" London, 1986.

Norman Daves "Europe: A History" London 1998.

Michael Mckenzie

Student Id:99405076

Hi

Mike Broers

"The French Revolution was simply a product of Enlightenment thought." How accurate is this statement as a general comment on origin of the political ideas behind the French Revolution?

"I understand the department rules on plagiarism (including sources form the Internet) and have abided by them in the preparation of this work."

Michael Mckenzie

A.de Barruel, "Memoires pour server a l'historie du jacobinisme" ( Hamburg, 1803).

2 Alfred Cobban "Aspects of the French Revolution" Paladin, London. 1968.

3 Michelet, "Histoire de la revolution Fraincais. Paris, 1877. Page 59-60.

4 Ibid. p xliv. Preface of 1847.

5 Alfred Cobban "Aspects of the French Revolution" Paladin, London. 1968.

6 Alfred Cobban "Aspects of the French Revolution" Paladin, London. 1968. Page 21.

7 See Isser Woloch "The New Regime" New York, 1994. Page 427.

8 Alfred Cobban "Aspects of the French Revolution" Paladin, London. 1968. Page 24.

9 Alfred Cobban "Aspects of the French Revolution" Paladin, London. 1968. Page 22.

0 Alfred Cobban "Aspects of the French Revolution" Paladin, London. 1968. Page 24.

1 Alfred Cobban "Aspects of the French Revolution" Paladin, London. 1968. Page 25.