'The massacre of the Champ de Mars' - Questions in the form of a short essay.

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Anna Colgan
OU Personal Identifier Number: W0823896
An introduction to the Humanities - TMA04
Page of 3

Imagine that you are writing a study of ‘The massacre of the Champ de Mars’. In the form of a short essay (not more than 800 words) answer the following questions:

1. What kind of primary source is this, and what strengths and limitations does it have as a source for a study of the massacre of the Champ de Mars?

2. Are there any particular words and phrases in the document that require elucidation or special comment before you can make use of it?

3. What can you learn from this source about the massacre of the Champ de Mars? You should distinguish between the witting and unwitting testimony.

This extract written by Mme Marie-Jeanne Roland to a confidant is a private source that might have served to relate the latest news from Paris to someone who perhaps resided in the countryside. As a primary source, it has several strengths in that a) it recounts the events of 17 July 1791, so it is directly related to the topic of this study; b) it was written the day after the massacre, thus it could be deemed to provide a timely testimony of the previous day’s events; and c) it conveys the feelings and opinions of a politically active woman whose knowledge of, and involvement in, the Parisian politics of 1791 make her a credible source. The document, however, also contains various limitations. Firstly, it is not clear whether the source is an eyewitness account of the massacre or merely an exaggerated and emotional reaction to its aftermath. Secondly, Mme Roland was a supporter of the revolution, and this could prejudice her testimony against the authorities. Furthermore, the rather dramatic tone of her rhetoric suggests that she may have been aware that the letter could be published and used as a conduit of revolutionary propaganda. Therefore, in order to corroborate Mme Roland’s version of events, other primary sources would need to be consulted, such as eyewitness statements, newspaper accounts, and official documents and reports from the time.

This document contains several unfamiliar terms that would require clarification, such as ‘municipality’, ‘municipal officers’, and ‘functionaries, as well as ‘the altar of the fatherland’, and ‘Ecole Militaire’. Moreover, the significance of the source could be better understood by interpreting the meaning of ‘the red flag’ being raised amidst the crowd, as well as the phrase ‘the municipality had been previously informed according to the rules’.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Mme Roland’s letter is witting testimony to the fact that on 17 July 1791 a massacre took place during a gathering to sign a petition against retaining the monarchy. The source makes clear that the crowd’s behaviour was respectful of the law and peaceful in intent (“all were without arms or sticks”), and that the National Guard used unnecessary force against those gathered on the field. Indeed, the words emphasise the violence and loss of life, (“[…] the cavalry ran over people in flight, the sabre reaching for those whom the cannon ball had spared”), as well as the soldiers’ transgression of the law and the rights of the citizens (“[…] the citizens […] were not summoned; three summonses prescribed by the law were neglected”). Therefore, the overall witting testimony suggests that the massacre was an unlawful and unprovoked attack on innocent people by the violent Paris militia.

Unwittingly, the source betrays Mme Roland’s feelings for the monarchy (“tyranny sits on a blood-stained throne”) and her distrust of the Commune (“there is no longer liberty in Paris”), and confirms the involvement of women in revolutionary politics (“women carrying or leading their children comprised a large portion of this assembly […]”). Her account implies that the petition reflects the will of Parisians (“Citizens […] demanding the nomination of deputies […]”), and conveys the crowd’s fervent belief in the legitimacy of their purpose (“in the confidence of the most sacred rights and legitimate intentions”), which is further underlined by the use of the word ‘citizens’. The reported reaction of the municipal officers (“[…] they heard the petition, […] said that they would have signed it […]”), further implies that the people were united against the monarchy, and that, in signing the petition, they were embracing their democratic right to govern themselves. Yet, in describing the capture and subsequent killing of two men, the author seems reluctant to blame the ‘citizens’ for this act, branding the perpetrators as “a group of angry men”. Thus, she confirms the dividing tensions that existed among the various revolutionary factions, but also provides a possible motive for the National Guard’s alarmist reaction. Therefore, the unwitting testimony discloses that suspicion and distrust of the King, National Assembly, and Commune ran high among the Parisian populace in the summer of 1791, leading to the surfacing of radical inclinations among the masses, and portrays the National Guard as a symbol of a new and oppressive power that acted against the popular will of the people.

In conclusion, Mme Roland’s letter is a strong primary source for the massacre, as it was written on the day after it happened by a creditable person who was involved in revolutionary politics. Although its accuracy and impartiality would need to be established by studying a whole range of other sources as well, this document nonetheless provides evidence of the radical and dramatic participation of the Parisian people in revolutionary politics that culminated in the assault on the Tuileries palace of 1792 and the arrest of the Royal family (Block 3, pg. 73).

Words: 796

REFERENCES

Marwick, A., et al., (2002) Block 3: History, Classicism & Revolution (Units 8 &9), Open University

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chambers, E., and Northedge, A. (2001) The Arts Good Study Guide, Open University

Open University, (2002) Block 3: History, Classicism & Revolution, Open University

Open University, (2002) Resource Book 2, Open University

Open University, (2002) Illustration Book, Open University

TV Programmes

TV8: The British Family: Sources and Myths

TV9: The French Revolution: Impact and Sources

Audiocassettes