Through examining the historians Georges Lefebvre and Alfred Cobban, what are the underlying factors that shape and affect the historian's writing of the French Revolution

Lefebvre belonged to the Marxist School of history of which its philosophy places emphasis on class struggle and historical materialism (the production for material needs as the core to human behaviour) as central to historical progression and historical materialism. However, in addition to that, Lefebvre deemed that human psychology, or more specifically the psychological condition of an entire class, was an instrument of historical progression: “Marx clarified the dominant influence of the mode of production, but it was never his intention to exclude other factors, especially man…It is man who makes history.” In his article, “Foules Revolutionnaires,” published in 1934, he urged historians to study the collective mentality, or the mindsets and paradigms defined within each class; class mentality. His interest in the social-pyschological, (the social or collective mentality) element of history is evident in his examination of class struggle. He argued that the abolition of feudalism was brought about by the discontent of peasantry against the remnants of feudalism which took the form of fiefs, attached with countless dues and fees owed to the manorial lords and seigneurs of the aristocratic class.  Lefebvre’s interest in class mentality also influenced his approach and interpretation of primary documents, of which he perceived to be indispensable to historical scholarship, “No document, no history”. Through analyzing the petitions from the provincial archives composed by the peasantry, he concluded that “The peasant proprietor…thought himself the only legitimate owner of his land, and considered the payments due to the lord, unless there was proof to the contrary, to have originated in nothing but violence.” It is evident that in the selection of petitions, a document pertaining to collective grievances, as evidence to demonstrate the discontent of the peasant class is consistent with the Marxist approach to history as an examination of class struggle originating through grievances that relate to material needs. Lefebvre’s conclusion that the peasants were disillusioned by the dues and fees is thus an exemplification of historical materialism inherent within Marxist historiography. Furthermore, it is also evidence to Lefebvre’s interest in class mentality or the way in which the peasants thought, through his supposition that they ‘thought himself the only legitimate owner of his land’. Therefore, consistent with the Marxist notion of class struggle and the progress of history from feudalism to capitalism and finally to proletariat dictatorship, Lefebvre conceded that the abolition of feudalism which occurred through class discontent arising from materialist issues, was a process of natural transition from the old order of a feudal society to the growth of capitalism, launched by the bourgeois.    

Methodologically, one of Lefebvre’s distinctive contributions to the historiography of the revolution was his statistical approach to social and economic history. He maintained that the statistical method was the only way of arriving at a reliable conclusion; “Il faut compter” was a familiar theme in his discussions of methodology.  For example, in establishing the incomes of merchants, Lefebvre relied on statistics that outline export and import: “in 1789 exports reached 438000000, imports 637000000 of which 250 represented goods from the colonies.” Therefore, through his perception of the heightened value of statistical data, the consideration in determining social class was wealth and income, as consistent with the historical materialism aspect of Marxist history. Therefore, through his particular awareness of class division and the importance he places on materialism, the class distribution in a particular community was to be reconstructed from fiscal records concerning income and property. Lefebvre established the various levels of the bourgeois class through a measure of their income and their means of acquiring it. For example, financiers held the topmost place, as they were the wealthiest and “contractors who supplied the army and navy with all kinds of transport and provisions” and further down were the merchants “whose chief source of wealth continued to be sea-borne commerce.” Through his meticulous research and his application of statistical data, it was consequently one of his chief claims to prominent place in the historiography of the revolution that he analysed its course in the light of the complexities of class division and in particular the division within each class. However, the underlying factors beneath Lefebvre’s writing of the French Revolution involves the Marxist prone concept of historical materialism and class division which he is subjected to and imposes upon in his empirical research. This is seen in his use of statistical data to show the incomes and means of production in establishing class division as characteristic of Marxist history.

Lefebvre’s contribution to the historiography of French Revolution was undoubtedly one that largely exemplified a Marxist interpretation of the events and its consequences. It became the Orthodox interpretation of the Revolution until the period of the late 1940s and 50s which was marked by the ideological polarization between capitalism and communism of the Cold War era. This initiated a new interpretation of the revolution through Alfred Cobban, “the father of revisionism”, who challenged the dominance of the Marxist perspective from a British conservative stance.  

Alfred Cobban belonged to the school of historical revisionism and was an early authority on the revisionist interpretation of the Revolution. His legacy in the historiography of the revolution is his challenge to the Orthodox or Marxist perspective of the Revolution which Lefebvre represented, which had consequently earned him the title of “father of revisionism”. This challenge was launched against the background of the period of 1950s- 60s which was marked by the momentous events of the Chinese Revolution, the subsequent Korean War and most importantly the Cold War. This period of ideological and political polarization between Marxism and Capitalism affected the profession of historical research and set the background of which Cobban launched his career of historical revisionism. Furthermore, by the mid 1950s, “the word on everyone’s lips was ‘revisionism”: it is a word which best expresses the trembling of the Soviet statue on its pedestal” . Therefore, Cobban whose Revisionist career was set against this era would have been aware of the vulnerable, political stance of communism and the soviet. In response to this political climate, he sought to discredit the hegemony of the Marxist interpretation of the Revolution. He dismissively stated that the fundamental Marxist interpretation of the Revolution consisting of the passing of the feudal order and its replacement with the rule of the bourgeoisie is a “myth which has dominated serious research”. Furthermore, his anti-Marxist approach was also motivated by his political position as a British conservative against this background of political divide. This conservativeness is shown in the allegation that he had blocked the career advancement of Socialist historian George Rude, prohibiting his access to the historical profession in Britain.

Cobban’s revisionism arises through his anti-Marxist approach to the revolution. Consequently, his main objective in the composition of The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution and his inaugural lecture The Myth of the French Revolution was to undermine the Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution as the outcome of a class struggle between nobles and bourgeois. His concern in discrediting the Marxist view was more important to him than providing an alternate interpretation. He admitted that he spent little effort in providing new interpretations to replace the old. This is evident in the Social Interpretation as can be seen in one of his central chapters addressing the role of sans- culottes. Here, Cobban aimed to expose the inadequacies of Marxist historians’ perspectives on the role of sans culottes; in particular the socialist historian Soboul. In light of the “trembling Soviet (communist) statue” of the time and Cobban’s evident anti-Marxist sentiments, he associated Soboul’s fascination of sans-culottist movement as Marxist- Leninism, which exceeds beyond Marxism; a product of modern political agenda. He stated, “In the light of Leninist theory it becomes possible to understand why the sans-culottist movement…constitute the chief interest in the French Revolution for modern Communist historians: these movements can be regarded as dress rehearsal of the Leninist revolution”. It can be deduced that his ideological stance, as a conservative British and an anti-Marxist would look unfavourably upon and be threatened by an interpretation of a historical element as resembling a modern communist phenomena. Cobban did not provide an alternative view on sans-culottes but explored the Marxist interpretations of which he deduced were politically and ideologically motivated and thus historically incorrect. In criticizing Soboul, he stated that Marxism and Leninism have “reduced conflicts to stereotypes…tended to prevent them from being appreciated in their full acuteness or complexity”. In his conclusion, he stated on the outcome of this research that “This research has itself in the end exploded the ideas of Marxism.” This suggests that the purpose of Social Interpretation is indeed to “explode the ideas of Marxism”.

However, Cobban’s objections to the communist interpretation extended further than his political agenda, as in addition he opposed the Marxist interpretation on a methodological basis. His writings are marked by the political attitude of anti-Marxism and thus categorises him in the school of Revisionism for the French Revolution, as the Orthodox view was Marxist. Furthermore, his methodology emphasizes the importance of document research, the use of provincial archives and continuity. The use of provincial archives- which is a main element of the Annales approach to history- and the emphasis on continuity, both are typical of Revisionist historians like Cobban. He asserts that the ideal method of historical research involves “empirical source material… (of which) a narrative is produced, and an explanation…If he wishes to go beyond this the historians has to…test tentative hypotheses against historical data.” The application of this methodology which emphasizes documents and the testing of hypotheses is evident in his attempt to discredit the Marxist interpretation of the revolution. In attacking the Marxist perception that feudalism was abolished, Cobban was consistent in his faith of “testing hypotheses” and raised the question, “What was the feudalism which they are supposed to have overthrown?” Through the use of archival documents that detail the various payments the peasants owed he concluded, “If ‘feudalism’ in 1789 did not mean seigniorial rights, it meant nothing” and that the Marxist attempt to separate ‘feudal dues’ and non-feudal dues was “unrealistic”. It is characteristic of Revisionist historians to place emphasis on the re-examination of historical facts with an eye of discrediting the orthodox interpretation. For Cobban, evidence was paramount in determining the validity of historical research: “Every attempt at historical interpretation, new or old, must stand or fall by its consistency with the evidence.” Therefore, Cobban criticized Marxist historians through the basis of their compromised methodology: “(they were) sincerely and unquestionably attached to the orthodox (Marxist) theory of the revolution and saw no contradiction between his theory and the historical facts.” Therefore, his attempt at discrediting the Marxist view of feudalism was derived from his perception that Marxists have approached historical facts with a pre-conceived theory which is incompatible with bare historical facts. Cobban’s anti-Marxist sentiments has consequently led him to discredit their methodology as politically motivated- a political stance which he disagreed with- and thus rendering historical research inaccurate due to the notion that it was “under the influence of ideas derived from politics… transferring its categories to history.”

Furthermore, consistent with the revisionist approach to history, Cobban perceived the revolution to be one which did not bring about great change. For Cobban, the revolution was a political upheaval with social consequences, but did not provide a blueprint for world revolution, as the Marxists have perceived. He stated that “the social structure (as a result of the revolution) is…difficult to change.” This perception of the lack of change as a result of the revolution arises through the emphasis of continuity which revisionist historians place on historical progression. They have the tendency to downplay change and crisis and in turn placing value on continuity. This is particularly true to Cobban, who reacted against the Marxist view of the Revolution as a major political upheaval which abolished the system of feudalism and launched the beginnings of a capitalist world. Instead, he perceived the lack of change within the social and economic structures: “that instead of accelerating the growth of a modern capitalist economy in France, the revolution may have retarded it”. Therefore, consistent with the emphasis on continuity as characteristic of revisionists, Cobban downplayed the conflict emphasized by Marxist historians and in turn stressed the continuity of ‘sale and purchase’ which rendered feudalism ‘a mere shadow’.

In addition to the notion of continuity, Cobban stressed the importance to methodologically examine a broader context in order to truly understand the revolution: “To interpret the revolution we must look back as well as forward and forget if possible that 1789 has ever seemed a date from which to begin.” However, through the examination of the post-revolutionary era the notion of continuity that is characteristic of revisionist historians once again emerges in his writing of history: “such evidence as we have on the organization of trade and industry suggests that by and large it remained in 1815 what it had been in1789.” His methodology in attaining this conclusion did not only involve the examination of evidence after the Revolutionary period, but also the documents he had used were from provincial archives, for example those from Lyon, Toulous and Bourdeaux. Cobban’s revisionist approach to history is thus marked by a British version of the Annales School of history. His research of the revolution evidently places emphasis on the regional, social and provincial diversity of revolutionary phenomena. The conclusion reached was the lack of change both socially and economically. This was attained through Annales- influenced research and examining a broader context, as typical of revisionist historians.

This historical disagreement over the French Revolution exposes the underlying factors that operate beneath and shape the historian’s interpretation. In the writing of history, historians are influenced by and reflective of their context and their philosophical and ideological stance. Therefore, it is the combination of the underlying factors of methodology, as well as the historian’s political and ideological convictions derived from his context that form the writing of history and the changing historiography of the French Revolution.

Word Count: 2567

SOURCE ANALYSIS

1. The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution: Alfred Cobban (Cambridge University Press, 1999)

This text provided the foundations of my argument on Cobban (though it was dull at times) and was thus invaluable to my enquiry. It provided a very useful introduction by Gwynne Lewis which attempted to contextualize Cobban’s revisionism and consequently was suited to the purpose of this essay. Its worth is most significant in the detailing of the political and ideological climate of the period Cobban was writing in. It was also particularly useful in that it covered a wide scope of Cobban’s interpretation and provided summaries of the main issues that form Cobban’s argument, as well as useful quotations in association with these issues. Perhaps the only weakness of this introduction was the evident bias she had towards him. The introduction evidently held the purpose of also proving his worthiness as a revisionist historian and his great impact on the historiography of the revolution.

        The next section of the book involved Cobban’s discussion of the writing of social history and its complications. This was also very useful, as it was through these particular essays that I gathered his methodology. Furthermore, he criticized the methodology of Marxist historians and asserted the righteousness of his own. Despite this evident bias against Marxist methodology, it assisted in my understanding of Lefebvre’s methodology.

The bulk of the book involved the self-absorption of his own (Cobban’s) methodology as he systematically attempts to demolish the Marxist interpretation of the revolution. Therefore, the overall worthiness of the book was its demonstration of the notion that a historian’s context and methodology is inherently part of his historical writing. The parts of the text which most lacked objectivity were the most useful for the purpose of this essay.

2. Some 20th-century historians : Essays on eminent Europeans: Edited by William Halperin  (University of Chicago Press, 1961)

This source was invaluable in the shaping of my argument for Lefebvre. The book, as suggested by the title is a collection of essays about prominent 20th Century historians. The particular essay I relied heavily upon for this research is by Gordon McNeil on Georges Lefebvre. It provided information of his origin; his upbringing and education provided a sense of his early life and its impact on his later affliation with Marxism. The essay was furthermore useful in the detailing of his methodology, as well as providing examples of where it is applied. The second half of the essay consisted of exploring Lefebvre’s philosophical viewpoint in conjunction with his methodology. McNeil wrote of Lefebvre’s various preferences and interests in historical research and the strong influence of Marxism upon him. Most importantly, the essay was extremely adequate in explaining why Lefebvre was a Marxist and what influenced his writing of history. Indeed, all this was precisely the information I needed to feed my historical enquiry. Perhaps, the only flaw in this source was the evident bias McNeil had for Lefebvre as there was not a word of criticism but continuous praise of Lefebvre’s great and meticulous scholarship. Nevertheless, the contextual and methodological information provided by the source, excluding McNeil’s praises, was of great value to the overall purpose of my research.  

3. The Coming of the French Revolution: Georges Lefebvre (Princeton University Press, 1947)

This source was also of worthiness and usefulness to my historical enquiry as it provided a concise interpretation of the revolution from a Marxist perspective and thus proved great effectiveness when used in conjunction with McNeil’s essay. I had chosen this text with purpose of it being a collection of examples which support the various historiographical issues regarding Lefebvre’s context and methodology. The text precisely served this aim, as it very strongly presented a Marxist interpretation of the revolution. One of the key strengths to this text was its structure of which it was Marxist influenced, as can be seen by its division into parts according to class struggle; “the aristocratic revolution”, “the bourgeois revolution”, “the popular revolution” and the “peasant revolution.”  Furthermore, through this division, the approach to the revolution becomes four separate entities which is marked by clarity of focus, accessibility and conciseness, which was of particular use when understanding the French Revolution.

        The main value of this text was in strengthening my argument on Lefebvre, by proving quotes which support my statements regarding his context and methodology. Despite the fact that the text was well researched, it was evident that its reliability is compromised by the pro-Marxist approach of the historian. It was precisely this that was particularly useful to the purpose of my essay.

Bibliography

• Cobban, A; (1999) Social Interpretation of the French Revolution, Cambridge University Press
• Halperin, W; (1961) Some 20th Century Historians: Essays on Eminent Europeans, University of Chicago Press
• Lefebvre L; (1947) The Coming of the French Revolution, Princeton University Press
• Cobban A; (1968) Aspects of the French Revolution, London, Cape
• Comninel, G.C; (1987) Rethinking the French Revolution: Marxism and the revisionist challenge,  New York: Verso
• Lefebvre, G; (1964) French Revolution from 1793 to 1799, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964
• Lefebvre, G; (1962) The French Revolution: from its origins to 1793, Rougledge and Kegan Paul
• Cobban, A; (1950) The Debate on the French Revolution 1789-1800, N.Kaye
• Cobban, A; (1961) A History of Modern France, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin

---