The significance is rooted in the seemingly far-reaching results; specifically it reflected the King’s loss of control over Paris, where a Commune to run the city was set up by electors and placed Lafayette as commander of the National Guard. Now safe from any immediate threat of being dissolved by the king the National Assembly began to draw up a constitution. These factors suggest that in retrospect the event signified a transfer of real power, specifically over Paris from Lois to the people’s elected representatives; the king was no longer in the position to dictate to the Assembly, as the army was not reliable. It seems that the Bastille storming plays an equally large part in being a psychologically symbolic event, in that it solidified the end in the people’s mind to the old absolute monarchy. This psychological impact is echoed in the great extension of the already ongoing peasants revolution as news of the Bastille spread over the country. A large number of nobles emigrated and Louis himself declared his recognition of the revolutionary council through his donning of the red, white and blue cockade of the revolution. It may be said therefore that the 14th of July was the day on which the French Revolution truly began. After that day national guards were set up around France to control popular violence, which became intensified, and also to prevent counter-revolution; and furthermore many old municipal corporations were overthrown by force along with the seizing of power by the Third estate in Bordeaux. There was also a great effect in the countryside with risings immediately following in Normandy and Franche Comte, along with demonstrations against tax, tithes and the feudal dues to the extent that it seemed to the extent that there was a feeling that law and order had generally collapsed all over France.
While the Bastille played a major part in the onset of the revolution, there are many other factors, which must be considered. It seems that a great cause of the popular unrest was not solely based on a disgruntlement with the monarchy and the social system surrounding their lives – indeed it is fair to generalise that the typical peasant would not have bothered with affairs of political nature – but instead it was the situations more specifically affecting their lives which worried them. This is best reflected by the economic situation, which was happening parallel to the political changes of the time. Due to overproduction of wine, prices had collapsed and this combined with frequent bad harvests and specifically a disastrous one in 1788, many peasants were badly affected. In a pre-industrial society, such an event would cause mass unemployment and in particular in 1789 the very high food, specifically bread prices. For the first time, economic issues were pushing France towards revolution, and this can be reflected by the riots on the 28th of April, where over 50 people were killed by troops. To generalise, it seems that while the economic situation alone cannot be attributed to the outbreak of the revolution, the crises contributed to the mergence of the major ‘popular movement’, made up of discontented workers and small traders.
While political affairs and economic ones cannot be totally distinguished, without the ongoing crises to have set the masses in their ‘revolutionary mindset’, the third and in many way largest revolution – that of the peasants – probably would not have happened. It is also coincidental that the day of the Bastille was also that of the highest ever bread prices, which suggests a combination of parallel forces working in the direction of revolution. On similar lines, there were a number of political events preceding the Bastille, which are essential to the course of events. The convening of the Eterny General in the first place on May 4th is symbolic of the combined frustrations of the three estates in relation to the feudal system and the monarchy. At first the three estates were separated according to rank, yet within a month a number of the First and Second Estates had joined the Third, which not only meant a shift in the balance of power to the bourgeoisie, but led to the declaration of themselves as a National Assembly. It may therefore be argued that the original convening of the three estates was a major event in that its repercussions were the production of the body, which was seen by the masses as the main symbol of opposition to the monarchy and searching for a change in the social system.
It seems that the King sealed his position as a hostile figure to the people in the eyes of the people when he panicked over the newly declared Assembly and declared a Séance Royale. By locking the doors of the Assembly meeting room, he sent across the message, whether intentionally or not, that created a fear among them of being arrested and it seemed to them that the Louis was trying to impress upon them his power. This led to the ‘Tennis Court Oath’, which was an oath made on 20th June to not leave until a new constitution had been arrived at. In itself this is a significant event in that the combination of the nervous and uncertain King rallying more and more troops to him in Versailles, and the symbolic act of defiance which was rooted in the Oath, led to the general solidification of a feeling of change among the people. The peasants were unnerved and began to arm themselves fearful of the prospect of an ant-revolutionary invasion. It might therefore be said, in retrospect that these events began the spiralling motion towards the rioting and eventual peasants revolt only weeks later, and also set them up for the Bastille. The Oath also lead to certain concessions made by Louis, who was coming to the realisation that he was going to have to share power; he gave up the “letter de cache”, called himself a representative of the nation (instead of an absolute ruler), and agrees to no tax without the agreement of the Eterny-General. While these concessions signify a shift of power away from absolute monarchy, one can see with the use of hindsight that with that the Assembly with the backing of the unsettled peasants would not have taken no for an answer. Also the concessions did not yet include the motion of votes by head, and therefore it was the events following which determined a real extensive political change.
Even after the Bastille, the king’s attempts at stabilising the situation and gaining back support by calling back Necker and adding white to the colours of the Assembly was viewed as a cheap attempt to consolidate the people. In addition there was the matter that news travelled relatively slowly, and the widespread reaction to the Bastille was already in motion, thus the people paid little heed to the King. The peasants viewed the Bastille as an excuse to storm landowners and seize grain, intensified by a fear - most likely groundless in retrospect - that the king might attempt to burn it and thus starve the peasants into submission. By this time peasants had already stopped paying taxes.
This paranoia over the prospect of the king fighting back can be referred to as the ‘Great Fear’, and the feelings of the masses were echoed by an unsettled National Assembly, who had never backed the overthrow of seigniorial rights. Nevertheless there was a realisation that the Assembly would have to concede given they had little ability to put down the rebellion and neither wanted to appear as replacing absolute monarchy with a new repressive rule. Historians might place some significance on the night of 4th August, where the Assembly between them went on a rather excessive spree of concessi9ons, where it seemed the entire feudal system was effectively abolished. Even considering the backtrack the following day, the “August Decrees” still stated the abolishment of all the feudal system except for the paying of dues (which would be abolished over a number of years). The Night of August 4th and the August decrees can almost be viewed as the rubber-stamping, in a political and legal sense, of all that had taken place in the countryside, and echoed a renunciation of the privilege system.
It might be possible to say that they added to the psychological mentality of the masses and signified a turning point in the social system but in retrospect, the events had little meaning, in that they merely authorised what had already taken place. The Declaration of the Rights of Man similarly stated in a written document the no privilege system and pronounced freedom and equality as total. This however was merely the articulation and aggregating of the new system, and had little effect on the mass population. In the long-term however, it states roughly the basic values, which have been evident in French society since 1789 to the present day, and in this way can be viewed as an event of significance.
The ‘October Days’ – the episode of angered women marching to voice their feelings backed by the National Guard in reaction to a party thrown by Louis– was important in cementing the idea that the people were taking power. When they ordered that both the king and queen and the Assembly should move to Paris and got their wish it reflects this shift in the balance of power, and the acceptance also of the Assembly that they had to concede to the people’s wishes. On the other hand, the ‘October days’ was merely an additional example of a grievance being voiced, and it had little affect on events to increase or worsen what was already taking place across France.
It seems certain that it was the combination of events and external forces, which set the French Revolution in motion. It is also difficult to distinguish between each event as most are rather interconnected. It was the state of mind and mood of the masses, a result of the starvation which was background to the course of events, which forced them to take action and revolt, yet it was the action of the higher status opposition to the monarchy on a political level which fundamentally articulated the people’s sentiments. The Bastille, in my opinion was a quintessential aspect in the lead up. While only 100 men were killed, it acts as a symbol on many levels and in many ways was the single event, which roused the masses, and thus its significance is substantial. In addition the immediate reaction of the people is evident of this. Yet the events preceding it were of equal importance in terms of their psychological effect, and the constitutional changes following it, which are still present in French society today.
