Modern European History - Disecting a 'Tale of Two Cities' from 1958

So one of the things that I have been learning this semester is how to do a historical matrix. I have a few under my belt at this point and what they tend to entail is watching a film that has both a plot and the historical situation involved in it. Teasing out both pieces and then discussing them is the assignment and while I am finding it a little difficult, here is an altered version of my first one. I have altered it a little because I have no idea how to create columns and rows on a blog page and I also have removed a few personal comments. This post is based on the film “Tale of Two Cities” released in 1958 If you have a chance, watch the one produced in 1935... it is better. :)


Can I start this matrix/assignment by saying that I find this time frame challenging to study as its such a difficult time period. What a struggle to live during that time... the French Revolution is one of the most challenging times to focus on. It just seems so vicious for all who lived then whether you were in France of not....but France was definitely the worst I think. The older version seemed more true to the book as well... I didn't feel quite the atmosphere in this movie that I felt in the book and the older version.

Summary of the Movie

Broadly, this film is about the struggles of many people during the beginning of the French Revolution. There are several characters of various walks of life whose lives interweave in both painful and distressing ways. We learn about Dr Mannette and visit he makes to the home of a nobleman (we later learn his name is Darnay) where he watches the deaths of two young people and learns of the death of their father. Unwilling to ignore the horrors he has seen, he reports the aristocrat and Dr Manette is not seen again outside the Bastille for eighteen years. When he gets out he is housed by an old servant (Mr Defarge) who keeps him their until the doctor's daughter Lucy and his banker arrive to pick him up and take him to peace and safety in England. On the way down, Lucy Mannette meets both a nobleman named Charles Darnay and a barrister named Sydney Carton. Due to a set up, Mr Darney is tried for treason and manages to be acquitted with the help of Mr Carton. Both men return to England as both men are in love with Lucy; however, Mr Darnay wins Lucy's hand in marriage. Within six months of their marriage Lucy is pregnant and Mr Darnay discovers that some of his servants in France have been locked up and need his help. Knowing it is dangerous, he returned to France and is immediately arrested and thrown into jail.

The Bastille is successfully stormed and its prisoners released as well as its large stockpile of weapons and gunpowder. At the head of the mob is Mr. Defarge along with his wife- she is the only living relative of the three deaths at the beginning of the book whose telling caused Doctor Manette to be sent to the Bastille. Within six months of their marriage Lucy is pregnant and Mr Darnay discovers that some of his servants in France have been locked up and need his help. Knowing it is dangerous, he returned to France and is immediately arrested and thrown into jail. Lucy returned to Paris with her companion Posy and Sydney due to her concern for Charles and soon it is apparent that Mr Darney will be put to death as an aristocrat and for the bad deeds of members of his family. Sydney, in his attempt to save Lucy, the life of her unborn child, and her sorrow over the mental health and life of her husband, blackmails a prison guard that he recognizes from England to help him and with the help of this man and Mr. Lorey, he (Sydney) managed to get Lucy and Charles with their belonging back to England. Sydney Carton takes the place of Charles Darney and pretends to be the defeated aristocrat until this death.

Historical Matrix - The order runs as follows: each number has two sections. The first section shows the part of the film picked for analysis and a brief description of the scene. The second contains the analysis. :)

1. Minute 13; quote by aristocrat Evrémondes ...Dr Mannette is told by an unknown noble (after watching a young girl die)... “Doctor, you are not summoned here to listen to the babbling of this kind... You may forget these serfs. I only wish to impress upon you doctor that the things you have seen and heard in this house are not to be spoken of. You would do well to mark that.” (I do not remember this scene in either the book or the older movie)

I think this scene was included to give us (the modern reader / watcher) members, but understanding of how the majority of people – or serfs- were treated in this society. They were cherished by family members and maybe even by community, but as serfs they owned nothing except their feelings and thoughts. Their lives, energy, possessions, etc... were all owned by the noble who owned them and the land they worked. This scene suggests how the majority of nobles probably felt about their serfs in this time frame; like property without feelings or lives, just to work for them and accomplish what the nobleman wishes. If they die or 'break' more are created through birth to take their place... and as such easily replaced if necessary or if the personality or looks of one were not to the owner's liking.

2. Minute 1:03; quote by Mrs. Defarge ... “You're the one who shot the people down. Genocide!”

I think this scene is trying to express and show us a few things. First, the peasants no longer worry about being killed as they are dying of starvation and other problems. In this sense, the number of dissatisfied and frantic people creates a form of 'mob' mentality. Death is no longer the peasant's primary concern. As the mob realizes that they are winning the mood of the group not only continues to focus on its anger and for some revenge, the peasants feel no pause at harming anyone they see as an enemy- even people who are only following the orders given to them... people who may not be that far removed from the peasants themselves in money or station. Those who have felt oppressed or overpowered rarely deal with great power in the most rational and truly 'right' and fair ways. The deaths of the king's men at the Bastille and even some of the aristocrats show that. You can hear in the laughter and the yelling the total out-of control nature of the peasants in the mob. When I was watching some of the footage of the Egyptian protests during the 'Arab Spring', I could see some of the same play of emotions of the people's faces as they fought.

3. Minute 1:08; quote by unknown servant of Mr Darnay - “What have any of these others done?” Mrs Defarge - “You ate, while we starve!”

These thoughts express both the bewilderment of those who have been removed from power or those who had some more control over their lives.... and the anger and need to 'scapegoat' that many of the peasants felt. When people make others into a scapegoat, it also absolves the 'scapegoat-er' of any wrongdoing and gives them justification for their poor behavior. We still do this today to so many people and groups over perceived grievances. I think that sometimes we as humans are so anxious for change that we do not realize that things can't be instantaneous... it causes chaos as the differing sides fight and struggle. Bloodless revolutions or large change usually take 'time'... very rarely does history give us King William and Mary. :)

4. Minute 1:10-12; Quotes - Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton talk of responsibility. Carton – “How simple it all sounds. Far simpler than I'd imagined. Goodbye to France. Farewell to all responsibilities.” Darney - “I have been selfish. I should have gone back to France when my cousin died... worked out and supervised all I meant to do.” Carton - “I see. In view of that I hope you won't contemplate doing anything foolish.” Darney - “You must leave me to make my own decision.”

This scene helps to show the hierarchy of the society and the challenges and responsibility that came with each 'station' of life. Even though aristocrats and the nobles had different problems than the other classes they too had responsibilities and things that they were required to do as well. For those who had some thoughts that were influenced by the Enlightenment, they were in a double bind... being pushed in two directions as all sides fought farther apart to hold onto what they had and to attempt to gain more. Today, we can see the same problems... the gaps between the 'haves' and 'have nots' are growing in all countries and so all people feel the tension and the struggle that is starting to build between us.

5. Minute 1:41-44; Sydney Carton sits alone in the cell.

At all times in every person's life we have times where we have done something challenging, or must or feel we must make choices that break us. How we make those choices shows our character and what truly does matter to us. Whether rich or poor, male or female, no matter our station in life, all of us must make these choices or they may be made for us. Some must reflect longer on their choices, but all will feel them and the pain they cause No character in my life from a book with one exception has ever made more of an impression on me. I have named a beloved pet after him, writing many stories and thoughts about him. This character always reminds me that in all of us is the ability to care and do amazing things... we need only have the strength and motivation to do so. I hope that I do in the mountains and pits of my life.

6.

Minute 150-151; Sidney Carton - “Suddenly I want to weep, but I must hold my tears in check less they think it is myself I weep for.... and who would weep for Sydney Carton? A little time ago none in all the world... but someone will weep for me now. And that knowledge redeems a worthless life. Worthless but for this final moment which makes it all worthwhile. It is a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done. It is a far, far better rest I go to than I have ever known.”

We all weep for the Sydney Cartons of the world. “There must be some appeal - some chance of a reprieve” And at some point most of us give – maybe not our lives, but a part of us to take away the pain or a punishment of another. All we do to help our fellow human beings find joy and relief throughout all the ages of history matters … even when most do not remember or know of their existence.


Have a great day, my friends... and hope you enjoyed :)

Napoleon and His Effects on Revolutionary Ideals

At first blush, Napoleon appears to have left the ideals of the 'Revolution' in the dust behind him as he moved forward towards his goals and desires. However, it would be remiss to make this statement without actually discussing what some of the ideals of the revolution were... and it appears that in some ways, we are still discovering some of the smaller pieces of knowledge that gives us new ways of looking at the actions, ideals, and desires of the major and minor players in the revolutionary process. Without a long discussion, most of the ideals that were hoped for with the French revolution and its 'creators' can be seen in its motto of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” The idea that people were and should be treated equally, that people had inherent rights to be protected from their government and have representation in that government, and that class and rights to only a few in a stratified society should be abolished. Other reasons for the revolution were problems with severe poverty, lack of safety or protection for the majority, and the inability for most of the individuals living in France to have any real way to take care of themselves or to be self sufficient... let alone able to advance themselves or their children.

Many of Napoleon’s ways of expanding his power, controlled territory and, of course, his ambition can be seen to be directly scaling back the benefits and rights that the Revolution had been 'fought' to win. Women had been granted through the revolutionary government equal rights to divorce and to help control or make decisions on their children and family property. With Napoleon, many of these protections were scaled back... and women found themselves once more with restrictions on their desires for divorce and their rights to make any decisions in equality with their husband on children of property. Males were once again legally and socially over women in even these private family matters. Women could even lose their French citizenship if they married a male that didn't have French citizenship.(This is a bit remarkable to me. As Americans, we require other people to give up their citizenship to become an American, but many other countries allow you to hold citizenship of more than one country. A friend of mine was born in Australia and has citizenship for both England and Australia. She married an American and so her children have access to citizenship to all three countries, but only if she continues to keep a green card and never becomes a American citizen. This experience was one I thought about when I read about this restriction and thought about how it limits her choices if she wants to expand her offspring's choices in this world.... and I wondered how much more it was limiting for women in the time frame of the early 1800's...? The revolutionary law that required equal distribution of property to children upon parental death was abolished, allowing male parents to distribute property to their children as they wished which was very likely to cause the traditional problems of disinheritance of daughters and even younger sons. (I am certain that kind of tradition dispersment also limits woman’s choices and makes the majority far more likely to live in poverty.) A true irony is that truth, wisdom and many virtues in French society are portrayed as women.

Other minorities also found their rights and new-found protections were curtailed of removed as well. The few rights that some group of Jews were given were pretty much removed. Napoleon, like many in his society... and even today if I think about it, really mistrusted people who formed Jewish groups- no matter what “Jewish” group they participated in. In one stance, Napoleon passed a law giving amnesty to peasants who owed members of the Jewish population money.... but he stood by and did nothing for peasants who owed other populations or people money -clear discrimination. While law had abolished slavery, blacks now had the misfortune to no longer have that protection... and Napoleon even went out of his way in some attempts in re-enslave black populations in colonies and have free blacks in France register with the police – again, clear discrimination.

Other freedoms that had been extended to all and not just to minority groups were curtailed or removed all together. Censorship became the norm not only for newspapers and other forms of entertainment like the theater, but also in relation to free speech. A secret police force was developed and funded to hunt of dissidents and the vocally 'disgruntled' and its existence must have made people much more wary about expressing themselves to others. Plays and other entertainment eventually had to be approved through the police/ government before any attempt at public performance could be had. There is documentation that Napoleon would 'edit' even specific lines in stories, articles, plays etc... to be sure that things read or were seen the way he wanted them to be. He also moved religious freedom back a little bit and while he allowed the worship of other religions in many ways, he put the Catholic religion at the top of governmental support and, as before, all clergy and other religious leaders were paid by the state to assure their loyalty to the state... and not to the Pope.

Lastly, one clear ideal of the revolution was representative government. Napoleon clearly had no wish to have any kind of representative government... unless it represented his view only. :) Bureaucracy was set and controlled in such as way that over time, Napoleon become the only leader and even other 'leaders' must get his approval for everything... and anything! In many ways, he was to return France to the form of government it had been following for hundreds of years – a hereditary absolute monarchy. His relatives and children were given territory and ruling positions over much of the conquered territory of Europe and it appears that his relatives in many ways answered to him as well. This was clearly not the ideal situation that most of the revolutionaries had fought for.

When we look at France through these ideas, it seems clear that Napoleon is a man that could be classified along with other 'enlightened' despots in history. Many of the changes that had been won through the costs of fear and blood were carefully and strictly removed. That said, he didn't disagree with or change all of the hard won changes of the revolution. The achievements of personal and private property were kept so that people could be assured that the government couldn't just swoop in and take their land... there had to be a good and lawful reason (which he only ignored in some instances). Religious freedom was still kept... OK, freedom of 'Christian' religions were kept... but that was certainly an improvement. :) Feudal rights continued to be abolished and were not reinstated... except for a few situations which again Napoleon conveniently ignored for his gain. A constitutional monarchy- even if in name only- was still a small step forward towards democracy. And certainly, one consequence of the revolution and its other great leader was control and terror. This standard and form of rule Napoleon would continue. With censorship and a virtual police state, Napoleon may not have used the guillotine to achieve his ends in the same way that Robespierre did, but he too used his intelligence, his oratory and persuasive abilities, ambition, and the addition of his military prowess to create a country in his image... and to take that image and use his armies to paint it across the entire European continent. Thankfully, life had in many ways improved for his constituents and they were able to have a chance at a more satisfactory life.

The Decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Franks and the State of France

The early relationship between the rulers of the Roman empire and the 'Franks' was not positive- many of their leaders were given to the 'beasts' by the Roman emperors as a lesson and a warning to other Franks who might wish to raid Roman lands. In some of the lands that are now known as the Netherlands and Belgium, the Romans 'gave' the Franks this land to help the Romans protect their borders. For a thousand years there was peace between the Romans and the Franks, but difficulties arose over religion and neither side was willing to compromise. The Franks were pagan and happily so... and as the Roman empire started to collapse, the Franks began to move south in groups to live. When the Roman's needed to find armies to fight Attila the Hun and his armies, Roman leaders happily accepts the Franks and uses their armies to push the Huns back. The Franks help the Roman armies win the war and expect deference and appreciation from the Roman government. Unfortunately, the government seems to have taken the service of the Franks as their entitlement as governmental rulers. Later the Franks and their leaders will simply slowly conquer the Romans as the western empire collapses and take over their lands.

Merovich was a Frank leader (one of many leaders) who led his army of Franks against the Roman's military. He is said to have been descended from a sea god per legend to help give him a more noble and substantial genealogy. He became the first ruler of what would later become known as the Merovingian Dynasty. Merovich was the first leader to help pull several diverse groups of Franks together; to work together, fight together and to ally themselves with each other against other groups such as the Roman empire. Merovich led his army against the Romans at a battle in Tournai and he negotiated a treaty that allows his people to settle into new areas – new to them, the areas had belonged to the western part of the empire. Merovich is able to win more land and more power over time with his armies and, in agreeing to fight Attila the Hun alongside of Rome, King Merovich gives himself and his men an inside view of the Roman armies, better training and equipment and the knowledge and confidence needed to fight the Romans themselves in the future.

The relationship between the Franks and the Roman Empire under Childeric was a little cimplicated? Childeric, also said to have been descended from a sea god, became a king of the Franks and was able to unite a few of different groups of Franks.... despite himself and his poor behavior (he was banished for a short time due to poor behavior with young, beautiful women.) It is not known whether Childeric I was a son or a relative of King Merovich (although the documentary states that Clovis is a grandson of Merovich which would make King Childeric the son of Merovich.) Childeric I becomes a great chieftain and he is seen by Rome as a great ally. The Franks would take over certain areas that were good for growing food and producing stock/animal husbandry. He would fight as an ally with Rome in their continued battles and even though there are a few rulers of the 'Franks', Childeric will stand out from the others by courting Roman favor. He would help Rome fight other barbarian groups to keep the land of Gaul under Roman control and it was Childrec's armies that made it possible for the Rome to beat the Visigoths and keep most of Gaul... just as his father Merovich gave Rome the ability to beat Attila the Hun. Childeric died in 481 after a rule of 24 years. His burial place was discovered in the seventeenth century with lots of objects, jewelry etc... unfortunately, most of the items were stolen and later melted down.

Clovis is the son of King Childeric and he becomes the king upon the death of his father. It must be stressed that even though he received the royal title, there were many groups of Franks and Clovis was only one of many rulers. Clovis was full of ambition and he was truly a traditional Germanic warrior king- his goals were to get treasure and land, gain honor, and subdue people to his will. At the beginning of his rule, Clovis would get along with the Roman government and would curry favor. However, after gathering military and diplomatic ties with other groups of Franks, he would attack and takes over parts of the crumbling Roman empire. Clovis was willing to deal with Roman and Catholic bishops with diplomacy... sometimes using Catholic bishops against Rome itself. Later, he would attack other Frank groups and assimilate them as well as other Roman groups into his control. Clovis gains his eventual one man rule position by carefully eliminating his enemies, using his bravery in battle, and using deceit and treachery to trick others into removing his competitors... he was able to keep his hands clean of those murders and take over leadership of those groups. At one point near the end of his life, Clovis gave a speech lamenting his lack of close loyal kin... he seemed to forget that he had killed or had murdered as many of them as possible to control things himself and to name his own heirs unconstrained. Clovis also recognized that he must build unity in the diversity of the Franks and he was successful in that. Clovis gave those he conquered equal status with the franks giving the 'conquered' good reasons to like him, to fight in his armies, etc... In a sense, he helped to blend the cultures of the Romans and the Franks. He became a Christian and converted the Franks from paganism (there is some debate about this and some historians believe that he originally converted to Arianism from paganism... and then to Catholicism later in life and maybe only three years before his death.). By converting, he brought his new Roman subjects into his rule more cleanly and gained their loyalty faster and he continued to expand his kingdom until his death in 511 CE. His one major mistake is that he didn't spend enough time working on his succession. He ordered his kingdom that he took so many years to gather and unite, divided into four pieces and given to each of his sons in his will.... where the separated pieces fell into civil war, fratricide and bloodshed. His name becomes the early derivative to the name 'Louis' which became the principle name of most of the kings and rulers of France since his time.

There is a saying about this time : “The Franks took a rib out of the old Roman corpse and gave Western Europe its backbone.” This statement describes the consequences of the rule of Clovis and his ambition and success of his legacy. He becomes the founder of the modern French state and his capital is Paris- when he dies, he is buried in Paris at the Church of the Holy Apostles that he had built (an ironic end-note: his sarcophagus was left alone until the time of the French revolution in which it was opened and his ashes scattered to the winds... I find this ironic due to my current studies of the French Revolution. It is like a common 'loop'. :). King Clovis was in many ways a pioneer- he built up the area of Gaul in Europe that(an area that encompasses was is now France as well as parts of modern day Belgium, Italy and Germany) was once one of the most prosperous areas of the Roman empire. By gathering and conquering large areas and claiming it into one single 'state', Clovis and the other early members of the Merovingian dynasty may have been quite violent and in so many ways, terrorists in their time, they were able to gather many people together in a solid group. These people were held together by their leader and by Christianity. This group gave the land a solid and secure status- as much as could be had at that time- giving the people common goals, common religion, and common needs. This solid kingdom would be held together for the most part over the next several decades and centuries.

“La Revolution Devore Ses Enfants” - The Revolution Devours Its Children

Living in the time and space of a revolution is always a dangerous business. There is the difficultly of picking the right side (which tends to be the winning side), surviving through the death, destruction, and mayhem... and of course figuring out all the new rules and changing your lifestyle and mindset to suit. However, some revolutions last over a period of time that allows the combination of anger, fear, desire for change, passion and blame to spiral into a level of violence, death, and fear that is more than the average war, revolt or revolution. I liken it to a small candle, beautiful and glowing in a light wind on a dry night... and then you throw a few gallons of gasoline on it- not a good idea! :) This was the path that the French Revolution took in the desire for 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.' The candle was lit and gasoline was poured on slowly until the inferno was difficult to control. I would like to analyze the process by which the French Revolution became so radical that, as the saying goes, it “devoured its own children.”

If the process of radicalization must be described in two words, it would be 'fear' and 'anger.' And this emotion touches over all aspects of the revolution causing more and more extreme reactions. While some historians have blamed Enlightenment writers (or 'radical critics' of society) for some of the more extreme behavior, modern historians see these works as only a small piece of the puzzle. Another piece of the puzzle is governmental censorship. In France, censorship was a bit more lenient than other countries and so many documents could be written that criticizes the government... as long as nothing was named and it was discussed as metaphor. This got the majority of French readers studying and discussing 'forbidden' topics which also helped radicalize the very thoughts in the heads of the populace. Paris and the country of France were really at the heart of Enlightenment thinking due to some basic differences between France and the other states of Europe- some differences include religious differences (France had more control over the Catholic Church in its borders than other countries which interesting enough caused only the most extreme and radical forms of Protestantism to come to France), class differences (France was more stratified in class than other European states and the stratification was beginning to weaken and crack), censorship, etc...


When the nobles pressed the king to call for the Estates General to assemble, about 1200 deputies arrived in Versailles for the event. Some of the deputies were already radical and were articulate on the wish for a huge transformation of public life. Deputies from the Third Estate were fearful that they would have no say due to the tradition rules of voting so all members of that caucus as well as a few members from the other estates joined together to stop any discussion unless the the voting rules were changed. Fear of the Third Estates actions by the monarchy and the nobles caused King Louis XVI to lock out the rebelling deputies. Anger at the king's response caused the outside deputies to get together and swear to not leave or be sent home until they had helped France get a new constitution. The delay in getting a new constitution and agreement at the National Assembly caused unrest and frustration in the rest of the country. This frustration bubbled up and with some unknown event, riots broke out and within a month or two, the famous 'storming of the Bastille' in Paris... and the revolution had begun! Riots and uprising in other cities forced local officials to follow the wishes of the rioters... not the king. Royal authority, once it began to dissolve, diminished quickly and the National Assembly held a special session to abolish feudalism and do away with all privileges from that institution. They also wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and set up a constitutional monarchy. Violence would continue as the 'extremes' in the country continued to mistrust the other extremes- Catholics against Protestants, peasants against nobles, etc.... And as violence was 'accepted', it became acceptable. As with all boundaries in life, we as humans push those borders of acceptable behavior... and when a boundary falls, we are more likely to push against the next boundary if we do not acknowledge that a boundary has disappeared. And so, violence not only happened more often, but became more brutal and almost inhuman (the September massacres entered my mind as I thought about this.)

King Louis XVI tried to run with his family to another country to safety, but was unsuccessful. This action broke apart the constitutional monarchy and was the beginning of the end for the National Assembly. Election brought in more of the bourgeois members and fewer nobles and those new members were more likely to want more radical reforms. As more people started to feel that the revolution hadn't actually worked and started pro-royalists groups as well as counterrevolutionary agitation in public, both sides became more and more polarized. The Revolutionaries became fearful of the future of the revolution itself and moved more to the fringes. Unrest in the country stepped up, the National Assembly voted to declare war on Austria, and so any internal descent was now seen as treasonous. Emergency measures were set up, and a new form of government was born called the National Convention. The King was put on trial and the decision to execute him was made- by executing the king, the convention was making a clear statement to the opposition... there was no possibility of compromise. The Montagnards ruled in the Convention, Maximilian ruled the Montagnards and after the development of the Committee of Public Safety... the Reign of Terror had begun. The fear, passion, and anger that the revolutionaries in the National Convention felt towards anyone who might possibly be against the Revolution was focused and turned against the perceived enemies of the state. Anything, any disagreement or difference of opinion could be seen as treasonous... and it is now that the revolution began to 'devour its own children'

In the country, there were many counterrevolutionaries in different cities.... and many people who were tired of the violence, hungry and wanted things to go back to a better space. But at this point, the revolution had lost control. In the National Convention, the Montagnards led by Robespierre and another highly ranking member Georges-Jacques Danton had a difference of opinion. Danton was one of the original revolutionaries and was considered quite the hero, but he was too moderate in the end. He gave a speech in favor of ending the terror and restoring regular legal and civil procedures in January 1794. This disagreement cost Danton his life one month later and gave us the quote mentioned above: the full quote is “the Revolution may soon, like Saturn, devour its own children.” No one was safe once the revolution was out of control and Danton and many of his followers were only the first of the 'children' to be fed to le guillotine. Ironically, Maximilian Robespierre's death on the guillotine was one of the few things that ended the Terror... and help stabilized the revolution and its violence a little bit.

There are quite a few ironies that can be found in the study of the details of this long event. The largest irony is that this movement which was begun in the name of freedom and individual liberty caused so much death and destruction. Another irony is that Maximilian Robespierre, who was an intelligent, passionate advocate of human rights... could have become the main advocate of the Terror (which caused such a large amount of unnecessary bloodshed.) While some things did change for the better, this period of time was a time of fear, anger, terror, passion and bloodshed. Until the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, it would continue.

Social and Political Consequences of the French Revolution

The act that we call the French Revolution was truly a world changing event with both social and political consequences. Attempting to determine whether the revolution was political with social consequences or vice versa can be difficult depending on what you study and whose viewpoint you look at. I really feel from my studies this semester that the French Revolution was a revolution that had both social and political consequences, but wasn't necessarily a political revolution or a social revolution either. There are a few reasons that I believe this to be the case which I will carefully outline. Looking back at the revolution and the changes that it inspired and propelled forward, we can see how some of the changes were quite revolutionary and how many changes were in some ways not really a change at all.

The revolution changed France in some ways politically and in some ways kept a bit of the status quo... just under different labels. Early supporters of the revolution did use an excuse that was political in nature for the revolt: that excuse was that power was monopolized in the form of a king and a corrupt and despotic system of government. This really appears to have been either an excuse or an incorrect perception as the reality of the governmental system was not that clean cut. Centuries before the revolution, the poor and disabled had been taken care of by the Catholic church. Many local governmental functions and education of those born to the upper and middle classes was also usually paid for by the church. In the years preceding the revolution, many of those jobs began to be taken on by the French monarchy instead of the church. This brought not only extra expenses, but with the ever growing and expanding populations... even more people who would need relief in emergencies such as famine. The government already had huge money issues due to costly rivalries with other countries (which included funding the American bid for Independence against England) and the monarch's inability to budget the governmental finances appropriately. The royal government had really developed a centralized administrative system that in theory was more streamlined than any other European countries, but in practice it was not smooth and didn't take into account laws from the smaller areas which might not agree with the 'national' laws. Before the Revolution, the monarchy had absolute control over the use of the military, development and implementation of law, and the collection and spending of public money.

With the coming Revolution, the monarchy was gradually removed from power. The National Assembly in 1791 set up a new regime which was a constitutional monarchy- this lasted only ten months. The next governing group was the National Convention whose members were called Jacobins, but that particular group splintered into other groups of like minded individuals that formed their own 'political parties'- the Montagnards and Girondins and also the San-culottes. The king and his family were imprisoned and then in late 1792 King Louis XVI was convicted of treason and executed early in the new year. The new government was now fully run by the National Convention... which was controlled by its largest and most powerful faction called the Montagnards... which was lead by Maximilian Robespierre. The country was then ruled by this man and a 'committee' that Robespierre and the Convention developed to attempt to stop the counter revolution... because by this time not everyone was satisfied with the path that the government was starting to tread. This group, known as the Committee of Public Safety, was charged with setting up revolutionary courts and executing criminals and anyone deemed treasonous or disloyal to the French state and/or the Revolution. This began the Reign of Terror and around 40,000 people were put to death by the guillotine- this included governmental leaders from the convention that didn't agree with Robespierre, women, and simple dissatisfied citizens. By 1794, the policy of 'Terror' had alienated so many people and Convention members that their leader, Maximilian Robespierre, was convicted of treason and, after a failed suicide attempt, he was put to death in July 1974.

The government was then run by the Convention which put down more uprisings with the help of the Army, tried to end the country's war with Spain and Prussia, produced a new constitution and developed a form of leadership called The Directory-it was a five man executive governing council. A two house-legislative assembly was developed and democratic elections were set up, however, the National Convention set up some rules in the new system to favor themselves and rioting began again. The government was ideological divided between members who wanted to bring the monarchy back and those who wanted even more democracy.
When The Directory realized that royalist supporters were becoming the majority in the government, they turned to a general named Napoleon Bonaparte for help. After elections, Bonaparte with the help of another general and large forces of soldiers, helped to take over the government. In this forced takeover, two members of the Dictators were removed, most of the election results were annulled, and power fell literally into the hands of a few members of the National Convention. This led to a fairly ineffective dictatorship until 1799 when a few members of the Convention chose Napoleon Bonaparte to be their leader- when a large amount of Convention members resisted, Bonaparte used the army to effectively take over and become the dictator of France.

So politically, many things didn't really change if you look at the situation with a wide angled lens. The Revolution threw out the absolute monarchy and executed their king... and then accepted Robespierre as almost a one man leader. Robespierre, known as 'the Incorruptible', was eventually thrown out and executed... so that power was transferred to a group of five called the Directory. When the five members of the Directory couldn't agree on public policy, Napoleon Bonaparte was brought in and two members were thrown out. Then, after some time and more infighting, Napoleon Bonaparte effectively took over and became a one man leader- by 1804, he was named hereditary emperor. No matter who was in charge, the government tended to be in many ways reactionary and would perform actions that were some of the people's biggest complaints under the governmental system before the Revolution; arrest warrants of any one without meaningful trials, government appointed and not
democratically elected leaders, special privileges to small percentage of the population, etc... So, while some things changed politically in France, many things remained close to the original status quo... only changing slightly as time moved forward and the society and government was stabilized.

French Society changed a bit in its social structure and culture with in the revolution. Before the revolution, every citizen from the poorest peasant to the wealthiest noble believed that they had rights and privileges that should be defended and this view was strengthened with the behavior and beliefs of the members of parlements... behavior that was unable to be controlled by the monarch due to the permanent circumstances of the parlement judges. Some of these thoughts came from ideas that became popular during the Enlightenment- a period of time where ideas on tradition, science, human reason and ability as well as religion changed and shifted in the minds of many. (And Paris was said to be the 'heart' of the Enlightenment movement.) Education became more important and more and more people were educated, literate and able to better participate in the world and politics around them. In short, most enlightenment thought was based on differing ideas of freedom and liberty... and was fairly secular in nature. French society had social divisions based on class as well as special privileges that came with belonging to different groups; the clergy and nobility enjoyed exemption from most taxes and many positions in the government were reserved for those of noble birth... or those who were wealthy enough to purchase a title.

With the beginning of the revolution, many changes to French society were attempted. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was discussed and written by the National Assembly. This document was an attempt to write out the hoped for rules for the new government; they included man's natural rights to their liberty, personal property, security, equal treatment under the law, etc... All of these ideas were revolutionary for their time. The privileges of special groups, such as the nobles or the clergy, which had been hereditary and traditional, were attacked and changed under reform. The laws of property ownership were changed and idea of private property was more respected and protected by law from extra fees and eminent property rights. Women, who had been excluded from politics in pre-revolution days, became open participators in political groups and societal change in the beginning of the revolution. Voting rights were given to all citizens by the Declaration. Divorce and marriage became state institutions and were no longer governed fully by the Catholic Church. Numerous constitutions were written to protect people and property from the government by guaranteeing rights, elections, etc... The Declaration also included the right of Freedom of Speech which was supposed to help end censorship and fear in oral and written expression.

However, many of the above mentioned changes were not necessarily constant or unchanging in themselves. While the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen declared man's natural rights to many things, the document was vague enough that its interpretation was actually quite limiting over time. The word 'man' in the document was usually interpreted to not include women and any gender minorities (Africans and Jews). This interpretation was so consistent that it caused on female writer to 'rewrite' the declaration and title it The Declaration of the Rights of Woman. Women were later excluded from much participation in politics by government bans on the ways they participated. Voting rights quickly became exclusive and limited to the small majority of property owners- Robespierre was quoted as saying “Can the law be termed an expression of general will when the greater number of those for whom it is made can have no hand in its making?” The National Convention and The Directory would openly violate the constitutional protections many times over their rule. Robespierre and the beginning of the Terror would put a large damper on all rights to free speech or expression... unless you were willing to die for your words.

So the revolution started with the dissatisfaction of the nobles which caused the King to call the Estates General into session, but then the revolution left the hands of the aristocracy and titled elite and the leading roles in events were handled by the bourgeoisie and the lower classes. With the dissatisfaction of the Third Estate and the King with the Estates General, the general dissatisfaction became a bit of class warfare and distrust. The appearance of the monarchy siding with the noble classes made the break between the groups even more hostile. Add a famine, rising bread costs and riots began to break out. Then the Bastille was rioted and captured by members of the third estate and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was completed. A constitutional monarchy was set up, abolished and then governmental rule by the National Convention and the 'Committee for Public Safety'- or, in actuality, rule by Maximilian Robespierre. After his 'overthrow', governmental power was held in the hands of five men who were known as the Directory and the National Convention, but in a short period of time we see power moving again to one man in the form of Napoleon Bonaparte. France had gone through many attempts at political and society change, but few were immediately lasting. Most social and political change really took time-such as decades- to really cement themselves into the culture, mindset, and behavior of the people of France. Some of these 'revolutionary' changes appear to have only really been possible to thrive in an environment that was not 'revolutionary'- i.e. an environment that was stable and relatively constant. The only thing constant about the politics and the society of the French Revolution was its inconsistency, reactionary manner, and fear. The National Assembly, National Convention, the several Constitutions... all of these were born in crisis and finding the way out of crisis seemed nearly impossible. Only with the coming of some forms of governmental stability did France have the lasting change that it had wished for early on causing the French Revolution.

You Might Be Almost Ready to be a Teacher if...

I was just doing some homework for one of my classes (the French Revolution) when one of my fellow classmates sent me a note about my homework that simply made my day. Most of his comment will not make sense to many of you ... who are not struggling to hold your head on through the constant studying and the 'swish of the guillotine', but it totally made me smile. I would really like to work on becoming a teacher and I think that I will make it a little bit of a higher priority in my life. I also like writing and it was so nice that I could condense a lot of confusing mumbo jumbo into something that was instructive... and even likeable. Maybe I am getting a lot closer to my goal of writing and teaching- I might even be closer than I think. Here's the comment:

Hi Sonia - I think I'll just read your post - it's a lot clearer than my book. In any case - After the smoke cleared and the heads stopped rolling the old patriarch was - what's the phrase "called to life" For me it was a discouraging end. But as you have articulated, woman were generally a lot better off. I'm looking it up now as I write here - yes- the Legislative Assembly - They seemed to have the welfare of woman clearly in mind when they authorized divorce. It could be applied both ways ,I know, but somehow I think it befitted woman more than men. And wow -they eliminated penalties for homosexuality -I mean how cool is that? This by the way was about the same time That the French woman addressed the National Assembly (doc. F page 60) . It seems that this address marked the high water point in womans' struggle for equal rights. If only the story ended there - Anyway I'm brain dead for lack of a better -enjoyed your comment
Forrester

What are the things that excite you about education? What would you do if you had a new shot at how your life continues...? And please, share thoughts on how someone made your day. It was just a little thing... but it really meant a lot to me. :)

Women and the French Revolution

While I have been studying the French Revolution over the last few weeks, I have discovered many things that I did not know about the beginnings and the development of the national government and the revolution itself. While I imagined it to be quite bloody and difficult, the study of it has been a bit of an eye opener and sometimes when I close my eyes now at night, I see blood pooling and running across cobblestones in my dreams. And of course, I see Sidney Carton being driven to the guillotine saying those famous words that many literates know... even if they have never read Charles Dickens. This week I tried to focus on the women in France at this time, their role in the revolution and some of their experiences.

The conditions of women did change from what they had been before the revolution. As could be expected, some changes were positive, some were negative, and some things didn't really change much at all for long periods of time. It must also be said that because the French revolution was actually a long time (a decade or more in fact) change was the word of the day... and so some changes would come and go based on the people in charge of the government at the time.

Politically, women received a mixed bag. For instance, women were excluded from politics during the French Revolution- at least in an active or electoral role. That didn't stop women from forming or joining political clubs in the early 1970's. One group formed in May 1973 was called the 'Society of Revolutionary Republican Women' and was led by Claire Lacombe. Women were involved in politics by speaking to the National Assembly (Etta Palm d'Aeldes in 1791), writing satires such as the 'Declaration of the Rights of Women' written by Olympe de Gouges, and in demonstrations where they demanded rights including the right to bear arms- a right only given to males at that time. Women's participation in clubs and demonstrations reached its peak in the spring and summer of 1793. By November 1793, the Montagnard Convention had banned all political activity by women and this closed most of the political clubs attended by women. One excuse that was used to keep women out of politics was the assassination of journalist Jean-Paul Marat at the hands of Charlotte Corday in July 1793- her assassination of this paranoid journalist turned martyr upon his death was used to point out women's emotions, lack of control, etc. (It didn't help that it was discovered that she was a virgin and her behavior could not be blamed on 'whoredoms' or wantonness.) Women who spoke out for more rights were considered to have spoke out against the revolution and were put to death by the guillotine. It must also be stated that women participated in many of the early and continuing demonstrations and violent uprisings- female participation helped to radicalize the revolution in 1789. In a twist, by 1794, women were prominent in protests that showed loyalty to traditional religious beliefs (the Catholic church) throughout the last years of the revolution.

When it came to giving more legal rights to women, it can be said that the revolution had a more positive effect. In an attempt to break up the power of the Catholic church, the French government (or really the National Assembly) took over registration of births, deaths and marriages. Divorce was also authorized and the new laws gave men and women equal rights to initiate a divorce and divorces could also be had on grounds as simple as mutual consent. Women were also granted the ability of equal inheritance in family law which was also an attempt to help make men and women more equal in standing.

Looking at the daily life of French women during this time, things were not really positive. The breakup of the convents abolished one large sphere that religious women had to live largely without male dominance. The removal of the privileges of the aristocrats/nobles virtually eliminated the wealthy female patronesses who had played a prominent role in French culture. And if you look at the huge numbers of convicted traitors, the numbers of women in violent insurrections, and the multitude of mass killings of suspected traitors... it is safe to assume that women died in very large numbers. In at least one large uprising (the September Massacres), it is documented that women were raped and killed. One reason I see it as safe to assume the large numbers of death of women is that France doesn't appear to have a huge problem with 'gender overpopulation' in the next few decades (at least as far as I have been able to research it. After WWII, I think France did have a gender overpopulation problem due too the number of men who died in the war...) Secret police could use almost anything you said or even your attitude against you and as many of them hung out eavesdropping in places such as bread lines, the vast majority of people in those lines would be women.... so they would be the ones accused and executed. Some sources suggest that republican troops killed civilians indiscriminately at times which would include women... and children.

In conclusion, women's lives changed in many ways during the revolution. Many of the changes, such as the Terror, were 'temporary' and didn't live on for long. Some changes, such as the new changes in family law, lived on with both positive and negative effects. In many respects women are able to be involved in new experiences, but they are also more likely to be punished for stepping out of their 'traditional sphere' then men... although many men were certainly punished! The revolution brought women the hope of more equality, more opportunities, but it also brought women as a whole into more danger, less security, and for some women, fewer opportunities than they had been accustomed to before the revolution. I think that some changes were not allowed to occur- such as voting rights- because women were still feared, still considered in some ways inferior and that was too radical a notion for the time.... after all, even many enlightenment thinkers didn't go that far. :)

French Revolutionaries and Analysis on Minority Rights

After reading and studying the 'Declaration of Man' last week, I really wanted to try and figure out what the people who wrote the document meant by it. For instance, it seems obvious through language that the word man means all men, but it did not. So here are some thoughts on the research that I did and what I think the thoughts of the revolutionaries might have been.

To start, I will admit that I am not really sure about what the revolutionaries thoughts about rights for free Negroes in the Caribbean colonies and non-Christian groups within France. What does seem clear is that if you lived in the French Caribbean colonies, you tended to lean more towards an appreciation of slavery an if you lived in the country of France, then you tended to feel that slavery was not totally positive- I make this statement based on the idea that after an uprising in Saint-Domingue in 1791, the Assembly in May of that year passed a decree that gave full citizenship rights to all free nonwhite males born to free parents in a French Colony. This concession is clearly limited and didn't apply to any nonwhite male slaves not to non white who were free but had parents who were considered slaves, but this concession was considered unacceptable to the French (white) citizens of the colonies and they lobbied hard to have the decree annulled. (It appears that they would have been successful if not for the great slave rebellion in September 1791 that occurred again in Saint-Domingue and lead to the eventual abolition of slavery in 1794 and the colony's independence from France several years later.) The writer Montesquieu wrote in “The Spirit of Laws” many things suggesting that slavery is an affront to natural law, he also wrote that in some situations it can be justified- one quote states '… It is hard to believe that God, who is such a wise Being, should place a soul, especially a good soul in such a black ugly body.....The Negroes prefer a glass necklace to that gold which polite nations so highly value. Can there be a greater proof of their want of common sense? It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures are men because, allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christian.' I will admit that I read the document three times and I think that I still do not understand what the writer meant, but it does appear to me that these statements give a justification of exploitation and slavery based on skin color, looks, and assumptions. Any thoughts from classmates who actually understood what Montesquieu meant are certainly welcome as I won't pretend that I did. :)

What does seem clear is that as enlightened as many of these revolutionaries were, they still had to deal with their own traditions and prejudices, the biases of others, and it is unreasonable to expect that they could literally change the world in a matter of weeks in regards to all the prejudices and class biases that existed at that time. What they did accomplish was pretty extraordinary in itself. Until the revolution, it appears that religious belief was an important characteristic that helped determine your citizenship; i.e., if you were Catholic you were a citizen and if you were anything else you were not. The revolution started the change in this by granting limited citizenship rights to all French Protestants in 1787- two years before the writing of 'The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen'. It is a little telling that it took an additional four years to grant the majority of French Jews citizenship rights in September of 1791... especially as I realized that the some of the nonwhite males of the French colonies were given citizenship rights four months previously. Another requirement for citizenship was that you had to be male, so this certainly left women out. :) I believe that another requirement was that you had to be born in France- so immigrants would never have any way of becoming a citizen. Any way you look at the process of trying to open up opportunity and rights to a majority that had not had then, it was not an easy process.

I suspect one reason that these particular groups were not naturally included and were considered separately is simply because in almost all aspects of life they were already looked at separately. Other groups such as the poor while separate,... in many ways looked like their group. Many white men were poor, etc... Non whites and Jews looked different, had different cultures, even different religions, making these groups seem more suspect and not immediately brought to the forefront. So these groups had to be considered separately when their plight or need for rights was brought to the attention of the Assembly. Otherwise, they hadn't been considered due to the tradition biases and prejudices of the revolutionaries in power. The one exception appears to be white protestants- their break with the traditional religion was not a hindrance and in fact seemed to be an asset in light of the anti-Catholic Enlightenment atmosphere of the time.

What are your thoughts? How do you think that our country which had the same difficulties as France has overcome them? Do you think that we have overcome them....?

Thoughts on the Document 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen'

I thought it was interesting to read this document and how different times and cultures would read and interpret it differently. One word that stuck out to me as up for varying interpretations was the word nation. The text of the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen' is in some ways vague about who actually makes up the French 'Nation.' The word is only used in the third declaration which is:

The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

This statement suggests that when the word (nation) is used, the meaning is 'everyone'- that no person or individual is to be excluded and so any time that the word 'nation' is used the assumption is that it includes all human beings. That said, a thorough reading of the rest of the document seems to suggest that certain rights seem to have been given to men only while others were given to all citizens (which I assume includes women, children, and those of other races- I recognize that is a false assumption based on my current culture.) Taking the time to read and assess other documents from the current environment as the 'Declaration' for answers didn't make the definition much clearer. For example, one document states that nobles “opposed measures that they feared would increase ministerial power and insisted that the French 'nation' be consulted about fundamental changes in its constitution. And they saw themselves as the natural spokesmen for the rest of the nation.”
So the word nation in this sentence really seems to be the nobles who believe that they speak for everyone economically lower than them... which is most of the population of France. Emmanuel Sieyes, another contemporary writer at that time, stated that the Third Estate (most of the population) “has... within itself all that is necessary to constitute a complete nation... If the privileged order were abolished the nation would be not something less but something more.” This statement clearly suggests that the average commoner or anyone not a member of the 'privileged order' should be the actual meaning of 'nation'. So it appears that the definition of 'nation' changed depending on who uses the words and what their motives were.

This 'Declaration' has many pieces of it that are quite forward thinking and revolutionary for that time. French society before this time period was very stratified in nature with a small percentage of privileged and the 'inherited' classes on top, a small layer of wealthy and landed families, and a large layer of serfs, peasants, etc... The first declaration in this statement is that all men are 'born and remain free and equal in rights; social distinction can be established only for the common benefit.' This statement recognized and started the process of abolishing the separate layers of this clearly stratified society. The second declaration states that all men have certain natural rights that no government can or should infringe on which are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression - in later declarations these terms are described. Free speech is allowed, only actually lawfully forbidden laws can be punished and punishments must be reasonable, the presumption of innocence, the public’s right to be able to have information from the government, etc... However, in many ways this document is not that revolutionary. Women have no actual rights declared (until recently and in some cases in this country we still do) and unless a law specifies women then the law doesn't necessarily include them when the law uses the word 'men'. How this has been interpreted is that if the law is a negative such as stealing, women can be prosecuted under the law and they are. However, laws that are positive and provide benefits (such as owning property) tend to have be interpreted as excluding anyone except for men. So while some men gained more rights in France during this time, no one else did. Property was now considered a sacred right that could not be taken away by the government without due cause, but the property still belonged to those who had been of the privileged class... leaving the vast majority to have freedom, but no property so they were still in some ways tied to the land. The Declaration also seems to have been interpreted to only give white males the rights and so minority men could still be slaves and not covered by the law... in fact they could still be considered property so the law gave them no rights except for the sacred right of 'being owned'. So the privileged order may at that time be considered 'not as privileged', but they still had the land, the money... and now that the government was overthrown, they had that power to. It was in their interests to keep as much as they could and still keep the 'Third Estate' happy. Some rights were given to citizens but the definition of what a citizen was is not in the document and was left for other people to determine- again being able to interpret it in the ways that suited the wealthy and the property owning classes.... and their own biases.

When reading this document and trying to decide what the writers envisioned in a society that was governed under the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man...', I feel like these individuals were hopeful to make good change but also wanted to really calm down the rebellion. By making the new basis of government so vague, everyone could feel satisfied and calm down and get back to their everyday lives. During this time, the laws and government could then be made and as long as there appeared to be some benefits, the majority of people wouldn’t have revolted again. Getting the violence stopped and everything back to 'normal' would have been a key thought in the mind of these writers. I do believe that the writers did want to make the world they lived in more equal and to move away from the absolute monarchy, but I also think that this document is still based on the assumptions and biases of these writers- all of whom were white males of good family and not wrung out in poverty. So I envision them looking for a country without violence, more equality and a more representative government... but a country where white men still ruled and had more benefits than anyone else.

If you take the time to read this document (it is only a few pages), what are your thoughts on it? How do you read it and what does it mean to you? What do you think it meant to its contemporaries and its authors? This document is very like the American 'Bill of Rights' as many of the writers and contemporaries who gave voice to both documents thought were the same... Does this change how you feel about either of these documents?