Storming of the Bastille, 14 July 1789.
Part of a series on the
|History of France|
The French Revolution (French: Révolution française) was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France from 1789 to 1799 that profoundly affected French and modern history, marking the decline of powerful monarchies and churches and the rise of democracy and nationalism. Popular resentment of the privileges enjoyed by the clergy and aristocracy grew amidst a financial crisis following two expensive wars and years of bad harvests, motivating demands for change. These were couched in terms ofEnlightenment ideals and caused the convocation of the Estates-General in May 1789. The first year of the Revolution saw members of the Third Estate taking control, the assault on the Bastille in July, the passage of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August, and a march on Versailles that forced the royal court back to Paris in October. A central event of first stage was the abolition of feudalism and the old rules, taxes, courts and privileges left over from the age of feudalism on 4 August 1789.
The next stage was dominated by struggles between various liberal assemblies and right-wing supporters of the monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms. A republic was proclaimed in September 1792. In a momentous events with international condemnation, KingLouis XVI was executed on 21 January 1793.
External threats closely shaped the course of the Revolution. The Revolutionary Wars beginning in 1792 ultimately featured French victories that facilitated the conquest of the Italian Peninsula, the Low Countries and most territories west of the Rhine – achievements that had eluded previous French governments for centuries. Internally, popular agitation radicalized the Revolution significantly, culminating in the rise of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins. The dictatorship imposed by the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror, from 1793 until 1794, caused up to 40,000 deaths inside France, abolished slavery in the colonies, and secured the borders of the new republic from its enemies. The Reign of Terror ended with the overthrow and execution of Robespierre and the other leading Jacobins in the Thermidorian Reaction. The Directory assumed control of the French state in 1795 and held power until 1799. In that year, conventionally seen as the conclusion of the Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte overthrew the Directory in the coup of 18 Brumaire and established the Consulate. The First Empire under Napoleon emerged in 1804 and spread French revolutionary principles all over Europe during the Napoleonic Wars. The First Empire was militarily defeated by an anti-Napoleonic coalition that in 1815 brought about the restoration of the Bourbons, albeit under a constitutional monarchy, and the reversion to France’s traditional frontiers.
The modern era has unfolded in the shadow of the French Revolution. French society itself underwent a transformation as feudal, aristocratic, and religious privileges disappeared and old ideas about tradition and hierarchy were abruptly overthrown under the mantra of “Liberté, égalité, fraternité“. Globally, the Revolution accelerated the rise of republics and democracies, the spread ofliberalism, nationalism, socialism and secularism, the development of modern political ideologies, and the practice of total war.Some of its central documents, like the Declaration of the Rights of Man, expanded the arena of human rights to include women and slaves.
- 1 Causes
- 2 Ancien Régime
- 3 Constitutional Monarchy
- 3.1 National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791)
- 3.1.1 Storming of the Bastille
- 3.1.2 Abolishing the old order
- 3.1.3 Writing the first constitution
- 3.1.4 Women’s March on Versailles
- 3.1.5 Revolution and the Church
- 3.1.6 Intrigues and radicalism
- 3.1.7 Royal flight to Varennes
- 3.1.8 Completing the constitution
- 3.2 Legislative Assembly (1791–1792)
- 3.1 National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791)
- 4 French Revolutionary Wars
- 5 First Republic
- 6 Symbolism
- 7 Role of women
- 8 Economic policies
- 9 Long-term impact
- 10 Historiography
- 11 See also
- 12 Notes
- 13 References
- 14 Further reading
- 15 External links
Adherents of most historical models identify many of the same features of the Ancien Régime as being among the causes of the Revolution. Historians until the late 20th century emphasized class conflicts from a largely Marxist perspective. Its central theme was the Revolution was caused by the rising bourgeoisie, with support from the sans-culottes, who fought to destroy the aristocracy.
By the 1990s the Marxist class interpretation had largely been abandoned among scholars. However, historians continue to emphasize the economic and fiscal crises of the Old regime. The economy was not healthy; poor harvests, rising food prices, and an inadequate transportation system made food even more expensive. The sequence of events leading to the revolution included the national government’s fiscal troubles caused by an inefficient tax system and expenditure on numerous large wars. The attempt to challenge British naval and commercial power in the Seven Years’ War was a costly disaster, with the loss of France’s colonial possessions in continental North America and the destruction of the French Navy. French forces were rebuilt and performed more successfully in the American Revolutionary War, but only at massive additional cost, and with no real gains for France except the knowledge that Britain had been humbled. France’s inefficient and antiquated financial system could not finance this debt. Faced with a financial crisis, the king called anAssembly of Notables in 1787 for the first time in over a century.
Meanwhile, the royal court at Versailles was isolated from, and indifferent to the escalating crisis. While in theory King Louis XVI was an absolute monarch, in practice he was often indecisive and known to back down when faced with strong opposition. While he did reduce government expenditures, opponents in the parlements successfully thwarted his attempts at enacting much needed reforms. TheEnlightenment had produced many writers, pamphleteers and publishers who could inform or inflame public opinion. The opposition used this resource to mobilize public opinion against the monarchy, which in turn tried to repress the underground literature.
Many other factors involved resentments and aspirations given focus by the rise of Enlightenment ideals. These included resentment of royal absolutism; resentment by peasants, laborers and the bourgeoisie toward the traditional seigneurial privileges possessed by the nobility; resentment of the Catholic Church’s influence over public policy and institutions; aspirations for freedom of religion; resentment of aristocratic bishops by the poorer rural clergy; aspirations for social, political and economic equality, and (especially as the Revolution progressed) republicanism; hatred of Queen Marie-Antoinette, who was falsely accused of being a spendthrift and an Austrian spy; and anger toward the King for firing finance minister Jacques Necker, among others, who were popularly seen as representatives of the people.
Louis XVI ascended to the throne amidst a financial crisis; the state was nearing bankruptcy and outlays outpaced income. This was because of France’s financial obligations stemming from involvement in the Seven Years’ War and its participation in the American Revolutionary War. In May 1776, finance minister Turgot was dismissed, after he failed to enact reforms. The next year, Jacques Necker, a foreigner, was appointed Comptroller-General of Finance. He could not be made an official minister because he was a Protestant.
Necker realized that the country’s extremely regressive tax system subjected the lower classes to a heavy burden, while numerous exemptions existed for the nobility and clergy. He argued that the country could not be taxed higher; that tax exemptions for the nobility and clergy must be reduced; and proposed that borrowing more money would solve the country’s fiscal shortages. Necker published a report to support this claim that underestimated the deficit by roughly 36 million livres, and proposed restricting the power of theparlements.
This was not received well by the King’s ministers, and Necker, hoping to bolster his position, argued to be made a minister. The King refused, Necker was dismissed, and Charles Alexandre de Calonne was appointed to the Comptrollership. Calonne initially spent liberally, but he quickly realized the critical financial situation and proposed a new tax code.
The proposal included a consistent land tax, which would include taxation of the nobility and clergy. Faced with opposition from the parlements, Calonne organised the summoning of the Assembly of Notables. But the Assembly failed to endorse Calonne’s proposals and instead weakened his position through its criticism. In response, the King announced the calling of the Estates-General for May 1789, the first time the body had been summoned since 1614. This was a signal that the Bourbon monarchy was in a weakened state and subject to the demands of its people.
Estates-General of 1789
The Estates-General was organized into three estates: the clergy, the nobility, and the rest of France. It last met in 1614. Elections were held in the spring of 1789; suffrage requirements for the Third Estate were for French-born or naturalised males only, at least 25 years of age, who resided where the vote was to take place and who paid taxes. Strong turnout produced 1,201 delegates, including: 303 clergy, 291 nobles and 610 members of the Third Estate. The First Estate represented 100,000 Catholic clergy; the Church owned about 10 percent of the land and collected its own taxes (the tithe) on peasants. The lands were controlled by bishops and abbots of monasteries, but two-thirds of the 303 delegates from the First Estate were ordinary parish priests; only 51 were bishops. The Second Estate represented the nobility, about 400,000 men and women who owned about 25 percent of the land and collected seigneurial dues and rents from their peasant tenants. About a third of these deputies were nobles, mostly with minor holdings. The Third Estate representation was doubled to 610 men, representing 95 percent of the population. Half were well educated lawyers or local officials. Nearly a third were in trades or industry; 51 were wealthy land owners.
To assist delegates, “Books of grievances” (cahiers de doléances) were compiled to list problems. The books articulated ideas which would have seemed radical only months before; however, most supported the monarchical system in general. Many assumed the Estates-General would approve future taxes, and Enlightenment ideals were relatively rare.
Pamphlets by liberal nobles and clergy became widespread after the lifting of press censorship. The Abbé Sieyès, a theorist and Catholic clergyman, argued the paramount importance of the Third Estate in the pamphlet Qu’est-ce que le tiers état? (“What is the Third Estate?“) published in January 1789. He asserted: “What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been until now in the political order? Nothing. What does it want to be? Something.”
The Estates-General convened in the Grands Salles des Menus-Plaisirs in Versailles on 5 May 1789 and opened with a three-hour speech by Necker. The Third Estate demanded that the verification of deputies’ credentials should be undertaken in common by all deputies, rather than each estate verifying the credentials of its own members internally; negotiations with the other estates failed to achieve this. The commoners appealed to the clergy who replied they required more time. Necker stated that each estate should verify its own members’ credentials and that “the king was to act as arbitrator.” Negotiations with the other two estates to achieve this, however, were unsuccessful.
National Assembly (1789)
On 10 June 1789, Abbé Sieyès moved that the Third Estate, now meeting as the Communes (English: “Commons”) proceed with verification of its own powers and invite the other two estates to take part, but not to wait for them. They proceeded to do so two days later, completing the process on 17 June. Then they voted a measure far more radical, declaring themselves the National Assembly, an assembly not of the Estates but of “the People.” They invited the other orders to join them, but made it clear they intended to conduct the nation’s affairs with or without them.
In an attempt to keep control of the process and prevent the Assembly from convening, Louis XVI ordered the closure of the Salle des États where the Assembly met, making an excuse that the carpenters needed to prepare the hall for a royal speech in two days. Weather did not allow an outdoor meeting, so the Assembly moved their deliberations to a nearby indoor real tennis court, where they proceeded to swear the Tennis Court Oath (20 June 1789) under which they agreed not to separate until they had given France a constitution.
A majority of the representatives of the clergy soon joined them, as did 47 members of the nobility. By 27 June, the royal party had overtly given in, although the military began to arrive in large numbers around Paris and Versailles. Messages of support for the Assembly poured in from Paris and other French cities.
National Constituent Assembly (1789–1791)
Storming of the Bastille
By this time, Necker had earned the enmity of many members of the French court for his overt manipulation of public opinion. Marie Antoinette, the King’s younger brother theComte d’Artois, and other conservative members of the King’s privy council urged him to dismiss Necker as financial advisor. On 11 July 1789, after Necker published an inaccurate account of the government’s debts and made it available to the public, the King fired him, and completely restructured the finance ministry at the same time.
Many Parisians presumed Louis’s actions to be aimed against the Assembly and began open rebellion when they heard the news the next day. They were also afraid that arriving soldiers – mostly foreign mercenaries – had been summoned to shut down the National Constituent Assembly. The Assembly, meeting at Versailles, went into nonstop session to prevent another eviction from their meeting place. Paris was soon consumed by riots, chaos, and widespread looting. The mobs soon had the support of some of the French Guard, who were armed and trained soldiers.
On 14 July, the insurgents set their eyes on the large weapons and ammunition cache inside the Bastille fortress, which was also perceived to be a symbol of royal power. After several hours of combat, the prison fell that afternoon. Despite ordering a cease fire, which prevented a mutual massacre, Governor Marquis Bernard de Launay was beaten, stabbed and decapitated; his head was placed on a pike and paraded about the city. Although the fortress had held only seven prisoners (four forgers, two noblemen kept for immoral behavior, and a murder suspect) the Bastille served as a potent symbol of everything hated under the Ancien Régime. Returning to the Hôtel de Ville (city hall) the mob accused the prévôt des marchands (roughly, mayor) Jacques de Flesselles of treachery and butchered him.
The King, alarmed by the violence, backed down, at least for the time being. The Marquis de la Fayette took up command of the National Guard at Paris. Jean-Sylvain Bailly, president of the Assembly at the time of the Tennis Court Oath, became the city’s mayor under a new governmental structure known as the commune. The King visited Paris, where, on 17 July he accepted a tricolore cockade, to cries of Vive la Nation (“Long live the Nation”) and Vive le Roi (“Long live the King”).
Necker was recalled to power, but his triumph was short-lived. An astute financier but a less astute politician, Necker overplayed his hand by demanding and obtaining a general amnesty, losing much of the people’s favour.
As civil authority rapidly deteriorated, with random acts of violence and theft breaking out across the country, members of the nobility, fearing for their safety, fled to neighboring countries; many of these émigrés, as they were called, funded counter-revolutionary causes within France and urged foreign monarchs to offer military support to a counter-revolution.
By late July, the spirit of popular sovereignty had spread throughout France. In rural areas, many commoners began to form militias and arm themselves against a foreign invasion: some attacked the châteaux of the nobility as part of a general agrarian insurrection known as “la Grande Peur” (“the Great Fear“). In addition, wild rumours and paranoia caused widespread unrest and civil disturbances that contributed to the collapse of law and order.
Abolishing the old order
Abolition of feudalism
On the night of 4 August 1789, the National Constituent Assembly abolished feudalism (sufficient peasant revolts had almost already ended feudalism) in the August Decrees, sweeping away both the seigneurial rights of the Second Estate and the tithes (a 10% tax for the Church) gathered by the First Estate. During a few hours nobles, clergy, towns, provinces, companies and cities lost their special privileges.
Historian Georges Lefebvre summarizes the night’s work:
- Without debate the Assembly enthusiastically adopted equality of taxation and redemption of all manorial rights except for those involving personal servitude — which were to be abolished without indemnification. Other proposals followed with the same success: the equality of legal punishment, admission of all to public office, abolition of venality in office, conversion of the tithe into payments subject to redemption, freedom of worship, prohibition of plural holding of benefices….Privileges of provinces and towns were offered as a last sacrifice.
Originally the peasants were supposed to pay for the release of seigneurial dues; these dues affected more than a fourth of the farmland in France and provided most of the income of the large landowners. The majority refused to pay and in 1793 the obligation was cancelled. Thus the peasants got their land free, and also no longer paid the tithe to the church.
Furet emphasizes that the decisions of August 1789 survived and became an integral part of:
- the founding texts of modern France. They destroyed aristocratic society from top to bottom, along with its structure of dependencies and privileges. For this structure they substituted the modern, autonomous individual, free to do whatever was not prohibited by law…. The Revolution thus distinguished itself quite early by its radical individualism 
The old judicial system, based on the 13 regional parlements, was suspended in November 1789, and officially abolished in September 1790. The main institutional pillars of the old regime had vanished overnight.
Declaration of the Rights of Man
On 26 August 1789, the Assembly published the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which comprised a statement of principles rather than a constitution with legal effect. The Declaration was directly influenced by Thomas Jefferson working with General LaFayette, who introduced it.
The National Constituent Assembly functioned not only as a legislature, but also as a body to draft a new constitution.
Writing the first constitution
Necker, Mounier, Lally-Tollendal and others argued unsuccessfully for a senate, with members appointed by the crown on the nomination of the people. The bulk of the nobles argued for an aristocratic upper house elected by the nobles. The popular party carried the day: France would have a single, unicameral assembly. The King retained only a “suspensive veto“; he could delay the implementation of a law, but not block it absolutely. The Assembly eventually replaced the historic provinces with 83 départements, uniformly administered and roughly equal in area and population.
Amid the Assembly’s preoccupation with constitutional affairs, the financial crisis had continued largely unaddressed, and the deficit had only increased. Honoré Mirabeau now led the move to address this matter, and the Assembly gave Necker complete financial dictatorship.
Women’s March on Versailles
Fueled by rumors of a reception for the King’s bodyguards on 1 October 1789 at which the national cockade had been trampled upon, on 5 October 1789 crowds of women began to assemble at Parisian markets. The women first marched to the Hôtel de Ville, demanding that city officials address their concerns. The women were responding to the harsh economic situations they faced, especially bread shortages. They also demanded an end to royal efforts to block the National Assembly, and for the King and his administration to move to Paris as a sign of good faith in addressing the widespread poverty.
Getting unsatisfactory responses from city officials, as many as 7,000 women joined the march to Versailles, bringing with them cannons and a variety of smaller weapons. Twenty thousand National Guardsmen under the command of La Fayette responded to keep order, and members of the mob stormed the palace, killing several guards. La Fayette ultimately persuaded the king to accede to the demand of the crowd that the monarchy relocate to Paris.
On 6 October 1789, the King and the royal family moved from Versailles to Paris under the “protection” of the National Guards, thus legitimizing the National Assembly.
Revolution and the Church
The Revolution caused a massive shift of power from the Roman Catholic Church to the state. Under the Ancien Régime, the Church had been the largest single landowner in the country, owning about 10% of the land in the kingdom. The Church was exempt from paying taxes to the government, while it levied a tithe—a 10% tax on income, often collected in the form of crops—on the general population, only a fraction of which it then redistributed to the poor. The power and wealth of the Church was highly resented by some groups. A small minority of Protestants living in France, such as the Huguenots, wanted an anti-Catholic regime and revenge against the clergy who discriminated against them. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire helped fuel this resentment by denigrating the Catholic Church and destabilizing the French monarchy. As historian John McManners argues, “In eighteenth-century France throne and altar were commonly spoken of as in close alliance; their simultaneous collapse … would one day provide the final proof of their interdependence.”
This resentment toward the Church weakened its power during the opening of the Estates General in May 1789. The Church composed theFirst Estate with 130,000 members of the clergy. When the National Assembly was later created in June 1789 by the Third Estate, the clergy voted to join them, which perpetuated the destruction of the Estates General as a governing body. The National Assembly began to enact social and economic reform. Legislation sanctioned on 4 August 1789 abolished the Church’s authority to impose the tithe. In an attempt to address the financial crisis, the Assembly declared, on 2 November 1789, that the property of the Church was “at the disposal of the nation.” They used this property to back a new currency, the assignats. Thus, the nation had now also taken on the responsibility of the Church, which included paying the clergy and caring for the poor, the sick and the orphaned. In December, the Assembly began to sell the lands to the highest bidder to raise revenue, effectively decreasing the value of the assignats by 25% in two years. In autumn 1789, legislation abolished monastic vows and on 13 February 1790 all religious orders were dissolved. Monks and nuns were encouraged to return to private life and a small percentage did eventually marry.
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy, passed on 12 July 1790, turned the remaining clergy into employees of the state. This established an election system for parish priests and bishops and set a pay rate for the clergy. Many Catholics objected to the election system because it effectively denied the authority of the Pope in Rome over the French Church. Eventually, in November 1790, the National Assembly began to require an oath of loyalty to the Civil Constitution from all the members of the clergy. This led to a schism between those clergy who swore the required oath and accepted the new arrangement and those who remained loyal to the Pope. Overall, 24% of the clergy nationwide took the oath. Widespread refusal led to legislation against the clergy, “forcing them into exile, deporting them forcibly, or executing them as traitors.” Pope Pius VI never accepted the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, further isolating the Church in France.
A new Republican Calendar was established in 1793, with 10-day weeks that made it very difficult for Catholics to remember Sundays and saints’ days. Workers complained it reduced the number of first-day-of-the-week holidays from 52 to 37.
During the Reign of Terror, extreme efforts of de-Christianization ensued, including the imprisonment and massacre of priests and destruction of churches and religious images throughout France. An effort was made to replace the Catholic Church altogether, with civic festivals replacing religious ones. The establishment of the Cult of Reason was the final step of radical de-Christianization. These events led to a widespread disillusionment with the Revolution and to counter-rebellions across France. Locals often resisted de-Christianization by attacking revolutionary agents and hiding members of the clergy who were being hunted. Eventually, Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety were forced to denounce the campaign, replacing the Cult of Reason with the deist but still non-Christian Cult of the Supreme Being. The Concordat of 1801 between Napoleon and the Church ended the de-Christianization period and established the rules for a relationship between the Catholic Church and the French State that lasted until it was abrogated by the Third Republic via the separation of church and state on 11 December 1905. The persecution of the Church led to a counter-revolution known as the Revolt in the Vendée, whose suppression is considered by some to be the first modern genocide.
Intrigues and radicalism
Factions within the Assembly began to clarify. The aristocrat Jacques Antoine Marie de Cazalès and the abbé Jean-Sifrein Maury led what would become known as the right wing, the opposition to revolution (this party sat on the right-hand side of the Assembly). The “Royalist democrats” or monarchiens, allied with Necker, inclined toward organising France along lines similar to the British constitutional model; they included Jean Joseph Mounier, the Comte de Lally-Tollendal, the comte de Clermont-Tonnerre, and Pierre Victor Malouet, comte de Virieu.
The “National Party”, representing the centre or centre-left of the assembly, included Honoré Mirabeau, La Fayette, and Bailly; while Adrien Duport, Barnave and Alexandre Lamethrepresented somewhat more extreme views. Almost alone in his radicalism on the left was the Arras lawyer Maximilien Robespierre. Abbé Sieyès led in proposing legislation in this period and successfully forged consensus for some time between the political centre and the left. In Paris, various committees, the mayor, the assembly of representatives, and the individual districts each claimed authority independent of the others. The increasingly middle-class National Guard under La Fayette also slowly emerged as a power in its own right, as did other self-generated assemblies.
The Assembly abolished the symbolic paraphernalia of the Ancien Régime— armorial bearings, liveries, etc. – which further alienated the more conservative nobles, and added to the ranks of the émigrés. On 14 July 1790, and for several days following, crowds in the Champ de Mars celebrated the anniversary of the fall of the Bastille with the Fête de la Fédération; Talleyrand performed a mass; participants swore an oath of “fidelity to the nation, the law, and the king”; the King and the royal family actively participated.
The electors had originally chosen the members of the Estates-General to serve for a single year. However, by the terms of the Tennis Court Oath, the communes had bound themselves to meet continuously until France had a constitution. Right-wing elements now argued for a new election, but Mirabeau prevailed, asserting that the status of the assembly had fundamentally changed, and that no new election should take place before completing the constitution.
In late 1790, the French army was in considerable disarray. The military officer corps was largely composed of noblemen, who found it increasingly difficult to maintain order within the ranks. In some cases, soldiers (drawn from the lower classes) had turned against their aristocratic commanders and attacked them. At Nancy, General Bouillé successfully put down one such rebellion, only to be accused of being anti-revolutionary for doing so. This and other such incidents spurred a mass desertion as more and more officers defected to other countries, leaving a dearth of experienced leadership within the army.
This period also saw the rise of the political “clubs” in French politics. Foremost among these was the Jacobin Club; 152 members had affiliated with the Jacobins by 10 August 1790. The Jacobin Society began as a broad, general organization for political debate, but as it grew in members, various factions developed with widely differing views. Several of these fractions broke off to form their own clubs, such as the Club of ’89.
Meanwhile, the Assembly continued to work on developing a constitution. A new judicial organisation made all magistracies temporary and independent of the throne. The legislators abolished hereditary offices, except for the monarchy itself. Jury trials started for criminal cases. The King would have the unique power to propose war, with the legislature then deciding whether to declare war. The Assembly abolished all internal trade barriers and suppressed guilds, masterships, and workers’ organisations: any individual gained the right to practice a trade through the purchase of a license; strikes became illegal.
Royal flight to Varennes
Louis XVI was increasingly dismayed by the direction of the revolution. His brother, the Comte d’Artois and his queen, Marie Antoinette, urged a stronger stance against the revolution and support for the émigrés, while he was resistant to any course that would see him openly side with foreign powers against the Assembly. Eventually, fearing for his own safety and that of his family, he decided to flee Paris to the Austrian border, having been assured of the loyalty of the border garrisons.
Louis cast his lot with General Bouillé, who condemned both the emigration and the Assembly, and promised him refuge and support in his camp at Montmédy. On the night of 20 June 1791, the royal family fled the Tuileries Palace dressed as servants, while their servants dressed as nobles.
However, late the next day, the King was recognised and arrested at Varennes and returned to Paris. The Assembly provisionally suspended the King. He and Queen Marie Antoinette remained held under guard. To flee to the enemy was to be a traitor.
Completing the constitution
As most of the Assembly still favoured a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic, the various groups reached a compromise which left Louis XVI as little more than a figurehead: he was forced to swear an oath to the constitution, and a decree declared that retracting the oath, heading an army for the purpose of making war upon the nation, or permitting anyone to do so in his name would amount to abdication.
However, Jacques Pierre Brissot drafted a petition, insisting that in the eyes of the nation Louis XVI was deposed since his flight. An immense crowd gathered in the Champ de Mars to sign the petition. Georges Danton and Camille Desmoulins gave fiery speeches. The Assembly called for the municipal authorities to “preserve public order”. The National Guard under La Fayette’s command confronted the crowd. The soldiers responded to a barrage of stones by firing into the crowd, killing between 13 and 50 people. The incident cost La Fayette and his National Guard much public support.
In the wake of the massacre the authorities closed many of the patriotic clubs, as well as radical newspapers such as Jean-Paul Marat‘s L’Ami du Peuple. Danton fled to England; Desmoulins and Marat went into hiding.
Meanwhile, a new threat arose from abroad: the King’s brother in law Holy Roman Emperor Leopold II, Frederick William II of Prussia, and the King’s brother Charles-Philippe, comte d’Artois, issued the Declaration of Pillnitz, which proclaimed the cause of Louis XVI as their own, demanded his absolute liberty and hinted at an invasion of France on his behalf if the revolutionary authorities refused its conditions. Although Leopold himself sought to avoid war and made the declaration to satisfy the Comte d’Artois and the other émigrés, the reaction within France was ferocious. The French people expressed no respect for the dictates of foreign monarchs, and the threat of force merely hastened their militarisation.
Even before the Flight to Varennes, the Assembly members had determined to debar themselves from the legislature that would succeed them, the Legislative Assembly. They now gathered the various constitutional laws they had passed into a single constitution, and submitted it to the recently restored Louis XVI, who accepted it, writing “I engage to maintain it at home, to defend it from all attacks from abroad, and to cause its execution by all the means it places at my disposal”. The King addressed the Assembly and received enthusiastic applause from members and spectators. With this capstone, the National Constituent Assembly adjourned in a final session on 30 September 1791.
Legislative Assembly (1791–1792)
Failure of the constitutional monarchy
|Part of a series of articles on|
|Part of the Politics series on|
Under the Constitution of 1791, France would function as a constitutional monarchy. The King had to share power with the electedLegislative Assembly, but he still retained his royal veto and the ability to select ministers. The Legislative Assembly first met on 1 October 1791, and degenerated into chaos less than a year later. Francis Charles Montague concluded in 1911, “In the attempt to govern, the Assembly failed altogether. It left behind an empty treasury, an undisciplined army and navy, and a people debauched by safe and successful riot.”
The Legislative Assembly consisted of about 165 Feuillants (constitutional monarchists) on the right, about 330 Girondists (liberal republicans) and Jacobins (radical revolutionaries) on the left, and about 250 deputies unaffiliated with either faction.Early on, the King vetoed legislation that threatened the émigrés with death and that decreed that every non-juring clergyman must take within eight days the civic oath mandated by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Over the course of a year, such disagreements would lead to a constitutional crisis.
Lyons argues that the Constituent Assembly had liberal, rational and individualistic goals that seem to have been largely achieved by 1791. However it failed to consolidate the gains of the Revolution, which not only continued but gathered increasing momentum and escalating radicalism until 1794. Lyons identifies six reasons. First the king did not accept the limitations on his powers, and mobilized support from foreign monarchs to reverse it. Second the effort to overthrow the Roman Catholic Church, sell off its lands, close its monasteries and its charitable operations, and replace it with an unpopular makeshift system caused deep consternation among the pious and the peasants. Third the economy was badly hurt by the issuance of ever increasing amounts of paper money (called “assignants”) which caused more and more inflation; the rising prices hurt the urban poor who spent most of their budget on bread. Fourth the rural peasants demanded liberation from the heavy system of taxes and dues owed to local seignors (landowners). Fifth, the working class of Paris and the other cities—the sans-culottes—rejected how the property owners and professionals took all the spoils of the Revolution. Finally, the wars by reactionary powers threatened to overthrow the Revolution and it responded with extremism and systematic violence.
On the night of 10 August 1792, insurgents and popular militias, supported by the revolutionary Paris Commune, assailed the Tuileries Palace and massacred the Swiss Guards who were assigned for the protection of the king. The royal family ended up prisoners and a rump session of the Legislative Assembly suspended the monarchy; little more than a third of the deputies were present, almost all of them Jacobins.
What remained of a national government depended on the support of the insurrectionary Commune. With enemy troops advancing, the Commune looked for potential traitors in Paris. The Commune sent gangs of National Guardsmen and fereres into the prisons to kill 10 or more victims, mostly nonjuring priests. The Commune then sent a circular letter to the other cities of France inviting them to follow this example, and many cities launched their own massacres of prisoners and priests in the September massacres.” The Assembly could offer only feeble resistance. In Ocvtober, however , there was a counterattack accusing the instigators, especially Marat, of being terrorists. This led to a political contest between the more moderate Girondists and the more radical Montagnards inside the Convention,with rumor used as a weapon by both sides. The Girondists lost ground when they seemed too conciliatory. But the pendulum swung again and after Thermidor, the men who had endorsed the massacres were denounced as terrorists,
Chaos persisted until the Convention, elected by universal male suffrage and charged with writing a new constitution, met on 20 September 1792 and became the new de facto government of France. The next day it abolished the monarchy and declared a republic. The following day – 22 September 1792, the first morning of the new Republic – was later retroactively adopted as the beginning of Year One of the French Republican Calendar.
French Revolutionary Wars
From 1793 to 1815, France was engaged almost continuously (with two short breaks) and wars with Britain and a changing coalition of other major powers. The many French successes led to the spread of the French revolutionary ideals into neighboring countries, and indeed across much of Europe. However, the final defeat of Napoleon in 1814 (and 1815) brought a reaction that reversed some – but not all – of the revolutionary achievements in France and Europe. The Bourbons were restored to the throne, with the brother of executed King Louis XVI becoming King Louis XVII.
The politics of the period inevitably drove France towards war with Austria and its allies. The King, many of the Feuillants, and the Girondins specifically wanted to wage war. The King (and many Feuillants with him) expected war would increase his personal popularity; he also foresaw an opportunity to exploit any defeat: either result would make him stronger. The Girondins wanted to export the Revolution throughout Europe and, by extension, to defend the Revolution within France. The forces opposing war were much weaker. Barnave and his supporters among the Feuillants feared a war they thought France had little chance to win and which they feared might lead to greater radicalization of the revolution. On the other end of the political spectrum Robespierre opposed a war on two grounds, fearing that it would strengthen the monarchy and military at the expense of the revolution, and that it would incur the anger of ordinary people in Austria and elsewhere. The Austrian emperor Leopold II, brother of Marie Antoinette, may have wished to avoid war, but he died on 1 March 1792. France preemptively declared war on Austria (20 April 1792) and Prussia joined on the Austrian side a few weeks later. The invading Prussian army faced little resistance until checked at the Battle of Valmy (20 September 1792) and forced to withdraw.
The new-born Republic followed up on this success with a series of victories in Belgium and the Rhineland in the fall of 1792. The French armies defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Jemappes on 6 November, and had soon taken over most of the Austrian Netherlands. This brought them into conflict with Britain and the Dutch Republic, which wished to preserve the independence of the southern Netherlands from France. After the king’s execution in January 1793, these powers, along with Spain and most other European states, joined the war against France. Almost immediately, French forces faced defeat on many fronts, and were driven out of their newly conquered territories in the spring of 1793. At the same time, the republican regime was forced to deal with rebellions against its authority in much of western and southern France. But the allies failed to take advantage of French disunity, and by the autumn of 1793 the republican regime had defeated most of the internal rebellions and halted the allied advance into France itself.
The stalemate was broken in the summer of 1794 with dramatic French victories. They defeated the allied army at the Battle of Fleurus, leading to a full Allied withdrawal from the Austrian Netherlands. They followed up by a campaign which swept the allies to the east bank of the Rhine and left the French, by the beginning of 1795, conquering Holland itself. The House of Orange was expelled and replaced by the Batavian Republic, a French satellite state. These victories led to the collapse of the coalition against France. Prussia, having effectively abandoned the coalition in the fall of 1794, made peace with revolutionary France at Basel in April 1795, and soon thereafter Spain, too, made peace with France. Of the major powers, only Britain and Austria remained at war with France.
Although the French Revolution had a dramatic impact in numerous areas of Europe, the French colonies felt a particular influence. As the Martincian author Aimé Césaire put it, “there was in each French colony a specific revolution, that occurred on the occasion of the French Revolution, in tune with it.” The Haitian Revolution (Saint Domingue) became a central example of slave uprisings in French colonies.
National Convention (1792–1795)
Execution of Louis XVI
In the Brunswick Manifesto, the Imperial and Prussian armies threatened retaliation on the French population if it were to resist their advance or the reinstatement of the monarchy. This among other things made Louis appear to be conspiring with the enemies of France. On 17 January 1793 Louis was condemned to death for “conspiracy against the public liberty and the general safety” by a close majority in Convention: 361 voted to execute the king, 288 voted against, and another 72 voted to execute him subject to a variety of delaying conditions. The former Louis XVI, now simply named Citoyen Louis Capet (Citizen Louis Capet) was executed byguillotine on 21 January 1793 on the Place de la Révolution, former Place Louis XV, now called the Place de la Concorde.Conservatives across Europe were horrified and monarchies called for war against revolutionary France.
When war went badly, prices rose and the sans-culottes — poor labourers and radical Jacobins – rioted; counter-revolutionary activities began in some regions. This encouraged the Jacobins to seize power through a parliamentary coup, backed up by force effected by mobilising public support against the Girondistfaction, and by utilising the mob power of the Parisian sans-culottes. An alliance of Jacobin and sans-culottes elements thus became the effective centre of the new government. Policy became considerably more radical, as “The Law of the Maximum” set food prices and led to executions of offenders.
This policy of price control was coeval with the Committee of Public Safety‘s rise to power and the Reign of Terror. The Committee first attempted to set the price for only a limited number of grain products but, by September 1793, it expanded the “maximum” to cover all foodstuffs and a long list of other goods. Widespread shortages and famine ensued. The Committee reacted by sending dragoons into the countryside to arrest farmers and seize crops. This temporarily solved the problem in Paris, but the rest of the country suffered. By the spring of 1794, forced collection of food was not sufficient to feed even Paris and the days of the Committee were numbered. When Robespierre went to the guillotine in July of that year the crowd jeered, “There goes the dirty maximum!”
Reign of Terror
The Committee of Public Safety came under the control of Maximilien Robespierre, a lawyer, and the Jacobins unleashed the Reign of Terror (1793–1794). According to archival records, at least 16,594 people died under the guillotine or otherwise after accusations of counter-revolutionary activities. As many as 40,000 accused prisoners may have been summarily executed without trial or died awaiting trial.
On 2 June 1793, Paris sections — encouraged by the enragés (“enraged ones”) Jacques Roux and Jacques Hébert – took over theConvention, calling for administrative and political purges, a low fixed price for bread, and a limitation of the electoral franchise to sans-culottes alone. With the backing of the National Guard, they managed to persuade the Convention to arrest 31 Girondin leaders, including Jacques Pierre Brissot. Following these arrests, the Jacobins gained control of the Committee of Public Safety on 10 June, installing the revolutionary dictatorship.
On 13 July, the assassination of Jean-Paul Marat — a Jacobin leader and journalist known for his bloodthirsty rhetoric — by Charlotte Corday, a Girondin, resulted in further increase of Jacobin political influence. Georges Danton, the leader of the August 1792 uprisingagainst the king, undermined by several political reversals, was removed from the Committee and Robespierre, “the Incorruptible”, became its most influential member as it moved to take radical measures against the Revolution’s domestic and foreign enemies.
Meanwhile, on 24 June, the Convention adopted the first republican constitution of France, variously referred to as the French Constitution of 1793 or Constitution of the Year I. It was progressive and radical in several respects, in particular by establishing universal male suffrage. It was ratified by public referendum, but normal legal processes were suspended before it could take effect.
War in the Vendée
In Vendée, peasants revolted against the French Revolutionary government in 1793. They resented the changes imposed on the Roman Catholic Church by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790) and broke into open revolt in defiance of the Revolutionary government’s military conscription. This became a guerrilla war, known as the War in the Vendée. North of the Loire, similar revolts were started by the so-called Chouans (royalist rebels).
The revolt and its suppression, including both combat casualties and massacres and executions on both sides, are thought to have taken between 117,000 and 250,000 lives (170,000 according to the latest estimates). Because of the extremely brutal forms that the Republican repression took in many places, certain historians such as Reynald Secher have called the event a “genocide“. This description has become popular in the mass media, but has largely been rejected by mainstream scholars. Furet concludes that the repression in the Vendee “not only revealed massacre and destruction on an unprecedented scale but also a zeal so violent that it has bestowed as its legacy much of the region’s identity.”
Facing local revolts and foreign invasions in both the East and West of the country, the most urgent government business was the war. On 17 August, the Convention voted for general conscription, the levée en masse, which mobilized all citizens to serve as soldiers or suppliers in the war effort.
The National Convention subsequently enacted more legislation, voting on 9 September to establish sans-culottes paramilitary forces, revolutionary armies, and to force farmers to surrender grain demanded by the government. On 17 September, the Law of Suspects was passed, which authorized the charging of counter-revolutionaries with “crimes against liberty.” On 29 September, the Convention extended price limits from grain and bread to other household goods and established the Law of the Maximum, intended to prevent price gouging and supply food to the cities.
The guillotine became the tool for a string of executions. Louis XVI had already been guillotined before the start of the terror; Queen Marie Antoinette, Barnave, Bailly, Brissot and other leading Girondins, Philippe Égalité (despite his vote for the death of the King) Madame Roland and many others were executed by guillotine. The Revolutionary Tribunalsummarily condemned thousands of people to death by the guillotine, while mobs beat other victims to death.
At the peak of the terror, the slightest hint of counter-revolutionary thoughts or activities (or, as in the case of Jacques Hébert, revolutionary zeal exceeding that of those in power) could place one under suspicion, and trials did not always proceed according to contemporary standards of due process. Sometimes people died for their political opinions or actions, but many for little reason beyond mere suspicion, or because some others had a stake in getting rid of them. Most of the victims received an unceremonious trip to the guillotine in an open wooden cart (the tumbrel). In the rebellious provinces, the government representatives had unlimited authority and some engaged in extreme repressions and abuses. For example, Jean-Baptiste Carrier became notorious for the Noyades(“drownings”) he organized in Nantes; his conduct was judged unacceptable even by the Jacobin government and he was recalled.
Another anti-clerical uprising was made possible by the installment of the Republican Calendar on 24 October 1793. Against Robespierre’s concepts of Deism and Virtue, Hébert’s (and Chaumette’s) atheist movement initiated a religious campaign todechristianize society. The climax was reached with the celebration of the flame of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral on 10 November.
The Reign of Terror ultimately weakened the revolutionary government, while temporarily ending internal opposition. The Jacobins expanded the size of the army, and Carnotreplaced many aristocratic officers with soldiers who had demonstrated their patriotism, if not their ability. The Republican army repulsed the Austrians, Prussians, British, and Spanish. At the end of 1793, the army began to prevail and revolts were defeated with ease. The Ventôse Decrees (February–March 1794) proposed the confiscation of the goods of exiles and opponents of the Revolution, and their redistribution to the needy. However this policy was never fully implemented.
In the spring of 1794, both extremist enragés such as Hébert and moderate Montagnard indulgents such as Danton were charged with counter-revolutionary activities, tried and guillotined. On 7 June Robespierre, who had previously condemned the Cult of Reason, advocated a new state religion and recommended the Convention acknowledge the existence of the “Supreme Being”.
Three approaches attempt to explain the Reign of Terror imposed by the Jacobins in 1793-94. The older Marxist interpretation arguing the Terror was a necessary response to outside threats (in terms of other countries going to war with France) and internal threats (of traitors inside France threatening to frustrate the Revolution.) In this interpretation, as expressed by the Marxist historian Albert Soboul, Robespierre and the sans-culottes were heroes for defending the revolution from its enemies. François Furet has argued that foreign threats had little to do with the terror. Instead, the extreme violence was an inherent part of the intense ideological commitment of the revolutionaries – their utopian goals required exterminating opposition. Soboul’s Marxist interpretation has been largely abandoned by most historians since the 1990s. Hanson (2009) takes a middle position, recognizing the importance of the foreign enemies, and sees the terror as a contingency that was caused by the interaction of a series of complex events and the foreign threat. Hanson says the terror was not inherent in the ideology of the Revolution, but that circumstances made it necessary.
On 27 July 1794, the Thermidorian Reaction led to the arrest and execution of Robespierre, Louis de Saint-Just, and other leading Jacobins. The new government was predominantly made up of Girondists who had survived the Terror, and after taking power, they took revenge as well by persecuting even those Jacobins who had helped to overthrow Robespierre, banning the Jacobin Club, and executing many of its former members in what was known as the White Terror.
In the wake of excesses of the Terror, the Convention approved the new “Constitution of the Year III” on 22 August 1795. A Frenchplebiscite ratified the document, with about 1,057,000 votes for the constitution and 49,000 against. The results of the voting were announced on 23 September 1795, and the new constitution took effect on 27 September 1795. The new regime was called “The Directory.”
The Directory (1795–1799)
The new constitution created the Directoire (English: Directory) with a bicameral legislature. Power was in the hands of the five members of the Directory, only one of whom, Lazare Carnot, has a reputation for leadership or political sagacity.
The Directory denounced the arbitrary executions of the Reign of Terror, but itself engaged in large scale illegal repressions, as well as large-scale massacres of civilians in the Vendee uprising. The economy continued in bad condition, with the poor especially hurt by the high cost of food. A series of financial reforms started by the Directory finally took effect after it fell from power. Although committed to Republicanism, the Directory distrusted democracy. When the elections of 1798 and 1799 were carried by the opposition, it used the Army to imprison and exile the opposition leaders and close their newspapers. Increasingly it depended on the Army in foreign and domestic affairs, as well as finance. Finally the Army, under Napoleon, simply deposed the Directory on 9 November 1799 (see 18 Brumaire) and set up what amounted to a personal dictatorship under Napoleon.
In foreign affairs, the Army at first was quite successful. It conquered Belgium and turned it into another province of France. It conquered the Netherlands, and made it a puppet state. It conquered Switzerland and most of Italy, setting up a series of puppet states. The result was glory for France, and an infusion of much needed money from the conquered lands, which also provided direct support to the French Army.
However the enemies of France, led by Britain and funded by the inexhaustible British Treasury, formed a Second Coalition in 1798 (with Britain joined by Russia the Ottoman Empire, and Austria). It scored a series of victories that rolled back French successes in Europe, retaking Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands and ending the flow of payments from the conquered areas to France. The treasury was empty. Despite his publicity that claimed many glorious victories, Napoleon’s army was trapped in Egypt after the British sank the French fleet at the Battle of the Nile. Napoleon escaped by himself, returned to Paris and overthrew the Directory in November, 1799.
Historians have seldom praised the Directory; it was a government of self-interest rather than virtue, thus losing any claim on idealism. It never had a strong base of popular support; when elections were held, most of its candidates were defeated. Its achievements were minor. Brown stresses the turn toward dictatorship and the failure of liberal democracy under the Directory, blaming it on, “chronic violence, ambivalent forms of justice, and repeated recourse to heavy-handed repression.”
The election system was complex and designed to insulate the government from grass roots democracy. The parliament consisted of two houses: the Conseil des Cinq-Cents(Council of the Five Hundred) with 500 representatives, and the Conseil des Anciens (Council of Elders) with 250 senators. Executive power went to five “directors,” named annually by the Conseil des Anciens from a list submitted by the Conseil des Cinq-Cents. Furthermore, the universal male suffrage of 1793 was replaced by limited suffrage based on property. The voters had only a limited choice because the electoral rules required two-thirds of the seats go to members of the old Convention, no matter how few popular votes they received.
With the establishment of the Directory, contemporary observers might have assumed that the Revolution was finished. Citizens of the war-weary nation wanted stability, peace, and an end to conditions that at times bordered on chaos. Those on the right who wished to restore the monarchy by putting Louis XVIII on the throne, and those On the left who would have renewed the Reign of Terror tried but failed to overthrow the Directory. The earlier atrocities had made confidence or goodwill between parties impossible.
State finances were in total disarray; the government could only cover its expenses through the plunder and the tribute of foreign countries. If peace were made, the armies would return home and the directors would have to face the exasperation of the rank-and-file who had lost their livelihood, as well as the ambition of generals who could, in a moment, brush them aside. Barras and Rewbell were notoriously corrupt themselves and screened corruption in others. The patronage of the directors was ill-bestowed, and the general maladministration heightened their unpopularity.
The constitutional party in the legislature desired toleration of the nonjuring clergy, the repeal of the laws against the relatives of theémigrés, and some merciful discrimination toward the émigrés themselves. The directors baffled all such endeavours. On the other hand, the socialist conspiracy of Babeuf was easily quelled. Little was done to improve the finances, and the assignats continued to fall in value until each note was worth less than the paper it was printed on; debtors easily paid off their debts.
The new régime met opposition from Jacobins on the left and royalists on the right (the latter were secretly subsidies by the British government). The army suppressed riots and counter-revolutionary activities. In this way the army and in particular Napoleon gained total power. In the elections of 1797 for one-third of the seats the Royalists won the great majority of seats and were poised to take control of the Directory in the next election. The Directory reacted by purging all the winners in the Coup of 18 Fructidor, banishing 57 leaders to certain death in Guiana amd closing 42 newspapers. That is, it rejected democratic elections and kept its old leaders in power.
On 9 November 1799 (18 Brumaire of the Year VIII) Napoleon Bonaparte staged the coup of 18 Brumaire which installed theConsulate. This effectively led to Bonaparte’s dictatorship and eventually (in 1804) to his proclamation as Empereur (emperor) which brought to a close the specifically republican phase of the French Revolution.
In foreign affairs, the Army at first was quite successful. It conquered Belgium and turned it into another province of France. It conquered the Netherlands, and made it a puppet state. It conquered Switzerland and most of Italy, setting up a series of puppet states. The result was glory for France, and an infusion of much needed money from the conquered lands, which also provided direct support to the French Army. However the enemies of France, led by Britain and funded by the inexhaustible British Treasury, formed a Second Coalition in 1799 (with Britain joined by Russia the Ottoman Empire, and Austria). It scored a series of victories that rolled back French successes, and The French Army trapped in Egypt. Napoleon himself slipped through the British blockade in October 1799, returning to Paris.
Napoleon conquered most of Italy in the name of the French Revolution in 1797-99. He consolidated old units and split up Austria’s holdings. He set up a series of new republics, complete with new codes of law and abolition of old feudal privileges. Napoleon’s Cisalpine Republic was centered on Milan. Genoa the city became a republic while its hinterland became the Ligurian Republic. The Roman Republic was formed out of the papal holdings while the pope himself was sent to France. The Neapolitan Republic was formed around Naples, but it lasted only five months before the enemy forces of the Coalition recaptured it. In 1805 he formed the Kingdom of Italy, with himself as king and his stepson as viceroy. In addition, France turned the Netherlands into the Batavian Republic, and Switzerland into the Helvetic Republic. All these new countries were satellites of France, and had to pay large subsidies to Paris, as well as provide military support for Napoleon’s wars. Their political and administrative systems were modernized, the metric system introduced, and trade barriers reduced. Jewish ghettos were abolished. Belgium and Piedmont became integral parts of France.
Most of the new nations were abolished and returned to prewar owners in 1814. However, Artz emphasizes the benefits the Italians gained from the French Revolution:
- For nearly two decades the Italians had the excellent codes of law, a fair system of taxation, a better economic situation, and more religious and intellectual toleration than they had known for centuries…. Everywhere old physical, economic, and intellectual barriers had been thrown down and the Italians had begun to be aware of a common nationality.
Symbolism was a device to distinguish the main features of the Revolution and ensure public identification and support. In order to effectively illustrate the differences between the new Republic and the old regime, the leaders needed to implement a new set of symbols to be celebrated instead of the old religious and monarchical symbolism. To this end, symbols were borrowed from historic cultures and redefined, while those of the old regime were either destroyed or reattributed acceptable characteristics. These revised symbols were used to instill in the public a new sense of tradition and reverence for the Enlightenment and the Republic.
The French national anthem La Marseillaise; text in Spanish.
|Problems playing this file? See media help.|
“La Marseillaise” (French pronunciation: [la maʁsɛjɛz]) became the national anthem of France. The song was written and composed in 1792 byClaude Joseph Rouget de Lisle, and was originally titled “Chant de guerre pour l’Armée du Rhin“. The French National Convention adopted it as the First Republic’s anthem in 1795. It acquired its nickname after being sung in Paris by volunteers from Marseille marching on the capital.
The song is the first example of the “European march” anthemic style. The anthem’s evocative melody and lyrics have led to its widespread use as a song of revolution and its incorporation into many pieces of classical and popular music. Cerulo says, “the design of “La Marseillaise” is credited to General Strasburg of France, who is said to have directed de Lisle, the composer of the anthem, to ‘produce one of those hymns which conveys to the soul of the people the enthusiasm which it (the music) suggests.'”
Hanson notes, “The guillotine stands as the principal symbol of the Terror in the French Revolution.” Invented by a physician during the Revolution as a quicker, more efficient and more distinctive form of execution, the guillotine became a part of popular culture and historic memory. It was celebrated on the left as the people’s avenger and cursed as the symbol of theReign of Terror by the right. Its operation became a popular entertainment that attracted great crowds of spectators. Vendors sold programs listing the names of those scheduled to die. Many people came day after day and vied for the best locations from which to observe the proceedings; knitting women (tricoteuses) formed a cadre of hardcore regulars, inciting the crowd. Parents often brought their children. By the end of the Terror, the crowds had thinned drastically. Repetition had staled even this most grisly of entertainments, and audiences grew bored.
What it is that horrifies people changes over time. Doyle comments:
- Even the unique horror of the guillotine has been dwarfed by the gas chambers of the Holocaust, the organized brutality of the gulag, the mass intimidation of Mao’s cultural revolution, or the killing fields of Cambodia.
Cockades were widely worn by revolutionaries beginning in 1789. They now pinned the blue-and-red cockade of Paris onto the white cockade of the Ancien Régime – thus producing the original Tricolore cockade. Later, distinctive colours and styles of cockade would indicate the wearer’s faction—although the meanings of the various styles were not entirely consistent, and varied somewhat by region and period.
The tricolour flag is derived from the cockades used in the 1790s. These were circular rosette-like emblems attached to the hat. Camille Desmoulins asked his followers to wear green cockades on 12 July 1789. The Paris militia, formed on 13 July, adopted a blue and red cockade. Blue and red are the traditional colours of Paris, and they are used on the city’s coat of arms. Cockades with various colour schemes were used during the storming of the Bastille on 14 July. The blue and red cockade was presented to King Louis XVI at the Hôtel de Ville on 17 July. Lafayette argued for the addition of a white stripe to “nationalise” the design. On 27 July, a tricolour cockade was adopted as part of the uniform of the National Guard, the national police force that succeeded the militia.
Fasces are Roman in origin and suggest Roman Republicanism. Fasces are a bundle of birch rods containing an axe. The French Republic continued this Roman symbol to represent state power, justice, and unity.
The Liberty cap, also known as the Phrygian cap, or pileus, is a brimless, felt cap that is conical in shape with the tip pulled forward. It reflects Roman republicanism and liberty, alluding to the Roman ritual of manumission of slaves, in which a freed slave receives the bonnet as a symbol of his newfound liberty.
Role of women
Historians since the late 20th century have debated how women shared in the French Revolution and what long-term impact it had on French women. Women had no political rights in pre-Revolutionary France; they were considered “passive” citizens; forced to rely on men to determine what was best for them. That changed dramatically in theory as there seemingly were great advances in feminism. Feminism emerged in Paris as part of a broad demand for social and political reform. The women demanded equality for men and then moved on to a demand for the end of male domination. Their chief vehicle for agitation were pamphlets and women’s clubs, but the clubs were abolished in October 1793 and their leaders were arrested. The movement was crushed. Devance explains the decision in terms of the emphasis on masculinity in a wartime situation, Marie Antoinette’s bad reputation for feminine interference in state affairs, and traditional male supremacy. A decade later the Napoleonic Code confirmed and perpetuated women’s second-class status.
When the Revolution opened, groups of women acted forcefully, making use of the volatile political climate. Women forced their way into the political sphere. They swore oaths of loyalty, “solemn declarations of patriotic allegiance, [and] affirmations of the political responsibilities of citizenship.” De Corday d’Armont is a prime example of such a woman; engaged in the revolutionary political faction of the Girondists, she assassinated the Jacobin leader, Marat. Throughout the Revolution, other women such as Pauline Léon and herSociety of Revolutionary Republican Women supported the radical Jacobins, staged demonstrations in the National Assembly and participated in the riots, often using armed force.
The March to Versailles is but one example of feminist militant activism during the French Revolution. While largely left out of the thrust for increasing rights of citizens, as the question was left indeterminate in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, activists such asPauline Léon and Théroigne de Méricourt agitated for full citizenship for women. Women were, nonetheless, “denied political rights of ‘active citizenship’ (1791) and democratic citizenship (1793).”
On 20 June 1792 a number of armed women took part in a procession that “passed through the halls of the Legislative Assembly, into the Tuilleries Gardens, and then through the King’s residence.” Militant women also assumed a special role in the funeral of Marat, following his murder on 13 July 1793. As part of the funeral procession, they carried the bathtub in which Marat had been murdered (by a counter-revolutionary woman) as well as a shirt stained with Marat’s blood. On 20 May 1793, women were at the fore of a crowd that demanded “bread and the Constitution of 1793.” When their cries went unnoticed, the women went on a rampage, “sacking shops, seizing grain and kidnapping officials.”
The Society of Revolutionary Republican Women, a militant group on the far left, demanded a law in 1793 that would compel all women to wear the tricolor cockade to demonstrate their loyalty to the Republic. They also demanded vigorous price controls to keep bread – the major food of the poor people – from becoming too expensive. After the Convention passage law in September 1793, the Revolutionary Republican Women demanded vigorous enforcement, but were counted by market women, former servants, and religious women who adamantly opposed price controls (which would drive them out of business ) and resented attacks on the aristocracy and on religion. Fist fights broke out in the streets between the two factions of women.
Meanwhile, the men who controlled the Jacobins rejected the Revolutionary Republican Women as dangerous rabble-rousers. At this point the Jacobins controlled the government; they dissolved the Society of Revolutionary Republican Women, and decreed that all women’s clubs and associations were illegal. They sternly reminded women to stay home and tend to their families by leaving public affairs to the men. Organized women were permanently shut out of the French Revolution after October 30, 1793.
Olympe de Gouges wrote a number of plays, short stories, and novels. Her publications emphasized that women and men are different, but this shouldn’t stop them from equality under the law. In her “Declaration on the Rights of Woman” she insisted that women deserved rights, especially in areas concerning them directly, such as divorce and recognition of illegitimate children.
Madame Roland (aka Manon or Marie Roland) was another important female activist. Her political focus was not specifically on women or their liberation. She focused on other aspects of the government, but was a feminist by virtue of the fact that she was a woman working to influence the world. Her personal letters to leaders of the Revolution influenced policy; in addition, she often hosted political gatherings of the Brissotins, a political group which allowed women to join. As she was led to the scaffold, Madame Roland shouted “O liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name!” 
Most of these activists were punished for their actions. Many of the women of the Revolution were even publicly executed for “conspiring against the unity and the indivisibility of the Republic”.
A major aspect of the French Revolution was the dechristianisation movement, a movement strongly rejected by many devout people. Especially for women living in rural areas of France, the closing of the churches meant a loss of normalcy.
When these revolutionary changes to the Church were implemented, it sparked a counter-revolutionary movement among women. Although some of these women embraced the political and social amendments of the Revolution, they opposed the dissolution of the Catholic Church and the formation of revolutionary cults like the Cult of the Supreme Being. As Olwen Hufton argues, these women began to see themselves as the “defenders of faith”. They took it upon themselves to protect the Church from what they saw as a heretical change to their faith, enforced by revolutionaries.
Counter-revolutionary women resisted what they saw as the intrusion of the state into their lives. Economically, many peasant women refused to sell their goods for assignatsbecause this form of currency was unstable and was backed by the sale of confiscated Church property. By far the most important issue to counter-revolutionary women was the passage and the enforcement of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1790. In response to this measure, women in many areas began circulating anti-oath pamphlets and refused to attend masses held by priests who had sworn oaths of loyalty to the Republic. These women continued to adhere to traditional practices such as Christian burials and naming their children after saints in spite of revolutionary decrees to the contrary.
The French Revolution abolished many of the constraints on the economy that had slowed growth during the ancien regime. It abolished tithes owed to local churches as well as feudal dues owed to local landlords. The result hurt the tenants, who paid both higher rents and higher taxes. It nationalized all church lands, as well as lands belonging to royalist enemies who went into exile. It planned to use these seized lands to finance the government by issuing assignats. It abolished the guild system as a worthless remnant of feudalism. It also abolished the highly inefficient system of tax farming, whereby private individuals would collect taxes for a hefty fee. The government seized the foundations that had been set up (starting in the 13th century) to provide an annual stream of revenue for hospitals, poor relief, and education. The state sold the lands but typically local authorities did not replace the funding and so most of the nation’s charitable and school systems were massively disrupted.
The economy did poorly in 1790-96 as industrial and agricultural output dropped, foreign trade plunged, and prices soared. The government decided not to repudiate the old debts. Instead it issued more and more paper money (called “assignat”) that supposedly were grounded seized lands. The result was escalating inflation. The government imposed price controls and persecuted speculators and traders in the black market. People increasingly refused to pay taxes as the annual government deficit increased from 10% of gross national product in 1789 to 64% in 1793. By 1795, after the bad harvest of 1794 and the removal of price controls, inflation had reached a level of 3500%. The assignats were withdrawn in 1796 but the replacements also fueled inflation. The inflation was finally ended by Napoleon in 1803 with the franc as the new currency.
Napoleon after 1799 paid for his expensive wars by multiple means, starting with the modernization of the rickety financial system. He conscripted soldiers at low wages, raised taxes, placed large-scale loans, sold lands formerly owned by the Catholic Church, sold Louisiana to the United States, plundered conquered areas and seized food supplies, and levied requisitions on countries he controlled, such as Italy.
Otto Dann and John Dinwiddy report, “It has long been almost a truism of European history that the French Revolution gave a great stimulus to the growth of modern nationalism.” Nationalism was emphasized by historian Carlton J. H. Hayes as a major result of the French Revolution across Europe. The impact on French nationalism was profound. For example, Napoleon became such a heroic symbol of the nation that the glory was easily picked up by his nephew, who was overwhelmingly elected president (and later became Emperor Napoleon III). The influence was great in the hundreds of small German states and elsewhere, where it was either inspired by the French example or in reaction against it.
The changes in France were enormous; some were widely accepted and others were bitterly contested into the late 20th century. Before the Revolution, the people had little power or voice. The kings had so thoroughly centralized the system that most nobles spent their time at Versailles, and thus played only a small direct role in their home districts. Thompson says that the kings had:
- ruled by virtue of their personal wealth, their patronage of the nobility, their disposal of ecclesiastical offices, their provincial governors (intendants) their control over the judges and magistrates, and their command of the Army.
After the first year of revolution, this power had been stripped away. The king was a figurehead, the nobility had lost all their titles and most of their land, the Church lost its monasteries and farmlands, bishops, judges and magistrates were elected by the people, the army was almost helpless, with military power in the hands of the new revolutionary National Guard. The central elements of 1789 were the slogan “Liberty Equality ,and Fraternity’ and the “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen“, which Lefebvre calls, “the incarnation of the Revolution as a whole.”
The long term impact on France was profound, shaping politics, society, religion and ideas, and polarizing politics for more than a century. Historian François Aulard writes:
- From the social point of view, the Revolution consisted in the suppression of what was called the feudal system, in the emancipation of the individual, in greater division of landed property, the abolition of the privileges of noble birth, the establishment of equality, the simplification of life…. The French Revolution differed from other revolutions in being not merely national, for it aimed at benefiting all humanity.”
Religion and charity
The most heated controversy was over the status of the Catholic Church. From a dominant position in 1788, it was almost destroyed in less than a decade, its priests and nuns turned out, its leaders dead or in exile, its property controlled by its enemies, and a strong effort underway to remove all influence of Christian religiosity, such as Sundays, hold days, saints, prayers, rituals and ceremonies. The movement to dechristianise France not only failed but aroused a furious reaction among the pious. Napoleon’s Concordat was a compromise that restored some of the Catholic Church’s traditional roles but not its power, its lands or its monasteries. Priests and bishops were given salaries as part of a department of government controlled by Paris, not Rome. Protestants and Jews gained equal rights. Battles over the role of religion in the public sphere, and closely related issues such as church-controlled schools, that were opened by the Revolution have never seen closure. They raged into the 20th century. By the 21st century angry debates exploded over the presence of any Muslim religious symbols in schools, such as the headscarves for which Muslim girls could be expelled. J. Christopher Soper and Joel S. Fetzer explicitly link the conflict over religious symbols in public to the French Revolution, when the target was Catholic rituals and symbols.
The revolutionary government seized the charitable foundations that had been set up (starting in the 13th century) to provide an annual stream of revenue for hospitals, poor relief, and education. The state sold the lands but typically local authorities did not replace the funding and so most of the nation’s charitable and school systems were massively disrupted.
In the ancien regime new opportunity for nuns as charitable practitioners were created by devout nobles on their own estates. The nuns provided comprehensive care for the sick poor on their patrons’ estates, acting not only as nurses, but took on expanded roles as physicians, surgeons, and apothecaries. During the Revolution, most of the orders of nuns were shut down and there was no organized nursing care to replace them. However the demand for their nursing services remained strong, and after 1800 the sisters reappeared and resumed their work in hospitals and on rural estates. They were tolerated by officials because they had widespread support and were the link between elite male physicians and distrustful peasants who needed help.
Two thirds of France was employed in agriculture, which was transformed by the Revolution. With the breakup of large estates controlled by the Church and the nobility and worked by hired hands, rural France became more a land of small independent farms. Harvest taxes were ended, such as the tithe and seigneurial dues, much to the relief of the peasants. Primogeniture was ended both for nobles and peasants, thereby weakening the family patriarch. Because all the children had a share in the family’s property, there was a declining birth rate. Cobban says the revolution bequeathed to the nation “a ruling class of landowners.”
In the cities entrepreneurship on a small scale flourished, as restrictive monopolies, privileges, barriers, rules, taxes and guilds gave way. However the British blockade virtually ended overseas and colonial trade, hurting the port cities and their supply chains. Overall the Revolution did not greatly change the French business system, and probably helped freeze in place the horizons of the small business owner. The typical businessman owned a small store, mill or shop, with family help and a few paid employees; large scale industry was less common than in other industrializing nations.
The Revolution meant an end to arbitrary royal rule, and held out the promise of rule by law under a constitutional order, but it did not rule out a monarch. Napoleon as emperor set up a constitutional system (although he remained in full control), and the restored Bourbons were forced to go along with one. After the abdication of Napoleon III in 1871, the monarchists probably had a voting majority, but they were so factionalized they could not agree on who should be king, and instead the French Third Republic was launched with a deep commitment to upholding the ideals of the Revolution. The conservative Catholic enemies of the Revolution came to power in Vichy France (1940–44), and tried with little success to undo its heritage, but they kept it a republic. Vichy denied the principle of equality and tried to replace the Revolutionary watchwords “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” with “Work, Family, and Fatherland.” However there were no efforts by the Bourbons, Vichy or anyone else to restore the privileges that had been stripped away from the nobility in 1789. France permanently became a society of equals under the law.
The Jacobin cause was picked up by Marxists in the mid-19th century, and became an element of Communist thought around the world, especially in the Soviet Union. “Gracchus” Babeuf, became a special hero.
Britain saw minority support but the majority, and especially the elite, strongly opposed the French Revolution. Britain led and funded the series of coalitions that fought France from 1793 to 1815, and then restored the Bourbons. Edmund Burke was the chief spokesman for the opposition.
In Ireland, the effect was to transform what had been an attempt by Protestant settlers to gain some autonomy into a mass movement led by the Society of United Irishmen involving Catholics and Protestants. It stimulated the demand for further reform throughout Ireland, especially in Ulster. The upshot was a revolt in 1798, led by Wolfe Tone, that was crushed by Britain.
German reaction to the Revolution swung from favorable to antagonistic. At first it brought liberal and democratic ideas, the end of gilds, serfdom and the Jewish ghetto. It brought economic freedoms and agrarian and legal reform. Above all the antagonism helped stimulate and shape German nationalism.
The French invaded Switzerland and turned it into an ally known as the “Helvetic Republic,” (1798–1803). The interference with localism and traditional liberties was deeply resented, although some modernizing reforms took place.
The French invaded and controlled Belgium, 1794-1814, imposing all their new reforms and incorporating what had been the “Austrian Netherlands” and the Diocese of Liege into France. New rulers were sent in by Paris. Belgian men were drafted into the French wars and heavily taxed. Nearly everyone was Catholic, but the Church was repressed. Resistance was strong in every sector, as Belgian nationalism emerged to oppose French rule. The French legal system, however, was adopted, with its equal legal rights, and abolition of class distinctions. Belgium now had a government bureaucracy selected by merit.
Antwerp regained access to the sea and grew quickly as a major port and business center. France promoted commerce and capitalism, paving the way for the ascent of the bourgeoisie and the rapid growth of manufacturing and mining. In economics, therefore, the nobility declined while the middle class Belgian entrepreneurs flourished because of their inclusion in a large market, paving the way for Belgium’s leadership role after 1815 in the Industrial Revolution on the Continent.
The Kingdom of Denmark adopted liberalizing reforms in line with those of the French Revolution, with no direct contact. Reform was gradual and the regime itself carried out agrarian reforms that had the effect of weakening absolutism by creating a class of independent peasant freeholders. Much of the initiative came from well-organized liberals who directed political change in the first half of the 19th century.
While it had little practical influence, the Revolution deeply polarized American politics. Despite official neutrality, Americans were deeply involved and their polarization shaped theFirst Party System. In 1793, as war broke out in Europe, the Jeffersonian Republican Party favored France and pointed to the 1778 treaty that was still in effect. Washington and his unanimous cabinet (including Jefferson) decided the treaty did not bind the U.S. to enter the war; instead Washington proclaimed neutrality. Under President Adams, a Federalist, an undeclared naval war took place with France in 1798-99, called the “Quasi War“. Jefferson became president in 1801, but was hostile to Napoleon as a dictator and emperor.
Jefferson had a direct influence on the opening stage of the French Revolution. The broad similarities but different experiences between the French and American revolutions lead to a certain kinship between France and the United States, with both countries seeing themselves as pioneers of liberty and promoting republican ideals.
By the year 2000, many historians were saying that the field of the French Revolution was an intellectual disarray. The old model or paradigm focusing on class conflict has been discredited, and no new explanatory model had gained widespread support. Nevertheless, as Spang has shown, there persists a very widespread agreement to the effect that the French Revolution was the watershed between the premodern and modern eras of Western history.
The French Revolution has received enormous amounts of historical attention, both from the general public and from scholars and academics. The views of historians, in particular, have been characterized as falling along ideological lines, with disagreement over the significance and the major developments of the Revolution. Alexis de Tocqueville argued that the Revolution was a manifestation of a more prosperous middle class becoming conscious of its social importance.
Other thinkers, like the conservative Edmund Burke, maintained that the Revolution was the product of a few conspiratorial individuals who brainwashed the masses into subverting the old order—a claim rooted in the belief that the revolutionaries had no legitimate complaints. Other historians, influenced by Marxist thinking, have emphasized the importance of the peasants and the urban workers in presenting the Revolution as a gigantic class struggle. In general, scholarship on the French Revolution initially studied the political ideas and developments of the era, but it has gradually shifted towards social history that analyzes the impact of the Revolution on individual lives.
Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in history. It marks the end of the early modern period, which started around 1500 and is often seen as marking the “dawn of the modern era“. Within France itself, the Revolution permanently crippled the power of the aristocracy and drained the wealth of the Church, although the two institutions survived despite the damage they sustained. After the collapse of the First Empire in 1815, the French public lost the rights and privileges earned since the Revolution, but they remembered the participatory politics that characterized the period, with one historian commenting: “Thousands of men and even many women gained firsthand experience in the political arena: they talked, read, and listened in new ways; they voted; they joined new organizations; and they marched for their political goals. Revolution became a tradition, and republicanism an enduring option.”
Some historians argue that the French people underwent a fundamental transformation in self-identity, evidenced by the elimination of privileges and their replacement by rights as well as the growing decline in social deference that highlighted the principle of equality throughout the Revolution. The Revolution represented the most significant and dramatic challenge to political absolutism up to that point in history and spread democratic ideals throughout Europe and ultimately the world. Throughout the 19th Century, the revolution was heavily analyzed by economists and political scientists, who saw the class nature of the revolution as a fundamental aspect in understanding human social evolution itself. This, combined with the egalitarian values introduced by the revolution, gave rise to a classless and co-operative model for society called “socialism” which profoundly influenced future revolutions in France and around the world.
- Glossary of the French Revolution for definitions of technical terms
- List of people associated with the French Revolution
- History of France
Political clubs during the French Revolution
- Donald Greer, The Incidence of the Terror during the French Revolution: A Statistical Interpretation (1935).
- Bell, David Avrom (2007). The First Total War: Napoleon’s Europe and the birth of warfare as we know it. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 51. ISBN 0-618-34965-0.
- Suzanne Desan et al. eds. ‘’The French Revolution in Global Perspective’’ (2013) , pp. 3, 8, 10
- George C. Comninel (1987). Rethinking the French Revolution: Marxism and the Revisionist Challenge. Verso. p. 31.
- William Doyle, The Oxford History of the French Revolution (2nd ed. 2003), pp.45-49, 76-77
- Doyle, The Oxford History of the French Revolution(2003), pp.73–74
- Frey, p. 3
- “France’s Financial Crisis: 1783–1788”. Retrieved 26 October 2008.
- Hibbert, p. 35, 36
- Frey, p. 2
- Doyle, The French Revolution: A very short introduction, p. 34
- Doyle 2003, p. 93
- William Doyle, The Oxford History of the French Revolution (1989) p 59
- Doyle, The Oxford History of the French Revolution(1989) pp 99-101
- Albert Soboul, The French Revolution 1787–1799(1975) pp 127–29.
- Frey, pp. 4, 5
- Doyle 2001, p. 38
- Neely, pp. 63, 65
- Neely, p. 56
- Furet, p. 45
- Hibbert, p. 54
- Schama 2004, p.300–301
- John Hall Stewart. A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution. New York: Macmillan, 1951, p. 86.
- Schama 2004, p.303
- Schama 2004, p.312
- Schama 2004, p.317
- Schama 2004, p.331
- Schama 2004, p.344
- Schama 2004, p.357
- Georges Lefebvre, The French Revolution: From its Origins to 1793 (1952) pp. 187–188.
- Hibbert, 93
- François Furet, “Night of August 4,” in François Furet, and Mona Ozouf, eds. A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution (1989) pp 107-114.
- The buying and selling of high office.
- Lefebvre, Georges (1962). The French Revolution: Vol. 1, from Its Origins To 1793. Columbia U.P,. p. 130.
- Robert Forster, “The survival of the nobility during the French Revolution.” Past and Present (1967): 71-86 in JSTOR.
- Paul R. Hanson, The A to Z of the French Revolution(2013) pp 293-94
- Furet, Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution, p 112
- J.M. Thompson, The French Revolution (1943), pp 90-111
- Gregory Fremont-Barnes (2007). Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Revolutions and New Ideologies, 1760-1815. Greenwood. p. 190.
- J.M. Thompson, The French Revolution (1943), pp 90-111
- Doyle 1989, p.121
- Doyle 1989, p.122
- Gemma Betros, “The French Revolution and the Catholic Church,” History Review (2010) Issue 68, pp 16-21.
- Censer and Hunt, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution p 4.
- Censer and Hunt, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, 16.
- John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church, p 5.
- John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church, pp 50, 4.
- National Assembly legislation cited in John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church, 27.
- John McManners, The French Revolution and the Church, p 27.
- Censer and Hunt, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, p 61.
- Emmet Kennedy, A Cultural History of the French Revolution, p 148.
- Censer and Hunt, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, 92.
- Emmet Kennedy, A Cultural History of the French Revolution, (1989) p 151.
- Matthew Shaw, Time and the French Revolution: The Republican Calendar, 1789-Year XIV (2011)
- Censer and Hunt, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, pp 92–94.
- Reynald Secher, A French Genocide: The Vendée, (U. of Notre Dame Press, 2003)
- Schama 2004, p.433–434
- William Doyle (2009). Aristocracy and its Enemies in the Age of Revolution. Oxford UP. pp. 334–36.
- Schama 2004, p.449
- Schama 2004, p.442
- Timothy Tackett, When the King Took Flight (Harvard University Press, 2003)
- Schama 2004, p.481
- Clifford D. Conner, Jean-Paul Marat: Tribune of the French Revolution (2012) ch 4
- Schama 2004, p.500
- Soboul (1975), pp. 226–227.
- Lefebvre, p. 212.
- Francis Charles Montague (1911). The Encyclopaedia Britannica. p. 158.
- Martyn Lyons, France under the Directory (1975), p 5
- Philip Dwyer (2008). Napoleon: The Path to Power 1769 – 1799. Yale University Press. pp. 99–100.ISBN 9780300148206.
- Peter McPhee, ed. (2012). A Companion to the French Revolution. pp. 164–66.
- Leo Gershoy, The French Revolution and Napoleonpp 221-26
- Timothy Tackett, “Rumor and Revolution: The Case of the September Massacres,” French History and Civilization (2011) Vol. 4, pp 54-64.
- Doyle (2003), p. 194.
- Schama 2004, p.505
- Marcel Dorginy, The Abolition of Slavery: From L.F. Sonthonax to Victor Schoelcher, 1793, 1794, 1848 (Paris: UNESCO, 2003), 167-180.
- Doyle 2002, p. 196
- Ellis Wasson (2009). A History of Modern Britain: 1714 to the Present. John Wiley & Sons. p. 118.ISBN 9781405139359.
- William Doyle (2002). The Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford University Press. pp. 396–97. ISBN 9780191608292.
- White, E. “The French Revolution and the Politics of Government Finance, 1770–1815.” The Journal of Economic History 1995, p 244
- Schuettinger, Robert. “Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls.” Heritage Foundation, 2009. p. 45
- Bourne, Henry. “Maximum Prices in France.” American Historical Review, October 1917, p. 112.
- Gough, Hugh (1998). The Terror in the French Revolution. p. 77.
- Doyle 1989, p. 258
- Schama 2004, p.616
- Schama 2004, p.641
- Schama 2004, p.637
- In a Corner of France, Long Live the Old Regime,New York Times
- McPhee, Peter Review of Reynald Secher, A French Genocide: The Vendée H-France Review Vol. 4 (March 2004), No. 26
- Hibbert, p. 321.
- 117,000 according to Reynald Secher, La Vendée-Vengé, le Génocide franco-français (1986); 200,000–250,000 according to Jean-Clément Martin, La Vendée et la France, Éditions du Seuil, collection Points, 1987; 200,000 according to Louis-Marie Clénet, La Contre-révolution, Paris, PUF, collection Que sais-je?, 1992; 170,000 according to Jacques Hussenet (dir.),« Détruisez la Vendée ! » Regards croisés sur les victimes et destructions de la guerre de Vendée, La Roche-sur-Yon, Centre vendéen de recherches historiques, 2007, p.148.
- In a Corner of France, Long Live the Old Regime.The New York Times. 17 June 1989
- Michel Vovelle, « L’historiographie de la Révolution Française à la veille du bicentenaire », Estudos avançados, octobre-décembre 1987, volume 1, n° 1, p. 61–72.  ou 
- François Furet and Mona Ozouf, eds. A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution (1989), p 175
- Schama 2004, p.646
- Jean-Baptiste Carrier, Encyclopædia Britannica
- Soboul (1975), p. 384.
- Schama 2004, p.658
- Schama 2004, p.689
- Schama 2004, p.706
- François Furet, “A Deep-rooted Ideology as Well as Circumstance,” in The French Revolution: Conflicting Interpretations, ed. by Frank Kafker et al. (2002). p. 222.
- Paul R. Hanson, Contesting the French Revolution(2009)
- Soboul (1975), pp. 425–428.
- Schama, p.852.
- Doyle 1989, p.320
- Louis R. Gottschalk, The Era of the French Revolution (1715-1815) (1929) p 281
- François Furet, Revolutionary France 1770-1880(1995) p 155
- Howard G. Brown (2007). Ending the French Revolution: Violence, Justice, and Repression from the Terror to Napoleon. U. of Virginia Press. pp. 5–7.
- Brown (2007). Ending the French Revolution: Violence, Justice, and Repression from the Terror to Napoleon. p. 1.
- Doyle, Oxford History (2003) pp 318–40
- Doyle, Oxford History p.331
- Doyle, Oxford History, pp. 322–23
- Doyle, Oxford History (2003) pp 322-23
- David Nicholls, Napoleon: a biographical companion(1999)
- William Doyle, The Oxford History of the French Revolution (1989) pp 341-68
- Steven T. Ross, European Diplomatic History, 1789-1815: France Against Europe (1969)
- Alexander Grab, Napoleon and the Transformation of Europe (2003) pp 62-65, 78-79, 88-96, 115-17, 154-59
- Frederick B. Artz, Reaction and Revolution: 1814-1832 (1934) pp 142-43
- Censer and Hunt, “How to Read Images” LEF CD-ROM
- Karen A. Cerulo, “Symbols and the world system: national anthems and flags.” Sociological Forum (1993) 8#2 pp. 243-271.
- Paul R. Hanson (2007). The A to Z of the French Revolution. Scarecrow Press. p. 151.
- R. Po-chia Hsia, Lynn Hunt, Thomas R. Martin, Barbara H. Rosenwein, and Bonnie G. Smith, The Making of the West, Peoples and Culture, A Concise History, Volume II: Since 1340, (2nd ed., 2007), p. 664.
- R. F. Opie, Guillotine (2003)
- William Doyle (2001). The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford UP. p. 22.
- Crowdy, Terry, French Revolutionary Infantry 1789–1802, p. 42 (2004).
- Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert Du Motier Lafayette (marquis de), Memoirs, correspondence and manuscripts of General Lafayette, vol. 2, p. 252.
- Clifford, Dale, “Can the Uniform Make the Citizen? Paris, 1789-1791,” Eighteenth-Century Studies, 2001, p. 369.
- Censer and Hunt, “How to Read Images” LEF CD-ROM
- William J. Cooper and John McCardell. “Liberty caps and liberty trees.” Past and Present 146#1 (1995): 66-102. in JSTOR
- Louis Devance, “Le Féminisme pendant la Révolution Française,” Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française (1977) 49#3 pp 341-376
- Jane Abray, “Feminism in the French Revolution,”American Historical Review (1975) 80#1 pp. 43-62 in JSTOR
- Dalton “Madame Roland” 262
- Rebel Daughters: Women and the French Revolution Edited by Sara E Melzer and Leslie W. Rabine pg. 79
- Women and the Limits of Citizenship in the French Revolution by Olwen W. Hufton pg. 23–24
- Rebel Daughters by Sara E Melzer and Leslie W. Rabine pg. 91
- Hufton, “Women and the Limits of Citizenship,” pg. 31
- James H. McMillan, France and women, 1789-1914: gender, society and politics (Routledge, 2002) p. 24
- Darline Gay Levy, Harriet Branson Applewhite and Mary Durham Johnson, eds. Women in Revolutionary Paris, 1789-1795 (1981) pp 143-49
- De Gouges “Writings” 564–568
- Susan Dalton, “Gender and the Shifting Ground of Revolutionary Politics: The Case of Madame Roland,”Canadian journal of history (2001) 36#2 pp 262–267
- Lisa Beckstrand, Deviant women of the French Revolution and the rise of feminism (2009) p. 20
- Olwen Hufton, Women and the Limits of Citizenship(1992) pp. 106–107
- Desan pg. 452
- Hufton, Olwen. “In Search of Counter-Revolutionary Women.” 1998 pg. 303
- Hufton, Women and the Limits of Citizenship (1992) p. 104
- Olwen Hufton, “In Search of Counter-Revolutionary Women.” 1998 pp. 303-4
- D. M. G. Sutherland, “Peasants, Lords, and Leviathan: Winners and Losers from the Abolition of French Feudalism, 1780-1820,” Journal of Economic History (2002) 62#1 pp. 1-24 in JSTOR
- Liana Vardi, “The abolition of the guilds during the French Revolution,” French Historical Studies (1988) 15#4 pp. 704-717 in JSTOR
- R.R. Palmer, “How Five Centuries of Educational Philanthropy Disappeared in the French Revolution,”History of Education Quarterly (1986) 26#2 pp. 181-197in JSTOR
- Elise S. Brezis and François H. Crouzet, “The role of assignats during the French Revolution: An evil or a rescuer?” Journal of European economic history (1995) 24#1 pp 7-40, online.
- George Lefebvre, Napoleon From 18 Brumaire to Tilsit 1799-1807 (1970)
- Michael Broers et al. (2012). The Napoleonic Empire and the New European Political Culture. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 209–12. ISBN 9780230241312.
- R.R. Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution: The Struggle, Volume II: The Struggle (1970)
- Klaits, Joseph; Haltzel, Michael H.; Haltzel, Michael (2002). Global Ramifications of the French Revolution. Cambridge UP.
- Dann, Otto; Dinwiddy, John (1988). Nationalism in the Age of the French Revolution. Continuum. p. 13.
- Beatrice Fry Hyslop, French Nationalism in 1789(1968) especially chap. 7
- Carlton J. H. Hayes, The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (1931), ch 2-3
- Keitner, Chimene I. (2007). The Paradoxes of Nationalism: The French Revolution and Its Meaning for Contemporary Nation Building. SUNY Press. p. 12.
- John Hall Stewart, A Documentary Survey of the french revolution (1951) pp 783-94
- J.M. Thompson, Robespierre and the French Revolution (1962) p 22
- Georges Lefebvre (1947, reprinted 2005). The Coming of the French Revolution. Princeton UP. p. 212.
- Aulard in Arthur Tilley, ed. (1922) p 115
- Emmet Kennedy, A Cultural History of the French Revolution (1989) pp 145-67
- Kennedy, A Cultural History of the French Revolution(1989) pp 338-53
- Furet, ed., A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution, pp 20-32
- Geoffrey Ellis, ‘Religion according to Napoleon’, in Nigel Aston, ed., Religious change in Europe, 1650-1914 (1997)
- J. Christopher Soper and Joel S. Fetzer, “Explaining the accommodation of Muslim religious practices in France, Britain, and Germany.” French Politics(2003) 1#1: 39-59; see also Abdulkader H. Sinno (2009).Muslims in Western Politics. Indiana UP. pp. 55–56.
- Tim McHugh, “Expanding Women’s Rural Medical Work in Early Modern Brittany: The Daughters of the Holy Spirit,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences (2012) 67#3 pp 428-456. online in project MUSE
- Jacques Léonard, “Femmes, Religion et Médecine: Les Religieuses qui Soignent, en France au XIXe Siècle,” Annales: Economies, Societes, Civilisations(1977) 32#5 pp 887-907
- P. M. Jones (1988). The Peasantry in the French Revolution. Cambridge UP. pp. 251–54, 265.
- Crane Brinton, A decade of revolution, 1789-1799(1934) pp 277-78
- Alfred Cobban, The social interpretation of the French Revolution (1964) p 89
- Alfred Cobban, The social interpretation of the French Revolution (1964) pp 68-80
- Furet, ed., A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution, pp 479-93
- Robert Tombs, “Inventing politics: from Bourbon Restoration to republican monarchy,” in Martin S. Alexander, ed., French history since Napoleon (1999), pp. 59–79
- Paul R. Hanson (2009). Contesting the French Revolution. Wiley. p. 189.
- Leszek Kołakowski (1978). Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders, the Golden Age, the Breakdown. W.W. Norton. pp. 152–54.
- Emma Vincent Macleod, A War of Ideas: British Attitudes to the War against Revolutionary France, 1792-1802 (1999)
- Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution: The Struggle, Volume II (1970) pp 459-505
- Nick Pelling (2002). Anglo-Irish Relations: 1798 1922. Routledge. pp. 5–10.
- Theodore S. Hamerow (1958). Restoration, Revolution, Reaction: Economics and Politics in Germany, 1815-1871. Princeton UP. pp. 22–24, 44–45.
- Marc H. Lerner, “The Helvetic Republic: An Ambivalent Reception of French Revolutionary Liberty,”French History (2004) 18#1 pp 50-75.
- Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution 2:394-421
- E.H. Kossmann, The Low Countries: 1780-1940(1978) pp 65-81, 101-2
- Bernard A. Cook, Belgium (2005) pp 49-54
- Samuel Clark, “Nobility, Bourgeoisie and the Industrial Revolution in Belgium,” Past & Present (1984) # 105 pp. 140-175; in JSTOR
- Henrik Horstboll, and Uffe Ostergård, “Reform and Revolution: The French Revolution and the Case of Denmark,” Scandinavian Journal of History (1990) 15#3 pp 155-179
- Susan Dunn, Sister Revolutions: French Lightning, American Light (2000)
- Rebecca L. : Spang, “Paradigms and Paranoia: How modern Is the French Revolution?” American Historical Review (2003) 108#1 pp 119-147. esp page 120
- David A. Bell, “Class, consciousness, and the fall of the bourgeois revolution.” Critical Review (2004) 16#2-3 pp 323-351
- Rebecca L. Spang, “Paradigms and Paranoia.”
- Rude p. 12-4
- Rude, p. 15
- Rude, p. 12
- Rude, p. 17
- Rude, p. 12-20
- Frey, “Preface”
- Hanson, p. 189
- Hanson, 191
- Riemer, Neal; Simon, Douglas (1997). The New World of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-939693-41-2.
- Censer, Jack; Lynn Hunt (2001). Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
- Cole, Alistair; Peter Campbell (1989). French electoral systems and elections since 1789. Gower.
- Doyle, William (1990). The Oxford history of the French Revolution (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-285221-3.
- Doyle, William (2001). The French Revolution: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-285396-1.
- Doyle, William (2002). The Oxford history of the French Revolution (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-925298-X.
- Frey, Linda; Marsha Frey (2004). The French Revolution. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-32193-0.
- Furet, F. (1981). Interpreting the French Revolution. Cambridge UP.
- Furet, François (1995). Revolutionary France, 1770–1880. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-19808-3.
- Hampson, Norman (1988). A Social History of the French Revolution. Routledge: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-710-06525-6.
- Hanson, Paul (2009). Contesting the French Revolution. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-6083-4.
- Hibbert, Christopher (1980). The Days of the French Revolution. New York: Quill, William Morrow. ISBN 0-688-03704-6.
- Hunt, Lynn (1984). Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Kennedy, Emmet (1989). A Cultural History of the French Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Lefebvre, Georges (1971). The French Revolution: From Its Origins to 1793. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-08598-2.
- Lefebvre, Georges (1964). The Thermidorians & the Directory. New York: Random House.
- Lefebvre, Georges (1963). The French Revolution: from 1793 to 1799. vol. II. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-02519-X.
- McManners, John (1969). The French Revolution and the Church. New York: Harper and Row.
- Montague, Francis Charles. “French Revolution” (1911). The Encyclopaedia Britannica.; this Wikipedia article was originally copied from Montague (which is out of copyright), and portions still remain
- Neely, Sylvia (2008). A Concise History of the French Revolution. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-7425-3411-1.
- Rude, George (1991). The French Revolution: Its Causes, Its History and Its Legacy After 200 Years. Grove Press. ISBN 0-8021-3272-3.
- Schama, Simon (2004) . Citizens. Penguin. ISBN 0-14-101727-9.
- Soboul, Albert (1975). The French Revolution 1787–1799. New York: Vintage. ISBN 0-394-71220-X.
- Soboul, Albert (1977). A short history of the French Revolution: 1789–1799. Geoffrey Symcox. University of California Press, Ltd. ISBN 0-520-03419-8.
- Thompson, J. M. (1959). The French Revolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
- Woronoff, Denis (1984). The Thermidorean regime and the directory: 1794-1799. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-28917-3.
Surveys and reference
- Aulard, François-Alphonse. The French Revolution, a Political History, 1789-1804 (4 vol. 1910); famous classic; volume 1 1789-1792 online; Volume 2 1792-95 online
- Azurmendi, Joxe (1997). The democrats and the violent. Mirande’s critique of the French Revolution. Philosophical viewpoint. (Original: Demokratak eta biolentoak, Donostia: Elkar ISBN 84-7917-744-6).
- Ballard, Richard. A New Dictionary of the French Revolution (2011) excerpt and text search
- Bosher, J. F. The French Revolution (1989) 365pp
- Davies, Peter. The French Revolution: A Beginner’s Guide (2009), 192pp
- Furet, François. The French Revolution, 1770–1814 (1996) excerpt and text search
- Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; conservative perspective; stress on history of ideas excerpt and text search
- Gershoy, Leo. The French Revolution and Napoleon (1945) 585pp
- Gershoy, Leo. The Era of the French Revolution, 1789-1799 (1957), brief summary with some primary sources
- Gottschalk, Louis R. The Era of the French Revolution (1929), cover 1780s to 1815
- Hanson, Paul R. The A to Z of the French Revolution (2013)
- Hanson, Paul R. Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution (2004)
- Jones, Colin. The Longman Companion to the French Revolution (1989)
- Jones, Colin. The Great Nation: France from Louis XV to Napoleon (2002) excerpt and text search
- Lefebvre, Georges. The French Revolution: From its Origins to 1793 (1962), famous French classic excerpt and text search v 1
- Lefebvre, Georges. French Revolution from 1793-1799 (1964)
- McPhee, Peter, ed. (2012). A Companion to the French Revolution. Wiley. ISBN 9781118316412.
- Paxton, John. Companion to the French Revolution (1987), 234pp; hundreds of short entries.
- Popkin, Jeremy D. A Short History of the French Revolution (5th ed. 2009) 176pp
- Scott, Samuel F. and Barry Rothaus, eds. Historical Dictionary of the French Revolution, 1789–1799 (2 vol 1984), short essays by scholars vol 1 online; vol 2 online
- Soboul, Albert. The French Revolution, 1787-1799: From the storming of the Bastille to Napoleon (1975)
- Sutherland, D.M.G. France 1789–1815. Revolution and Counter-Revolution (2nd ed. 2003, 430pp excerpts and online search from Amazon.com
- Thompson, J. M. The French Revolution (1943), British viewpoint
European and Atlantic History
- Amann, Peter H., ed. The eighteenth-century revolution: French or Western? (Heath, 1963) readings from historians
- Brinton, Crane. A Decade of Revolution 1789-1799 (1934) the Revolution in European context
- Desan, Suzanne, et al. eds. The French Revolution in Global Perspective (2013)
- Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. ed. The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History (ABC-CLIO: 3 vol 2006)
- Goodwin, A., ed. The New Cambridge Modern History, Vol. 8: The American and French Revolutions, 1763-93 (1965), 764pp
- Palmer, R. R. “The World Revolution of the West: 1763-1801,” Political Science Quarterly (1954) 69#1 pp. 1–14 in JSTOR
- Palmer, Robert R. The Age of the Democratic Revolution: A Political History of Europe and America, 1760–1800. (2 vol 1959), highly influential comparative history; vol 1 online
- Rude, George F. and Harvey J. Kaye. Revolutionary Europe, 1783–1815 (2000), scholarly survey excerpt and text search
Politics and wars
- Andress, David. The terror: Civil war in the French revolution (2006).
- Baker, Keith M. ed. The French Revolution and the Creation of Modern Political Culture (Oxford, 1987–94) vol 1: The Political Culture of the Old Regime, ed. K.M. Baker (1987); vol. 2: The Political Culture of the French Revolution, ed. C. Lucas (1988); vol. 3: The Transformation of Political Culture, 1789–1848, eds. F. Furet & M. Ozouf (1989); vol. 4: The Terror, ed. K.M. Baker (1994). excerpt and text search vol 4
- Blanning, T.C.W. The French Revolutionary Wars 1787–1802 (1996).
- Desan, Suzanne. “Internationalizing the French Revolution,” French Politics, Culture & Society (2011) 29#2 pp 137–160.
- Doyle, William. Origins of the French Revolution (3rd ed. 1999) online edition
- Englund, Steven. Napoleon: A Political Life. (2004). 575 pages; emphasis on politics excerpt and text search
- Fremont-Barnes, Gregory. The French Revolutionary Wars (2013), 96pp; excerpt and text search
- Griffith, Paddy. The Art of War of Revolutionary France 1789–1802, (1998); 304 pp; excerpt and text search
- Rothenberg, Gunther E. (Spring 1988). “The Origins, Causes, and Extension of the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon”. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18 (4): 771–793.JSTOR 204824.
- Schroeder, Paul. The Transformation of European Politics, 1763–1848. 1996; Thorough coverage of diplomatic history; hostile to Napoleon; online edition
Economy and society
- Anderson, James Maxwell. Daily life during the French Revolution (2007)
- Andress, David. French Society in Revolution, 1789-1799 (1999)
- Kennedy, Emmet. A Cultural History of the French Revolution (1989)
- McPhee, Peter. “The French Revolution, Peasants, and Capitalism,” American Historical Review (1989) 94#5 pp. 1265–1280 in JSTOR
- Tackett, Timothy, “The French Revolution and religion to 1794,” and Suzanne Desan, “The French Revolution and religion, 1795-1815,” in Stewart J. Brown and Timothy Tackett, eds. The Cambridge History of Christianity vol. 7 (Cambridge UP, 2006).
- Dalton, Susan. “Gender and the Shifting Ground of Revolutionary Politics: The Case of Madame Roland.” Canadian journal of history (2001) 36#2
- Godineau, Dominique. The Women of Paris and Their French Revolution (1998) 440pp 1998
- Hufton, Olwen. “Women in Revolution 1789-1796” Past & Present (1971) No. 53 pp. 90–108 in JSTOR
- Hufton, Olwen. “In Search of Counter-Revolutionary Women.” The French Revolution: Recent debates and New Controversies Ed. Gary Kates. (1998) pp 302–36
- Kelly, Linda. Women of the French Revolution (1987) 192 pp biographical portraits or prominent writers and activists
- Landes, Joan B. Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution (Cornell University Press, 1988) excerpt and text search
- Melzer, Sara E., and Leslie W. Rabine, eds. Rebel daughters: women and the French Revolution (Oxford University Press, 1992)
- Proctor, Candice E. Women, Equality, and the French Revolution (Greenwood Press, 1990) online
- Roessler, Shirley Elson. Out of the Shadows: Women and Politics in the French Revolution, 1789-95 (Peter Lang, 1998) online
Historiography and memory
- Andress, David. “Interpreting the French Revolution,” Teaching History (2013), Issue 150, pp 28–29, very short summary
- Censer, Jack R. “Amalgamating the Social in the French Revolution.” Journal of Social History 2003 37(1): 145–150. online
- Desan, Suzanne. “What’s after Political Culture? Recent French Revolutionary Historiography,” French Historical Studies (2000) 23#1 pp 163–196.
- Furet, François and Mona Ozouf, eds. A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution (1989), 1120pp; long essays by scholars; strong on history of ideas and historiography (esp pp 881–1034excerpt and text search
- Furet, François. Interpreting the French revolution (1981).
- Germani, Ian, and Robin Swayles. Symbols, myths and images of the French Revolution. University of Regina Publications. 1998. ISBN 978-0-88977-108-6
- Geyl, Pieter. Napoleon for and Against (1949), 477pp; summarizes views of major historians on controversial issues
- Hanson, Paul R. Contesting the French Revolution (2009). 248 pp.
- Kafker, Frank A. and James M. Laux, eds. The French Revolution: Conflicting Interpretations (5th ed. 2002), articles by scholars
- Kaplan, Steven Laurence. Farewell, Revolution: The Historians’ Feud, France, 1789/1989 (1996), focus on historians excerpt and text search
- Kaplan, Steven Laurence. Farewell, Revolution: Disputed Legacies, France, 1789/1989 (1995); focus on bitter debates re 200th anniversary excerpt and text search
- Kates, Gary, ed. The French Revolution: Recent Debates and New Controversies (2nd ed. 2005) excerpt and text search
- Lewis, Gwynne. The French Revolution: Rethinking the Debate (1993) online; 142 pages
- McPhee, Peter, ed. (2012). A Companion to the French Revolution. Wiley.; 540pp; 30 essays by experts; emphasis on historiography and memory
- Reichardt, Rolf: The French Revolution as a European Media Event, European History Online, Mainz: Institute of European History, 2010, retrieved: December 17, 2012.
- Ross, Steven T., ed. The French Revolution: conflict or continuity? (1971) 131pp; excerpt from historians table of contents
|Wikisource has original works on the topic: French Revolution|
- Anderson, F.M. (1904). The constitutions and other select documents illustrative of the history of France, 1789-1901., complete text online
- Dwyer, Philip G. and Peter McPhee, eds. The French Revolution and Napoleon: A Sourcebook (2002) 235 pages; online
- Legg, L. G. Wickham, ed. Select Documents Illustrative of the History of the French Revolution (2 Volumes, 1905) 630pp vol 1 online free; in French (not translated)
- Levy, Darline Gay, et al. eds. Women in Revolutionary Paris, 1789-1795 (1981) 244pp excerpt and text search
- Mason, Laura, and Tracey Rizzo, eds. The French Revolution: A Document Collection (1998) 334pp excerpt and text search
- Stewart, John Hall, ed. A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution (1951), 818pp
- Thompson, J. M., ed. The French revolution: Documents, 1789-94 (1948), 287pp
- This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
- This article incorporates text from the public domain History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814, by François Mignet (1824), as made available by Project Gutenberg.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to French Revolution.|
|Library resources about
the French Revolution
- Primary source documents from The Internet Modern History Sourcebook.
- Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, a collaborative site by the Center for History and New Media (George Mason University) and the American Social History Project (City University of New York).
- The Origins of the French Revolution, The French Revolution: The Moderate Stage, 1789–1792 and The French Revolution: The Radical Stage, 1792–1794, three essays from The History Guide: Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History.
- Vancea, S. The Cahiers de Doleances of 1789, Clio History Journal, 2008.
- French Revolution Digital Archive a collaboration of the Stanford University Libraries and the Bibliothèque nationale de France, containing 12000 digitized images
The Old Regime
French First Republic