The French Revolution, also known as the Revolution of 1789, was a significant movement in

France between 1787 and 1799, with its first major turning point in 1789. This period marked the
end of the ancien régime, challenging monarchical absolutism and promoting the idea of popular
sovereignty. Historian John Merriman highlights its role in shaping republican ideals that influenced
political developments across Europe. The Revolution brought questions about democratic values,
the role of the state, economic freedom, property rights, religion, and social equality into the
political spotlight. However, debates around its origins, meaning, and legacy remain unresolved
among historians. The term “French Revolution” itself has been questioned. Historian A. Cobban
referred to it as the “myth of the French Revolution,” arguing that many aspects of the old
system continued even after 1789. There is also disagreement over its timeline. Some view the
aristocratic revolt of 1788-89 as the starting point, others point to the middle-class-led changes from
1789-91, and some consider the radical Jacobin phase of 1792-94 as the Revolution’s core.
Different political and ideological perspectives, from conservatives to Marxists, have led to varied
interpretations of its significance.

The Revolution’s unique nature stemmed from the peculiar social structure of France at the time.
Medieval French society was divided into three estates: the clergy, the nobility, and the Third
Estate, comprising the middle class and peasants. However, by 1789, this classification no longer
matched social realities. The ruling elite included the upper clergy, court nobility, and wealthy
bourgeoisie, while emerging social groups defied traditional categories. Social identity was
influenced by factors such as wealth, profession, legal status, and personal aspirations, creating a
complex hierarchy.

The Church, as a semi-autonomous institution, played a significant role in society, controlling large
amounts of land and collecting taxes like the tithe, primarily from peasants. It also enjoyed
privileges, such as paying only a small “free gift” to the state instead of regular taxes. Similarly,
the nobility, owning about 25% of the land, held legal privileges and were exempt from most taxes.
Together, the Church and nobility made up only 4% of the population but controlled vast wealth
and power.

In contrast, the Third Estate, making up 96% of the population, was diverse. The bourgeoisie,
divided into groups like merchants, lawyers, and professionals, held varying levels of wealth and
influence. The urban working class included craftsmen, laborers, and servants, while the largest
segment was the peasantry. Peasants bore the heaviest tax burden and resented the misuse of tithes
but did not entirely oppose the Church. Their grievances, along with those of other groups, fueled
the Revolution’s call for change.

The French Revolution began with the growing tension between the monarchy and the aristocracy,
culminating in the aristocratic revolt of 1788-89. The immediate cause was the financial crisis faced

Historiography of the French Revolution

by the French court due to heavy expenses on wars like the War of Austrian Succession, the Seven
Years’ War, and especially the American War of Independence. The state had a fiscal deficit of
112 million livres and relied on private loans. Attempts by Finance Ministers, including Charles
Alexandre de Calonne, to reform the tax system and introduce taxes on nobles were rejected by the
Assembly of Notables and the Parlement of Paris. Resistance from privileged groups led to the
calling of the Estates-General in 1789. The Estates-General became the starting point of the
Revolution. Discontent over unequal representation led the Third Estate to declare itself the
National Assembly on June 17, 1789. They took the Tennis Court Oath, vowing not to disband
until a new constitution was created. Tensions escalated with food shortages, rising prices, and
rumors of suppression, resulting in the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789. This event
marked a turning point and triggered peasant uprisings known as the "Great Fear." To calm the
unrest, the National Assembly abolished feudal privileges on August 4, 1789. The National
Assembly redefined the monarchy, establishing the king as the "King of the French" rather than the
"King of France" and curbing his powers through a constitution. They issued the Declaration of the
Rights of Man and Citizen, promoting equality and liberty. The Assembly also restructured the
relationship between the Church and the state, seizing Church property and requiring clergy to
swear loyalty to the nation under the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1790.

The National Assembly, later known as the Constituent Assembly, worked on drafting a new
constitution, which was completed in 1791. During this time, political divisions emerged, leading to
the formation of factions like the Jacobins, Cordeliers, and Royalists. A new revolutionary group,
the sans-culottes, consisting of shopkeepers, artisans, and laborers, demanded fairer economic
policies, including price controls on bread, which consumed much of their income. These
developments set the stage for more radical phases of the French Revolution.

The second phase of the French Revolution, spanning from 1792 to 1795, was marked by intense
violence, the downfall of the monarchy, and the establishment of the French Republic. Following
the king’s failed escape, constitutional monarchists lost influence, and radical leaders like Danton,
Marat, and Robespierre rose to power, pushing for more aggressive reforms. War was declared
against Austria and Prussia, initiating the Wars of Coalition. The Brunswick Manifesto threatened
severe consequences if the royal family was harmed, further escalating tensions. On August 10,
1792, the sans-culottes stormed the Tuileries Palace, killing Swiss Guards and forcing the royal
family into imprisonment. Shortly after, the monarchy was abolished, and the Republic was
proclaimed on September 21, 1792. Amid fears of betrayal, the September Massacres occurred,
where mobs executed prisoners accused of plotting against the Revolution. Meanwhile, counter-
revolutionary uprisings, notably in Vendée, highlighted resistance to revolutionary changes, such as
reforms targeting the Church and aristocracy.

Historiography of the French Revolution

The third phase of the French Revolution, lasting from 1795 to 1799, was characterized by political
instability, economic challenges, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This phase began
with the overthrow of the Jacobin dictatorship and the end of the Reign of Terror, leading to the
establishment of a new government called the Directory. The Directory, formed by moderate
Jacobins and members of the National Convention, introduced a bicameral legislature and a
collective executive of five directors. However, this period faced ongoing challenges, including
opposition from radical Jacobins on the left and royalists on the right, as well as continued wars
abroad, particularly against Austrian forces.

The French army, led by Napoleon Bonaparte, achieved significant victories, including the Treaty
of Campo Formio, which established France as a dominant power in Italy. Domestically, economic
hardship persisted, and royalist insurrections threatened the stability of the Directory. Napoleon
emerged as a key figure, suppressing royalist uprisings and gaining prominence for his military
successes. In 1799, political instability culminated in the coup of 18 Brumaire, orchestrated by
Napoleon and his allies. This event marked the end of the Directory and the establishment of the
Consulate, with Napoleon assuming significant power. By 1804, he declared himself Emperor of
France, signaling the conclusion of the revolutionary period and the beginning of his rule.

HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

The French Revolution has perhaps attracted more attention in history than any other event and its
study involves what other professional historians have said about it.

 THE MARXIST INTERPRETATION –

The ‘classic’ interpretation of the French Revolution in historical scholarship was the Marxist
approach which sees the French Revolution as a bourgeois revolution, marked by class conflict.
The French Revolution was not simply a political struggle from an absolute monarchy to
democratic republicanism but represented a deeper shift from feudalism to capitalism. According to
the Marxist historians, the Revolution was led by an alliance between the bourgeois elite and
popular classes against the landowning nobility. The greatest success of such an alliance occurred
in 1789 but by 1791, revolutionary events were marked by class conflict which in turn produced an
urban political movement by the sans-cullotes. The Terror represented the pinnacle of the sans-
cullotes movement. Thus, the French Revolution was essentially a class struggle in which the
nobility was destroyed, the class of the sans-cullotes was awakened and the bourgeoisie won
control of the state. The scholars who advocated this view include – Alphonse Aulard, Albert
Mathiez, Georges Lefebvre, Albert Soboul and Michel Vovelle.

Historiography of the French Revolution

1. ALPHONSE AULARD – Aulard’s writings promoted democratic republicanism and had no
sympathy for the monarchy. According to Aulard, the despotic abuses of the Ancien Regime
justified the violent uprising of 1789. He admired the courage of the Constituent Assembly
deputies but felt that the Constitution of 1791 was a flawed document that allowed the
monarchy too much power. He praised the efforts of Georges Danton and other militarist
activists, which culminated in the insurrection of 10 August 1792 and the declaration of
France ’ s first democratic republic. For Aulard, the establishment of a republic under the
National Convention marked the zenith of the Revolution.
2. ALBERT MATHIEZ – Albert Mathiez challenged the views of his teacher, Aulard. Influenced
both by the victory of Bolshevism in Russia and the legacy of French socialist leader, Jean
Jaures, Mathiez wrote that the French Revolution came about due to a class conflict in which
the prospering bourgeoisie triumphed over both the established nobility and the emerging
proletariat. Mathiez rejected Aulard ’ s beloved Danton as a corrupt bourgeois politician and
defended Robespierres ’ s efforts to save France through the Terror. In Mathiez ’ s view,
Robespierre was not a dictator but a democratic politician responding to popular pressure from
Parisian workers.
3. GEORGES LEFEBVRE – George Lefebvre in his book ‘ The Coming of the French
Revolution ’ puts forward the view that the French Revolution stemmed from the
bourgeoisie ’ s rise, which eventually led to the overthrow of the aristocratic ruling class in
France. Lefebvre divided the revolution in 4 stages – 1) the Revolt of the Nobles or the
Aristocratic Revolution 2) the victory of the Bourgeoisie or the Bourgeois Revolution 3) The
mobilization of the urban masses or the Popular Revolution 4) the Peasant Revolution. All the
classes united to rid the country of absolutism. Following WWII, Lefebvre’s work became the
leading work of the Marxist school of thought on the French Revolution
4. ALBERT SOBOUL – Soboul maintained that the French Revolution could be understood as a
class struggle, in which the bourgeoisie backed by the force of the masses, gained power from
the aristocracy, overthrew the old order and restructured the state to fit its own interests. The
masses involved themselves in the revolution and their actions proved to be decisive in taking
down the Old Regime and assuring the victory of the bourgeoisie.
5. MICHEL VOVELLE – Vovelle believed that the revolution began in the provinces and
subsequently spread around France. He said that the revolution defined itself as it went along
and in doing so argued that the French Revolution was inevitable.

Most scholars accepted the Marxist theory of class conflict. However the argument of the Marxist
school began to be questioned which led to an enormous transformation in the scholarship on the

Historiography of the French Revolution

French Revolution. It was marked by the almost total collapse of the orthodox Marxist
interpretation and a range of sharp attacks on virtually all of its major points and approaches.

 THE REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION –

The Revisionist historians, who critiqued the Marxists, were of the view that the French Revolution
cannot be seen as a bourgeois revolution which destroyed feudal political structures. The
revisionists insist that class struggle played little role in the Revolution and it had nothing much to
do with the development of capitalism.

LIBERAL REVISIONISM – The liberals believed that the French Revolution was necessary to
move France from a pre modern to a modern society. According to them, the Ancien Regime had
become so paralyzed by its own internal contradictions, that by the 18th century only revolutionary
change could resolve France ’ s grave problems. Liberal historians viewed the revolution as an
agent of progress, despite its great faults and demonstrated the virtues of revolutionary change.
They explain the excessive violence of the Terror by noting the grave circumstances that led to its
establishment.

1. ALFRED COBBAN – Alfred Cobban, the British historian who began revisionism, questioned
whether the French Revolution was led by a rising bourgeoisie. He noted that only 13 percent
of the leaders of the Third Estate were from the world of commerce – merchants,
manufacturers or financiers and thus this revolution was not made by a capitalist bourgeoisie.
Rather, Cobban argued that the greatest number of leaders came from the ranks of local, petty
public officials such as administrators, prosecutors, judges etc. Cobban also felt that the Ancien
Regime was so plagued with structural problems and contradictions that nothing short of
revolution would reform the country. However, the revolution was not all about senseless
violence as the construction of a liberal political order would have been impossible without the
clashes of 1789 and the achievements of the Constituent Assembly.
2. GEORGE TAYLOR –Just as Cobban disagreed with the role of the revolutionary bourgeoisie,
Taylor demonstrated how the investment patterns by the bourgeois and noble families were
remarkably similar. He attacked the belief that the bourgeoisie led the French Revolution
because he pointed out that the bourgeoisie and the nobility were economically
indistinguishable. George Taylor suggested that the best way to understand the revolution was
to see it as a political contest for power. However most historians didn’t agree with Taylor
and the view that the revolution began purely for political purposes.

Historiography of the French Revolution

The works of Cobban and Taylor brought the nobles and the bourgeoisie closer together, both
socially and economically and had successfully picked apart much of the Marxist case for the start
of the French Revolution.

NEO-CONSERVATIVE REVISIONISM – Furet and his collaborators differed from earlier

revisionists in one very significant manner as they undermined the very foundations of Liberal
historiography. Usually former liberals themselves, the neo-conservatives turned against the whole
idea of revolutionary change as itself illiberal and see the Terror as the essence of the French
Revolution. By the 1990s neo-conservative revisionism had clearly become the ascendant
interpretation of the historical establishment across the world.

3. FRANCOIS FURET –Furet attacked the Marxist revolutionary examination but unlike other
revisionist historians, he returned to political and intellectual theories for the French Revolution.
By studying more carefully the meaning of revolutionary rhetoric, Furet ignited new interest in
the cultural history of the revolution and the relationship of the Enlightenment to the French
Revolution was resurrected into a burning issue for debate and controversy.
Though conservative in his attitude towards the revolutionary era, Furet argued that the
democratic ideas of certain enlightened philosophers such as Rousseau became the heart and
soul of the French Revolution. Democracy here did not mean governing by consent but the
power of a national state to defeat those who opposed its will. Furet wrote that the revolution
embraced a radical ideology of popular sovereignty so that any abuse of power could be
excused so long as it was achieved in the name of the people. Furet interpreted the early years
of the revolution as a prologue to the Terror and he viewed the Napoleonic Empire as its
epilogue. For Furet, the Terror was not an accidental phase of the revolution but rather
characteristic of the entire revolution. He also argued that the revolution was radical from the
start. Over a period of time, Furet became arguably the most important historian in the world of
the Revolution.
4. KEITH MICHAEL BAKER – Baker was one of Furet ’ s earliest and strongest supporters
and did a lot to revitalize the intellectual history of the French Revolution. He traced how
certain Rousseauian strands of the Enlightenment political ideology mutated into revolutionary
Jacobinism. Rousseau had set forth his theory of the general will in his book ‘ The Social
Contract ’ . According to Baker, the French Revolution ’ s free fall into Rousseauian
democracy as well as the Terror was not the product of 1792-93 when the nation was at war,
but was the result of deliberate decisions made by the National Assembly in the summer of
1789 in a way in which political power and violence had been re-conceptualized. Baker argued
that by accepting Rousseau’s theory of general will as the basis for rejecting the absolute veto

Historiography of the French Revolution

 in 1789, the Constituent Assembly was opting for the Terror. Like Furet, Baker placed the
Terror squarely at the centre of the revolutionary process. It was the outcome of the Constituent
Assembly’s repeated adoption of Rousseauian political principles.
5. JACOB TALMON – Jacob Talmon ’ s intellectual history argued that the French state
became a totalitarian democracy during the Terror. He traced the idea of totalitarian democracy
to certain key Enlightenment figures such as Rousseau through Sieyes to Robespierre. Talmon
associated Rousseauian democratic ideas with a collectivism that quickly turned oppressive and
in short saw the Terror as the essence of the French Revolution. However, Talmon’s method
was primitive in comparison to that of Furet and Baker and tended to distort Enlightenment
ideology.
Therefore, Neo-Conservative Revisionism had clearly become the dominant interpretation of the
historical establishment in England, France and the United States by 1989.

 THE NEO-LIBERAL OR POST REVISIONISM INTERPRETATION –

The most important developments in the historiography of the French Revolution have been Neo-
Liberal challenges to the position laid out by Furet and his colleagues. Unlike the Revisionists,
Neo-Liberal interpretations do not minimize the oppressive character of the 18th century nobility.
The aristocracy is seen as a distinct political group with interests opposing those of commoners.
The Neo-Liberal arguments insist that the period of the Constituent Assembly was substantively
different than the Jacobinism of the Terror. The neo-Liberal interpretations also claim that the
collective violence of the Revolution’s early years was necessary to the establishment of a liberal
and free state. These historians also challenge the view that the Revolution was a primary failure.
According to them, a rising bourgeoisie may not have started the revolution, but the revolutionaries
successfully destroyed the Ancien Regime and refashioned a society that made a 19th century liberal
state possible. The Neo-Liberals define class more in terms of specific professions and occupations
with varied social interests than in terms of a solid group with political interests. These writers
stress on culture as opposed to the Marxists social or the Revisionists political reasons for the start
of the French Revolution.

Alongside the Neo-Liberal response to Revisionism, the other significant recent trend in French
Revolutionary scholarship has been the maturation of women’s and gender history. In the 1970s,
with the rise of a contemporary feminist movement, the pace was set towards a new history that
took into account the fate of women and used gender as an analytical tool in the general histories
or document collections on the revolution. A new research agenda which made us realize that

Historiography of the French Revolution

women participated in every major event in the revolution and the influence of elite women in the
clubs and presses of Paris. Thus the feminist inspired historians instead of identifying women as the
primary subject widened the scope to include revolutionary discourse, policies, events and culture;
interpreted through the lens of gender. The feminist historians included - Lynn Hunt, Joan Landes
and Simon Schama.

1. LYNN HUNT – Hunt discussed the hostility directed toward aristocratic and revolutionary
women who entered the political sphere. In a study from the 1980s, Hunt explored why the
Jacobins replaced Marianne with Hercules as the anthropomorphic symbol of the French nation.
In an article on Marie Antoinette, who was seen as a symbol of the relations between women
and the public sphere in the 18th century, Hunt demonstrates how attitudes towards the French
queen reveal much about the ways in which French revolutionary leaders hoped to shape sexual
roles in the new republic.
2. JOAN LANDES – Joan Landes who shifted the lines of research from women to gender,
argued that the crucial factor for women in the French revolution was not their participation but
rather their formal exclusion from political life altogether. There was a more pervasive
gendering of the public sphere. According to Landes, the lines between public men participating
in civic life and domesticated women caring for family and children alone were more
purposively drawn by the Jacobins than ever before. Landes blames this on Rousseau as his
reformulation of political culture included a devastating critique of gender roles under the Old
Regime which divided gender more rigidly than ever. However Landes argued that the new
bourgeois political sphere was in many ways more regressive than what women had
experienced in the Old Regime and the new republic showed far less toleration for public
women. Therefore from Landes, historians learned that the omission of women from the
Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizens, was not a prejudicial oversight but rather they were
excluded because the Republic had been conceived as an exclusively masculine public sphere.
3. SIMON SCHAMA – The best example of the appropriation of feminist history for Neo-
Conservative purposes is found in Simon Schama ’ s Citizens, which arguably incorporated
more recent scholarship on women. Using Hunt ’ s research on Marie Antoinette, Schama
depicted the 1793 trial of the Queen as merely one facet of the stormiest phase of sexual
politics in the French Revolution.

It has been seen that the Revisionists and the new feminist scholars shared two essential attitudes
about the French revolution. Firstly, both groups believed that the French revolution marked a step
backwards for women ’ s rights. Secondly, both gave credence to the works of Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and it was his highly contentious ideas that gave rise to new notions of female

Historiography of the French Revolution

domesticity. The post-revisionists, like the revisionists do not have an ultimate theory for the
beginning of the French Revolution.

Historiography of the French Revolution