Academic literature on the topic 'French revolution, 1789-1794'

Revolution and political conflict in the French navy, 1789–1794. By William S. Cormack. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Pp. 343. £40.00.The family romance of the French revolution. By Lynn Hunt. London: Routledge, 1992. Pp. 213. £19.99.The French idea of freedom: the old regime and the Declaration of Rights of 1789. Edited by Dale Van Kley. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995. Pp. 436. £35.00.A rhetoric of bourgeois revolution: the Abbé Sieyes and What is the third estate ? By William H. Sewell, Jr. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1994. Pp. 221. £10.95.The genesis of the French revolution: a global-historical interpretation. By Bailey Stone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Pp. 268. £12.95.The new regime: transformations of the French civic order, 1789–1820s. By Isser Woloch. New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1994. Pp. 536. £27.50.

Abstract<title> SOMMARIO </title>Sulla base di alcuni documenti inediti o poco noti, questo saggio esamina le opinioni di Lavoisier e Priestley sulla rivoluzione francese. La persecuzione subita dai due scienziati durante il periodo 1789-1794 è esaminata entro una nuova prospettiva. Lavoisier venne processato per la sua carica di Fermier général durante l'antico regime e, nonostante il suo crescente impegno nella difesa e sviluppo dei principi della rivoluzione, la sua posizione era già compromessa a partire dal 1789. Priestley invece venne perseguitato per il suo tentativo di combinare la ricerca scientifica con le sue posizioni politiche radicali.

This paper examines responses in the Scottish newspaper press to the French Revolution and the associated rise of domestic radicalism. The development of the press in Scotland still awaits its modern historian, and this paper furnishes a picture of it in a crucial phase in its growth. However, the main emphasis is on how Scotland's newspapers ‘represented’ the French Revolution as its character changed between 1789 and the advent of the Terror. In 1793–4, the Scottish press provided powerful support to the anti-reformcause, but this could not have been easily anticipated as late as the middle of 1792. A further aim of the paper is to establish the distinctive importance of the newspaper as a site of idealogical and political struggle in Scotland in the 1970s.

Democracy was in the margins both as an idea and as a political force in the eighteenth century. Even in the 1790s, ‘democracy’ was hardly the defining notion of the revolutionaries’ political visions. The small states as much as the large states perceived democracy as an outmoded legacy of antiquity leading to anarchy and despotism, inapplicable not least because it was undesirable in the modern world in which commerce was a rising force. This article tells the story of how this changed, how the understanding of ‘democracy’ was transformed during the French Revolution to represent a viable transition mechanism to a state of widespread and durable liberty. To avoid a teleological approach in the process of this analysis, this article examines the works of Condorcet on modern democracy in the context of the predicaments of the eighteenth century and the French revolutionary decade: how to avert at the same time despotism, military government and popular anarchy; and how to establish a free and stable state on the basis of modern commercial society? The history of the French Revolution is hereby placed in dialogue with that of eighteenth-century political and intellectual history. The effect is that a fresh picture of the entirety of Condorcet’s political vision emerges as his idea of democracy is studied from the viewpoint of his historical sensitivity, political economy, constitutional theory and international thoughts. In the end, Condorcet was the thinker who most significantly and prominently contributed to the post-1789 emergence of the concept of ‘democracy’ – which had thitherto been considered as the political form inevitably leading to destructive anarchy and despotic Caesarism – as a viable pathway to stability and prosperity.

L’étude de l’image de Robespierre dans le discours politique de la Restauration à la fin du XIXe siècle met en lumière le processus de construction de la légende dorée de Robespierre, légende qui n’a jamais été étudiée de manière précise, bien qu’elle ait influencé fortement l’historiographie. Forgée à partir de 1830 par des militants appartenant à la composante radicale du parti républicain, elle présente Robespierre comme le défenseur de l’égalité politique et sociale, le théoricien du droit à l’insurrection et l’apôtre d’une religion fraternelle qui doit servir de base à un nouveau contrat social. Cette étude montre aussi que la légende noire de Robespierre est traversée par des fractures idéologiques mal discernées jusqu’ici. La légende noire conservatrice/contre-révolutionnaire née sous la Révolution fait de Robespierre à la fois un tyran et un anarchiste niveleur et impie. La légende noire libérale qui se développe sous la Restauration en fait seulement un tyran clérical. Les légendes noires communiste et anarchiste, apparues respectivement au tournant de 1840 et sous la Deuxième République, dénoncent non seulement le cléricalisme de Robespierre mais aussi son manque d’ambition sociale. A la différence de la légende noire communiste, la légende noire anarchiste reprend l’image du tyran et critique le rôle de Robespierre dans la Terreur. Enfin, la légende noire libérale-républicaine apparue à partir du milieu du XIXe siècle s’inscrit dans le prolongement de la légende noire libérale tout en étant influencée par les légendes noires communiste et anarchiste et fait de Robespierre un tyran politique et clérical dont elle souligne le peu d’intérêt pour les questions économiques
Studying the image of Robespierre in the political discourse from the Restauration to the end of the 19th century highlights the construction process of the golden legend of Robespierre, which has never been precisely analysed, although it influenced profoundly historiography. Built from 1830 onwards by militants belonging to the radical fringe of the republican movement, it presents Robespierre as the defender of political and social equality, the theoretician of the right to insurrection and the apostle of a brotherly religion, basis of a new social contract. This study also shows that Robespierre’s dark legend is split by ideological divides which remained until now unclear. A dark legend which can be called “conservative/counter-revolutionary” appeared during the Revolution. It describes Robespierre at the same time as a tyrant and as a godless leveller anarchist. The liberal dark legend appeared under the Restoration presents Robespierre only as a clerical tyrant. The communist and anarchist dark legends, which emerged respectively at the beginning of the 1840’s and under the Second Republic, point out not only Robespierre’s clericalism but also his lack of social concerns. Unlike the communist dark legend, the anarchist dark legend reuses the image of the tyrant and denounces Robespierre’s implication in the Terror. Finally, a republican-liberal dark legend emerges in the middle of the 19th century. It is a continuation of the liberal dark legend which is also influenced by the communist and anarchist dark legends. It presents Robespierre as a political and clerical tyrant and stresses on his lack of interest in economic issues

La distinction de l’ami et de l’ennemi comme facteur déterminant du politique – théorie de Carl Schmitt – a été développée par son élève, traducteur et introducteur Julien Freund, qui précisa « l’essence du politique » par deux autres facteurs : les distinctions du commandant et du commandé, du public et du privé. Le moment de fondation ou de refondation du politique (le kairos grec) est la « situation exceptionnelle » dont la qualification est l’œuvre du souverain. Freund apporte à cette conception schmitienne deux éléments objectifs : la guerre civile et la guerre étrangère faisant de la crise politique la mise en danger de mort de la collectivité, soit la conjugaison du péril intérieur et de l’insécurité extérieure. Correspondent seules à cette définition la Grande Révolution et la Révolution nationale. Le retour en France de l’ennemi (non de la guerre) est la « reprise » (Kierkegaard : la chose du passé surgissant telle qu’en elle-même l’a changée la nouvelle situation) du conflit à la fois étranger et civil de 1954-1962, conflit qui amena la réforme de la loi fondamentale (référendum d’octobre 1958), la décision de la situation exceptionnelle (application de l’article 16, permettant l’incarnation du commandement pour la première fois depuis 1944) et l’installation du régime (référendum d’octobre 1962). L’assimilation de l’Epuration à la « Terreur jacobine » occulte la remise en vigueur des lois révolutionnaires par l’État français, des lois de la Restauration par le pouvoir gaullo-communiste. Tandis que les auteurs contre-révolutionnaires avaient décrit dans la Révolution une œuvre providentielle de régénération nationale, les théories politiques subversives d’illustres « révolutionnaires » et leur mise en pratique (par leurs eux-mêmes) contredisent l’action et le bilan du jacobinisme illibéral : patriotisme de Brissot, fédéralisme de Cloots, communisme de Babeuf. Une dialectique révolutionnaire-conservatrice (réaliste) rencontre donc en miroir une dialectique réactionnaire-progressiste, impolitique en ce sens que son but est le dépassement, l’anéantissement ou l’implosion d’une collectivité politique donnée, la Nation. Robespierre, sous cet angle, incarna donc la tendance conservatrice de la Révolution. La victoire inaugurale de l’oligarchie par un coup de force parlementaire (Thermidor) passe par la délégation du pouvoir souverain, de la députation vers l’armée (stratocratie). Au bout d’une génération, la monarchie de Juillet consacre l’alliance structurelle de l’Ordre et du Mouvement. C’est le coup d’État de 1851 qui ressuscite le suffrage universel ; puis le second Empire reviendra sur l’héritage libéral de 1789 au temporel (abolition des corporations, interdiction des coalitions) comme au spirituel (constitution civile du clergé) en dotant l’Église et en autorisant les syndicats (1864). S’institutionnalise après la guerre étrangère (franco-prussienne) puis civile (Commune) un « nouvel Ancien régime » (Pierre Leroux) dont la gauche constituera l’aile active ; la droite, l’aile passive. En 1939, le gouvernement décidant de la guerre contre l’avis du Parlement, ce qui restait de République est renversé de fait ; le congrès réuni à Vichy, par son vote du 10 juillet 1940, reconquiert paradoxalement la souveraineté en la déléguant. L’histoire du régime de Vichy doit donc être revue à cette lumière, comme celle du gaullisme (dissidence de la Tradition) et de la résistance communiste (dissidence de la Révolution) ; ces deux dernières forces, réunies à partir de 1941, reconstitueront le mouvement réactionnaire-progressiste. Les mémoires de la Révolution française et de la Révolution nationale sont battues en brèche sous les coups d’un libéralisme toujours plus hégémonique, altérant le Peuple, la Constitution, le politique lui-même. Le régime libéral renvoie dos à dos jacobinisme et maurrassisme dans le même enfer mémoriel
The distinction of the friend and the enemy as the determining factor of politics – a theory of Carl Schmidt – has been developped by his pupil, translator and introducer Julien Freund who indicated besides two other factors of the "essence of politics" : the distinction of the commanding one and the commanded one and that of the public sphere and the private sphere. The act of fundation or refundation of politics (the greek kairos) is the ‘exceptional situation’ and its qualification is the sovereign’s task. Freund adds to this Schmittian approach two objective elements : civil war and foreign war changing the political crisis into the danger of death for the collectivity, that is the combination of the internal threat with that from abroad. The only events in the History of France that do correspond to this definition are the Great Revolution and the National Revolution. The enemy coming back in France (and not war coming back) is the ‘resumption’ (Kierkegaard : the thing from the past appearing as the situation changed it in itself) of the internal and external conflict of 1954-1962, a conflict that led to the reform of the fundamental law (referundum of October 1958), the decision to decree the exceptional situation (application of section 16 of the Constitution enabling the incarnation of the command for the first time since 1944) and the installation of the regime (referendum of October 1962). The assimilation of the épuration légale (French : “legal purge”) to the "Jacobin Terror" hides the reinstatement of revolutionary laws by the French State and that of the laws of the Bourbon Restoration by the Gaullo-communist power. While counterrevolutionary authors had described in the Revolution a providential work of national regeneration, the subversive political theories of illustrious "Revolutionaries" and their application (by themselves) contradict the action and the results of illiberal Jacobinism: Brissot’s patriotism, Cloots’ federalism, Babeuf’s communism. A revolutionary-conservative (realist) dialectic thus meets in mirror a reactionary-progressive dialectic which can only be impolitic in the sense that its goal is the overcoming, the annihilation or the implosion of a given political community, the Nation. Robespierre, from this angle, thus embodied the conservative tendency of the Revolution. The inaugural victory of the oligarchy by a parliamentary coup (Thermidor) involves the delegation of the sovereign power from deputyship to the army (stratocracy). At the end of a generation, the July monarchy consecrates the structural alliance of the Order and the Movement. It was the coup d'etat of 1851 that revived universal suffrage; the Second Empire was then to reconsider the liberal heritage of 1789 in the temporal field (abolition of fund, prohibition of coalitions) as well as in the spiritual field (civil constitution of the clergy) by endowing the Church and authorizing labor unions (1864). After the foreign (Franco-Prussian) and then civil (Commune) wars, a "new Ancien Regime" (Pierre Leroux) was institutionalised, with the left as active wing and the right as the passive wing. In 1939, as the government declared war against the opinion of Parliament, what remained of the Republic was overthrown de facto; the congress at Vichy, by its vote of July 10, 1940, paradoxically reconquered sovereignty by delegating it. The history of the Vichy regime must therefore be reviewed in this light, like that of Gaullism (dissent of Tradition) and communist resistance (dissent of the Revolution); these last two forces, united from 1941, would reconstitute the reactionary-progressive movement. The memories of the French Revolution and the National Revolution are undermined by the blows of an ever more hegemonic liberalism altering the People, the Constitution, politics itself. The liberal regime refers back to back Jacobinism and Maurrassism in the same memorial hell

L’étude de l’image de Robespierre dans le discours politique de la Restauration à la fin du XIXe siècle met en lumière le processus de construction de la légende dorée de Robespierre, légende qui n’a jamais été étudiée de manière précise, bien qu’elle ait influencé fortement l’historiographie. Forgée à partir de 1830 par des militants appartenant à la composante radicale du parti républicain, elle présente Robespierre comme le défenseur de l’égalité politique et sociale, le théoricien du droit à l’insurrection et l’apôtre d’une religion fraternelle qui doit servir de base à un nouveau contrat social. Cette étude montre aussi que la légende noire de Robespierre est traversée par des fractures idéologiques mal discernées jusqu’ici. La légende noire conservatrice/contre-révolutionnaire née sous la Révolution fait de Robespierre à la fois un tyran et un anarchiste niveleur et impie. La légende noire libérale qui se développe sous la Restauration en fait seulement un tyran clérical. Les légendes noires communiste et anarchiste, apparues respectivement au tournant de 1840 et sous la Deuxième République, dénoncent non seulement le cléricalisme de Robespierre mais aussi son manque d’ambition sociale. A la différence de la légende noire communiste, la légende noire anarchiste reprend l’image du tyran et critique le rôle de Robespierre dans la Terreur. Enfin, la légende noire libérale-républicaine apparue à partir du milieu du XIXe siècle s’inscrit dans le prolongement de la légende noire libérale tout en étant influencée par les légendes noires communiste et anarchiste et fait de Robespierre un tyran politique et clérical dont elle souligne le peu d’intérêt pour les questions économiques
Studying the image of Robespierre in the political discourse from the Restauration to the end of the 19th century highlights the construction process of the golden legend of Robespierre, which has never been precisely analysed, although it influenced profoundly historiography. Built from 1830 onwards by militants belonging to the radical fringe of the republican movement, it presents Robespierre as the defender of political and social equality, the theoretician of the right to insurrection and the apostle of a brotherly religion, basis of a new social contract. This study also shows that Robespierre’s dark legend is split by ideological divides which remained until now unclear. A dark legend which can be called “conservative/counter-revolutionary” appeared during the Revolution. It describes Robespierre at the same time as a tyrant and as a godless leveller anarchist. The liberal dark legend appeared under the Restoration presents Robespierre only as a clerical tyrant. The communist and anarchist dark legends, which emerged respectively at the beginning of the 1840’s and under the Second Republic, point out not only Robespierre’s clericalism but also his lack of social concerns. Unlike the communist dark legend, the anarchist dark legend reuses the image of the tyrant and denounces Robespierre’s implication in the Terror. Finally, a republican-liberal dark legend emerges in the middle of the 19th century. It is a continuation of the liberal dark legend which is also influenced by the communist and anarchist dark legends. It presents Robespierre as a political and clerical tyrant and stresses on his lack of interest in economic issues

British radicals established a pro-revolutionary society in Paris in the late months of 1792, at a time when their own government, under William Pitt the Younger, had proscribed all overt support for the French Revolution. The expatriate club was founded at a crossroads in British political and diplomatic culture therefore, and at a vital stage in the course of the French Revolution. Often the victims of judicial pursuit in both Britain and France, the members of the British Club have been deemed "men without countries" by one nineteenth-century commentator. Yet British radical activists in Paris were not simply pawns in a wider diplomatic struggle. In the early French republic, they founded a radical community at White's Hotel, where political agendas intersected with private initiatives. This associational world was part of a broad network of reform stretching across the Channel. It was influenced by a tradition of enquiry and improvement which had developed in Britain during the latter half of the eighteenth century. This tradition led members of the radical community to engage with the Revolution on issues which dominated public debate in France but which also echoed their concern for the overhaul of British political culture. They intervened on the question of the foundation of a new republican constitution at the turn of 1793, providing a range of blueprints which reflected the varied nature of the club's political character. Some also wrote eyewitness observations of the Revolution back to Britain, sketching their impressions for an audience who had, in their view, been misled by a hostile British press.

Abstract The focus of this chapter is the course of the French Revolution from 1789 into 1794. It shows how all three types of terror overlapped temporally, reflecting the truncated nature of the revolutionary process in France. It also shows how, central to the French revolutionary process, was the politics of the streets—popular meetings, riots, demonstrations—and how this both interacted with the politics of the elite, and helped shape the unrolling of revolutionary and transformational terror. In contrast, inverted terror owed more to Robespierre than it did to popular mobilization. This chapter explores the impact of Robespierre’s on ‘The Terror’ of 1793–1794.

Abstract In one of the letters Say received from Dupont de Nemours in 1815, physiocracy was described as the “science of liberty”. The most wide-ranging inference drawn by Dupont from this grand claim was that all of the beneficial effects of the French Revolution could be ascribed to Quesnay’s political economy Dupont had been propagating this belief since the early 1790s. In 1794 a letter to the editors of the revolutionary journal La Decade philosophique stated that Quesnay had “planted the tree of French liberty” which bore fruit in 1789.

Abstract In a letter to Etienne Dumont of 5 March 1829 Say modestly recalled his work on the Courrier de Provence by means of a contrast with what he considered to be the more meaningful labour of Bentham’s famous translator: “I remember that while you were advising Mirabeau all that I did was to receive subscriptions/1 Although we know little about Say’s role in the production of the Courier, there is evidence to suggest that his subsequent recollection was disingenuous. Successive advertisements in the pages of the journal show that by 1790 Say was responsible for running the office in which it was produced. Furthermore, the founders of La Decade philosophique in 1794 made Say the editor-in-chief of that journal in part because of the breadth of his experience at the Courier. Most important of all, Say’s aim was to make a contribution to the intellectual controversies of the Revolution. His first pamphlet, De la liberte de la presse, appeared in November 1789; in the early 1790s he was working on a translation of Helen-Maria William’s Letters on Switzerland and a French edition of Benjamin Franklin’s The Way to Wealth, or Poor Richard Saunders.

Abstract Ten days after the overthrow of Robespierre on 9 Thermidor, Rose de Beauharnais was released from Les Carmes prison. Her husband Alexandre was not so fortunate: he had resigned from the army in August 1793, but was then tried on a charge of conspiracy with the enemy, and executed on 5 Thermidor. Rose, a woman of 31, was the daughter of the owner of a sugar plantation on the Caribbean island of Martinique; however, she had been pro-revolutionary, comfortable with being addressed as tu and citoyenne. Nevertheless, her name had made her suspect in the murderous spring of 1794.