Reflections on the Revisionist Interpretation of the French

Reflections on the Revisionist Interpretation of the French Revolution Author(s): Michel Vovelle, Timothy Tackett and Elisabeth Tuttle Source: French Historical Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Autumn, 1990), pp. 749-755 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/286317 Accessed: 09-09-2020 04:27 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to French Historical Studies

This content downloaded from 103.77.40.126 on Wed, 09 Sep 2020 04:27:09 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Reflections on the Revisionist Interpretation of the French Revolution

Michel Vovelle

Within the historiographical debate that has marked the Bicentennial of the French Revolution there is a widely held opinion in both France and abroad that "revisionism" has triumphed over the "traditional" or "Jacobin" interpretation of the revolutionary era. In France this theme has been largely orchestrated by the media, and television has crowned Franois Furet the "King of the Bicentennial." In the Spanish newspaper El Pais I happened to read a major interview with this same historian under the headline "I've won!" Terms such as these are hardly appropriate for pursuing the debate, for they imply, perhaps a bit prematurely, that the debate is over. First of all, we need to ask the meaning of "revisionism," this critical current of thought developed over the past thirty years, long confined to a small circle of specialists and only recently propelled into the public forum by the events of the Bicentennial. In fact, the term is rather unfortunate because of its ambiguous connotations and particularly because of its confusion in the French language with another "revisionism" which puts into question the reality of the Holocaust during the Second World War. Nevertheless, the term has been widely accepted, and I will use it as others do, for want of anything better. The very definition of revisionism presumes that it is to be placed in counterpoint to an established orthodoxy, to a previously hegemonic interpretation, viewed by some as an ossified and repetitive "vulgate." In question is the "classical" interpretation of the Revolu- tion, sometimes called "Jacobin" or "Marxist," as it was developed in its broad features from Jean Jaures to Albert Mathiez to Georges

Michel Vovelle holds the chair in the French Revolution at the University of Paris I (Sor- bonne). Among his numerous books on the social and cultural history of the Old Regime and the French Revolution are La Chute de la monarchie (Paris, 1972), Pi&tt baroque et dechristianisa- tion (Paris, 1973), Religion et Revolution (Paris, 1976), La Revolution francaise, images et recit, 5 vols. (Paris, 1986), and La Revolution contre l'Vglise:De la Raison d l'Etresupre&me (Paris, 1988).

French Historical Studies, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Fall 1990) Copyright ? 1990 by the Society for French Historical Studies

This content downloaded from 103.77.40.126 on Wed, 09 Sep 2020 04:27:09 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 750 FRENCH HISTORICAL STUDIES

Lefebvre and then to Albert Soboul. The designation of this strand of history under a single rubric is not without its oversimplification, for historians such as Marcel Reinhard or Jacques Godechot who identified themselves with this current were not Marxists, whereas Lefebvre and even Soboul took care to distinguish their positions from that of strict orthodoxy. Nevertheless, all of these historians did link themselves to a social reading of the revolutionary upheaval, an interpretation whose basic features they helped to construct: from the peasant revolution of Lefebvre (Les Paysans du Nord, La Grande Peur de 1789) to the urban mobilization of Soboul (Les Sans-culottes parisiens en l'an II). For them, the French Revolution destroyed not only the insti- tutional Old Regime of the absolute monarchy but also and even more profoundly the social Old Regime of a society of orders supported by the privileges of a noble aristocracy; and it brought about the union of a bourgeois revolution with the popular revolutions-Parisian and urban movements and the peasant revolution-as evoked by Georges Lefebvre. It was the confrontational effect of a "bourgeois revolution with popular support" (Soboul) which explains the radicalism of the revolutionary process and its "ascendant development" from 1789 to 1793. In opposition to this explanatory schema, is it possible to speak of a single revisionist discourse? I think we must distinguish several strata leading to several rather different formulations. A first stratum, dating to the late 1950s, corresponds to the reexaminations of certain Anglo- Saxon researchers, whether English-like Alfred Cobban-or Amer- ican. They put into question the concept of a bourgeois revolution by questioning the very existence in the late eighteenth century of a modern form of bourgeoisie. So too, they reevaluated the idea of a backward aristocracy by stressing the progressive characteristics of this group (as in the articles of George V. Taylor).' Such questioning led them to reexamine the inevitability of the Revolution and to grant a determining influence to politics and contingent events in the origins of the revolutionary movement (cf. The Origins of the French Revolu- tion by William Doyle). In France, this same interpretive tendency can be associated with the initial itinerary of Francois Furet, who collaborated with Denis Richet to publish the book La Revolution franfaise in 1965. For Furet and Richet a compromise would have been possible in 1789 through a

I George V. Taylor, "Types of Capitalism in Eighteenth-Century France," Economic His- tory Review 79 (1964): 478-97; and "Non-capitalist Wealth and the Origin of the French Revolu- tion," American Historical Review 72 (1966-67): 469-96.

This content downloaded from 103.77.40.126 on Wed, 09 Sep 2020 04:27:09 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION 751

reformist evolution based on the consensus of a noble-bourgeois elite, associated in their subscription to the ideology of the Enlightenment. As they put it, the Revolution "skidded off course" through the unde- sirable intervention of the masses, workers and peasants whose slogans and demands were essentially backward in nature. Hence the escala- tion which led to the terrorist episode of 1793-94 and which, for them, was anything but an "ascendant development. " Such were the stakes of the debate in the 1970s-greatly simplified but without exaggeration, I hope-emerging from a polemic that was scarcely notable for its ele- gance on one side or the other. At the risk of appearing incurably optimistic, I do consider this debate to have been fruitful and productive. Criticized and challenged in this manner, Jacobin historiography has had to take up once again certain strands of fundamental inquiry. Thus, for example, the analysis of Regine Robin has greatly contributed in developing the definition of an old-style or transitional bourgeoisie and in demonstrating the ambiguities and misinterpretations of the theory of "elites."2 Moreover, without rejecting the continued exploration of social history, this strand of historiography has learned to reevaluate the role of politics in relation to certain themes such as the development of Jaco- binism and also to grant greater importance to cultural and mental phenomena in the investigation of new areas of revolutionary history. For this reason, when one encounters a historian like Jacques Sole scoffing at the Marxist "myth" of a conquest of power by the industrial bourgeoisie (La Revolution en questions),3 one may well wonder what could be more vulgar than crude Marxism-unless it is perhaps crude anti-Marxism. Moreover, as his 1978 essay Penser la Revolution franfaise makes perfectly clear, the revisionist discourse employed by Francois Furet has also considerably evolved. Some of the most spectacular affirma- tions of 1965, notably the idea of the Revolution's skidding off course, were put into question. In the explanatory model that now emerged, the revolutionary process once again took on a real unity. Henceforth, the Revolution is to be read in a political vein, as an experience whose roots are to be traced to the previous decades, to the development of the "democratic sociability -a concept borrowed by Furet from the historian Augustin Cochin-of the Masonic lodges and the societes de pen- see, developed under the auspices of the Rousseauist notion of popular

2 RWgine Robin, La Soci&tt franpaise en 1789: Semur-en-Auxois (Paris, 1970). 3 In English as Questions of the French Revolution: A Historical Overview, trans. Shelley Temchin (New York, 1989).

This content downloaded from 103.77.40.126 on Wed, 09 Sep 2020 04:27:09 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 752 FRENCH HISTORICAL STUDIES

sovereignty. The year 1789 saw the opening of a period in which "history was set adrift." In this context it was the application of both the principles and the social practices of "democratic sociability" that led to the creation of a Jacobin "machine" within the framework of an experience which made the Revolution the "matrix of totalitarianism'' (Penser la Revolution franfaise, p. 180). In Furet's view it is essential to put an end to this episode, for its consequences have been as pernicious in the development of French political culture as in the construction of a model adopted by modern totalitarianism. Putting an end to "French exceptionalism" means accepting today that "the Revolution is over." Is this the final word in Francois Furet's reflections on the subject? In any case, it is the message that has gone even beyond the public of historians to touch a collective sensibility ready to accept it. Yet it is also true that during the Bicentennial events-events which he ini- tially challenged, without admitting that by doing so he could hardly expect to reserve for himself the leading position which he felt was rightfully his-Francois Furet has made use of his particularly flexible mode of thought to soften his critical position toward the Revolution and has even found in it a certain positive dimension. It is clear, however, that beyond the impact of immediate events, a counter-explanatory model has been constructed, somewhere between the second and the third Furet, in opposition to the Jacobin interpretation. This model is characterized by a primacy given to politics and a repudiation of the social explanation of the Revolution, by the application of a historical approach which would see itself as conceptual, attentive not only to the analysis of political texts but to an appeal to past historiography, to authors who, from Cochin to Tocqueville to Quinet to Marx, can serve as guarantees and points of reference. This approach has not been unanimously accepted, even within the revisionist camp. Jacques Sole, a generally faithful reflection of a certain contemporary milieu, reproaches Furet for his "abstract monism" comparable to the primacy given by Marxists to the economy: an ele- gant manner, perhaps, of standing the protagonists back to back. It remains true, however, that the revisionist approach practiced by Francois Furet seems to accumulate all the inconveniences of a closed model, a model which does not really seem to seek the support of new research and which would thus establish a new vulgate: and all this, paradoxically and in some ways inconsistently, developed through the successive formulation of contradictory theses. Today we can speak of another "revisionism," one that has blos- somed during the last few years in France and above all in the United

This content downloaded from 103.77.40.126 on Wed, 09 Sep 2020 04:27:09 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION 753

States and England. A case in point is the previously cited work by Jacques Sole (La Revolution en questions) which stands as a veritable montage of diverse Anglo-Saxon sources, especially Donald Suther- land's essay with its subtitle Revolution and Counterrevolution, often cited word for word. If one attempts to characterize without caricature the contributions of this recent trend-often much more diverse than Sole would suggest-it would seem to differ from the Furetist approach in its pragmatic concern for detail, based on monographic studies and archival research. But this desire to write a history without prejudice or preconceptions brings a return of the now classic theme of the contingent character of the revolutionary event, originating in the inconsistency of the revolutionary bourgeoisie of 1789 and in the weak penetration of the Enlightenment beyond certain limited milieus. The Revolution is viewed as an explosion of popular violence, a violence founded from start to finish in the primacy of age-old rumors and ges- tural rites. This ambiguous populism, poles apart from a certain elitism of Francois Furet, leads to an emphasis on continuity over rup- ture and on the importance of religion among the profoundly Chris- tian masses. Thus, for the majority of these authors, the history of the Revolution becomes the history of counterrevolution and the resist- ance to change to the extent that one may well ask oneself what remains of the Revolution itself and why it was able to succeed. In its internal dynamics, the role of the actors-marginal declasses, "Rous- seau des ruisseaux" -is depreciated. "The schizophrenic state of the French bourgeoisie" (Patrice Higonnet), coming to power without being prepared for it, created an unstable leadership which gave itself over to a relentless conquest of power, a fuite en avant in which one battled one's friends as much as one's enemies. As seen from this critical survey, and though many of these authors deny it, the continual danger is of sliding into a history of denunciation or a narrative that is uniformly disparaging. This tendency, which constitutes a third strand of contemporary revolutionary historiography and which I have called "anathema history," is represented and illustrated by the work of Pierre Chaunu.4 The success in the United States of the recent work by Simon Schama5-a work that contributes nothing to historical debate other than providing an example of a hostile narrative-is in this sense significant. Among what we might call this multiplicity of revisionisms, we

4 See, e.g., Pierre Chaunu, Le Grand D&lassement: A propos d'une commemoration (Paris, 1989). 5Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (New York, 1989).

This content downloaded from 103.77.40.126 on Wed, 09 Sep 2020 04:27:09 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 754 FRENCH HISTORICAL STUDIES

have still not taken into account the spectacular explosion currently underway in the historiography of Eastern Europe, China, and Russia, in revolt against their own particularly rigid vulgates. "We are Thermi- dorians," we are told by Chinese historians, who are sometimes tempted to throw out the baby with the bath water. Confronted by such a generalized movement, one might come to the conclusion that the revisionist currents in French revolutionary history have been totally successful. As someone told me recently, soon no one will even men- tion Jacobin historiography. But it does seem to me necessary to reaffirm certain themes. The brutal swing from the exclusively social to the exclusively political-to follow in the path of Francois Furet-would seem, at the very least, to mutilate history. It would mean disregarding whole areas of the most fertile and promising research and inquiry, not only in the realm of social history, the results of which continue to merit interest, but in cultural history and the history of mentalites. It would entail the danger of a new and sterile dogmatism. In addition, the ambiguities of the "populist" brand of neo-revisionism, which would dissolve the phenomenon of the Revolution into the counterrevolution, leaves one puzzled before the total set of uncoordinated critical approaches. Among all these different interpretations there is one common trait: the demythification of the French Revolution, the deconstruction of a pious image fashioned as much by the French republican tradition as by the Jacobin tradition, all leading to Francois Furet's idea that "the Revolution is over" (a hope as much as a conclusion, as Furet himself writes). But the historian must always be wary of the ruses and ironies of a history informed by ongoing events. Just as an effort was being made to put an end to "French exceptionalism" by removing the memory of the Revolution and thus the "matrix of totalitarian tenden- cies," a new and genuinely revolutionary current has arisen in Eastern Europe invoking 1789 and calling for liberty, equality, and fraternity. It is this that explains the abrupt turn-about of thinkers like Edgar Morin, who asks that we "demystify, contemplate, remythologize the French Revolution." Is it possible, then, that the Revolution is not dead, that it can still serve some purpose? At a time when the revolutionary phenomenon is strongly re-emerging, historians who are not only rooted in their era but who desire to follow a rigorous scientific approach owe it to themselves to practice a historical method toward the French Revolution that is truly open. The "Jacobin" historiography of the Revolution, as it is followed today by those who would link themselves to this heritage, is substantially different from the

This content downloaded from 103.77.40.126 on Wed, 09 Sep 2020 04:27:09 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE REVISIONIST INTERPRETATION 755

narrow and dogmatic schema with which the heritage of Albert Soboul-in a clearly oversimplified fashion-has been identified. Mindful of the realms of culture and mentalites, Jacobin historiography today is by no means indifferent to certain aspects of the redis- covery of politics that characterizes present research, even if it rejects the pendulum swing so much in vogue from the exclusively social to the exclusively political. In counterpoint to this tradition, what justification can there be for the "revisionist" point of view? On the one hand, revisionism could dissolve into a critical attitude, which is perhaps the natural direction of any history intent on developing new directions of research; on the other, it could set itself up essentially as a counter-model with all the fragility that such a stand entails. In the end, one wonders if it is still appropriate to maintain such shrunken, ambiguous, and above all reductionist terms received from the past, or whether it would not be best to get rid of the labels "Jacobin" and "revisionist" altogether. Rather than crushing the opposing point of view under the weight of polemics or under the scorn of a carefully nurtured silence, it would perhaps be preferable to recognize that no hegemonic interpretation of the Revolution exists today and that this is undoubtedly a very good thing.

TRANSLATION TIMOTHY TACKETT AND ELISABETH TUTTLE

This content downloaded from 103.77.40.126 on Wed, 09 Sep 2020 04:27:09 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms