A Revolution of Language: Pamphlet Literature and Public Speeches During the French Revolution Lingxiao “Linda” Gao University of Notre Dame

Liberated Arts: A Journal for Undergraduate Research

Volume 8, Issue 1 Article 1

2021

A Revolution of Language: Pamphlet Literature and Public Speeches during the French Revolution Lingxiao “Linda” Gao University of Notre Dame

Follow this and additional works at: https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/lajur

Recommended Citation Gao, Lingxiao (2021) “A Revolution of Language: Pamphlet Literature and Public Speeches during the French Revolution,” Liberated Arts: a journal for undergraduate research: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 1.

Liberated Arts is an open access journal, which means that its content is freely available without charge to readers and their institutions. All content published by Liberated Arts is licensed under the Creative Commons License, Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Readers are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without seeking prior permission from Liberated Arts or the authors. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Revolution of Language: Pamphlet Literature and Public Speeches during the French Revolution Lingxiao “Linda” Gao, University of Notre Dame

Abstract: This essay examines the emergence of new forms of communication during the 1789 French Revolution: pamphlet literature and public speeches. Written and oral, they functioned together to tear down the barriers of gender, class, and social mobility of the French society and facilitated the creation of a revolutionary community that adopted a culturally-defined membership and attracted a broader audience. The use of revolutionary rhetoric created a new political language and a standard of leadership centering around oratory and one’s ability to navigate through dynamics, chaotic circumstances. Being inclusive and democratic, these forms of communication together shaped the course of the French Revolution.

Keywords: French Revolution; pamphlet literature; public speeches; rhetoric; revolutionary community

“The business going forward at present in the pamphlet shops of Paris is incredible… the coffee-houses in the Palais Royal present yet more singular and astonishing spectacles.”1 Arthur Young, a British traveler, was deeply shocked by the unconventional scenes he observed during his visit to Paris in 1789, a year when widespread economic and social distress finally became unbearable in the French society and triggered various measures of the revolution. The pamphlet shops and coffee-houses that Young saw were the birthplaces of two new forms of communications during the revolutionary period: pamphlet literature and public speeches. Together, they worked to tear down the barriers of gender, class, and social mobility, creating an inclusive revolutionary community that incorporated a broader audience and invited wider participation. Their adoption of revolutionary rhetoric bred a new form of political language and set up a modern standard of leadership based on oratory and the ability to cope with dynamic, chaotic circumstances. The new written and oral communications together played a significant role in shaping the French Revolution. The political environment of the French Revolution produced a new form of written culture: the emergence of pamphlets and journals infused with rhetoric. The sudden explosive expansion of the political scene invited widespread discussions on emerging concepts and new monarchy, generating a flourishing publication industry. As Young remarked, “the business… in the pamphlet shops of Paris [was] incredible… [and] every hour [produced] something new.”2 Young’s amazement at the pamphlet shops reveals the revolutionary newness of this form of communication. Made possible by the invention and development of typographic printing in the 15th and 16th centuries, pamphlet literature became powerful political weapons with the arrival of the French Revolution. Although pamphlet had been used before the revolution began, Harvey Chisick demonstrates the newness of this massive print culture by estimating its unprecedented scale during

1 Arthur Young. Travels in France & Italy during the Years 1787, 1788, and 1789 (London: Dent, 1915), Everyman’s Library, No. 720., 124-125. 2 Young’s Travels, 124.

1 the pre-Revolutionary and Revolutionary period3. Surprised by their radical content, Young lashed out at the publications for seducing the people into “sedition and revolt.”4 Young’s insight, despite its biases, sheds light on the inflammatory nature of pamphlets and their effectiveness in stirring radical sensibilities. The pamphlets not only delivered revolutionary ideas, but also provided the audience with various knowledge on related topics; for instance, they commented on the English constitution.5 The pamphlets became people’s primary source of information and knowledge regarding the revolution. Their contents played a weighty role in directing public opinion. The pamphlet industry’s large scale and influential power posed a threat to the declining monarchy. The monarch, Louis XVI, with whom the public were becoming illusioned, appeared incapable to contain the spread of pamphlets and revolutionary sentiments, which further suggested the vitality of this written culture. Young was baffled by the monarch’s lack of action: according to him, the monarch did not restrain these “seditious” publications, and nothing in reply took place to “undeceive the people.”6 Dorset, the British ambassador to France, provided a different story. In his weekly-based reports to the Duke of Leeds, Dorset discussed a specific case where a journal was censored: “Amongst the various printed accounts of the proceedings at Versailles, the Journal des Provinces appears to be the most accurate: the further publication of it has been prohibited...”7 Dorset held an insider’s perspective more accurate and reliable than Young’s traveler’s viewpoint. His description showed that the French monarch did take actions to silence the pamphleteers. Later, Young also noticed that “[Mirabeau’s writings] … were silenced by an express edict of government.”8 Mirabeau, an influential political leader and a successful orator elected to the Estates- General, published a small pamphlet to continue his discourse even after the government’s suppression. At that point, Young realized that “it [was] a weak and miserable conduct to single out any particular publication for prohibition while the press [groaned] with innumerable production…”9 Young and Dorset’s accounts revealed that the monarchical system did make several attempts to restrain the publication of pamphlets; however, the industry’s vitality outweighed the monarch’s ability to undo it. The widespread enthusiasm for political discourse led to uncontainable prosperity of pamphlet literature, which, in turn, stirred a revolutionary mentality and propelled the revolution. By appealing to marginalized social groups, the pamphlets helped to create a new revolutionary community that contained an unprecedentedly broad audience. The pamphleteers adopted various rhetorical strategies to politicize women, who were once excluded from political affairs. In one pamphlet, a liberal journalist lauded French women for their energy and courage demonstrated by their involvement in the March on Versailles, confirming their legitimacy in

3 Harvey Chisick, “The pamphlet literature of the French revolution: An overview”, History of European Ideas 17:2-3 (1933), 149-166. Chisick’s article also suggests that the flourishing pamphlet culture, as observed by Young, could be associated with Jurgen Habermas’s theory of the emergence of a public sphere in late 18th century France. 4 Young’s Travels, 125. 5 The pamphlets’ view that the English constitution was “cheap” apparently upset Young. Young’s Travels, 148. 6 Young’s Travels, 179. 7 Despatches From Paris 1784-1790 (London: Offices of Society, 1909), Volume I, 218. 8 Despatches, 135. 9 Young’s Travels, 130.

2 participating in the political process.10 The pamphleteer further glorified women’s political engagement by attributing their success to divine power: “She [Providence] inspired the women with the resolution to liberate the Fatherland; she made them succeed.”11 Interestingly, the author addressed women by the third person “they” and men by the first person “we”, as if he were speaking exclusively to men; his word-choice indicated a stereotypical convention that only men made up the reading public. Nevertheless, the author gestured toward change. The author provided women with suggestions on self-discipline,12 teaching them how to “continue functioning their role as a vigilante police force.”13 The author’s indirect communication with women invited them into the political dialogue. By praising their courage and offering suggestions, the journalist recognized their political presence; women were now seen as not only listeners, but also active participants. Another strategy the pamphleteers employed was the exploration of rhetorical femininity: male authors speaking in women’s voices to convey revolutionary messages.14 This practice restored women’s voice in political discussion and aroused social awareness of women’s underprivileged situation. A pamphlet produced in 1789, for example, expressed the fishwife community’s support for the Third Estate.15 Being the third part of the Estates-General, the Third Estate represented the commoners, while the Frist and the Second represented the wealthy, land-owning clergy and nobility. The pamphlet’s first-person plural narration – such as “We will drink / to the Third Estate” – suggested that the fishwives were the authors. However, various accounts on the neglect of female education indicated the illiteracy or semi-literacy of the majority of lower-class women. The editor’s notes, based on the French bookseller Hardy’s account, suggest a more reliable possibility that the real author was Sylvain Maréchal, who was a poet, an essayist, and an enthusiastic supporter of the French Revolution.16 Indeed, it is rather credible that the short pamphlet was written by an educated poet, given its delicate, over-scholarly language: “wisdom, equity, disinterestedness, profound knowledge… were the sole reasons you were chosen, and assure the happiness which awaits us.”17 It is possible that the poet was motivated by sympathy to express women’s marginalized voice; it is also possible that the poet was requested or hired to transcribe their comments into embellished public discourse. The poet’s writing might be misrepresentative; nevertheless, it aroused public awareness of the fishwives’ political presence and signified their support for the Third Estate, along with their involvement in the revolutionary movements.

10 A Liberal Journalist Attempts to Integrate the Insurrectionary Deeds of the Women of the People into the Mythology of the Revolutionary Establishment (1789), excerpted in Darline Levy, Harriet Applewhite, and Mary Johnson, eds. Women in Revolutionary Paris, 1789-1795 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1979), 51-54. 11 A Liberal Journalist, 53. 12 The suggestions, however, were gender-biased. A modern term for it could be “Mansplaining”: “a man talking condescendingly to a woman about something he has incomplete knowledge of, with the mistaken assumption that he knows more about it than the person he’s talking to does”. Merriam-Webster.com. 13 A Liberal Journalist, 51. 14 The term was learned from Mary Beth Norton, “AHA Presidential Address: History on the Diagonal,” The American Historical Review 124.1 (2019), 1-19. 15 The Fishwives of Paris Pay Homage to the Third Estate (1789), excerpted in Levy et al, Women in Revolutionary Paris, 27-28. 16 Fishwives, 27. 17 The Fishwives, 27.

3 Similarly, a publicist who empathized with unprivileged women wrote a pamphlet entitled “Speech of Poor Javotte,” articulating the grievances of a fictional French girl “Javotte.” The first person narrative recounted Javotte’s family background, showing that Javotte and her family suffered from hardship and poverty; while Javotte’s male relatives managed to find jobs, she was unable to be employed because of her gender.18 Using the approach of rhetorical femininity, the pamphleteer imitated the voice of a lower class girl: “I was born in a province the name of which I no longer know.”19 The motion at the end of the speech also appeared in a naïve and singular manner: “let the National Assembly deign to consider the fate of unfortunate women.”20 Still, the pamphleteer’s rhetorical device restored the voices of the real “Javottes” during the revolution that were silenced or marginalized. Overall, pamphlet literature escorted women’s voices to the patriarchal political realm, fostering a sense of a revolutionary community that involved a broader audience and wider participation. The strategy of rhetorical femininity represented an organic synthesis of literature and politics. The literary dimension, including the stark description of Javotte’s suffering, attacked the society and aroused the audience’s sympathy more than theoretical writing could achieve. Being a category associated with but independent from real-life politics, literature during the revolution vitalized what Historian Suzanne Desan calls “a cultural definition of citizenship," distinct from juridical rights and institutional access.21 Pamphlet literature created a cultural atmosphere in which the presence of women was normalized and even rendered indispensable. By depicting members such as the courageous marchers, the enthusiastic fishwives, and the poor Javotte, the pamphlets familiarized the audience with the diverse images of the revolutionary community. The recognition of women’s participation reinforced the cultural dimension of citizenship, reaffirming the non-institutional inclusion of women in political life. As Historian Katie Jarvis points out, “definitions of citizenship are implicitly definitions of membership.”22 Even though women did not receive full legal and institutional rights, they were integrated into the community of citizens as their participation was culturally recognized. Pamphlet literature, with its ability to transcend a narrow political reality, proposed an advanced possibility of inclusiveness that was to be fulfilled. Moreover, as Desan’s theory suggests, cultural roles integrate individuals into a “moral” community;23 female speakers carried out their cultural roles by reinforcing this moral dimension. In “Petition of Women of the Third Estate to the King,” the female petitioners requested a regulation in the prostitution industry, describing the industry as a moral degradation not only to their sex but also to the whole community.24 Similarly, in “The Specific Grievances of the Merchant Flower Sellers of the City and Faubourgs of Paris,” the flower sellers requested a restriction to keep competitors from entering the trade, condemning the competitors for being unprincipled, shameful

18 A Defender of Laboring Poor Women Supports Welfare Legislation (1789), excerpted in Levy et al, Women in Revolutionary Paris, 55-60. 19 A Defender of Laboring Poor Women, 56. 20 A Defender of Laboring Poor Women, 60. 21 Katie Jarvis, Politics in the Marketplace: Work, Gender, and Citizenship in Revolutionary France (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 9. 22 Jarvis, Politics in the Marketplace, 9. 23 Jarvis, Politics in the Marketplace, 9. 24 Petition of Women of the Third Estate to the King (1789), excerpted in Levy et al, Women in Revolutionary Paris, 18-21.

4 and immoral.25 Women’s reference to morality was a rhetorical device to publicize their voice and appeal to the audience. By participating in pamphlet culture, they carried out their cultural roles and exercised their rights as members of the revolutionary sphere. In turn, they fostered and defended explicit standards of morality that strengthened the sense of community.

As powerful and explosive as the new pamphlet culture was, it was limited because it could only reach those able to read, a distinct minority in France in 1789. Nevertheless, another emerging form of communication, public speeches, made up for the pamphlets’ deficiency and achieved the goal of including illiterate and semi-literate populations. Openness was the most prominent characteristic of public speeches. The speeches commonly occurred inside or outside the coffee- houses, or on the streets, influencing people by loud voices and inflammatory oratory. British traveler Young described the ardent scene at the coffee-houses at the Palais Royal with astonishment: “they are not only crowded within, but other expectant crowds are at the doors and windows.”26 The dynamism of public speeches was captured by images from the era, such as Camille Desmoulins Speaking to the Crowds at the Palais Royal, a picture that depicted a speech outside a coffee- house on July 12th, 1789.27 Camille Desmoulins, a journalist and a pamphleteer, was unsettled by the news of Finance minister Necker’s dismissal. Leaping onto a table outside one of the coffee-houses at the Palais Royal, Desmoulins gave an enthusiastic speech, calling people to arm and protect their nation.28 The picture portrayed the eagerness of Desmoulins’ audience: people from afar were dashing to the stage, while some were climbing the tall fence to join the listeners. The picture included figures of women and children listening to the speech; their presence revealed public speeches’ inclusion of illiterate or semi-literate populace. Tearing down barriers of literacy, institutional access, and social status, the new form of communication opened political discussion to a broader and more diverse audience. The dynamic atmosphere of public speeches enhanced people’s interest in politics and facilitated the formation of an integrated, enthusiastic political community. The openness of public speeches invited non-traditional manners of participation: a speech was filled with interruption, noise, silence, applause, physical presence and withdrawal of the audience. In Young’s description, listeners were allowed to interfere by clapping hands to express approbation or by hissing to show dissent; Young was troubled to observe that some may “hiss as well as clap.” For Young, this form of interference was not only “grossly indecent,” but also over-ruled the debate.29 From a different perspective, however, the interactive atmosphere effectively aroused people’s enthusiasm, as participating in political discussions became a fun activity. The audience’s spatial presence – the feeling of being involved or present in a virtual reality – enhanced their sense of participation. The spatial presence of others gave individual participants an awareness of a responsive community with shared interests and feelings. The physical presence and emotional reaction of the audience helped to construct a communal, integrated, cooperative micro-society with each participant being its legitimate member. This interactive dynamic of public speeches aroused people’s zeal and built

25 The Specific Grievances of the Merchant Flower Sellers of the City and Faubourgs of Paris (1789), excerpted in Levy et al, Women in Revolutionary Paris, 22-26. 26 Young’s Travels, 125. 27 “Camille Desmoulins Speaking to the Crowds at the Palais Royal,” July 12th, 1789, Discovering the Western Past: A Look at the Evidence (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989), 114. 28 Hartcup, John, “Camille Desmoulins, Revolutionary Orator, 1760-94,” History Today 25-4 (1975), 238-245. 29 Young’s Travels, 125.

5 solidarity; it helped to explain the “astonishing spectacles” Young witnessed, that the coffee-houses were crowded by fervent speakers and listeners.30 Public speeches’ interactive nature, despised by Young, led to the miraculous phenomenon of enthusiastic participation which Young failed to comprehend. Public speeches required the speaker’s capability to navigate through the dynamic atmosphere, fostering a new norm of political leadership based on oratorical skills and the “power to keep order.”31 Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, a French political theorist and pamphleteer, gave a speech at the Royal Session on June 23rd, 1789, which exemplified the importance of political rhetoric in uniting people and influencing the trend of the revolution. A few days after the Tennis Court Oath, during which the deputies of the Third Estate formed the National Assembly, the King rejected their claims as illegal and asked people to “return … to the chamber assigned to your order.”32 After the withdrawal of the King, the nobility, and a part of the clergy,33 members of the National Assembly argued over the King’s declaration and were unable to reach a decision on whether or not to obey him.34 At this crucial moment, Sieyès delivered an eloquent speech to the hesitant crowd that effectively re-united the opinions of the assembly: “Are we only the agents and officers of the king? In that case, we must obey and withdraw.” By presenting an antithesis, he refuted the King’s previous speech that called for obedience. Sieyès then adopted the powerful strategy of posing fundamental questions: “Is there a power on earth that can deprive you of the right to represent your constituents?”35 The recorder of the meeting, possibly a person that supported the National Assembly, noted in brackets that “this speech is buried with applause.”36 Right after Sieyès’s sonorous speech, the National Assembly voted and declared that it would persist in its previous decisions and refused to obey the King, which marked a crucial moment that the National Assembly strengthened its resolution. By seizing the opportunity to speak and motivating the Assembly’s members, Sieyès proved his ability as one of the prominent leaders on the revolutionary side. As the British ambassador Dorset remarked, Sieyès was among the “men of first-rate abilities.”37 Sieyès’s success illustrated the emergence of a new standard of leadership based on rhetoric and the power to cope with the dynamic atmosphere. Sieyès’ capacity in political eloquence played a significant role in swaying the revolution. On the contrary, those who failed in manipulating revolutionary language lost support from the public. The King’s speeches at the Royal Session were the opposite of Sieyès’s oration. The third speech the King made before withdrawing appeared dictatorial, harsh, and inflexible. Unable to cope with revolutionary thoughts and language, the King uncompromisingly insisted: “I should accomplish my people’s good alone, and I should consider myself alone their true representative.”38

30 Young’s Travels, 125. 31 Young’s Travels, 133. 32 Deliberations at the Estates General (June 1789), John W. Boyer, Julius Kirshner, The Old Regime and the French Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 206. 33 The physical presence and withdrawal of the audience was a part of the dynamic of public speeches. The withdrawal was itself a message. 34 Deliberations at the Estates General, 206-208. 35 Deliberations, 207. 36 Deliberations, 208. Describing the dynamic atmosphere of the speech, the recorder’s deliberate comment was also a rhetorical strategy that endorsed and glorified Sieyès’s resolution. 37 Despatches, 247. 38 Deliberations, 206.

6 The image of the King behind the speech reversed Thomas Jefferson’s description of him: “…for the good of the nation…no personal sacrifice would ever have cost him a moment’s regret. But his mind was weakness itself… without sufficient firmness even to stand by the faith of his word.”39 The King’s speech, described as “humiliating dictatorship” by Mirabeau, conveyed a sense of arrogance, self-centeredness, and disrespect towards the assembly members.40 The discrepancy between Jefferson’s impression and the dictatorial speech might be attributed to the King’s incapability of rhetoric. With the misuse of language and tone, the King’s attempt to reconcile ended up intensifying the conflict. Jefferson, the United States Minister to France at that time and a sympathetic witness to the Revolution, recorded in his letter to James Madison, who was serving in the newly formed U.S. House of Representatives: “the uneasiness produced by the king’s declaration occasioned the people to collect about the palace in the evening of the same day.”41 Without the power to manipulate language, the King failed to win the heart of his people. The leaders of the revolutionary side were better at communicating and adopting rhetoric than the King. Both their mastery and the King’s failure in oratory worked together to fuel the revolution. For a public speaker, it was rather easier to stir people’s enthusiasm than to cool an inflamed crowd down. Marquis de La Fayette demonstrated his leadership when the King and Queen were asked to speak to an excited crowd from the balcony, a scene that a member of the French court described in his letter to his wife.42 There were “loud shouts of ‘Vive le Roil’” among the people, then La Fayette “signaled with his hat he wanted to speak and obtained silence”.43 In a chaotic scene as the letter depicted, silence meant one’s right to speak. La Fayette’s ability to obtain silence not only represented people’s trust (they chose him to express their collective voice), but also signified his capability to navigate through political chaos and unite a diverse population, a virtue in modern politics. The two forms of revolutionary communication, pamphlets and public speeches, were inseparable and complementary. People often turned pamphlets into public readings at the coffee- houses, assisting the persuasive arguments with infectious expression and appealing to a broader audience. Both public speeches and pamphlet literature extended the scope of words; they together created an inclusive revolutionary community with wide participation. Sieyès represented a synthesis of the written and oral cultures: as a pamphleteer, his What is the Third Estate provided the community with powerful revolutionary thoughts; as a public speaker, he re-united the opinion of the National Assembly to decline the King’s request. There were other synthesizing figures beside Sieyès. For example, Mirabeau, whose writings were banned by the government but who continued to write nevertheless, was remarked by Young as “one of the first pens of France, and the first orator.”44 People like Sieyès and Mirabeau exemplified the convergence of the two new forms of communication. Together, they gave birth to a new standard of political leaders, beckoning a gesture towards modern politics.

39 Paul M. Zall, Jefferson on Jefferson (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2002), 82. 40 Deliberations, 206. 41 “Jefferson to Madison (July 22nd and 23rd, 1789),” James Morton Smith, The Republic of Letters: The Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1995), 625. 42 A Letter from Versailles (1789), the French Revolution (New Jersey: Eaglewood Cliffs, 1967), ed. Philip Dawson, 48-55. 43 A Letter from Versailles, 54. 44 Young’s Travels, 135.

7 Dorset was amazed by the fact that “there certainly never was an instance of so astonishing a Revolution operated almost without bloodshed, and without the people being led on by any leader, or by any party, but merely by the general diffusion of reason and philosophy.”45 The new oral and written forms of communication worked together to realize this “diffusion of reason and philosophy”, tearing down the barriers of gender, class, and social mobility, creating an integrated revolutionary community that adopted a culturally-defined membership. The emerging forms of communication initiated a new norm of political language and a modern concept of leadership based on oratory and the ability to navigate through a dynamic atmosphere. By appealing to such a broad audience, pamphlet literature and public speeches fundamentally shaped the French revolution.

45 Despatches, 247.

8 Works Cited

Baker, Keith Michael, John W. Boyer, and Julius Kirshner. The Old Regime and the French Revolution. University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Browning, Oscar, ed. Despatches from Paris, 1784-1790. No. 1. Offices of the Society, 1909

Chisick, Harvey, “The pamphlet literature of the French revolution: An overview”, History of European Ideas 17:2-3, 1933, 149-166.

Dowson, Phillip, the French Revolution, New Jersey: Eaglewood Cliffs, 1967.

Hartcup, John, “Camille Desmoulins, Revolutionary Orator, 1760-94,” History Today 25-4, 1975, 238- 245.

Jarvis, Katie, Politics in the Marketplace: Work, Gender, and Citizenship in Revolutionary France, New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Jefferson, Thomas, and Paul M. Zall. Jefferson on Jefferson. University Press of Kentucky, 2002. Levy, Darline Gay, Harriet Branson Applewhite, and Mary Durham Johnson. Women in revolutionary Paris, 1789-1795. University of Illinois Press, 1979.

Norton, Mary Beth, “AHA Presidential Address: History on the Diagonal,” The American Historical Review 124.1, 2019.

Smith, James Morton, The Republic of Letters: The Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1995.

Wiesner, Merry E., Julius R. Ruff, Discovering the Western Past: A Look at the Evidence, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989.

Young, Arthur, and Thomas Okey. Travels in France & Italy during the years 1787, 1788 and 1789. No. 720. London, UK: Dent, 1915.

9 Author Bio:

LINGXIAO “LINDA” GAO is currently pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in History at the University of Notre Dame. She is a member of the Glynn Family Honors Program, Greater China Scholars Program, and Kellogg International Scholars Program.