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