French Revolution Dbq

Section I: Identification and Evaluation of Sources

To what extent did the French Revolution originate as a result of the works of philosophers Baron de Montesquieu and Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès? The years 1763 to 1789 will investigated, as 1763 marks the formal conclusion of the Seven Years and the Treaty of Paris signing, while citizens stormed Bastille and marked the revolution’s official beginning in 1789.

Chartier’s The Culture Origins of the French Revolution discusses philosophers in the revolution. An agrégé d’histoire with a Master’s degree from Sorbonne, Chartier is renowned for his contributions to the field of cultural history and is a university lecturer. However, Chartier is better known for his work in cultural history than the

revolution. This is a limitation in that Chartier might not be as knowledgeable on the revolution but valuable as he views the issue from another lens — shifting from social history to intellectual history — that may not be evident to historians studying the revolution in isolation.
Chartier states his “intention is not to rewrite [Daniel Mornet’s 1933] Les Origines intellectuelles de la Révolution française], but to raise some questions that would not have occurred to him” (Chartier 2). Published in 1991, the value is that Chartier benefitted from hindsight and extended upon Mornet’s work. However, Chartier’s source is tertiary — an interpretation of Mornet’s interpretation of the revolution — and limited as information is diluted. Nevertheless, Chartier’s work is succinctly focused, allowing him to to provide unique insight by tracing the conditions in France that incubated philosophies.
Doyle, author of The Oxford History of the French Revolution, has received a doctorate from the University of Oxford and specializes in eighteenth century France, with extensive knowledge of the revolution illustrated through numerous publications and citations. Doyle’s background is valuable as it illustrates his extensive scholarly knowledge of the revolution. Additionally, the source is a second edition and was published in 2002, illustrating how Doyle benefited from hindsight by “[rectifying] errors, [updating] information … and occasionally [expanding] on topics” (1).
The source’s purpose is to demonstrate the entirety of the revolution in an international context and “not simply the Revolution in France” (Doyle 9). In doing so, Doyle brings a wide range of perspectives but condenses the information. Doyle’s purpose becomes a limitation as he gives a textual overview on the entirety of the revolution, forsaking depth for breadth, and only the first five chapters were relevant to this investigation.
While both historians are credible and highly regarded within the academic community, Doyle and Chartier address the issue from different lenses and therefore provide information that may have not been fully addressed and analyzed by the other. These sources form the basis of this investigation as Chartier postulates “ideas descended the social scale,” crediting the revolution to “highly cultivated classes” while Doyle credits the peasants (Chartier 3).

Section II: Investigation
Although historians concede the revolution originated as an outcry against the ancien régime due to socioeconomic inequality, they debate which class of citizens initiated the revolution. Whereas revisionists postulate peasants headed the revolution to overthrow plutocracy, an interpretation William Doyle defends, conservative historian Roger Chartier postulates philosophers who drew attention to and proposed solutions for the grievances of the ancien régime in their works initiated the revolution.
I. William Doyle’s Revisionist Stance
Under the ancien régime, citizens of France were divided into estates: the Third Estate, which “totalled around … [ninety-eight] percent of the population,” was comprised of the bourgeoise, sans-culottes and peasants (Jones 4).

Doyle proposes that the bourgeoise did not oppose the aristocracy, contrary to the Marxist school of thought, but aspired to obtain nobility through purchasing the title, as “ennoblement was the ultimate recognition of social success that all bourgeoise dreamed of” (37). By the end of the eighteenth century, boundaries between the nobility and bourgeoisie were virtually obsolete (Schalk 212). Sans-culottes were key participants in the Reign of Terror but irrelevant prior to 1970. In contrast, peasants made up 80% of the French population and were the revolution’s backbone due to the grievances they suffered (Doyle 28).

The ancien régime was a plutocracy. The First and Second Estates were a small proportion of the most privileged individuals and were exempted from the taille while the Third Estate paid the full tax. The vingtième, gabelle and traite exempted nobles and clergy, also fluctuating based on geographical location. These taxes maintained aristocratic lifestyles in Versailles and furthered the peasants’ resentment towards

nobility.
François Furet furthers the revisionist school of thought by drawing attention to immediate conditions peasants faced (Furet 55). The financial situation of peasants worsened after Jean-François Joly de Fleury introduced a third vingtième in 1781 to compensate for France’s support of 1,066 million livres in the American War (Doyle 74). Charles Alexandre de Calonne attempted reform within Plan for the Improvement of the Finances. Not only was this insufficient, the Anglo-French Commercial Treaty of 1786 resulted in superior and relatively inexpensive British imports entering the market, appearing to have worsened the industrial depression (Doyle 92). Moreover, weather anomalies in 1788 and 1789 wrecked havoc on crops and resulted in steep price increases for bread, a staple food comprising three-quarters of a peasant’s diet (Doyle 91). Scarcity and survival forced peasants to sacrifice essential amenities. These immediate events, Furet postulates, necessitated the revolution by promoting peasants to riot against plutocracy.
In culmination, Doyle and Furet’s complementary arguments on long-term and immediate catalysts illustrate how, to peasants, the nobility were the root cause of social inequalities. The peasants had everything to lose and took action by storming Bastille in 1789, inciting the revolution.
II. Roger Chartier’s Conservative Stance
Chartier conversely argues the conservative school of thought: the French Revolution originated from the work of Enlightenment philosophers. Montesquieu and Sieyès’ works, notably, had an impact on the revolution.
Chartier believed that a “true revolution needs ideas to fuel it” (169). Philosophies were propagated among the Third Estate as literacy rates rose from 25% - 47% and 14% - 27% in men and women respectively, from 1686 to 1786 (Chartier 69). Ideas were disseminated to peasants through the circulation of pamphlets on streets and to the bourgeoisie in salons and public spheres, prompting discourse (Walters). Hippolyte Taine regarded the Third Estate as a “conduit” for philosophers’ ideas (Chartier 67). However, the texts’ impacts can only be approximated despite compelling evidence because no explicit direct cause-causation relationship is available.
It is essential to acknowledge that Enlightenment philosophers did not oppose the monarchy; they desired knowledge, freedom and happiness through human rationality. Baron de Montesquieu viewed governments as “products of natural and historical circumstances and cannot therefore be varied at will” (Doyle 59). Instead, Montesquieu advocated for checks and balances — the separation of church and state — to prevent despotism within the ancien régime (Montesquieu 44). Montesquieu’s vision was achieved, to an extent, as impassioned anti-religious sentiment was widespread in eighteenth century France.
Fellow revolutionary philosopher Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès was a clergyman of common upbringing; even the First Estate distinguished between class. Higher clergy bishops and abbots stemmed from aristocratic backgrounds while Third Estate lower clergy were parish priests. Sieyès became embittered toward this absence of social mobility and questioned the foundation of the ancien régime in his work, illustrating the absence of social mobility and how the Third Estate made up a majority of the population and did “work that [sustains] society” but were mistreated (Sieyès 2). As reform, he proposed forming a nation under the Third Estate bound by a common law without exemptions for the privileged (Sieyès 5).
What is the Third Estate? was published in 1789 and Sieyès adapted his work to deviate from traditional Enlightenment philosophers, maintaining an indifferent attitude to avoid alienating the significant proportion of plebeians who advocated for dechristianization — despite his personal beliefs — but advocated for greater representation for the Third Estate.
Due to the works of Montesquieu, Sieyès and other Enlightenment philosophers, the Third Estate were involved in politics “to an extent not seen since [the political crisis of] 1771” due to Calonne’s attempt to enact the Plan for the Improvement of the Finances with the Assembly of Notables on January 29 1786, and later in the Estates-General when the Assembly of Notables did not reach a positive consensus (Doyle 81).

Following Calonne’s resignation, the Estates-General convened on May 4 1789 to discuss reforms; given the equal proportions of the First and Second Estates to the Third, there was disagreement and Louis XVI dismissed the Third Estate. On June 17 1789, Sieyès and the comte de Mirabeau led the Third Estate deeming themselves the National Assembly. They later took the Tennis Court Oath on June 20 1789, vowing to not separate until the Third Estate achieved greater representation, fulfilling Sieyès’ visions for the

France.
III. Synthesis
The debate is whether people or ideas make a revolution. Chartier’s theory — the French Revolution would not have been a social revolution without Enlightenment philosophers — is plausible; philosophers, notably Montequieu and Sieyès, gave the Third Estate ideas which elevated their political to social revolution, as revolution’s intention in context of its origins was to reform a plutocratic system (Schwartz). Sieyès, in particular, led the Third Estate towards the Tennis Court Oath, a turning point in the revolution. However, Doyle emphasizes the Third Estate’s role as without the peasants, Sieyès would not have had subjects to lead and the revolution would not have occurred (Doyle 108). To Chartier and Doyle, it is an either-or situation. However, it appears that peasants had a direct and visible role in the revolution while philosophy imparted ideas on the Estates despite its influence not being explicit.
An investigation of Doyle and Chartier’s works reveal the interdependent relationship between the Enlightenment and French Revolution: although the Enlightenment came first, philosophies were later read by the Third Estate. However, early Enlightenment literature such as The Spirit of Laws failed to represent peasants and although it sparked revolutionary thoughts, the revolution’s development was hindered. Nevertheless, dissent regarding plutocracy still festered among peasants. In response, later philosophers such as Sieyès adapted Enlightenment theories catering to the changing political climate. Through this creation and moderation of theses by philosophers and adoption of said theses by peasants who took direct action, the revolution was incited.
Doyle reveals information that may not have occurred to Chartier, and vice versa, due to the different focuses of their works. In culmination, the works reveal that one would not have occurred without the other: without philosophies, the peasants would have had no direction and the revolution would have been restricted to a political revolution rather than a social one that had a lasting impact while without peasants, the content of philosophies and the revolution as a whole would have not had been undertaken.