7

French Feminists and the

Rights of "Man": Olympe de
Gouges's Declarations
Joan Wallach Scott
Originally appeared as Joan Wallach Scott, "French Feminists
and the Rights of 'Man': Olympe de Gouges's Declarations:'
History Workshop Journal 28 (Autumn 1989), pp. 1-21.
Editor's Introduction
The following article explores a fundamental paradox in the political
theory espoused by most French revolutionaries. On the one hand, this
theory, which Joan Scott and others have designated a form of liberalism,
presumes that all individuals bear the right to play an active role in the
making of the laws by which they are governed.This theory is abstraet and
universal because specific or particular characteristics, what distinguishes
one such participant in lawmaking (otherwise known as a citizen) from the
next, are deemed irrelevant. The principie of equality, upon which it rests,
suggested that you were a citizen if (and because) you were a human
being. On the other hand, French revolutionary liberalism simultaneously
(and in a contradktory fashion) assumed that only certain kinds of human
beings could be citizens, and, moreover, that the marks or signs accord-
ing ro which they were to be c1assifled were typically physical or bodily
distinctions. (This is what Scott means by the revolutionary idea of the
citizen as embodied.) The poor and domestic servants were seen by many
as lacking control over their persons (Le. bodies) and hence ineligible for
citizenship. Blacks and other people of color were more obvious candi-
dates for distinction on the basis of physical difference, and only received
acknowledgment of their equality for a brief period following a success-
fui slave insurrection in the Caribbean colony of Saint-Domingue (today
Haiti).The group most consistently excluded from citizenship on the basis
FRENCH FEMINISTS AND THE RIGHTS OF "MAN" 21 I
of physical difference was that of women, and it is on the challenge that
one woman, Olympe de Gouges, posed ro this exclusion, that Scott
focuses in this anicle.
Scott has chosen de Gouges not because she was representative of
French women 01' even of the small and largely ineffective feminist con-
tingent at the time of the Revolution. Rather she examines de Gouges's
writings because they best reveal, in her opinion, the contradictionary
nature of the revolutionaries' liberal ideology. Paradoxically, Scott attempts
ro achieve this goal by pointing to the contradictions in de Gouges's own
political c1aims. In particular, she observes that de Gouges supported the
liberal notion of citizenship as universal, abstract, hence equally applicable
ro women and meno At the same time, Scott notes, the revolutionary
feminist expressed the belief that women should be citizens because they
exemplifred characteristics (e.g. beauty, selflessness, the capacity to bear
children) that were considered specific to their sexo Thus she invoked dif-
(erence to declare equality. In her Declaration o( the Rights o(Woman and
Citizen, moreover, de Gouges pointed to the violation of universalist prin-
cipies in the Declaration o(the Rights o( Man and Citizen by adding women
to the "men" whose rights the prior Declaration had proclaimed.Yet she
al so justified the inclusion of women on the basis of their particular phys-
kal condition. Thus freedom of speech was essential to women primaril)'
because it authorized them to name the father(s) of their children. Scott
finds other contradictions in de Gouges's writings as well. Specifically, de
Gouges pointed to nature as the source of rights, thus emphasizing the
fact that women and blacks (for whose equality she al so petitioned) shared
with white men the fundamental physical characteristics of human beings.
At the same time, however, she invoked the principie of justice as a cor-
rective to the brute facts of natural life whereby the strong dominated
the weak.
Taking her cue from the technique of literary analysis known as decon-
struetion, whereby the critic systematically reveals the contradictions in a
particular text, Scott has deconstructed de Gouges's writings.Yet her point
in revealing these contradictions is not to criticize de Gouges. Rather her
aim is to show the contradictions inherent in the discourse of revolution-
ary Iiberalism. Like Keith Baker, Roger Chartier and Sarah Maza,' Scott
borrows the concept of discourse, or a set of linguistic practices (espe-
cially naming or defining) determining power relations in any given society,
from Michel Foucault (1926-84). Like Foucault, moreover, she assumes
that discourses have the tendency to define the terms of debate in such
a way that even opponents of the powerful are constrained to make their
c1aims by using the very vocabulary that excluded them in the first place.
I See chapters 2, 3 and 6.
.gil =
2
2I 2 JOAN WALLACH scon
Thus de Gouges's tendency to further the rights of women by pointing
to their special, particular status and the allegedly crucial differences
between their bodies and those of men undermined her c1aims because
the discourse in which she had to make them had already defined "par-
ticularism" as subordinate to universal considerations and designated
women as fundamentally particular on the basis of their physical differ-
ence. Her critique, in turn, sheds Iight on the character of revolutionary
liberalism, suggesting that it made citizenship dependent upon particular,
bodily characteristics despite its pretensions to universalism.
Implicit in Scott's analysis of the revolutionary discourse illuminated by
de Gouges's critique is the c1aim that liberal feminism is ultimately inef-
fective precisely because liheralism stacked the deck against women by
marking them as "particular," and that other self-described universalist ide-
ologies performed the same type of exclusion.Thus "the recurrence since
the Revolution of feminist critiques reminds us not only that the demo-
cratic promise of liberal (and socialist and republican) political theory is
as yet unfulfilled, but also that it may be impossible of fulfilment in the
terms in which it has so far been conceived." In other words, Scott argues,
feminism must invent new terms for its political program, terms that have
not been defined by discourses that exclude women.
French Feminists and the Rights of
"Man": Olympe de Gouges's
Declarations
loa11 WaIlach Scott
'11I1I1!1 IITitiIlYS. lallla StutiCllt olllOturc; 11I1ill!It Iw.li!;" !In: irr"yulill: !Ji:"rr"
"\'''11, !1ft alw a/lFa!!s t rue. alll'(/!!s si1l1ple.
For women. Ihe Icgacy 01' lhe French Revolulion was conlrdictory: ;1
universal. abstract. righls-bearing individual as lhe unit 01' nation;d SO\'-
ereignty, embodied, howevcr. as aman. The abslraction 01' a gender/ess
poltical sub;ect made t possible fr wOlllen lo clailll lhe polilical rights
01' aclive citizens ando when denied Ihelll in practice. lo protest againsl
exclusion as unjust. a violation 01' the l(lUndil1g principies 01' the rcpub-
lic. The equally abstracl geslure 01' elllbodilllenl -Ihe attribulion 01' cili-
zcnship lo (white) maJe subjccts - complicated enonnously the project
01' c1airning equal rights, (JI' t suggested ether thal rights lhclllselves.
or at least how and where they were exercised. depended 011 the physi-
cal characteristics 01' hUlllan bodies.
There is no denying lhe presence 01' bodies- 01' the physicd [rails 01'
sex amI skin colour - in lhe political debates 01' the French /{el'Olution,
Whl'lher \Ve take the conflicting opinions expressed during lhe wrilillg
01' conslitulions. the argulllents aboul slave, Illulatto 01' wOlllen's civic
righls propounded by Hanwve. Hrissot. Condorcl'l or I{obespil'rrc. the
cOlllrasting reflections 01' Edrnund Burke amI Mary Wo/lslonecralt. or
the Illinutes 01' section mel'lings in Paris, \Ve lind intcrprelatiolls that
assume that bodies amI rights alike could be thought 01' as 'natural'
amI th;ll this 'naturalness' provided a connection bl'lweell thelll. Highls
were often rl'1red 10 as being inscribed on bodics, inalienably ,ttached
to thelll. indelibly imprinted 011 human minds or hearts.
1
13ut lile
I Thus I{obcspierrc's CVOC;lliOI1 01' 'Ihe rcigl1 01' thal elcrna/ justicc. tl](' I<I\\'s 01'
which ,liT gravel1, 1I0t 011 Ill,rble or slOIJc. but ill lhc he,rts 01' IIH'I1. e\'('11 jll tlll' IH',rl
01' the sl,ve Wl10 has [i>rgotlel1 thelll, ,l1d il1 th,d 01' Ihe (Yrillll w/w disowlIs Ihelll.
~ x i l l l i l i c l I{obcspierf'(,. !I<'I'ort /11''''' 111<' Prillcil'les or Po/ilml ,\Tomlif.I \\,!Ic!l (11'1' /"
J.i>rJII 111<' osis or I!I" 11dlllillislm/ioll or 111<' IlIlI'rior COII<'<TIIS olll/f' 1<<'I>I/h/ic (I'hi/'Idl'l-
phi<l. 17')41, reprinted jn /lislur!! "1 !1'f's/f'nJ Cil'ili:fI/iOIl: Sclf'ctf'd !lf'fldill!IS Topk \'111
IChicago, The Ul1il'ersity 01' Chic,go I'ress, 1')(,41. pp. 7,4.
214 JOAN WALLACH SCOTT
connection between 'natural' bodies and 'natural' rights was neither
tnmsparenl nor straighlforward. The meanings 01' nature, rights, and
bodies, as well as Ihe relalionships between them. were al issue in Ihe
revolutionary debates and these eontests about meanings were eontesls
about power.
There were many difTerent conlests about bodies and rights in Ihe
course 01' Ihe Revolution and few were detinitiveiy resolved. Under
Ihe tirsl conslit ution, passive citizens were distinguished from active
according lo lcvels 01' properly ownership and wealth; Ihe dislinction
disappeared with Ihe monarchy and reappeared in differenl language
under the lJirectory. 'Men 01' colour' were initial!y exeluded from
and then included in the category 01' citizen. Slaves were denied and
Ihen granled Ihe righls 01' free men, only to lose Ihem again under
Napoleoll. WOll1en were syslematically barred from formal political
righls: bul were granled rights to divorce amI some control 01' marital
properly in l 792, only lo have them restricted under the Code Napolon
amI revoked by the Resloration. Each 01' these instanees was characler-
ized by difTerent kinds 01' arguments: eaeh has a complicated, contex-
lual explanalion the abolition 01' slavery, for example, took place as
Ihe French sought to repel a British eonquest 01' Santo Domingo by
enlisting allll1ale inhabitants 01' the island in the army.2 What they have
in COn1l11On, however, is the persistent question 01' the relalionship 01'
specilic. ll1arked groups lo the ell1bodied universal: how could the righls
01' t he poor. 01' ll1ulaltos. blacks, or women be ligured as Ihe rights 01'
1\1an?
'rhe general answer is: with difliculty. 'rhere was no simple way either
lo expand Ihe calegory 01' Vlan lo take in al! his Others or to disembody
Ihe abslraet individual so Ihal literally anyone eould represenl him. Spe-
citic contesIs aboul the rights 01' excluded groups did not resolve this
paradox, bul exposed il: the terms 01' debale amI the stralegies 01' Ihe
eon1cnders show equality lo be a more elusive ideal in both its formula-
tion amI achievemenl Ihan was ever acknowledged by Ihe Revolution's
mosl visionary archHects or, for thal malter. by many 01' its historians.
WOll1en are a case in poinl.
2 Il;vid Brioll 1l<lvis. TI/(' I'ro/'/t'IIl o( SIII\'erl( ill J/(, J\!/<, o( /{('I'ol/(Uoll (lth<le<l, N,y'.
COrIle" 1!lIinTsity I'ress, j'JlS), pp, 117-4S, 12S: C, l., ".I<lmes. '{'{le Blllc/; Jllco/Jill":
'li'IISS,lillt /'()III',.,.Cllrc m/(I t/e SIIII DO/llillllO /{('I'OI/(UO/I, se(olld edilioll (N.Y.. Villl'lge.
1911 11: (;eorges l,cfd1\'re. TI/(' h"C/1<'11 l{('I'o/lIt iOIl: I,'rolll ils Ori!/illS to 179 J (N. Y..
Colulllbia lllliversity I'ress, 19(2) lr;lIslatcd by Elizabcth M. Evallsoll, pp. 1Sl.
172-1: l.ekb\Te, TI/(, 1"rt'llcll [{('I'oIIlUolI: 179 j-99 (N.Y.. Columbia 1I1liversilv I'ressl.
p. 1:;S. See ,liso. Nal1cy Ll'If8 Stepal1, 'Raec ami Gender: 'rhe Rolc 01' An;fogy in
Scicnce. /S/S 77 (J 9k(,), pp. 261-l.
FRENCH FEMINISTS AND THE RIGHTS OF "MAN" 215
Froll1 Ihe oulsc1 01' lhe Revollllion, lhere were scatlered demands fr
wOll1en's rights. These were most olten passed over in revolutionary
legislation until l793 (several days alter the execution 01' Marie-
Antoinette), when the question 01' women's political role WIS direetly
addressed. Using lhe occasion 01' a slreel dislurbance bc1wcen nHlI:-
ket women amI lIlelllbers 01' the Socic1y 01' Revolulionary Republican
Women, the National Convention outlawed all women's clubs and
popular societies, invoking Rousseauisl lhemes lo c1eny WOlllell Ihe exer-
cise 01' poltical righls and to end, sOll1e hoped delinitively. persistenl I'elll-
inist agilation.
l
'Should women exercise political righls ancl mcddle in
lhe affairs 01' govcrnment?' asked Andr Amar, Ihe represcntalive 01' Ihe
Commiltee 01' General Security. 'In general. we can answer, no: He wenl
on to eonsider whether women could mee! in poltical associalions and
again answered negatively:
becwse lhey would be obliged lo sacritice lhe more imporl,lnl Cilres lo
which nalure calls thelll. 'rhe privale func!ions 1'01' which women are dcs-
tined by lheir very nature are related to lhe general order 01' socicly: {his
social ordcr results from Ihe dilTercnccs bctwcclI man and WOlllall. Each
scx is called lo Ihe killd 01' occupalion whieh is tilting lilr il: its ,ll"lioll is
1 ()Il lhe hislory 01' WOllll'n and I'elllinislll It\\'o difl<:renl lopics) in lbe French
Revolulion see Ma'ik Albislur alllllJaniel ArnlOgallll'. lIistoir1' duf('lIlilIisllll' wlcois,
Vol. I (I'aris, Des Felllllles. 1977): I'aule-ivlaric lJuhel. Les 1"1'III1I11'S 1'1 lo l{,;pollllioll
1789-1794, (I'aris, Julli'lrd. 19711: 1,IIle Abril\" 'Felllinislll in lile Frencl1l{cl'olu-
lion', !\lIll'ril'llllllisloril'lll /{1'pi1'1I' kO (197S), pp. 41-62: )l'anne BOl.ll'il'I, 1.I's n'lIIl1les
fll'IIdlllIl la /{';PO/IIUOII (1',lris, 19111: Olwen Ilufton. 'Wolllen in tlll' Fremll l{cl'olu-
1:on'. /'asl /'r1'sl'lll S1 (1 97 1), pp. 90- IOk: lIuft on. ''rhe Reconslrurtion 01' ,1
(hurch: 19(,-1 SO 1', in GWYlllle Le\\'is ;1I11! ('olin Lucils (edsl, IJq/Olu Ilu' Terror:
/-".'.'lI/s 1." /-rl'llcfl I'!fiOIIll/ mul Social Ilislor!l. 17'N- 18/ ') W,"nbridge, ("llIlbridge
IJllIverslty I'ress. 19S 1J, pp. 21-S2: Sroll !.ylle, "I'1ll' Secollll Sexo (Septelllber 17911.
JOllnlll/ol Mod'''''1 /listor!! 2h (j 9SSJ, pp. 14-26: Julcs ,\Iichelcl. L,'s n'llltlleS de /a
/{';POllllioll (I'aris, 1kS41: R. B. 'Wolllen ami lil,' Frellch lile 1'01-
itic,li Actil'ity 01' I'arisi;n WOlllen. 17k9--94. l!nil'l'rsill' 01' l,lslllani,l OlTasi'Jllal
Papel' S(1971: Dal'id Willial1ls, 'The I'olilics 01' Femillisl;] ill lhe Frelleli 1':IIIohlell-
1l.11'nt', ill,P. Ilughes <lmIIJ. Willi;lllls (edsl. '1'/11' \!Ir",d l'alfl'l'II: SlIIdies ill
(<'IItlll'Y (101'01110. ,\.11,1. I/;Ikker!. 19711: IJar/ille (;,I\' J.c\'\'. 1I,IITil'i Ilnlllsoll /\ppll"
wlllle ,llld 11,1<11-\' l)urlJ,11ll lolillsoll (etlsl, \\'01111'11 ill H<'I'o/uUollal'.'ll'al'is. I jS') I j'})
(! llllil'ersil.l' 01' Illillois I'ress. 19791. See ,liso DOl'illd,1 OUll"<lII1. l.e l'lllg,lgl'
Il1,lie tic 1,1 Ver1u: \\'oll1ell am!ll!L' tliscoul-se 01' Ilil' FrcllelJ !{c\'oluIiOII. i11 I''llT Ilu rke
,llld I{o)' I'orler (eds), 'I'Ile Sodalllis"r,lf ,,1' Lall!/lIa.lJI' (C,"l1bridge, 1lllil'cr
sily I'ress, 19k71. pp. 120-1S: ami 1..1'1111 I/Ull!. "I'he 11,1<1111' Bodics '01 II,I;II-ie-
\Iltoinctle: l'olitl',1i I'OrJ1ogrilplJl' ,II1d lIJe I'roblem 01 lhe Fell;inillc ill 111(' l.'n'llClJ
l{cvolution' (ullpublished p'lper. 19Skl.
" ;;;; J2tkUJE J
2 I 6 JOAN WALLACH scon
l'irClIJl1Snibed \\'ilhill this l'ircle \\'hich il GIIlIIOI break Ihrough. bl'l',llISe
11'lture. which has illl[Josed lhese limils on mall.eommallds imperiollsly
ami ITcl'il'eS 110 law. 1
I\n even Illore explcit articulation 01' these so-called nalural I'acts cal11e
frOll1 Chaumet!e. a radical hbertist amI melllbcr 01' the
Paris COllllllune. On bchalf 01' the COllllllune he indignanlly rcjeelel! an
.ppeal l<Jr support I'rolll remale petitioners protesting Ihe Convention's
de(Tee:
Sillce \\'hell is il pennilled lo gi\'l' lI[J olle's sex( Since whell is il deeenl lo
see WOllll'll aballdolling Ihe [Jiolls cares 01' lheir hOllseholds, Ihe cribs 01'
lheir children. to come to [Jilblk plan's, lo harallglles in lhe galleries, al
lhe bar 01' (he senale? Is il to men lhal Ilatllre conlided dOlllestic cares?
Ilas she givell LIS breasts to I'eed ollr childrell?'
Less brillianlly than Rousseau. bul no less c!cady, the acobin politicians
sd I'ortb tiJe lerllls 01' tbeir new social order, Their invocation 01' nalure
as t iJe origin 01' bot h liberly and sexual dilTerence drcw on eerlain prollli-
l1ent (bul by no l11eans unconlested) vicws 01' political Iheory amlmedi-
cinc. These views treated nalure amI the body as synonymous: in Ihe
bodv one could discern Ihe lruths upon which social and poltica! or-
ganlzalion ough to resl. Constantin Volney, representative for lhe Third
Eslate 01' J\njou al the Illeetings 01' the Estates Ceneral in 17RR-9,
mgued in IJis catcchislll 01' 179) that virtul' 'lIld vice 'are ,J!ways
ultilllalelv rercr,lble to ... liJe destruction or preservation 01' the body',"
For Vo!m:y. queslio!ls 01' iJealiJ were questions 01' slate; 'civil' responsi-
bi 1it YI\Va si iJeaI h-seeking bclwviour' .7 Individ ual iIIness signified soci al
dderiorillion: liJe I'ailure 01' ,1 llloiJer to breasl-feed her inl'an!. cOllsti-
luted a rcfus,i1 01' nalure's corporeal design, hence a profoundly anti-
social ileL' TIl(' lllisuse 01' the body incurred nol only individual costs,
bul soci.J! consequences since the body politic was, l<Jr Volney, nol a
Illet aphor bul a lit era I description.
'1'11(' body. 01' was nol eonsidered in Ihese writings singular
objec!: scxual dil'i'l'ITnce WilS takcn as a I'ounding principie 01' Ihc
1 Ll"'Y. ,\ppil'\\l1ile lid lol111s011, p. 21 S.
S I.en. l\pplcwl1ilc ,lIld lol1l1S011. p. 21'i.
h I.lIdlllill'l j.l"rd;IHn'. 'Cuardillg l!le Blldy !'oIHie: Vollll'y's C,llce!lism 01' I7'i)"
ill Fr,llleis Brker.e/ 11/. (edsl. / /89: 1<('(I"ill!/. IVri/iIl!/ Hn'o/II/ioll (IJlliversily 01' Es,ex.
IlJ,s ..'), p. I S.
'(;lIardillg l!le Body !'olitie. p. 1S.
S l.udmill'l l. l"rd'llIov,1. 's,;,lIUrlizillg lhe Fmily: Lilcrtllre Ild lhe Bio-Medic1
Scil'lll'l'S ill !le I.!c I':ighteelllh l'elllury'. ill Jordllov led.l. Llllli/l/(II/e,s' ,1 NlIlllre
I.olldoll. :I'('C .\ssoci;liOIl Books. J 'iShl. p. lIS.
FRENCH FEMINISTS AND THE RIGHTS OF "MAN" 217
Iwlural. IH'II('(' hc social alld political order. TOIll L,lqllcur 1"ls SIW\\'1l
tha idcas 01' sexual dillcrence are no lixed: hcir long ,111l1 v,lrinIJlc
hisory dcmonslr,tes thal sexunl lIleanings ,Ire nol nlllsparen Iy
alacbed to or illllllancnl in sexed bodies. Laqllcur i1rgU('S ins(ead that
a new biology emerged in he eighlcenlh ccnlury whieh replaeed mi
eadier 'mctaphysics 01' hierarchy' wilh 'he analol1lY and phvsiology 01'
ineom1l1ensurabilily'." Moreover, genital dilTerences nwde all the dilTer-
mce; masculinity or fe1l1ininity conslitued Ihe enlire idenity 01' bio-
logieal males or l'en1(lles. One 01' the dilTerences bctween l1('ll1, in l"lel.
hml to do wilh how COll1plcdy sex delined Iheir beings. \ I)r More,lu
ollered, as his own, Rousseau's explanalion l<Jr Ihe cOll1monly ,lccepl'd
noion Ihal women wcre (inlknise Riley's words) 'Ihoroughlysauralcd
wilh Ibeir sex'. lO He 1l1ainlained ha Ibe location 01' Ihe genit1! organs,
inside in WOl11en, outside in men, dcermined the extenl 01' 1/1('ir inliu-
ence: 'Ihe inlernal influence conlinually reealls women lo heir sex .. ,
he male is male only at certain mOll1ents, bu the I'emale is l'enHlle
Ihroughout her lil'e'. 11
In the interseeing discourses 01' biologv ,uHI poliics,ll1('orics 01' COIll-
plementarily resolved Ihe pol'nially disruplive drccls 01' sexll,J1 dilTer-
ence. Species reproduction amI social order were said lo depend on 111('
union 01' he opposile c1e1l1ens, male and female. on ,1 l'unelilln,J1 divi-
sion 01' labollr that granted nature her due. I\lthough il W,IS IlIgically
possible lo present complenll'ntariy as ,lIl egaliarian doctriue. in I'cl i
served in Ihe predolllinant politieal rheorie 01' tiJis period to iusil')' ,111
ilsYllll11dric,' rl'l,llionship bdwecn Illcn mI WOI11Cll. '1'1](' goals 01' IIJc
revolution. al'1er all. were libert}'. sovereignly, moral choice inlilrl11ed by
reason, and active involvclllenl inthe 1()rIJl,ltion 01' jus laws. 1\1101' hese
were fiflnly designatcd male prcroglives, delined in conr,st lo he
felllale. The conslrasling elelllents were:
'i TIHlIll,l' 1"I'!oellr. '()rg'lsm. Cellenilioll. Ild l!le !'olill's 01' l\el'n1dlletl'e
Biology. 1<el'reSI'll/II/i""s 14 II'iShl. p, L
1() Ikllise "iley. 'I)oes; sex /,n'l' ,1 !lislory; "\Volllell" alld l'emillism. \<'11' /''I'J1I11-
/iOIlS 1ISprillg IlJs71. pp. I'J-40.
I I Yvolllle 1\ 11 ibic!l Icr. 'I.es \k'decills el I "N,i1ure l:l'lllinilll'" ,111 1l'll1pS dll
Code Civil'. ,\UUllit,S'. l:'.s.e. I II lJ7hl. p. S'l. I'IH' Ol'igill,' v('rsioll call hr 1(1I11](1
in I-J. 1{ollsse,llI's l:'1I1i!e. ,11](1 is ('ill'd in Ikllisl' I{il('y. ;\/11 1 '1'/,,1/ \'1/1UI',:' Ji'uiu;su
(/1d I!w Cllle.tl,,,'.'! o/ .\\'01UI'11 , iu / slorl! IJ.olldoll. r\lal'lllill'1I1. I'JXS 1, 11Il1(' ) 7. p, l7,
Sl'l' ,i1so. IJ. C. CiJarlloll. Ne!\'/uIII!ft'S 0///1" ,'VII/lIm/;u 'm/1!'e IC'lIl1hl'idgl'. Camhridge
Universi!y !'ress. I'JS"[J: e,ln Boril'. '[Inl' gYIll'c()logie p'lssiolll'('. ill /-!' :\nlll
led.l. Mi,,,;m/J/e e/ C/ori('l/se: LII ''IUl/le dll X/XI' sin/e (!'ris. hlV'lI'll. 1'iX().
pp. I S, X'i: ,lIld :\1. Le 1J0ellll. '!'ieITl' l\ollssel's CiJaSlI1,IS: :n"l1 Illl,lgill,II'\
1\llowledge lo lhe I.eal'lled IIl1ilgill<Jtioo. dm/o!!.,! ,/1111 ('ollSl""SI1I'SS 'i I l'is 1 21. pp,
'i--70.
l'
12 On education ami 1ll,Iternal nurture, see, Mona ()zoul', 'La Rvolution
el I'ide de I'horlltlle nouve,IU', unpublished paper. I'iX7, p. 1S, ()zoof
reworked this papel' in her book 01' essays, 1,'1101111111' ]"('1,,;111'1'1': ';ssilis slIr la HviI/lltiOIl
fmll('aisl' (Paris: Callilll,lrd, 19X91. She Illade the sallle point about the role 01'
l110thers in the education of children on p, 142. For a critique 01' binary eonstruc-
tions 01' liberal po[itics, esped,dly thc antinolllY belween reason ami desire, see
Roberto M,lIlgabeira llnger, /(lIowll'll!l1' alld l'olitics IN.Y.. Free Press, 197')),
11 I\ly diseussioll hcre is based on laeques Derrida, 01 (,'nrJIrJIHl/olo!l.'l Itranslated
by C,lyatri Chakravorty Spivak) (Baltilllore, lohns Itopkins lJniversily Prcss, 19(4),
part 11. chapter 1. pp. I S.
1( l\ich,1rl1 Tuck, ,\la/llml H('1IUs T/Ii'oril's: Tlli'ir ()rillill ilIlIl J){'vl'lomli'lll ICall1bridge,
C,llllbridge l!nil'ersity I'ress. 1'i7')1, pp. s_r"
The second colullln served not only lo deline lhe firsl. but provided the
possibilily for ils existence, 'Natural' sexual dilTerence permilted a resol-
ution 01' some 01' the knotly and persistenl problems 01' inequalilies 01'
power in political theory by loealing individual I'reedol1l in male subjeels
and assoeialing social eohesion wilh l'el1lales. Malernalnurture awak-
ened or instilled human empalhy (pity) and love 01' virlue, lhe qualties
lhal tempered sellish inclividualism: modesly at once equipped women
to perform ther roles and served as a eorreclive to their inabilily other-
wise to restrain (sexual) desire. WOl1len's modesty was, I'urlhermore, a
preeondilion I'or lhe suceessl'ul exercise 01' male reason in reslrainl 01'
desire.
1
\ The dependency 01' the domeslie sphere elieited I'rom men lhe
l'ullilment 01' ther social duly: indeed duly dcnoled here not women's
obligations but lheir posilion as the objeels 01' l1lale obligalion. The
aetive/passive distinction, in fac!. resling as il did on conlrasling lheo-
ries 01' nalural rights, summed up lhe dilTerences: those who enjoyed
active rights were individual agenls, rnaking moral choiees, exereising
Iiberly, acting (speaking) 011 their OWIl behal!: 'rhey were, by definilion,
political subjeets. Those who enjoyed passive righls had lhe 'righl lo be
given or allowed somelhing by someone Their slatus as polilical
subjeets was ambiguous, il' not wholly in doubt.
218 JOAN WALLACH scon
active
liberly
individual sovereignly
public
polil ical
reason
speech
education
universal
male
passive
duly
dependency
private
domestic
modesly
silence
maternal nurlure
particular
l'emale
l2
FRENCH FEMINISTS AND THE RIGHTS OF "MAN" 219
lIistorians 01' natural righls theories righlly describe active allll
passive righls as antilhelical paradigms: but they onen also illlply tlwt
lhese jogil'ally conflicting nolions could not prevail silllullaneouslv.
Polilical regimes. they suggest. have been prclllised historicaJly on OI;e
or anolher 01' these theories: I'rorn lhis perspective, lhe age 01' denlOcra-
tic revolutions was quintessenlially lhe age 01' liberly amI ,lCtive rights,
These characlerizalions reckon, however, neilher wilh lhe ingenuity
01' the Frencb revolutionaries who, in ther Iirsl e110rl at conslilution-
making in I 7Y 1, reconciled their I'ear 01' democracy and their comrnil-
menllo liberly by establishing lwo categories 01' cil izen the acl ve and
lhe passive -nor wilh Ihe operations 01' gender wilhin lhe ulliversallan-
guages 01' polilical Iheory,
In lhe constilution 01' I 7Y 1, active cilizens were men over 2'i who
were independenl (Ihey could not be domestic servlllls) alld who pos-
sessed measurable wealth (they had lo paya direct lax elJuivalenl lo
lhree days 01' labour), The prerequisile was property - in lal1d or monev
amI lhe seU: Arter lhe 01' the monarchy in 1792, cilizenship
granled lo all l1len who were over 2 I and sell'-supporting, The means
lesl was dropped, leaving as the operat ive concept properly in t he sel!'.
Bul. rwould argue, lhe active/passive distinction did nol dis,lppear, even
il' il was no longer explicitly articulaled in oflicial political docul1lents,
Instead, il was employed to diflerentiale bet ween lhe righls 01' those wit h
and without aulonomy or agency, ami these were largely, though not
exclusively, men ami women, llnlike distinclions 01' weallh, [hose 01' sex
were considered nalural: they were lhercrore taken fi)r granted, treated
as axiomatic, assumed lo be unallerable rules 01' 'imperious' nature,
hence Iel'l outside lhe legislative arena, Constilutions amI legal decrecs
dealt, I'or the most part. with lhe rules 01' (active) polilical participalion
and so dropped reference to those whose rights were taken care 01' lr
them by others, Invisibility, however, did nol mean absencc. 'rhe tenllS
ci/O,lfC
ll
and c/O,ljClI/lC onen carried the activc!passive contras!. ami li-ollJ
time lo time it was c1early illvoked -- by the exasperatcd l'hallmctte,
for example, in October 1793: 'lmpudenl womcn who wanl to bccome
men,' (1 imagine) he shouled. 'aren 't you well enough provided fr?
What cisc do you need?' 1,
'rbis rather crude form 01' political theorizing sums IIp lhe olltlook I
have been describing ami brings me to t he real heginning 01 this papero
I do no! want lo spend any more time discussing how womcll were con-
strucled in revolulionary political discollrse: rather I wan! lo 1001\ al
how some women crilicized these construclions. For from tbe outset.
there were feminisl erilies 01' these Iheories, women ami mell WllO
1') Levy, I\pplewhite ami ]ohnson, p. 220.
220 WALLACH scon
,Irgucd lr gel1uilll' equalily 01' political righls. There were also. 01'
course. \\"0111l'11 who paid 110 heed lo Ihe argulllen!s and wllOse
parlicipaliol1 il1 Ihe evenls 01' lhe Ikvolulion has olTcred
,II1S al11ple evidenCl' bolh lr insislil1g Ihal WOl11el1 werc active hlslorlcal
subjec!s amI for rejectil1g lhe imporlance 01' political theory .lI1lhc prac-
lice 01' 'real' politics. The presence 01' women in crowds, thelr centrahl:r
in Ihe l1larch lo Versail!es, ther membership in clubs (and the prOlTIl-
nelllT 01' Iigures like PmJline L'on amI Claire Lacombe among Ihe
)acobinsl. II1l'ir proposals lo Ihe various Iegislalures, Iher on
behalf 01' amI in opposilion to the al! supporllhe c1a1m
by Call1illc Iksllloulins in l/Y l tl1<11 aclion eslablished agency: I he
active citizens.' he remimled his col!eagues, 'are those who took the
Baslille.' 1(,
Yel action by women was insuflicienl. either during Ihe Hevolu.llon
or long afler il. lo secure formal recognition 01' this poinl. I.h.e
explanalion for Ihe legal disempowermenl 01' women ITlVISI-
bilily in Ihe hislorical record musl come from analyses 01 dIscou.rses
tllll eslablished and justilied exclusion. Sometimes lemlTlIsls prov.lded
Ihose analvses: more oflel1 thcir I<Jrtllulalions furnish material lrom
which sucl; analyses can be fashioned. In their seareh for ways out 01'
Ihe paradox 01' an embodied equality, feminisls sho.w us the
the limils 01' certain paths, amI Ihe complexity 01 others al! c1lects
01' lhe paradox itselr It is for t hal reason, and not the.ir promi-
nence or 1he size 01' their following (never very large III IhIS penod), Ihat
111l'v inlerest me.
prinllry inleresl in Ihese feminists has to do with 11O\\' Ihey artic-
ulatcd lheir dissenl./IO\\'. in lhe face 01' powerful belicls lo lhe conlrary,
l hev asserled 111<1t WOIl1('11 deserved political rights. I want to address,
VI,'ill material from Ihe Frellch Hevolulion, Ihe Ihoughtful amI provoca-
live queslions raised by lhe British hislorian Barbara Taylor. She asks:
\V!l;ll dm's il I1le;111 whel1 Il'clllinislsi Cl1g,lgC wilh a thcory 01' lhe subjeet
ill w!lich 111l' rl'asolling speaker lhal is lhe pLTSOIlW!lO displ"ys posscs-
sioll 01' Ilatur;t! righls ,l1ld ,1 place il11he civil' sphere /111'01111'1 .. . speech-
is ;1 clU, 111 Veo11 si ilu1l'd 011 l!le 111 ,lIe side 01' the sexuaIaxis? 1\ I1d where does
l!lal lakl: us wil!l egalilarial1isll1?IC
Taylor's queslions assume Ihal asymmetrical represenlations 01' rights
nol easily corrected by universalisl or pluralist II1Il
such ,rgumenls can never be I<JrI11ul<lled entirely oulslde
Ihey chal!enge. I would add Ihal feminisn inherently pohtJcal aspccl
1(, \1. l. S"llII!l;II1I. Tlj' 1'1"1'1,,11 111'\'ollll,io// (N,'Y" 1')(,(,1. p: (, 7."
17 l\arh'lr['I\lor. c0l111l1elltlllg 011 (,Cl1eVleVe l-ralSSl. Ihelolms 01 IllslOllldl

FRENCH FEMINISTS AND THE RtGHTS OF "MAN" 221
l'IJlIles I'rolll its critical eng;lgenH'nl wilh pn'l,';lililJg Ihcorics ;lIld pra(',
ticcs: il does IlOt stand lS ;In indcpcndenl philosophicallll(}\r'll1clll will1
a delill,lhlc ('ontellt ,ll1d col1eren1 Icgcy 01' its OWI1.
1
." II IlItIS! be red.
IIll'rl'ire. in ils concrete 1ll;IIJi1'estlions. al1d titen nol ol1lv for ils
programm;llic recol1llllendations. TesIs 01' logical consistelJcy ;Jr philo-
sophic,t1 purity, like categorizalions 01' IClllinisl 'sc/]()ols' 01' equalily or
diffcrence, enlirely miss Ihe poinl. The hisloric,d ,md thcorelical iI;1er-
esl 01' modern feminisl1l (which I take lo date from Ihe sc\'Cn1centl1
cent ury) lies in its exposure 01' the ambigll ilies and reprcssiolJs. Ihe con-
tradictions and silcnces in liberal political systems th1 presenl 11ll'1ll-
sclves as coherent. comprehensive, rliona!. or jusI. beca use resting 011
nalura!. scienlilic, or universal principIes. This suggesls Ihitl feminism
must nol only be read in its historiCitlconlexls. bul also Ihat it canIJo!
be delached fmm Ihose conlexts as evidence eilher lr sOllle 1r<lnscen-
dent Woman's idently or lr the Icleology 01' women's elllllll'ipation.
The meaning 01' any Icmillism inslead lies in Ihe hislorical spel'ilicil y 01'
l recurring crilical operalion. .
11
My inleresl in Ihis cssay is in Ihe ways felllinists ;Iddressed the issue 01'
equality dllring Ihe French Revolulioll. 1I0w did Ihey lrl1lulte tl1eir
c1aims lr politic,t1 rights? Ilow did Ihey ('reate the poljlical SlIbjccl tlH'v
c/aimed already to represenl? Ilow did Ihey delllilnd citizelJship whel"l
sllch public status I<)r women was laken ,!S ,1 conlradiclion 01' nalure's
funct ional design I(JI- social order? Ilow did l hey al telllpl lo refllte or COI1-
lound wh;11 was assllmed lo be Ihe indispllllble evidence 01' t he body?
lIow did Ihey lIndersland Ihe inl/uence 01' nalure on Ihe delinilion '01'
Iheir rights?
/\ full scale s1 udy 01' alllhe Ill;mifes(alions 01' !'clllinism in lhe French
RcvollltiolJ is beyond the scope 01' Ihis papero I will instead conl'l'lJlr;lte
Ik Fraisse has eompleted a major sllldy 01' thesc qllesliolls \\'hich 1havl'
1101 yet red. sillee it ,llTived as 1was sClldillg ol'!'l his Ppcr lo llis/Ilnl \ \;,rkslJol', 11
IS calJet! Al 11 \(' de 111 HII/SOII: LII d,'///(/cmtil' I'XclIlSil'" 1'/ 111 di!fi'l"l'IIcl' d<,s S,'XI'S iI "II'is.
/\Iillea. 19k')). I have drawll 011 Ihe followillg 01' I,'raissr's \\'ork I'Jr lhis picce: 'The
h'rJllS 01 lIislorl'al Femillism'. IlIlr lo I pp. 4-1'); 'NllIn" I,w ,lIllllhe
Origills 01' Nilll'!l'l'lllh-eelltllry l'emil1isl TllOUghl ill F-,1I1l'l", illllldilh l'riedl<lIldcr <'/
111.. \ \'0111<'11 /1/ Clllt 111"1' 11I1l11'ol/tilS (l\Joolll il1gt 011: Illdi,II) 1'11 iversil v I'ress. 1') Shl. pp.
JI s-llJ: 'Sillglllaril{' I{'milliste: Ilisloriogr,phie critiqlle dc I'hisioire du 1'{'lllillisllll'
ell I'ra11 l'l,'. il) ,\1iehelle Perrol led.l. U//I' 11/.1/011'1' des /-i'II/II/1S 1'.1/-1'111' I'0,l.ll'/I'; 11'ris.
1{lvages. I'Js41. pp. IS'J-1(H: 'lu bon IIs;rge d" I'illllil'itlll f{'minisll'. \ '/
l1i
lliml" Si,'d,'
1+ (nil jllin 1'l\71. pp.. Sr'" ,riso D"llis" {ikv. '\111 I TlIIII \11111"';' /1'/1//lIi."1I
(/1/" tllI' ('01("101'.'111/ '\\tl/lIl'11' /11 111.\/111'.'1. ;Ild ('ol';r k'II;I,"1. SI'I1 ('ilolI'jI's: ('111/111'1' 111111
h'lI/iIlIS//I (I.ondon. \'erso. 1,)khl. pp. 4'). 1('h 7.11h. .
liS "",
222 JOAN WALLACH scon
Oll olle ligure -- OIYlllpe de Couges (174S--93). I take de Couges Ileilher
as a lypical feminist nor an exelllplary heroine. but beca use she provides
a site where cultural cOlltcsls alld pofiliGll cOlllradictions can be exalll-
ined ill SOllle detail. l chose Olympe de Couges because shc Idt behind a
faidy subslanlial corpus 01' writings - political pamphlcts. speeehcs. amI
plays - which constanlly engaged lhe polilical issues 01' lhe day. Her
mosl famous tcxl was lhe J)ec/llmtioll or tllC Hi!f/lts oI WOI1lIllI amI Cilizell.
writtell as the constitution was being debated in 179 j. Rcad alongside
the 1S9 J)edllmUol1 oI tlle Hi!I/1tS oI vlall ami Cilizell (as it was meant
lo be read) it al once adds lo and supplants that document. Indeed.
the J)ec/amlioll or tlH' Hi!fllts or VVOIlIilIl is. Iike many 01' de Couges's efTorts.
a supplcmenlary document lr lhe revolution. [t constitutes a supplc-
ment in the double amI eontradic!ory sense that jacques Derrida poinls
out is attached to the lerln slIpp/e,. ill French. It was both m additiol1
and a replacelllent, sOlllething superlluous. bul also absolutely neces-
sary (r comple!ion.l'i De Couges's dcclarations were olTered in this
double and conlradictory sensc: as an additional comment on the
meaning 01' universal rights (and in that sense 'only' extraneous) amI
as a nec:ess'lry replacelllent lr oflicial edicts which lacked universality
because lhev were ineomplete. This 'undecidable' aspect 01' the 'Iogic
01' the supplelllent' gives de Gouges's work both its ambiguity and its
crilical force.
Olympe de Couges! This name always calls forth smiles from those
who hear il lr the lirst time. bemused recognition from veterans 01'
wOlllen's history courses. Its pretention and inauthcnticity seem to
produce a comic efTcet. cornil' becausc satirical or transgressive, The
name OIYlllpe de Couges was not, indeed. the one recognized in law I(Jr
t his woman: rat her il was one she craHed [(Jr hersclf. Born Marie Couzes.
daughler 01' a butcher and lnner servant in Montauban. she was
marriecl at age ] lo a lllan much older than hersclf. Shortly alter the
birth 01' her son, her husband Louis Yves Aubry died. bul Marie rcfused
lo use the cllslomary designation. Veuve Allbry. lnstead she took her
Illother's Illiddle llame. Olympe. added a 'de' and changed her father's
surname lo Couges. She vowed never again lo marry. allhough she had
at Ieast one long-standing heterosexual liaison. She later suggested that
the butd1l'r hadn't been her father at all. but that she was the illegiti-
mate oflspring of a romance between her mother and a local notable.
19 lacqlles Derrida, l'osWOlIs Ilranslaled by ;\Ian Bassl (Cleago, lIniversity
01' Chic,lgo I'ress. 19N1 l, especially p, 43: Derrida, O{ GmlllllHlto/lI!l. PP, 141-64,
For a concise explicalion 01' lhe conccpl 01' lhe sllpplell1ent. scc Barb,Jnl lohnson's
Illlrodllclion to her lranslalioll 01' 1Jerrida's IJiSSl'lIlilHlliolls (Chicago, lIniversity 01'
Cl1ic,lgo I'r['ss, I'JN 11, p, xiii.
FRENCH FEMINISTS 223
Ihe marquis Le Frane de I'olllpignan.'" This lineage added illlrigue ,Ind
slatus to her life and (sinee the 1ll,Irquis h,d won ,1 reputatioll ,1111,111
oI Jcttcrs) provided a genealogy lr her own literary aspirations, It a!so.
course. 1ll,lde a mockery of the rules 01' pat rilineal origin allllnallling.
l he tI.teme 01 naming and renaming the I'ather re'lppears. albei! with
IIlconslslent and varied usage. !hroughoul de (;ouges's life and work,)
one has ever proven de Couges's story 01' her birth. bul lh,lt is lcss
t.han her repeated assertions of its veracily. ''hese assertions.
hke her sell renaming. her idenlity: tenlative. 1lllbiguous.
and m'ver fully secured,-I
, J)e Couges Was always involved in a proeess 01' Slw
lought vafianlly. lr example. lr rccognition as a playwright and vasllv
exaggerated her standing when she did suceeed in having several (;1'
her. accepted (and even per!nned) by the COllldic Fran<;aise,
Wntlllg was an important. indeed primary. ,Ispect 01' her
alt!:ough she wrote with great dil'licully. diel<lting Illost
01 te:,ts. came more easily: she was apparently eloquent
amllllsplred III her verbal displays: but these she considered ,m insul'li-
clent measure 01' her talents.
22
When the Hevolution came. she claitned
status aS:\I1 ,active eitizen by rllshing into the I'ray. writing and speaking
on a number 01' causes: freedoll1 I'rom bondage rol' slm'es.
crcallon 01 a national theater. c1ean strec!s. provision 01' m,llcrnilv hos-
pitals. divorce, amI Ihe reeognition 01' the rights 01' illegitim,lte childrc:n
and unmarried mothers, In order more fully lo lllow Ihe dcliberations
01' the, variolls poli/ica! assemblies. de Couges rented lodgings adj,leent
lo thelr headquarters. in Ihis way Jiterally attaching hersclf to these
aug,lIsl bodics, She Was a familiar figure in Ihe g,llIeries ,lllll al Ihe
pod.llIm and her proclalllations of'ten eovered lhe walls of Ihe citv 01'
I'ans, It was as il' only her eOlltilluing physieal presence could 'Isserj'her
stalus as a politica! sllbject: and even Ihen, 01' course. Ihis was ,1
biograpllic,Ji Ireatlllellt. Sl'e Olivil'r BI,IIlC, UI.'/I/I/'" fe COI/,lfi's (I'lris, SITOS,
I,)K I l, dlld I/ll' IlIlrodllcllolllo U/YIIII'" fe COll!les: Ul'1Il'res bv Ilclloill' Crollll (I',wis
lIclercurl' (le Frallcl', I 'JN61_ Sl'e ,Jiso, Ii'opold J,'ICOllr. /,{'s oriqilll's fll PII/llisl/I{,
{elllpO/WI/, / ro,s I-l'1Ill/1('S fe /11 H,;\'o/lIlioll: ()1,11111/1(' fl' (;Olllfi'S. n,,'roiqlle ,1" Micollr/
Hos{' /'l1mllllw (I'aris, 19()()1. '"
21, Iet ions Wl're IlO( lllliqlll' or sJ'l'cilic lo \\'Ol1ll'll ill 1hi,s I)('I-iod, lh('
,1)-IIc!C d(' Ilas 011,('11 ,Idded lo Ihe 1I<ll1les 01' ,Ispirillg \'()llllg 11\('11: dlll'illg 1111' Ik-
1 11e\\ Illl'lI displd\('d llldr r('g('llcr;11 i())1 (JI' ]"('hirlh hy r('h,lpl ising 11;(,I11sclll'S
(Jlll11 \\'1111 hlT(JIl' c!,lSSIl'alll'11l1('S, Ik COllg('S", sdl' is, ill Ihi.s sellse, ITI'l',Jiillo 01' d
W(Jl'ess 1101 l'olllilled lo (11ll' gellder, ,l1ld call h(' (akell dS el11blcl1l,llic 01' Ihe
01 Sl'lI-('ollslru('lioll Illorl' gelleraliv. "
2,2 lholll,lS, el H'l'olllli(J11: les l',luses pl'rdUl'S d'()II'IllJ'e d('
(,(Juges, In /'11 (l1'-'I/I1,l/ll{)/e d,'s ,\///Ses: !TOIlI/I/(' ,1" I"ttr"s {'I !'l1nisll' dl1l1s 11/ {el,I'IIII/'III
(I',II'IS, '\'-'l1'IIHI Colin, I'JSNI, p, j()') ,
224 JOAN
vulnenlble. conlesled identily al best. one wbose lerms she could never
lllveonlrol.
;\long wilh her proposals usually came a sometimes playful.. some-
times disturbing relllinder 01' lbe fae! lhal a WOll1an was speakmg. De
(;ouge
s
al once slressed ber idenlily with lhe universal human
ual ami ber difTerence. 1ndeed. her fonllulations demonstrate (be ddh-
cult v for a wOlllan 01' unmnbivalcntly securing slalus as an abslracl
in lhe face 01' ils maseuline embodiment.ln order to daim lbe
general slalus 01' 'human' for women. sbe insisled on lheir parlicular
in (he process 01' insisting on equalily, she conslanlly
poinled oul amI acknowledged dilTerence. It is a woman who dares lo
sllow !lerscll' so slrong and so courageous 1'01' ber King and ber counlry.
.. :21 ''('!ley can exdllde women from al! bul
benelicenl genius brings me lo lbe center 01 lhls assembly. - oh pe5Jple,
unhappy citizens. lisIen to l!le voice 01' a jusI and The
tille 01' one 01' Ill'r brochllres W,IS 'Le ni du sage: par une lel11me. - When
s!le pul herscll' rorward lo ddend Louis XVI during his slle
gesll'd bol h llal sex oughl nol lo be a consideralion aSid: my )
amI lhal il slmuld be ('beroism and generosily are also WOIl1en s porllOn
and lbe Revollltion ol'fers more lhan one example 01' it'j.27
De Couges never escaped lhe ambiguily 01' femininc identily in ils
relalionship lo universal 'Man' amI she often exploiled it. On lbe one
h,md. she attacked woll1en as they were -- indulgent. I'rivolous. seduc-
Iivc. in l ri gu ing a mi du pi ic iIous
2X
-- insisl ing 1hey could c!loose lo ael oth-
crwisc (Iikc men): on lhe olher hand. shc appealed lo women lo lInile lo
dclend lheir spccial inleresls, and lo lhe legislature lo recognize ils duly
lo prolee! ll101hers. Ir she asscrled lhal lhcir worsl ebarae!cristies had
been consl rue!ed I(Jr womcn by unjllsl social organizalion. she none lhe
less appealed lo !ler sex lo unite (around hcr lcadership) 01'
rank. in order lo excrl polilical power in lhe common inlerest.-'J 1\nd,
while she ll1ainlained llwl equalily. amI nol special privilegc. was lhe
only ground on whieh wom,ln could sl'llld. she none lhe less (unsuc-
cessl'ully) soughl special advanlage by daiming lhat s!le was pregnanl
:. " lle COLlgcs. 1\cl11.rqtlcs l'<Itrioliqtles. p<lr 1<1 ciloyelllle. i\uteur de la Icltre .IU
I'euple. 17XX. ill (leIIlT"S. p. 7 \.
24 lle (;ougcs. 'Le ni du s<lge: par une I'c!nllll. 17X')'. in (kl/I'n's. p. 'J l.
2') lle COliges. 'Lellre au people ou projel d'une eaisse patriotiqtle p<lr une
cilo\'('lllle. I 7XX". ill O'I/II'l'S. p. h'i.
2h' In ()'I/I'I'lS. pp. ':':-'J2.
27 (;rotllt. llllroduction. ()('l/I'I'l'S. p. 47.
2S (;roult. llltl'<.duclioll. O'I/I'n's. p. 2S. and de COliges. 'Ll'llre <ltI peuple
ou projcl d'UIll' C,'lsse p'ltrionqlle p<lr utle citoyt'llne. 17XX'. in ()'I/pr('s. p. 72._ .
2
'
) lle Cougcs. 'I'rfce pour les d<lmes. ou le porlrait des IemlJles. 1I 'i 1 .
in ()('ltl'l'I'S. pp. 11')-1 'J.
__________FR_ENCH FEMINiSTS AND THE __
in order to ,I\'oid (or JI /c,lsl postponel lhe dC<l11l senlence l'onlred on
her by lile Jacobins in 179 l.
'I'he [)oc!Ilf/llioll o/ tI/(' Hi!lfts o/ \\'01111111 (11It! ('Ii:('/) l'llnl,ins liJe
S<lllle JlllbigllOUS invocalion 01' slereotypes 01' I'elllininilv ami 01' c1,lims
lo equa/ily which deny lhose stereolypes. For t IJe most p'lr!. ils <lrlicles
paral!el lhose of the f)cc!llmIiOIl 01' I extending lo women Ihe
righls 01' 'M<lll. WOlllall alld Man arc usually both in\'oked. /(r in Ill'r
ef!rt lo produce lhe complele declaratioll de Couges Ilflell simplv
pluralized lhe cOllcept 01' citizellsbip. Bul she <liso addressed h(:r
declaration lo Marie-1\nloinetle. lirsl wonl<ln 01' liJe re,ilm. wilh Ihe
coy remar/< l!lal if lhe (lueen were 'Iess educ<lled ... 1 wou/d I'e<lr
lhal your special inleresls v\'ould prevail over tllOse 01' your sex. 111 I\nd
her preamo/e to the doculllenl. <lfler echoing phr<lses ,Iooul how igllor-
<lnce. ](Jrgetfu/ness or contempl 01' (women's) rights had bel'n sole
01' public unhappincss <lnd lhe corruption 01' governillenls. con-
c1uded with Ihe stunning asscrlion thal '11](' sex superior in be,Hllv <lS
in courage during childbirlh. recognizes amI declares. in lIJe pres(;nce
<1 mI under lhe auspices 01' Ihe Suprellle Iking. lIJe 1(lIo\\'ing righls
01 \\'01ll,1I1 amI citizcn. II The very di/lerence 01' INomen. liJis l(nllulJ-
tion suggesls. as wel! as lheir exelusion. requires a sCIJ<lnllc discLlssion
01' lheir rigbls. \2
In. Ihe declaration ilself. article XI. on the righl 01' I'ree speech. slands
out lor lbe attention il drav\'s lo lhe distine!ive needs 01' women:
lhe free cOlJllJlllnic<ltiollOf idc,ls ,lIld opiniolls is olle 01' 1he 1l1Ost prcciolls
rights 01' WOIIl'tll. sillcc Ibis lihl'l'ly gtlarillltl'es th,11 lthers will rccogllize
their childrell. \IlY Cilizell (citoyelllll'i call Ihus S,IY frecl\': I '11Jl 1/]('
Illolber 01' your chill!. without being I()['ccd b\' b'lrbarous prej;ldicc lo hide
Ihe Irtllh. li -
lO Ik COliges. 'llei<lratiorJ des droits de 1<1 FellllJle. d"dil'e il 1;1 ITilll. 179 l'
ill ()1'1I1'J'('S. p. lOO. .
\ I Ile COliges. lllc1<1r'ltioll. ill ()I'I(1'1'l's. p_ 102.
\2 Like Illtlch (11' de (;ouges's wrilillg. 11Jl' /J1'1'/III'II/iOIl ollJe ni.'l/us I'{ \\011/(/11 il<ls
'1Il cxcessin' qU<llity.11 straills lI'ilhill ils chosell I'Ortll<lt. SlIrrollllllillg IhL' 17 arliclcs
whlch IISllI'Olllell s rights tilerc iS.lirsl .llollg de"'rt'al'toll lo ,\lllo;lIelle. lhell
,1 pre'llllhle 11 lO1'(' Illilll tll'iL'e Ihe lellglil 01' Ihe olle 1'01' Ihe /J"c/n('nli"1I olIl" {/u\' 1'/
,\11111. \l lile ell" lilere is a postalllhle. 1(lIo\\'cd hl"l Illodcl lll'lrri<lgc wlJlnl;1.
IOll'cd by .1 rillllblillg discussioll Ih,lt tOllchcs 011 ,lllCiclll 1ll<tITi,lge ClISlolllS. Ihe
rtghls 01 Illl'll 01' eolollr in Ihe COIOllil'S. 'Ind 111(' role 01' lile il'gisl<tlin' 'In" eseclllin'
power illll1(' French Ilation. It is ,IS il' lhe St<llclllelll 01' \\'(ltllell's l'ighls C<lIltlol SLlJlll
\\'Itholll C'xpl'lIl,lions. It llluSt corred all lhal IIpOIl which the lJec/III<I/ilJlI o/ ti/{'
nl!!!I/.\ ol.MII/1 rests ill ordL'I' lo IJwke ils poillt. This sCllse 01' Sll-'Iill. tlll' eSCl'ssilL'
qll,tllly oi Ihe \\'rilill\',. is .111 'Itlelllpl lo "eill. 1woul" 'Irglle. \'ililcolllr'ldil'lioll, \\'ilh
lhe p'lradoxie<tI openlliolls 01' Ihe log'le 01' lhe sllpplelllelJl.
11 Ile COliges. Ikcl<tralioll. in ()elllrl's. p. 104.

-
226 JOAN WALLACH SCOTT
Whal is striking aboul lhis stalement is the particularily (even pecu-
Iiaritv) 01' ils inlerpret'ltion. De Couges could nol sIay with the abstracl
she used in mosl 01' lhe olher arlieles 01' her procla-
mation: simply adding Woman lo lhe Drdilratiol/ of tlIc Hi{jlIts of Mill/
did not suflice al lhis poin!. Why? C!carly lhe righl lo speech was, ror
her. ti/(' expression 01' liberly ami so lllosl importanl lo discuss al lenglh.
In article X, in ract (which deall wilh I'reedolll 01' opinion), de Couges
added a phrase lhat helonged more properly in article Xl: 'woman has
lhe righl lo mount l he scalTold, she oughl equally to have the righl
to nlOunl to tlll' rostrum'.\\ (lk Couges here plays with the notion
01' 'righ!'. She t urns heing subjecl lo the coercivc power 01' Ihe slale inlo
a recognition 01' individual righls, insisling on lhe literal lerms 01' lhe
social contrac!.) In this phrase and in article XI il is lhe righl to speech
lhat is al issue. Bul in holh places. represenling WOlllen as speaking
subjecls seems lo have required more than expanding or pluralizing the
category 01' citizen. lt called rol' rc!'ulalion 01' sexualily and malernity
as grounds rol' silencing women, rol' disqualifying lhem as subjects, lor
leaving Ihem oul 01' the /)cc/aratiol/ of tlIc HI/lIts of Mill/.
In dc (;ouges's arliclc XI Ihe unslatt'd grounds 01' exclusion hecame
lhe explicit reasons lr inelusion. '('he sexual contract lhat established
lhe social conlracl was here (amI in lhe appcndix lo lhe /)cc/aratiOlI)
made visible, 1, De Couges contradicled, with a concrete examp!c, lhe
revolutionaries' endorsemenl 01' oppositions between active and passive,
liberlv ami dulv. individual amI social. Naming lhe ralher acknowledged
t he l;ower 01' 'Iaw and exposed the lransgressions 01' lhe powerrul.
vVilhout lhe righl lo speak, she insisted, women were powerless to
enrorce p,ltt'rn,iI duly, {o callmen back lo their obligalions. lhe obliga-
tions on which social cohesion amI individwllliberly depended. Naming
the I'ather W,IS both a c1aim on paternal obligalion and ,m exposure 01'
{he ,Ibuses 01' palriarchal power: it also arroga1ed lo women a nscu-
line prerogative. ('('he repealed appearance 01' Ihis lheme suggesls lhal
de COliges incorporaled into her political 'imaginary' c1ements 01' con-
lempor;lr',' politiLal discussions aboul lhe relations between King and
people. ramily ami slale.) Ir, ,
From one perspective de Couges's arlicle XI was an argumenl lor
eqllalily II]Jl gained force and persuasive power rrom its use 01' specilic
delail. \I lhe S,IIl1C time, however, ils very specilicity weakened its objec-
H De COliges. Ill'ciarllion. in ()(,1I1'1'('S. p. ]()4.
" 'i (-ole 1'''1t'nl<lll. TI//' S(',\'1I111 ("I1/mel (StlIord. Sf1I1lrd 1I11iversily I'ress.
I <SS ,
Ih ,\ lIscl'ul disCllssioll 01' Ihe relationship bL'twecn social idenlily and Ihe
ps,l'!Hllogki1 il1llgilllrl' is in I'dcr Sfi1lybrass lIld ;\i1on Whi1l'. TI//' ""Jitics llIlll
J' 1(' ti, s ()/ {rllll Sljl'I'" i01 / Illh1(' 1. N,Y.. Corneil llnversi ty I'ress. lLJ (, 1.
FRENCH FEMINISTS AND THE RIGHTS OF "MAN" 227
tive. '('he abstract c1auses 01' Ihe J)cc1om{iulI uf {l1e !\;!11I1s (lf ,\/0/1 uner
indulge in Ihis le"el 01' specilic and particulrized dl'tail. \\'hit'II bv con-
Irast seems to lack seriousness and generaliZilbility. !\I Ihe mosl
[JOinl in t he argutl1enl -lhe demand rol' Iiberly to speak - 1he specilicit v
01' V\!olllan tllarks her dillerence rrom the ulliversalitv 01' 1\1,111.
addilion 01' Woman also illlplies lhe need to think dill'erenllv aboul Ihe
whole queslion 01' rights, '
,(,here is another even more lroubling atllbiguily in de COllges's argu-
tllen!. For it is precisely in Ihe area 01' pregn,II1CY l!Jll a WOIl1,ln's speech
is sitllullaneously lllos1 authorilalive and mosl open lo dOllbl. ()nlv ,1
WOlIl<ln is in a position lo know lhe Irulh and so desigmlle pa1en;itv
(only she can say '1 atl1 the molher 01' your child' 01' 'YOU are l he I'alhe'r
01' my chilel'i. But prccisely Ix'Cause llIal is Ihe case"- be'c,luse I 1]];ln
can't know lhe trulh, he musllake the wOll1an's wonl ami sl](' mav be
Iying. 'rhe terms by which de Couges claims lhe righls (JI' speecl; I()r
women. lhen, raise the spectre 01' the unreliable remininc. 111(' de"ious
and calculaling opponent 01' raliona!. lrulh-speaking mall, and so Ihey
are literally I'raugh1 with uncerlainty.
11' de Couges unwiltingly evoked prevailing views 01' WOI11Cll. sl](' [so
sought explicitly to counter lhetl1, ller analysis 01' wotllen's Irtilice and
unreliability stressed their lack 01' educalion lIld power. SIl(' parlicularlv
allacked marriage. 'the 10mb 01' trust amI love', lr ils inslilulional-
iza1ion 01' inequality. Through it men illlposed 'perpetual tvranny'
on women, in conlradistinclion to lhe hannollious cooper;llioll
she insisled, in nature. IX '('he prevailing incqualily had imporlant per-
sOllal ellects lr it I'orced women 10 resort lo l1lanipulalive rloys in lheir
dealings with Illen amI it had negalive politicai elTects as wdl. sincc a
jusI social order dependcd on granting all partics lo lhe social conlracl
lhe same inlerest in ils rrescrvation. For lhis ITISOn de (;ougcs rccom-
tllcnded replacing lhe marriagc conlracl wilh a social conlrac!. She
appended lo lhe J)cc/omliu/1 uf ti/(' Hi!1l1/s o/ \\lil/1 a 'social contracl 1(>1"
Man ami V\!otllan' ,Illd she delined lhe Natioll ,IS 'lhe union 01' Woman
and Man'. By lhis she mea nI 10 equa1e marriage a/l(l sodely, both
17 I lIn grltcrlll lo Leys rOl' slIggestillg t!lis mini.
"S Itere we lind !ler plying wit!l vel'siollS 01' distincti"ns bl'twcell '1I'li.
liee lIld natll!'e. hl'tween 1ll1l in civilizllion Ild nWIl ill nllIre, See M,llIl'izio Vimli.
j(,lmjIlO/JI<'s HOI/SSI'IIJI 111111 ti/(' W<'II-( rti<'r('ti Sud('/y' (Calllbridge. (mbridge Ilnivel'.
sily I'ress, c1wpler 2. See liso tll' discussioll ,,1' Ihe wilYs replIhlll',lllhinkel's
linked II'li!icc wilh Ihe relllininl' nd wilh rislocrcv in lon L1I1dl'S, \hlImllllti
ti/(' I'JI/,/ic Splil'l'" ill ti//' /\.'1<' "1' ti/(' I'rmtll N.Y.. COnlcill1nil'lTsill'
I'!'ess. ()ne 01' dc COllges's slrlll'gies hl're is to iltlempl lo disl'nln"le Ihl'
rclllininl' fmlll ils prel',lienl ,lssociltioll with rti!icc ,IIHI ,ristolT"l'V ,1Ill! lo iJcnlih'
it insll'd wil!l l!le pllblic virtllcs 01' rl'pllblic. ' ,
Ji:,
-
228 JOAN WALLACH scon
voluntarv ulliolls. enlered either I(,r lil'e or 'f(Jr tbe duration 01' our
mutual i;c!inations' by rights-bearing individuals. These were lllliollS,
moreover. in whieh neither part ner had any legal advantage. Property
was lo be held in eommon and divided according to parenlal discretioll
among ehildrcn '1'1'0111 whalever bed they come'. Moreover. Ihe ehildren
'have Ihe rigiJl lo bear lhe llame 01' liJe I'alhers amlmolhers wiJo have
acknowledged them': lhe l'aliJer's name having no special status in lhe
I'amilv. \'!
De: Couges used examples aboul marriage lo counler llo1iolls 01' lixed
social hierarehies. poinling out as the Eslales (;cneral debaled lhe ques-
lion 01' how lo represenl the lhree orders 01' lhe nation. lhat fixed di-
visions bdvveen lhese ,groups did not exist ami hence were absurd
to mainlain since marriage had already mingled lhe blood 01' members
01' nobilitv amI lhe TiJird Eslale.
1O
The very lasl lille 01' her [)ec/amliml 01'
lile oJ WO/llilll illlprobably took up lhe question 01' liJe separation
01' powers under liJe new constitution. There de Couges arglled I(Jr a re-
concilialion 01' Ihe executive ami legislalive powers (aligning herscll'
wilh Ihe su pporlers 01' constit utionalmonarchy): '1 consider Ihese Iwo
powers to be like aman and a woman, who ought lo be united, but equal
in pOVlier <md virlue, in order to establish a good household.'41 In these
discussions. manv 01' which read like 1/0/1 seC/l/itllrs. women's rigiJIs were
not separable I'n;l11. but integral to al! considerations 01' politics. The
union 01' m,lII amI woman replaeed liJe single ligure 01' liJe universal
individual. in an atlclllpl at resolving lhe dirticulty 01' arguillg aboul
rigiJts i1l llllivocal lerms. But de Couges's notion 01' tiJis unioll was
<nllbiguous. It could be read as an endorsement 01' I'unctional comple-
ment<lritv b,sed on sexo but also as an attempt to dissolve or trallscend
lhe ealcgories 01' sexual dilTerence. De Couges tried to deny lhe possibil-
ilv 01' anv meanillgl'ul oppositioll between public and privale. political
a;d while al the same lime working with a nolioll 01' marilal
or sexualunion conceived in tcrms 01' lhose very oppositiolls.
In lhe past. de Couges rcminded her readers. lhe cxc!usioll 01' womell
I'rom polit ies hild led lo the corruption assoeiated with 'the nocturnal
administratioll 01' womell'. whcn scduetion displaced reason amI crimc
prcvailed OVlT virluc.
1l
Thcse ruses 01' thc weak would disappear in the
I'uture. whcn women were granled fuI! political rights, equal aeccss lo
property amI public employmcnt. I !ere de (;ouges seellH'd to ackllow-
ledge implicitly an oncn expressed I'ear 01' I'emalc sexuality. but she
\'J I.l'\')', i\pplt-wl1jle IIH\ !0111lS011. PI', 'J-1.. 'i,
.tI) lle l;ollges, I.e [Ti du silge. ill (Je//\T'S. p. 'J 1.
-JI lle COUglS. Ikelilraljoll. il1 ()('I/l'/'('S. p, 112.
+2 le l;ollges, l)l'c1i1r'lliol1'. pp. 1Il'J--11.
FRENCH FEMINISTS 229
ilttribllted it to Iulty institutions. Inherentlv. dcsirc WilS polvv,lIcnt;
socilI usage gIVe iI ils rneaning allll valuc. For tiJis ITason de-
urged. in anotlll'r context. lhat womcn be mobilized lo 'illcitlcl you"ng
men to tly lo the ddl'nce of lhe FatherlalllJ', promising the 'b,md 01' vour
mistress' lr those who were br'lvc. rcjection lr cowards. 'TIIC 'II-'t wc
possess lo move Ihe souls 01' lIlen would produce the sa[utarv elTcct 01'
ellllaming all spirits. Nothing can resist our seductive orgall.'1 i Ikploved
in dcrence 01' the nation. as an cxercise in active citizenship. I'emale ;ex-
ualily mighl secure. not deslabilize. lhe social order. 1'el tllC ,Ippe,t! lo
tbis kind 01' I'elllininity also earried the risk 01' llnleashillg il desire
already delined as antithctical lo -lional polilics. The 01'
WOlllan seems always lo haunt de (;ouges's mosl creative argul;lCnts.
De Gouges's staternellts about sexualily. rights. and t [le possibilit ies
I'or mCll ,11](1 womcn rel'erred lr legitimation. like liJe i1rguments slH'
crilicized. lo 'Nalure'. This rcference was at once ingenious ,llld lirnil-
ing; il i1l1owed her to rcinterprel the nwaning 01' lhe grollnd I<Jr ,Irgu-
ments about righls. bul nol ultinwtcly lo conlest the uselllless 01'
'Ilatural' justifications f(lr hUlllan polilical arrangements. (It ,illows us
to ponder the queslion 01' whelher ,lIld how it is ever possible to eXlTed
the constitutive tenns 01' politicill diseoursc. whether redelinition and
refiguratioll ,lre lhe best means ilI'lilablc. or whether lhis depends on
speeilic contexL linite hislorical mOlllcnts.l
I)e Couges rel'used tlH' dillerelltialion 01' bodies into Ih:L'l1 binarv C,lt-
egories. insisting instl'ad on \'lril'lv. r,lllges 01' diITt'I:l'I](T.
speclra 01' colours allll I'unl'lions. conl'usion 01' roll's -- tlll' Ultilll,ltl' un-
decidability and indclerminacy of 11](' soci,ll siglli!icallcc 01' plll'sil'al
bodies. Running lbrough many 01' her writings are eXilmples and ilbser-
vations meant to elucidalc (what was I'or her) a primal'V truth; (slH'
didn't pul it lhis W'IY. but she lIlight have) Nature abhors' binarv cate-
gorization. !\ppealing lo the prevailing rules 01' scienec. de
reporled her observiltions anel whi,t she saw. she said. conlirl1lcd tICr
own experience. her perception 01' lhe distance between her 'sell" al](1
llll'social calegory 01' wonJ<ln. 'Inmy writings.1 anl a sludl'llt 01' n,ltlllT:
Imighl be (je dois ctre). Iike her. irregular. bizarre even. vel ,liso alwavs
t rue, always simple. ,11 -,
In one 01' IICr autobiogr,lphical pieces. dc Couges expl,lillet! thut the
sexes welT diflentiated only lr liJe purposes 01' reprodllclion: ollll'r-
wise 'nulure' hillll'nt!oll'ed allmembers 01'" species lI'ilb Silllil;lr. bulnot
necessarily identieal. faculties.
li
I'hysical dilTercnce. ho\\'('wr. \V,IS nol
-1 l I.l\.I', i\pl'lclIl1ill' ,"HlloI1IlS01l, 1', I ;-lI.
-11 lle Couges. 'lkp,lrt dc \1. ">,ce"er el <le \I,I<I,II)H' <le COliges, <111, Les ,\dieu\
<1: de C<lugcs ,IU\ FrillJC,lis el ,'1 '\1. r"L'Ck'T ImTil I;-()(II', ill (l'III'I'i'\. p. (JI),
-\) lle ;<luges. ,\ui<lbjogr'lpl1ie. ji) (}"II\T"\. p. 2211.
L3
230 JOAN WALLACH scon
the key to other dillerenees: for there was no s'ystem to vari-
ations, De Couges aeeepted the prevailing belicl in the ongmary status
01' nature, and then she redeseribed it. drawing new implieations for
human social organization, Systems, she argued, were man-made ami
she implied that all systems interfered with natural (benee desirable)
anarehie confusions, The f)ec1amtioll or tlle Riylrts al W011lilll began by
contrasting men's tyrannical oppression 01' women with the harmo-
nious eonfusions 01' the natural world:
look. search. anu Ihen distingllish il' you can. the sexcs in the auminis-
tration 01' nlure. Everywhere you willlinu them mixcd up (conl'onulls).
evervwhcrc they cOOperljte hannoniollsly together in this immortal
maslerpiecc.
I
',
Like distinctions 01' sex, distinctions 01' colour defied c1ear categorization.
Only lhe cupidity anel greed 01' white Illen could explain for de Couges
the enslavelllent 01' blacks: only blind prejudice could lead to commerce
in human beings and to the dcnial 01' a common hUll1anity bctween
black ami whitc. This was the theme 01' a play she wrote in 17SS !irst
called Zal1lOI'1' et l\lirza and then renamed L'Esdavayc des Neyres, 11s per-
formance in I 7Sl) by the COl1ldie Frall('ais1' won praise I'rom the small
J\ssociat ion 01' the Fricnds 01' Blacks amI angry dcnunciation I'rom an
organized club 01' colonists amI their supporters in Paris. The cast. too,
rcfused de Couges's inst ruction that the actors wear blackface, a gesture
she denounced as intolerable because it the dramatic a.nd
politicalelTcds she sought. The play was c\osed alter only
mUlCCS. The Mayor 01' 1',Iris was reportcd to have said that he ltS
'incendiary' aspcct would 'provoke insurrection in the colonies' ."' The
year bcrore its appearance (when she was still negotiating with the
COll1die ahout producing il), de Couges issued a brochure
that contained her 'Rellections on Black Men'. In it she insisted that
'nature had no par!' in the 'commerce d'hommes'. 'The unjust and pow-
crful intcrests 01' lhe whites did it all: she maintained, suggesting that
here particular interests. ll1asquerading as universal. had usurped
human rights. She then pondcrcd the qucstion 01' colour, asking where
the li!les could he drawn absolutely to dilTerentiatc whites. mulaltos.
blacks, amI whdher any hierarchy could be established on the basis 01'
t hese dilTerences:
Man's eolour is nuaneed, like all lhe animals lhal nalure has produced,
1S I\'l'Il IS lhe pl<lnls and minerals. Why doesn'l Ihe night rival lhe day.
. hile (;OIl1'CS, '1 kcl"r,l Oll. in OCl/ITCS, p. I() I.
1:- ;roll/t. '/lItrodllCIOIl', ()'III'/'CS, p. 2:-.
FRENCH FEMIN/STS AND THE RIGHTS OF "MAN" 23 I
lhe sun lhe moon, ami lhe sl,rs lhe lirmalllenP ;\11 is varied Ifld lhal is
lhe beauly 01' nalure, Why lhen deslroy her worki"<
lJnderneath lhe visible varicty 01' nature, de Couges ddected a funda-
mental physical identity, Distinctions 01' colour were not only indeter-
minate, but superficiaL she insisted, lr the sarne blood f10wed in lhe
veins 01' maslers and slaves, They were, in fact, 'fathers and brothers',
but 'deaf to the cries 01' blood, they stille aU its charms' ,"" This coll1ll1ent,
placed as it waS near the end 01' the /)ec/amlioll 01 til1' Hiyllls 01 \:\iOIl1ll1l,
mises the issue 01' how de Couges understood relationship between
the situation 01' womell and blaeks. There was more than <111 analogy
between two groups deprived 01' liberty. Rather they partook 01' the same
question: the status in nature, ami so in polities, 01' observ,lble physicJ
difference. 11' undecidability was the answcr in natme. decisions became
human actions !()r which people could be heid ,ICCOlltltlblc: they were
necessarily relative ami open to reasonable debate ami interpretation.
The legitimation for laws could lie (mly in 'common utili/y' (arlicle I
01' both dcclaralions stated thal 'social distinctions could only bc blscd
on COll1ll1on ulilly') ami that was inevitably decidcd lhrough political
processes, Justice, not nature, required the participatiOJl in these pro-
cesses by everyone affected, The body - or more precisely. structuml
physil'al dilTercnce - was an irrelevant factor in one sellse. for the
meanings 01' these differences were the products not lhe prerequisitcs
01' politics. In another sense, bo(lies provided the universal ground
01' human identity. in the identical blood tllat anilllatcd tl1l'1l1 all amI as
the site 01' natural righls. For de Couges. ,It le,lst, rights werc elllbodied
llld universal lt the sallle tillle and lhis conceptioll re<uired 110t denyillg
lhe existence 01' physical dilTerences. but recogn/:ing thelll as lt once
essential and irrelevant lo the Illeaning 01' equ,Jity.
De Couges's invocations 01' nat ure were always alllbigulJus, ()Il the
one hand. she insisted (in opposition to her cobin advnSlries) Oll
undecidability and thus on humml responsibility l()r Ihe impositioll 01'
catcgories: on tlle olhe!". she accepled the orginary 'truth' 01' l1ature ,lIld
so len ill place the Ilotion that social arrangelllents could be rel(.'rred
to natural trutiJs. 'l'his, in turno could I'ocus the argunll'llt 011 wll[ I\'I/S
illnat UIT ratlH'r thln on wl]Jt should be ill politics. \nd de (;lIuges ('(luid
lw,IYs be open to [he ch,lrge Ihat, ul11utored in scienldie oiJslTl;lIion.
siJe iJd silllply lIlisreld Ihe I<lctS 01' tJI(' physic,J \\'orld.
N(JIle the lcss, the destabilizing illlplictions 01' Ill'r redelillilioll 01'
nature wcre Llndelliablc: if n,(nre \Vas 'irregulrL bizrre ('ICI1'. il c(luld
le: '1\i'lll'\i(\ll' SlIr les 11'''II1IH'S Ilcgrl'. l'IThT I :-s.S. jllll",,,,,,./, S'i .
.j') lle ;ol,gc,. llecl'If"t(\Il. , 1)1'111"'<", p. I Il.
i La
--
232 JOAN WALLACH scon
FRENCH FEMINISTS AND THE RIGHTS OF "MAN"
------------------_.. _- - -- ---- - - - --- -- - - - -
233
not provide. in her lerms (it Illight in ours). a reliable guide 1'01' politirs.
I\athcr th,11l bcing a l1latter 01' science, justice had to be understood aS
a mediation 01' power.
111
It is possible to read Olympe de Couges and other feminists, and
female, during the French Revolution, in the context solely 01 estab-
lished categories 01' political debate, Implicit in her critique was an inter-
prctltion 01' liberd political theory tlHlt countered the authoritarianism
01' Rousseauiall doctrines 01' tlJe general will witlJ more conllictual
(sollle might say Madisonian) notions 01' politics. !Ier alliances with the
Cironde faction in the Convention bear this out: she was linally sent to
the guillotine in 1793 not for her feminism, but 1'01' plastering the walls
01' Paris wit h posters urging t lJat a federalist systel1l replace Jacobin cen-
tralized rule. Indeed, the l1Ioment 01' Jacobin centralization was accolT1-
panied by ruthlessly masculine political assertions and by the expulsion
01' prominent women from the Jacobin club. The association between
bourgeois del1locf<lcy and fel1linism in France goes beyond de Couges:
it is Condorcd, aHer all, 'lIso a Cirondist. who is usually citeel as the
preeminent felllinist 01' the Revolution.'"
This kind 01' reading, while acceptable, would be insul'licient. 1think,
on both empirical and philosophical grounds, First. Girondist politicians
wel"(' not ullanil1lous on the issue 01' women's rights: most accepted the
'natund' version 01' the sexual division 01' labour, ami these inc!uded
prolllillent WOl1lell such IS Madal1le Roland. LOllg aHer the Revolution,
the anti-authoritarian current 01' French liberalism shared with other
political tendencil's an aversion to feminism: sexual dilTerence, as
explained by science and medicine, seel1led to olTer a non-politicd
Ill'nce natu ra 1) j usti lication 1'01' the assigll n1l'nt to wome 11 01' passive, not
actin' rights. rvloreover. in succeeding generations, feminisl1l was as
often lss:JCiated \'\'il h sol'ialism as with liberalism: indeed it is frequelltly
argued tll<lt the real start 01' a feminist tradition in France began
not with tI](' Rn'olution, but with the utopialls -- the St Simonian and
Fourierisl mO\'l'ments 01' the 1i'\ amI 1i'\40S.'1
Second, to treat feminism within the reccived categories 01' revolu-
liollary politics ignores the most powerful aspects 01' its critique amI
';0 COlldmccl. '011 Ihc \dlllissioll 01' \VoillCIl lo Ihc l(ighlS 01' l'itizcllship I l/YO)'.
i11 \",(/ "" \ \ ',it JI.'!s. K. \ 1. n,lkcr Illldi'IIl'IJolis. I y/ ( l.
'; I 011 Ihis hislor\' scc. Cl<lirl' Coldhcrg Moscs, Frl'l1c/1 'f'IIIill;"1I ,I 111,. t\'If'/,.f'JlI/,
CnliJlllf (,\lh'IIl;', Sl'iNY I'n'ss, IYS41,
!can's apart lllallY ques1iolls. allHlIlg Ihelll Ihe question 01' IlOW refer-
ences lo Ihe 'nalural'legitimated political theory ,lllll practice <Ind com-
plicated any critique of l/lem. IlcJrsake the opportunity to ex,lminc llll'
int erconllcctiolls mnong el iscourscs as well IS the contradel ions wi lhin
IIlY ())le of thcm: it accepts al face valuc thc tcrllls withill which most
revolutiollaries viewed politics ralher than subjecting those lerms (as
well as the specilic programmes advoc,lted) to critical scrutinv. The
dichotol1lies that dclined those politics are Ihell perpdualcd ill his-
tories as so many lHltural 01' function,iI 'rcalities', thus obsCllrillg Illll
only ther relative meanings but all contesls about Ihefll. Indeed Ihe
most fundamental eOlltests, those aboul lirst premises, b('('oll](' nHlsI
marginal 1'01' these histories hecause II]('y are catcgorized ,IS concerning
non-politil'almattcrs, The protcsts 01' I'eminisls ,liT he,ml as cries from
Ihe sidelines about the exc!usion 01' particul,lr interests, ,IS superlluous
uttenmces rather than as fundamental (amI centnil) critiqucs 01' 111('
notion 01' diffcrl'lll catcgori('s 01' righls b,lsed on physical diffcn'ncc. ,\nd
Ihe existence 01' particularized critiqucs 01' universalitv bel'omcs a way
01' conlinning rather than questioning Ihc very notion-of thc IIl1l'l'rsai.
Its embodimen[ as a white ma\c is explaincd ;s a 1l'I1lP0f< ry historic;iI
contingency wilh no ovcrtones 01' power, 1'01' lo <Issociltc IIJ(' cOllcepl 01'
Ihe universal with relationships 01' power - 01' dOlllinatiol1, suborelin,l-
tion and exc!usion - would be lo contrae!ict l!w meaning or tlJ(' univer-
S'I!. al Ieast as it was olTcred in libenil theories 01' polilic,ll rights. It is
precisely that COnlf<ldiction - expressed through its Suppll'mentaritv
that the felllinine already emboe!ied in those lheories and Ihat i'L'minisls
pointed out ag,lin ane! again, though with diflerCllt argulllents amI in
dilTerent terms.
The recurrence 01' felllinisl critiques rases thc qucslon 01' Iheir
success or I'aifure, and thus 01' Iheir deplh amI signilil',llll'l' as politic,i1
l1lovements, 11' feminism cannol be suhsumcd into politics as I\,(' h,l\'('
known it (as tl1(' conllict 01' p,lrtics amI inlcrcsls in thc puhlic rcalm:
(;ironde l'lTSUS jacohin, rcpublic,ln vcrsus socialist) call it bc givcn
a poltical status 01' its own? .
Ccrtainly Olympe de Couges (likc her i'L'minisl COlllclllporaricsl
cannot be considercd sucecssll in lhe usual tcrms 01' politil'alel';i1u-
atioll. She die! not win accept,II1cC 01' her proPOSi1s I(Jr II'lHlll'n's rights:
her refiguralion of l1larri,lge, \\'omcn, and nalurc was g('lll'l'alll' dis-
misscd by tllOse in po\\'cr (in lhe govcrIlmellt alld ill polilie,i1
groupings) as oulr,lgcous nlllll'r Ih,lnl<lkcll seriouslv. \\lithil] ,1 fcw davs
01' her dc,llh (in Novembl'l' 17(1) Ch'"lmcttc se; 111(' Icrrlls 01'
hislorieal rcpulalion. IIe w,lrncd )'('publicanwolllell who d;1I'l'd lo qucs-
(ion Iheir rolcs 01' Ihe I'te 01' others WIHl had brokcll thc rulcs:
;: %, t2LJikUZ
234 lOAN WALLACH scon
Iknwlllber lha! virago. lh,! WOlllan-lllall (('1'1/('/('111/1/('-1101/11/11'). lhe illlPll-
dC1l1 OIYlllpc de COliges. who abandolled all lhe cares 01' her hOllsehold
becallse she wallted to ellgage in polilics and cOllllllil crillles.... This !or-
gcll'lIlness 01' !he virtues 01' hcr sex Ied her lo Lhe scaffold. i2
1\llhough her /)ec111ralioll uf l!le Hif/!lls of WOIIIOIl inspired fcminisl chal-
lenges lo successive governmenls lhroughoul lhe nineleenlh ami lhe
lirsl hall' 01' lhe lwentieth cenluries, formal histories either excluded her
entirely or classed her wilh lhe 'I'uries' 01' lhe Revolution, those WO!llen
who caused ami expressed lhe excesses 01' unrestrained passion.' 1 In
1<)()4, a Dr Cuillois analysed de Couges as a case 01' revolutionary hys-
leria. Her abnormal sexualily (eaused by excessive menslrualllow), her
narcissicism (('vineed by a predelietion for daily balhs), ami her enlire
laek 01' moral sellse (proven by her repealed refusa\ lo remarry) consti-
luled lhe delinitive signs 01' her menlal palhology. 1\ defective fer:linin-
ily. in short. had led lo her unl'orlunale interest in politics. ,4 The
implieations 01' lhis diagnosis I'or Cuiilois's conlemporaries was unmis-
takable: demands for women's righls (as wdl as all reforming zeal) could
not be laken seriously as politics. bul mllst be treated as ilIness.
These rderenccs 1.0 de Couges are misleading, however, for they exag-
gerale lhe atlention paid lo her by hislorians. The most
lrealmenl 01' her las 01' feminists generally) has been maSSlve stlence.
l do nol in any way want lo argue for her rehabilitation as a heroine,
al! hough lhere are some historians who would insist that that is the only
way lo gran( her agency, lhe only juslitication for attending to her.
Raiher. I want to suggesl thal de Couges's practice - her writings ami
spl'l'l'hes - ollers a usdul perspel'live I(Jr reading lhe hislory 01' politics
ami political Ihcory in the Freneh Revolulion and lr cOllsidering q.ues-
lions about conlemporary l'cminisl polilics. Whal was the legacy 01 lhe
French Revolutioll 1'01' women? What did feminism reveal about that
legacv? What was/is lhe slalus 01' I'eminism as a politics?
In -a wav I've already answered most 01' these questions but [ will
resla(c wh,;( ['ve said: if by political we mean a contest aboul power.l'etlJ-
illism was a political movemenl poi sed in critical opposilion 1.0 liberal
polilical lheory. cons!rucled within and yet delined out 01' serious con-
sideration bv lhe terms 01' lhat theory. By those terms, political was syn-
onvl1lOus \\il h ralional. publie. and universal. with the free ageney 01'
au(onol1lous subiects. Woman. by a set 01' delinitions atlributed to
l}Itme. was conslrued as having antithetical traits, hence being outside
')2 Cileel in Croult. 'Inlrodllction. Ot'f/\T/'S, p. :;l). .
') l t:rolllt. 'Inlroelul'lioll', O/'f/\'/"('s, pp, hl)-2, See "Iso Neilllcrlz, ',"1cdus<\ s "e"d:
\ \" 1" III,tlTi;1 UIHler 1'01 il kili I'resslIrl'. Ht'I'I'/'S"III"IiOlIS 4 (Fall I'J S ) 1. pp. 2 -- ')4.
1 l'ikd;11 (;1",,11. '\'llrod"l'lioll. (l/'I1"I/'S. pp. h l 2.
FRENCH FEMINI5T5 AND THE RIGHT5 OF "MAN" 235
politics. In order to l<lrlllul;!l' <1 critique 01' (Ilis Iheorv. I'elllillists like de
Couges con!l's!l'd its dl'linilions, ,nd sonll'lillles <1';0 ils k'gitilllating
premises. but <lt lile same lime Illey uscd Ihe prevailing !l'rlll'illO!ogy (;1'
Ihe d,y. This produced ,m alllbiguous discourse wllich botli conlinned
and ch<lllenged prevailing views, and which exposes lo liS <1 fund,men-
t<ll paradox 01' Ihe polilical tlleory 01' lile I{evolution: Ihe rcl<llive and
highly parlicularized aspeet. the undeniable elllbodiment, 01' its claim lo
uni"crsa lily.
'rile alllbiguity 01' de Couges's I'clllinislll is nol a measure 01' its in<ld-
equacy as philosophy and polities; rathcr il is ,m ellcc! 01' the exclusions
and contr<ldicliolls 01' Ihe politieal Iheory witliin ,lnd <lgainst wllicll it
was articulatcd. The same can bc said 01' subscqucnl l'eminislllS in thc
nineteclllh ami twentieth cenlurics. Indced. Ihe n'CUITenCl' since tllc
I{evolulion 01' I'clllinisl critiqucs rcminds us not onlv Ihal the dcmolT<I-
tic promise 01' liberal (and socialist ,md polit ica I t heory is
as yet unfullillcd. but also Ihal il may be impossiblc 01' l'ullillllcnl in'lhc
tenns in which it has so I'ar been cOIlceived.
Edited by Ronald Schechter
-' "
Publishers
The Essential Readings
11] BLACI<WELL
Blackwell Essential Readings in History
Tlrc 1'1'1'/1('/1 HCI'OIII/Oll: Tlrc EssclI/IlI HClldillf/S
I{onald Schechter
In Preparation
TI/(' /;1IIifIIIlCII1I1('11t: Tl1C EssclItiuI HcudillflS
Marlill Filzpatrick
Tllc Cold "'ur: rllc ;ssclI/IlI H('(ldillf/S
Klaus Larres amI- 1\1111 Lal1c
r/C r/ird Hcic/: Tlrc EssclltillI HClldirlgs
Christian Leilz
Tlrc COIIII(Cr-Hc!(nlllltioll: T/c EssclltillI RClldillgs
David 1\1. Luebke
TI/(' HIISS;llIl Hc\'oIlItiOll: TI/(' Ess('IItillI HClldillflS
Martin MilIer
Publishcd
T/c (;CrllIllIl Rc!(mllltioll: 771c Ess('IItilll RClldillgs
C. Scott Dixon
TI/(' ElIgIisIl Ci\'iI \!VIII': T/ll' EssclltillI RClldillgs
Peter Caullt
This series cOl1lprises concise collectiolls 01' key artieles on important
historical topics. Iksigned as a complcment to standard survey
histories. the volumes are intcnded to hclp introduce studcnts to the
range 01' scholarly debate in a subject arca. Each collection inelulies a
general introduction amI brief contextual headnotes to each artiele.
oflcrillg a coherent. critical framework for study.
Copyright ir', Blackwell I'ublishers Ud 200 l. Edilorial arrangetl1enl ami inlrodllctiolls
copyrighl i', Ronald Sdll'chter 200 l.
Firsl pllblishnl 200 I

Blackwdl 1'1Iblishers lile.
1'jO Maill Sln'el
Malden. Massaehllsetls O214H
USA
Blilckwdl I'llblishers Ltd
1OH Cowley Road
OxfonlOX4 lJF
lIK
AH rights rescrvt'd. Except for lhe quotation of short passages for lhe purposes 01' criticism
and fevic\!\'. no pnrt nI' this puhlication ma)' he rcproduccd. storcd in a rl'tricval systern. or
lransmitted. in any form or by any Illcans. clcctronic. Illechanical. photocopying. rccording
or othcrwisc, without the prior permissioll nI' lhe puhlishcr.
Except ill lhe lJniled Slales 01' America. lhis book is sold sllbject lo the cOllditioll lhal il shall
no1. by W(\)' 01' trade O[ other\'\'isc, he IcnL [csold. hired out. Uf othe[wise drculatcd without
lhe puhlis!le['s prior consent in {lny form nI' binding or cover othr[ than that in which it is
puhlishcd (IIld without a similar condition including this condition neing imposed on the
sunscquent purchaser.
I,i/mr!! oI ('(Jflan'SS Cala!oailla-ill-PllbJicatioll Data
Tlil' Frelleh l\cvollltion: tl1(' essell!ial rl'adillgs /edill'd hy Ronald Seheehler.
p cm. -- Blackweliessl'ntial readings in hislory)
Illcludes hibliogrlphical rderl'Ill't's and indexo
ISBN O--h 11-21270-1 alk. papn) - ISBN O-h 1-21271-X alk. papl'r)
l. Frillll'" - Ilistory l\cvolutioll, 17k9-1 799- Ilistoriography. 1. Seheehll'r. ROllald.
11. Series_
IJCI47,H 2001
944.04 -- ddl
OO-OH 17
Brilisll Ulmrl! in Pllr!'a(inll Data
\ CIP cat;:t!oguc record ror this hook is availahlc from lhe British Librar)'.
l\pcs('l in ()l/., (}!l 12 pt (,!Jotina
h,' l\csl-sl'l TYJ<'sl'ttn UlL. Hong Kong
I'rinll'd alld hOlllld in Creal Brilaiu by Biddles Ud, \\'\\'\\',lJiddf('s.w.llk
This h()ok is prilllcd UIl aciel-free paper
Contents
Acknowledgments
Editor's Introduction
Interpreting the French Revolution
Frall('ois Fllre/
2 On the Problem of the Ideological Origins of the French
Revolution
Kelll ,1,1iclltlcl Boker
3 The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution
RO!Jl'r eIItl rtier
4 The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Revolutionary France
Ro[erl [)ornloll
5 The Great Chain of Buying: Medical Advertisement.
the Bourgeois Public Sphere. and the Origins of the Frellch
Revolution
('oH, J(Jl/es
6 Luxury, Morality, and Social Change: Why There Was No
Middle-Class Consciousness in Pre-Revolutionary France
Sorall Mo:o
7 French Feminists and the Rights of "Man": Olympe de
Gouges's Declarations
J0011 \\lo110e" Scoti
vii
31
52
75
106
138
175
210
vi CONTENT5
8 The Band of Brothers
L!fllIl //11111
9 Church. State. and the Ideological Origins of the French
Revolution: The Debate over the General Assembly of the
Gallican Clergy in 1765
/)0/1' Vall Kle!l
10 The Revolutionary Festival: A Transfer of Sacrality
MOIlll Ozollr
Index
236
263
301
321
Acknowledgments
The editor and publishers gratcfully acknowledge the following lr per-
mission to reproduce copyright material:
\merican Historical Association I'or Colin ]<Hles. "The Creat Chilin 01'
Buying: Medical Advertisemen!. the Bourgeois !'ublic Spherc. and the
Origins 01' the French Revolution." AlIlericall llislorical Hel'ie\l' 101: 1
(] (96) pp. ] 3-40:
Cllnbridge lIniversity Press for material from Fr<IIl(ois Fure!. /lIterpret-
illl! tllC FrCllc11 Hel'ollltioll. transo Elborg Forsler ( 19 7K) pp. ] 4-17. H)--40.
-14-55: and Keith rvichael Baker. IIlI'ClltilllJ ti/(' Frfllc11 HCFOllltiOIl ( !lJ(0)
pp. ] 2-27:
lJuke llnivcrsity !'ress for material I'rom Roger Chartier. Tlle ('11ft IIml
Oril/ills 01' I//(' Frcllc11 HCl'OllItiOIl. transo Lydia G. Cochrane ( IlJ9 1)pp. 3---7.
1)- 37. Copyright CO ] lJlJ] Duke llniversity !'ress:
Ilarvard llniversity !'ress for material frorn Mona Ozour. :'sti\'(/Is 11m! t/IC
1'1'1' Ilci 1 Hel'OllItioll. tmns. Alan Sheridan (] 9KK) pp. 2117-Kl. Copvright
( 19KK by the President ami Fellows 01' llarvard ('ollege:
vv. W. Norton & Company 1(lr rn,lerial from Robert lJarlltoll. Tlle
hll{idl!ell /kst-Sel1ers or I're-HeFollltioIlOr,l/ Frallce ( IlJ,) 5) pp. ll7-4h.
Copyright Ce) ] ')9 5 by Robert Darnton:
The llniversity 01' Califorllia !'ress lr m,terial from Lynn llull!. TlIC
hl/Ilil,ll HOIIlllllce 01' ti/(' Frellc/ Hel'ollltioll (1 ')')1) pp. 5 ~ 7 1 7IKK.
Copyright i() ] ')92 by the Regents 01' The llniversity 01' Calilrllia:
viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The lIniversity al' Chicaga Press for Sarah Maza. "Luxury. Morality. amI
Social Change: Why There Was No Middle-Class Consciousness in Pre-
Revolutionary France," Tire ]ol/nw/ oI Modml Histor 69 (199 7l pp.
199-229: and Dale Van Kley. "Church. State. and (he Ideological
Origins 01' the French Revolution: The Debate over the Ceneral Assem-
bly 01' the Callican Clergy in 1765." T/re ]Ollr/W/ of Mm/cm Hislory 51
(1979) pp, 629-66;
lIistory vVorkshop joumal !r loan Wallach Scott. "French Feminists
ami the Rights 01' 'Man'; Oltmpe de Souges's Declanations," lIistary
Workshop journal. 28 (1989), pp 1-21.
The publishers apologize !r any errors or omissions in t he above list amI
would be grateful to be notilied 01' any corrections that should be incor-
porated in the next edition or reprint 01' this book,
Editor' s Introduction
Conceptualizing the French
Revolution: Problems
and Methods
The Shadow of Furet
In France. for roughly hall' a century, Marxist historians l'lljoyed a
virtual monopoly over the academic historiography 01' the French Re-
volution. Beginning in 1928 the Sorbonne's prestigious chair in the
History 01' the French Revolution was reserved for historians with a
demonstrable commitmen( to socialism. The combination 01' a rigid hier-
archy in French academia and a leftist orientation among Frcnch intel-
lectuals more generally - particularly during the quarter century after
World War 11. when the fabled anti-fascist record 01' com!11unism pro-
vided il with moral authority -made it nearly impossible to challellge t he
reigning orthodoxy. It was only wilh the declille 01' cOl11l11Ullist hege-
1110ny in intellectual circles after 1968. and from a rival instilutioll, the
Sixth Section 01' the '\cole Pratique des Hautes I::tudes (later renamed the
Ikole des Hautes ~ t u e s en Sciences Sociales l, that a "revisionist" assau It
on the prevailing orthodoxy could successfully be launched, opelling the
way to a rich amI diverse historiography 01' the Revolution.
The first in the Sorbonne's academic dynasty was Albert Mathicz
( 1874-1932), a disciple 01' the martyred socialist !cader lmll jaurl'S
(1859-1914l and early supporter 01' the Bolshevik Revolut iOIl. whose
roots he traced (o the French Revolution. Succeeding Mathiez was
Ceorges Lefcbvre ( 1874-1959 l, who continued the tradil ion 01' r-..tmxist
scholarship and spread the word to the i\nglo-American \\'orld with
popular and widely-read English translations 01' his principil works. I
1 Scc csp. (;corgcs Lcfcbvrc. TI,(' COl11il1il (JI tlJl' :"('I1('I, H(,l'o/IIlioll: 178'1. transo
I{. !{. I'alrncr Il'rinccton lInivcrsity I'rcss. 1'1471 <111(1 TlI(' F,.('I1(''' H('I'ollltiOI1. lr'lns.
Elizabcth Moss EV<lnson (Ncw York: Columbia Ilnivcrsity I'rcss, I'1hl-41.1 \'o!s,