The Economic and Social Origins of the French Revolution

Author(s): Henri See

Source: The Economic History Review, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Jan., 1931), pp. 1-15
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Economic History Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2590620 .
Accessed: 31/01/2011 23:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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

Blackwell Publishing and Economic History Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Economic History Review.

http://www.jstor.org
 REVIEW
VOL. III. No. 1. 1931.
JANUARY,

THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ORIGINS OF

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
tT gener-
ofeveryworkontheFrenchRevolution
chapter
HE first
ally consistsof a studyof its causes; but the veryuse of the
wordtendsto prejudgea questionwhich,in the human,still
more than in the naturalsciences,is still under discussion,and will
remainso formanyyears,if not forever-the questionof causality.'
In this article,therefore,the questionis treatedas one of the origins,
or alternatively,of the conditions,whichengenderedthat formidable
outbreakknownas theFrenchRevolution.
The bigotedpartisansof historicalmaterialism,in studyingthe
causesororiginsofa revolution, devotethemselves onlyto theeconomic
phenomena,to the neglectof all political,, intellectual,or othermani-
festations. To the presentwriterthis method appears highlydis-
putable,since it is onlyby abstractionthat the variouscategoriesof
phenomenacan be isolatedfromeach other;realitypresentsus with
a complexwhole whichcan onlybe separatedinto parts in a purely
artificialmanner.2 This does not mean,however,that economicand
social phenomenado not play a large,indeedperhapsa predominant,
part in the evolutionof history. With thesereserves,then,we may
proceedto sketchthe economicand social evolutionof France in the
eighteenth century-an evolutionwhichmay explain,at least in part,
the outbreakof the Revolution,and still more the courseof events
duringtherevolutionary period.
I.
If we takefirstofall thosephenomenawhichwereproperly speaking
economicapart fromtheirsocial repercussionswe shall findin them,
1Cf. H. See, " Remarques sur le concept de la causalite en histoire,"Rev.
de Synthesehistorique,June, I929.
2 Cf. H. See, Materialismehistoriqueet interpretation
gconomiquede l'histoire,
Paris, 1927 (translated as The Economic Interpretationof History,New York,
I929).
I
2 THE ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW
taken as a whole,nothingbut a slow evolution. The truthof this
statementis particularly evidentin the case of agriculture. The pre-
dominanceofsmallfarms,thefactthatagriculture was almostentirely
in the hands of peasants' who werenot at all well offand had little
capitalat theirdisposal,explainsitsbackwardstate. Therewas much
uncultivated land,especiallyin regionssuchas Brittanyand the central
mountainarea. OverthegreaterpartofFrancemethodsofcultivation
remainedveryprimitive;farmbuildingswerebadly kept,agricultural
equipmentwas insufficient, and theimplements used wererudimentary.
Almost everywhereintensivecultivationwas unknown,the fallow
being a regularpracticeexcept in Flanders and Alsace. Artificial
meadowlandhad hardlybegun to make its appearancein the second
halfof the eighteenth century.2Wheat remaineda luxurycrop; rye
predominated almost everywhere, and on poor land buckwheatstill
playedan important part. Stock-rearing was verymediocre,although
therehad been someprogressin the half-century whichprecededthe
Revolution. Even the effortsmade by the Government afterI760,
mainlyunderthe influence ofscientificagriculturalists
and economists,
to increaseagricultural production, had onlyhad veryslenderresults;
and no greatersuccessattendedthe activitydisplayedby agricultural
societies,whichwas verylimitedand ineffective.The royaldeclara-
tionsofI764 and I766, encouraging theclearingand reclaiming ofland,
did contribute to increase,to some extent,the quantityof productive
soil; but on the eve of the Revolutionthe greaterpart of the task
remainedto be completed. The Government met with only slightly
greatersuccessin restricting the vainepastureand the droitde parcours
(i.e.,the commonpastureon the cultivatedlands and on the meadows
afterthe cornand hay harvest),and had stillless in securingthe dis-
tribution ofcommonlands. Thiscan be readilyexplainedby reflecting
thatthepeasants,whoneededtheuse ofthe commons,werehostileto
suchreforms, whichcouldonlyfavourtherichestofthefarmers.3
It is true,then,that the agriculturalproductivity of the country
was small enough,but, in reality,it was only small whenjudged by
present-day standards. ArthurYounghimself, whowas a severecritic
1 The reason will be seen later.
2 See in particularArthurYoung, Travelsin France, vol. ii.; H. S6e, Esquisse
d'une histoiredu regimeagraire,Paris, 1921, and Les classes ruralesen Bretagne
du i6emesiecle4 la Revolution,Paris, I906.
3 H. See, La vie economiqueet les classes sociales en France au i8Amesikle,
Paris, 1924; G. Lefebvre,Les paysans du Nord et la Revolutionfranpaise,Lille,
I924; G. Bourgin,Le partage des biens communaux,Paris, I908 (Coll. des Doc.
econ. de la Revolution). See also the excellent and scholarlystudy of M. Bloch,
"La luttepourl'individualismeagrairedans la France du i 8emesiecle," Ann. d'hist
econ. et sociale, 1930.
 ECONOMIC ORIGINS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 3
of Frenchagriculture and thoughtit muchinferior to that of his own
country,recognizedover and over again that it took a highplace in
Continental Europe. "France," he said in one ofhis chapters," is in
possessionofa soil,and evenofa husbandry, thatis to be rankedvery
high amongstthe best in Europe."' Moreover,the peasants could
envisagenothingbetterthan the practiceswhichtheyhad employed
forcenturies, and,farfromdemanding reforms,theyshowedthemselves
resolutelyhostile to those proposed by the expert economistsand
enlightened administrators oftheeighteenth century.
Small scale industryremainedpredominanteverywhere, with a
large numberof small workshopseven in the large centres. Rural
industrycontinuedto develop,not only in the poor districtswhere
it supplemented agriculture,buteveninthewealthyregionsifthehands
available forworkwereplentiful. Large scale industrywas onlyjust
beginning. It is truethatmachinery was beginningto makeitsappear-
ance, especiallyafterI750, and in certainmanufactures therewere
sporadicmanifestations of industrialconcentration.But these were
still exceptionalcases. The view was obviouslyspreadingthat the
old organization was not adapted to thenewneeds. Industrialregula-
tionendedby beinglargelylaid aside. The tradecorporations, mainly
ruinedprincipally owingto thefiscaldemandsof the state,devotedto
routineand inimicalto progress, foundtheirpositionmenacedmoreand
more; whilethe demandforlibertyto workbegan to be heard even
moreforcibly in the countrythanin the towns. But, as a whole,the
industrialevolutionof France had not reached the point when a
revolution was necessary,and theindustrialrevolutiononlycamemuch
later,underthe influenceof a profoundeconomictransformation, of
whichonlythefirstfaintsignswerethento be seen.2
On the otherhand,nothingwas moremarkedthan the growthof
French trade, and especiallyof foreigntrade, in the course of the
eighteenth century. From I715 to I789 the latterincreasedfourfold,
and in thisdirectionthe developmentof France was even morerapid
than that of England. This developmentof commercewas of great
importancefor the future,since it resultedin the accumulationof
capitalto aid the progressof industrialcapitalism. The class of ship-
ownersand rich merchantsgrew wealthyand powerful. The mer-
Travels in France, pt. ii., ch. 5. Young puts certain formsof cultivation
veryhigh,especiallythose ofthe vine and ofmaize. He maintainsthat irrigation
was well understoodespecially in the Midi, and says that the mostfertileparts of
France oftenpresentedthe appearance of gardens.
2 H. S6e, L'evolution commercialeet industriellede la France sous l'ancien
rtgime,Paris, 1925; GermainMartin, La grande industriesous le r~gnede Louis
XV., Paris, igoo; Ch. Ballot, L'introductiondu machinismedans l'industriefran.
9aise, Paris, I923 (" Publications du comite des Travaux historiques").
4 THE ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW
chantsbegan moreand more to controlrural industry,and even in
the town craftsthey succeededin dominatingthe previouslyinde-
pendentartisans. In representing new economic tendencieswhich
werehostileto the old organization,
theyconstituted one of the Revo-
lutionaryforces,and theywereto play a considerablepart at the be-
ginningoftheupheaval.' This economicexpansion,whichwas mainly
due to the growthofcommerce, fittedill withthe backwardness of the
socialand politicalregime,and mustundoubtedlybe recognizedas one
oftheimportant factorsoftheRevolution.2

II.
In spite of these facts,no one who attemptsto weighthe origins
of the Revolutioncan avoid the conclusionthat the social condition
of the countrywas much more importantthan the economic. The
questionof primaryimportancewas the divisionof property between
the various social classes. The valuable works of J. Loutchisky,3
whose calculationsseem to be at least approximatelycorrect,show
that the privilegedclasses werefarfrompossessingalmostthe whole
ofthesoil ofFrance,as was longthoughtto be thecase. The nobility
rarelyheld morethan 30 to 40 per cent. of the land and oftenmuch
less, as in the Limousin, Haute-Auvergne,Bearn and Dauphine.
The clergyowned still less, theirproportionvaryingin differentdis-
tricts,but,on the average,beingapparentlynot morethan6 per cent.
ofthewholearea ofthecountry. It is truethattheyincludedonlyan
eighthofthewholepopulation,and thattheinferior ranksoftheclergy
werealmostdevoidofproperty;so thatthebishops,cathedralchapters,
and abbeyswere,in reality,forthemostpartverylargeowners.
It mustbe understoodthatthe propertyofthe nobilityand clergy
is onlyto be held to includewhat was knownas the domainebroche
oftheseigneurie, whichwas mostgenerallylet to farmersand metayers.
The seigneurshad also feudal rightsover the land whichdepended
on theirmanorsand especiallyover land held by peasant tenure.4
1 Arnould, La balance du commerce, Paris, I791; E. Levasseur, Histoire du
commerce de la France, vol. i., Paris, i9ii; H. See, op. cit.; Memoireset documents
sur l'histoiredu commerce et de l'industrie,ed. J. Hayem, 12th series,passim.
2 Thus the merchants and shipowners of the large ports such as Nantes
displayed great enthusiasmfor reformin 1789. See Henri S6e, " Le role de la
bourgeoisiebretonnea la veille de la Revolution " in La vie &conomiqueet les
classes sociales en France au i 8emesi'cle, Paris, 1924.
8 L'etat des classes agricolesen France a la veillede la Revolution,Paris, 191i;
La propri~te' paysanne en France d la veillede la Revolution,principalemnent dans
le Limousin, Paris, 1912; Quelques remarquessur la ventedes biens nationaux,
Paris, 1914.
4 This explains the confusionin the mind of certainhistorianssuch as Maxime
Kovalevsky (La France 9conomiqued la veillede la Revolution),who treats land
held by seigneurialtenureas the propertyof the nobility.
 ECONOMIC ORIGINS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 5
In spiteofthis,thelattermustbe lookeduponin thelightofhereditary
property, burdenedonlyby the dues and rightsof the seigneur. The
peasants,therefore, reallypossesseda considerableportionof the soil,
but the proportionvaried very much fromone districtto another;
sometimesit was morethanSo per cent.,as in the Limousinand Lan-
guedoc,while it was rarelyless than 30 per cent.' As to the bour-
geoisie,theirproperty in thecountrywas farfrominsignificant, especi-
ally in the neighbourhood of the towns. This systemof propertyin
land gave to eighteenth-century Francean appearanceall herown,and
differentiated her in particularfromEngland, where,thanksto en-
closures,large estateshad almost eliminatedsmall peasant holdings.
It markedher offalso fromthe greaterpart of Centraland Eastern
Europe,wherethenobilityhas continuedto extenditsownership ofland
and to strengthen itspositionthroughout moderntimes.2
Taken as a whole,therefore, the Frenchpeasants were far from
beingdeprivedof the soil,and manyof themwhowereunable to live
entirelyon the produceof theirholdingsfoundworkas day labourers
and farmerson the estatesof the privilegedlandowners. Mostof the
nobility,in fact,did not keep theirland in theirown hands,but let
it to the peasants; whichexplainsthe small scale of agriculturalex-
ploitation. It may be truethat the peasants in Francehad a desire
forland-and in facttheyseemto have done prettywellin acquiring
it in the courseof the eighteenth century-buttheyhad no desperate
"land hunger" suchas theRussianpeasantswereto developa century
later. Whattheyespeciallywantedon theeve oftheRevolutionwas a
lighteningof theburdenslaid onthembytheseigneurial r6gime-burdens
whichwerealwaystroublesome and too oftenoppressive.Theysuffered
particularlyfromthe aggravationof this regime,the " seigneurial
reaction" of the second half of the eighteenthcentury. Almost
everywhere theycomplainedofencroachments by the seigneurson the
wasteor uncultivatedland kept forcommunaluse, and especiallyfor
the pasturageoftheircattle. Whenthe States-General was convoked
and the cahiersof grievanceswere drawnup, theyurgedtheirclaims
on thebourgeoisie, whichon its part had demandsof quite a different
nature to put forward.3Obviouslythe peasants had not begun to
1 ArthurYoung was struck by the importance of the propertyheld by the
peasants in France, and considered that it was responsible for the backward
state of agriculture.
2 H. S6e, Esquisse d'une histoiredu negimeagraire en Europe aux i8dme et
i9eme sieles, Paris, I921.
3 G. Lefebvre,op. cit., H. S6e, op cit., and La France Iconomiqueet sociale au
i8eme siece, Paris, I925; P. Sagnac and P. Caron, Le Comitedes droitsftodaux
et de legislationet l'abolitiondu regimeseigneurial,Paris, i906 (Coll. des Doc. econ.
de la Revolution); J. Sion, Les paysans de la NormandieOrientale,Paris, 19og.
6 THE ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW
envisagethepossibility of thatcompleteabolitionof the regimewhich
they were to demand once the Revolutionhad begun; beforeI789
theyaskedonlythesuppressionofthemostoppressivedues.
The questionof the peasants was thus an importantone in the
second half of the eighteenthcentury,and all the more so because
publicopinionwas on the side of far-reaching reforms.The physio-
cratsconsideredtheseigneurialregime,withall its troublesome impedi-
ments,hurtful to thatagriculturalprogresswhichtheyhad particularly
at heart. A fact of great momentwas that the kings of Sardinia,
by theiredictsofi762, I77I, and I778, had freedthepeasantsofSavoy
frommortmainand ordered the redemptionof seigneurialrights.
This encouragedVoltaireto still greateractivityin his campaignsin
favourof the serfsof FrancheComte; and he mentionsin one of his
memorandathat " the kingof Sardiniahas freedall the land in Savoy
frommortmainofpropertyand person."1 In I776 appearedthe well-
known pamphlet by Boncerf,secretlyencouragedby Turgot, Les
Inconve'nientsdes droitsfeodaux. In spite of its extrememoderation,
whichonlywentso faras to advocatecompulsory redemption offeudal
rightsfromthe successorsof the actual seigneurs,it was condemned
by the Parliamentof Paris. Voltaire,who was a whole-hearted sup-
porterof Boncerf'sviews,launcheda vigorousattack on the Parlia-
ment,denouncedits egoismand lamentedthe supportgivento each
otherby all privilegedpersons.2 Rousseau,on his part,by appealing
tomoreromanticarguments, didmuchto makethecauseofthepeasants
popular; and the NouvelleHe'loiseis full of comparisonsbetweenthe
simplemannersofthe countrypeopleand theluxuryofParis.3
The cruxof the matterwas the legal privilegesof the nobilityand
clergy,whohad feudalrightsoverall landedpropertyand whoescaped
most of the taxes, the burdenof whichfellon the popularclasses-
not to speak of the factthatmostof the offices of State werereserved
forthenobility. It mayevenbe said thatthelegalbarriersseparating
1 Cf. especially M. Bruchet, L'abolition du regimeseigneurialen Savoie, i908
(Coll. des Doc. econ. de la Revolution); Chassin, L'Eglise et les serfs; P. Darm-
staedter,Die Befreiungder Leibeigenen(Mainmortables)in Savoyen,der Schweiz
und Lothringen,Strassburg,i897.
2 "To propose the suppressionof feudal rightsis to deliver an attack on the

propertyof these Parliamentarygentlemen,most of whom are in possession of

fiefs. These gentlemenare, therefore,personallyinterestedin protecting,defend-
ing, and assuringrespect forfeudal rights; the Church,the nobility,and the law
make commoncause on this point. These three orders,so oftenopposed to one
another,must reuniteagainst the commonenemy. The Churchwill excommuni-
cate those authorswho defendthe people, and burnboththemand theirwritings;
and by these means refutethose writingswith the greatestsuccess."
3 H. See, " Le sentiment democratique chez J. J. Rousseau, d'apres La
NouvelleHloise," Annales Revolutionnaires, May-June,I923.
 ECONOMIC ORIGINS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 7
theprivilegedordersfromtheThirdEstate rosein heightas theAncien
Regimeapproacheditsclose. ThustheedictofI78i excludedmembers
of the Third Estate frommilitaryoffices-andthat forthe wealthy
portionof the class. The nobilityappears to have becomemoreand
morea closedcaste. It is truethat it continuedto recruitits ranks
fromthe capitalists,especiallyfromthe financiers, but, as Alexis de
Tocquevillehas remarked,even if the barriercould easilybe scaled,
it " was stillfixedand visibleby themostobviousand detestablesigns
to thosewhoremainedoutsideit." The hatredfeltby the roturier for
thegentleman" was renderedmoreacuteby all theenvywhichthenew
nobleinspiredin his former equals."'
On theotherhand-and thiswas to be a circumstance veryfavour-
able to the success of -theRevolution-amongthe privilegedorders
thereweremanysubdivisions and manydistinctcategories, whichwere
oftenhostileto one another. In particular,the nobilityof the Court
was distinctfromtheprovincialnobility,and all thefavourswentto the
former. Even amongthe provincialnobilitytherewas great variety
of status,witha richor well-to-doclass and a poor class. The legal
and administrative classes tendedto becomeabsorbedin 'themilitary
nobility,but theyhad, nevertheless, certaindistinctcharacteristics.2
Betweenthe lower ranks of the clergyand the more highlyplaced
ecclesiasticswho, in the eighteenthcentury,were recruitedentirely
fromthe nobility,therewas a social antagonismwhichwas to show
itselfin themostemphaticmannerat thebeginningofthe Revolution;
and evenin thelowerranksdifferences in economicconditionsproduced
socialdistinctions.3
The bourgeoisiealso fell into a numberof classes betweenwhich
1 A.deTocqueville," EtatsocialetpolitiquedelaFrancedepuis I789" (7Euvres
compl1tes,vol. viii., I33 seq.). Cf. Barnave, ?Euvres,vol. i., 8I-2: "If there
was a means of preventingthe usurpation of power by the populace it was to
give it a place in the existing Governmentand to open all careers to the Third
Estate; instead,the coursepursuedwas exactly the opposite. Because a corrupt
Governmenthad subdued the aristocracyit was thoughtthat a paternal Govern-
mentoughtto restoreit. The Parliamentswererecalled,the advantages formerly
accorded to high birth were restored,members of the Third Estate were pro-
gressivelyexcluded frommilitarycareers,and the laws were made to oppose the
natural development of society. Everything was done to excite the jealousy
of one class and to exalt the pretensionsof the other; the Third Estate was led
to regardas an enemythe thronewhichit alone could uphold or destroy,and the
nobilitywas reinforcedin that frenziedself-conceit,which, when the order was
attacked,led it to provokea revolutionto whichit fella victim."
2 H. Carre,La noblesseetl'opinionpublique au i8ame siacle,Paris, 1920.
3 Abbe Sicard, L'ancien clergAde France, Paris, 1893-4; A. Rebillion, La
situation6conomiquedu clergedans les districtsde Rennes,Fougereset Vitre,1913
(Coll. des Doc. econ. de la Revolution); Ch. Poree, Cahiers des cures et des Ntab-
le bailliage d'Auxerre,Auxerre,I927 (same series).
lissementseccle'siastiques-dans
 8 THE ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW
therewas oftenno verydistinctline of demarcation,fromfinanciers,
merchants,lawyers,down to the craftsmen.' There is a striking
passage on the state of societyunderthe AncienRegimein the works
ofthegreatphilosopher Cournot:2
" In social mannersand customsthe nobilityand the bourgeoisie
wererangedin a multitudeof layersand stages whichnevermelted
into one another,beginningwiththe prince of the blood and going
downto thehumblestartisan. In respectofbirth,publicopinionheld
some recentlyennobledpersonsfar inferiorto some membersof the
bourgeoisiewith long pedigrees. . . . In society as constitutedunder
theAncienR'g metherewas whatmightbe calleda cascade of disdain,
and-it was thismore-thananythingelse whichprovokedthe revolu-
tionarymovement."
The socialconditionofFrancein theeighteenth centurythusseems
to revealthe existenceof a largenumberof separate,or, in Turgot's
words," disunited(mal unies)," classes. But circumstances were to
make all theseclasses,even, or indeed especially,the privilegedones
uniteagainstabsolutism-againstwhat has been called, not without
exaggeration,the "royal despotism." Circumstanceswere also, in
I789, to unite the various portionsof the Third Estate against the
privileged classesin a blocksolidenoughto resistanyshock.
It is, indeed,a fact worthnotice that the capitalistbourgeoisie,
businessmenas wellas financiers, had a directinterestin theestablish-
mentof a new order. This is strikingly explainedby Barnave in his
Introduction written
a la Revolutionfrancaise, -in179I :3
"In the manufacturing and commercialperioda new distribution
ofwealthproducesa newdistribution ofpower. Justas thepossession
of land raisedthe aristocracyto power,so industrialownershipis ele-
vatingthe powerof the people; they gain their liberty,multiplyin
numbers,and beginto maketheirinfluence felt."
The legal classes perhapscontributedeven more to preparethe way
fora newpoliticaland socialorder. Theyhelda largeplacein the ranks
of the Third*Estate; well educated, accustomedto business,and,
indeed,to all legal and administrativeorganization, theywerebetter
fittedthan anyoneelse to draw a
up practicalprogramme of reforms;
and morethan any otherclass of the ThirdEstate theywerediscon-
tentedand jealous ofthesocial,legal and politicalprivilegesof thetwo
premierorders.
theold aristocratic
It was preciselytheseprivileges, and seigneurial
1 H. S6e, La vie economiqueet les classes sociales en France au i8ame sidcle,
and La France 6conomique etsociale au I me siecle.
2 Souvenirs,ed. Bottinelli,pp. 9 seq.
3 Published only in i845; cf. J.Jaures,La Constituante, pp. 98 seq.
 ECONOMIC ORIGINS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 9
whichthe Revolutionwas above all to attack. Their
institutions,
destruction,as Alexisde Tocquevillehas alreadyremarked,1 was not
but " thesuddenand violenttermination
fortuitous, ofa taskat which
ten generationshad laboured. If it had not taken place the ancient
structurewouldstillhave fallen,soonerin one place, laterin another,
but it wouldhave continuedto fallbit by bit insteadof collapsingall
at once."

III.
Whatevermay have been the importanceof economicand social
phenomena,it cannotbe deniedthat theintellectualevolutionof the
eighteenth centurywas ofa natureto influence theRevolution. There
is no doubtthattheFrenchauthorsofthiscenturyfoundedthemodern
conceptionof the State and society. They createda doctrinewhich,
in the name of a rationalideal,was a criticismof the existingregime;
and theypresentedthemodelofa society,theprinciplesofwhichwere
in contradiction withall the old customsand traditions. This was
obviouslyan incontestable incitement to revolution.
All the works of the so-called " philosophes " tend to destroy
absolutistdoctrine,the belief in a mysticallyderived, intangible
authority, and to undermine thedogmaof" reasonsofstate." Another
revolutionary elementin the methodof the French thinkersof the
eighteenth centurywas theirdisregardof tradition,theirclaimto base
themselveson reason, observationand history,and their scientific
spirit. The State was no longerconfoundedwith the personof the
sovereign, and he ceased to be consideredas an end in himself. He no
longer embodied the sovereignprinciple,beforewhich individuals
mustbow; on thecontrary, hismainfunction was thoughtofas thatof
guaranteeing to individualstheir" naturalrights,"the idea of which
emergedmoredistinctly thaneverbefore. To ensurethelibertyofthe
person,thefreedom ofthoughtand ofthe presswas,accordingto these
thinkers, theessentialprincipleofsocialorganization. The physiocrats
themselves,althoughpartisansof absolutism,agreedwith the liberal
and democratic writersthatone ofthe main dutiesofthe Statewas to
emancipateindividuals. The doctrineof the rightsofman was essen-
tiallythe workof Frencheighteenth-century thought. On the other
hand, manywritersof the age, even amongthosewho were attached
to the liberalview,believedthat the State could and shouldinfluence
the economicand social conditionof individualsand the distribu-
tion of wealth by laws of successionand by taxes. Montesquieu
and Rousseau are in completeagreementon thispoint,but thisdoes
1 L'Ancien Regimeet la Revolution,pp. 30-31.
<0oTHE ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW
notmean,as has been affirmed by M. AlfredEspinas,' thatthetenden-
cies oftheFrenchphilosophers oftheeighteenth centurywerespecific-
ally socialistic. Althoughthey did not all conceiveof the political
constitution in the same way, liberalsand democratsagreed in the
sensethattheywereall profound individualists.2Moreover, thevarious
theorieswhich the eighteenthcenturyproducedwere in some sort
amalgamatedin the minds of contemporaries, and wentto make up
what may be called the " revolutionary doctrine,"the expression of
whichis veryclearlyto be foundin thewritersoftheend oftheAncie'n
Regime,such as Mably and Condorcet. This doctrinespread widely,
particularly by means of the press,amongthe enlightenedclasses of
the nation-i.e., among a part of the nobility(the liberal nobility,
whichwas smallerthan is oftenbelieved),but moreespeciallyamong
thebourgeoisie, in particularthelawyersand merchants.3
The questionnone the less ariseswhetherall this fermentation of
ideas contributed as muchto the revolutionary activityof I789 as did
the evolutionin social conditions. The answerappears to be in the
negative. It seemsthatthedirectinfluence ofpoliticalthoughton the
outbreakof therevolutionary crisismustnot be overestimated, as was
doneby Taine inhisA ncienRegime. It maybe said thattheinfluence
exercisedby ideas was in theirwide diffusion.Doubtlesstheyhad a
profoundeffectin I789-witness the innumerablepamphletsissued
immediately beforethe Revolution,and the cahiersof 1789;4 and they
determined many of the reformsof the ConstituentAssembly. But
the cause of the actual outbreakis undoubtedlyto be foundin the
politicaland social developments,and perhapseven more markedly
in the more or less accidentaleventsof the last years of the Ancien
Regime,whichaccentuatedthe difference betweeninstitutions as they
wereand as thenationwishedthemto be.

IV.
Thislast pointmustbe insistedupon. As Alexisde Tocquevillehas
excellently
remarked,5thisdifferencewas appearingin manyEuropean
1 La philosophicsociale du i8Sme sicle et la Re'volution, Paris, i898; A. Lich-
tenbergerhas taken a much more balanced view in his excellentthesis,Le social-
isme au i8eme siecle, Paris, i895. See also Emile Durkheim, Le socialisme,
Paris, I929 (but writtenin i898).
2 Cf. on this point the suggestiveremarksof HenryMichel,L'idee de l'Etat au
i gme siecle,Paris, I896. Introduction.
3 Cf. H. See, L'evolutionde la pensee politique en France au i8eme sigcle,
Paris, I925.
4 H. See, Les ideespolitiquesau i8eme si'cle, Paris, I920, pp. 22i seq.
5 Chapitres inedits pour faire suite a " L'Ancien Regime et la Revolution,"
cEuvrescompletes, vol. viii., pp. 57 seq.
 ECONOMIC ORIGINS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION II

countrieswherean unlimitedconfidence in the powersof reasonwas

combinedwitha boundlesscontemptforexistingsocietyand institu-
tions. This engendereda sharp sense of discontentand an uneasy
anxiety,notamongthepeople,but amongthemostenlightened classes,
amongthe wealthybourgeoisie,who had, none the less, good reason
to be satisfiedwiththeprogresstheyhad made and the materialpros-
peritywhichtheywereenjoying.
Thisanxietyand uneasinesswas feltmorestrongly in Francethanin
any otherEuropeancountry,and M. PhilippeSagnac has givenus a
convincingexplanationof the reason.' After1750, the influenceof
what is knownas " enlighteneddespotism" was to be seen over a
part of Europe,reinforcing the power of the State and at the same
timecarrying out economicand socialreforms and tendingto establish
equalityof taxationand of legal rights. This, as M. Sagnac rightly
observes,was an easiertaskin countriesdestituteofpoliticallife,where
publicopinionwas weak. In France" enlightened despotism" failed,
preciselybecausepublicopinionwas strongbut emanatedin partfrom
the privilegedclasses which blocked all reforms. In some other
Europeancountries, thoughthesewerefew,evolutioncould takeplace;
in France " in the place of thisevolutionwhichwas preventedby the
privilegedclasses, came the Revolution; far reachingreformswere
impossibleunderthe monarchyof the AncienRegime,and the nation
had to makethemforitself." Thisis a suggestivepointof viewwhich,
in theopinionofthepresentwriter, throwsa floodoflighton theorigins
oftheRevolution.
To what extent reformwas difficult to accomplishin France is
shownby the last fifteen yearsof the AncienRegime. When Turgot
came intooffice greathopeswereconceivedby all whoardentlywished
forseriousreforms. Abolitionof the corveeon the highroads,liberty
of trade in corn,suppressionof the craft-corporations, such was the
simpleprogramme whichTurgotset beforehimself. The fierceopposi-
tionencountered by thisgreatand honestman, and the successof all
thebranchesoftheprivilegedclasses,whofearedmoreradicalreforms,
in obtaininghis dismissal,is a matterof history. Necker,who was
far more moderateand exceedinglyaccommodatingin his policy,
metwiththe same resistance. As to the desperateplan of Calonnein
I787, it provokedsuchan opposition-anoppositionwhichwas nothing
shortofa revoltofall theprivilegedclasses-that the Revolutionwas a
necessaryresult.3 Thesenotablefailurescontributed muchin thereign
1 " La renovationpolitique de l'Europe au i8eme siecle " (Melanges Pirenne,
1925).
2 On the Court intriguessee M. de Segur, Au couchantde la monarchic;and

Abbe de Veri,Journal,publishedby Jehan de Witte, vol. i., Paris, I928.

3 A. Ch6rest,La chutede l'Ancien Regime,Paris, i885-i889.
I2 THE ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW
of Louis XVI. to discreditthe physiocraticconceptionof the good
despot; and the preferenceof the economistsfor large properties
and largescale agriculturealso began to meet witha moreand more
livelyopposition.
It may be said thatthe economic,social,and intellectualevolution
whichwas takingplace made a profoundtransformation necessary-
both necessaryand legitimate,as was recognizedby an impartial
observerlike ArthurYoung.1 Was, then,the FrenchRevolutiondes-
tinedto happenin theformthatit actuallyhappened? Of thisthere
is no proof. Obviously,the societyof the AncienRegime,whichno
longersufficed forthe newideas and thenewneeds,was at the mercy
ofany accidentaloccurrence. As Cournotsaid,2" Francehad reached
thestagewhenherworm-eaten institutionscouldno longersustainher,
and the least shockcould make them crumble." The evolutionwas
retardedby the resistanceof the privilegedclasses preciselyin the
countrywherethe marchof ideas had been most impetuousand far-
reachingin the courseof the century. This renderedprobablesome
sudden transformation, since the monarchyseemed incapable of
effectingthe necessaryadjustments. But neitherthe circumstances
in whichtheRevolutionwas broughtabout,northedate ofI789 forits
beginning,was determined a priori. Herewe maydescrytheeffect ofa
multitudeof moreor less accidentalfacts,whichhistorymay succeed
in disentangling.Amongthem the preponderantinfluencemustbe
attributedto the financialembarrassments of the monarchy,inextric-
able embarrassments aggravatedby the loans contractedduringthe
War of AmericanIndependence. These embarrassments could,how-
ever,have been surmounted iftheprivilegesofthenobilityand clergy,
whichtheyrefusedto surrender at any price,had not made impossible
the only effective solution-equal taxation of all Frenchmen. Thus
it was the wholehistoricaldevelopmentof the situationwhichmade
inevitablethemostimmediatecauses oftheRevolution.
Moreoverthesefinancial entanglements didmuchto assisttheforma-
tionof a strongrevolutionary party,fortheydecidedall the financial
powers,ordinarily so conservative, to rangethemselvesagainstthe old
order. The fearofbankruptcy was a powerfulinfluenceon theminds
of thosemembersof the bourgeoisiewho were engagedin commerce
or finance;and, as Tocquevillehas remarked,it affectedeven those
wholivedon theinterestoftheircapital.3 In fact,it was by no means

1 Cf. on this point the remarkablechapter on " The Revolution in France"

in his Travelsin France.
2 Souvenirs,p. 23.
3 L'Ancien Regimeet la Revolution,pp. 26i-3.
 ECONOMIC ORIGINS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION I3
an unfoundedfear.' The financiersand even the farmers-general,
in spite of the fact that they held theirprivilegesfromthe Ancien
Regime,werenot theleast ardentsupporters of the cause of the Third
Estate,or in otherwords,thatofthenation.2
It was, then,financialembarrassments whichlay at therootof the
greaterpartofthe eventswhichtookplace duringthe last threeyears
of the AncienRegime;and it was theirpresencewhichintensified the
agitation. But the agitation itself revealed new and unexpected
factors,forall contemporary witnessesagreethatin I786 no reform or
transformation was lookedfor;no one believedina comingRevolution.
This is not theplace to describetheeventswhichtookplace in the
pre-Revolutionary period;3it willsuffice
to pointout thattheagitation
in I786 and I787 was the workof the privilegedclasses and of their
representatives in the Parliaments, whowouldhave noneofsuchtaxes
as the subvention whichwould have impairedtheirfiscal
territoriale,
privileges. The Parliamentof Paris was the firstto raisethe question
oftheStates-General in I787, becauseit was hopedthatsucha-gather-
ing, assembledaccordingto ancient usage, would ensure the pre-
eminenceof the two premierordersand strengthen theirprivileges.4
of
In I788, afterthe coupd'etat May against the Parliaments,move-
mentswhichwerereallyrevolutionary brokeout in Provence,in Bearn,
and in Brittany,led by the nobilityand directedagainst the royal
power;5but afterthe Kinghad fixedthemeetingofthe States-General
forMay, I789, the bourgeoisie,with theirdemand to vote by head
and not by order,turnedagainst the nobilityand the Parliaments
fromthe previousOctoberonwards. It was the social questionwhich
was in theforefront.
No doubt much attentionmust be paid to otherforerunners of
the Revolutionwhich were of a strictlyeconomic character,and in
1 Arthur Young (op. cit., October I7, I787) remarks that the question of
bankruptcy was constantly discussed; " . . . the curious question on which is,
woulda bankruptcy occasion a civil war, and a totaloverthrowoftheGovernment ?
The answersthat I have receivedto thisquestionappear to be just; sucha measure,
conductedby a man of abilities,vigourand firmness, would certainlynot occasion
eitherone or the other. But the same measure,attemptedby a man of different
character,mightpossiblydo both."
2 See A. Mathiez, "Les capitalistes et la prise de la Bastille," Annales his-
toriquesde la Revolutionfrangaise,November-December,I926.
s The best generalaccount is still the admirable work of A. Cherest,La chute
de L'Ancien Regime.
4 Arthur Young foresaw this possibility when he remarked: " As to the
nobility and clergy,if a Revolution added anythingto their scale, I think it
would do moremischiefthan good."
5 A. Cochin,Les societesde penseeetla preparationde la Revolutionen Bretagne,
Paris, I925; and A. Cherest,op. cit.
I4 THE ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW
particularto the agriculturalcrisisbroughtabout by a seriesof bad
harvests,especiallyin I785, a year of terribledrought,and in I788.
The latter resultedin a scarcitywhich oftenpresentedthreatening
featuresand endedin outbreakssufficiently serioustomakeitnecessary
.forNeckerto suspendthe edict of Lome'niede Brienneestablishing
freetradein corn.' No less seriouswas the industrialcrisiswhichwas
largely,thoughnot entirely,due to the Treatyof Commerceof I786
betweenEnglandand France. Frenchmanufactures, lesswellequipped
than English,oftenfound difficulty in resistingthe competitionof
Englishfactories,whichwereassistedby muchmoreadvancedmachin-
ery; and.thiswas especiallythe case in the textiletrades. Therewas
greatunemployment in Normandy,Picardy,at Rheims,.at Lyonsand
in otherplaces; and the working-classes experienceda periodof great
privation.
On theotherhand,it is not legitimateto assert,as Alexisde Tocque-
ville has done, that the FrenchRevolutionwas precededby a great
administrative revolution,or to attributea roleof thefirstimportance
to the provincialAssemblies,createdin i787 afteran earliereffort by
Neckersomeyearsbefore. Theiractivity,thoughshort-lived, was not
negligible;but theirwork had no very great influence,and it was
eclipsedby theintensepoliticalagitation. At thesametime,sincethese
Assembliesbusiedthemselveswithreforms and discussedabuses to be
corrected,Tocquevilleis rightin sayingthat theirestablishment was
really" arousingthepeoplewhiletryingto correctthem."3
Thoughthe FrenchRevolutionmay be said to have been begun
by accidentalevents,and though,in particular,the resistanceof the
Courtand the privilegedclasses to the demandsof the ThirdEstate
gave it theappearanceofa totaloverthrow ofall thathad gonebefore,
the economicand social evolutionsketchedabove exercisedan in-
fluenceno less importanton the marchof eventsand the measures
whichweretaken. The abolitionof the seigneurialregimeand of the
legal and politicalprivilegesof the nobilityand clergy,as well as the
sale ofthebiensnationaux, are amongtheessentialresultsoftheRevolu-
1 See especially Afanassiev, Le commercedes cer~ales au i8eme siece, Fr.
Trans., Paris, I894; J. Letaconnoux,Les subsistanceset le commerce des grains en
Bretagneau i8eme si'cle, Rennes, i909 (Travaux juridiques et 6conomiques de
l'Universitede Rennes).
2 F. Dumas, Etude sur le traitede commercede I 786 entrela France et l'Angle-
terre,Toulouse, I904; Charles Schmidt," La criseindustriellede I788," Rev. Hist.,
i908; A. Young, op. cit.,ch. i9; Henri S6e, "The Normandy Chamber of Com-
merce and the Commercial Treaty of I786" in The Economic HistoryReview,
Vol.ii., No. 2.
3 Cf. especially P. Renouvin, Les Assembliesprovincialesde I 787, Paris, I921
(These de lettres).
 ECONOMIC ORIGINS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION I5
tion. It is exactlybecausethe troublesfromwhichthe Frenchnation
suffered in the eighteenthcenturyweresocial ratherthan economicin
characterthat the greatchanges accomplishedby the revolutionary
movementweresocial and legal ratherthan economic. It may even
be said that the troubles,the civiland foreign
wars intowhichFrance
was to be plungedafterI793, had the effectof retardingthe economic
progressobservablein the eighteenth century,especiallyon theside of
commerceand industry.' But, as a whole,theRevolutionwas directly
in linewiththegeneralevolutionofthecountry.2
1 See H. See, Esquisse d'une histoireeconomiqueet sociale de la France, Paris
I929, and L'infiuencede la Revolutionsur l'evolutionindustriellede la France
(reprintfromthe Volumecommemorativo in onoredel Prof. GiuseppePrato, Turin,
I930); E. Levasseur, Histoiredes classes ouvrieresetde l'industrieen France depuis
I789, 2nd. ed., vol. i.; C. Ballot, Introductiondu machinismedans l'industrie
franpaise,Paris, I923.
2 On thewholesubject thereadermaybe also referred to the author'sEvolution
et Revolutions,Paris, I929; and Franzosische Wirtschaftsgeschichte, vol. i., Jena,
I Q10
HENRI SEE.