There is no singular factor that is the primary cause of the French Revolution and this essay is demonstrating this by untangling the roots of the problem and understanding that the problem of debt was to be blamed on the ancien regime and the people who followed it.
One of the key causes was the impending collapse of the ancien regime, this view is supported by Lefebvre, who specifically focuses on the viewpoint of the commoners and sees the problem being the monarchy and the aristocracy. Conversely, Doyle focuses more on the lack of political reform, as well as the influence of the Enlightenment. Doyle’s view can be credited to the fact that he has the capability of looking back in further hindsight than Lefebvre and could use the modern invention of the internet to access additional figures and information that could help back up his argument.
There was a huge problem regarding the tradition of the time, where times abroad were changing the Enlightenment, the American Revolution and the English Civil War meant that there was already clear unrest regarding an absolute monarchy and absolute rulers. Not only this but constant tensions abroad gave the monarchy problems that they didn’t need – the failure of the Monarchy begins here where they consistently plunged France further into debt just to prove a point. The ancien regime was in itself incredibly flawed. The system used to work in the older world where it was mostly traditional monarchs and fields – not the revolutionary world at that time. While the monarchy were desperately trying to reform their way back to success, the problem was rooted in the lack of knowledge and faith in the new world – not the traditional methods that previously were successful.
France’s social hierarchy played a large part of the identity of the French people. The Monarch gave each of the Estates a reason to survive – without the Monarch, there would be no First Estate as there would be no reason for a religious clergy, so the people would not require a way to salvation.
The Second Estate was dependant on the Monarchy for their status. The Monarch gave out titles and power to nobility who supplied it with military help or any services required. They were given special privileges within their duties, like the right to bear arms in public, or judicial – where they were allowed to be beheaded for treason rather than tortured, or to be exempt from corporal punishment.
Finally, the Third Estate were reliant mostly on the Second Estate with the peasant class only being able to work on nobles’ land for a small wage. There was not enough money in the average peasant’s pocket to be able to make their way up the hierarchy, and so they knew where their place was in the Ancien Regime.
The Bourgeois were slightly different, as they were halfway between the Third Estate and the Second, contributing to the Enlightenment itself by not having a set place. They were wealthy families/ individuals with enough money to spend on becoming nobility, but were not accepted within the Second Estate due to the lack of support for changing traditions.
The Three Estates were rarely very collaborative, with the only real interaction being business transactions between the Second and Third Estate, or the First and Third.
One of France’s great economic issues was their almost endless wars. The Monarch was supposed to protect his people against external conflicts, and due to the increasing threatening of the Spanish, the monarch was forced into spending far more than France was earning. King Louis XIV began scrabbling for ideas in funding, by introducing two new taxes, which were the Capitation and Tenth tax. Although it was designed to cover every estate, there was only a very small percentage of nobility who were open to the idea of universal taxation – and they were the nobles who were beginning to be influenced by the Enlightenment.
Even with these new taxes, there were always exemptions to them which excluded the richest in society – who could afford taxation and would most likely be least affected by these taxes.
The tradition of the Three Estates could be partially to blame for this. Nobility was thought of as a goal, something that could be earned. Most of the upper-class Third Estate were keen on the idea of becoming nobility, as it meant they would earn the rights of a noble – like not having to pay tax, or having a title, or a specific job – and leave the ‘peasantry’ of the Third Estate behind. Obviously, traditional circumstances meant that to become a noble must be born into it, but very rarely there were cases of donation where the donor resulted in becoming a noble. However, this was an issue, as the offer of nobility included the ability to pay less vingtieme tax and taille to the King. The reduction of taxpayers to the Royal Treasury meant that the King must increase tax elsewhere to make up for it.
Social divisions were deep-rooted within these classes – especially so in the Second Estate – where the nobility were only accepting of other nobles whom had been born or married into a noble class, and were very wary of those 30,000 and 50,000 people who bought an office in the financial, judicial and administrative sectors (thus earning a lifetime hereditary nobility).
Generally it was more acceptable to live off the money that land brought in for the nobles, and to hire help in managing their estates.
If a noble failed to live off their income, and were forced into working, the rest of the nobles were likely to “disown” them into the Third Estate with the “commoners”. Lefebvre states “these were envious of the English lords who enriched themselves in bourgeois ways and who by sitting in Parliament formed the ministry and government of the country.”
These nobles could be named the Bourgeois, and could actually become far richer than those of a ‘higher’ nobility, by taking up work in the ever growing industries; like real estate, iron foundries and buying shares.
Rise of these Bourgeois led to dreams of a new system. Their frustration was naturally aimed at those above. The monarchy received their fair share of hatred due to their ignorance of those who were not quite nobility. Obviously, money was a factor. What the Bourgeois were not so keen on was the fact they had to pay the same tax as peasants. They lost their sense of pride, and it was embarrassing – they had the same (if not more) money than the nobility, and yet had to pay tax on everything. Not only this, but the failure of the nobility to acknowledge the Bourgeois in being of the same social standing was equally humiliating. To the Bourgeois, they had money but no real power. To gain power, there must be some sort of change – and the Bourgeois were surrounded by a changing world, – most prominently in America.
The 18th century had already brought rise to a new era of freedom with the American Revolution preceding the American Revolutionary War, as philosophical enlightenment followed closely.
While Louis XVI had squandered away 60% (135,804,891 livres) of the Royal Treasury on multiple different wars in his reign, the French watched.
The French were involved in the American Revolution from 1775, after their bitter defeat in the Seven Years War. They had lost a lot of territory in North America, and were imbued with feelings of revenge for the British and were keen on assisting the new Americans in Revolution.
The public opinion on the American Revolution favoured outright open war against the British, and were keen on defeating the “English tyranny”, in spirit of the Enlightenment.
While the war itself ended up being a success for both France and American territories, it wasn’t such a success for France’s Royal Treasury. Over the 8 years that the American Revolution lasted, the French spent over 1.3 billion livres to fund the war effort, thoroughly diminishing their already pitiful pittance in the Royal Treasury.
After the results of the American Revolution were clear, there was a sense of both relief and curiosity. The French had won their war, gained back old territories and the embodiment of the Enlightenment had been successful in its journey.
The Enlightenment did not stop there. Many authors joined in to try and bring down society as it were. The main influences were: Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Turgot. Each member was able to attack different aspects of pre-Revolutionary France, thus fuelling the fire of Revolution.
Voltaire had a vitally important role in the Enlightenment due to his Lettres philosophiques, which were based on the English way of toleration and evolution throughout the ages. Obviously, France was still bitter about their British defeat, and so these Lettres philosophiques were publicly burned and banned by parlement. However, that did not stop them from being incredibly popular within highly educated circles, thus selling immense numbers of copies.
Likewise, Diderot’s Encyclopedie was equally as popular, due to its notorious criticisms
of authority and the Church. His beliefs begin rooted in religious and philosophical ideals but swiftly changed later on due to his contempt for the later versions of his books. He began wanting to alter society economically and politically. “We are on the verge of a crisis which will end in slavery or in freedom. If all the parlements are dissolved… farewell any…corrective principle preventing the monarch from degenerating into despotism.” `
Diderot’s concern over the attacks on the parlements was indicative of the reliance that the French people had on these bodies of government to control the monarchy, and their anxiety over having an uncontrollable monarch.
A particularly prominent figure was Turgot, Louis XVI’s initial Controller-Generale whom desperately wanted to reform the financial system. His proposition, which included edicts that imposed tax upon both landowners and nobility, was heavily opposed by the Parlements.
This actively illustrates both the weakness of the French parlement, as it is unbalanced in regards to the different classes, and shows the power that the nobility had over the monarch. Louis XVI was completely unable to exercise his absolute power as a monarch, due to his hesitant nature.
Perhaps if he had been able to overcome his cowardice and overrule the nobility, Louis XVI may have been successful in introducing new, enlightened ideas that the Economists could bring.
The key causes of the French Revolution are continually debated among historians as being focused in the regions of three different topics: the Monarchy; Socioeconomics and the Enlightenment. More recently, some historians argue that the lack of reform contributed towards it.
Georges Lefebvre, a Marxist argued that the most important factors being socioeconomic factors and class divisions. Lefebvre’s Marxist values were commonly shared throughout his life with other historians due to the extreme focus on the aristocracy and their influence over the surrounding classes. In his mind, the aristocracy was to blame for the downfall of France.
Lefebvre's argument focuses on four minor Revolutions, all interconnecting to become a major French Revolution, which he proclaims in “The Coming of the French Revolution” (1979).
The first was the Aristocratic Revolution, the next being the Bourgeois Revolution. The third and fourth are the Popular and Peasant Revolutions respectively.
As Lefebvre was born in 19th Century France, the interpretation is a more traditional aspect of the times, where his Marxist values were noted as most valuable. As a result of this, Lefebvre’s interpretation Quatre-Vingt-Neuf was regarded by Western historians as being true – thus the book was not proofread as it should have been. In contrast, Doyle has had the opportunity of being critiqued by a vast range of different opinions and attitudes. This advances his interpretation further.
Doyle’s perception of the causal factors of the Revolution is different from Lefebvre’s, due to his ability to look back much further and in much more detail due to the new evidence recently discovered. Doyle explores three causal factors: The Enlightenment, Louis XVI and the Reform of France.
These are different to Lefebvre’s in that firstly, he rarely, if ever uses the word “Enlightenment”, however, he does blame the American Revolution, by blaming the “revolt of the English colonies may in fact be considered the principal direct cause of the French Revolution, both because in invoking the rights of man it stirred up great excitement in France, and because Louis XVI in supporting it got his finances into very bad condition. Not only this but Lefebvre explains this point later by stating, “Among the immediate causes of the Revolution the character of the king and queen must be included. It is scarcely doubtful that events would have taken a different turn if the throne had been occupied by a Henry VI or even a Louis XIV.” The significance of this statement indicates Lefebvre’s tendency to criticise the monarchy for failing to resolve the issues of the time quickly and efficiently by raising taxes for the richer, “Technically the crisis was easy to meet: all that was necessary was to make everyone pay”.
Louis XVI had a remarkably difficult role in governing France. A timid man, who was more suited to the life of a common carpenter than a king, was responsible for leading every aspect of France. This position required an extensive knowledge of the affairs of France: politically, financially and socially – none of which Louis XVI had. His brother, the Duke of Burgundy had died at the age of 9, but had been prepared extensively for the position of Monarch and the household had left Louis largely unnoticed. This meant that he hadn’t been fully adapted for the role of the Monarch and thus when coming into power at the age of 14, Louis XVI was unable to see the dark clouds ahead.
On the other hand, his wife – Queen Marie-Antoinette – had been primped to perfection for her duty to her King. She was perfectly suited for it – with her immediate popularity, extroverted personality and pretty face, the Court flocked to her. Source III indicates the French people’s instant fondness for their new queen, due to her descriptions of their “tenderness and earnestness.” for her.
Well renowned for being flamboyant and fashionable, her ability to spend money was extraordinary. Source II shows that the royal spending in 1774 – 1789 came to a large sum of 11,423,750 livres – almost 5% of the total sum spent over the 15 years.
Even though she knew exactly how much she was costing her people, – displayed in her letters to her mother (Source III), in which she clearly states, “the poor people, in spite of the taxes with which they are overwhelmed.”
After supporting allies in multiple wars, Louis XV died, leaving the country in financial chaos, with around 20 million livres in debt. Clearly Louis XVI was already at a disadvantage.
Louis XVI’s first finance minister was Jacques Necker. His attitude towards reform was largely positive, due to his introduction of “provincial administrations” in 1787, after some repeated quarrels between two estates in Brittany.
There were three, the first two beginning in Berry and upper Guyenne and then a proposed administration in Boulogne in 1781. They included a quarter nobles, a quarter clergy and the rest inclusive were of the third estate.
Boulogne never received the administration, as Necker lost power in 1781. However, the original two remained successful throughout the years until the Revolution began.
It is a question whether Necker’s use of reform was almost a success for the modernizing government of France. On one hand, the ability of landowners to govern raises questions of corruption – as previously explored, France’s state of affairs meant that any “anonymous” benefactors who gave to the Crown could become intendants – and if these landowners were adjuncts to intendants then they were of a lower standing, which meant that even if the intendants were still corrupt and attempted to get their own way, the ‘provincial administrations’ were unable to sway these attempts. On the other hand, although it had its flaws, there were good intentions rooted in the idea of the landowners of different estates. It’s clear to see that there was a positive change with regard to the attitudes of ministers and those in higher positions about the abilities and ideas of the Third Estate. The introduction of these administrations proves there were changing perspectives, influenced by past events and new opinions in the country.
In 1783, after Necker’s failed attempt at national reform, Louis XVI turned to Charles de Calonne to try and resolve the damning debt issue that was facing his rule. Calonne proposed to bring the monopolies of salt and tobacco into previously excluded provinces. This would be seen as an achievement, as the monopoly would prevent prices from being raised or lowered due to competitors.
He further made a bid to change the Gavelle from being a variable tax within regions to an inflexible amount.
Not only this, but he proposed to take away import taxes on specialist goods (steel, iron and colonial produce) which would increase economic productivity by encouraging exporters to send their products over to France, thus providing a catalyst for job production in the country.
Clearly, Calonne anticipated that his plan would modernize the finances of France, and certainly was very much aware of the need to be delicate with the different estates, especially those with higher powers. In fact, he foresaw the clergy’s issues with his plan and implemented procedures in order to resolve them.
Not only this, but he thought of the clergy and nobility and their unwillingness to pay the taille, and took this into account. He made provisions for the First and Second Estates to be protected from being forced into paying the taille.
However, unfortunately, while his solution seemed to be effective in theory, it actually caused a snowball effect, leading to his eventual downfall.
His solution including selling the clergy’s manorial properties (and thus the clergy’s manorial rights), which enraged those within who believed that the Ancien Regime’s social hierarchy was being destroyed from the inside by Calonne’s plan.
Nevertheless, on March 12th 1787 Calonne showed his unwavering confidence by announcing that the First and Second estates both fully recognized and were happy to go along with his agenda. Again, this caused controversy.
The notables felt incriminated, sending out pamphlets and propaganda to attack Calonne and once again be in power. Obviously seeing his plan wither away, Calonne began to backtrack, blaming the faults of the Royal Treasury on Necker’s administration.
The king recognised Calonne’s errors and dismissed him on April 8th 1787.
The failures of the Controller-Generale are the responsibilities of the Monarch who appoints them, and Louis XVI certainly gave no help to those he appointed. There was no mention of any agreement with his Controller-Generale’s policies. While this may have, in the short-term, been quite a smart political move – allying with the nobility and clergy, who were at the time very powerful members of society – in the long term, his lack of support may have weakened his position as an absolute monarch further. Not only this but his support for those he appointed and were trying to do the right thing for the country may have gained some approval from the Third Estates, who were most likely excited to no longer have to pay as much tax.
Ultimately, Louis XVI’s indecisiveness and inability to be a good leader catalysed the French Revolution. There were also issues with his wife and her popularity – the Diamond Necklace scandal of 1785 meant she would lose a lot of support from the public due to her involvement in criminal activities using the Crown’s money.
Louis XVI’s disinterest in the devised solutions of his appointed Controller-Generales showed his incapability of thoroughly ruling the country, as a true ruler would have concern over the arguably most necessary reforms regarding financial issues.
France had no longer the strong alliances politically that it used to have, as well as it’s fewer territories and riches to be one of the main powers in Europe.
The instability of the Ancien Regime was difficult to deal with as a ruler. If he decided to try and demolish the old regime in order to restructure and follow the Enlightenment, he risked bringing himself down too. Not only this but his former First and Second Estate would turn on him, crying treason and tyranny in his actions. His only allies would be the former Third Estate and Bourgeois, who may side with him – but only if taxes and priorities were changed. Eventually, if he managed to reform France’s government in a more democratic manner then all three classes would be more satisfied with their lifestyles and perhaps the country would emerge from its harrowing debt.
Either that or he decided to go against those in the Enlightenment, and follow the path of previous rulers, waging expensive wars, living lavish lifestyles – all off the backs of his Third Estate. He’d lose the support of the Third Estate and gain the fluctuant approval of the First and Second Estate.
A difficult choice to make for such an indecisive King, but Louis XVI made the decision to choose the latter, as at the time it was the option of convenience, and was much easier to follow than make revolutionary new choices.
Even so, he was well aware of the troubles facing him, and called upon the Estates-General.
The Estates-General was a Legislative and Consultative assembly. It was not actually used in forming legislation, but rather as an advisory body whenever the King required advice or assistance.
It consisted of three separate assemblies for the Three Estates – the first being the clergy, the second being the nobility and the third being the commoners.
It hadn’t been called upon since 1614, when Louis XIII had just been appointed King and his mother Marie de’ Medici had needed assistance regarding his authority as first in line to the throne. Louis XIV and XV had not called upon the Estates-General in determination of remaining as an absolute monarch. Nevertheless, after Louis XVI’s experiences with his Controller Generales’ and the Parlements in reforming taxes, he found himself forced to call upon the Estates-General to resolve the issues surrounding taxes.
The French Revolution began in 1789, and ended ten years later with over 1 million French dead, an overthrown monarchy and a new leader, Napoleon.
The eruption of Revolution was a cumulation of rising pressures of the period; the financial struggles that the monarchy and government went through; the crumbling social hierarchy that was the Ancien Regime; the ongoing foreign policy crises with the other big European powers, and the power of the Enlightenment.