[Revolution]
[Bonus Episode]
Hi you, who helped yourself to
ten episodes about the French Revolution
and who ask again with this bonus episode.
And hi you, who didn't decide to watch the whole series ;
I advice you to do that
or you'll not understand everything from this episode.
Here, I want to discuss topics
I've studied a bit too hastily
and also questions that returned
quite a lot in commentaries.
Of course, I can't deal with every topic
because there may too much questions to be solved ;
even if the series is very long,
finally it remains just a sort of
"Introduction" to the French Revolution.
But despite everything, I'm going to try to handle
a few questions I thought interesting
and I couldn't evoke in the series as I wanted
either because time run out
or because it didn't fit in with the plan I prepared.
So I'm going to deal with some topics
and then I'll examine what I can learn about that.
Well, obviously the first question I've to answer,
as many people asked me that :
what was the role of the Jesuits and
the freemasons in the French Revolution ?
As obviously
according to some, the French Revolution may be
the fruit of the plot
of the Jesuits, the freemasons or the Illuminatis
even the three people in the same time
when they reached to get on.
Well, I lay the foundations very simply :
the French Revolution wasn't the fruit of a plot.
Anyway, overall,
to schedule something as shambolic as that
you may have to be quite muppets nonetheless.
No, actually there was freemasons in both camps
by the way, quite a few came from nobility
in the early of the French Revolution
so thay had problems very quickly.
It's true the king's cousin, Duke of Orleans,
was much discussed
also called Philippe Égalite,
who became Montagnard
before being executed nonetheless by the way,
as a royal family individual wasn't okay in 1793.
Indeed, Philippe Égalité was freemason
but above all very rich
and the bearer of rather-progressive ideas
and besides maybe he aspired to take all the credit a bit
because his familiy branch hadn't the power.
So yes Philippe Égalité may have given money
to certain political movements, newspapers...
But you can't say it was a freemason plot.
Because on the other hand, amongst
the eminentest freemasons of the time
was Joseph de Maistre who was,
in the early of the 19th century,
one of the great thinkers of counter-revolution
and one of the greatest condemners
of the French Revolution.
So there was freemasons
but some participated in the French Revolution
and some was against.
Generally, whe you observe
the figure of lodges decreased
decreased much after the French Revolution,
you understand all of them didn't have a good time.
So the French Revolution wasn't a freemasonic plot.
Just it's true that ideas spread in lodges
and was used by the French Revolution
but the ideas as the Enlightment's one
and they didn't spread only in those places
in the same way the French Revolution
wasn't the fruit of the Enlighment directly
it wasn't the fruit of the lodges that
would've scheduled everything well neither.
I'm not going to study the Illuminatis' case,
neither the Jesuits' one.
Conversely, the most important here is
after the French Revolution
the ultra-royalists and the counter-revolutionaries
wanted to explain the French Revolution's coming
and also their failure
because they was quite muppets
especially in 1799 whey they would've canned
to reach to restore a king upon the throne,
they prepared quite a lot riots
and everything screwed up
even thought they was extremely powerful
and the Directory extremely weak.
Why did they screw up ?
Well, because they was split, disrupted,
because they fought each other.
But they had to have a good explanation
so they said, obviously, anyway it was Providence
that wanted to punished Louis XVI
who was a weak king...
And above all the revolutionaries
was very-well-organised
they was ver powerful because
they had schedule everything very-well.
So that's how they came to denounce
the freemasons, the Jesuits,
well always an internecine enemy
that has schedule everything well.
And that has come back a lot with the Action Française,
in the early of the 20th century :
Charles Maurras condemned pell-mell
the freemasons, the foreigners,
the Jews and the Protestants.
Why the Protestants ?
Because they had also quite a lot benefits
with the French Revolution :
logically, they accessed a status they didn't have
with a Chatholic God's mandate.
So all of that hasn't real historical founding principles ;
no plot.
But it's true it has fed the very-reactionary imaginary
so usually, when someone tells you
the French Revolution was a Jewish-freemasonic-Protestant-Jesuit-anything-you-want plot,
first it's a big conspiracy theorist
but above all there're chances
the far-right may be behind the idea.
Yes.
[Are the Left and the Right anachronistic for the time ?]
Here was the first question,
the joke's one,
because I think most people watching me
don't believe in the freemason plot.
So now I deal with the rest.
The developments right now is something
I've seen in several videos' commentaries,
a reproach :
I used the terms "Left" and "Right".
Indeed, the "Left" and the "Right don't please,
moreover they may be anachronisms.
Well... As it happens : no.
If I would've discussed the right and the left
before the French Revolution,
yes it would've anachronistic squarely.
Dont look for the the right and the left
in the Middle Ages or in the modern times,
that didn't exist.
The French Revolution was just the moment
the concept emerged actually,
it emerged from 1789
in the debates taking place in the consituent assembly
to know the political place of the king,
especially with the veto right's case :
may he have a veto ?
may his veto be moderate ?
Or may he have not at all ?
Actually the question was about the place of
the executive power and his power.
And typically, the deputies sitting right
was for a very strong executive
and the deputies sitting the most left
was for a very limited executive on the contrary,
limited in the possibilities.
There was born the notions of left and right
that had other means afterwards.
But they've stayed on those stances :
theoretically, what may be the place of the executive ?
Whay may be the place of the power ?
Must be there a strong power ?...
These notions are quite left-and-right-wing-linked
so that's not anachronistic at all to discuss them
by the way many eminent historians
of the French Revolution
talk about the left and the right for this time.
On the other hand,
of couse the left and the right of that time
wasn't the same than nowadays left and right,
that's logical !
But to tell the truth, during the French Revolution,
the left and the right didn't mean the same thing.
For example : the Girondists,
or the Brissotins, as you want...
Under the National Legislative Assembly,
during the French Constitutional Monarchy,
they was on the far left
because those people condemned the regime in itself,
they wanted to change it ;
they was on the far-left
while the majority of the Assembly
was monarchist with various shades.
But once the Legislative Assembly is over,
the First French Republic announced
and the National Convention settled,
the Girondist was pushed to the right.
Why ? Because new forces appeared
progressiver and radicaler forces
on their left
for instance the Montagnards.
The division wasn't made only about the same things.
It can be made always regarding the power,
typically one big part of the Girondists
was rather for the royal power's preservation
and to limit popular acts of violence.
The Montagne wasn't for free-for-all neither,
they wanted to limit the insurrections rather
but they considered a certain figure
of them must be respected,
logically, for instance, the August 10th 1792's ones
that may be legitimated...
So those connections existed also there.
Did they exist in terms of economy ?
Well, as I had said you in the episodes
about the Girondists and the Montagnards,
it's less clear than you can think,
because the Girondists wasn't always very clear
with their economy program
the Montagnards neither
and it must be said it was such an agitated situation,
with civil wars, wars aborad...
anyway economic measures was often big stopgaps
used according to the imperatives of the time
so, for instance, between 1793 and the early of 1794,
the Montagnards used the good stopgap
while the Girondins missed the point totally.
But there wasn't any big major overall,
there wasn't on one hand the great communists
who wanted to cancel private property
and on the other hand the great liberals
who was for private property outrageously,
all of them defended private property
just then there was different adjustment shades
by rapport to the situation.
That's all.
It's clear the left and the right
are notions evolving with time
typically, all those revolutionary forces I've discussed,
the Girondists, the Montagnards...,
globally when came back the monarchy,
all those people, from the moment they're republican,
they was the part of the very far left already
the ones even not represented politically,
working furtively, really out of the institutions.
Then, the more things progressed
the more they reappeared.
That's why now, on the contrary,
for instance what constituted almost all
ruling class during the Restoration,
in other words differerent-shade monarchists,
is the very far right nowadays,
even in minority within the far right.
So all of that moves
nevertheless the concepts
aren't anachronistic at all for the time.
So you can use the left and the right
for the French Revolution.
And you can keep on using them, it's very useful !
And stop with this concept "Neither left nor right",
"that doesn"t mean anything..." ;
this is bullshit used from Macron to Asselineau
and generally it means
"Yes, I'm rather right-wing but I don't want to admit it..."
[Violence and the French Revolution,]
[the perpetual debate]
Another issue : the revolutionary violence.
Well, there're much things to say about that.
First, was the French Revolution violent ?
This question has an obvious answer :
yes, it was very violent.
Violences we've difficulties to understand
and much more to admit nowadays
because there was plentiful deaths.
But was it exceptionally violent ?
To answer, I need to contextualise.
And the context was one where violence
was much more present than today anyway,
that's clear,
or at least a different violence, much more physical.
France was still a country where,
less one century before,
the Protestants was chased by way of Dragonnades,
quite violent expeditions,
thank you, Louis XIV...
It was also a country when, still under Louis XIV,
engaged in quite hideous pillagings :
for example, the 1689 Sacking of the Palatinate
is a frankly questionable episode of History of France
and that is quite poorly regarded abroad
it's not much discussed in France,
who knows ?...
[Histony is ironic]
It was also a time when, overall,
starvation killed and a lot,
you can talk about millions of people
died of hunger still under Louis XIV.
So that was also a violence,
because when you don't know if you're going to survive
and you've to find food
you sometimes end up falling into criminality to survive.
So you might kill people to eat.
So that also conditioned the ways.
The (French) society was also pro-slavery,
and slavery was a violence
because stuffing hundreds of people in boats
a good part of these people died
before the boats came to the other side of the sea,
and then exploiting the others to the death
not to mention the maltreatment
made over those people,
that denoted a violent society obviously.
Violence was also judiciary
with extremely painful death penalties furthermore,
because it wasn't death following a procedure,
such as under the French Revolution,
where, as it happened, the same death penalty
was passed for everybody,
the guillotine.
Moreover death penalty was symbolic,
sometimes it went very far :
I've alread talked to you the execution
of regicide Damiens, for instance,
it was terrible for him
not only he was killed
but also his corpse suffered every horror possible,
and yet,
it was tried to keep him alive as long as possible
so he suffered from every possible way ;
don't read this before eathing or you'll not be fine.
So
overall it was a society who used to be violent anyway.
By the way, it accrossed France :
the American Revolution wasn't peaceful anyhow ;
stop with that cliché.
There was monstruous slaughters,
it was an Independence War, not a picnic.
George Washington has made slaughtered tribes galore
when they got too much friendly with the Britons
even when the made the mistake of not having
a too much cleared stance.
The Loyalists paid dearly
but conversely the Patriots would've
if they would've lost.
So don't belive it was a pacified and civilised world
when suddently occured a Revolution
with total violence excesses.
Exceptional measures existed also under the monarchy,
when riots broke out,
the royal justice didn't derprive itself to cut heads standing out from the crowd [figurative]
if they pose a problem.
The 1768 Corsican repression,
the one of the Corsican insurgents
when Corsica was attached to France
was quite awful.
I can also discuss, for much more contemporary cases with the French Revolution,
the Irish suppression
when an attempt of revolution occured in Ireland
the suppression was absolutely
comparable with the Vendée's one.
And about wars, well there,
under Louis XIV, Louis XV or Napoleon I,
there was butcheries that was as good as
the French Revolution's ones.
And under Napoleon I, in terms of
police state and political executions,
there was quite a lot
actually there was much deaths
than under the French Revolution
with those conditions,
but also because the period was more long.
So a huge violence, clearly,
but not exceptional in itself.
On the other hand, the exeptional fact was
violence came from people not using it usually
in that way.
Power changed hands
and that means henceforth political violence
was suffered by others people
than other ones who suffered before.
And conversely, the one using was different.
The rifles has changed hands,
at least partly,
ans that shocked the ones who had
the power until then necessarily
and who have lost this state violence and the monopoly.
That's something relevant.
After that, it's also important to see
violence was often proportional to suffered violence.
Typically, one of the most deadly
event of the French Revolution,
few-known,
occured on the other side of
the Atlantic in Santo Domingo :
the 1793 Blaze of Cap-Français.
It caused thousands of deaths
simply because it was in the context
of the fights for slavery abolition
and in the frame of a very violent system,
this violence, from all sides,
became totally disporportionate
and with no comparison with what occured in France
because the situation was truly violent basically
and a violent system generates much more violence.
But in France, violence was present
via different motives
and when loomed the prospect, for instance,
of lootings that could be made by the French army
violence affected the prisons during the 1792 September Massacres straight away
agains all those who would be traitors...
Finally, this violence was often
the product of another violence.
It follows that violence often
could be legitimated finally.
"Legitimated" means you place yourself on a moral field.
Anyhow, that's not the role of the historian ;
in person, I don't seek to legitimate anything
or to judge or condemn anything.
That's not my aim right now, my aim is
to understand and to make understand.
On the other hand,
out of the moral scheme,
I can also ask the relevance of the violence
the utiliy and impact.
And typically, violences sometimes
could've a huge utility :
I talked earlier about slavery abolition ;
clearly it occured also
because the National Convention hadn't
the choice anymore against violences
otherwise maybe it would've
been done much more slowly
even not at all.
With the September Massacres' case :
there also, politicians of all persuasions
who didn't participate in
but all republican politicians
admitted the massacres was quite useful
to get rid of quite a lot of dangerous elements.
But next to that, this violence was frigtening :
so afterwards it was tried to turn this violene
into a state violence,
a different violence, I'm going to return to it.
Then, there was much more problematical violences.
Typically, the Vendée's case displayed acts of violences
made by generals or soldiers
who took it out on the poulation
and tipically, as Jean-Clément Martin
has demonstrated well,
in the Vendée was also sent people too agitated in Paris
of whom Parisian politicians got rid of
sending them in the Vendée to have a clear-out
hoping they wore themselves out also.
Clearly, those violences have a tendency
to radicalise the opposite camp
so there was an escalation.
Typically, that occured in the Vendée
and that's why things have lasted so long
and even 200 years after the wounds aren't close,
on one hand as on the other hand,
and still today it produces excesses on both camps
in terms of memory.
Then, there's the issue of the political violence.
Typically, when you talk about the "Terror",
I've told you to what extent
this expression needs inverted commas,
you talk also about a political and judiciary violence.
The Revolutionary Tribunal was a real tribunal
and not lynching because people was angry ;
there was real procedures with lawyers, witnesses...
And in fact, the Revolutionary Tribunal
has acquited almost 50% people.
So it was far from the Stalinist trials
with a shot-execution in a dull hallway
even without any procedure
it wasn't during a totalitarian dictatorship.
The trials was made with jurors, in public,
with people who could assist the trials
and testify it went off well.
Well, there was some terribly outrageous political trials :
for instance Danton and his partners' one
and also the Girondists trial
had such a political impact
that yes there was evidences doctoring obviously...
But all those trials
was made with a certain figure of forms ;
so it was far from a total doctoring
ot the royal arbitrary, for example.
The fact remains that the issue of violence
the traitor-hunt,
that became the obsession of every camp in 1793-1794,
has ended in being counter-productive totally
because necessarily when you guillotine someone
you've a tendecy to radicalise
his family against the revolution
for sure...
So overall, some began to highlight that issue,
for instance Camille Desmoulins,
who wrote a lot about that...
So he has lost his head [being guillotined]...
So necessarily that had the tendency
to create an escalation
that has stopped short with Robespierre's death
not because he was the culprit of this escalation
but just because his death enabled
to attribute him the escalation
and allowed quite a lot of other people
to retire from this spiral of violence
and to say that okay, that's over, it was his fault.
But there was many people case
very enthusiastic a the idea of enforcing this violence
when they had the chance to
and who, after Robespierre's fall,
was the first ones to denounce him
telling it was very awful.
There was sometimes people
who changed sides hideously.
Why ? Because violence went along with an emulation :
you've the tendency to become violent
to do like your friends becoming violent,
and it can become particularly harmful.
One last thing :
don't kid yourself and admit
personal grudge added with political fights.
Don't forget Robespierre, Danton, Brissot, Pétion,
all those people, before to be political enemies,
was friends, was allied,
knew each other and kept company.
Sometimes, they was even close friends
the problem is you may know that,
a former friend can become an awful enemy.
An awful friend because
he knows much things about you
and you about him,
sometimes it can embarrass you or him
so yes, you often have a tendency to lay it on thick
if you can push him/her to the limit
and try to, typically at that time,
to push him into dying
for avoiding he reveals thigs to dirty about you.
So
those dynamics existed also clearly
the fact of trying to get rid of former friends in the way
or because above all you've hate,
because the rancours was much more strong, personal,
so don't neglect that also.
Don't neglect there was people
who had an appeal for violence too
who had also interests to get
from the French Revolution
and who found in excesses,
whether it be in language or acts,
a way to clear their conscience too
and to be clean to all appearances
because, for instance with Fouché, who embezzled a lot,
the fact of suppressing Lyon violently
allowed him to leave the city with a clear conscience
having made his revolutionary work well
even if he made his money by the way
and then he changed sides when
he felt the wheel of fortune turned.
I think there're still many people like that,
people able to give extremely radical speeches
and to heap blame upon all those
who don't seem to have the good speech,
but who have quite a few disgraces
looking into their case nevertheless
I think this kind of politicians existed
under the French Revolution already
and still exist today.
So don't neglect the personal dimension
in the revolutionary violence.
Anyhow, I think you must get in mind
yes the French Revolution was violent
and yes this violence must be analysed
and not considered as piddling
as if it was lesser or even funny.
I'm thinking about the jokes we made
between us, the leftists,
with gulags, it's the same thing...
Those things embarrass us
in our unconscious a bit,
things posing us a problem,
so they're eliminated thanks humour
so we don't think about it seriously.
But these questions, for instance
the Vendée, must be studied,
and admitted rather to stay in a process
considering that as derisory,
telling there was just royalists,
so we may not talk about them a lot...
On the other hand, the French Revolution
wasn't a totaliarian regime,
as life kept on during this time.
It was far from the censorships
made in the USSR or Nazi Germany.
It was far from that and the blind suppression descending upon over there.
On the contrary : when violence was extreme
during the French Revolution,
it was often because the central power
didn't reached to channel and control it,
so it was the whole opposite of
what occured during Nazi Germany for example.
And simply the artistic, cultural
and economic life kept on in France.
France under the French Revolution wasn't a world
where everybody was afraid of being guillotined.
The figure of guillotined people was rather very low
by rapport to the French population
so don't have a too-skewed image of the time
and so the French Revolution was violent
but not exceptionally for the time.
That is a construction a posteriori,
I've talked to you about that for instance
in Robespierre's fall's episode.
and there still may be many things to discuss.
[The French Revolution]
[to the rescue of the paupers ?]
Another question I've very few discussed in the series
because it ill-fit in the chronological frame
I evoked to make you understand
the series of the events :
the question of he poors under the French Revolution,
what occured for them 
and what was the aid it brought to them.
First, I lay the foundations clearly :
the poors,
when I talk about "the poors" I mean the paupers,
the ones who had anything,
the ones fighting for their survival,
those participated very few in the French Revolution.
The sans-culottes,
the ones called like that,
often the radical revolutionaries,
whether it be the Enragés, the Hebertists...,
those people rather came from petty bourgeoisie
sometimes little bosses,
little shopkeepers, craftspeople
but those people have a certain level of wealth.
Because simply, when you're famished,
you don't have time to do the Revolution ;
that's simply but that's how it's ;
you're too busy surviving.
So the French Revolution wasn't made by the paupers,
it wasn't the made by the dregs of society :
those people who had anything
and who would fight for few.
There was but generally those people
was rather a bit less poor
and who felt their life could turn into the paupers' one.
Pauperism was a problem the French Revolution
delt with from the beginning ;
actually measures against indigence
was taken from 1790.
It was thought a lot because the Revolution
wanted to help the paupers
but on the other hand
appeared a problem you can still find a lot
in the current French social policies :
the revolutionaries didn't want those aids
encouraged them to do anything ;
indeed, paupers doing anything could be worrying...
So it was admitted to give them
money and means to survive
but they may not be encouraged to be idle,
so there still was this ambiguity.
That is the base of the French social policies :
still nowadays, "people expecting
everything to be done for them"
are really the obsession of
the man of power, the politician
and of many French people by the way
to whom was explained
those paupers would pick their money...
But thus this was a fundament already at that time :
yes, the revolutionaries wanted to give a bit of money
but no, this money may not serve
to maintain idleness, alcoholism...
Things turned a bit in 1793
when the Montagnards took office.
Because then... -
Well, the Montagnards wasn't communists
who wanted to reform the society either,
far from that...
Just they've understood they had
to give tokens to the Parisians
because the Parisians had just got rid of
the Girondists from the National Convention
and the Montagnards could be the next ones, so...
For instance, in the early,
Robespierre was far from being for
the measures to control the prices...
But he understood he may have to take them
otherwise the Parisians wouldn't hold.
So more and more measures
was taken under the National Convention.
Sometimes they was taken locally :
representatives on a mission arrived in a place
and stated they was going to seize
a certain figure of properties
and to share the goods a bit more equitabily.
Generally, those was the most radical
and had problems ver quickly afterwards.
But there was also measures,
for instance the Ventôse Decrees,
whose aim was to seize the properties of the traitors,
all those who have left, the émigrés...,
to try to balance things a bit.
Then, laws of assistance was made
financings,
a big register of the paupers to try to give them money...
Moreover, get in mind France was
at war aborad and in civil war
so it wasn't easy to set this kind of measures
so generally the projects didn't succeed.
Moreover occured the Directory afterwards
that turned back on many measures.
For instance, the project of school
for everyone didn't succeeded,
the Directory focused more on education
of a kind of working classes' elite
it wanted to put in administration...
But no global education, it costed
too much and it served no purpose...
A good part of the aids for the paupers
have been also cancelled,
because fervent liberalism dictates,
the Directory prefered to motive
the entrepreneurs to employ...
That didn't work well, they've prefered to gamble...
Then,
there was another simple problem :
the reforms sometimes didn't go far enough.
So typically, the issue of the Biens nationaux,
the sent goods that allowed
many people to access property,
was very cool for the rich peasants,
that has allowed them to have properties,
on the other hand, it didn't work with the paupers.
It didn't work because they hadn't
the money to purchased them,
sometimes they tried to gather to buy them
otherwise it was complicated.
Plus, the projects of reforms
to enable the paupers to access the Biens Nationaux
have never succeeded.
Finally, the work of the French Revolution
for the paupers
is real but partial,
it didn't have time to be finished.
And how far would it be completed ?
That gives an issue.
But there was attempts.
And they must be highlighted
because the French Revolution
wasn't only assembly-line death penalty,
but also an attempt to help the paupers,
the ones really suffering from poverty, hunger...
and it musn't be neglected either.
[Did the French Revolution invent vandalism ?]
Another point of the very-negative
history of the French Revolution :
the idea that the French Revolution
would've created vandalism ;
in other words all these awful destructions
Stéphane Bern very often talks about
"Some castle have suffered from the French Revolution,"
"it was sacked..."
Again, a few time formerly,
some elected representatives from the Front National,
I don't know who anymore,
was indignant from the revolutionaries
who had sacked the Basilica of Saint-Denis
and had profaned the tombstone of the kings...
Well, yes indeed there was destructions
during the French Revolution.
And it was during this time
the term "vandalism" was invented ;
actually, this word comes from
a Montagnard deputy, Abbé Grégoire,
of whom I may have talked to you in the series
because he was one of the first denouncers of slavery.
Abbé Grégoire wasn't a bad dude
but he was a political enemy of Robespierre
and after the fall of the latter
he invented the term "vandalism"
to denouce the destructions,
especially the churches ones,
logically because he was an abbot and so aware of that,
and more widely the destruction of heritage.
Except this revolutionary vandalism
must be balanced.
First because there was revolutionary destructions
even people like Abbé Grégoire supported totally,
for instance the Storming of the Bastille.
Some castles attacks didn't pose a problem for Grégoire
who approved them because it was attacks of symbols.
Overall, the French Revolution
during the "radicalest" time, let's say 1793-1794,
wasn't in favour of massive destructions ;
on the contrary, it had begun
the protection of several things.
During this time was born
the idea to protect the archives,
not necessarily because
the revolutionaires realised it was important suddently
but above all because they understood
they had to keep the scars of the crime,
the scars of the monarchy to not slip back again.
So was begun the conservation of all those documents
who wasn't systematically until then.
Then,
was born also at the moment
the idea that they could destroy scars of Royalty
for instance statues,
destroy some stuff from the Church,
for instance bells,
but it may be made intelligently.
They didn't sack.
Generally, sacking was blamed by the power clearly.
On the other hand, they transformed.
Typically, melting the statue of a king to make cannons
was something very revolutionary ;
that meant
this Royalty who sacked France
and embezzled and oppressed
was turned into a tool to defend
France and independence...
The symbol was very strong.
Despite evrything, there as sackings.
But,
that's quite interesting,
appreared the idea to protect heritage very quickly.
For instance, Versailles and the Louvre
was turned into museums,
this policy was born really at the moment
even with a policy of protection
of some stuff of heritage.
Because until then heritage wasn't taken care.
When a king landed in a palace, for example Versailles,
he hadn't any problem to destroy
stuff made by his ancestors,
quite the reverse it was the game.
When, in Versailles, was destroyed the wonderful "Escalier des Ambassadeurs"
to build, I think, private appartments instead,
I think it was made under Louis XV,
that didn't shock at the time really.
Yet, was lost a wonderful heritage piece ;
the "Escalier des Ambassadeurs" was bloody stuff.
But at the time,
it was considered normal :
over time, everything wasn't preserved perfectly,
everything wasn't kept with the original shape.
So Versailles evolved,
things was destroyed totally without any hesitation
to build something new instead,
that wasn't a problem.
From the French Revolution and 19th century
the current notions of heritage
and preservation appeared.
So you can't either reproach the revolutionaries
to have had reflexes,
for instance the Storming of the Bastille,
simply that was the time reflexes
because the notion of heritage didn't exist yet.
One last thing : the French Revolution wasn't
a time of artistic and intellectual void, quite the reverse.
There was savants.
Well, it was true Lavoisier was guillotined
and that has created a dark legend
of the French Revolution :
many savants would've been executed
because the Republic woudn't have need savants.
That's false : the Republic supported many savants.
It happened Lavoisier was a fermier général
and as every fermier général of the time
he was guillotined for this reason.
But next to that the Republic needed
many savants obviously
morover it was leading a wa
so I can assure you technology
during a war isn't negleceted.
So science kept on working flat out
during the French Revolution
and as many initiatives as possible was supported.
Also art ;
there was many big produtions
during the French Revolution,
for example under the Directory but also before,
art is protected
and promoted very much.
If you're a bit pernickety, you're going to tell me
this was official art defending the regime.
That's true,
look at David's paints for instance ;
David was deputy in the National Convention,
of course he glorified the French Revolution
when he painted Marat and the Tennis Court Oath.
And what was the aim the official portraits of
Louis XIV, Louis XV and Louis XVI before that ?
What was the aim of the paints in Versailles ?
When, afterwards in 19th century,
Louis Philippe I inaugurated the Galerie des Batailles
and galeries about History of France
what was the aim of the paints he ordered
such as 1837 Steuben's 'Bataille de Poitiers' ?
I can multiply the examples ad infinitium
as there was plentiful official painths
even under the French Third Republic.
So yes art, during the French Revolution,
represented a certain political vision.
Not more not less than before.
It wasn't cleary the process of
the Hitlerite or Stalinist propagandas, for instance,
it wasn't that at all.
There was forms of new art promoted,
popular arts kept on existing,
who already existed and continued to exist afterwards.
there was a form of censorship but
neither more nor less Royalty's one before
neither more nor less Bonapartist's one after.
So
the French Revolution wasn't
a 10-year void on the whole
during when every art and culture would've ceased ;
not at all.
There was also many things created during the period.
[Was women the forgotten ones]
[of the French Revolution ?]
Now I'm going to tackle a very important issue
I've disccued too few in the series.
Simply because it was also the frame that wanted,
I'm going to explain you why :
the place of women in the French Revolution.
In the series,
I've made the choice to focus on
individual participants very little.
Even with the big revolutionaries,
Mirabeau, Robespierre...,
I've tried to talk about them to you few
or at least to focus your attention on them few
save for unmissable events,
for instance Robespierre's fall.
Why ? Because why I wanted
to show you from the beginning
was the moment has to do with
masses movements phenomena,
collective phenomena
there wasn't any genius with
the turned idea at any moment.
It never worked like that.
The problem was I've made invisible
male individuals one one hand
and so I've made invisible
the female individuals many more
as there was some influent women
in the French Revolution.
But necessarily, if historiography remembers them less
and if I don't talk about the participants moreover,
necessarily I talk about women less.
And as I discussed the masses,
they became quite unclear ;
men or women, it's true you don't know
who was in what I called the sans-culottes.
First, I must recall something important :
when I evoke the "masses",
yes there was tremendously women in those masses under the French Revolution
sometimes even in majority.
Under the French Revolution,
women was very got into politics really,
no problem about that.
Some of them participated in
the Storming of the Bastille,
some of them participated in every riot,
even riots where they was very important,
for instance, October 5th and 6th 1789 days,
when they looked for the king
and the queen in Versailles,
was representative,
that's why it's also called Women's March on Versailles.
But if I discuss less famous days,
for example the Revolt of 1 Prairial Year III
(May 20th 1795) in Paris,
the riots made way for women.
But women was present elsewhere :
they was also in the counter-revolutionary armies,
sometimes including to influential posts.
By the way they was also in the revolutionary armies
not always fighting but they was present around.
They was also in the National Convention.
Of course they wasn't in the deputies seats,
as they didn't have right to be there,
but in the tribunes ;
they was very attentive to what was happening
and they participated in political life in their own way,
sometimes well, sometimes ill,
often used ill against deputies ;
for instance Robespierre was accused
to have a very big female fan club,
so it was used to discredit him.
But they was very present in the political life
and they was far from ignorating
the political issues, quite the opposite.
They involved also (politically) :
I've talked to you about
the Society of Revolutionary Republican Women
by Pauline Léon and Claire Lacombe, for instance.
This was a real involvment of women
in the French Revolution
of course cut very quickly
because, on the other hand, the male revolutionaries
dind't want to see them to involve
so when women societies
was forbidden by the National Convention,
only one deputy opposed
and thought that shameful
and made a speech to tell that.
So from this standpoint,
the revolutionaries wasn't progressive.
So yes there was quite a few
important women in the French Revolution.
If you're rather listening to right-wing men,
they're going to talk more about Olympes de Gouges
because she epitomised
a "respectable" feminism, let's say ;
I mean her Declaration of the Rights
of Woman and of the Female Citizen
was radical for the time
as she demanded rights for women
but near that she had
a very-conservative vision of society.
It must be said she dedicated
her declaration to the queen
after the Flight to Varennes
so that was a strong symbol
placing her with the conservatives
and that's also why she was guillotined.
But there was also the ones I've mentionned,
Léon and Lacombe,
who was radical,
demanding weapons...
And I think it would be better
if the left would pick them up as icones,
or at least to be commemorated
because ther was a very-radical
feminism already at the time.
So when old farts explain you
nowadays feminists don't worth
because they're too violent
and it was quite the reverse before...
Well, there was already a lack of diversity
and women demanding weapons
under the French Revolution
because they understood it was
the best way to defend theirs rights
in the time context.
So
women entailed in the French Revolution
with many different ways clearly
and clearly, men from all sides, by the way,
was opposed to the fact
they took too much importance.
The Ancien Régime was sexist clearly
the French Revolution was as much as
but differently.
And that's why there's a legend
going around with the counter-revolutionaries
telling the place of women was much better
under the Ancien Régime.
That's false :
in France, the place of women
declined from the end of the Middle Ages,
the Middle Ages was much more favourable
for women than the modern times.
And clearly, the French Revolution has changed things
especially with inheritance,
women could inherit much more easily,
also with their family situation
especially with divorce,
women can divorce easilier,
well many things making
the place of women changed gradually.
But despite everything,
including in the vision women had of themselves,
there was still conservative reflexes
regarding the conception of family
and many other things
that made there wasn't
the longed-for advances of course.
On the other hand, it's clear
the step back came afterwards
especially under Napoleon I
with the 1804 Napoleonic Code that replaced
the father at the heart of the family structure
and sent women back into an inferior position
much more worse than what they had
under the French Revolution.
And very lastingly
as the Napoleonic Code
was very lasting
and thus has forged
the place of women in society during a long time.
And you may understand there're still remnants today.
So all that to tell you
this issue was very important
and I wanted to treat
in this bonus episode
to draw you attention upon the fact that
even if women seem much less present
in the series I've published,
they was there in almost every step.
Yet in the masses
but things would've progressed
much less without them.
Furthermore, I draw you attention,
that is the transition to the next issue,
upon the fact that
if women are few present
in the French Revolution historiography,
of which I'm dependent of when
I recount you this History,
it's also because there was few present
in research during a very long time.
Still today women in universities are in minority
especially when you look the most high posts.
Well, fortunately the proportion is increasing
and fortunately research is evolving,
fortunaltely, during several decades,
the gender History is evolving,
on which there're works.
Of course, the problem is
works need time to be published
then they need time to enter the wider konwledge,
they need time to enter the conciser books.
But tjhe work is constant
and I think we must recognise the population work
of people such as Mathilde Larrère
I advice you to follow her on Twitter,
she does great stuff ;
talking about that for instance.
There more and more many male
AND above all female historians
embarking upon the History of gender
and, for example, the History of gender
during the French Revolution.
It makes appear many new things.
And I think we must look deeper
into these veins gradually
And that's very cool it has begun to be explored.
So as I said from the beginning
my series is only a sort of Introduction
to the French Revolution,
I've tried to replace the main events.
So I hadn't time to linger over that from that standpoint
but these topics are very enthrailling
and I advice you to gather
information about with people
much more skilful than me
to learn you things about that.
[Who has written the History of the French Revolution ?]
All of that has led me to a last issue :
who writes the History of the French Revolution ?
Because many of you has told me
you haven't found anywhere else
what I've given you in the series.
So thank you, it's very great when you tell me that
and I perceive that, indeed,
if the only alternatives you had
was stuff like Secrets d'Histoire,
you can't find anywhere else what I've given you.
Yet, personally, I'm just a go-between,
between a load of more-or-less-old
books written by academics
and you.
Those books exist.
Some are very accessible,
other are much less.
By the way, I'll do a video to advice you some
and I've made little bibliographies
at the end of every article
along with every video of the series.
But right now I want to tell you
I wasn't innovative in the series at no time
if not when I've sat down in my bedroom
before a webcam to talk to you.
Why do I tell you that ?
Because some historians,
not mentioning any names, but Henri Guillemin,
who have tendecy to try to make you believe you
they're the only ones to recount you
what they're recounting
to keep a sort of monopoly.
For instance, when Guillemin published
'Silence aux pauvres' in 1989,
he wanted you to belive
he was the only one with this vision
of the French Revolution, near the paupers.
And so to do that, he attacked
"dreadful" historians of the time :
Michelet, who was died more one century,
and a few far-right historians
of the early of the 20th century
But those people was his aim targets
so necessarily, when you talk opposite those people,
you're alone.
But I would be very dishonest
if I would tell you there're only
Lorant Deutsch and Stéphane Bern opposite me.
Actually, there're plentifull excellent
historians of the French Revolution
and for a very long time,
and that's what I'm going to show you quickly.
I'm not going to detail that in the video
or it would be long and labored,
I refer you to the article along with the video again
if you're interested in the topic
because I've made a quite long part about
the French Revolution historiography,
and because I'm interested in very much.
Well, I could go back to Michelet
and his very lyrical version of the French Revolution
and all those historians of 19th century
who was also often politicians :
Adolphe Thiers had made
his 'Histoire de la Révolution française',
Louis Blanc, a quite eminent socialist
of the middle of 19th century,
has made his 'Histoire de la révolution française',
Jean Jaurès has written
'Histoire socialiste de la Révolution française'...
Well...
Nowadays, those works are very dated overall.
It's still interesting to read them,
you can dive into those books
to have their standpoint about the issue.
But globally those more-one-and-half-century works
are out of date.
You can leave them out,
those aren't source of work anymore at least.
On the other hand, it's true the university
History of the French Revolution,
really serious as it's made nowadays,
has begun around the late of 19th century
with Alphonse Aulard.
Alphonse Aulard was a very-republican
very-French-Third-Republic-way historian
by the way he enjoyed Danton much.
And globally Aulard has contributed a lot
to lay the foundations of the sicentific
History of the French Revolution.
Aulard had a disicple, Albert Mathiez,
with whom he quarreled
because Mathiez was much more left-wing than him.
And they quarreled a lot
especially with Danton-versus-Robespierre issue ;
by the way their quarrel has contributed
to set Danton-Robespierre opposition up
of which I've told you in the series
it wasn't longer relevant
in the biggest part of the French Revolution.
Mathiez was rather communist
and this it's true his view of the French Revolution
was much tinged with
but Mathiez was also a very great historian
of the French Revolution
who has brought many things
who had very high functions in the university
regarding the French Revolution
and who has also created
the Société des études robespierristes
which is still today the biggest academic society
about the French Revolution
as it published for more one century
the Annales historiques de la Révolution française
the reference revue about the topic.
By the bye, you can visit articles on the Internet freely,
it's really well designed.
The Société des études robespierristes
doesn't settle for studying Robespierre
and paying tribute to him,
they've published Robespierre's speeches
and many other things,
byt they've also worked on many other topics :
for instance, they've published
a very good work about Danton lately
very moderate and far from clichés
from the dull or clear legends.
So I really advice you to dive into
the works of the Société,
born with Mathiez, a big historian of the time.
If I remember correctly, he died quite prematurely
so he didn't work a lot, a few decades,
at least he did a great job.
Amongst the other great historians
of the French Revolution
was another very left-wing one :
Georges Lefebvre.
A leftist but yet a rigorous one,
I'm just talking about academics
who have made an in-depth work.
Lefebvre worked a lot
in a time where mass phenomena was more studied
to get away from the history of the great characters
telling Robespierre and Danton was interesting
but behind them was also
sans-culottes and other people.
For instance, Lefebvre has worked a lot
about the Great Fear
Summer 1789 time
when peole took fright, rushed into castles,
was afraid of (potential) aristocratic plots...
And he interested much in the mechanism of this fear,
he made big works about that
and necessarily Lefebvre had a leftist
or at least social approach of this history.
For example, Lefebvre has written
a lot about the Directory,
he made lessons
well, during a few years of
the Second World War he was banned
because, as it happened, the occupation powers
didn't appreciate what he recounted.
But Lefebvre is still the reference author
of a work about the Directory
of which I've told you it was few studied.
After Lefebvre came another very important one :
Albert Soboul.
He has also written a lot,
especially a lot about the Year-II sans-culottes.
He demonstrated they wasn't paupers
but little craftspeople...,
and he worked a lot about their sociology,
their profile,
theirs demands...
He has lightened these issues a lot.
And Soboul was also an eminent academic
who led the biggest
Historical Dictionnary of the French Revolution,
a massive work
only finished after his death by the way
and he wrote many interesting things.
All of that to say I'm talking about people
of whom everyone was died in 1989
but who brought many stuff to
the History of the French Revolution
so when Guillemin told
he was the only one talking about the French Revolution
yes he was only if you stop to Michelet.
Nevertheless, there was quite a lot other ones
who made a very good job about the period.
This school,
you can find around, for instance,
the University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne
if I'm not mistaken,
is still inspiring others :
the Société des études robespierristes is still existing,
especially around people
like Hervé Lewers, who has made great books ;
he has written very great bigraphies
of Robespierre and the Desmoulins.
I avice you really to study his very interesting work
by the way, I think that he delivered
lectures available on YouTube.
Also people like Michel Vovelle,
actually very entailed in the 1980s (historical)
"Battle of the bicentenary of the French Revolution" ;
he has written a book to recount
this historiographic quarrel incidentally.
So then also Guillemin couldn't
ignore Vovelle's existence ;
the latter was also left-wing committed
but oddly he didn't talk about Vovelle...
Vovelle entered in another History movement
interesting a lot in the cultural and believes history.
If I'm not mistaken, he worked about
the relation with death
during the French Revolution, for instance.
Those topics are gradually evoked
because it's realised they bear many interesting things.
So
here are movements I wanted to talk to you.
A movement built up at variance in the 1960s :
the "École Révisionniste",
that was riding high from the 1960s to the 1990s.
It was built up especially around François Furet,
of whom I must've talked to you in a video a bit.
François Furet was a "reformed" communist
who changed sides totally in the 1960s
and became (hard-)right-wing
even if he wasn't counter-revolutionary (royalist).
So Furet had 2 big theories :
on one hand the theory the French Revolution
would've run out of control in 1792 ;
by the way he went back on that afterwards,
considering there wasn't
any misdemeanour but a certain continuity.
And on the other hand the idea
the French Revolution would be partially
the mother of all 20th-century totalitarianisms.
And it's true in the world of the Cold War,
a world in shock of the 1968
Prague Spring, for instance,
the movement went off well.
And it's true that opposite this,
the more-or-less communist ones,
all of them wasn't but then again
they seemed old-fashionned
faced with this innovative school
which quoted Hannah Arendt,
which explained totalitarianism's roots
was in the French Revolution
for this or that reason...
It was a school on which many people went back on,
there're still upholders
for example with Patrice Gueniffey
or Mona Ozouf
but globally this school tends towards loosing influence.
For the reason a good part of
the theories was questionned,
for instance Furet went back on
the misdemeanour theory,
and it's true you've difficulties to be serious
when you compare the French Revolution
with a totalitarian regime.
From a university standpoint, this school is quite toast,
even if it still has upholders,
and it's still very present media-wise,
so the work must be done at that point.
Then the rest, the unclassifiable ones.
People like Jean-Clément Martin,
of whom I've talked to you much :
originally Martin came from
Furet's school in all likehood,
but he turned away from
as today not only he demonstrated
the French Revolution wasn't a totalitarianism,
quite the reverse according to him,
but also the Terror is a conception a posteriori.
Martin reached to quarrel
with everybody about the 1793 Vendée
as on one hand he quarrels with the left
giving the highest figure of deaths,
and on the other hand he quarrels with the right
explainig it's not a genocide.
And according to me, Jean-Clément Martin is
one of the eminenentest historians
about the French Revolution ;
moreover I advice you to listen to his conferences,
there're many interesting things,
he explains well and clearly, it does you good,
and he tells many interesting things,
so listening Jean-Clément Martin
tremendously doesn't hurt you.
That's all : it's clear and accurate, I said it.
He has helped me a lot in
the creation of the series vicariously
as I've read quite a lot his books
and listened to quite a lot of his conferences,
and you'll find in his speech many things I said
because as I've said you I've invented anything,
I'm sanding on the shoulders of giants.
Quite a lot new movements and new aproaches
of the French Revolution are emerging.
There're many things
with which we must stay attentive
my series will not be sustainable
by 50 years, historians should progress on many issues
and should have new visions.
And most likely by 50 years,
I'll hope to be in a position to say
I told quite a few stupidities
and I progressed on several issues.
Because History is also a science in motion.
So what I want also to do through this last episode
is to show you there're plentiful
works and outstanding issues
and you can never treat everything.
I had to select information
you can find in many other works.
So very quickly will be pulished a bibliographic episode
incidentally I'll must shoot immediately after this video,
to be sure to do it,
where I advice you books which have interested me.
I'll do you a much bigger bibliography on the website
to show you there're plentiful things to read
if you're interested in the topic.
I'll put also interesting-video links.
There're also sometimes conferences you can watch.
So learn to pick the names of interesting
male and female historians
about the subject
because there're many things to watch.
And thank you for following me from the beginning
because the series about the French Revolution
was someting attempted while thinking it's quite a bet.
It was quite a work to be made
but above all we wasn't sure with as long as videos,
10 episodes,
you would hold until the end.
And we're very surprised to realised
finally those video of this Yotube channel
maybe are working the best
even more than some easy polemic videos
and I'm very glad about that
because I don't want to confine myself
to easy polemic videos.
I'm very glad to do such an in-depth work
so many people amongst you asked me
if we're going to do same-kind series.
I can already tell you yes,
I can already tell you I've chosen a subject,
henceforth almost sure.
I don't when I make a start on,
I' do that when I want
because I do good work only like that.
Meanwhile, I'll publish more isolated episodes
but I hope to tell you plentiful interesting things.
At any rate, here comes a new year of video,
so that's cool,
and so keep on sharing this work
keep on bringing me your remarks too
because they're very usueful to progress
and then to answer to new questions.
If there're many question about the French Revolution,
or the whys and wherefores of the series,
maybe I'll do a live video about the subject
if you're interested in
so don't hesistate to ask it in commentary.
And if I've faith, I do that.
