Coming Of The French Revolution Essay, Research Paper

Lefebvre, Georges. The Coming of the French Revolution. Vintage Books, 1947. 191 p.

Georges Lefebvre s book The Coming of the French Revolution brought with it an extremely good critique from his contemporaries. When it came out it was well received, …Lefebvre s book is simply the best introduction to the study of the French Revolution available anywhere . Lefebvre obtained a doctoral degree, then began university teaching, and in 1935 he was made a professor at the Sorbonne. The Coming of the French Revolution which was written for the nonspecialist and is perhaps the best general picture of the ancien regime available in English. Lefebvre’s exhaustive knowledge of the French peasantry of the 18th century was his sure guide in analyzing the society of the time, since four-fifths of the people were peasants and the social positions of the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, and the town laboring classes were defined largely by their relation to the rural population . With the credentials that Lefebvre has earned it is easy to see that he is indeed informed and factual about what he is writing. His analysis in this book is well proven and interestingly written.

Lefebvre s book breaks the French Revolution into four classifications of people in France. He postulates that there were actually four revolutions taking place. There were the aristocratic revolution, the bourgeois revolution, the popular revolution, and finally the peasant revolution. This is an interesting stance that Mr. Lefebvre takes, but a popular one. Lefebvre takes each one of these revolutions explains the class of people, their grievances, and their actions. This makes the book a very easy read for amateur historians.

The author begins with the aristocratic revolution that was perhaps set into progress years prior to 1789. During the reign of Louis XIV the nobles saw a huge decrease in their powers and authority as it pertained to the monarchy. The grandfather of Louis XVI had made it hard for the nobility to gain any power because of the court duty that he had inflicted upon them . Also the nobility has changed quite a lot from the times prior to Louis XIV reign. There were now two different types of nobles, nobles of the sword(Dupee) and nobles of the robe. The latter had paid for their nobility and intermarried with nobles of the sword. The nobility was no longer the rich class of people it had once been. It was made up of a mixture of some who still had money and others who were noble by title only . The aristocracy was crying out for change in limitations of the monarch. They wanted to have more say in governmental affairs. They also wanted back what they had before Louis XIV had stymied their power.

The aristocracy was not the only peoples who had grievances with the French monarchy. The Bourgeoisie also had its problems. First we need to look at the third estate in French society. It was made up of everybody other than the nobles and clergy . The bourgeoisie were the lawyers, tax collectors and doctors. So besides the separation of the bourgeoisie from the rest of the third estate there was a different classes within the bourgeoisie. There were the Gerondins or upper class, the lower middle class, and the urban workers . They all made a potpourri of grievances and different levels of agitation. One thing they all had in common was they all paid an unfair tax. They wanted an equitable tax that did not just burden the third estate. They did accomplish breaking away from the old assembly and made their own National Assembly . This was a bold move for the third estate as a whole.

The popular revolution came about because of the great craftsmanship of the bourgeois propagandists. The middle class had taken to the city for support of the revolution . The popular revolution was an exercise in informing the urban population of their intentions. This leads us to the final revolution which was the peasant revolution. Lefebvre contends that perhaps with great difficulty the revolution could have succeeded without the peasant backing or knowledge of the intentions of the middle class . The peasants were taking aims at the ancient structure of the feudal or manorial system. They quickly dismantled it . As a result to food shortages and the gabelle it was very difficult of French farmers and peasantry. The financial crisis that the French government was encountering had grown furiously out of hand. From Turgot to Brienne, none of the financial advisors that Louis had appointed could do anything right. Of course it was not really the fault of any of these men. They were all very good financiers but they could not get the cooperation of the Parlement So with all this happening the stage was set for the French Revolution.

Georges Lefebvre in writing this book has made it very clear what his readers should be able to pull from the book. When reading the book it only takes a few pages in to realize what thesis he will be propagating throughout the book. The book s table of contents breaks it down very clearly. Lefebvre wanted to show that the French revolution was more than a result of the financial crisis with which the American Revolution had left them. He also show that it was not a sole product of the Enlightenment. Lefebvre contends that there were actually four revolutions that took place in France. The author does an excellent job in supporting this statement. He does however show that each separate revolution was intertwined with the other. The aristocratic revolution stemmed from rights that they had previously enjoyed and the question of limitations on the monarchy . In his book he goes on to show how the Bourgeois were upset with the lack of respect they were getting. They wanted equitable taxes and an end to government extravagances . The Bourgeois were a complicated lot however. There were so many different classes of them that their goals were slightly different. The popular and peasant revolutions are the other two that Lefebvre shows with great detail how they were just as big a part of the revolution as the other two.

With the critical acclaim that Lefebvre won from scholars and critics alike it is easy to see that his methodology was good. When actually reading The Coming of the French Revolution the use of footnotes is not very prevalent. Lefebvre instead makes use of internal notation to explain where he obtained his information. He has gone over drafts of the early constitutions. The author also had poured over thousands upon thousands of minutes of early meetings of the Estates General. His research and writing style is impeccable and makes for an easy read. Lefebvre s overall layout of the book is great. He sets forth in his table of contents and breaks down the revolution in a very concise easy to follow manner. The flow of his book is exemplary in the way he takes the reader through each individual component of society. He shows how the classes differ and where they come together with each other. However he does not make any use of charts or maps. Maps in this book are not really necessary if you know the basic geography of France. This book being an introductory book to the French Revolution could maybe have benefited from at least one general map of France. One of the only downfalls of this book that can be argued is the use of charts. With the groupings of people in his book it could have been helpful to see a breakdown of peoples in each class. Along with this he could illustrate with charts the economy and government records. This being the only downfall of the book in no way taints what an excellent read it was.

In a very personal way this book has helped out a great deal. What I mean by that is the subject matter in which I am presently studying runs concurrently with the book. This made the book an excellent secondary piece of work to study . It is obvious that Lefebvre s book is a top excepted theory of the French revolution. His book was very fluent and concise. He did not spend time on writing tons and tons of superfluous details in his analysis of the Revolution.