Changes

The arch-conservative Legitimist or "Bourbon" interpretation, typified by [[Joseph de Maistre]] (1753–1821) portrayed the French Revolution as an illegitimate, bloodthirsty usurpation of legitimate rulers.  The Right in France rejected the Revolution and all its works. However, recent conservative historiography has argued that the Revolution accomplished only what was was already underway, and added little new except needless violence and hatreds.  The Roman Catholic variation stressed the attacks on religion and the [[established church]], and the horrors of the Terror, thereby bolstering the political conservatism of the Catholics, whose schools were under attack by Radicals for much of the 19th century.

The arch-conservative Legitimist or "Bourbon" interpretation, typified by [[Joseph de Maistre]] (1753–1821) portrayed the French Revolution as an illegitimate, bloodthirsty usurpation of legitimate rulers.  The Right in France rejected the Revolution and all its works. However, recent conservative historiography has argued that the Revolution accomplished only what was was already underway, and added little new except needless violence and hatreds.  The Roman Catholic variation stressed the attacks on religion and the [[established church]], and the horrors of the Terror, thereby bolstering the political conservatism of the Catholics, whose schools were under attack by Radicals for much of the 19th century.

===Marxists===

===Marxists===

The Marxist historians, for example [[Albert Soboul]], [[George Rude]] and [[Peter McPhee]], counter by pointing to the rise of the bourgeoisie class in power due to the abolition of seigneruial rights and privileges, claiming that the French Revolution was the starting-point for capitalist society and the modern democracy.  Marxist historiography, which was dominant from the 1930s into the 1970s, argued that material economic factors made a revolution inevitable, gave it force, and made it a model for the 20th century socialists to emulate. Marxists, led by Albert Mathiez (1874–1932), [[Georges Lefebvre]] (1874-1959)<ref> See   

The Marxist historians, for example [[Albert Soboul]], [[George Rude]] and [[Peter McPhee]], counter by pointing to the rise of the bourgeoisie class in power due to the abolition of seigneruial rights and privileges, claiming that the French Revolution was the starting-point for capitalist society and the modern democracy.  Marxist historiography, which was dominant from the 1930s into the 1970s, argued that material economic factors made a revolution inevitable, gave it force, and made it a model for the 20th century socialists to emulate. Marxists, led by Albert Mathiez (1874–1932), [[Georges Lefebvre]] (1874-1959)<ref> See   

LeFebvre, ''The French Revolution: From its Origins to 1793'' (2001 edition) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Origins-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415253934/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603529&sr=1-2 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com] </ref> , and Albert Soboul (1914-1982)<ref> Soboul, ''The Sans-Culottes'' (1981 edition) [http://www.amazon.com/Sans-Culottes-Albert-Soboul/dp/0691007829/ref=pd_sim_b_2_img/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&qid=1189598691&sr=8-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com] </ref>, identify two stages, a liberal bourgeois revolution (1789) against the feudal landed aristocracy, followed by a second and more radical democratic revolution against the bourgeoisie led by the the sans-culottes (the urban poor)<ref>"1789: The Fact and Fiction of the Sans-Culottes Movement" (2007) online at [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255/la/sans-culottes.html] </ref>. That is, the wealthy town dwellers and businessmen (the "bourgeoisie") were angry that the nobility governed France. They found a voice (in Marxist language, they realized their identity as a class) and first sought power against the upper class (in 1789) and then (1791-99) against the proletariat (poor people) of the cities and peasants from below who suddenly emerged and demanded power themselves. The conflict permanently radicalized France and was the foundation of the Left in French political history. Marxists lament the counterrevolution of Thermidor and the coming to power of Napoleon.  

LeFebvre, ''The French Revolution: From its Origins to 1793'' (2001 edition) [http://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-Origins-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415253934/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603529&sr=1-2 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com] </ref> , and Albert Soboul (1914-1982)<ref> Soboul, ''The Sans-Culottes'' (1981 edition) [http://www.amazon.com/Sans-Culottes-Albert-Soboul/dp/0691007829/ref=pd_sim_b_2_img/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&qid=1189598691&sr=8-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com] </ref>, identify two stages, a liberal bourgeois revolution (1789) against the feudal landed aristocracy, followed by a second and more radical democratic revolution against the bourgeoisie led by the the sans-culottes (the urban poor)<ref>"1789: The Fact and Fiction of the Sans-Culottes Movement" (2007) online at [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255/la/sans-culottes.html] </ref>. That is, the wealthy town dwellers and businessmen (the "bourgeoisie") were angry that the nobility governed France. They found a voice (in Marxist language, they realized their identity as a class) and first sought power against the upper class (in 1789) and then (1791-99) against the proletariat (poor people) of the cities and peasants from below who suddenly emerged and demanded power themselves. The conflict permanently radicalized France and was the foundation of the Left in French political history. Marxists lament the counterrevolution of Thermidor and the coming to power of Napoleon.  

The Marxist approach was a simple model that claimed to simultaneously explain the Revolution's origins, its internal dynamics and its long-term consequences. The dominance of the Left in French intellectual life ensured the theory was dominant for decades, but it had serious flaws. As English scholar Alfred Cobban explained, feudalism as a system had withered away long before the Revolution abolished its last vestiges in the form of seigniorial rights. Furthermore where Marxists saw a self-conscious, capitalist bourgeois class, Cobban revealed only a loose collection of disparate social groups that did not include the industrialists and businessmen but rather the officeholders and lawyers. These men led the revolution not as spokesmen for the forces of capitalism; rather they were state-builders.  Other scholars showed the nobility was not parasitic obstructionist and reactionary caste of Republican or Marxist writing, but rather a diverse and open group whose leaders actively promoted political and economic modernization.<ref> Alfred Cobban, ''The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution'' (1962); Doyle (1999) ch 2; John Dunne, "Fifty Years of Rewriting the French Revolution: Signposts Main Landmarks and Current Directions in the Historiographical Debate," ''History Review.'' (1998) pp 8+ [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001505046 online edition] </ref>

The Marxist approach was a simple model that claimed to simultaneously explain the Revolution's origins, its internal dynamics and its long-term consequences. The dominance of the Left in French intellectual life ensured the theory was dominant for decades, but it had serious flaws. As English scholar Alfred Cobban explained, feudalism as a system had withered away long before the Revolution abolished its last vestiges in the form of seigniorial rights. Furthermore where Marxists saw a self-conscious, capitalist bourgeois class, Cobban revealed only a loose collection of disparate social groups that did not include the industrialists and businessmen but rather the officeholders and lawyers. These men led the revolution not as spokesmen for the forces of capitalism; rather they were state-builders.  Other scholars showed the nobility was not parasitic obstructionist and reactionary caste of Republican or Marxist writing, but rather a diverse and open group whose leaders actively promoted political and economic modernization.<ref> Alfred Cobban, ''The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution'' (1962); Doyle (1999) ch 2; John Dunne, "Fifty Years of Rewriting the French Revolution: Signposts Main Landmarks and Current Directions in the Historiographical Debate," ''History Review.'' (1998) pp 8+ [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001505046 online edition] </ref>

===Furet and conservatives===

===Furet and conservatives===

To replace Marxist interpretations was the goal of [[François Furet]] (1927-97)), the head of the history section of the Ecole pratique des hautes etudes. He argued instead that the Revolution is best understood as the victory of the [[Enlightenment]]--particularly the [[Jean Jacques Rousseau|Rousseauian]] version--over social interests. Intellectual forces were dominant, not [[class conflict]] or materialistic forces.  Furet's influential American ally was Keith Baker, of the University of Chicago. Baker, influenced by the linguistic turn pioneered by [[J. G. A. Pocock]] identified three competing discourses that shaped how people thought in the second half of the eighteenth century. The "language of will" promised rights to the majority while the "language of justice" and the "language of equality" also shaped political values. Justice emphasized history and the desire to maintain contracts; proponents of equality wanted reason to prevail in governmental decision making. According to Baker, in the summer of 1789 the revolutionaries suddenly embraced the language of will. Once embarked on this course, the Terror followed from their insistence that the majority should realize its ambitions. Political and social factors were not necessary to arrive at this unfortunate result, said Baker; instead it was the embrace of the three political discourses of will, justice and equality that drove the revolution.<ref>Censer, "Amalgamating the Social in the French Revolution" (2003) </ref>

To replace Marxist interpretations was the goal of [[François Furet]] (1927-97)), the head of the history section of the Ecole pratique des hautes etudes. He argued instead that the Revolution is best understood as the victory of the [[Enlightenment]]--particularly the [[Jean Jacques Rousseau|Rousseauian]] version--over social interests. Intellectual forces were dominant, not [[class conflict]] or materialistic forces.  Furet's influential American ally was Keith Baker, of the University of Chicago. Baker, influenced by the linguistic turn pioneered by [[J. G. A. Pocock]] identified three competing discourses that shaped how people thought in the second half of the eighteenth century. The "language of will" promised rights to the majority while the "language of justice" and the "language of equality" also shaped political values. Justice emphasized history and the desire to maintain contracts; proponents of equality wanted reason to prevail in governmental decision making. According to Baker, in the summer of 1789 the revolutionaries suddenly embraced the language of will. Once embarked on this course, the Terror followed from their insistence that the majority should realize its ambitions. Political and social factors were not necessary to arrive at this unfortunate result, said Baker; instead it was the embrace of the three political discourses of will, justice and equality that drove the revolution.<ref>Censer, "Amalgamating the Social in the French Revolution" (2003) </ref>