You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The political narrative of the Revolution — the fall of the Bastille, the Terror, Brumaire — is only half the story. Beneath the drama of assemblies and journees, the Revolution reached into the daily lives of twenty-eight million French men and women, transforming the terms on which they held land, worshipped, worked, married, and understood themselves as members of a society. This lesson approaches the Revolution thematically rather than chronologically, asking a question distinct from those of the narrative lessons: not what happened but what changed — and, just as importantly, what did not. Who gained from the Revolution and who lost? Was it a genuine social transformation or, as revisionist historians have argued, a political upheaval that left the deep structures of French society largely intact?
The difficulty of the topic lies in its unevenness. The Revolution's impact varied enormously by social group, by region, and by moment: the same decade that emancipated the peasantry from feudal dues also conscripted its sons and requisitioned its grain; the same Revolution that proclaimed the rights of man excluded women from citizenship and eventually re-subordinated them by law. To assess the Revolution's social meaning, the historian must resist both the celebratory narrative of liberation and the cynical narrative of futility, and instead weigh gains against losses, group by group. This thematic analysis also underpins one of the most demanding kinds of Section B essay — the question that asks you to judge the Revolution's significance for a social group across the whole 1774–99 span.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to Edexcel 9HI0 Paper 2, Option 2C.1 (Route C depth study): "France in revolution, 1774–99." It addresses the Revolution's impact on French society — the peasantry, the bourgeoisie, the urban popular classes, and women — together with revolutionary economic policy and dechristianisation. Within our own teaching sequence it is the first of two thematic lessons that cut across the chronological narrative, complementing the lesson on religion and counter-revolution and drawing together material introduced piecemeal in Lessons 1–6.
Because Paper 2 is a depth paper, the reward is for fine command of a short period and for source judgements set firmly in context. (For the precise weightings and question wording, consult the official Edexcel specification and sample assessment materials rather than any paraphrase.)
The peasantry — roughly four-fifths of the French population — was the largest social group affected by the Revolution, and its experience is the clearest test of whether 1789 amounted to a social transformation. The headline change was the abolition of feudalism, begun on the night of 4 August 1789 and completed, without compensation, by the Convention in July 1793. The thicket of seigneurial dues — the cens, the champart, the banalites (compulsory use of the lord's mill, oven, and winepress), and the hunting rights that had protected game at the expense of crops — was swept away. The tithe owed to the Church was abolished. For a peasantry that had defined its grievance in 1789 precisely as the burden of seigneurialism, this was a genuine and lasting emancipation.
| Change | Impact on the Peasantry |
|---|---|
| Abolition of feudal dues (1789–1793) | Ended the cens, champart, banalites, and seigneurial justice; the single most durable peasant gain of the Revolution |
| Abolition of the tithe (1789) | Removed a heavy charge on agricultural produce, though rents sometimes rose to absorb the saving |
| Sale of the biens nationaux (from 1790) | Nationalised Church and émigré land was sold; wealthier peasants and the bourgeoisie were the main buyers, less so the poor |
| Conscription (from 1793) | The levee en masse fell heavily on rural communities, provoking resistance and, in the west, revolt |
| Requisitioning and the Maximum | The controlled economy of the Year II requisitioned grain to feed the cities and armies, resented by producing peasants |
Yet the emancipation was bounded, and the balance-sheet is mixed. The abolition of feudalism benefited landholding peasants most; the large minority of landless labourers gained little directly, and the sale of the biens nationaux — the nationalised lands of the Church and, later, of the émigrés — tended to enrich those who already had capital: wealthier peasants (the laboureurs) and the bourgeoisie, rather than the rural poor. Meanwhile the Revolution imposed new burdens that fell heavily on the countryside: conscription from 1793, the requisitioning of grain, and the forced circulation of the depreciating assignat. The peasantry's relationship with the Revolution was therefore deeply ambivalent — grateful for the end of seigneurialism, hostile to conscription and requisition, and in the west (as the next lesson shows) driven into open counter-revolution by the combination of the draft and the religious schism.
The most defensible judgement is that the peasantry secured the Revolution's most durable social gain — the definitive end of the seigneurial system, which no subsequent regime, not even the restored monarchy after 1814, dared to reverse — while experiencing the Revolution's political radicalism (conscription, dechristianisation, requisition) largely as an imposition. This distinction between a welcomed legal emancipation and a resented political mobilisation is central to any thematic essay on the peasantry.
If any group can be called the Revolution's victors, it is the bourgeoisie — the merchants, manufacturers, lawyers, officials, and property-owners who supplied the Revolution's leadership from the Third Estate of 1789 to the propertied Republic of the Directory. The Revolution abolished the legal privileges of the nobility, opened careers to talent, established civil equality before the law, and enshrined property as an inviolable right (Article 17 of the Declaration). The sale of the biens nationaux transferred a vast quantity of land into bourgeois hands. By the time of the Directory, the constitution of the Year III had explicitly built a propertied republic in which the vote was reserved for property-owners — the political triumph of the bourgeoisie in its narrowest sense.
Yet even this apparently straightforward story is complicated by the revisionist critique. The older Marxist model presented the Revolution as a bourgeois revolution in which a rising capitalist class overthrew a feudal-aristocratic order. Alfred Cobban and later revisionists objected that the revolutionary bourgeoisie were overwhelmingly lawyers, office-holders, and professionals rather than industrial capitalists, that the nobility had itself invested heavily in commerce, and that the Revolution did comparatively little to promote industrial capitalism — indeed the loss of colonial trade and the wartime disruption harmed French commerce for a generation. On this reading the bourgeoisie's gains were legal and political (civil equality, careers open to talent, the security of property) rather than economic in the Marxist sense of a capitalist breakthrough. A strong thematic answer therefore distinguishes the bourgeoisie's genuine triumph in status and law from the more questionable claim that the Revolution was a capitalist transformation.
The sans-culottes — the artisans, shopkeepers, journeymen, and small tradesmen of the towns, and above all of the Paris sections — were the popular movement whose insurrectionary pressure drove the Revolution leftward from 1792 and made the Terror possible. Named for the long trousers they wore in place of aristocratic breeches (culottes), they were not the destitute poor but the settled working population of the capital, organised through the sections and the popular societies. Their programme was distinct and radical: price controls on bread and essentials (the Maximum), the punishment of 'hoarders' and profiteers, direct democracy through the sections, the requisitioning of grain, and terror against traitors.
For a brief period in 1793–94 the sans-culottes exercised real power, forcing the Convention to concede the General Maximum (September 1793) against its own economic liberalism. But their triumph was short-lived, and their ultimate fate is one of the sharpest ironies of the Revolution. The Montagnards who rode sans-culotte pressure to power also feared it, and through 1794 they curbed the sections, closed the popular societies, and destroyed the ultra-radical Hebertists who spoke for the movement. When Robespierre fell in Thermidor, the sans-culottes — already alienated by the wage maximum and the destruction of their leaders — did not rise to save him. After Thermidor the abandonment of the Maximum and the famine winter of 1794–95 drove them to the risings of Germinal and Prairial (1795), which were crushed with military force. Thereafter the popular movement was broken as an autonomous political force. The sans-culottes thus powered the Revolution's most radical phase and then lost everything: the group whose pressure had made the Republic of the Year II was, by 1795, disarmed, silenced, and politically extinguished. Their exclusion is central to the social meaning of Thermidor and the Directory.
The place of women is one of the most illuminating tests of the Revolution's proclaimed universalism, precisely because the gap between rhetoric and outcome is so wide. Women were active participants in the Revolution from the outset: it was the market women of Paris who led the October Days (1789) and brought the king to the capital; women filled the galleries of the Convention, joined the crowds of the great journees, and formed political clubs such as the Society of Revolutionary Republican Women (1793). The Revolution also delivered real, if limited, legal gains: the secularisation of marriage and the divorce law of September 1792 gave women — for the first time — the right to initiate divorce on equal terms with men, and reforms to inheritance law improved daughters' position relative to the old order.
| Dimension | Detail |
|---|---|
| Participation | Women led the October Days, joined the journees, filled the Convention's galleries, and formed political clubs |
| Legal gains | The 1792 divorce law allowed women to initiate divorce on equal terms; marriage was secularised; inheritance reforms aided daughters |
| Advocacy | Olympe de Gouges published the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen (1791), demanding that revolutionary rights extend to women |
| Exclusion | Women were never granted the vote or full citizenship; they were classed with the 'passive' |
| Re-subordination | In October 1793 the Convention banned women's political clubs; de Gouges was guillotined in November 1793; the later Napoleonic Code (1804) entrenched women's legal subordination |
Yet the Revolution that proclaimed the rights of man systematically excluded women from political citizenship. Women never received the vote; they were classed among the 'passive' citizens denied active political rights. When Olympe de Gouges responded to the 1789 Declaration with her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen (1791), demanding that liberty and equality be extended to women, she was answered not with reform but, ultimately, with the guillotine: she was executed in November 1793, the same autumn in which the Convention banned women's political clubs (October 1793) and pushed women decisively out of the public sphere. The trajectory of the Revolution on women's rights was therefore, if anything, regressive over the decade: the relative openness of 1789–92 gave way to active exclusion in 1793, and the process culminated after our period in the Napoleonic Civil Code (1804), which entrenched the legal subordination of wives to husbands for generations.
The historiographical significance of this pattern is considerable. Feminist historians such as Joan Landes and Olwen Hufton have argued that the exclusion of women was not an incidental failure but was built into the very conception of the revolutionary public sphere, which defined citizenship and reason as masculine and consigned women to a domestic, private role. On this reading the Revolution's universalism was gendered from the start, and its treatment of women exposes the boundedness of the 'rights of man' more starkly than any other issue. A top-band thematic answer uses women's experience to interrogate the Revolution's central claim — that it inaugurated universal rights — and finds that claim decisively qualified.
The Revolution's economic policy was dominated by the fiscal emergency it inherited and by the wartime crisis after 1792. Its central instrument was the assignat. In November 1789 the Assembly nationalised the vast landholdings of the Church — the biens nationaux — and against the security of these lands issued the assignats, initially interest-bearing bonds but rapidly transformed into a paper currency. The logic was elegant: the state would pay its debts in assignats, which holders could use to buy nationalised land, after which the notes would be retired.
The consequences rippled through the whole Revolution. The sale of Church and (later) émigré lands created a large class of new proprietors with a direct material stake in the Revolution's survival, since a counter-revolution might reclaim their purchases — perhaps the single most important guarantee of the Revolution's irreversibility. But the assignats also carried the seeds of disaster: as successive governments printed ever more to meet mounting needs, the currency depreciated steeply, fuelling the inflation and dearth that radicalised the urban poor and drove the sans-culotte demand for price controls. The controlled economy of the Year II — the General Maximum on prices and wages, the requisitioning of grain, the death penalty for hoarding — was a response to that inflation and to the needs of total war; it was dismantled after Thermidor, whereupon prices soared again and the assignat collapsed entirely, to be withdrawn in 1796. The economic history of the Revolution is thus a story of a single fiscal expedient — the assignat — that secured the Revolution's social base while generating the instability that repeatedly destabilised its politics. This entanglement of finance and social change is a theme worth carrying into any essay on why the Revolution radicalised.
The most radical assault on traditional society came in the dechristianisation campaign of the winter of 1793–94. Building on the schism opened by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (examined in the next lesson), radicals — especially the Hebertists and certain representatives on mission — sought not merely to reform the Church but to replace Christianity altogether. Churches were closed and stripped, church bells and plate were melted down, priests were pressured to abdicate or marry, and a new Revolutionary Calendar was introduced (adopted October 1793, backdated to September 1792) that abolished the Christian week and its Sundays, renaming the months after the seasons. In Paris and some provincial centres, a Cult of Reason was proclaimed, and in November 1793 a Festival of Reason was staged in Notre-Dame itself, with the cathedral reconsecrated as a 'Temple of Reason'.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.