Category Archives: HIST107-Archive

Heads Would Roll, But That Wasn’t Enough

Posted on by

Just as Louis XIV  created symbols of his power as the absolute ruler of France, such as the palace of Versailles and even himself (he was the “Sun King” and claimed that he was the state/the state was him), so did the leaders of the French Revolution create their own symbols and culture in order to aid their overthrow of the monarchy and subsequent attempts to create a whole  new society.

In a pamphlet entitled What is the Third Estate?, Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès wrote that the Third Estate was “everything.” He argued that because the Third Estate made up the vast majority of France’s people (about 96%), and because it was the only segment of the Estates-General that contributed to the maintenance and betterment of the state, that it therefore was the state. Here, Sieyès made the opposite claim as Louis XIV, but he makes his claim for the same reason: to show where the power of France should lay. Instead of making the king the symbol of France, Sieyès made the common people the symbol of the nation. This trend continued in some of the artwork of the revolutionary period, as common people were shown dressed in fine clothing and in improved health but also performing tasks that would be useful to both themselves and the greater good of the state.

When Maximilien Robespierre wrote about the Supreme Being, he did so not out of religious fervor (although that could have played a role) but because the revolutionaries needed another way to unite the diverse peoples of France. Robespierre asserted that the French Revolution would be supported by the Supreme Being, as He created man to seek liberty and punish tyrants. Robespierre cleverly wrote about the Supreme Being in a Deist manner that would allow both Catholics and people of a more agnostic/atheist persuasion to relate to Robespierre’s argument, and his version of the Supreme Being also enabled him to maintain the Enlightenment ideal of Reason without completely trampling religion into the dirt.

Fashion during the revolutionary period also took on an Enlightenment spin, as dressing in clothes inspired by ancient Greece became a trend. The French thought of the people of ancient Greece as great thinkers and writers, so they sought to emulate this society that placed a value on reason that they saw as being like France’s. Additionally, the first known democracy occurred in ancient Greece, and while France by no means became the paragon of democracy at that point, people of a revolutionary mindset wanted to invoke the Greeks as an example of a nation that placed a high value on liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Chopping off some elaborately coiffed heads could not transform France alone; alongside the political actions and ramifications of the revolution, revolutionary leaders changed the symbols and culture of France in order to unite the Third Estate in rejection of the old order.

Questions for your consideration:

How does Robespierre’s treatment of religion compare to or differ from that of other revolutionary leaders (such as those in the American Revolution or the Communist revolution in Russia)?

In what other ways did the revolutionaries of France use symbols to their advantage? What kinds of symbols do we and/or our leaders use in the U.S. today?

Do you agree that the political revolution in France would not have been possible had it not been accompanied by a cultural one as well?

 

 

 

La Marseillaise and The Cult of the Supreme Being

Posted on by

When reading “La Marseillaise”, the French national anthem, I found it surprising that Rouget, who composed this anthem himself, refused to take the oath (Halsall,1997). The main focus of this anthem was to rise the people during the French revolution, the goal was to also convince them to stand up for what they believed in. It is to gather the people to go against their tyrant who is unjust. This is stated in the line “shall hateful tyrants, mischief breeding (Rouget,1792)”. This song was to inspire the army to continue on in triumph. This song explains the argument that they can either live in misery or stand up against those repressing them and state their beliefs. This document is a religious document.

In the Cult of the Supreme Being, a similar idea is stated. Robespierre (1758-94), was a leader during one of the most radical, violent stages in the revolution (Halsall, 1997). I thought it was interesting how Halsall pointed out that although this is the period of the reign of terror, it was also a time period where the government had a great deal of control. The people have seen torture, violence and have watched the king demolish a great deal of the human race. This is a time period where the people are in need of peace. Rather than uprising the people as the anthem “La marseillaise” did, it is directed towards the army. This statement is drastically against the idea of having a king, and states the negative affects of all kings rulings.

La Marseillaise and The Cult of the Supreme Being

Posted on by

In The Cult of Supreme Being, Robespierre focused intensely on the correlation between God and revolution. Robespierre’s focus on God discredited the divine right claimed by the French monarchs. While absolutists claimed their title to the throne was granted to the by God, Robespierre claimed the opposite, stating that God did not create kings to “devour the human race.” He did not support many enlightened thinkers of the era,who wished to distance the goals of the revolution from Christianity. Rather, Robespierre legitimizes the revolutionary cause by claiming that God supported freedom and the revolution.

La Marseillaise, on the other hand, has some major differences than The Cult of the Supreme Being. For one, it is not a religiously based document, and it is also a direct call to arms. Robespierre’s document is a religious justification of the revolution, while La Marseillaise implores direct action to be taken. Translated to English, the song cries of revolution, demanding fields to be watered with blood, and that the revolutionaries demand liberty or death. These documents are key revolutionary pieces, although they have different motives. One document is a justification of war, while the other demands action to be taken against the monarchy.

Cult of the Supreme Being

Posted on by

Robespierre’s Cult of the Supreme Being was a form of Deism intended to replace Christianity as the national religion of France. It emphasized the existence of a single god, the immortality of the human soul, and placed considerable weight on natural observation and reason. Though somewhat consistent with Christian principles, these beliefs were aimed to promote public well being, rather than the well being of the church.

The Cult of the Supreme Being was designed to adapt the belief in god to the Enlightenment. Robespierre wanted to find a middle ground between devout Christianity and Atheism. He denounced complete de-Christianization, which sought to completely rid France of the religion, but also condemned the church and king for disfiguring “Divinity by superstition,” and associating “it with their crimes.”

Robespierre argued that the Christian Church had become corrupt, and that Christianity had become a way for the Clergy steal money from the Third Estate, and an excuse for the Nobility retain power. He Stated that God “did not create kings to devour the human race. He did not create priests to harness us, like vile animals, to the chariots of kings and to give to the world examples of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery, and falsehood,” rather “he created the universe to proclaim His power. He created men to help each other, to love each other mutually, and to attain to happiness by the way of virtue.” Robespierre saw the Cult of the Supreme Being as the way to reach this mutual happiness.

The Cult of the Supreme Being

Posted on by

One of the main factors contributing to the French Revolution was an intensifying contempt for the relationship between the Catholic church and the State. Robespierre alludes to this dissatisfaction in his writing saying, “He did not create priests to harness us … to the chariots of kings”. Robespierre was one of the most influential figures in the French Revolution, but rather than lead a charge against the Church and religion like some of his revolutionary peers, he is able to rally a cause for revolution fueled by new, but fervent religious grounds. The Cult of the Supreme Being calls asserts the existence of benevolent and divine being, “who, from the beginning of time, decreed for all the ages and for all peoples liberty, good faith, and justice.” It is He who provides the revolutionists with the strength and purpose for their cause Robespierre asserts. Robespierre’s call to action is one based on religious service and natural rights: “Our blood flows for the cause of humanity. Behold our prayer. Behold our sacrifices. Behold the worship we offer Thee.”

Again, this call to sacred action appears in La Marseillaise, which claims a “Sacred love of the fatherland” will guide the revolution to victory over the “impure blood” of their enemies.

From these two readings, it becomes visible just how much the French Revolution is changing perceptions of religion and the people’s place in the State.

Supreme Being and La Marseillaise: culture of Franch Revolution

Posted on by

La Marseillaise

As the represent of liberaty, La Marseillaise has been widely spread. It’s sentence reflected the people’s emotion in the early Revolutionary period. This song is full of desire to fight against the monarchy. “Our day of Glory has arrived. Against us stands tyranny, The bloody flag is raised, The bloody flag is raised.(first paragraph 2-4 sentences)” and “To arms, citizens!Form up your battalions  Let us march, Let us march!(second paragraph 1-3 sentences)” Those aggressive and blood burning words reflected the writer’s willing to fight with the tyranny until the end- without the fear of bleeding. For this song be widely accepted since it born, it seems in the late 18th century, the Franch society is well perpared for the revolution, people could not tolerate the ruling from the noblity one more seconds. Also, La Marseillaise shows a direct hatred towards the monarch. “They come right into our arms To cut the throats of your sons, your country. (first paragraph sentences 8-10)” and “That their impure blood
Should water our fields(second paragraph sentences 4-5)” —No mercy, only blood can quiet down people’s anger. That might link with the following Jacobins’ terror period: too much people immersed in blood.

The Cult of Supreme Being

The Cult of Supreme Being seems is the effort of Jacobins to deny the old validity of monarch to rule in Catholicism. “Is it not He whose immortal hand, engraving on the heart of man the code of justice and equality, has written there the death sentence of tyrants? Is it not He who, from the beginning of time, decreed for all the ages and for all peoples liberty, good faith, and justice? (6th paragraph)” They linked liberty and justice with religious, to show the people their validity of the revolution and to kill the monarch. “He did not create kings to devour the human race. He did not create priests to harness us, like vile animals, to the chariots of kings and to give to the world examples of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery, and falsehood. He created the universe to proclaim His power. He created men to help each other, to love each other mutually, and to attain to happiness by the way of virtue.(7th paragraph) ” and denied the rights of noblity and kings to rule. It also showed some ideas from enlightenment as help each other, to love each other. However, perhaps it seems to radical as other policies from Jacobins, France has been influenced by Catholicism over a thousand of years and it’s hard to deny it totally. The Cult of Supreme Being didn’t left too much influence to France for today we even didn’t know it unless by history materials.

Conclusion

La Marseillaise and The Cult of Supreme Being all reflected the culture during Franch revolution: radical, no compromise, overturn everything left before. They showed the great spirit of Franch people to fight against monarchy both in physical and mental but also indicated that the atmosphere of revolution is too radical and caused too much unnecessary bleeding.

 

The Cult of the Supreme Being

Posted on by

During the initial stages of the French Revolution there was growing support for the separation of church and state. Many of the contributing members of society from all social strata (the Third Estate), ranging from peasants at the lower end to merchants at the top, began to reject the Catholic Church because it was perceived as a tool of repression and subjugation. Several of the revolution’s leaders initially tried to completely distance French society from any degree of religious inclination. These “radical” thinkers of the age garnered a large amount of support for a new doctrine called the Cult of Reason, which incorporated atheistic views centered on the guiding concept of reason to help guide society’s operation.

Although the Cult of Reason gained an initial foothold in French society, one of the very outspoken and influential leaders of the Committee of Public Safety, Maximilian Robespierre, did not agree with the godless aspect of this new ideological framework. He instead developed his own religious system called The Cult of the Supreme Being. This construct differed from the latter in that it contained elements of religion, deism in particular, and argued that civic virtue and respect for fellow man would aptly serve the all-powerful “creator.” In the document, The Cult of the Supreme Being, Robespierre wrote, “The Author of Nature has bound all mortals by a boundless chain of love and happiness. Perish the tyrants who have dared to break it!” This quote demonstrates how Robespierre believed that humanity was designed to exist in a state of harmony and equilibrium, but certain evil individuals (tyrants) have polluted the system’s design by oppressing fellow men. Robespierre believed that it is the duty of all Frenchman to worship the Supreme Being by taking revolutionary actions to dethrone the tyrants, thus restoring the natural and intended state of nature that the Godhead had intended. He was able to justify revolutionary actions through this paradigm.

Question:

What do you believe are the pros and cons of a religious society?

La Marseillaise

Posted on by

The French Revolution is often considered one of the most important revolutions in world history, because it was one of the most violent and yet romanticized series of events, and one of the most influential and impacting revolutions in history. For many, it served as a cautionary tale of what could happen to a country or a state if class struggles and separation became too great. (In fact, the French Revolution later impacted Karl Marx’s views toward capitalism and elitism. He came to see it as a step towards a proletarian revolution and heading down the path he was thinking.) However, such a revolution would not have occurred had it not been for those who inspired it with their speeches, their songs, or their essays. A state of discontent or disapproval is not enough to get a revolution started, rather, someone needs to stir the proverbial pot and provide a rallying cry around the misfortune. It’s quite ironic that the composer of one of the most famous pieces of the French Revolution was a royalist, who wrote it while defending France against the Austrians.

<iframe width=”420″ height=”315″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/4K1q9Ntcr5g” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K1q9Ntcr5g” title=”La%20Marseillaise,%20French%20National%20Anthem%20(Fr%2FEn)”]

((“La Marseillaise, French National Anthem (Fr/En),” YouTube video, 5:21, posted by “bursty13,” September 1,
2007, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K1q9Ntcr5g.))

La Marseillaise Sheet Music ((Rouget de Lisle, Claude Joseph. La Marseillaise. Retrieved from http://imslp.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise_%28Rouget_de_Lisle,_Claude-Joseph%29 ))

 

“La Marseillaise,” composed and written in April 1792 by Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle (1760-1836), was quite the revolutionary piece of music. The song itself follows much like a march, and has an easy and catchy tune. The refrain of the piece, or the repeated part of music, has simple words and simple notes, and therefore makes it easy for everyone to sing, hum, or whisper along. Thus, it intrinsically represents one of the ideals presented by John Locke, and that many revolutionaries believed in – equal opportunity. More specifically, it presents the opportunity for everyone who wants to sing along to be able to sing along. The piece’s style, therefore, in itself makes it revolutionary.

Secondly, the lyrics make the song revolutionary as well. Often times, the lyrics express the need to defend the “fatherland” (verse one, line one) against the enemies “tyranny” (verse one, line three) and “savage soldiers” (verse one, line seven). The lyrics therefore express the unification of one group of people facing the oppression or aggression of another individual/group. Such a description also depicts what is considered to be a revolution. To be put simply, during the French Revolution, the suppressed impoverished and middle class unified to take on the oppression of royalty and nobility. Lastly, the second verse highlights the need for the defense of liberty and freedom, also a rallying cry of the French Revolution.

Lastly, the song generated lots of controversy in the years following the French Revolution due to its root history. Despite being declared France’s national anthem in the years following the Revolution, Napoleon I banned the piece soon after becoming ruler in France. Following this, the song underwent periods of being banned and legal for the next three quarters of a century. It appears that, for many, the piece’s revolutionary undertones were too much for the rulers that followed and as such, the piece consistently was controversial and under scrutiny. However, following its reinstatement as the national anthem in 1879, it has remained that way since then.

Possible Questions to Consider:

Do you agree with my argument that the song’s catchy nature makes it effective as a revolutionary song?

Why might a song be especially effective at transmitting attitudes and thoughts? Or rather, what might make a song more effective than an essay or a novel/book?

Are there any other famous revolutionary songs that you may be able to compare this one too?

 

Marry Wollstonecraft, before her time

Posted on by

When the ideas of equality in Western Europe, specifically in France and England, are discussed, one thinks of the disparity of wealth between the aristocrats, the bourgeoisie, and the peasant classes. However the subject of equality comes specifically out of a male dominated society.

In France during the 1790’s Women were treated as inferior to men in all respects, both physically and mentally. They were not represented equally politically, and had practically no voice in the changes that were coming to France at that time.

During the Same period the wife of an aristocrat in England Marry Wollstonecraft, was able to take advantage of the education that her status provided, and wrote about the plight of women during the period. Wollstonecraft commented on both the sexism and the belief of most men during the period that women were simply social objects. Wollstonecraft’s writings were ahead of her time. She could be considered to be one of the first Western European women’s rights activists. In her writing she specifically describes how men would never ask the opinion of women on any subjects having to do with social or political issues. She also describes how many men treated women like objects, or as a delicate thing that may break if it was handled poorly. Wollstonecraft’s argument is that women should be included in the workings of western society. She cited the fact that women are never consulted, and therefore are not able to influence their surroundings, and therefore are at the mercy of men.

Wollstonecraft’s writings were heavily influenced by the events of the French Revolution, and the fact that women, especially peasant women bore the brunt of many atrocities that the revolution produced. Wollstonecraft was ahead of her time in the way that she argued for increased representation of women in the political realms of her time.

The Declaration of Independence and What is the Third Estate

Posted on by

The Declaration of Independence is a document that was published in 1776 by Thomas Jefferson as a reaction to a series of offenses by the English Government, specifically King George III.The document states that the colonists have a desire to dissolve their ties to the King and the government that surrounds him, an entirely novel idea during the time period. Jefferson writes that the colonists have the right to no longer be British subjects because “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Blaisdell 64). Once Jefferson establishes what these unalienable rights are, he goes on to list all of the ways that he, and the rest of the colonists, believe King George III has been withholding these rights from them (Blaisdell 65). Jefferson’s document, The Declaration of Independence, did exactly what its name would lead one to assume, it declared the independence of the people in the colonies and sparked a revolution.
Another man, Emmanual Joseph Sieyes, makes a remarkably similar push for independence and a revolution of the social system in his work What is the Third Estate. Much like Jefferson, Sieyes saw that men do have certain rights, that should not be taken from them. Written as a response to an inquiry about how the Estates-General should be organized What is the Third Estate asked for many of the same things as Jefferson’s The Declaration of Independence did but most importantly it requested equal representation for the Third Estate. Sieyes argues that the Third Estate “constitutes nineteen-twentieths” of all the production in the country (Blaisdell 72) and that in the event that there were no First and Second Estates leeching off of the work of the Third that the country would be far more efficient and better off in general, much like Jefferson says about the colonists being better off without King George III suppressing them. Just as The Declaration of Independence did, What is the Third Estate motivated the people to make a change, and to revolutionize the way of thinking about social order, mans’ rights and government power.