Tag Archives: Abbe Sieyes

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?

 

 

 

Comparing Revolutionary Documents

Posted on by

The difference between the Declaration of Independence and “What is the Third Estate?” is the inflammatory nature of the latter. The Declaration of Independence was written by the Americans in order to outline the grievances they had against the crown. They had no reason to expect any immediate retaliation by the king because the main body of the king’s forces was all the way across the Atlantic Ocean. Not only that but the king would not even hear about the document for months because of that distance. “What is the Third Estate?” was written under a different set of circumstances. The piece was written in France within easy reach of the French government and military. There was much more danger associated with a revolution on French soil because of the potential immediate response times.
The Declaration of Independence was written in a tone that inspired patriotism in the readers. This was because many of the citizens were still loyalists and wanted to remain a British colony. There was no need to incite the citizens themselves to rise up and fight the British because they were so far removed from the King. There was no need for the average citizen to take up arms against British soldiers. The same was not true of “What is the Third Estate?” Abbe Sieyes was well aware of the clear and present danger that accompanied the proliferation of this document, both to the author and to the citizenry as a whole. He knew that it would take much more forceful language in order to incite every citizen to take up arms, especially with the proximity of so much raw power nearby.
The difference between the two documents is mainly because of the context in which they were written. If the colonists of America had an entire army breathing down their necks they would have been less easy to rile up. An army is usually a pretty good deterrent. The fiery speech of Abbe Sieyes was necessary, however, because of the great danger that the French were up against.