Tag Archives: French Revolution

Revolutionary Culture & Religion

Posted on by

As the French Revolution began to transition from phase one, the Liberal Revolution, to the Revolution of War, Terror, and the Rise of Republican France, culture was extremely effected. In La Marseillaise, written by laude-Joseph Rouget de Lisle, he uses his song to call all citizens to arms to defend against “The roar of these savage soldiers” as
“They come right into our arms, To cut the throats of your sons, your country.”   La Marseillaise, is still the national Anthem of France, which is a prime example of how the cultural changes in the Revolution have made a lasting impact even to the present day.  I found the situation in which La Marseillaise was written was somewhat similar to that of the Star Spangled Banner.  Written in one night, by someone who was not primarily a poet/song writer (laude-Joseph Rouget de Lisle was a captain of the engineers, and Francis Scott Key was a lawyer).  Also, neither instance was written specifically to be a national anthem.  La Marseillaise was for a banquet at Marseillaise, and Francis Scott Key’s was a simple retelling of what he say aboard a British Vessel.

Religion also changed dramatically during the revolution.  Maximilien Robespierre, one of the leaders of the Committee of Public Safety wrote The Cult of the Supreme Being, almost as a new declaration of religion.  Along with more tame pieces, concerning Monarchical rule and the waste of the clergy, stating “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.” Robespierre also included many radical statements.  He called for outlawing the traditional calendar, and to replace it with a completely different one.  This caused extreme confusion within the nation.  Additionally, he called” Republican Frenchmen, it is yours to purify the earth which they have soiled, and to recall to it the justice that they have banished!”  This is similar the Karl Marx’s final quote in the communist manifesto in which he calls the working class to reclaim the earth from the elite class.  With the removal of Christianity from France, all religious traditions were deemed hostile to the success of France, causing the populous to be under threat of execution.

Religion in a Revolutionary Context

Posted on by

Religion remained the primary justification of the French Revolution by the citizens of the third estate. Robespierre, the leader of Public Safety, pushed both ideologies of Supreme “Reason” and “Being” in order to provide a more understandable means to motivate revolutionaries. The state religion at the time revolved around a Deist philosophy, the notion that there is no divine intervention and God is a clockmaker who merely wound up the springs of nature and set them into motion. Logically, because God cannot interrupt the flow of the human course, but simultaneously promoted particular virtues that the monarchy did not reflect, it became justified that it was their right to overthrow the atheistic monarch to perpetuate God’s will. Religious sentiments such as these are extremely powerful. When man and woman can be convinced that their violence is justified and the result will bring them higher fortunes, it is very difficult to stop them.

La Marseillaise, the French National Anthem composed during the French Revolution, contained very violent language that no one could find religiously justifiable without it’s context. Phrases such as “Their impure blood should water our fields”, paired with adjectives like “vengeful”, actually caused it to be banned by Napoleon and Louis XVIII due to its revolutionary implications. These documents reveal that revolutionary culture during the French Revolution was fueled by violence while simultaneously being justified in religious contexts.

Values of Revolutionary Culture

Posted on by

La Marseillaise is a remarkably bloodthirsty national anthem, marking the desire for revenge over those who oppressed the French citizenry. It is interesting that Rouget de Lisle was himself a royalist, not only because he composed this anthem in a revolutionary spirit, but also because of the incredibly violent nature of the lyrics:

Aux armes citoyens!
Formez vos bataillons,
Marchons, marchons!
Qu’un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons.

To arms, citizens!
Form up your battalions
Let us march, Let us march!
That their impure blood
Should water our fields

These lyrics express a desire to repay blood with blood, which with the limited information about Rouget de Lisle provided, is strange because it would seem that himself, as a royalist, would be one of the ones whose blood would “water [the] fields.” It would seem that he took a great risk by refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the new constitution, and he narrowly escaped the guillotine.

The Cult of the Supreme Being by Robespierre at parts seems almost to contradict many of the events of the Reign of Terror. Robespierre says the Supreme Being “created men to help each other, to love each other mutually, and to attain to happiness by the way of virtue.” According to him, however, this only applies to those Frenchmen taking part in the revolution, and basically the opposite applies to the oppressors.

These references to the “Supreme Being” are the establishment of Deism as a state religion, meaning that Robespierre and many French revolutionists believed that there was a Supreme Being, or God, who created the universe but did not interact with it. The revolutionists believed that the Supreme Being was in favor of their movement and against all those who opposed it. This, again seems to be contradictory since a main tenet of deism is that the Supreme Being does not interact with the universe which He created.

These works by Rouget de Lisle and Robespierre show us that the values of revolutionary culture were geared primarily at attaining their goal of overthrowing the French monarchy and establishing a new order. They were not necessarily concerned with absolute consistency in their ideals, as is evident in the 40,000 people who were sent to the guillotine while revolutionists preached that the Supreme Being created man to “love each other mutually” and to seek enlightenment. Robespierre says “[m]ay all the crimes and all the misfortunes of the world disappear…Armed in turn with the daggers of fanaticism and the poisons of atheism, kings have always conspired to assassinate humanity.” This seems oddly reminiscent of the way the revolutionists handled their Reign of Terror; one could easily argue that there were a great many crimes and misfortunes inflicted on the world, and a great many assassinations were carried out at the guillotine.

Values of the revolutionary culture

Posted on by

The French National Anthem, written by Claude-Joseph Rouget de Lisle clearly demonstrates the values of the French Revolution. Copies were given to revolutionary forces and it became widespread and well known, so as to inspire and motivate the revolutionaries. One stanza reads, “To arms, citizens! Form up your battalions. Let us march, Let us march! That their impure blood. Should water our fields.” This clearly reveals the blatant violence and fierceness that fueled the revolution. The anthem was composed in 1792, the year the king was executed and the beginning of the period of Terror that would see more than 40,000 people executed. The bloodthirsty nature of the anthem reflects the violence occurring in France during this time and shows that the values were war and violence based, encouraging death to gain liberty, and shedding blood, as the only way to achieve their goal. 

The Cult of the Supreme Being seems at first to encourage more peaceful values than La Marseilles. However upon further reading it is obvious that the document also encourages violence and war. Robespierre states that those actions are justified because that is what God would have wanted. Robespierre says that He did not create anything or anyone to harm the human race, but rather to love and care for each other. However, since these values of compassion towards others are not being upheld, those who go against it must be killed, “Perish the tyrants who have dared to break it!”. War is encouraged in the author’s stating that the earth must be purified of those who go against God, and those who are evil, thus fueling the violent nature of the revolution.

 

Values and Goals of the French Revolution

Posted on by

The bloodiness of the French Revolution came from its values, which are especially seen in La Marseillaise and The Cult of the Supreme Being. The French National anthem is drastically different from the American equivalent. It promotes values of war and violence to achieve liberty. La Marseillaise inspired citizens to take up arms to end government tyranny. The anthem is appropriate for troops marching into combat under heavy fire whereas the Star-Spangled Banner focuses on the values achieved by the war’s success such as liberty and equality.

The Cult of the Supreme Being, written by Robespierre in the Reign of Terror, represents similar values of violence and rebellion but from a very different angle. Robespierre justifies the call to arms with religion. He merges God with war by saying the He created men to help one another and that it is their duty to “purify the earth which they have soiled.” His radical writings are faith with fanaticism. Robespierre is careful to give “Him” a new name–The Supreme Being–to avoid losing the supports of more religious people of the Third Estate.

The dramatic text is an extreme, twisted version of civil religion. Instead of creating loyalty to the state through religious symbolism, he creates loyalty to the French Revolution with religious symbolism. He is certainly not the first to make his own perspective on religious to further violent goals.

The goals of the famous texts which inspired the revolution were corrupted during the actual revolution. Instead of achieving enlightenment through thinking for oneself or engaging in intellectual debate to better civil society, the goal became a violent overthrow of government tyranny. The French Revolution was an accurate depiction of Hobbes’ state of nature. Perhaps a contributing factor to the French Revolution’s unsuccessfulness (as compared to America) was that the civil religion used to inspire and justify the bloody revolution was never adapted for peacetime. Just a speculation…

Olympe de Gouge: Declaration of the Rights of Women, 1791

Posted on by

Olympe de Gouge tests the Declaration of the Rights of Man with her own Declaration of the Rights of Woman. She questions what benefits woman gained from the Revolution. When “man” became free from the Revolution, he turned injustice onto woman. Woman were treated as though inferior, French legislators taking the position that there was nothing in common between men and women. De Gouge encourages women to stand up against this false superiority and unite to gain the rights women deserve. De Gouge brings up the contradiction that a married woman can have bastard children who and they will still benefit from their father’s wealth and also their name. However, if a woman is unmarried, her children cannot receive any of their father’s wealth nor their name. She also realizes that men will have to deal with this matter and women have to wait for that to happen. She proposes that in the meantime women prepare for this “through national education, the restoration of morals, and conjugal conventions”.

De Gouge wrote up and “Form for a Social Contract Between Man and Woman”. In it, she writes that man and woman should unite for common preferences such as pooling wealth together instead of man carrying all the wealth and controlling what happens with it. The idea of a woman sharing a man’s wealth and having just as much control over it as man, being able to reserve the right to hand it down to their children or choose to pass it on to someone who they thought deserving, is a revolutionary idea. Another such revolutionary idea of de Gouge’s is that there be a law forcing man to pay, or leave money for, a widow and her children.

At the end of her “contract”, de Gouge suggests that making laws that favor women equally to men will improve the French government, and make it stronger. “prejudice fails, morals are purified, and nature regains all her rights”.

Rights, Revolutions, and Revolutionaries in America and France

Posted on by

Throughout history, declarations have been written in order to make a society aware of the problems it faces, frequently appearing in times of rapid change and revolution. In her Declaration of the Rights of Women, Olympe de Gouge, a prominent female revolutionary in the late 18th century, argues that women deserve to share equality with men in matters concerning government, society, marriage, and all other areas of life.  De Gouge wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Women in response to the Rights of Man, challenging its suggestion that men are superior to women. Writing in a passionate, defiant tone, she addresses French women, intending to gain supporters and enlighten women of the injustices that are perpetually being posed against them by men and the French government. De Gouge criticizes the authority that reigns France, and insists that women should be equal to men in order to facilitate a “happy government”. She argues that with equality among men and women will come the purification of morals and a stronger government.

Similarly, the American Declaration of Independence appeals to the British monarchy, stating that the king has failed to comply with the necessities of the rights of the people. The same nature of defiance as seen in the Declaration of the Rights of Women is present in the Declaration of Independence, as both are created in opposition to authority the government has placed upon them.

In his document on the third estate, Sieyes also criticizes the state of the government, arguing that the Third Estate does not possess enough power and more responsibilities should be entrusted to it. The First and Second Estates should be eliminated, suggests Sieyes. If not that, all three estates should at least be under equal representation and common laws.

In both the French and American revolutions, the people of the country respond to injustices placed upon them by their ruling monarchies. Both countries successfully overthrow their monarchies, freeing themselves of inequities. Revolutionaries of both countries sought freedom from their imposing governments, liberating their countries and earning their natural rights through the power of discourse.

 

The French and American Declaration

Posted on by

The French and American Revolutions are two of the most famous revolutionary movements in the history of mankind.  The revolutions are very similar, mainly in the writing that led up to revolution.  The United States’ “Declaration of Independence” and the French’s “What is the Third Estate”, “Decree Upon the National Assembly”, “Tennis Court Oath”, and “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” all outline very similar grievances that the people are rising against.

In the “Declaration of Independence” the Continental Congress wrote “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.”  In the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” the French wrote “The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible right of man; and these rights are Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance of Oppression.”  The common theme in those two quotes is the word Liberty, which is “the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely” (Dictionary.com).  While the Patriots and the French had smaller grievances, specific to their situation, Liberty is the most overarching one.  Both groups felt underrepresented by their controlling body, the English monarchy for the Americans and the French monarchy for the French.  Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès wrote his “What is the Third Estate” after the American Revolution but it applies to what was happening in the colonies as much as it did to what was happening in France.  Sieyès wrote “1) What is the Third Estate?  Everything.  2) What has it been until now in the political order?  Nothing.  3) What does it want to be?  Something.”  Both the American colonists and the French citizens wanted recognition from their controlling government but more importantly they wanted the rights they felt they deserved.

The colonists way of gaining “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” was to declare independence from Britain.  They wrote in the Declaration of Independence “these United Colonies are, and of Right out to be Free and Independent States.”  The French offered up a similar solution, however their monarch was not an ocean away.  The “Third Estate” formed the “National Assembly”, which consisted of “at least ninety-six per cent of the nation.”  The “National Assembly” wrote in the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” that they had “resolved to set forth in solemn declaration, these natural, imprescriptible, and inalienable right; that this declaration being constantly present to the minds of the members of the body social” effectively declaring their own independence from the monarchy.

While the American and French revolution happened an ocean away and began about 13 years apart they followed the same track in action and writing.

 

 

examining natural rights in the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Men

Posted on by

Written within ten years of each other on the eve of two different revolutions, the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Men remain today as influential revolutionary texts. While both documents examine natural rights, they do so in different contexts, for The Declaration of Independence was the assertion of a fledgling democracy’s right to political autonomy, while the Declaration of the Rights of Men enumerates and demands the protection of the individual natural rights of an oppressed class of citizens. Though the focuses of the two documents are different, examining them in tandem shows us the inextricable relationship between government and individual rights.

The Declaration of Independence lists the colonists’ grievances against the King of England and does not identify individual human rights, believing that these truths were “self-evident” (Blaisdell 63). The extensive list of complaints against King George are concerned with his interference in different institutions within the colonial government – cutting off trade, dissolving representative houses, and “refusing to assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers” (Blaisdell 65). While this declaration is a response to the oppression of the natural rights of a sovereign nation, the Declaration of the Rights of Men was written in response to the oppression of individual rights – namely, those of the Third Estate, the class of all french citizens who were not part of the gentry or nobility. The Third Estate was burdened with “all the really arduous work, all the tasks which the privileged refuses to perform” (Blaisdell 72). The French National Assembly listed fewer grievances in their declaration than the American Continental Congress and instead offered a comprehensive outline of the natural rights of individual citizens, ranging from freedom of speech to the right to property.

Different though their content may be, each declaration examines half of the relationship between citizens and their government. Both the french and americans agreed that a government is instituted to protect its citizens’ rights, and in return for this protection citizens will sacrifice certain rights of their own. The Continental Congress shows us government protection of rights in action – an elected group of officials protesting the abuse of another power against their own citizens. The French national Assembly outlines the second half of this political equation, showing how citizens sacrifice for their government through acts such as paying taxes and limiting their natural right to those which will not infringe upon someone else’s. Together, these documents show us how individuals allow for the creation of government, and how a government allows for the protection of natural rights.