Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Blackwell Publishing and Economic History Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Economic History Review.
http://www.jstor.org
REVIEW
VOL. III. No. 1. 1931.
JANUARY,
II.
In spite of these facts,no one who attemptsto weighthe origins
of the Revolutioncan avoid the conclusionthat the social condition
of the countrywas much more importantthan the economic. The
questionof primaryimportancewas the divisionof property between
the various social classes. The valuable works of J. Loutchisky,3
whose calculationsseem to be at least approximatelycorrect,show
that the privilegedclasses werefarfrompossessingalmostthe whole
ofthesoil ofFrance,as was longthoughtto be thecase. The nobility
rarelyheld morethan 30 to 40 per cent. of the land and oftenmuch
less, as in the Limousin, Haute-Auvergne,Bearn and Dauphine.
The clergyowned still less, theirproportionvaryingin differentdis-
tricts,but,on the average,beingapparentlynot morethan6 per cent.
ofthewholearea ofthecountry. It is truethattheyincludedonlyan
eighthofthewholepopulation,and thattheinferior ranksoftheclergy
werealmostdevoidofproperty;so thatthebishops,cathedralchapters,
and abbeyswere,in reality,forthemostpartverylargeowners.
It mustbe understoodthatthe propertyofthe nobilityand clergy
is onlyto be held to includewhat was knownas the domainebroche
oftheseigneurie, whichwas mostgenerallylet to farmersand metayers.
The seigneurshad also feudal rightsover the land whichdepended
on theirmanorsand especiallyover land held by peasant tenure.4
1 Arnould, La balance du commerce, Paris, I791; E. Levasseur, Histoire du
commerce de la France, vol. i., Paris, i9ii; H. See, op. cit.; Memoireset documents
sur l'histoiredu commerce et de l'industrie,ed. J. Hayem, 12th series,passim.
2 Thus the merchants and shipowners of the large ports such as Nantes
displayed great enthusiasmfor reformin 1789. See Henri S6e, " Le role de la
bourgeoisiebretonnea la veille de la Revolution " in La vie &conomiqueet les
classes sociales en France au i 8emesi'cle, Paris, 1924.
8 L'etat des classes agricolesen France a la veillede la Revolution,Paris, 191i;
La propri~te' paysanne en France d la veillede la Revolution,principalemnent dans
le Limousin, Paris, 1912; Quelques remarquessur la ventedes biens nationaux,
Paris, 1914.
4 This explains the confusionin the mind of certainhistorianssuch as Maxime
Kovalevsky (La France 9conomiqued la veillede la Revolution),who treats land
held by seigneurialtenureas the propertyof the nobility.
ECONOMIC ORIGINS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 5
In spiteofthis,thelattermustbe lookeduponin thelightofhereditary
property, burdenedonlyby the dues and rightsof the seigneur. The
peasants,therefore, reallypossesseda considerableportionof the soil,
but the proportionvaried very much fromone districtto another;
sometimesit was morethanSo per cent.,as in the Limousinand Lan-
guedoc,while it was rarelyless than 30 per cent.' As to the bour-
geoisie,theirproperty in thecountrywas farfrominsignificant, especi-
ally in the neighbourhood of the towns. This systemof propertyin
land gave to eighteenth-century Francean appearanceall herown,and
differentiated her in particularfromEngland, where,thanksto en-
closures,large estateshad almost eliminatedsmall peasant holdings.
It markedher offalso fromthe greaterpart of Centraland Eastern
Europe,wherethenobilityhas continuedto extenditsownership ofland
and to strengthen itspositionthroughout moderntimes.2
Taken as a whole,therefore, the Frenchpeasants were far from
beingdeprivedof the soil,and manyof themwhowereunable to live
entirelyon the produceof theirholdingsfoundworkas day labourers
and farmerson the estatesof the privilegedlandowners. Mostof the
nobility,in fact,did not keep theirland in theirown hands,but let
it to the peasants; whichexplainsthe small scale of agriculturalex-
ploitation. It may be truethat the peasants in Francehad a desire
forland-and in facttheyseemto have done prettywellin acquiring
it in the courseof the eighteenth century-buttheyhad no desperate
"land hunger" suchas theRussianpeasantswereto developa century
later. Whattheyespeciallywantedon theeve oftheRevolutionwas a
lighteningof theburdenslaid onthembytheseigneurial r6gime-burdens
whichwerealwaystroublesome and too oftenoppressive.Theysuffered
particularlyfromthe aggravationof this regime,the " seigneurial
reaction" of the second half of the eighteenthcentury. Almost
everywhere theycomplainedofencroachments by the seigneurson the
wasteor uncultivatedland kept forcommunaluse, and especiallyfor
the pasturageoftheircattle. Whenthe States-General was convoked
and the cahiersof grievanceswere drawnup, theyurgedtheirclaims
on thebourgeoisie, whichon its part had demandsof quite a different
nature to put forward.3Obviouslythe peasants had not begun to
1 ArthurYoung was struck by the importance of the propertyheld by the
peasants in France, and considered that it was responsible for the backward
state of agriculture.
2 H. S6e, Esquisse d'une histoiredu negimeagraire en Europe aux i8dme et
i9eme sieles, Paris, I921.
3 G. Lefebvre,op. cit., H. S6e, op cit., and La France Iconomiqueet sociale au
i8eme siece, Paris, I925; P. Sagnac and P. Caron, Le Comitedes droitsftodaux
et de legislationet l'abolitiondu regimeseigneurial,Paris, i906 (Coll. des Doc. econ.
de la Revolution); J. Sion, Les paysans de la NormandieOrientale,Paris, 19og.
6 THE ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW
envisagethepossibility of thatcompleteabolitionof the regimewhich
they were to demand once the Revolutionhad begun; beforeI789
theyaskedonlythesuppressionofthemostoppressivedues.
The questionof the peasants was thus an importantone in the
second half of the eighteenthcentury,and all the more so because
publicopinionwas on the side of far-reaching reforms.The physio-
cratsconsideredtheseigneurialregime,withall its troublesome impedi-
ments,hurtful to thatagriculturalprogresswhichtheyhad particularly
at heart. A fact of great momentwas that the kings of Sardinia,
by theiredictsofi762, I77I, and I778, had freedthepeasantsofSavoy
frommortmainand ordered the redemptionof seigneurialrights.
This encouragedVoltaireto still greateractivityin his campaignsin
favourof the serfsof FrancheComte; and he mentionsin one of his
memorandathat " the kingof Sardiniahas freedall the land in Savoy
frommortmainofpropertyand person."1 In I776 appearedthe well-
known pamphlet by Boncerf,secretlyencouragedby Turgot, Les
Inconve'nientsdes droitsfeodaux. In spite of its extrememoderation,
whichonlywentso faras to advocatecompulsory redemption offeudal
rightsfromthe successorsof the actual seigneurs,it was condemned
by the Parliamentof Paris. Voltaire,who was a whole-hearted sup-
porterof Boncerf'sviews,launcheda vigorousattack on the Parlia-
ment,denouncedits egoismand lamentedthe supportgivento each
otherby all privilegedpersons.2 Rousseau,on his part,by appealing
tomoreromanticarguments, didmuchto makethecauseofthepeasants
popular; and the NouvelleHe'loiseis full of comparisonsbetweenthe
simplemannersofthe countrypeopleand theluxuryofParis.3
The cruxof the matterwas the legal privilegesof the nobilityand
clergy,whohad feudalrightsoverall landedpropertyand whoescaped
most of the taxes, the burdenof whichfellon the popularclasses-
not to speak of the factthatmostof the offices of State werereserved
forthenobility. It mayevenbe said thatthelegalbarriersseparating
1 Cf. especially M. Bruchet, L'abolition du regimeseigneurialen Savoie, i908
(Coll. des Doc. econ. de la Revolution); Chassin, L'Eglise et les serfs; P. Darm-
staedter,Die Befreiungder Leibeigenen(Mainmortables)in Savoyen,der Schweiz
und Lothringen,Strassburg,i897.
2 "To propose the suppressionof feudal rightsis to deliver an attack on the
III.
Whatevermay have been the importanceof economicand social
phenomena,it cannotbe deniedthat theintellectualevolutionof the
eighteenth centurywas ofa natureto influence theRevolution. There
is no doubtthattheFrenchauthorsofthiscenturyfoundedthemodern
conceptionof the State and society. They createda doctrinewhich,
in the name of a rationalideal,was a criticismof the existingregime;
and theypresentedthemodelofa society,theprinciplesofwhichwere
in contradiction withall the old customsand traditions. This was
obviouslyan incontestable incitement to revolution.
All the works of the so-called " philosophes " tend to destroy
absolutistdoctrine,the belief in a mysticallyderived, intangible
authority, and to undermine thedogmaof" reasonsofstate." Another
revolutionary elementin the methodof the French thinkersof the
eighteenth centurywas theirdisregardof tradition,theirclaimto base
themselveson reason, observationand history,and their scientific
spirit. The State was no longerconfoundedwith the personof the
sovereign, and he ceased to be consideredas an end in himself. He no
longer embodied the sovereignprinciple,beforewhich individuals
mustbow; on thecontrary, hismainfunction was thoughtofas thatof
guaranteeing to individualstheir" naturalrights,"the idea of which
emergedmoredistinctly thaneverbefore. To ensurethelibertyofthe
person,thefreedom ofthoughtand ofthe presswas,accordingto these
thinkers, theessentialprincipleofsocialorganization. The physiocrats
themselves,althoughpartisansof absolutism,agreedwith the liberal
and democratic writersthatone ofthe main dutiesofthe Statewas to
emancipateindividuals. The doctrineof the rightsofman was essen-
tiallythe workof Frencheighteenth-century thought. On the other
hand, manywritersof the age, even amongthosewho were attached
to the liberalview,believedthat the State could and shouldinfluence
the economicand social conditionof individualsand the distribu-
tion of wealth by laws of successionand by taxes. Montesquieu
and Rousseau are in completeagreementon thispoint,but thisdoes
1 L'Ancien Regimeet la Revolution,pp. 30-31.
<0oTHE ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW
notmean,as has been affirmed by M. AlfredEspinas,' thatthetenden-
cies oftheFrenchphilosophers oftheeighteenth centurywerespecific-
ally socialistic. Althoughthey did not all conceiveof the political
constitution in the same way, liberalsand democratsagreed in the
sensethattheywereall profound individualists.2Moreover, thevarious
theorieswhich the eighteenthcenturyproducedwere in some sort
amalgamatedin the minds of contemporaries, and wentto make up
what may be called the " revolutionary doctrine,"the expression of
whichis veryclearlyto be foundin thewritersoftheend oftheAncie'n
Regime,such as Mably and Condorcet. This doctrinespread widely,
particularly by means of the press,amongthe enlightenedclasses of
the nation-i.e., among a part of the nobility(the liberal nobility,
whichwas smallerthan is oftenbelieved),but moreespeciallyamong
thebourgeoisie, in particularthelawyersand merchants.3
The questionnone the less ariseswhetherall this fermentation of
ideas contributed as muchto the revolutionary activityof I789 as did
the evolutionin social conditions. The answerappears to be in the
negative. It seemsthatthedirectinfluence ofpoliticalthoughton the
outbreakof therevolutionary crisismustnot be overestimated, as was
doneby Taine inhisA ncienRegime. It maybe said thattheinfluence
exercisedby ideas was in theirwide diffusion.Doubtlesstheyhad a
profoundeffectin I789-witness the innumerablepamphletsissued
immediately beforethe Revolution,and the cahiersof 1789;4 and they
determined many of the reformsof the ConstituentAssembly. But
the cause of the actual outbreakis undoubtedlyto be foundin the
politicaland social developments,and perhapseven more markedly
in the more or less accidentaleventsof the last years of the Ancien
Regime,whichaccentuatedthe difference betweeninstitutions as they
wereand as thenationwishedthemto be.
IV.
Thislast pointmustbe insistedupon. As Alexisde Tocquevillehas
excellently
remarked,5thisdifferencewas appearingin manyEuropean
1 La philosophicsociale du i8Sme sicle et la Re'volution, Paris, i898; A. Lich-
tenbergerhas taken a much more balanced view in his excellentthesis,Le social-
isme au i8eme siecle, Paris, i895. See also Emile Durkheim, Le socialisme,
Paris, I929 (but writtenin i898).
2 Cf. on this point the suggestiveremarksof HenryMichel,L'idee de l'Etat au
i gme siecle,Paris, I896. Introduction.
3 Cf. H. See, L'evolutionde la pensee politique en France au i8eme sigcle,
Paris, I925.
4 H. See, Les ideespolitiquesau i8eme si'cle, Paris, I920, pp. 22i seq.
5 Chapitres inedits pour faire suite a " L'Ancien Regime et la Revolution,"
cEuvrescompletes, vol. viii., pp. 57 seq.
ECONOMIC ORIGINS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION II