Mark Fischer

His. 489 Seminar

Revisionist Paper

As an opposition to Marxist historians interpretation of the French

revolution the revisionist interpretation suggests alternative causation to the

French revolution. Colin Lucas created an argument that had two parts to it.

The first part was that the Marxist interpretation made by Albert Soboul was

incorrect in the assessment that the bourgeoisie was a separate economic

class than the nobles. Lucas interpreted there was no conflict between the

aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. Lucas then argued that the cause of the

revolution that started with the bourgeoisie was not the growing tension

between the aristocrats and the bourgeoisie but in fact it was the realization

by the bourgeoisie that the power the monarchy was giving up was being

limited. This meant likelihood of the bourgeoisie attaining the power they

coveted was significantly decreasing. The power that the bourgeoisie had

been attaining was stopped and returned to the nobles when parliament

passed the law that mandated the estates general should meet in its original

form as in 1614.

Lucas disagrees with the notion of the Marxist interpretation that class

conflict existed between the bourgeoisie and the noble class. A large point

that he argued was the distinction of seigneurial rights and the social status

that went along with being part of the noble class. Lucas argued that
Privilege, which in its origin was the most tangible expression of noble

superiority, had long since been infiltrated by non-nobles.1 If the argument

made by Marxist were to be held true, and the bourgeoisie was emerging as

a new form of monetary rather than social wealth there would not be such

similarities between the rights and wealth among these two classes. This

logic lead to the questioning of how it was that the Marxist historian could

conclude that the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy were not one but two

classes. Lucas argues that because they could not be separated

economically into nobles and capitalists that they must be the same class.

With regards to the social values of each class Lucas asserts that there is no

noticeable difference. Both classes adhere to the same basic principle that

society was not governed by production. Meaning that as an individual

gained wealth the primary goal was to subordinate production and abandon

trade as soon as possible. For this social dogma to hold true, a class filled

with individuals following a capitalist ideology would be impossible. Lucas

states that The middle class of the late Ancien Regime displayed no

significant functional difference from the nobility, no significant difference in

accepted values and above all no consciousness of belonging to a class

whose economic and social characteristics were antithetical to those of the

nobility.2

1 Colin Lucas Nobles bourgeois, and the origins of the French Revolution The French
Revolution: Recent Debates and New Controversies, ed. Gary Kates, 2nd ed. (New York;
London: Routledge, 2006)36
2 Lucas Nobles bourgeois, and the origins of the French Revolution, 37
In the second part of his argument Lucas establishes that the reason for the

revolution was the distinct separation of the bourgeoisie and the nobility by

the Parliament of Paris in 1788. The Parliament passed the decree that the

estates general should meet again in its original form as in 1614. What this

meant for the bourgeoisie was that the previous acts of ennoblement made

no longer held true. The advances into the nobility made by the bourgeoisie

with regards to the titles of baron, duke and any other social status were

rescinded. Instead the wealthy members of the bourgeoisie had their power

taken away and they were reminded that they were still part of the third

estate. With this loss of power of the bourgeoisie they were able to create

the feeling of unrest and distain for the first two orders. Lucas argues that

the leaders of the Third Estate could quite happily refer to the first two

Estates as the privileged Orders, forgetting that they themselves were in

3
many cases at least partially privileged. The way the bourgeoisie saw the

state of things in the new version of the old system was that they could

grasp the numbers of the common masses and use them to regain the power

that they once held a portion of.

Lucass revisionist interpretation offers a new look at the old orthodoxy of

Marxist interpretations such as the one written by Albert Soboul. The largest

difference between the two interpretations is the class distinctions prior to

the Parliament of 1788. Soboul was convinced that a new bourgeoisie class

was emerging stating that as a rising class, believing in progress, it was

3 Lucas Nobles bourgeois, and the origins of the French Revolution, 45

convinced that it was representing the general interest and assuming

responsibility for the nation; as a progressive class, it offered a decisive

attraction for the popular masses as well as for dissident sectors of the

aristocracy.4 This is a conflict with what Lucas based his argument upon. His

interpretation was that because the bourgeoisie was going through a process

of ennoblement and receiving many of the same rights as the aristocracy

that there is no observable difference between the two classes. While

differing in many ways both Marxist and revisionist interpretations show a

clear distinction of the common masses. The masses for Soboul and Lucas

were used as numbers to spark the beginning of the revolution and to create

a feeling of growing tension between the privilege of the first two Estates

and the common people.

4 Soboul, The French Revolution in The History of the Contemporary World, 19

Sources Cited

Albert Soboul The French Revolution in The History of the Contemporary World The French

Revolution: Recent Debates and New Controversies, ed. Gary Kates,. 2nd ed. Rewriting

Histories. ed. Kates, Gary, (New York; London: Routledge, 2006)

Colin Lucas Nobles bourgeois, and the origins of the French Revolution The French

Revolution: Recent Debates and New Controversies, ed. Gary Kates,. 2nd ed. Rewriting

Histories. ed. Kates, Gary, (New York; London: Routledge, 2006)