Why, In Tocqueville S View, Wa Essay, Research Paper
The French Revolution sought to destroy entirely the institutions of the ancien r gime. Whilst its success in doing so is debatable, there is little doubt that this was the aim of the revolutionaries. The reasons for this goal are numerous, but certainly their ambition for destruction is linked in some way to the state of feudalism immediately before the Revolution, for the nobility continued to enjoy the trappings of feudalism, without experiencing the responsibilities. The improving conditions in France for the bourgeoisie and the peasantry also played a part in the violently destructive nature of the Revolution, because they became more aware of the injustices of the system. The state also had a role to play, in teaching the masses just how corrupt the regime was.
In the old regime, la f odalit tait demeur e la plus grande de toutes nos institutions civiles en cessant d tre une institution politique. The prerogatives of the lord remained and the peasant still felt the burden of feudal dues thus feudalism remained a civil institution. However, the power and authority of the lord over the peasant was curbed considerably by the growth of administrative centralisation, for a central authority seriously restricted the lord s jurisdictional powers. Furthermore, the French peasant was now a landowner, with a fierce passion for his potential to expand and for his independence. He saw only oppression, but as the lord abandoned his traditional protectoral role, he received no benefits from it. Feudal dues represented a former degradation, and the legitimacy of the lord s power was no longer believed in. Therefore, feudalism did not remain a political institution. Quand la noblesse poss de non seulement des privileges, mais des pouvoirs, quand elle gouverne et administer, ses droits particuliers peuvent tre tout la fois plus grands et moins apercus. Tocqueville argues that when feudalism was maintained in its true form, when the nobility was also an aristocracy, with responsibility and power as well as privilege, its special rights and prerogatives were less obvious or, at least, less irritating, for they could be justified. However, immediately prior to the Revolution, the nobility had lost its power yet maintained its privilege, much to the disgust and fury of the people. The anger and hatred of the French peasant, explains, to an extent, the violent destruction of the institutions of the ancien r gime.
The hatred of the ruling class extended into a hatred for another institution of the ancien r gime: the Church. Tocqueville argues in Book I that Christianity was not hated for its religious tenet, but rather for its nature as a political institution; the Church leaders were not despised for their roles in the Church, but for their roles as propri taires, seigneurs, d cimateurs, (et) administrateurs. Whilst in Book I, therefore, Tocqueville argues that Christianity is not despised as a religious doctrine, he argues in Book III that the fundamental beliefs of the Church were despised an apparent inconsistency in his argument. The French people hated the Church because it was rooted in tradition, and they wished to destroy everything that was old; because it was founded on hierarchy, and they wanted the abolition of rank; because the Church recognised an authority superior to individual reason, and they appealed to nothing but that very same reason. Thus, Tocqueville argues in Book III what he denies in Book I the Church was despised not only as a political institution but as a religious one as well. But in both senses, political and religious, the Church inspired hatred, and thus the Revolution sought to destroy it.
Under growing administrative centralisation, and in conjunction with feudal survivals, there was an increasing equality of all nobility and bourgeoisie alike. The apparent reason for this increase in similarity was a greater economic equality the nobility were getting poorer, the bourgeois richer. The land of the nobility had, over several centuries, been lost or sold in large quantities to the bourgeoisie, and even to the peasantry. More superficial similarities also existed, for as wealth was more evenly distributed, the social lives of the nobility and the bourgeois became more alike. As nobles sold their land, they moved to the town or city, where they lived just like the bourgeoisie. They read the same books, received the same education and were subject to the same dominant influence of Paris. Increasingly they acquired the same tastes, pleasures and ideals. The only difference between the two classes was their rights. Thus, while the growing similarity might imply a greater cooperation, this was simply not the case, for the civil residue of feudalism and the quest for rank and privilege, without responsibility, caused a fragmentation of society into small, hostile groups. The resentment of the bourgeoisie over the greater privileges of the nobility was simply exacerbated as their situation improved.
Another example of an improving situation having a negative impact upon the old regime was the financial situation of France immediately prior to the Revolution. Instead of diminishing revolutionary sentiment, it actually made it worse. Tocqueville makes much of the fact that in the thirty or forty years before the Revolution, a noticeable change can be detected: Chaque ann e ce mouvement s tend et s acc l re: la nation se remue enfin tout enti re et semble rena tre. Prenez-y garde! Ce n est pas son ancienne vie que se ranime; l esprit qui meut ce grand corps est un esprit nouveau; il ne le ravive un moment pour le dissoudre. Therefore, although the situation began to improve intendants were more conscientious, especially concerning public wealth and particularly agriculture; judges were more likely to mitigate offences and moderate punishments; greater concern for the problems of the poor were seen revolutionary sentiment grew nonetheless. The burdens that seemed inevitable were patiently born, but once the idea of removal was conceived, the onus became insupportable. La f odalit dans toute sa puissance n avait pas inspir aux Fran ais autant de haine qu au moment o* elle allait dispara tre.
Moreover, the greater expenditure of the king even if it was to develop public prosperity combined with poor financial management, led to the alienation of the class generally most hostile to political innovation and most friendly to the existing government the rentiers, the traders, the industrialists and the other businessmen and bankers frustrated by the indebtedness of the state. Thus they called for the destruction of the financial system, failing to realise that the rest of the government would be brought down too.
The Revolution was so violently destructive of the ancien r gime s institutions partially because of the manner in which these institutions treated the masses. Although there was an increased attempt to help the impoverished, this served only to radicalise them further, for such efforts were made with entire insensitivity, speaking publicly of them as though they could not hear, or referring to them as the vile peasants or describing them as tres ignorants et grossiers, des tres turbulents et des caract res rudes et indociles. The injustices of the system were frequently voiced, in attempts to portray the miseries of the poor, but which, at the same time, incensed them with rage. For example, the king in 1776, whilst trying to abolish the corv e, said, En for ant le pauvre entretenir seul (les chemins du royaume), en obligeant donner son temps et son travail sans salaire, on lui enl ve l unique resource qu il ait contre la mis re et la faim pour le faire au profit des riches.
When in 1780, the king announced that increases in the taille would be submitted from then on to public registry, he added, Les taillables taient encore expos s, jusqu present, des augmentations inattendues, de telle sorte que le tribut de la partie la plus pauvre de nos subjets s est accru dans une proportion bien sup rieure celle de tous les autres.
A further example of the insensitivity of speeches of those in authority is the following comment of an intendant, aiming to stimulate the charity of the rich, who spoke, de l injustice et de l insensibilit de ces propri taires qui doivent aux travaux du pauvre tout ce qu ils poss dent, et qui le laissent mourir de faim au moment o* celui-ci s puise pour mettre leurs bien en valeur.
It is little wonder that the enthusiasm and slightly misplaced goodwill of the educated classes ended up agitating and radicalising the masses that they sought to help.
Tocqueville argues that the government played another role in inciting, or at least encouraging violence against the institutions of the regime, but in this respect it was due to the example that it set. For example, the fall of the parlements, which were almost as old as the monarchy and which had seemed just as resolute, appeared to signify, in a vague sense, that on approchait de ces temps de violence et de hazard o* tout devient possible, o* il n y a gu re de choses si anciennes qui soient respectables, ni de si nouvelles qu elles ne se puissant essayer.
Louis XVI ne fit que parler de reformes faire l administration apprit chaque jour au peuple le m pris qu il convient d avoir pour la propri t priv e.
The government had no qualms about seizing land and destroying houses for public works schemes, particularly road building, and the proprietors devastated or destroyed were always paid arbitrarily and late, if at all.
Mais rien ne fut d un enseignement plus pernicieux que certaines formes que suivait la justice criminelle quand il s agissent du peuple.
If the poor man had anything to do with the state, he found special courts, prepared judges, and a quick or completely illusory trial, without appeal.
C est ainsi qu un gouvernement doux et bien assis enseignait chaque jour au peuple le code d instruction criminelle le mieux appropri aux temps de revolution et le plus commode la tyrannie.
Thus, in conclusion, in spite of the seemingly beneficial or, at least non-antagonistic nature of the situation immediately prior to the Revolution, improvements in conditions simply aggravated the discontent of the French people. With enhanced circumstances came rising expectations, and the limited scope of change was not enough to please the revolutionaries. The existence of feudalism, but in a diminished and corrupted form, provoked violence, for the nobility enjoyed privilege without responsibility, and their unfair position was recognised, by the peasants who still had to pay feudal dues, and by the bourgeoisie who were virtually the same in every aspect, except for in their rank. The institution of the Church was violently attacked, both as a result of its political nature, and because of its religious doctrine. Finally, the ancien r gime taught the revolutionaries how to treat its institutions, by reforming ancient institutions, such as the parlements, itself, and exploiting its position of power, in a legal sense. It was thus that the institutions of the ancien r gime were attacked so violently.