led to this extensive composition of novels was the great spread of
periodical literature in France, and the custom of including in almost
all periodicals, daily, weekly or monthly, a _feuilleton_ or instalment
of fiction. Of the contributors of these periodicals who were strictly
journalists and almost political journalists only, the most remarkable
after Carrel were his opponent in the fatal duel,--Emile de Girardin,
Lucien A. Prevost-Paradol (1829-1870), Jean Hippolyte Cartier, called de
Villemessant (1812-1879), and, above all, Louis Veuillot (1815-1883),
the most violent and unscrupulous but by no means the least gifted of
his class. The same spread of periodical literature, together with the
increasing interest in the literature of the past, led also to a very
great development of criticism. Almost all French authors of any
eminence during nearly the last century have devoted themselves more or
less to criticism of literature, of the theatre, or of art. And
sometimes, as in the case of Janin and Gautier, the comparatively
lucrative nature of journalism, and the smaller demands which it made
for labour and intellectual concentration, have diverted to
feuilleton-writing abilities which might perhaps have been better
employed. At the same time it must be remembered that from this devotion
of men of the best talents to critical work has arisen an immense
elevation of the standard of such work. Before the romantic movement in
France Diderot in that country, Lessing and some of his successors in
Germany, Hazlitt, Coleridge and Lamb in England, had been admirable
critics and reviewers. But the theory of criticism, though these men's
principles and practice had set it aside, still remained more or less
what it had been for centuries. The critic was merely the administrator
of certain hard and fast rules. There were certain recognized kinds of
literary composition; every new book was bound to class itself under one
or other of these. There were certain recognized rules for each class;
and the goodness or badness of a book consisted simply in its obedience
or disobedience to these rules. Even the kinds of admissible subjects
and the modes of admissible treatment were strictly noted and numbered.
This was especially the case in France and with regard to French
_belles-lettres_, so that, as we have seen, certain classes of
composition had been reduced to unimportant variations of a registered
pattern. The Romantic protest against this absurdity was specially loud
and completely victorious. It is said that a publisher advised the
youthful Lamartine to try "to be like somebody else" if he wished to
succeed. The Romantic standard of success was, on the contrary, to be as
individual as possible. Victor Hugo himself composed a good deal of
criticism, and in the preface to his _Orientales_ he states the critical
principles of the new school clearly. The critic, he says, has nothing
to do with the subject chosen, the colours employed, the materials used.
Is the work, judged by itself and with regard only to the ideal which
the worker had in his mind, good or bad? It will be seen that as a
legitimate corollary of this theorem the critic becomes even more of an
interpreter than of a judge. He can no longer satisfy himself or his
readers by comparing the work before him with some abstract and accepted
standard, and marking off its shortcomings. He has to reconstruct, more
or less conjecturally, the special ideal at which each of his authors
aimed, and to do this he has to study their idiosyncrasies with the
utmost care, and set them before his readers in as full and attractive a
fashion as he can manage. The first writer who thoroughly grasped this
necessity and successfully dealt with it was Charles Augustin
Sainte-Beuve (1804-1869), who has indeed identified his name with the
method of criticism just described. Sainte-Beuve's first remarkable work
(his poems and novels we may leave out of consideration) was the sketch
of 16th-century literature already alluded to, which he contributed to
the _Globe_. But it was not till later that his style of criticism
became fully developed and accentuated. During the first decade of Louis
Philippe's reign his critical papers, united under the title of
_Critiques et portraits litteraires_, show a gradual advance. During the
next ten years he was mainly occupied with his studies of the writers of
the Port Royal school. But it was during the last twenty years of his
life, when the famous _Causeries du lundi_ appeared weekly in the
columns of the _Constitutionnel_ and the _Moniteur_, that his most
remarkable productions came out. Sainte-Beuve's style of criticism
(which is the key to so much of French literature of the last
half-century that it is necessary to dwell on it at some length),
excellent and valuable as it is, lent itself to two corruptions. There
is, in the first place, in making the careful investigations into the
character and circumstances of each writer which it demands, a danger of
paying too much attention to the man and too little to his work, and of
substituting for a critical study a mere collection of personal
anecdotes and traits, especially if the author dealt with belongs to a
foreign country or a past age. The other danger is that of connecting
the genius and character of particular authors too much with their
conditions and circumstances, so as to regard them as merely so many
products of the age. These faults, and especially the latter, have been
very noticeable in many of Sainte-Beuve's successors, particularly in,
perhaps, Hippolyte Taine, who, however, besides his work on English
literature, did much of importance on French, and has been regarded as
the first critic who did thorough honour to Balzac in his own country. A
large number of other critics during the period deserve notice because,
though acting more or less on the newer system of criticism, they have
manifested considerable originality in its application. As far as merely
critical faculty goes, and still more in the power of giving literary
expression to criticism, Theophile Gautier yields to no one. His _Les
Grotesques_, an early work dealing with Villon, the earlier "Theophile"
de Viau, and other _enfants terribles_ of French literature, has served
as a model to many subsequent writers, such as Charles Monselet
(1825-1888), and Charles Asselineau (1820-1874), the affectionate
historian, in his _Bibliographie romantique_ (1872-1874), of the less
famous promoters of the Romantic movement. On the other hand, Gautier's
picture criticisms, and his short reviews of books, obituary notices,
and other things of the kind contributed to daily papers, are in point
of style among the finest of all such fugitive compositions. Jules Janin
(1804-1874), chiefly a theatrical critic, excelled in light and easy
journalism, but his work has neither weight of substance nor careful
elaboration of manner sufficient to give it permanent value. This sort
of light critical comment has become almost a speciality of the French
press, and among its numerous practitioners the names of Armand de
Pontmartin (1811-1890) (an imitator and assailant of Sainte-Beuve),
Arsene Houssaye, Pierangelo Fiorentino (1806-1864), may be mentioned.
Edmond Scherer (1815-1889) and Paul de Saint-Victor (1827-1881)
represent different sides of Sainte-Beuve's style in literary criticism,
Scherer combining with it a martinet and somewhat prudish precision,
while Saint-Victor, with great powers of appreciation, is the most
flowery and "prose-poetical" of French critics. In theatrical censure
Francisque Sarcey (1827-1899), an acute but somewhat severe and limited
judge, succeeded to the good-natured sovereignty of Janin. The criticism
of the _Revue des deux mondes_ has played a sufficiently important part
in French literature to deserve separate notice in passing. Founded in
1829, the _Revue_, after some vicissitudes, soon attained, under the
direction of the Swiss Buloz, the character of being one of the first of
European critical periodicals. Its style of criticism has, on the whole,
inclined rather to the classical side--that is, to classicism as
modified by, and possible after, the Romantic movement. Besides some of
the authors already named, its principal critical contributors were
Gustave Planche (1808-1857), an acute but somewhat truculent critic,
Saint-Rene Taillandier (1817-1879), and Emile Montegut (1825-1895), a
man of letters whom greater leisure would have made greater, but who
actually combined much and varied critical power with an agreeable
style. Lastly we must notice the important section of professorial or
university critics, whose critical work has taken the form either of
regular treatises or of courses of republished lectures, books somewhat
academic and rhetorical in character, but often representing an amount
of influence which has served largely to stir up attention to
literature. The most prominent name among these is that of Abel
Villemain (1790-1867), who was one of the earliest critics of the
literature of his own country to obtain a hearing out of it. Desire
Nisard (1806-1888) was perhaps more fortunate in his dealings with Latin
than with French, and in his _History_ of the latter literature
represents too much the classical tradition, but he had dignity,
erudition and an excellent style. Alexandre Vinet (1797-1847), a Swiss
critic of considerable eminence, Saint-Marc-Girardin (1801-1873), whose
_Cours de litterature dramatique_ is his chief work, and Eugene Geruzez
(1799-1865), the author not only of an extremely useful and well-written
handbook to French literature before the Revolution, but also of other
works dealing with separate portions of the subject, must also be
mentioned. One remarkable critic, Ernest Hello (1818-1885), attracted
during his life little attention even in France, and hardly any out of
it, his work being strongly tinctured with the unpopular flavour and
colour of uncompromising "clericalism," and his extremely bad health
keeping him out of the ordinary fraternities of literary society. It
was, however, as full of idiosyncrasy as of partisanship, and is
exceedingly interesting to those who regard criticism as mainly valuable
because it gives different aspects of the same thing.
Perhaps in no branch of _belles-lettres_ did the last quarter of the
century maintain the level at which predecessors had arrived better than
in criticism; though whether this fact is connected with something of
decadence in the creative branches, is a question which may be better
posed than resolved here. A remarkable writer whose talent, approaching
genius, was spoilt by eccentricity and pose, and who belonged to a more
modern generation, Jules Barbey d'Aurevilly (1808-1889), poet, novelist
and critic, produced much of his last critical work, and corrected more,
in these later days. Not only did the critical work in various ways of
Renan, Taine, Scherer, Sarcey and others continue during parts of it,
but a new generation, hardly in this case inferior to the old, appeared.
The three chiefs of this were the already mentioned Anatole France,
Emile Faguet (b. 1847), and Ferdinand Brunetiere (1849-1906), to whom
some would add Jules Lemaitre (b. 1853). The last, however, though a
brilliant writer, was but an "interim" critic, beginning with poetry and
other matters, and after a time turning to yet others, while, brilliant
as he was, his criticism was often ill-informed. So too Anatole France,
after compiling four volumes of _La Vie litteraire_ in his own
inimitable style and with singular felicity of appreciation, also turned
away. The phenomenon in both cases may be associated, though it must not
be too intimately connected in the relation of cause and effect, with
the fact that both were champions and practitioners of "impressionist
criticism"--of the doctrine (unquestionably sound if not exaggerated)
that the first duty of the critic is to reproduce the effect produced on
his own mind by the author. Brunetiere and Faguet, on the other hand,
are partisans of the older academic style of criticism by kind and on
principle. Faguet, besides regular volumes on each of the four great
centuries of French literature, has produced much other work--all of it
somewhat "classical" in tendency and frequently exhibiting something of
a want of comprehension of the Romantic side. Brunetiere was still more
prolific on the same side but with still greater effort after system and
"science." In the books definitely called _L'Evolution des genres_, in
his _Manuel_ of French literature, and in a large number of other
volumes of collected essays he enforced with great learning and power of
argument, if with a somewhat narrow purview and with some prejudice
against writers whom he disliked, a new form of the old doctrine that
the "kind" not the individual author or book ought to be the main
subject of the critic's attention. He did not escape the consequential
danger of taking authors and books not as they are but as in relation to
the kinds which they in fact constitute and to his general views. But he
was undoubtedly at his death the first critic of France and a worthy
successor of her best.
Of others older and younger must be mentioned Paul Stapfer (b. 1840),
professor of literature, and the author of divers excellent works from
_Shakespeare et l'antiquite_ to volumes of the first value on Montaigne
and Rabelais; Paul Bourget and Edouard Rod, already noticed; Augustin
Filon (b. 1841), author of much good work on English literature and an
excellent book on Merimee; Alexandre Beljame (1843-1906), another eminent
student of English literature, in which subject J. A. Jusserand (b.
1855), Legouis, K. A. J. Angellier (b. 1848), and others have recently
distinguished themselves; Gustave Larroumet, especially an authority on
Marivaux; Eugene Lintilhac (b. 1854); Georges Pellissier; Gustave Lanson,
author of a compact history of French literature in French; Marcel
Schwob, who had done excellent work on Villon and other subjects before
his early death; Rene Doumic, a frequent writer in the _Revue des deux
mondes_, who collected four volumes of _Etudes sur la litterature
francaise_ between 1895 and 1900; and the Vicomte Melchior de Vogue (b.
1848), whose interests have been more political-philosophical than
strictly literary, but who has done much to familiarize the French public
with that Russian literature to which Merimee had been the first to
introduce them. But the body of recent critical literature in France is
perhaps larger in actual proportion and of greater value when considered
in relation to other kinds of literature than has been the case at any
previous period.
_History since 1830._--The remarkable development of historical studies
which we have noticed as taking place under the Restoration was
accelerated and intensified in the reigns of Charles X. and Louis
Philippe. Both the scope and the method of the historian underwent a
sensible alteration. For something like 150 years historians had been
divided into two classes, those who produced elegant literary works
pleasant to read, and those who produced works of laborious erudition,
but not even intended for general perusal. The Vertots and Voltaires
were on one side, the Mabillons and Tillemonts on another. Now, although
the duty of a French historian to produce works of literary merit was
not forgotten, it was recognized as part of that duty to consult
original documents and impart original observation. At the same time, to
the merely political events which had formerly been recognized as
forming the historian's province were added the social and literary
phenomena which had long been more or less neglected. Old chronicles and
histories were re-read and re-edited; innumerable monographs on special
subjects and periods were produced, and these latter were of immense
service to romance writers at the time of the popularity of the
historical novel. Not a few of the works, for instance, which were
signed by Alexandre Dumas consist mainly of extracts or condensations
from old chronicles, or modern monographs, ingeniously united by
dialogue and varnished with a little description. History, however, had
not to wait for this second-hand popularity, and its cultivators had
fully sufficient literary talent to maintain its dignity. Sismondi, whom
we have already noticed, continued during this period his great
_Histoire des Francais_, and produced his even better-known _Histoire
des republiques italiennes au moyen age_. The brothers Thierry devoted
themselves to early French history, Amedee Thierry (1797-1873) producing
a _Histoire des Gaulois_ and other works concerning the Roman period,
and Augustin Thierry (1795-1856) the well-known history of the Norman
Conquest, the equally attractive _Recits des temps Merovingiens_ and
other excellent works. Philippe de Segur (1780-1873) gave a history of
the Russian campaign of Napoleon, and some other works chiefly dealing
with Russian history. The voluminous _Histoire de France_ of Henri
Martin (1810-1883) is perhaps the best and most impartial work dealing
in detail with the whole subject. A. G. P. Brugiere, baron de Barante
(1782-1866), after beginning with literary criticism, turned to history,
and in his _Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne_ produced a work of capital
importance. As was to be expected, many of the most brilliant results of
this devotion to historical subjects consisted of works dealing with the
French Revolution. No series of historical events has ever perhaps
received treatment at the same time from so many different points of
view, and by writers of such varied literary excellence, among whom it
must, however, be said that the purely royalist side is hardly at all
represented. One of the earliest of these histories is that of Francois
Mignet (1796-1884), a sober and judicious historian of the older school,
also well known for his _Histoire de Marie Stuart_. About the same time
was begun the brilliant if not extremely trustworthy work of Adolphe
Thiers (1797-1877) on the Revolution, which established the literary
reputation of the future president of the French republic, and was at a
later period completed by the _Histoire du consulat et de l'empire_. The
downfall of the July monarchy and the early years of the empire
witnessed the publication of several works of the first importance on
this subject. Barante contributed histories of the Convention and the
Directory, but the three books of greatest note were those of Lamartine,
Jules Michelet (1798-1874), and Louis Blanc (1811-1882). Lamartine's
_Histoire des Girondins_ is written from the constitutional-republican
point of view, and is sometimes considered to have had much influence in
producing the events of 1848. It is, perhaps, rather the work of an
orator and poet than of an historian. The work of Michelet is of a more
original character. Besides his history of the Revolution, Michelet
wrote an extended history of France, and a very large number of smaller
works on historical, political and social subjects. His imaginative
powers are of the highest order, and his style stands alone in French
for its strangely broken and picturesque character, its turbid abundance
of striking images, and its somewhat sombre magnificence, qualities
which, as may easily be supposed, found full occupation in a history of
the Revolution. The work of Louis Blanc was that of a sincere but ardent
republican, and is useful from this point of view, but possesses no
extraordinary literary merit. The principal contributions to the history
of the Revolution of the third quarter of the century were those of
Quinet, Lanfrey and Taine. Edgar Quinet (1803-1875), like Louis Blanc a
devotee of the republic and an exile for its sake, brought to this one
of his latest works a mind and pen long trained to literary and
historical studies; but _La Revolution_ is not considered his best work.
P. Lanfrey devoted himself with extraordinary patience and acuteness to
the destruction of the Napoleonic legend, and the setting of the
character of Napoleon I. in a new, authentic and very far from
favourable light. And Taine, after distinguishing himself, as we have
mentioned, in literary criticism (_Histoire de la litterature
anglaise_), and attaining less success in philosophy (_De
l'intelligence_), turned in _Les Origines de la France moderne_ to an
elaborate discussion of the Revolution, its causes, character and
consequences, which excited some commotion among the more ardent
devotees of the principles of '89. To return from this group, we must
notice J. F. Michaud (1767-1839), the historian of the crusades, and
Francois Pierre Guillaume Guizot (1787-1874), who, like his rival
Thiers, devoted himself much to historical study. His earliest works
were literary and linguistic, but he soon turned to political history,
and for the last half-century of his long life his contributions to
historical literature were almost incessant and of the most various
character. The most important are the histories _Des Origines du
gouvernement representatif_, _De la revolution d'Angleterre_, _De la
civilisation en France_, and latterly a _Histoire de France_, which he
was writing at the time of his death. Among minor historians of the
earlier century may be mentioned Prosper Duvergier de Hauranne
(1798-1881) (_Gouvernement parlementaire en France_), J. J. Ampere
(1800-1864) (_Histoire romaine a Rome_), Auguste Arthur Beugnot
(1797-1865) (_Destruction du paganisme d'occident_), J. O. B. de Cleron,
comte d'Haussonville (_La Reunion de la Lorraine a la France_), Achille
Tendelle de Vaulabelle (1799-1870) (_Les Deux Restaurations_). In the
last quarter of the century, under the department of history, the most
remarkable names were still those of Taine and Renan, the former being
distinguished for thought and matter, the latter for style. Indeed it
may be here proper to remark that Renan, in the kind of elaborated
semi-poetic style which has most characterized the prose of the 19th
century in all countries of Europe, takes pre-eminence among French
writers even in the estimation of critics who are not enamoured of his
substance and tone. But, under the influence of Taine to some extent and
of a general European tendency still more, France during this period
attained or recovered a considerable place for what is called
"scientific" history--the history which while, in some cases, though not
in all, not neglecting the development of style attaches itself
particularly to "the document," on the one hand, and to philosophical
arrangement on the other. The chief representative of the school was
probably Albert Sorel (1842-1906), whose various handlings of the
Revolutionary period (including an excursion into partly literary
criticism in the shape of an admirable monograph on Madame de Stael)
have established themselves once for all. In a wider sweep Ernest
Lavisse (b. 1842), who has dealt mainly with the 18th century, may hold
a similar position. Of others, older and younger, the duc de Broglie
(1821-1901), who devoted himself also to the 18th century and especially
to its secret diplomacy; Gaston Boissier (b. 1823), a classical scholar
rather than an historian proper, and one of the latest masters of the
older French academic style; Thureau-Dangin (b. 1837), a student of mid
19th-century history; Henri Houssaye (b. 1848), one of the Napoleonic
period; Gabriel Hanotaux (b. 1853), an historian of Richelieu and other
subjects, and a practical politician, may be mentioned. A large
accession has also been made to the publication of older memoirs--that
important branch of French literature from almost the whole of its
existence since the invention of prose.
_Summary and Conclusion._--We have in these last pages given such an
outline of the 19th-century literature of France as seemed convenient
for the completion of what has gone before. It has been already remarked
that the nearer approach is made to our own time the less is it possible
to give exhaustive accounts of the individual cultivators of the
different branches of literature. It may be added, perhaps, that such
exhaustiveness becomes, as we advance, less and less necessary, as well
as less and less possible. The individual poet of to-day may and does
produce work that is in itself of greater literary value than that of
the individual trouvere. As a matter of literary history his
contribution is less remarkable because of the examples he has before
him and the circumstances which he has around him. Yet we have
endeavoured to draw such a sketch of French literature from the _Chanson
de Roland_ onwards that no important development and hardly any
important partaker in such development should be left out. A few lines
may, perhaps, be now profitably given to summing up the aspects of the
whole, remembering always that, as in no case is generalization easier
than in the case of the literary aspects and tendencies of periods and
nations, so in no case is it apt to be more delusive unless corrected
and supported by ample information of fact and detail.
At the close of the 11th century and at the beginning of the 12th we
find the vulgar tongue in France not merely in fully organized use for
literary purposes, but already employed in most of the forms of poetical
writing. An immense outburst of epic and narrative verse has taken
place, and lyrical poetry, not limited as in the case of the epics to
the north of France, but extending from Roussillon to the Pas de Calais,
completes this. The 12th century adds to these earliest forms the
important development of the mystery, extends the subjects and varies
the manner of epic verse, and begins the compositions of literary prose
with the chronicles of St Denis and of Villehardouin, and the prose
romances of the Arthurian cycle. All this literature is so far connected
purely with the knightly and priestly orders, though it is largely
composed and still more largely dealt in by classes of men, trouveres
and jongleurs, who are not necessarily either knights or priests, and in
the case of the jongleurs are certainly neither. With a possible
ancestry of Romance and Teutonic _cantilenae_, Breton _lais_, and
vernacular legends, the new literature has a certain pattern and model
in Latin and for the most part ecclesiastical compositions. It has the
sacred books and the legends of the saints for examples of narrative,
the rhythm of the hymns for a guide to metre, and the ceremonies of the
church for a stimulant to dramatic performance. By degrees also, in this
12th century, forms of literature which busy themselves with the
unprivileged classes begin to be born. The fabliau takes every phase of
life for its subject; the folk-song acquires elegance and does not lose
raciness and truth. In the next century, the 13th, medieval literature
in France arrives at its prime--a prime which lasts until the first
quarter of the 14th. The early epics lose something of their savage
charms, the polished literature of Provence quickly perishes. But in the
provinces which speak the more prevailing tongue nothing is wanting to
literary development. The language itself has shaken off all its
youthful incapacities, and, though not yet well adapted for the
requirements of modern life and study, is in every way equal to the
demands made upon it by its own time. The dramatic germ contained in the
fabliau and quickened by the mystery produces the profane drama.
Ambitious works of merit in the most various kinds are published;
_Aucassin et Nicolette_ stands side by side with the _Vie de Saint
Louis_, the _Jeu de la feuillie_ with _Le Miracle de Theophile_, the
_Roman de la rose_ with the _Roman du Renart_. The earliest notes of
ballads and rondeau are heard; endeavours are made with zeal, and not
always without understanding, to naturalize the wisdom of the ancients
in France, and in the graceful tongue that France possesses. Romance in
prose and verse, drama, history, songs, satire, oratory and even
erudition, are all represented and represented worthily. Meanwhile all
nations of western Europe have come to France for their literary models
and subjects, and the greatest writers in English, German, Italian,
content themselves with adaptations of Chretien de Troyes, of Benoit de
Sainte More, and of a hundred other known and unknown trouveres and
fabulists. But this age does not last long. The language has been put to
all the uses of which it is as yet capable; those uses in their sameness
begin to pall upon reader and hearer; and the enormous evils of the
civil and religious state reflect themselves inevitably in literature.
The old forms die out or are prolonged only in half-lifeless travesties.
The brilliant colouring of Froissart, and the graceful science of
ballade and rondeau writers like Lescurel and Deschamps, alone maintain
the literary reputation of the time. Towards the end of the 14th century
the translators and political writers import many terms of art, and
strain the language to uses for which it is as yet unhandy, though at
the beginning of the next age Charles d'Orleans by his natural grace and
the virtue of the forms he used emerges from the mass of writers.
Throughout the 15th century the process of enriching or at least
increasing the vocabulary goes on, but as yet no organizing hand appears
to direct the process. Villon stands alone in merit as in peculiarity.
But in this time dramatic literature and the literature of the floating
popular broadsheet acquire an immense extension--all or almost all the
vigour of spirit being concentrated in the rough farce and rougher
lampoon, while all the literary skill is engrossed by insipid
_rhetoriqueurs_ and pedants. Then comes the grand upheaval of the
Renaissance and the Reformation. An immense influx of science, of
thought to make the science living, of new terms to express the thought,
takes place, and a band of literary workers appear of power enough to
master and get into shape the turbid mass. Rabelais, Amyot, Calvin and
Herberay fashion French prose; Marot, Ronsard and Regnier refashion
French verse. The Pleiade introduces the drama as it is to be and the
language that is to help the drama to express itself. Montaigne for the
first time throws invention and originality into some other form than
verse or than prose fiction. But by the end of the century the tide has
receded. The work of arrangement has been but half done, and there are
no master spirits left to complete it. At this period Malherbe and
Balzac make their appearance. Unable to deal with the whole problem,
they determine to deal with part of it, and to reject a portion of the
riches of which they feel themselves unfit to be stewards. Balzac and
his successors make of French prose an instrument faultless and
admirable in precision, unequalled for the work for which it is fit, but
unfit for certain portions of the work which it was once able to
perform. Malherbe, seconded by Boileau, makes of French verse an
instrument suited only for the purposes of the drama of Euripides, or
rather of Seneca, with or without its chorus, and for a certain weakened
echo of those choruses, under the name of lyrics. No French verse of the
first merit other than dramatic is written for two whole centuries. The
drama soon comes to its acme, and during the succeeding time usually
maintains itself at a fairly high level until the death of Voltaire. But
prose lends itself to almost everything that is required of it, and
becomes constantly a more and more perfect instrument. To the highest
efforts of pathos and sublimity its vocabulary and its arrangement
likewise are still unsuited, though the great preachers of the 17th
century do their utmost with it. But for clear exposition, smooth and
agreeable narrative, sententious and pointed brevity, witty repartee, it
soon proves itself to have no superior and scarcely an equal in Europe.
In these directions practitioners of the highest skill apply it during
the 17th century, while during the 18th its powers are shown to the
utmost of their variety by Voltaire, and receive a new development at
the hands of Rousseau. Yet, on the whole, it loses during this century.
It becomes more and more unfit for any but trivial uses, and at last it
is employed for those uses only. Then occurs the Revolution, repeating
the mighty stir in men's minds which the Renaissance had given, but at
first experiencing more difficulty in breaking up the ground and once
more rendering it fertile. The faulty and incomplete genius of
Chateaubriand and Madame de Stael gives the first evidence of a new
growth, and after many years the Romantic movement completes the work.
Whether the force of that movement is now, after three-quarters of a
century, spent or not, its results remain. The poetical power of French
has been once more triumphantly proved, and its productiveness in all
branches of literature has been renewed, while in that of prose fiction
there has been almost created a new class of composition. In the process
of reform, however, not a little of the finish of French prose style has
been lost, and the language itself has been affected in something the
same way as it was affected by the less judicious innovations of the
Ronsardists. The pedantry of the Pleiade led to the preposterous
compounds of Du Bartas; the passion of the Romantics for foreign tongues
and for the _mot propre_ has loaded French with foreign terms on the one
hand and with _argot_ on the other, while it is questionable whether the
_vers libre_ is really suited to the French genius. There is, therefore,
room for new Malherbes and Balzacs, if the days for Balzacs and
Malherbes had not to all appearance passed. Should they be once more
forthcoming, they have the failure as well as the success of their
predecessors to guide them.
Finally, we may sum up even this summary. For volume and merit taken
together the product of these eight centuries of literature excels that
of any European nation, though for individual works of the supremest
excellence they may perhaps be asked in vain. No French writer is lifted
by the suffrages of other nations--the only criterion when sufficient
time has elapsed--to the level of Homer, of Shakespeare, or of Dante,
who reign alone. Of those of the authors of France who are indeed of the
thirty but attain not to the first three Rabelais and Moliere alone
unite the general suffrage, and this fact roughly but surely points to
the real excellence of the literature which these men are chosen to
represent. It is great in all ways, but it is greatest on the lighter
side. The house of mirth is more suited to it than the house of
mourning. To the latter, indeed, the language of the unknown marvel who
told Roland's death, of him who gave utterance to Camilla's wrath and
despair, and of Victor Hugo, who sings how the mountain wind makes mad
the lover who cannot forget, has amply made good its title of entrance.
But for one Frenchman who can write admirably in this strain there are a
hundred who can tell the most admirable story, formulate the most
pregnant reflection, point the acutest jest. There is thus no really
great epic in French, few great tragedies, and those imperfect and in a
faulty kind, little prose like Milton's or like Jeremy Taylor's, little
verse (though more than is generally thought) like Shelley's or like
Spenser's. But there are the most delightful short tales, both in prose
and in verse, that the world has ever seen, the most polished jewelry of
reflection that has ever been wrought, songs of incomparable grace,
comedies that must make men laugh as long as they are laughing animals,
and above all such a body of narrative fiction, old and new, prose and
verse, as no other nation can show for art and for originality, for
grace of workmanship in him who fashions, and for certainty of delight
to him who reads.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The most elaborate book on French literature as a whole
is that edited by Petit de Julleville, and composed of chapters by
different authors, _Histoire de la langue et de la litterature
francaises_ (8 vols., Paris, 1896-1899). Unfortunately these chapters,
some of which are of the highest excellence, are of very unequal
value: they require connexions which are not supplied, and there is
throughout a neglect of minor authors. The bibliographical indications
are, however, most valuable. For a survey in a single volume Lanson's
_Histoire_ has superseded the older but admirable manuals of Demogeot
and Geruzez, which, however, are still worth consulting. Brunetiere's
_Manuel_ (translated into English) is very valuable with the cautions
above given; and the large _Histoire de la langue francaise depuis le
seizieme siecle_ of Godefroy supplies copious and well-chosen extracts
with much biographical information. In English there is an extensive
_History_ by H. van Laun (3 vols., 1874, &c.); a _Short History_ by
Saintsbury (1882; 6th ed. continued to the end of the century, 1901);
and a _History_ by Professor Dowden (1895).
To pass to special periods--the fountain-head of the literature of the
middle ages is the ponderous _Histoire litteraire_ already referred
to, which, notwithstanding that it extended to 27 quarto volumes in
1906, and had occupied, with interruptions, 150 years in publication,
had only reached the 14th century. Many of the monographs which it
contains are the best authorities on their subjects, such as that of
P. Paris on the early chansonniers, of V. Leclerc on the fabliaux, and
of Littre on the romans d'aventures. For the history of literature
before the 11th century, the period mainly Latin, J. J. Ampere's
_Histoire litteraire de la France avant Charlemagne, sous Charlemagne,
et jusqu'au onzieme siecle_ is the chief authority. Leon Gautier's
_Epopees francaises_ (5 vols., 1878-1897) contains almost everything
known concerning the chansons de geste. P. Paris's _Romans de la table
ronde_ was long the main authority for this subject, but very much has
been written recently in France and elsewhere. The most important of
the French contributions, especially those by Gaston Paris (whose
_Histoire poetique de Charlemagne_ has been reprinted since his
death), will be found in the periodical _Romania_, which for more than
thirty years has been the chief receptacle of studies on old French
literature. On the cycle of Reynard the standard work is Rothe, _Les
Romans de Renart_. All parts of the lighter literature of old France
are excellently treated by Lenient, _Le Satire au moyen age_. The
early theatre has been frequently treated by the brothers Parfaict
(_Histoire du theatre francais_), by Fabre (_Les Clercs de la
Bazoche_), by Leroy (_Etude sur les mysteres_), by Aubertin (_Histoire
de la langue et de la litterature francaise au moyen age_). This
latter book will be found a useful summary of the whole medieval
period. The historical, dramatic and oratorical sections are
especially full. On a smaller scale but of unsurpassed authority is G.
Paris's _Litterature du moyen age_ translated into English.
On the 16th century an excellent handbook is that by Darmesteter and
Hatzfeld; and the recent _Literature of the French Renaissance_ of A.
Tilley (2 vols., 1904) is of high value. Sainte-Beuve's _Tableau_ has
been more than once referred to. Ebert (_Entwicklungsgeschichte der
franzosischen Tragodie vornehmlich im 16^ten Jahrhundert_) is the
chief authority for dramatic matters. Essays and volumes on periods
and sub-periods since 1600 are innumerable; but those who desire
thorough acquaintance with the literature of these three hundred years
should read as widely as possible in all the critical work of
Sainte-Beuve, of Scherer, of Faguet and Brunetiere--which may be
supplemented _ad libitum_ from that of other critics mentioned above.
The series of volumes entitled _Les grands ecrivains francais_, now
pretty extensive, is generally very good, and Catulle Mendes's
invaluable book on 19th-century poetry has been cited above. As a
companion to the study of poetry E. Crepet's _Poetes francais_ (4
vols., 1861), an anthology with introductions by Sainte-Beuve and all
the best critics of the day, cannot be surpassed, but to it may be
added the later _Anthologie des poetes francais du XIX^e siecle_
(1877-1879). (G. Sa.)
FRENCH POLISH, a liquid for polishing wood, made by dissolving shellac
in methylated spirit. There are four different tints, brown, white,
garnet and red, but the first named is that most extensively used. All
the tints are made in the same manner, with the exception of the red,
which is a mixture of the brown polish and methylated spirit with either
Saunders wood or Bismarck brown, according to the strength of colour
required. Some woods, and especially mahogany, need to be stained before
they are polished. To stain mahogany mix some bichromate of potash in
hot water according to the depth of colour required. After staining the
wood the most approved method of filling the grain is to rub in fine
plaster of Paris (wet), wiping off before it "sets." After this is dry
it should be oiled with linseed oil and thoroughly wiped off. The wood
is then ready for the polish, which is put on with a rubber made of
wadding covered with linen rag and well wetted with polish. The
polishing process has to be repeated gradually, and after the work has
hardened, the surface is smoothed down with fine glass-paper, a few
drops of linseed oil being added until the surface is sufficiently
smooth. After a day or two the surface can be cleared by using a fresh
rubber with a double layer of linen, removing the top layer when it is
getting hard and finishing off with the bottom layer.
FRENCH REVOLUTION, THE. Among the many revolutions which from time to
time have given a new direction to the political development of nations
the French Revolution stands out as at once the most dramatic in its
incidents and the most momentous in its results. This exceptional
character is, indeed, implied in the name by which it is known; for
France has experienced many revolutions both before and since that of
1789, but the name "French Revolution," or simply "the Revolution,"
without qualification, is applied to this one alone. The causes which
led to it: the gradual decay of the institutions which France had
inherited from the feudal system, the decline of the centralized
monarchy, and the immediate financial necessities that compelled the
assembling of the long neglected states-general in 1789, are dealt with
in the article on FRANCE: _History_. The successive constitutions, and
the other legal changes which resulted from it, are also discussed in
their general relation to the growth of the modern French polity in the
article FRANCE (_Law and Institutions_). The present article deals with
the progress of the Revolution itself from the convocation of the
states-general to the coup d'etat of the 18th Brumaire which placed
Napoleon Bonaparte in power.
Opening of the States-General.
The elections to the states-general of 1789 were held in unfavourable
circumstances. The failure of the harvest of 1788 and a severe winter
had caused widespread distress. The government was weak and despised,
and its agents were afraid or unwilling to quell outbreaks of disorder.
At the same time the longing for radical reform and the belief that it
would be easy were almost universal. The _cahiers_ or written
instructions given to the deputies covered well-nigh every subject of
political, social or economic interest, and demanded an amazing number
of changes. Amid this commotion the king and his ministers remained
passive. They did not even determine the question whether the estates
should act as separate bodies or deliberate collectively. On the 5th of
May the states-general were opened by Louis in the Salle des Menus
Plaisirs at Versailles. Barentin, the keeper of the seals, informed them
that they were free to determine whether they would vote by orders or
vote by head. Necker, as director-general of the finances, set forth the
condition of the treasury and proposed some small reforms. The Tiers
Etat (Third Estate) was dissatisfied that the question of joint or
separate deliberation should have been left open. It was aware that some
of the nobles and many of the inferior clergy agreed with it as to the
need for comprehensive reform. Joint deliberation would ensure a
majority to the reformers and therefore the abolition of privileges and
the extinction of feudal rights of property. Separate deliberation would
enable the majority among the nobles and the superior clergy to limit
reform. Hence it became the first object of the Tiers Etat to effect the
amalgamation of the three estates.
Conflict between the Three Estates.
The conflict between those who desired and those who resisted
amalgamation took the form of a conflict over the verification of the
powers of the deputies. The Tiers Etat insisted that the deputies of all
three estates should have their powers verified in common as the first
step towards making them all members of one House. It resolved to hold
its meetings in the Salle des Menus Plaisirs, whereas the nobles and the
clergy met in smaller apartments set aside for their exclusive use. It
refrained from taking any step which might have implied that it was an
organized assembly, and persevered in regarding itself as a mere crowd
of individual members incapable of transacting business. Meanwhile the
clergy and the nobles began a separate verification of their powers.
But a few of the nobles and a great many of the clergy voted against
this procedure. On the 7th the Tiers Etat sent deputations to exhort the
other estates to union, while the clergy sent a deputation to it with
the proposal that each estate should name commissioners to discuss the
best method of verifying powers. The Tiers Etat accepted the proposal
and conferences were held, but without result. It then made another
appeal to the clergy which was almost successful. The king interposed
with a command for the renewal of the conferences. They were resumed
under the presidency of Barentin, but again to no purpose.
On the 10th of June Sieyes moved that the Tiers Etat should for the last
time invite the First and Second Estates to join in the verification of
powers and announce that, whether they did or not, the work of verifying
would begin forthwith. The motion was carried by an immense majority. As
there was no response, the Tiers Etat on the 12th named Bailly
provisional president and commenced verification. Next day three cures
of Poitou came to have their powers verified. Other clergymen followed
later. When the work of verification was over, a title had to be found
for the body thus created, which would no longer accept the style of the
Tiers Etat. On the 15th Sieyes proposed that they should entitle
themselves the Assembly of the known and verified representatives of the
French nation. Mirabeau, Mounier and others proposed various
appellations. But success was reserved for Legrand, an obscure deputy
who proposed the simple name of National Assembly. Withdrawing his own
motion, Sieyes adopted Legrand's suggestion, which was carried by 491
votes to 90. The Assembly went on to declare that it placed the debts of
the crown under the safeguard of the national honour and that all
existing taxes, although illegal as having been imposed without the
consent of the people, should continue to be paid until the day of
dissolution.
The National Assembly.
Oath of the Tennis Court.
By these proceedings the Tiers Etat and a few of the clergy declared
themselves the national legislature. Then and thereafter the National
Assembly assumed full sovereign and constituent powers. Nobles and
clergy might come in if they pleased, but it could do without them. The
king's assent to its measures would be convenient, but not necessary.
This boldness was rewarded, for on the 19th the clergy decided by a
majority of one in favour of joint verification. On the same day the
nobles voted an address to the king condemning the action of the Tiers
Etat. Left to himself, Louis might have been too inert for resistance.
But the queen and his brother, the count of Artois, with some of the
ministers and courtiers, urged him to make a stand. A Seance Royale was
notified for the 22nd and workmen were sent to prepare the Salle des
Menus Plaisirs for the ceremony. On the 20th Bailly and the deputies
proceeded to the hall and found it barred against their entrance.
Thereupon they adjourned to a neighbouring tennis court, where Mounier
proposed that they should swear not to separate until they had
established the constitution. With a solitary exception they swore and
the Oath of the Tennis Court became an era in French history. As the
ministers could not agree on the policy which the king should announce
in the Seance Royale, it was postponed to the 23rd. The Assembly found
shelter in the church of St Louis, where it was joined by the main body
of the clergy and by the first of the nobles.
At the Seance Royale Louis made known his will that the Estates should
deliberate apart, and declared that if they should refuse to help him he
would do by his sole authority what was necessary for the happiness of
his people. When he quitted the hall, some of the clergy and most of the
nobles retired to their separate chambers. But the rest, together with
the Tiers Etat, remained, and Mirabeau declared that, as they had come
by the will of the nation, force only should make them withdraw.
"Gentlemen," said Sieyes, "you are to-day what you were yesterday." With
one voice the Assembly proclaimed its adhesion to its former decrees and
the inviolability of its members. In Versailles and in Paris popular
feeling was clamorous for the Assembly and against the court. During the
next few days many of the clergy and nobles, including the archbishop
of Paris and the duke of Orleans, joined the Assembly. Louis tamely
accepted his defeat. He recalled Necker, who had resigned after the
Seance Royale. On the 27th he wrote to those clerical and noble deputies
who still held out, urging submission. By the 2nd of July the joint
verification of powers was completed. The last trace of the historic
States-General disappeared and the National Assembly was perfect. On the
same day it claimed an absolute discretion by a decree that the mandates
of the electors were not binding on its members.
Dismissal of Necker.
Having failed in their first attempt on the Assembly, the Court party
resolved to try what force could do. A large number of troops, chiefly
foreign regiments in the service of France, were concentrated near Paris
under the command of the marshal de Broglie. On Mirabeau's motion the
Assembly voted an address to the king asking for their withdrawal. The
king replied that the troops were not meant to act against the Assembly,
but intimated his purpose of transferring the session to some provincial
town. On the same day he dismissed Necker and ordered him to quit
Versailles. These acts led to the first insurrection of Paris. The
capital had long been in a dangerous condition. Bread was dear and
employment was scarce. The measures taken to relieve distress had
allured a multitude of needy and desperate men from the surrounding
country. Among the middle class there already existed a party,
consisting of men like Danton or Camille Desmoulins, which was prepared
to go much further than any of the leaders of the Assembly. The rich
citizens were generally fund-holders, who regarded the Assembly as the
one bulwark against a public bankruptcy. The duke of Orleans, a weak and
dissolute but ambitious man, had conceived the hope of supplanting his
cousin on the throne. He strained his wealth and influence to recruit
followers and to make mischief. The gardens of his residence, the Palais
Royal, became the centre of political agitation. Ever since the
elections virtual freedom of the press and freedom of speech had
prevailed in Paris. Clubs were multiplied and pamphlets came forth every
hour. The municipal officers who were named by the Crown had little
influence with the citizens. The police were a mere handful. Of the two
line regiments quartered in the capital, one was Swiss and therefore
trusty; but the other, the Gardes Francaises, shared all the feelings of
the populace.
Rioting in Paris.
Fall of the Bastille, July 14, 1789.
On the 12th of July Camille Desmoulins announced the dismissal of Necker
to the crowd in the Palais Royal. Warmed by his eloquence, they sallied
into the street. Part of Broglie's troops occupied the Champs Elysees
and the Place Louis Quinze. After one or two petty encounters with the
mob they were withdrawn, either because their temper was uncertain or
because their commanders shunned responsibility. Paris was thus left to
the rioters, who seized arms wherever they could find them, broke open
the jails, burnt the octroi barriers and soon had every man's life and
goods at their discretion. Citizens with anything to lose were driven to
act for themselves. For the purpose of choosing its representatives in
the states-general the Third Estate of Paris had named 300 electors.
Their function once discharged, these men had no public character, but
they resolved that they would hold together in order to watch over the
interests of the city. After the Seance Royale the municipal authority,
conscious of its own weakness, allowed them to meet at the Hotel de
Ville, where they proceeded to consider the formation of a civic guard.
On the 13th, when all was anarchy in Paris, they were joined by
Flesselles, Provost of the Merchants, and other municipal officers. The
project of a civic guard was then adopted. The insurrection, however,
ran its course unchecked. Crowds of deserters from the regular troops
swelled the ranks of the insurgents. They attacked the Hotel des
Invalides and carried off all the arms which were stored there. With the
same object they assailed the Bastille. The garrison was small and
disheartened, provisions were short, and after some hours' fighting De
Launay the governor surrendered on promise of quarter. He and several of
his men were, notwithstanding, butchered by the mob before they could be
brought to the Hotel de Ville. As all Paris was in the hands of the
insurgents, the king saw the necessity of submission. On the morning of
the 15th he entered the hall of the Assembly to announce that the troops
would be withdrawn. Immediately afterwards he dismissed his new
ministers and recalled Necker. Thereupon the princes and courtiers most
hostile to the National Assembly, the count of Artois, the prince of
Conde, the duke of Bourbon and many others, feeling themselves no longer
safe, quitted France. Their departure is known as the first emigration.
New municipality of Paris and National Guard.
Revolution in the provinces.
The capture of the Bastille was hailed throughout Europe as symbolizing
the fall of absolute monarchy, and the victory of the insurgents had
momentous consequences. Recognizing the 300 electors as a temporary
municipal government, the Assembly sent a deputation to confer with them
at the Hotel de Ville, and on a sudden impulse one of these deputies,
Bailly, lately president of the Assembly, was chosen to be mayor of
Paris. The marquis Lafayette, doubly popular as a veteran of the
American War and as one of the nobles who heartily upheld the cause of
the Assembly, was chosen commandant of the new civic force,
thenceforwards known as the National Guard. On the 17th Louis himself
visited Paris and gave his sanction to the new authorities. In the
course of the following weeks the example of Paris was copied throughout
France. All the cities and towns set up new elective authorities and
organized a National Guard. At the same time the revolution spread to
the country districts. In most of the provinces the peasants rose and
stormed and burnt the houses of the _seigneurs_, taking peculiar care to
destroy their title-deeds. Some of the _seigneurs_ were murdered and the
rest were driven into the towns or across the frontier. Amid the
universal confusion the old administrative system vanished. The
intendants and sub-delegates quitted or were driven from their posts.
The old courts of justice, whether royal or feudal, ceased to act. In
many districts there was no more police, public works were suspended and
the collection of taxes became almost impossible. The insurrection of
July really ended the _ancien regime_.
The 4th of August.
Disorder in the provinces led directly to the proceedings on the famous
night of the 4th of August. While the Assembly was considering a
declaration which might calm revolt, the vicomte de Noailles and the duc
d'Aiguillon moved that it should proclaim equality of taxation and the
suppression of feudal burdens. Other deputies rose to demand the repeal
of the game laws, the enfranchisement of such serfs as were still to be
found in France, and the abolition of tithes and of feudal courts and to
renounce all privileges, whether of classes, of cities, or of provinces.
Amid indescribable enthusiasm the Assembly passed resolution after
resolution embodying these changes. The resolutions were followed by
decrees sometimes hastily and unskilfully drawn. In vain Sieyes remarked
that in extinguishing tithes the Assembly was making a present to every
landed proprietor. In vain the king, while approving most of the
decrees, tendered some cautious criticisms of the rest. The majority did
not, indeed, design to confiscate property wholesale. They drew a
distinction between feudal claims which did and did not carry a moral
claim to compensation. But they were embarrassed by the wording of their
own decrees and forestalled by the violence of the people. The
proceedings of the 4th of August issued in a wholesale transfer of
property from one class to another without any indemnity for the losers.
Parties in the Assembly.
The work of drafting a constitution for France had already been begun.
Parties in the Assembly were numerous and ill-defined. The Extreme
Right, who desired to keep the government as it stood, were a mere
handful. The Right who wanted to revive, as they said, the ancient
constitution, in other words, to limit the king's power by periodic
States-General of the old-fashioned sort, were more numerous and had
able chiefs in Cazales and Maury, but strove in vain against the spirit
of the time. The Right Centre, sometimes called the Monarchiens, were a
large body and included several men of talent, notably Mounier and
Malouet, as well as many men of rank and wealth. They desired a
constitution like that of England which should reserve a large
executive power to the king, while entrusting the taxing and legislative
powers to a modern parliament. The Left or Constitutionals, known
afterwards as the Feuillants, among whom Barnave and Charles and
Alexander Lameth were conspicuous, also wished to preserve monarchy but
disdained English precedent. They were possessed with feelings then
widespread, weariness of arbitrary government, hatred of ministers and
courtiers, and distrust not so much of Louis as of those who surrounded
him and influenced his judgment. Republicans without knowing it, they
grudged every remnant of power to the Crown. The Extreme Left, still
more republican in spirit, of whom Robespierre was the most noteworthy,
were few and had little power. Mirabeau's independence of judgment
forbids us to place him in any party.
Declaration of the Rights of Man.
The royal veto.
The first Constitutional Committee, elected on the 14th of July, had
Mounier for its reporter. It was instructed to begin with drafting a
Declaration of the Rights of Man. Six weeks were spent by the Assembly
in discussing this document. The Committee then presented a report which
embodied the principle of two Chambers. This principle contradicted the
extreme democratic theories so much in fashion. It also offended the
self-love of most of the nobles and the clergy who were loath that a few
of their number should be erected into a House of Lords. The Assembly
rejected the principle of two Chambers by nearly 10 to 1. The question
whether the king should have a veto on legislation was next raised.
Mounier contended that he should have an absolute veto, and was
supported by Mirabeau, who had already described the unlimited power of
a single Chamber as worse than the tyranny of Constantinople. The Left
maintained that the king, as depositary of the executive, should be
wholly excluded from the legislative power. Lafayette, who imagined
himself to be copying the American constitution, proposed that the king
should have a suspensive veto. Thinking that it would be politic to
claim no more, Necker persuaded the king to intimate that he was
satisfied with Lafayette's proposal. The suspensive veto was therefore
adopted. As the king had no power of dissolution, it was an idle form.
Mounier and his friends having resigned their places in the
Constitutional Committee, it came to an end and the Assembly elected a
new Committee which represented the opinions of the Left.
Removal of the royal family and Assembly to Paris.
Soon afterwards a fresh revolt in Paris caused the king and the Assembly
to migrate thither. The old causes of disorder were still working in
that city. The scarcity of bread was set down to conspirators against
the Revolution. Riots were frequent and persons supposed hostile to the
Assembly and the nation were murdered with impunity. The king still had
counsellors who wished for his departure as a means to regaining freedom
of action. At the end of September the Flanders regiment came to
Versailles to reinforce the Gardes du Corps. The officers of the Gardes
du Corps entertained the officers of the Flanders regiment and of the
Versailles National Guard at dinner in the palace. The king, queen and
dauphin visited the company. There followed a vehement outbreak of
loyalty. Rumour enlarged the incident into a military plot against
freedom. Those who wanted a more thorough revolution wrought up the
crowd and even respectable citizens wished to have the king among them
and amenable to their opinion. On the 5th of October a mob which had
gathered to assault the Hotel de Ville was diverted into a march on
Versailles. Lafayette was slow to follow it and, when he arrived, took
insufficient precautions. At daybreak on the 6th some of the rioters
made their way into the palace and stormed the apartment of the queen
who escaped with difficulty. At length the National Guards arrived and
the mob was quieted by the announcement that the king had resolved to go
to Paris. The Assembly declared itself inseparable from the king's
person. Louis and his family reached Paris on the same evening and took
up their abode in the Tuileries. A little later the Assembly established
itself in the riding school of the palace. Thenceforward the king and
queen were to all intents prisoners. The Assembly itself was subject to
constant intimidation. Many members of the Right gave up the struggle
and emigrated, or at least withdrew from attendance, so that the Left
became supreme.
Mirabeau and the court.
Mirabeau had already taken alarm at the growing violence of the
Revolution. In September he had foretold that it would not stop short of
the death of both king and queen. After the insurrection of October he
sought to communicate with them through his friend the comte de la
Marck. In a remarkable correspondence he sketched a policy for the king.
The abolition of privilege and the establishment of a parliamentary
system were, he wrote, unalterable facts which it would be madness to
dispute. But a strong executive authority was essential, and a king who
frankly adopted the Revolution might still be powerful. In order to
rally the sound part of the nation Louis should leave Paris, and, if
necessary, he should prepare for a civil war; but he should never appeal
to foreign powers. Neither the king nor the queen could grasp the wisdom
of this advice. They distrusted Mirabeau as an unscrupulous adventurer,
and were confirmed in this feeling by his demands for money. His
correspondence with the court, although secret, was suspected. The
politicians who envied his talents and believed him a rascal raised the
cry of treason. In the Assembly Mirabeau, though sometimes successful on
particular questions, never had a chance of giving effect to his policy
as a whole. Whether even he could have controlled the Revolution is
highly doubtful; but his letters and minutes drawn up for the king form
the most striking monument of his genius (see MIRABEAU and MONTMORIN DE
SAINT-HEREM).
The Assembly and the royal power.
Reorganization of France.
Early in the year 1790 a dispute with England concerning the frontier in
North America induced the Spanish government to claim the help of France
under the Family Compact. This demand led the Assembly to consider in
what hands the power of concluding alliances and of making peace and war
should be placed. Mirabeau tried to keep the initiative for the king,
subject to confirmation by the Chamber. On Barnave's motion the Assembly
decreed that the legislature should have the power of war and peace and
the king a merely advisory power. Mirabeau was defeated on another point
of the highest consequence, the inclusion of ministers in the National
Assembly. His colleagues generally adhered to the principle that the
legislative and executive powers should be totally separate. The Left
assumed that, if deputies could hold office, the king would have the
means of corrupting the ablest and most influential. It was decreed that
no deputy should be minister while sitting in the House or for two years
after. Ministers excluded from the House being necessarily objects of
suspicion, the Assembly was careful to allow them the least possible
power. The old provinces were abolished, and France was divided anew
into eighty departments. Each department was subdivided into districts,
cantons and communes. The main business of administration, even the
levying of taxes, was entrusted to the elective local authorities. The
judicature was likewise made elective. The army and the navy were so
organized as to leave the king but a small share in appointing officers
and to leave the officers but scanty means of maintaining discipline.
Even the cases in which the sovereign might be deposed were foreseen and
expressly stated. Monarchy was retained, but the monarch was regarded as
a possible traitor and every precaution was taken to render him harmless
even at the cost of having no effective national government.
Executive committees of the Assembly.
Confiscation of church property.
The assignats.
The distrust which the Assembly felt for the actual ministers led it to
undertake the business of government as well as the business of reform.
There were committees for all the chief departments of state, a
committee for the army, a committee for the navy, another for diplomacy,
another for finance. These committees sometimes asked the ministers for
information, but rarely took their advice. Even Necker found the
Assembly heedless of his counsels. The condition of the treasury became
worse day by day. The yield of the indirect taxes fell off through the
interruption of business, and the direct taxes were in large measure
withheld, for want of an authority to enforce payment. With some trouble
Necker induced the Assembly to sanction first a loan of 30,000,000
livres and then a loan of 80,000,000 livres. The public having shown no
eagerness to subscribe, Necker proposed that every man should be invited
to make a patriotic contribution of one-fourth of his income. This
expedient also failed. On the 10th of October 1789 Talleyrand, bishop of
Autun, proposed that the Assembly should take possession of the lands of
the church. In November the Assembly enacted that they should be at the
disposal of the nation, which would provide for the maintenance of the
clergy. Since the church lands were supposed to occupy one-fifth of
France, the Assembly thought that it had found an inexhaustible source
of public wealth. On the security of the church lands it based a paper
currency (the famous assignats). In December it ordered an issue to the
amount of 400,000,000 livres. As the revenue still declined and the
reforms enacted by the Assembly involved a heavy outlay, it recurred
again and again to this expedient. Before its dissolution the Assembly
had authorized the creation of 1,800,000,000 livres of assignats and the
depreciation of its paper had begun. Finding that he had lost all credit
with the Assembly, Necker resigned office and left France in September
1790.
Power of the municipalities and popular clubs.
Disaffection in the army.
Even the committees of the Assembly had far less power than the new
municipal authorities throughout France. They really governed so far as
there was any government. Often full of public spirit, they lacked
experience and in a time of peculiar difficulty had no guide save their
own discretion. They opened letters, arrested suspects, controlled the
trade in corn, and sent their National Guards on such errands as they
thought proper. The political clubs which sprang up all over the country
often presumed to act as though they were public authorities (see
JACOBINS). The revolutionary journalists, Desmoulins in his _Revolutions
de France et de Brabant_, Loustallot in his _Revolutions de Paris_,
Marat in his _Ami du peuple_, continued to feed the fire of discord.
Amid this anarchy it became a practice for the National Guards of
different districts to form federations, that is, to meet and swear
loyalty to each other and obedience to the laws made by the National
Assembly. At the suggestion of the municipality of Paris the Assembly
decreed a general federation of all France, to be held on the
anniversary of the fall of the Bastille. The ceremony took place in the
Champ de Mars (July 14, 1790) in presence of the king, the queen, the
Assembly, and an enormous concourse of spectators. It was attended by
deputations from the National Guards in every part of the kingdom, from
the regular regiments, and from the crews of the fleet. Talleyrand
celebrated Mass, and Lafayette was the first to swear fidelity to the
Assembly and the nation. In this gathering the provincial deputations
caught the revolutionary fever of Paris. Still graver was the effect
upon the regular army. It had been disaffected since the outbreak of the
Revolution. The rank and file complained of their food, their lodging
and their pay. The non-commissioned officers, often intelligent and
hard-working, were embittered by the refusal of promotion. The officers,
almost all nobles, rarely showed much concern for their men, and were
often mere courtiers and triflers. After the festival of the federation
the soldiers were drawn into the political clubs, and named regimental
committees to defend their interests. Not content with asking for
redress of grievances, they sometimes seized the regimental chest or
imprisoned their officers. In August a formidable outbreak at Nancy was
only quelled with much loss of life. Desertion became more frequent than
ever, and the officers, finding their position unbearable, began to
emigrate. Similar causes produced an even worse effect upon the navy.
Civil constitution of the clergy.
By its rough handling of the church the Assembly brought fresh trouble
upon France. The suppression of tithe and the confiscation of church
lands had reduced the clergy to live on whatever stipend the legislature
might think fit to give them. A law of February 1790 suppressed the
religious orders not engaged in education or in works of charity, and
forbade the introduction of new ones. Monastic vows were deprived of
legal force and a pension was granted to the religious who were cast
upon the world. These measures aroused no serious discontent; but the
so-called civil constitution of the clergy went much further. Old
ecclesiastical divisions were set aside. Henceforth the diocese was to
be conterminous with the department, and the parish with the commune.
The electors of the commune were to choose the cure, the electors of the
department the bishop. Every cure was to receive at least 1200 livres
(about L50) a year. Relatively modest stipends were assigned to bishops
and archbishops. French citizens were forbidden to acknowledge any
ecclesiastical jurisdiction outside the kingdom. The Assembly not only
adopted this constitution but decreed that all beneficed ecclesiastics
should swear to its observance. As the constitution implicitly abrogated
the papal authority and entrusted the choice of bishops and cures to
electors who often were not Catholics, most of the clergy declined to
swear and lost their preferments. Their places were filled by election.
Thenceforwards the clergy were divided into hostile factions, the
Constitutionals and the Nonjurors. As the generality of Frenchmen at
that time were orthodox although not zealous Catholics, the Nonjurors
carried with them a large part of the laity. The Assembly was misled by
its Jansenist, Protestant and Free-thinking members, natural enemies of
an established church which had persecuted them to the best of its
power.
The Assembly, the colonies, and foreign powers.
In colonial affairs the Assembly acted with the same imprudence. Eager
to set an example of suppressing slavery, it took measures which
prepared a terrible negro insurrection in St Domingo. With regard to
foreign relations the Assembly showed itself well-meaning but
indiscreet. It protested in good faith that it desired no conquests and
aimed only at peace. Yet it laid down maxims which involved the utmost
danger of war. It held that no treaty could be binding without the
national consent. As this consent had not been given to any existing
treaty, they were all liable to be revised by the French government
without consulting the other parties. Thus the Assembly treated the
Family Compact as null and void. Similarly, when it abolished feudal
tenures in France, it ignored the fact that the rights of certain German
princes over lands in Alsace were guaranteed by the treaties of
Westphalia. It offered them compensation in money, and when this was
declined, took no heed of their protests. Again, in the papal territory
of Avignon a large number of the inhabitants declared for union with
France. The Assembly could hardly be restrained by Mirabeau from acting
upon their vote and annexing Avignon. Some time after his death it was
annexed. The other states of Europe did not admit the doctrines of the
Assembly, but peace was not broken. Foreign statesmen who flattered
themselves that France was sinking into anarchy and therefore into decay
were content to follow their respective ambitions without the dread of
French interference.
Attempt of Louis XVI. to escape from Paris.
Deprived of authority and in fact a prisoner, Louis had for many months
acquiesced in the decrees of the Assembly however distasteful. But the
civil constitution of the clergy wounded him in his conscience as well
as in his pride. From the autumn of 1790 onwards he began to scheme for
his liberation. Himself incapable of strenuous effort, he was spurred on
by Marie Antoinette, who keenly felt her own degradation and the
curtailment of that royal prerogative which her son would one day
inherit. The king and queen failed to measure the forces which had
caused the Revolution. They ascribed all their misfortunes to the work
of a malignant faction, and believed that, if they could escape from
Paris, a display of force by friendly powers would enable them to
restore the supremacy of the crown. But no foreign ruler, not even the
emperor Leopold II., gave the king or queen any encouragement. Whatever
secrecy they might observe, the adherents of the Revolution divined
their wish to escape. When Louis tried to leave the Tuileries for St
Cloud at Easter 1791, in order to enjoy the ministrations of a nonjuring
priest, the National Guards of Paris would not let him budge. Mirabeau,
who had always dissuaded the king from seeking foreign help, died on the
2nd of April. Finally the king and queen resolved to fly to the army of
the East, which the marquis de Bouille had in some measure kept under
discipline. Sheltered by him they could await foreign succour or a
reaction at home. On the evening of the 20th of June they escaped from
the Tuileries. Louis left behind him a declaration complaining of the
treatment which he had received and revoking his assent to all measures
which had been laid before him while under restraint. On the following
day the royal party was captured at Varennes and sent back to Paris. The
king's eldest brother, the count of Provence, who had laid his plans
much better, made his escape to Brussels and joined the _emigres_.
It was no longer possible to pretend that the Revolution had been made
with the free consent of the king. Some Republicans called for his
deposition. Afraid to take a course which involved danger both at home
and abroad, the Assembly decreed that Louis should be suspended from his
office. The club of the Cordeliers (q.v.), led by Danton, demanded not
only his deposition but his trial. A petition to that effect having been
exposed for signature on the altar in the Champ de Mars, a disturbance
ensued and the National Guard fired on the crowd, killing a few and
wounding many. This incident afterwards became known as the massacre of
the Champ de Mars. On the other hand, the leaders of the Left, Barnave
and the Lameths, felt that they had weakened the executive power too
much. They would gladly have come to an understanding with the king and
revised the constitution so as to strengthen his prerogative. They
failed in both objects. Louis and still more Marie Antoinette regarded
them with incurable distrust. The Constitutional Act without any
material change was voted on the 3rd of September. On the 14th Louis
swore to the Constitution, thus regaining his nominal sovereignty. The
National Assembly was dissolved on the 30th. Upon Robespierre's motion
it had decreed that none of its members should be capable of sitting in
the next legislature.
Review of the work of the National Assembly.
If we view the work of the National Assembly as a whole, we are struck
by the immense demolition which it effected. No other legislature has
ever destroyed so much in the same time. The old form of government, the
old territorial divisions, the old fiscal system, the old judicature,
the old army and navy, the old relations of Church and State, the old
law relating to property in land, all were shattered. Such a destruction
could not have been effected without the support of popular opinion.
Most of what the Assembly did had been suggested in the _cahiers_, and
many of its decrees were anticipated by actual revolt. In its
constructive work many sound maxims were embodied. It asserted the
principles of civil equality and freedom of conscience, it reformed the
criminal law, and laid down a just scheme of taxation. Not intelligence
and public spirit but political wisdom was lacking to the National
Assembly. Its members did not suspect how limited is the usefulness of
general propositions in practical life. Nor did they perceive that new
ideas can be applied only by degrees in an old world. The Constitution
of 1791 was impracticable and did not last a year. The civil
constitution of the clergy was wholly mischievous. In the attempt to
govern, the Assembly failed altogether. It left behind an empty
treasury, an undisciplined army and navy, a people debauched by safe and
successful riot.
The Legislative Assembly.
At the elections of 1791 the party which desired to carry the Revolution
further had a success out of all keeping with its numbers. This was due
partly to a weariness of politics which had come over the majority of
French citizens, partly to downright intimidation exercised by the
Jacobin Club and by its affiliated societies throughout the kingdom. The
Legislative Assembly met on the 1st of October. It consisted of 745
members. Few were nobles, very few were clergymen, and the great body
was drawn from the middle class. The members were generally young, and,
since none had sat in the previous Assembly, they were wholly without
experience. The Right consisted of the Feuillants (q.v.). They numbered
about 160, and among them were some able men, such as Matthieu Dumas and
Bigot de Preamenau, but they were guided chiefly by persons outside the
House, because incapable of re-election, Barnave, Duport and the
Lameths. The Left consisted of the Jacobins, a term which still included
the party afterwards known as the Girondins or Girondists (q.v.)--so
termed because several of their leaders came from the region of the
Gironde in southern France. They numbered about 330. Among the extreme
Left sat Cambon, Couthon, Merlin de Thionville. The Girondins could
claim the most brilliant orators, Vergniaud, Guadet, Isnard. Inferior to
these men in talent, Brissot de Warville, a restless pamphleteer,
exerted more influence over the party which has sometimes gone by his
name. The Left as a whole was republican, although it did not care to
say so. Strong in numbers, it was reinforced by the disorderly elements
in Paris and throughout France. The remainder of the House, about 250
deputies, scarcely belonged to any definite party, but voted oftenest
with the Left, as the Left was the most powerful.
The court and the emigres.
The Left had three objects of enmity: first, the king, the queen and the
royal family; secondly, the _emigres_; and thirdly, the clergy. The king
could not like the new constitution, although, if left to himself,
indolence and good nature might have rendered him passive. The queen
throughout had only one thought, to shake off the impotence and
humiliation of the crown; and for this end she still clung to the hope
of foreign succour and corresponded with Vienna. Those _emigres_ who had
assembled in arms on the territories of the electors of Mainz and Treves
(Trier) and in the Austrian Netherlands had put themselves in the
position of public enemies. Their chiefs were the king's brothers, who
affected to consider Louis as a captive and his acts as therefore
invalid. The count of Provence gave himself the airs of a regent and
surrounded himself with a ministry. The _emigres_ were not, however,
dangerous. They were only a few thousand strong; they had no competent
leader and no money; they were unwelcome to the rulers whose hospitality
they abused. The nonjuring clergy, although harassed by the local
authorities, kept the respect and confidence of most Catholics. No acts
of disloyalty were proved against them, and commissioners of the
National Assembly reported to its successor that their flocks only
desired to be let alone. But the anti-clerical bias of the Legislative
Assembly was too strong for such a policy.
The king's ministers, named by him and excluded from the Assembly, were
mostly persons of little mark. Montmorin gave up the portfolio of
foreign affairs on the 31st of October and was succeeded by De Lessart.
Cahier de Gerville was minister of the interior; Tarbe, minister of
finance; and Bertrand de Molleville, minister of marine. But the only
minister who influenced the course of affairs was the comte de Narbonne,
minister of war.
The king and the nonjurors.
Declaration of Pillnitz.
On the 9th of November the Assembly decreed that the _emigres_ assembled
on the frontiers should be liable to the penalties of death and
confiscation unless they returned to France by the 1st of January
following. Louis did not love his brothers, and he detested their
policy, which without rendering him any service made his liberty and
even his life precarious; yet, loath to condemn them to death, he vetoed
the decree. On the 29th of November the Assembly decreed that every
nonjuring clergyman must take within eight days the civic oath,
substantially the same as the oath previously administered, on pain of
losing his pension and, if any troubles broke out, of being deported.
This decree Louis vetoed as a matter of conscience. In either case his
resistance only served to give a weapon to his enemies in the Assembly.
But foreign affairs were at this time the most critical. The armed
bodies of _emigres_ on the territory of the Empire afforded matter of
complaint to France. The persistence of the French in refusing more than
a money compensation to the German princes who had claims in Alsace
afforded matter of complaint to the Empire. Foreign statesmen noticed
with alarm the effect of the French Revolution upon opinion in their own
countries, and they resented the endeavours of French revolutionists to
make converts there. Of these statesmen, the emperor Leopold was the
most intelligent. He had skilfully extricated himself from the
embarrassments at home and abroad left by his predecessor Joseph. He was
bound by family ties to Louis, and he was obliged, as chief of the Holy
Roman Empire, to protect the border princes. On the other hand, he
understood the weakness of the Habsburg monarchy. He knew that the
Austrian Netherlands, where he had with difficulty restored his
authority, were full of friends of the Revolution and that a French army
would be welcomed by many Belgians. He despised the weakness and the
folly of the _emigres_ and excluded them from his councils. He earnestly
desired to avoid a war which might endanger his sister or her husband.
In August 1791 he had met Frederick William II. of Prussia at Pillnitz
near Dresden, and the two monarchs had joined in a declaration that they
considered the restoration of order and of monarchy in France an object
of interest to all sovereigns. They further declared that they would be
ready to act for this purpose in concert with the other powers. This
declaration appears to have been drawn from Leopold by pressure of
circumstances. He well knew that concerted action of the powers was
impossible, as the English government had firmly resolved not to meddle
with French affairs. After Louis had accepted the constitution, Leopold
virtually withdrew his declaration. Nevertheless it was a grave error of
judgment and contributed to the approaching war.
In France many persons desired war for various reasons. Narbonne trusted
to find in it the means of restoring a certain authority to the crown
and limiting the Revolution. He contemplated a war with Austria only.
The Girondins desired war in the hope that it would enable them to
abolish monarchy altogether. They desired a general war because they
believed that it would carry the Revolution into other countries and
make it secure in France by making it universal. The extreme Left had
the same objects, but it held that a war for those objects could not
safely be entrusted to the king and his ministers. Victory would revive
the power of the crown; defeat would be the undoing of the Revolution.
Hence Robespierre and those who thought with him desired peace. The
French nation generally had never approved of the Austrian alliance, and
regarded the Habsburgs as traditional enemies. The king and queen,
however, who looked for help from abroad and especially from Leopold,
dreaded a war with Austria and had no faith in the schemes of Narbonne.
Nor was France in a condition to wage a serious war. The constitution
was unworkable and the governing authorities were mutually hostile. The
finances remained in disorder, and assignats of the face value of
900,000,000 livres were issued by the Legislative Assembly in less than
a year. The army had been thinned by desertion and was enervated by long
indiscipline. The fortresses were in bad condition and short of
supplies.
In October Leopold ordered the dispersion of the _emigres_ who had
mustered in arms in the Austrian Netherlands. His example was followed
by the electors of Treves and Mainz. At the same time they implored the
emperor's protection, and the Austrian chancellor Kaunitz informed
Noailles the French ambassador that this protection would be given if
necessary. Narbonne demanded a credit of 20,000,000 livres, which the
Assembly granted. He made a tour of inspection in the north of France
and reported untruly to the Assembly that all was in readiness for war.
On the 14th of January 1792 the diplomatic committee reported to the
Assembly that the emperor should be required to give satisfactory
assurances before the 10th of February. The Assembly put off the term to
the 1st of March. In February Leopold concluded a defensive treaty with
Frederick William. But there was no mutual confidence between the
sovereigns, who were at that very time pursuing opposite policies with
regard to Poland. Leopold still hesitated and still hoped to avoid war.
He died on the 1st of March, and the imperial dignity became vacant. The
hereditary dominions of Austria passed to his son Francis, afterwards
the emperor Francis II., a youth of small abilities and no experience.
The real conduct of affairs fell, therefore, to the aged Kaunitz. In
France Narbonne failed to carry the king or his colleagues along with
him. The king took courage to dismiss him on the 9th of March,
whereupon the assembly testified its confidence in Narbonne. De Lessart
having incurred its anger by the tameness of his replies to Austrian
dictation, the Assembly voted his impeachment.
War declared against Austria.
The king, seeing no other course open, formed a new ministry which was
chiefly Girondin. Roland became minister of the interior, Claviere of
finance, De Grave of war, and Lacoste of marine. Far abler and more
resolute than any of these men was Dumouriez, the new minister for
foreign affairs. A soldier by profession, he had been employed in the
secret diplomacy of Louis XV. and had thus gained a wide knowledge of
international politics. He stood aloof from parties and had no rigid
principles, but held views closely resembling those of Narbonne. He
wished for a war with Austria which should restore some influence to the
crown and make himself the arbiter of France. The king bent to
necessity, and on the 20th of April came to the Assembly with the
proposal that war should be declared against Austria. It was carried by
acclamation. Dumouriez intended to begin with an invasion of the
Austrian Netherlands. As this would awaken English jealousy, he sent
Talleyrand to London with assurances that, if victorious, the French
would annex no territory.
It was designed that the French should invade the Netherlands at three
points simultaneously. Lafayette was to march against Namur, Biron
against Mons, and Dillon against Tournay. But the first movement
disclosed the miserable state of the army. Smitten with panic, Dillon's
force fled at sight of the enemy, and Dillon, after receiving a wound
from one of his own soldiers, was murdered by the mob of Lille. Biron
was easily routed before Mons. On hearing of these disasters Lafayette
found it necessary to retreat. This shameful discomfiture quickened all
the suspicion and jealousy fermenting in France. De Grave had to resign
and was succeeded by Servan. The Austrian forces in the Netherlands
were, however, so weak that they could not take the offensive. Austria
demanded help from Prussia under the recent alliance, and the claim was
admitted. Prussia declared war against France, and the duke of Brunswick
was chosen to command the allied forces, but various causes delayed
action. Austrian and Prussian interests clashed in Poland. The Austrian
government wished to preserve a harmless neighbour. The Prussian
government desired another partition and a large tract of Polish
territory. Only after long discussion was it agreed that Prussia should
be free to act in Poland, while Austria might find compensation in
provinces conquered from France.
Emeute of the 20th of June 1792.
A respite was thus given and something was done to improve the army.
Meantime the Assembly passed three decrees: one for the deportation of
nonjuring priests, another to suppress the king's Constitutional Guard,
and a third for the establishment of a camp of _federes_ near Paris.
Louis consented to sacrifice his guard, but vetoed the other decrees.
Roland having addressed to him an arrogant letter of remonstrance, the
king with the support of Dumouriez dismissed Roland, Servan and
Claviere. Dumouriez then took the ministry of war, and the other places
were filled with such men as could be had. Dumouriez, who cared only for
the successful prosecution of the war, urged the king to accept the
decrees. As Louis was obstinate, he felt that he could do no more,
resigned office on the 15th of June and went to join the army of the
north. Lafayette, who remained faithful to the constitution of 1791,
ventured on a letter of remonstrance to the Assembly. It paid no
attention, for Lafayette could no longer sway the people. The Jacobins
tried to frighten the king into accepting the decrees and recalling his
ministers. On the 20th of June the armed populace invaded the hall of
the Assembly and the royal apartments in the Tuileries. For some hours
the king and queen were in the utmost peril. With passive courage Louis
refrained from making any promise to the insurgents.
The failure of the insurrection encouraged a movement in favour of the
king. Some twenty thousand Parisians signed a petition expressing
sympathy with Louis. Addresses of like tenour poured in from the
departments and the provincial cities. Lafayette himself came to Paris
in the hope of rallying the constitutional party, but the king and
queen eluded his offers of assistance. They had always disliked and
distrusted Lafayette and the Feuillants, and preferred to rest their
hopes of deliverance on the foreigner. Lafayette returned to his troops
without having effected anything. The Girondins made a last advance to
Louis, offering to save the monarchy if he would accept them as
ministers. His refusal united all the Jacobins in the project of
overturning the monarchy by force. The ruling spirit of this new
revolution was Danton, a barrister only thirty-two years of age, who had
not sat in either Assembly, although he had been the leader of the
Cordeliers, an advanced republican club, and had a strong hold on the
common people of Paris. Danton and his friends were assisted in their
work by the fear of invasion, for the allied army was at length
mustering on the frontier. The Assembly declared the country in danger.
All the regular troops in or near Paris were sent to the front.
Volunteers and _federes_ were constantly arriving in Paris, and,
although most went on to join the army, the Jacobins enlisted those who
were suitable for their purpose, especially some 500 whom Barbaroux, a
Girondin, had summoned from Marseilles. At the same time the National
Guard was opened to the lowest class. Brunswick's famous declaration of
the 25th of July, announcing that the allies would enter France to
restore the royal authority and would visit the Assembly and the city of
Paris with military execution if any further outrage were offered to the
king, heated the republican spirit to fury. It was resolved to strike
the decisive blow on the 10th of August.
Rising of the 10th of August.
On the night of the 9th a new revolutionary Commune took possession of
the hotel de ville, and early on the morning of the 10th the insurgents
assailed the Tuileries. As the preparations of the Jacobins had been
notorious, some measures of defence had been taken. Beside a few
gentlemen in arms and a number of National Guards the palace was
garrisoned by the Swiss Guard, about 950 strong. The disparity of force
was not so great as to make resistance altogether hopeless. But Louis
let himself be persuaded into betraying his own cause and retiring with
his family under the shelter of the Assembly. The National Guards either
dispersed or fraternized with the assailants. The Swiss Guard stood
firm, and, possibly by accident, a fusillade began. The enemy were
gaining ground when the Swiss received an order from the king to cease
firing and withdraw. They were mostly shot down as they were retiring,
and of those who surrendered many were murdered in cold blood next day.
The king and queen spent long hours in a reporter's box while the
Assembly discussed their fate and the fate of the French monarchy.
Little more than a third of the deputies were present and they were
almost all Jacobins. They decreed that Louis should be suspended from
his office and that a convention should be summoned to give France a new
constitution. An executive council was formed by recalling Roland,
Claviere and Servan to office and joining with them Danton as minister
of justice, Lebrun as minister of foreign affairs, and Monge as minister
of marine.
The revolutionary Commune of Paris.
The September massacres.
When Lafayette heard of the insurrection in Paris he tried to rally his
troops in defence of the constitution, but they refused to follow him.
He was driven to cross the frontier and surrender himself to the
Austrians. Dumouriez was named his successor. But the new government was
still beset with danger. It had no root in law and little hold on public
opinion. It could not lean on the Assembly, a mere shrunken remnant,
whose days were numbered. It remained dependent on the power which had
set it up, the revolutionary Commune of Paris. The Commune could
therefore extort what concessions it pleased. It got the custody of the
king and his family who were imprisoned in the Temple. Having obtained
an indefinite power of arrest, it soon filled the prisons of Paris. As
the elections to the Convention were close at hand, the Commune resolved
to strike the public with terror by the slaughter of its prisoners. It
found its opportunity in the progress of invasion. On the 19th Brunswick
crossed the frontier. On the 22nd Longwy surrendered. Verdun was
invested and seemed likely to fall. On the 1st of September the Commune
decreed that on the following day the tocsin should be rung, all
able-bodied citizens convened in the Champs de Mars, and 60,000
volunteers enrolled for the defence of the country. While this assembly
was in progress gangs of assassins were sent to the prisons and began a
butchery which lasted four days and consumed 1400 victims. The Commune
addressed a circular letter to the other cities of France inviting them
to follow the example. A number of state prisoners awaiting trial at
Orleans were ordered to Paris and on the way were murdered at
Versailles. The Assembly offered a feeble resistance to these crimes.
Danton can hardly be acquitted of connivance at them. Roland hinted
disapproval, but did not venture more. He with many other Girondins had
been marked for slaughter in the original project.
The National Convention.
Abolition of the monarchy.
The elections to the Convention were by almost universal suffrage, but
indifference or intimidation reduced the voters to a small number. Many
who had sat in the National, and many more who had sat in the
Legislative Assembly were returned. The Convention met on the 20th of
September. Like the previous assemblies, it did not fall into
well-defined parties. The success of the Jacobins in overthrowing the
monarchy had ended their union. Thenceforwards the name of Jacobin was
confined to the smaller and more fanatical group, while the rest came to
be known as the Girondins. The Jacobins, about 100 strong, formed the
Left of the Convention, afterwards known from the raised benches on
which they sat as the Mountain (q.v.). The Girondins, numbering perhaps
180, formed the Right. The rest of the House, nearly 500 members, voted
now on one side now on the other, until in the course of the Terror they
fell under the Jacobin domination. This neutral mass is often termed the
Plain, in allusion to its seats on the floor of the House. The
Convention as a whole was Republican, if not on principle, from the
feeling that no other form of government could be established. It
decreed the abolition of monarchy on the 21st of September. A committee
was named to draft a new constitution, which was presented and decreed
in the following June, but never took effect and was superseded by a
third constitution in 1795. The actual government of France was by
committees of the Convention, but some months passed before it could be
fully organized.
Jacobins and Girondins.