Cox, Furet, Cobban and Marx: The Revision of The "Orthodoxy"

Berghahn Books
Furet, Cobban and Marx: The Revision of the "Orthodoxy" Revisited

Author(s): Marvin R. Cox
Source: Historical Reflections / Rflexions Historiques, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring 2001), pp. 49-77
Published by: Berghahn Books
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41299194
Accessed: 19-04-2015 06:36 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41299194?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Berghahn Books is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historical Reflections / Rflexions
Historiques.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 200.10.244.14 on Sun, 19 Apr 2015 06:36:48 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Furet,
Cobban
of the
and
Marx:
Revision
Revisited
"Orthodoxy"
Marvin
The
R. Cox
In the introductionto an anthologyof recent writingson the French

Revolution,T.C.W. Blanninginformshis readers that"afterthirty
years of
the
between
adherents
field
remains
divided
of the
vigorous argument"
Marxist"orthodoxy,"forwhom the "old . . . view stillstands like a rocher
de bronze," and revisionistswho believe no less firmly
thattheircriticism
has undermined the "classical" Marxistinterpretation.
Anyone familiar
withhistoriographicaldevelopmentsduringthese thirty-odd
yearsis likely
to findthisstatementmisleading.The trulysalient featureof the studyof
the Revolutionover the last quartercenturyis notcontinuity.
Change has
been conspicuous among the revisionistswhose "concentration,"as
Blanning himselfobserves, has shiftedfromcriticismof the Marxiststo
the study of revolutionary"political culture."1 But there have been
importantchanges on the other side as well. Among avowed Marxists,
GwynneLewis concedes thatrevisionistswere rightto findfaultwiththe
rigidly"determinist(that is Marxist)laws of development" which, in its
reflected,and he argues for
originalform,the "orthodox"interpretation
a complex and nuanced re-evaluationof the concept of a Bourgeois
Revolution.George Comninel,while calling fora returnto "materialist"
research, suggests thatMarxmay have distortedthe idea of a Bourgeois
1. T.C.W.Blanning,
TheFrench
Revolution:
ClassWarorCulture
Clash?(NewYork,
1998),pp.1,8.
Professor
ofHistory
attheUniversity
ofConnecticut.
Marvin
R.CoxisanAssociate
Vol.27,No.1
2001HISTORICAL
REFLECTIONS/REFLEXIONS
HISTORIQUES,
50
Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques
Revolution when he borrowed it from Guizot and other Restoration

historians.2More strikingis the emergence of non-Marxistadvocates of
variousneo-"orthodox"interpretations
such as ColinJones,who reaffirms
in a postrevisionistidiom the "orthodox"beliefthe Revolutionwas partof
a social process, and William Sewell, who shares much with the
revisionistsand discerns withintheirrevolutionin political culture "A
Rhetoricof Bourgeois Revolution."3
Mutationsin both camps indicatea lack ofconsensus and a highlevel
of intellectualvitality.
Yet Blannings'remarkpoints to an importanttruth
about the state of the studyof the French Revolution.Despite the many
and "orthodox"historians,
changes thathave occurredamong revisionists
each side's perception of the other remains much as it was at the
Revisionistsstillshare theconvictionthat
beginningoftheirconfrontation.
theBourgeois Revolutionis a delusion bornofideological necessityrather
- a "myth" in the Sorelian sense.4
than dispassionate inquiry
Contemporary"orthodox" and neo-"orthodox" historians,conversely,
maintain that revisionistsare oblivious to the obvious, and thus echo
Georges Lefebvre'scharge thatin theirzeal to turnthe "orthodoxy"into
a myth,theydeny the French Revolutionever happened.5
The persistence of these mutual accusations confirmsBlannings'
assertionthattheargumenthas degenerated intoa "dialogue ofthedeaf."
Genuine debate, even meaningfulcommunication,has become difficult
because neither side adequately recognizes the basis of the other's
claims. This deafness has less to do withdifferencesin the perceptionof
"factualknowledge,"as Blanningfurther
says,thanwith"presuppositions
about such imprecise mattersas the course of modern history,social
relationsand human nature."6
2. Gwynne
Revolution:
theDebate(LondonandNew
Lewis,TheFrench
Rethinking
1993),pp.108-1
Revolution:
Marxism
and
theFrench
York,
09;George
Comninel,
Rethinking
.
theRevisionist
andNewYork,
(London
1987)pp.118,160-161
Challenge
3. GaryKates,ed.,TheFrench
Revolution:
Recent
DebatesandNewControversies
56.
(LondonandNewYork,
1998),pp.143-1
TheFrench
4. T.C.W.
Revolution:
ClassWarorCulture
Clash?,
p.8;Francois
Blanning,
PenserlaRevolution
1978);inEnglish,
theRevolution
Kuret,
(Paris,
Interpreting
(Cambridge
andParis,1981).
5. PeterJones,
Revolution
inSocialandPolitical
ed.,TheFrench
Perspective,
p. 7;
ofBourgeois
inKates,
TheFrench
Revolution:
William
H.Sewell,
Jr."ARhetoric
Revolution"
"Le mythede la
RecentDebatesand New Controversies,
p. 145;GeorgesLefebvre,
Revolution
Annates
historiq
liesdelaRevolution
fr
ani;aise,XXVIII
(1956),pp.337ii&nqaXse,"
345.
TheFrench
6. T.C.W.Blanning,
Revolution:
ClassWarorCulture
Clash?,
pp.1-2.
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
51
Near-sightednessis as much a problemas deafness. Myopiabecomes

most apparent in contemporaryrevisionistaccounts of the Marxist
interpretationwhich, in Colin Jones' apt phrase, are littlemore than a
"knockaboutpastiche," ofwhich perhaps themost memorable example
is Francois Furet's reduction of 'orthodox' chronologyto the simplistic
formula'"avant la feodalisme. . . . apres le capitalisme.'"7Time has also
blurred perceptions of the revision.What David Bell wrote in a recent
paper about attackson Furetapplies equally to criticismsoftherevisionist
camp as a whole: they "tend ... to be somewhat dismissive and illinformed."8Jones' descriptionof revision "as a kind of pantomime in
which a succession of . . . Prince Charmingsrescue Marianne fromthe
clutches of . . . the wicked, mean-spiritedStalinistBaron . . . Albert
Soboul" is one comic case inpoint.9Moretellingis GwynneLewis' charge
thatin denying"theimportanceoftheabolitionoffeudalismand thelegal
and juridicalchanges which theRevolution"made, therevisionists"barter
historicaltruthforideological advantage."10
Unlike the problem of presuppositionsthismyopia involvesa lack of
factualknowledge- more preciselyan unawareness ofwhat "orthodox"
and revisionisthistorianssaid a generation ago. It consequently lends
itselfto the solution expressed in the French adage, reculerpour mieux
sauter. Roughly translated,and restated in terms appropriate to the
prevailingimpasse, thismeans to move back in timein orderto advance
to a more constructivedialogue.
This articleaims to initiatethatprocess by revisitingthe originalsites
of revision. These sites are located in the 1950s and 60s. Stepping
backwards takes us to the basic case against "orthodoxy."Italso reveals
the primaryobjectives of the revisionists,which went well beyond their
Scrutinyof the period reveals the
critique of the Marxistinterpretation.
historicalcontextfromwhich revisionemerged. Italso bringsintofocus
the largelyforgottenfactthatmost of the "orthodox"textscriticizedby
revisionistswere published either shortlybefore, or shortlyafter,the
Revolution
Revivified:
"TheBourgeois
laRevolution,
7. Furet,
Penser
Jones,
p.27.Colin
1789and SocialChange"in Kates,op. cit., p. 163.Forotherexamplesofreductionist
oftheFrench
A ShortHistory
of the"orthodoxy"
see Jeremy
D. Popkin,
perceptions
Revolution
Cliffs,
NJ,1995),p. 139;andKates,
pp.44,23,108.
(Englewood
ontheStateofFrench
8. DavidA.Bell,"Remarks
Studies,"
Revolutionary
Symposium
as theMillennium
ofFrench
Studies
ontheRelevance
Approaches,
Plenary
Revolutionary
onRevolutionary
Annual
Consortium
1999,p. 1.
Session,
Europe,
Twenty-Ninth
Meeting,
inKates,
Revivified:
1789andSocialChange"
"TheBourgeois
Revolution
9. Colin
Jones,
op.cit,p. 163.
theDebate,p. 72.
Revolution:
10.Gwynne
Lewis,TheFrench
Rethinking
52
beginning of the revision (which indicates that in its final form the
"orthodoxy"was short-lived).Understanding"orthodoxy"and why it
continues to command respect after thirty-oddyears of criticism,
however,will requirean extensionofthisexercise inreculerpour mieux
sauter to the early years of the twentiethcentury,when the Marxist
tookshape. Finally,evaluatingrevision,thisarticle's
interpretation
initially
ultimategoal, will entail a fullerconsiderationof the currentimpasse.
Three specific points of referenceare identifiedin the article's title.

Among the three Furet and Marx (and by extension, French Marxist
historians) are of course familiarand predictable. The other, Alfred
Cobban, is notso well known. Each oftherecentanthologiescited above
dulymentionshim. But some readers, especially those under forty,
may
well ask how such a relativelyobscure figurecame to be bracketed with
such a famous historianas FrangoisFuret.
The answer to thisquestion is fairly
simple. Cobban initiatedrevision,
and he did so twice over. His firstinitiativewas a lecture given in 1954
called "The Mythof the French Revolution." In its published form it
attractedthe attentionof major scholars in the fieldbut had littleimpact
launched tenyears
on thehistoricalprofessionat large.Revisionwas truly
with
the
of
The
later
Social Interpretationof the French
publication
Revolution,a book-lengthcollection of Cobban's lectures thatinspired
historiansthroughoutthe English-speakingworld to reassess the Marxist
1
interpretation.1
Furet'smajor historiographical
work,Penserla Revolution,appeared
nearly a quarter centurylater. Though critical of the "orthodoxy,"it
marked thebeginningofa shiftaway froma critiqueofthe Marxistsocial
interpretationto "neo"-revisionistconcerns with reinterpretingthe
Revolution.To thisend Furetchanged the termsofdiscourse fromsocial
to political history.Following Tocqueville's lead, he focused on the
Revolution'srole in expanding the omnipresentmodern state. Breaking
new ground,he drew attentionto revolutionary"politicalculture,"with
emphasis on what would later become known as the radical
"representation"ofreality.Furet'sbook also differedfromCobban's work
inAspects
oftheFrench
11. Alfred
oftheFrenchRevolution"
Cobban,"TheMyth
of
Revolution
1954;TheSocialInterpretation
(NewYork,
1968),pp.90-111, first
published,
theFrench
Revolution
1964).
(Cambridge,
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
53
in thatitscriticismextended to non-Marxistas well as Marxisthistorians,

and because Furetwas reticentabout criticizingMarxhimself.12
Direct connections between Cobban and Furet are hard to find.
Understandingwhat linksthemrequiresanotherexercise inreculerpour
mieux sauter- specificallyto 1963, when Furet and his brother-in-law
Denis Richetcompleted what was to become a lavishlyillustrated,twovolume historyoftheRevolution.13
A workFuretsubsequentlydisclaimed
as too partisan,itis less well-knownthanhis longue-dureehistoryof the
Revolution("le best-sellerdu bi-centennaire,"according to his obituary
in Le Monde) where he worked out the implications of his concept of
Yet in itstimethe Furet/Richet
textwas significant.It
"politicalculture."14
went throughseveral editions,was translatedintoEnglish,and created a
public forFuret'shistoricalideas well beforetheappearance ofPenserla
Revolution.15
The textis also significant
because embedded withinit- most notably
in the chapters attributed to Furet- is a critique of the Marxist
This critiquefocuses on manyofthe same pointsfoundin
interpretation.
Cobban. It was this book, moreover, which trulylaunched Furet's
revisionistcareer- a factwhich indicates that,contraryto a prevailing
"Anglo-Saxon"assumption,revisionbegan in France at approximatelythe
same timeas in the English-speakingworld.16A detailed examination of
the Furet/Richettext also reveals what is clearly meant to be an
alternative to the Marxist interpretation.17
Concomitantly,and more
12. ForFuret's
latercriticism
ofMarx's
reflections
on theRevolution's
philosophical
seehisMarxetla Revolution
1986);inEnglish,
MarxandtheRevolution
(Paris,
significance,
andLondon,
1988),pp.12-20;
28-30;
48,54,94.
(Chicago
13. LaRevolution
1965).Reference
todateofcomposition
insubsequent
,2vols.,
(Paris,
La Revolution
, (Paris,1973),p. 7.
edition,
franqaise
14.Francois
La Francerevolutionaire
Furet,
(Paris,1988);in English,
Revolutionary
France:17701980(Oxford,
U.K.,andCambridge,
MA,1991);LeMonde,
17,1997.
July
15. TheFrench
Revolution
1
1
La
Revolution
1973,
(NewYork,970,977);
(Paris,
franqaise,
1979).
16. Inaddition
toexposing
Marxist
historical
thetext
a hostile
review
errors,
inspired
by
ClaudeMazauric:
"Unenouvelle
de la Revolution,"
Annates
de la
conception
historiques
Revolution
XXXIX
which
inturn
ledFuret
towrite
"Lecatchisme
(1967):339-368,
franqaise
thefirst
attack
onthe"orthodoxy"
inFrance:
rvolutionnaire,"
openandconspicuous
Furet,
theFrench
Revolution
of"Anglo-Saxon"
,pp.81-131.Foranexample
Interpreting
assumptions
aboutthelatestart
ofrevision
inFrance
see Blanning,
op.cit,pp.3-7.
17. Particularly
inthechapters
toFuret
credited
withwhichthisarticle
is
specifically
concerned:
"LaFrance
deLouisXVI,"
"Larvolte
desnobles,"
"LaRpublique
bourgeoise,"
"LaFrance
"Lafind'unregime,"
La Revolution
nouvelle,"
(Paris,1973).
franqaise
54
a close reading of Cobban shows thathe, too, provided an

surprisingly,
alternativeto the social interpretation
under attack.
the
sites
of
revision
Revisiting
original
necessarily leads to a reexamination of "orthodoxy."Here the focuswillbe on Georges Lefebvre
and AlbertSoboul. Significantdifferencesseparated the two, but they
generally agreed on the propositionswhich the revisionistscalled into
question. As between the two we will focus on Lefebvre.Though Soboul
ranked as the pre-eminent"orthodox"historianwhen revision hit its
stride,itwas Lefebvrewho, byvirtueofhis internationalreputation,made
an "orthodoxy"of the Marxistinterpretation.
The introductionto Lefebvre's famous text provides the clearest
statementof "orthodoxy'"sbasic propositions,includingthe celebrated
belief that the Revolutionresulted in "the ascent of the bourgeoisie."
Contemporarycommentatorsassumed thatthisreferredto the triumph
of capitalist entrepreneurs,and "corsairs"ofthis type duly figuredin
Lefebvre's account of postrevolutionary
society.In fact,capitalistswere
a distinctminoritywithinthe bourgeoisie which, as Soboul noted, was
"too diverse [to) constitute a homogenous class."18 Further, the
postrevolutionary
bourgeoisie included large numbers of professionals
and landed proprietorswhose wealth and outlook linkedthemto theOld
Regime ratherthanmodern capitalistsociety.The leading professionals
were formervenal office-holdersof the royaladministration.The preeminent group among landowners consisted of families formerly
identifiedas "bourgeoisvivantnoblementde leurbien," aristocratsin all
but legal rank,withan aristocraticindifferenceto productiveagricultural
endeavor.19
A roll call of the victorious class thus appears to contradict
"orthodoxy"'sbasic postulate. Received wisdom is sustained, however,
byaccounts ofwhat the bourgeoisie experienced after1789. Though the
class as a whole is supposed to have risen, its precapitalistelements
actually lost ground. This was obviously,and predictably,the case of
landed proprietors.Dependent like the nobilityon low-yield feudal
property,and in some cases on feudal dues, theyshared the nobles'
economic fate.Venal officerswere hurtby the suppression of corporate
institutionson which "theirsocial rank, and a part of their income,
depended." Duringthe "montagnardperiod",wrote Lefebvre,even the
business class "saw itsfuturecompromised." Alongside
prerevolutionary
La Revolution
18.Georges
Soboul,
(Paris,1956),p. 1,584;Albert
Lefebvre,
franqaise
de la Revolution
Precisd'histoire
(Paris,1962),p.38.
franqaise
La Revolution
19.Georges
Lefebvre,
(Paris,1956),p. 1,584.
franqaise
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
55
these declining groups, however, one bourgeois categorymanaged to

profitfrom the dislocations of the Revolution. It consisted in part of
adaptable Old Regimebusinessmen.Butmostofthesuccessfulbourgeois
were "hommes nouveaux" - men of littlestandingbefore 1789 who had
amassed great fortunesbefore and afterThermidor.Historicaljackals
battening on the remains of the old order, they provided a marked
contrastto demoralized professionalsand landed proprietorsnoted for
theirsocial graces. These new men were adventurousand dynamic.Itis
among them that Lefebvre specificallylocated the "corsairs . . . who
bounded" frommodest circumstances into "excessive wealth." They
above all validated the "orthodoxy." Animated by a "ferocious,
these new "directors
unscrupulous,verynearlynaive appetite forprofit,"
of the economy" displaced the formerleaders of the ThirdEstate,giving
"
"strengthand new blood" to the class, and modifying its internal
However diversethe new rulingclass, entrepreneurshad
equilibrium."20
won hegemonywithinitand thusby extension over French societyas a
whole.
Cobban initiatedrevisionin 1954bychallengingwhat he took to be its
centralweakness. For him,the revolutionarybourgeoisie, by which he
meant the bourgeoisie which actually made the Revolution, did not
consist of capitalists but venal officierswho were backward-looking
economically, and mainly interested in furtheringtheir careers by
Two
breakingthenobility'shold on positionsin thehighadministration.21
with
in
an
article
later
Lefebvre
to
Cobban's
challenge
responded
years
had
the
which he rightlypointed out that he
amply acknowledged
revolutionaryrole of bourgeois bureaucrats. He argued, however, that
Cobban failedto recognize thatthe professionalswho seeminglyled the
Revolutionwere influencedbycapitalists.Above all, Lefebvreconcluded,
Cobban failedto recognize that"thesignificanceoftheRevolutiondid not
resultsolely fromthe intentionsof those who made it."22
Afteran eight-yearsilence Cobban returnedto thecharge in TheSocial
argued critique. He still
Interpretationwith a more detailed and tightly
contended that bureaucrats, rather than capitalists, were primarily
responsible forthe Revolution;but in his finalanalysisof the bourgeoisie
his focus, like Lefebvre's,fellupon those who won it,ratherthan those
20. Ibid.,
pp.546,584-586.
oftheFrench
inAspects
oftheFrenchRevolution"
21. Alfred
Cobban,"TheMyth
Revolution
,pp.90-108.
dela
Annates
"Lemythe
dela Revolution
22. Georges
historiques
Lefebvre,
frangaise,"
XXVIII
Revolution
(1956):337-345.
franqaise
56
who made it. Like Soboul, he saw the bourgeoisie as too diverse to
constitute a homogenous ruling class. He predictably included
professionals,and even capitalistsofa sort.Butitwas landed proprietors
who comprised the class's highcommand. As the titleof his chapter on
the subject affirmed,itwas "A Bourgeoisie of Landowners."23
Furet and Richet had nothingdirectlyto say in theirtext about the
deficiencies of this Marxistconcept. Furthermore,on firstexamination
theirpostrevolutionary
rulingclass more closely resembled Lefebvre's
than Cobban's. Its core consisted of financiers and contractorscapitalists, according to the strict definition of the word. They
characterized the class, however, in terms suggesting that Marxist
historians had misconstrued their data. Postrevolutionarybourgeois
"fortunes were built up by traditional methods of speculative
trading. . . takingadvantage of the chaotic state of the treasury..." This
"kind of operation [was] fundamentallydifferentfrom the normal
methods of
methods of bourgeois investment. . . the profit-oriented
modern capitalism . . . the diversionof fundsinto productivefields of
investmentand savings."24
Theywere unorthodoxcapitalists,who shared
the values, if not the objective identity,of Cobban's bourgeoisie of
landowners.25
of
Revisionalso raised questions about the "orthodox"interpretation
in
basic
as
summarized
Revolution's
Here
the
the
idea,
by
place history.
Soboul, concerned the ascent of the bourgeoisie which "paved the way
forcapitalism," specificallycapitalistindustry.26
Here, too, much of the
evidence in "orthodox"textsappears to contradictMarxistpostulates.The
upheavals which reduced thefortunesofmanyOld Regime
revolutionary
capitalists also destroyed most of France's embryonic capitalist
War withGreatBritaindid irreparabledamage to overseas
infrastructure.
trade.Duringthemontagnardperiod theConventionoutlawed joint-stock
companies which, Lefebvreremindsus, represent"the highestformof
capitalism." Even worse for the futureof French business was "the
disappearance of la Caisse d'Escompte," the makeshiftOld Regime
version of a nationalbank.27
SocialInterpretation,
23. Alfred
Cobban,
pp.81-90.
263-265.
Revolution
French
andRichet,
24. Furet
,pp.323-325;
85.
25. Cobban,
p.
d'histoire
dela Revolution
Precis
26. Albert
(Paris,1962),p.470.
Soboul,
franqaise
La Revolution
27. Lefebvre,
,p.547.
franqaise
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
57
The Revolution'smanifestlynegative impact on French capitalism is

in a sense irrelevantto the Marxistinterpretationof its significance.
Conventional "orthodox"wisdom holds thatthe economic progress for
which the Revolution "paved the way" really began under the July
consolidated itspower.28Yet
Monarchy,when thebourgeoisie definitively
who
to
an
ascendant
Lefebvre,
capitalistelite withina
managed identify
intimations
ofimpending
also
discerned
largelyprecapitalistbourgeoisie,
amid
the
ruins
of
the
Old
Regime's commercial
capitalistdevelopment
economy.
Lefebvre'smain argumentwas thattheupheavals which undermined
the original bourgeois elites concomitantlyeroded the value of "la
richesse acquise" - the distinctive,archaic formofwealth, yieldingfixed
income, and largelyfixedin value- upon which privilegedelements in
French societydepended. He foundevidence of this
eighteenth-century
erosion even inthecountryside,arguingthatbeforetheRevolutionlanded
proprietors,and manybourgeois money-lenders,made theirmoneyfrom
rentswhich rarelyvaried invalue over time.After1789,under the impact
of inflation,peasant tenants were able to pay offtheir obligations in
depreciated currency,therebyimpoverishingtheircreditors.Inflationalso
hit urban landlords, but its effectswere most keenly feltamong state
bondholders, the largestcategoryof bourgeois investors.But the aspect
of the post-Thermidoreaneconomy which most clearly pointed in a
capitalistdirectionwas the obverse ofthiserosion ofla richesse acquise.
The decliningvalue of the assignat set offa frenzyof buyingand selling:
"Only those who speculated on the purchase of confiscated property
[biens nationaux]" held theirown in postrevolutionary
society.29
Cobban challenged this argument in a chapter of The Social
entitled"The Economic Consequences ofthe Revolution."
Interpretation
as France experienced reallybegan
He argued thatsuch industrialization
under the Second Empire- much too late to have been a logical
consequence of the Revolution. But he also rejected the idea that
capitalistconditionswere prefiguredafterThermidor.Stressingthe harm
butitis a
"orthodox"
ineither
ofthestandard
28. Thispointis notdeveloped
texts,
ontheeveof
ontheperiodwhichLefebvre
themeincourselectures
recurrent
published
6 vols.,
La Monarchic
deJuillet,
LesCoursdela Sorbonne,
WarII.Geogres
World
Lefebvre,
1939.
La Revolution
29. Lefebvre,
franqaise,
pp.583-584.
58
the Revolution did to French business, he drew attention to the

backwardness of the agrariansector thatstilldominated the economy.30
Arguments concerning social and economic conditions after
"
Thermidorformthecore ofthecase againstthe "orthodoxy. Butrevision
also questioned the Marxistexplanation of the Revolution'scauses. The
most importantof these, as Soboul succinctlysaid, was a "contradiction
between the economic and social movements."31This somewhat
complex concept derives froma materialistreworkingof an idea that
One "orthodox"historian,
Marxtook fromHegel's philosophyofhistory.32
it
to
a
AlbertMathiez,managed to reduce
relativelysimple and plausible
proposition. The Revolution,he argued, resulted froma disharmony
conditions.33
between the "thespiritand theletter"ofeighteenth-century
In Lefebvre's introduction this disharmony is the ultimate
consequence of the "rise of the bourgeoisie withinthe bosom of the
feudalworld itundermined."Bytheeve oftheRevolutionthebourgeoisie
had risento a positionofvirtualdominance, and thespiritoftheeconomy
was clearlycapitalist.The mostbasic signofan emergentcapitalismwas
a vast accumulation of precious metals, capital itself.France had the
largest store of gold and silver in Europe. This wealth derived most
conspicuously fromoverseas trade,which "on the eve of the Revolution
had reached a volume of a billion [livres]." "State finance had also
broughtvast fortunesintobeing." The Caisse d'Escompte, "authorizedby
the state to printbanknotes," prefiguredmodern banking institutions.
Capitalismwas also "bringingartisanproductionintoitsorbit."Here and
thereoutcroppingsof capitalistagriculturewere to be foundas well.34
Vestiges of the eviscerated feudal world, however, impeded the full
development of capitalism. These vestiges, according to Lefebvre,
which sustained the pre-eminence
included the officialsocial hierarchy,
(and noncapitalistvalues) of the aristocracy.The complex of political
privileges which endowed the aristocracywith control of the state
muchthesame
textconveys
30. Cobban,
p.80.TheFuret/Richet
..." "Industry
and
revolution
hadnotbeenaneconomic
Revolution
message.The"French
inthe
becausetherehadbeen"norealimprovement
commerce
[made]no progress"
1:335-336.
La Revolution,
ofmobilizing
orthemethods
capital."
techniques
2 vols.,Les Coursde la
31. Albert
Soboul,La Francea la veillede la Revolution,
Sorbonne
(Paris,1969),11:49,69.
ofMarxist
inA Dictionary
32. RoyBhaskar,
Fetscher,
"Contradiction,"
"Hegel"
Irving
See also G.A.
ed. TomBottomore
MA,1983),pp.93-94,199-200.
(Cambridge,
Thought,
ofHistory
KarlMarx'sTheory
256-263,
311,324.
1978),
(Princeton,
pp.85-86,
Cohen,
1:3.
vols.
3
La Revolution
33. Albert
(Paris,1932),
Mathiez,
franqaise,
1:35-38.
La Revolution
34. Lefebvre,
franqaise,
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
59
apparatus also figured among the residues of feudalism.35Further,

remnantsof the feudal economy, particularlymanorial institutionsand
especially seigneurialrights,were importantobstacles to capitalism. "All
the inhabitants of the [peasant] village were subject to seigneurial
authority,"and therefore "to personal and real obligations." Thus
burdened, the peasant "lacked the reserves necessary to change his
methods of production."36
Giventhisdisharmonybetween thecapitalistspiritofthe commercial
theeconomy
sector and the feudalletteroftheOld Regime's institutions,
in
and
artisanal"
the
medieval
sense
remained "essentiallyagricultural
of both those words.37The actual events of 1789 were precipitatedby an
accentuation ofthiscontradiction.The decliningand defensivenoblesse ,
tied to feudalism,attempted simultaneouslyto monopolize significant
political and administrativepositions and maximize its income from
seigneurial dues. This aristocratic reaction alienated the rising
bourgeoisie, exasperated the beleaguered peasantry,drove the two into
an incongruousalliance, and ultimatelymoved the entireThirdEstate to
revoltagainst the archaic and oppressive rulingclass.38
This explanation of the onset of the Revolution was as much a
revisionisttargetas the idea thatitpaved theway forcapitalism.Though
Furetand Richetaccepted Lefebvre'sargumentthatthe late eighteenthcenturynobilityexploited thepeasantry"byincreasingfeudal dues," they
denied the more fundamental"orthodox"premise thatthe Old Regime
economy was on the brinkof full-fledgedcapitalistdevelopment. The
bourgeoisie was "precapitalist,"not protocapitalist,as Lefebvre and
Soboul suggested. "The economy was based on theprincipleofsurvival,"
of
and characterized by "backward technology"and "low productivity
labor," which resulted from"the stagnation into which the country's
economy had been allowed to sink."39Capitalismwas thus thwartedas
much by France's inherentbackwardness as by any possible feudal
impediments to growth.Cobban made much the same point, but his
argument mainly concerned the so-called feudal impediments
themselves. Over time, he wrote, "feodo-vassalique" institutionsin
general and "seigneurialrights"in particularhad become "alienable, and
35. Ibid.,
pp.1,49,101-102.
36. Ibid.,
pp.53,30.
37. Ibid.,
p.38.
a la veillede la Revolution
La France
38. Albert
49,65-69.
, 1:11,
Soboul,
Revolution
andRichet,
French
39. Furet
,pp.12,15,7.
60
as well as noblemen, possessed them.By 1789 "thedistinction

roturiers,"
between feudal and non-feudalproperty. . . was almost impossible to
make. " Seigneurialrightswere as much a bourgeois investmentas a prop
forthe decliningnoblesse. 40
Whateverelse, the"orthodox"historiansscrupulouslyincludedintheir
textsevidence thatcontradictedtheirthesis. Lefebvreand Soboul were
apparentlyas much concerned with writingthoroughsocial historyas
validatingMarxisttheory.This set them apart fromthe originatorsof the
Marxistinterpretation,
JeanJauresand AlbertMathiez,whose treatments
of the postrevolutionaryruling class and eighteenth-centurysocioAnd this underscores
economic conditions were rathersuperficial.41
another important,but now dimlyremembered,aspect of revolutionary
Withinthe"orthodox"traditionLefebvreand Soboul were
historiography.
revisionists.In lectures he gave at the Sorbonne in 1932 Lefebvretook
Jaures and Mathiez to task forforcingthe ruralrevolutioninto the rigid
frameworkof a bourgeois capitalist offensive,and he identified the
revolutionarypeasantry as an autonomous, and largelyanticapitalist,
class.42A quarter-century
laterSoboul argued, against Mathiez,thatthe
in common with a proletariatand that Saintof
Paris
had
little
people
Just'sseeminglysocialist programof 1794 was in realityan impractical
the bourgeoisie as
In interpreting
bourgeois experimentin poor relief.43
a sociallyeclectic class, both Lefebvreand Soboul contradictedreceived
Marxistwisdom thatitconsisted of capitalists.Atthe timeof his death in
1959 Lefebvre was thereforebetter known as a revisionistthan as a
proponentof Marxisthistory.44
What ultimatelystands out froma comparison of "orthodox" and
revisionistarguments, however, is the effectiveness of Furet's and
Cobban's critiques.The comparison lends supportto GeraldCavanaugh's
claim, in an early assessment of revision,that its proponents were to
revolutionaryhistoriographywhat Copernicus was to the Scientific
Revolution. Where the great astronomer synthesized late medieval
40.
40. Cobban,
pp.43-44,
1927),1:1-27,
socialiste
delaRevolution
///sto/re
41. JeanJaures,
,8vols.(Paris,
franqaise
75.
70-1
La Revolution
Albert
7,111:1
,1:1-1
Mathiez,
29-33,
52-62;
franqaise
surlaRevolution
Etudes
42. Georges
1954),pp.246-253.
(Paris,
Lefebvre,
franqaise
II
Van
de
Les
Sans-culottes
43. Albert
,
1958),
(Paris,
pp.160,427-431
Soboul,
parisiens
454,473.
Marxist
influence
44. Aslateas 1967Jeffrey
praisehimforreducing
Kaplowcouldstill
on 'Who
A Discussion
Revolution:
"ClassintheFrench
on revolutionary
historiography:
Historical
Review72(1967):496-502.
in1788 American
Intervened
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
61
astronomical observations at variance with the prevailinggeocentric

"paradigm," Cobban and his followersworked out the implicationsof
recent research thatraised questions about the Bourgeois Revolution.45
Furetand Richetprovidesome examples ofCopemican insights.The
precapitalist financiersof theirpostrevolutionarybourgeoisie recall a
historicallydistinctivetypeof courtcapitalistidentifiedby HerbertLiithy
in a studyof Protestantbankers under the Old Regime.46But the close
connectionbetween revisionand new, counterintuitive
researchemerges
most clearly from The Social Interpretation.Cobban's account of the
postrevolutionarybourgeoisie relies on studies of that class which
document the predominance of landowners.47
Cobban's ability to exploit recent research was put to further
advantage in his discussion of seigneurial dues. Here he relied on the
concept of "noncapitalistwealth" developed by George V. Taylorin the
1960s. Taylor demonstrated that this type of wealth, like capitalist
investments,could be boughtand sold, and yielded unearned monetary
income. Unlike true capitalist wealth, however, that income was
invariablylow. And like feudal wealth it had no potential forgrowth.
Taylorhad in mind mainlyinvestmentsin unproductiveland and various
archaic formsof bonds and annuities- in his view the most common
formsof bourgeois wealth beforethe Revolution.48
Cobban convincingly
extended the concept to cover manorial institutions.
Scrutinyofthecritiquealso shows thatrevisionistscould work out the
implicationsof evidence provided by "orthodox"historians(another of
"ThePresent
45. GeraldF.Cavanaugh,
StateofFrench
Revolutionary
Historiography:
French
Historical
7 (1972):587-606.
Alfred
CobbanandBeyond,"
Studies
LaBanqueprotestante
delarevocation
deI'editdeNantes
enFrance
46. Herbert
Liithy,
1959).
(Paris,
jusqu'ala Revolution
47. E.g.,P.Bouyoux,
"'Lessixcentsplusimposts'
dela HauteGaronne
dudpartement
duMidi70(1958):317-27.
withEleanor
en TanX,"Annates
Inhislaterexchange
O'Boyle
"TheMiddleClassin France,1815-1848,"
French
Cobbanand EleanorO'Boyle,
[Alfred
Historical
hecitedthebookwhichbecamethestandard
sourceon
Studies(1967):41-56],
enFrance,
LesGrands
Notables
1840thepostrevolutionary
-Jean
class,Andre
ruling
Tudesq's
also
of theRevolution's
1849, 2 vols.(Paris,1964).Cobban'sanalysis
consequences
theRevolution's
recentresearch
whichdocumented
Crouzet
incorporated
byFrangois
de la Revolution
effects
on overseastrade:"Lesconsequences
disastrous
conomiques
Annates
de la Revolution
,no.168(1962):214-15.
historiques
frangaise,"
franqaise
"TheParisBourseontheeveoftheRevolution,
48. CobbancitesTaylor's
1781-1789,"
wasfully
in"NonAmerican
Historical
Review
67(1962):976-7.
concept
developed
Taylor's
Historical
Review72
andtheOrigins
oftheFrench
American
Wealth
Revolution,"
capitalist
1967):469-496.
(January,
62
Cobban frequently
invoked the
Cavanaugh's claims in Cobban's favor).49
of
Lefebvre.
The
latter's
Les
work,
authority Georges
Paysans du
great
Nord, reveals that in the eighteenth century noble and bourgeois
landowners alike used seigneurialdues as a device forsqueezing extra
income fromthe peasantry.50By the same token,Lefebvre's admission
that the Revolutiondestroyedthe protocapitalistinstitutionsof the Old
Regime clearlysupportedrevisionistcontentions.
For Cobban, his critique represented a considerable personal

achievement. Beforeinitiating
therevisionhe had been "more interested
in what went on in people's heads than . . . what went into their
pockets."51Fromtheappearance in 1929ofhisadmiringstudyofEdmund
Burke to a 1951 article comparing the revolutionarywars of the late
eighteenth centurywith the Cold War, Cobban had been primarily
concerned with the ideas of the Enlightenmentand the French
Revolution- above all with the ill effects of one idea, popular
The knowledge ofsocial and economic historyexhibitedto
sovereignty.52
such impressiveeffectin both "The Mythof the French Revolution"and
TheSocial Interpretation
bears witnessto hisconcentratedscholarlylabor
over a relativelybriefspan of time.
Looking back fromFuret's later works, the critique of the Marxist
textrepresentsan equally
social interpretation
implicitintheFuret/Richet
at the timeof his death,
achievement.
As
Le
Monde
observed
significant
Furet was famous not forhaving written"a historyof the Revolution,
properlyspeaking, but ratherfora long,indeed a verylong, [history]of
the destinyof revolutionarypassion"- in otherwords the historyof the
Revolution'spoliticalculture.53
His critiqueof "orthodoxy"in the 1960s testifiesto Furet's intellectual
courage. That decade was the finalphase of the long postwar period
Alfred
"ThePresent
Stateof FrenchRevolutionary
49. Cavanaugh,
Historiography:
CobbanandBeyond,"
pp.587-606.
LesPaysans
duNord(Paris,1924).
50. Georges
Lefebvre,
TheMyth
oftheFrench
Revolution
51. Alfred
,p.94.
Cobban,
theEighteenth
Edmund
Burke
andtheRevolt
52. Alfred
(New
Cobban,
Century
against
State(London,
1934),pp. 149,252;
York,1960),pp. 121,135;RousseauandtheModern
"AnAgeof
and Theory
ItsHistory
112-113;
(NewYork,1939),pp.287-288;
Dictatorship:
XII(1951):141.
ofPolitics
Review
Wars:AnHistorical
Parallel,"
Revolutionary
1997.
53. LeMonde,17July
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
63
French intellectualssubscribed
duringwhich left-leaning,
right-thinking
Marxism provided the
to what Furet called "la religionde I'histoire."54
theoreticalunderpinningforthiscult,and theMarxistinterpretation
ofthe
French Revolution was one of its importanttenets. Historians who
challenged the "orthodoxy,"even indirectly,risked being branded as
heretics.55
A full evaluation of Cobban's and Furet's achievement, however,
as well as their
requires an assessment of theiralternativeinterpretation
This
of
their
revision
is
not
aspect
always readilydiscernible.
critique.
it
is
missed.
Gerald
Indeed,
easily
Cavanaugh's finalverdicton Cobban is
thathe put nothingin place ofthe "paradigm"he had exploded. A careful
probing of both original texts, however, brings an alternative social
interpretationto the surface. In the case of Furet and Richet it is the
subtextoftheirmore conspicuous politicalnarrative.InCobban's case the
obverse of everypoint in his critiqueis an alternativereading of certain
aspects of the Revolution'ssocial history.
There are signs that providinga new social interpretationwas as
importantto Cobban as exposing "orthodox"errors.His intention,he
... as a series of specific
wrote, was to "treatthe social interpretation
historicalproblems" and questions (e.g., "What are the factsof the socalled bourgeois revolution?"); . . to get away from. . . traditional
sociological cliches" regardingsocial class, and to "substituteforthem
social distinctionsand classificationsbased on historicalactualities."56
Attainingthisobjective promised to solve "the problem of social history"
which had initiallyinspired his interestin the French Revolution. He
described thisas a variegated problem,but at its core he identifiedthe
influence of sociology, which in turn stemmed fromthe influence of
Marxism.57
To the point,Cobban's ultimateaim was to move beyond the
Marxistconceptual frameworkand thus complete the "paradigm" shift.
The task, to paraphrase the titleof Furet's most famous book, was to
rethinkthe Revolutionin non-Marxistterms.
At thisjuncturewe need to review the new interpretation'spoints of
- the most salient of which was its
divergence from the "orthodoxy"
characterizationofthepostrevolutionaiy
rulingclass. Movingbeyond their
account of how littlethisclass resembled an entrepreneurialelite, Furet
54. Francois
LePassed'uneillusion
Furet,
(Paris,1995).
Marxism
andtheFrench
1986),p. 177.See alsoJudt's
Past
55. Tony
Left(Oxford,
Judt,
French
1944-1956
LosAngeles,
Intellectuals,
London,
1998),
Imperfect:
(Berkeley,
pp.54-55.
56. Cobban,
p.24.
57. Ibid.,
pp.12-17.
64
and Richet emphasized how much it resembled its Old Regime

counterpart.Nouveaux richesfinanciersand contractorswere compared
to the courtcapitalistsand fournisseursof the decliningmonarchy.With
themthe "social pleasures oftheOld Regime reappear,"and provide"the
aura of nobility"with which "the new society of bourgeois France
unconsciously tried to endow itself."Though "the most distinguished
figuresoftheold society"remainedabroad or inprovincialseclusion, "the
new societyhad in itsmidsta numberofdesertersoftheold aristocracy,"
who servedas role models fortheprecapitalistfinanciersand contractors:
a viscountand now
Talleyrandand, above all, "Barras himself,formerly
an immovable Director,the new regentof a kinglessFrance."58
On thispointCobban divergedeven more fromthe"orthodoxy." As his
"
rulingclass progressed, bourgeoisieof
chapteron thepostrevolutionary
"
landowners became a termof irony."Ifsuch a class can be called a
bourgeoisie." It
bourgeoisie," he wrote, "thenthiswas the revolutionary
should clearlybe called somethingelse, he added, and ifwe give up the
term"we shall notvainlysearch fora non-existentIndustrialRevolution
in a countrydominated by a landed aristocracy."He located the core of
In a subsequent
the class among the survivorsof the old nobility.59
middle class,
with
Eleanor
O'
on
the
Boyle
nineteenth-century
exchange
the Bourgeoisie of Landowners virtually
disappeared. Postrevolutionary
France was ruled by a "new aristocracy(created ] by the purchase of
biens nationaux . . . and by successful speculation."60
The revisionists also provided an alternative interpretationof
postrevolutionaryeconomic conditions. The main feature of the
Furet/Richetreading of these conditions- when compared with
correspondingaccounts in the Marxisthistories- is the absence of any
No less important,
giventhecountry's
signofimpendingindustrialization.
is
the
fact
that
"in
the
economic
sphere provincial
agrarian character,
France remained unchanged." Overall,in town and countryalike, "the
new France resembled the old in more ways than men believed."
Cobban's verdictis virtually
identical:"France remainedessentiallya rural
countryand itsold agriculturalmethods continued unchanged."61
56.
Revolution
French
andRichet,
58. Furet
,p.324.
89.
59. Cobban,
p.
1815-1
ClassinFrance,
"TheMiddle
CobbanandEleanor
60. Alfred
848,"pp.41O'Boyle,
French
Revolution
andRichet,
61. Furet
,pp.336,323;Cobban,
p.
andthe
TheOldRegime
ofTocqueville's
seemstoreflect
theinfluence
78.Thisinterpretation
toorthodoxy.
heldupas analternative
Furet
andwhich
Revolution
Cobbanadmired
,which
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
65
Even more importantto the revisionistargumentwas the relationship

between the Old Regime and the Revolution. Like the Marxists,the
revisionists explained this relationship in terms of an historical
contradiction,one which did not,however,reflectdisharmonybetween
a capitalistsocio-economic base and a superstructureof residual feudal
institutions.Instead, it was the result of the impact of economic
modernizationupon a profoundlytraditionalsociety.
Furet and Richet located the agents of thisincipienttransformation
within the bourgeoisie. Like the rest of French society, most of the
bourgeoisie was conservative and backward-looking. The agents of
change were an anomalous minority.But at thisparticularpoint in time
theyplayed an historicallyimportantrole. Men such as the "greattextile
"
patrons" Doffussand Oberkampf,the "ironking Dietrich,and Wendel
of Creusot," who had "benefittedfromthe slow progress of technology
[and] the multiplicationof methods of payment," constituted "the
dominant stratum"of the ThirdEstate. By the eve of the Revolution"the
gradual introductionof English techniques," which theyhad initiated,
stimulated"the growthof privateenterprise,"tremorsfromwhich were
feltfardown the social scale among "thesmall shopkeepers, tradesmen,
and artisans of the lower bourgeoisie." Itwas this "spiritof capitalism"
thatgave "the revolutionary
movement itsimpetus."62
Like much else intheFuret/Richet
text,thisaccount oftheOld Regime
reads like a paradoxical variation on a standard "orthodox" theme.
Cobban's pictureof the period, on the otherhand, departs furtherfrom
the "orthodoxy."For him the agents of change were not an anomalous
bourgeois minority,but an omnium gatherum of outsiders and social
misfits.The most conspicuous were "hommes nouveaux." Though
technicallycommoners, theyhad no place within the Third Estate or
indeed anyofthesettledstructuresofFrenchsociety.Theyincluded men
whom Cobban, drawingon RobertForster'sresearch on thearistocracy,
identified as "middle class nobles," relativelyrecent recruits to the
noblesse who retained theirfamilies' originalcommercial outlook. He
rounded offthe group withreferencesto greedypeasant farmers.63
therevisionists
wereconcerned
withaspectsofthepostrevolutionary
However,
economy
had littleinterest,
forwhichTocqueville
and theyfailedto deal withaspectsof
suchasthereappearance
of"democratic"
which
were
conditions,
postrevolutionary
society,
ofconsiderable
tohim;seeMarvin
R.Cox,"Tocqueville's
Revolution,"
importance
Bourgeois
Historical
19(1991),pp.279-300.
Reflections/Reflexions
historiques
French
62. Furet/Richet,
Revolution,
pp.16,22,25,29.
63. Cobban,
pp.55-57.
66
According to Cobban, people in this eclectic categorymanaged to

The most obviously
create conditions foran economic transformation.
promisingofthese involvedan influxofforeigncapital bymeans ofwhich
the "hommes nouueaux" made Paris the money capital of Europe. Even
ofmanorialinstitutions.
more important,however,was thetransformation
manorialism
Cobban argued that
the
Marxist
of
understanding
Against
had
evolved
into
a
postfeudal form of investment
seigneurial rights
He
also
that
the
argued
during lastyears ofthe Old Regime as
property.64
new economic conditions emerged, these misnamed feudal vestiges
underwenta further
metamorphosis.For Cobban's greedycommoners
and "middle class" noblemen fixedincome was not enough: "There are
manyindicationsthatthe new owners [ofseigneuries] were determined
to maximize returnon theirinvestment."65
new economic forces broughtold
In the Furet/Richet
interpretation
in Cobban's to theverge of
France to the earlystages ofindustrialization;
an agriculturalrevolution.For both, modernizationdestabilized French
was wholesale resistancewhich occurred
society.The result,predictably,
under the guise of revolution.To Furetand Richetthisresistance began
in 1791-92,the period ofderapage when the Revolutionwas "blown off
course." The mostconspicuous aspect ofthisdeflectionwas political.The
ofmoderate revolutionaries
fallofthe monarchyputan end to theefforts
on
and
a
stable
order
based
to found
inaugurated the radical
liberty
Butderapage also
the
Terror.66
republicanexperimentwhich gave rise to
entailedwhat Furetand Richetcalled "a social mutation,"which involved
the sharing of power by the peasants and the artisans of Paris. This
resultedin an ill-fatedattemptto compel "thevibrant,scarcely liberated
forces of capital" to returnto "the yoke of the poor and virtuous
withinthe power elite,
communitiesofthe MiddleAges." Concomitantly,
controlshifteddownward fromtheprosperousadvocates oflaissez-faire
to theGirondinsand Jacobins,"couchesplus modestes de la bourgeoisie."
Finally,afterThermidorcame theascent ofnew groups"enrichedbywar
and speculation,"who recreated theconditionsoftheOld Regime. "War
and . . . the Parisian mob," Furetand Richet concluded, deflected the
64. Ibid.,
pp.152,55.
65. Ibid.,
p.46.
Revolution
TheFrench
andRichet,
66. Furet
,pp.145-146.
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
67
Revolutionfromthe grandtrajectorywhich "the intelligenceand wealth

of the eighteenthcentury"had traced forit.67
From this vantage point the reappearance afterThermidor of an
aristocraticrulingclass and thepresence ofa stagnantagrarianeconomy
makes foran argumentthatgoes beyondTocqueville's persistence ofthe
Old Regime. The argumentportraystheRevolutionas theresultofFrench
society's self-conscious repudiation of the Old Regime's capitalist
promise, and the firstchapter in a prolonged historyof arrested
development. The revisionistsocial interpretation
accordinglyseems to
offeran effectivemeans ofmovingbeyond Marxistdiscourse. Thisis most
obviouslytrueoftherevisionistperceptionofthepostrevolutionary
ruling
class, but it also includes the revisionistjudgment on the Revolution's
consequences. Cobban summarizedthecontrastbetween thecompeting
schools ofthought:"Accordingto prevailingsocial theory,steps in history
must always be taken forward."Like Furet and Richet, however, he
suggested "that[the Revolution]may nothave been a step forwardat all,
but rathera step backward, thatinstead of accelerating the growthof a
modern capitalisteconomy, [it] may have retardedit."68
As Cobban recognized, a meaningfulrevisionismrequires historians

to rethinkthe Revolutionin non-Marxistterms.This entails the rejection
of the Marxist"philosophyof history,[which] like all philosophies of
history.. . .embodies a view ofthenatureand ends ofhuman existence,"
and is thus "a sort of secular religion."It also entails the rejection of a
seeminglyless problematiccorollaryof the philosophy:"itsappearance
of providinga scientificstatementof the laws of human development."69
Marxistsocial science is thus the primaryobstacle to the studyof the
French Revolution.To transcend this obstacle, according to Cobban,
historiansmust discard "the large omnibus social classes" of Marxist
theory"whichare calculated toaccept practicallyanypassenger who can
La Revolution
67. FuretandRichet,
, 1:359,
229,358.InCobban'saccount
franqaise
- during
tomodernization
resistance
cameearlier
oftheOldRegime
thelastyears
andabove
allduring
thepeasantry's
misnamed
revolt
"feudalism"
in1789.Butforhim,as for
against
- therepudiation
Furetand Richet,
thedecisiveinstances
ofresistance
oflaissez-faire
of "thegreatFarmersGeneral,"
the closingof the Paris
policies,the guillotining
- coincidedwiththe radicalization
Bourse
of the Revolution;
see Cobban,Social
165.
,pp.34,154-156,
Interpretation
68. Cobban,
p. 79
69. Ibid.,
pp.16-24.
68
pay a minimumset fare,"and definenew social categories in which "an

estimateofsocial position"would be based "on a plurality
oftests- actual
wealth and itsnature,social statusand prestige. . . contemporaryesteem,
personal aspirationsand so on." Above all theymustdistance themselves
fromthe simplisticscenario derived fromMarx's theoryof development
in which "social historyis divided into a few large and homogenous
phases which are repeated in the same orderand the same shape in all
societies . . . inwhich "feudalismis takento extend in European history
fromthe earlyMiddleAges to itsoverthrowbythe Bourgeois Revolution,
which in England occurred in the seventeenthcentury,in France in the
eighteenth,and in most of the rest of Europe in the nineteenth and
twentieth."70
Cobban's goal ofliberatingsocial historyfromthepostulatesofMarxist
social science was clearlyspelled out. His definitionof these postulates,
however, was incomplete.Accordingto a familiarformulation,Marxists
define classes in termsof theirrelationshipto the means of production
and exchange. Mandel Morton Bober, whose book on Marx's
ofhistorywas a standardreferenceduringthe period,long
interpretation
indicated
thatthe most historicallyimportantclasses are defined in
ago
termsoftheactual "possession ofthemeans ofproduction"- in the case
of the bourgeoisie, possession of the banks, factories and other
businesses ofthecapitalisteconomy; inthecase ofthefeudalaristocracy,
the land.71
In thisabstractreadingbourgeoisie and aristocracydo notconformto
Cobban's idea of large, omnibus categories. In Lefebvre's classic text,
however,theydo. His postrevolutionary
bourgeoisie includes notonlythe
entrepreneurial"corsairs,"butalso professionalswho owned littlewealth
ofanykindand largenumbersoflandownerswho would seem in Marxist
The "orthodox"versionof
termsto be aristocratsratherthancapitalists.72
the Old Regime aristocracy,conversely,includes elements equally far
removed from landowning- high level administratorsand even, by
ultimateextension,tax farmersand financierswho seem to prefigurethe
bourgeoisie.73
postrevolutionary
It is hard to see how such disparate groups fitintoa class definedby
theirrelationshipto the means of production.The most conspicuous
70. Ibid.,
p.25.
NewYork,
ofHistory
KarlMarx's
71. Mandel
Morton
(2nd
edition,
Bober,
Interpretation
1950),p.97.
Rev.fr,
72. Georges
Lefebvre,
p.583
73. Ibid.,
pp.46-47.
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
69
common denominators have to do with what Marxists call

"consciousness," and what historians of the Annates school call
"mentalite." Postrevolutionary landowners are crasser than
prerevolutionaryaristocrats.Prerevolutionaryfinancierspartake of the
aesthetic and spiritualvalues which Lefebvreassociates withthenobility.
Yet his account oftheeconomic conditionsprovidingoperationalcontext
suggests that there was also a minimum material fare which these
incongruouscategories paid foradmission to the two rulingclasses. The
professionals of the postrevolutionaryperiod created the laws and
institutions
essential to capitalistprogress.Withinthelanded bourgeoisie
the most importantproprietorswere those who profitedfromtheruinous
inflationofthetimeand accelerated the"social upheaval" fromwhich the
capitalist economy was emerging. Conversely, all of the variegated
categories which comprise the Old Regime's rulingclass depend upon
the perpetuationof feudal stagnation.74
Marx's theory of development provides a more difficultcase.
Nonetheless, as Rene Remond suggested in a study of development
writtenduringthe period, itis possible to make meaningfuldistinctions
withinMarx'shistoricalscenario because itunfoldson at least two levels.
One involvesa teleological progressionin which, throughclass conflict
and upheaval, humankindadvances to a state of perfectfreedomunder
communism. The otherinvolvesa "succession of [economic] systems,"
which conformto the stages of development thatCobban had in mind.
Despite theirinterconnectednessthetwolevelsare distinct.In theformer,
"each regime ... is determinedbytherelationof man to work and bythe
legal status of the worker (slave, serf,or wage earner)." Each regime is
thereforedifferent.
Each resultsfroma unique social upheaval.75
On the economic level, however, genuine change and significant
marked
development occur earlierduringthe convulsivetransformation
by an increase in the means of production. Lefebvre spelt out the
implications of this development and the French Revolution's place
withinit: "Untilthe middle of the eighteenthcentury,"he wrote, "itwas
stillpossible to imagine thatEurope would experience the fateof Rome,
whose purelycommercial and financialcapitalismhad ultimatelyruined
her subject countries." Because of"theeconomic revolutioninaugurated
by Great Britain,"however, hopes justifiablyexisted that "Europe's
74. Ibid,pp.49,549.
andDevelopment
TheIndustrial
Three
75. RenRemond,
EssaysonIdeology
Society:
andWashington,
1967),pp.21,63-65.
in1962
Thebookisbasedonlectures
(NewYork
given
on"Development
andEvolutionist
ata UNESCO
Philosophy."
symposium
Theory
70
supremacywas growingstronger.""Coal and ironwere replacingwood,

steam and machinery were multiplyingthe output of labor, [with]
agriculture. . . fuelingthe process." The problem of convertingthe
continentto the new economy stillremained,"butthiswas onlya matter
of time . . ."n
Lefebvre'stextindicatesthattheFrenchRevolutionended thiswaiting
period. The triumphantbourgeoisie provided the means by which
industrialcapitalismpassed to thecontinentand thence to the restofthe
world. The implicitmessage of thisparticularpassage, however, is that
withoutsuch a conversion Europe risked economic reversion.Only by
replicating Britain's world-historicaleconomic transformationcould
catastrophe be avoided.
The Marxisttheoryof development,redefinedto fitthe requirements
of French history,is as much a part of "orthodoxy"as Marxistsocial
categories. What matters for evaluating the revision is that both the
categories and the theory reappear in the Furel/Richettext and in
Cobban's Social Interpretation.Indeed, it is in Marxistterms that the
revisionistsdraw parallelsbetween thepostrevolutionary
rulingclass and
the Old Regime nobility.To Furetand Richetthe postrevolutionary
ruling
class resembles the noblesse not simplybecause of the incongruous
whichitimpartedtoThermidoreansociety,butprimarily
"aura ofnobility"
because its wealth, though "new [was] of the same nature" as "the
spectacular fortunesofthe Old Regime [that]had gone under duringthe
Terror";because, specifically,the Directory'sfinanciersand contractors,
like the Old Regime's court capitalists, skimmed money from the
retrogradepeasants who maintained the stagnantagrarian economy:
"The rapacityof Louis XVI's tax farmerswas surpassed by thatof their
descendants, les fournisseursde la Republique."77Concomitantly,in
Cobban's case, what made his bourgeoisie a landed aristocracywas not
simply the nobility at its core or even the ownership of land.
Postrevolutionarybourgeois were similar to Old Regime aristocrats
because of theirplace, or lack of place, in the productiveprocess. The
"
words he uses to establish theirhistoricalcharacter- non-regardant,"
fromLefebvre'sstandard
fromvulgarpeasant parlance, "non-exploiting,"
theclass as parasitic.78
Frenchusage identify
Moreover,like the classes
in Lefebvre'stext,thisis an "omnibus"category.Itincludes all those who
shared a minimumstake in the perpetuationof precapitalistconditions:
Revolution
76. Lefebvre,
,p.39.
franqaise
La Revolution
andRichet,
77. Furet
, 1:245.
franqaise
SocialRevolution,
78. Cobban,
p.86.
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
71
landed aristocrats;"rentiersand officials,";"big fish,many of moderate

size, and a host of minnows,who all knew thattheyswam in the same
element." 79
Signs of Marx's theoryofdevelopment are less evident.Revisionis as
much a case against Marxistteleologyas against "orthodoxy."It denies
theoccurrence ofa crucialeventinthesequence leading to communism.
Cobban saw himselfas a successor to historians of the seventeenth
centurywho maintained there was no English Bourgeois Revolution,80
therebysuggesting there were no radical social convulsions in early
modem Europe. With the Bourgeois Revolution thus denied, the
inevitableProletarianRevolutiondisappeared.
As forthe Marxistsuccession of economic systems,thingsare more
complex. Cobban questioned the Marxistassumption thathistorycan be
divided into large,homogenous phases which recur "in the same order
and shape in all societies," and he was especially skeptical about the
revolutionarytransitionfromfeudalismto capitalism.Yet he- like Furet
and Richet- accepted the well-documented factthatin Great Britainat
of the medieval economy did occur. More
least a radical transformation
both
versions
of
the revisionist social interpretation
important,
two
Marxist
assumptions concerning this transformation:
incorporated
thatthe transitionto capitalismmusteverywherefollowtherevolutionary
Englishpattern;and thecorollarypresuppositionthata countrywhich fails
to do so will remain wedded to the past.
These assumptions figureintherevisionistanalysisoftheOld Regime.
Even more thananythingsuggested byLefebvre,who believed thatpostit
medieval changes had broughtFrance to theverge ofindustrialization,
had
presumed that the static agrarian character of France's economy
changed littlesince the MiddleAges and, conversely,thatonlya radical
catalyst of the kind at work across the Channel could move things
forward.This shows throughclearlyin the Furet/Richetaccount of the
energizingeffectswhich the introductionof "Englishmethods" had on a
listless eighteenth-centuryFrench economy. The influence of these
assumptions on Cobban, though subtler,appear to have been even
stronger.He maintainedthatthecitiesoftheOld Regime "drainedwealth
from the surroundingcountryside"like their counterpartsunder the
173.
79.SocialInterpretation,
pp.46,76,80-85,
see
ofthiscontroversy
For
an earlyoverview
9.
SocialInterpretation
80. Cobban,
, p.
oftheEnglish
CivilWar(Boston,1960);forrecent
ed.,TheOrigins
PhilipA.M.Taylor,
1991),pp.117War(NewYork,
Civil
TheOrigins
oftheEnglish
seeAnnHughes,
commentary
154.
72
Roman Empire.81This situation,he implied,could change onlythrougha

process analogous toenclosure inEngland- theradical,and paradoxical,
exploitation of seigneurial rights to maximize returns on rural
investments.
The influenceof the Marxisttheoryof development is most apparent
in the revisionists'interpretationof postrevolutionaryconditions. The
negation of the incipientEnglish-style
economy did not simplyslow the
Nor
did
it
move
of
matters
back to some pre-existing,but
pace
change.
less dynamic,patternof growth.The Revolutionput France outside the
mainstreamof Western development. Furetand Richetargued thatthe
"alliances" the bourgeoisie made with the peasantryin "the year II," to
preserve common lands and consolidate the regime of small property,
perpetuated agricultural"archaism ... in the nineteenthcentury"and
over the long term impeded "capitalistexpansion."82Similarly,though
undertheSecond
industrialization
Cobban made allowance forsignificant
way of life- "confined,
Empire,his pictureof the bourgeois/aristocratic
- indicatedthatnineteenth-century
unchanging,conservative,repetitive"
France had more in common withthe countriesofsouthernEurope than
her expansive neighborsto the northand east.83
The effortsto transcend the Marxisttheoryof development were as
much a failureas the attemptsto move beyond the Marxistconcept of
class. The revisionists inadvertentlycontributed another Marxist
interpretationto the already abundant store supplied by "orthodox"
has notbeen systematically
historians.This newer interpretation
revised,
but commentaries on various aspects show it to be as inaccurate as its
predecessors. For example, RobertForster,whose writingssignificantly
contributedto the revision,took issue as early as 1967 with Cobban's
rulingclass was essentiallythe same
argumentthatthepostrevolutionary
Forstermaintained,
Thischaracterization,
as theOld Regime's aristocracy.
reflecteda failureto recognize differencesbetween the relativelyeasygoing landed proprietorsofthe earlierperiod,and "the emergingsociety
of self-confident,tenacious, middling and small landowners" of the
Restoration.A more fundamentalproblem,Forsterargued,was Cobban's
exclusive reliance on "economic materials" which led him to neglect
"subtlerchanges, both legal and psychological"in the upper reaches of
postrevolutionarysociety. Concern with the ownership of low-yield
landed propertyprevented him from seeing that in the nineteenth
81. Cobban,
,pp.101-102.
Revolution
Furet
and
82.
Richet,
, 1:233.
franqaise
83. Cobban,
, 1:173.
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
73
century,even more than in the eighteenth,proprietorswere towndwellingrentiers,not ruralseigneurs. On a deeper level Cobban's focus
on seigneurial dues blinded him to the significanceof the old nobility's
residual politicaland administrativeprerogativesand, conversely,to the
difference the suppression of these prerogatives made in relations
between landed proprietorsand thegreedier,more assertivepeasants of
the nineteenthcentury.84
Frangois Crouzet,another historiancited by Cobban, scored equally
tellingpoints against the revisionistcontentionthat the Revolution set
back economic development. The revolutionarybourgeoisie, though
hardly capitalist, nonetheless passed legislation that ultimately
contributedto a "balanced and moderatelysuccessful growthrate in the
nineteenth century."More important,by expanding his social focus
beyond the bourgeoisie and the nobility,Crouzet demonstrated that
however insignificantit may have been forcapitalistdevelopment, the
"
suppression ofseigneurialdues improved"thepeasantry's"standardof
85
living. . ."
The revisionists' inability to transcend the Marxist conceptual
frameworkhas had importantconsequences. Ratherthanredefining
class
or opening a new perspectiveinwhich to evaluate theRevolution'ssocial
significance, Cobban and his French counterpartssimply turned the
Marxistinterpretation
"upside down," as RichardCobb putitin his review
ofCobban's book in 1965.86Indoingso theyillustratedwhat David Hackett
Fisher has called "the fallacyof counter-questions,. . . [an] attemptat a
revisionof an earlier interpretation
which becomes merelya mindless
and
a
inversion
reiterationof its fundamentalassumptions . . ."87
Withan effectivecritiqueof "orthodox"postulates stilllacking,and a
"counter-orthodoxy"stillridingthe underside of the revision,Marxist
"TheSurvival
84. Robert
oftheNobility
theFrench
Pastand
Forster,
Revolution,"
during
Present
,no.37(1967):71-86.
85. FrancoisCrouzet,"TheEconomicConsequences
of the FrenchRevolution:
Reflections
ona Debate"
inMarvin
R.Cox,ed.,ThePlaceoftheFrench
Revolution
inHistory
editor's
translation.
Little
hasbeenmadeoftheseobservations,
(Boston,
1998),
pp.201-212,
socialinterpretation
debate.Nonetheless,
orindeedoftherevisionist
intheon-going
itself,
as itiswiththeir
intertwined
of"orthodoxy,"
therevisionists'
flawed
closely
critique
reading
ofsocialhistory
seemslikely
tohaveexerted
on theprevailing
a considerable
influence
ofthedeaf."Ithelpsaccount
ofneorevisionist
fortheobdurate
refusal
historians
"dialogue
to see anypromise
in theefforts
to breathe
newlifeintotheconceptofa Bourgeois
Revolution.
86. Times
7January
1965,
Literary
Supplement,
p.3
87. DavidHackett
Historians'
Fallacies
Fisher,
(NewYork,
1970),p.28-29.
74
assumptions still pervade the field. This is obviously true of neorevisionistswho, followingFuret,accept what William Sewell calls the
"enemies' definitionof the terrain,"and thus "implicitly
definethe social
in the same narrowand reductionistway."88ButSewell's stricturesapply
equally well to neo-"orthodox"historianswho, sensitiveto thelimitations
of Marxistsand revisionistsalike, are attemptingto reconceive the social
historyof the Revolutionin non-Marxistterms.
Conspicuous examples of this tendency appear in a well-regarded
article by TimothyTackett called "Nobles and the Third Estate in the
RevolutionaryDynamicoftheNationalAssembly."Tackett'spurpose is to
demonstratethat,contraryto the neorevisionists,revolutionary
violence
" butalso
reflectednotmerely,"semioticorideologicaldifferences,
"deeprooted social conflicts."He uses the deputies of the ThirdEstate in 1789
to make the point. These men, though clearly noncapitalist, were
prosperous representativesof"small to medium-sizedprovincialtowns,"
and thus, according to contemporary perceptions, representative
bourgeois.Theirantagonistswere noble deputieswho, thoughequally far
removed fromthe stereotypeof landed aristocrats,were nonetheless
"genuinely,genealogically certifiedaristocrats,swords at their side."
Clashes between the groups bore a close resemblance to class conflict.
ButTackett's finalword is that"thesocial differencesoperativewere not
those of class [because] most of the noblemen and most . . . wealthy
commoners . . . had basically the same relation to the means of
production."89
More complex, and more significant,illustrationsof the currencyof
Marxistpostulatesamong neo-"orthodox"historiansfigureinColinJones'
previouslycited article. Like Tackett, Jones shiftshis focus from the
anomalous protocapitalistsof the "orthodoxy" to bourgeois whom
contemporaryFrenchmenwould have seen as representative:the elite
professionalsat the core of the ThirdEstate in 1789. Jones persuasively
argues against Cobban's characterizationof these men as a declining
"bourgeoisie d'office,"and documents theemergence among themofan
ethic which "legitimatedthe attack on privilege"and a new ideal of
administrativereform,entailing"[state] services, rationalorganization,
[and] public accountability."Allthiswas clearlyas subversiveof the Old
Regime as the imaginarycapitalistagenda of the "orthodoxy."Surveying
inKates,TheFrench
Revolution"
H.Sewell,Jr."ARhetoric
ofBourgeois
88. William
DebatesandNewControversies
Revolution:
Recent
,p. 144.
of
"NoblesandtheThirdEstateintheRevolutionary
89. Timothy
Tackett,
Dynamic
inKates,
National
1789-90"
op.cit.,pp.192,197,217,219-220.
Assembly,
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
75
the impact of these reforms,Jones perceives aspects of the Revolution's

significancewhich Marxistsand revisionistslargelydisregard: "... the
ofthe . . . bureaucracy; ... the emergence of a
formidablestrengthening
scientific
prestigious
profession,under the wing of the state; . . . the
of
state
utility."Yet Jones sees his professionals not as the
arguments
leaders of a new society,a class in itself,but ratheras central figures
within"the service sector [of] a capitalisteconomy." By the same token
the professionals' radical "commitment"to reformof the state reflected
not the well-documented expansion of the Old Regime administration,
and itsconcomitantassumption of new public functions,but rather"the
inroads and potentialities of commercial capitalism." Marxist
preconceptions color his finalverdicton the Revolution'splace in history
as well. Well-documented social changes resultingfromadministrative
reforms do not count as much as less discernible changes in the
economy. Though the Revolution,Jones concedes, failed to generate
industrialization,it did accelerate "commercialization," and thus
contributedin the long term"to the development of capitalism." 90
Marxistinfluence clearly persists among historians of the French

Revolution.Whyitpersistsis somethingofa mystery.
Anyoneeven slightly
familiarwith recent social thoughtmust be aware, as Sewell says, that
"the human sciences" have given us a wealth of alternativesto "Marx's
concept ofclass and mode ofproduction";that,more directlyto thepoint,
"just as thereis more thanone way to skina cat," so "thereis more than
the Revolutionas bourgeois." 91
one way of identifying
Yet this embarrassment of conceptual riches does not necessarily
provide an easy means fortranscendingMarxistinfluence.Three of the
"human scientists" whom Sewell suggests for this purpose- Weber,
Gramsci,Foucault- were directlyinfluencedby Marx.92Furthermore,as
the case of the revisionistsamplydemonstrates,even thinkerswho selfconsciously resistsuch influencefallpreyto it.
Marxism owes its hold on historicalthinkingto unexamined and
emotionallycompelling assumptions about human nature and history.
inKates,
"TheBourgeois
1789andSocialChange"
Revolution
Revivified:
90. Colin
Jones,
op.cit.t
pp.176,166,169,174.
inKates,
Revolution"
H.Sewell,
Jr."ARhetoric
ofBourgeois
91. William
op.cit,p. 145
1
The
1
89-1
91
Obstructed
Path
92. H.Stuart
(NewYork,968),pp.
; James
Miller,
Hughes,
Foucault
305.
ThePassionofMichel
(NewYork,
1993),
pp.51,137,232-234,
76
These assumptions were especially powerfulduringthe earlyCold War

when Cobban, the professedadmirerofBurke,challenged theavatars of
dialectical materialism. Indeed, Cold War competition between the
capitalistdemocracies and the Soviet bloc forthe allegiance of former
European colonies made development and underdevelopmenturgent
issues. Marxistdefinitionsofthese concepts- simple,coherentand at the
time intellectuallyprestigious- outranked othervariantsin the West as
well as the East.93They are reflectedin the best-known book on the
subject, W.W. Rostow's The Stages of Economic Growth, a "NonCommunist Manifesto" in which modern capitalism is described as
emergingfroma conflictbetween an entrepreneurialelite reminiscentof
the bourgeoisie of Marxisthistoryand a landowningclass committedto
perpetuatingstagnantagrarianconditions.Even the famous term"takeoff' refersto a dramatic, English-typemutationof the kind that Marx
thoughtnecessary to human progress.94These assumptions were also
reflectedin the writingsof Cobban and Furet- as was a related concern
withwhat was perceived as Frenchbackwardness."95
Marxism'sinfluenceon Western social thoughtstretchesback even
- throughthe Great Depression and the twenties, to the final
further
Ithas been a constantformore than
decades ofthe nineteenthcentury.96
a hundred years. Though unaware of its hold upon him, Cobban
because Marxismcombines
convincinglyexplained itspersistence:first,
the religious appeal of a teleological philosophy of historywith the
intellectualattractionofa seeminglyscientifictheoryofdevelopment;but
secondly, as he noted almost in passing, because its "broad
generalizations"reflectboth thedistortionsof"sociological thought"and
"present-daysocial conditions."97Our conditions as well as his clearly
andDevelopment
Three
TheIndustrial
93. RenRmond,
,
EssaysonIdeology
Society:
pp.21,63-65.
1965),pp.4-8,
Growth
TheStagesofEconomic
94. WaltWhitman
Rostow,
(Cambridge,
57
39-40,
on whomthe
economichistorian
another
95. Thatconcernled Herbert
Ltithy,
Herself
SeehisFrance
"thesickmanofEurope."
tolabelFrance
revisionists
,
against
relied,
pp.74-78.
socialtnougnt,
on rrencn
influence
s earner
96. Foran accountofMarxism
see,in
Aron'sTheOpiumoftheIntellectuals
andHughes'works,
to Judt's
addition
Raymond
OurAge:English
see NoelAnnan,
inGreatBritain,
(GardenCity,
NY,1957);foritsimpact
roleinthe
a Group
Portrait
theWorld
between
Intellectuals
1991);forits
(NewYork,
Wars,
'
The'Objectivity
NobleDream:
That
seePeter
historical
ofAmerican
Novick,
thought,
shaping
Historical
Profession
andtheAmerican
1988).
U.K.,andNewYork,
(Cambridge,
Question
97. Cobban,
,p.21.
Furet, Cobban
and Marx
77
indicate a relationshipbetween social classes and thecapitalistmeans of

production. And capitalism remains dependent upon continuing
development.
Under these conditions no one can easily fulfillrevision's ultimate
theRevolutionbyredefiningclasses and putting
promise ofreinterpreting
French development in a differentperspective. There remains the
possibilityof extendingthe process ofreculerpour mieux sauter beyond
the late nineteenthcenturyto the largelyforgottenconceptual world in
which revolutionaryhistoriography
began. This was Marx's world, and
Marx's classic works on nineteenth-century
France may ironicallyoffer
some usefulalternativesto the presuppositionsof Marxisthistorians.But
itwas above all theworld ofthe historiansamong whom the "orthodoxy"
originated:the bourgeois historiansof the Restoration,Michelet,and, in
the view of this historian,Tocqueville. This would provide the vantage
point thatwould allow us to see what the French Revolutionlooked like
before Marxismand capitalism distortedour perceptions of the past.

Cox, Furet, Cobban and Marx: The Revision of The "Orthodoxy"

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cox, Furet, Cobban and Marx: The Revision of The "Orthodoxy"

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Berghahn Books

Furet, Cobban and Marx: The Revision of the "Orthodoxy" Revisited

In the introductionto an anthologyof recent writingson the French

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

Revolution when he borrowed it from Guizot and other Restoration

Near-sightednessis as much a problemas deafness. Myopiabecomes

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

Three specific points of referenceare identifiedin the article's title.

in thatitscriticismextended to non-Marxistas well as Marxisthistorians,

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

a close reading of Cobban shows thathe, too, provided an

these declining groups, however, one bourgeois categorymanaged to

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

The Revolution'smanifestlynegative impact on French capitalism is

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

the Revolution did to French business, he drew attention to the

apparatus also figured among the residues of feudalism.35Further,

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

as well as noblemen, possessed them.By 1789 "thedistinction

astronomical observations at variance with the prevailinggeocentric

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

For Cobban, his critique represented a considerable personal

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

and Richet emphasized how much it resembled its Old Regime

Even more importantto the revisionistargumentwas the relationship

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

According to Cobban, people in this eclectic categorymanaged to

Revolutionfromthe grandtrajectorywhich "the intelligenceand wealth

As Cobban recognized, a meaningfulrevisionismrequires historians

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

pay a minimumset fare,"and definenew social categories in which "an

common denominators have to do with what Marxists call

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

supremacywas growingstronger.""Coal and ironwere replacingwood,

landed aristocrats;"rentiersand officials,";"big fish,many of moderate

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

Roman Empire.81This situation,he implied,could change onlythrougha

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

the impact of these reforms,Jones perceives aspects of the Revolution's

Marxistinfluence clearly persists among historians of the French

Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques

These assumptions were especially powerfulduringthe earlyCold War

indicate a relationshipbetween social classes and thecapitalistmeans of

S-ar putea să vă placă și