The French Revolution was a unique phenomenon in world history, the first revolution facing the future - “we are ours, we will build a new world.”
Caricature by Thomas Rowlandson after a design by Lord George Murray: The Contrast 1792 / Which Is Best, showing a contrast of "British Liberty" vs. "French Liberty". Overall question, "Which is best?" Published on behalf of the Association for the Preservation of Liberty and Property against Republicans and Levellers, 1792. Hand-coloured etching. British Museum, London. Thomas Rowlandson (1756-1827). via
On Left: Britannia with a lion at her feet, holding "Magna Carta" and a pole with a liberty (Phrygian) cap on it (instead of the usual trident), to emphasize British liberty under law. A lion is at her feet, and a ship sails off in the background.
Inscription: "Religion, Morality, Loyalty, Obedience to the Laws, Independence, Personal Security, Justice, Inheritance, Protection, Property, Industry, National Prosperity, HAPPINESS."
On Right: Scrawny ill-clad personification of France with Medusa snakes instead of hair, treading on beheaded corpse with man hung from lantern-post in background.
Inscription: "Atheism, Perjury, Rebellion, Treason, Anarchy, Murder, Equality, Madness, Cruelty, Injustice, Treachery, Ingratitude, Idleness, Famine, National & Private Ruin, MISERY"
For the October Revolution, the French Revolution was completely officially recognized as a prototype revolution - this is in official speeches.
Historian Dmitry Bovykin on PostNauka:
What happened in France more than 200 years ago became a prototype for what happened in completely different conditions in a completely different country, and a prototype on many levels, starting from vocabulary - the same commissars we are used to appear during the French Revolution - and ending with the fact that during the October Revolution they constantly monitored what stages the French Revolution went through, how the political struggle went on in it, they have terror and we have it, and whether we will have Thermidor. This was discussed at the level of the Central Committee of the party, at the level of the largest party leaders.
Bolshevik terror was directly associated with Jacobin terror, not at the level of public opinion, but in the speeches of party and government leaders. And Lenin called Dzerzhinsky a Jacobin, and Stalin said that today the organs of the Cheka - the GPU are carrying out terror, just as the organs of the Jacobin dictatorship once did.
2.
A 1790 card mocking the famous British intellectual Richard Price (1723-1791), an active supporter of the French Revolution. Through a crack, he watches the attack of revolutionary elements on Marie Antoinette's chambers. Price - authorfamousessays “A Review of Fundamental Issues and Difficulties in Morality” / Robert Price kneeling on a large crown (with a demon on his back) to look through a peep-hole at a group of Ruffians ransacking Marie Antoinette "s bedroom: satirizing a speech by Price which allegedly advocated the French revolution. Colored etching by I. Cruikshank, n.d. 1790 By: Isaac Cruikshank. Published: 12 December 1790?. Wellcome Library, London.
The phrase “enemy of the people” appears during the French Revolution.
3.
The cartoon depicts four figures that symbolize foreign states reacting negatively to the manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg of July 25, 1792. At the top at number 5 is Glory, which holds the inscription "French Republic" / Title: Cas du manifeste du Duc de Brunswick. France, 1792. Medium: 1 print: etching and aquatint; 12 x 18 cm (plate), 18 x 27 cm (sheet). Print shows four figures representing foreign nations responding unfavorably to the manifesto issued by the Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg on July 25 1792. A fifth figure representing Fame (an angel with trumpet) flies overhead holding a sign labeled "Republique Française.". Library of Congress, USA.
What is terrorism? Purely formally, philologically, terreur is “horror” in French, that is, any violence that causes horror should be called terror. Another thing is that then spontaneous violence also falls into terrorism, and spontaneous violence begins from the first days of the revolution - a crowd lynched the commandant of the Bastille and before that there were outbreaks of violence in the streets. Therefore, historians more or less agree to call state policy the policy of terror.
4.
Caricature "Zenith of French Glory". James Gillray (1756/57-1815), British artist. On the caricature, it seems (hardly visible), it is written that it is on February 12, 1793. On that day, at the bars of the Convention, one of the leaders of the “mad” on behalf of the 48 sections of Paris read a threatening petition to the Convention demanding the establishment of a maximum tariff for corn. Louis XVI was beheaded shortly before - January 21, 1793 / Karikatur “The Zenith of French Glory” von James Gillray vom 02/12/1793. Author James Gillray (1756-1815). via
The Jacobins did not begin the terror, it began before them. It is not the Jacobins who begin to violate the human rights that they were so proud of in 1789. All this happens before them. But only the Jacobins give terror such a scope, and only the Jacobins, as they said then, put it on the order of the day. This happens in the early autumn of 1793.
According to the so-called “Decree on Suspicious Persons” of September 17, 1793, it was ordered that all suspicious persons, as they were then expressed, be arrested and kept in prison until the conclusion of general peace. That is, not those who have committed a certain crime, not those who speak out with counter-revolutionary slogans or kill revolutionaries, but suspicious ones - those who cannot prove their trustworthiness: former nobles, relatives of emigrants, priests who did not support the revolution, and in general everyone who local authorities find suspicious. From this time on, terror began, such arrests took place throughout the country, they became widespread.
The Great Terror begins in May 1794.
5.
James Gillray, Promis"d Horrors of the French Invasion, -or- Forcible Reasons for Negotiating a Regicide Peace, a print. Published in London, England, AD 1796. via
On 22 Prairial of the 2nd year of the Republic according to the revolutionary calendar, or in May 1794 according to the ordinary calendar, one of Robespierre’s comrades, Georges Couthon, spoke at the Convention. He proposes the following decree: simplify legal proceedings, abolish the adversarial process, that is, no lawyers. There is only one punishment - the death penalty, no prison sentences, you are either acquitted or guilty.
6.
The author of the cartoon is Englishman George Cruikshank (1792-1878) / The Radical's Arms. Caricature by George Cruikshank. The tricolor ribbon is inscribed "No God! No Religion! No King! No Constitution!" Below the ribbon, and its Phrygian cap with tricolor cockade, are two bloody axes, attached to a guillotine, whose blade is suspended above a burning globe. An emaciated man and drunken woman dressed in ragged clothes serve as heraldic "supporters ", gleefully dancing on discarded royal and clerical regalia… Color engraving. Dimensions 369 × 267 mm. 13 November 1819. via
The verdict is based on "any moral or physical evidence the understanding of which is within the comprehension of every reasonable person." The basis for the verdict is the conscience of the jury, that is, not the law, not the criminal code, not the presence of some formal crimes, but the conscience of the jury: if the jury believes that a person is worthy of execution, then he should be executed. Within six weeks of the adoption of this decree, more people were executed, in Paris first of all, than 14 months earlier. This, in fact, is called the “great terror”.
Twelve-minute lecture by Dmitry Bovykin on the Jacobin terror at PostNauka:
What was the revolution from the point of view of ordinary people? This was discussed in the episode “Anthropology of Revolutions” of the program “Culture of Everyday Life” on “Snobe”.
Russian revolution.
7.
1909 Hotel for workers of the “City Guardianship of People's Sobriety”. Hotel visitors in the bedroom. Atelier "Karl Bulla". History of Russia in photographs
Historian Oleg Budnitsky:
From 1917 to 1921, the population of Petrograd declined 4 times. By the beginning of 1921 - 3 times. Why did it shrink?
8.
October 25, 1917. . October Revolution. Red Guards near the armored car "Lieutenant Schmidt", captured from the cadets. The name of the armored car was given in honor of the hero of the 1905 revolution in Russia. Petrograd. Code: P-479 b/w. Storage unit number: 479.
People went to the village because it was better to live there. Workers are, as a rule, first-generation peasants who came to the city. When they became hungry and there was no work, they returned to the village, where, in comparison with the city, there was more or less food. The village, perhaps for the first time in Russian history, felt some advantage over the city. City people went to the village and exchanged some things there for food.
9.
Vladimir Mayakovsky. ROSTA window No. 426, October, 1920. Scan from Mayakovsky’s book. and GlavPolitProsveta. 1919-1921. Compiled by Alexey Morozov. - M.: Publishing house "Contact-culture", 2010.
The bagmen saved Russia. There was a commission to combat profiteering and sabotage, but profiteering saved the country from starvation - we can now say this with confidence. And, of course, the peasants who produced grain, which the Bolsheviks did not manage to take away all of.
During the years of the revolution, unprecedented democratization took place in the literal sense of the word - the demos became power. The overwhelming number of people who became authorities were not ready for this, either in terms of education or the level of necessary skills.
During the years of the revolution, on the one hand, there was amazing ineptitude, on the other hand, a phenomenal growth of the bureaucracy. Something could not be done - it is necessary to increase the number of workers in institutions. The number of organizations multiplied incredibly. There is nothing private, everything is in the hands of the state - total stateization, war communism. The number of new officials who deal with any issues is growing exponentially.
French revolution.
Vera Milchina, literary historian and translator - specialist in France:
The French Revolution is an outburst of violence. Where did it all start? They captured the Bastille, in which, as you know, there were 7 people, of which two were thieves and two were crazy. Then they cut off the heads of two people in office and carried these heads joyfully on pikes. This is the beginning.
Episode "Anthropology of Revolutions" of the program "Culture of Everyday Life" on "Snobe". Hosted by Irina Prokhorova.
Anthropology of revolutions - Russia and France:
Program "Culture of Everyday Life". Hosted by Irina Prokhorova.
Almost 100 years have passed since October 1917. But historians have not yet come to a conclusion unanimous opinion about what it was. The collapse of the tsarist regime or the end of the entire thousand-year Russian history? A geopolitical catastrophe, after which consistent degradation began, or a breakthrough into modernization, the beginning of a new era and upward movement? To what extent was the experience of the French Revolution of the 18th century used in Russia? Who benefited from the dramatic changes in France and a little more than a century later in Russia? What was the balance of gains and losses? How has the life of a private person changed? These and other questions will be answered by guests of Irina Prokhorova’s program “Anthropology of Revolutions” from the series “Culture of Everyday Life”: Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor at the Higher School of Economics Oleg Budnitsky, literary historian and translator Vera Milchina and Dmitry Sporov - historian, founder of the Oral History Foundation, Head of the Oral History Department of the Scientific Library of Moscow State University.
10.
1918. . Demonstration on the first anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Moscow. Code: P-375 b/w. Storage unit number: 375. RGAKFD.
Sources and additional materials:
Notes:
Demonstration in support of the February Revolution in Kharkov. Photo from 1917
The most important events of the 19th century were the French Revolution and revolutionary wars, and the most important events of the 20th century were the Great October Socialist Revolution. Those who try to portray these great events as coups are either mentally deficient or hardened swindlers. There is no doubt that during the storming of the Bastille or the storming of the Winter Palace there were many stupidities and anecdotal moments. And if it all came down to the taking of these two objects, then these events could really be called a coup. But in both cases, revolutions radically changed the lives of France and Russia and even the course of world history.
PROFESSORAL MISCONCEPTIONS
Since 1990, we have had many professors and academicians speaking about the unnecessary and harmful nature of revolutions as such. My dream is to take such a character by the scruff of the neck and demand to explain how France in 1768 differed from France in 1788? Nothing! Except that Louis XV had a whole harem, including the Deer Park with underage girls, and Louis XVI could not satisfy his own wife. Let someone tell the difference between a lady's dress in 1768 and a lady's dress in 1788!
But over the next 20 years (1789–1809), everything changed in France - from the form of government, the flag and anthem to clothing. In Moscow of the 21st century, the appearance of a French petty bourgeois in a costume from the times of the Directory will not cause surprise - he is some kind of provincial. And here socialite in a tunic from the times of the Directory will cause a sensation at any get-together - where and which couturier created such a masterpiece?
Now there are characters calling the 1917 revolution a disaster for Russia, the beginning of the genocide of the Russian people, and so on and so forth. So let them try to tell this to the French and Americans. What would their countries be like without the French Revolution, the American Revolution of 1775-1783, and the Civil War of 1861-1865? Millions of people died in each of them. And after each cataclysm, great states were born.
“Great empires are created with iron and blood,” said the creator of the German Empire, Prince Otto von Bismarck.
And in the East, China by 1941 did not have centralized control and was a semi-colony. Over the course of several revolutions, at least 20 million people died, and now China has the second-largest economy in the world and launches manned spacecraft.
Comparing the Russian and French revolutions was in vogue in the years 1917–1927, both among the Bolsheviks and their opponents. However, later Soviet historians and journalists began to fear such analogies like fire. After all, any comparison can lead to the very top. And for the analogy between Comrade Stalin and Napoleon one could get punished for at least ten years. Well, now any comparisons of great revolutions are like a bone in the throat of gentlemen liberals.
So now, in the days of the 100th anniversary of the February Revolution, it is not a sin to remember what was common and what was the fundamental difference between the two great revolutions.
THERE ARE NO BLOODLESS REVOLUTIONS
This is how satirist Arkady Bukhov described the first weeks after the February Revolution in his feuilleton “Technique”:
“Louis XVI jumped out of the car, looked at Nevsky and asked with an ironic smile:
– Is this a revolution?
-What surprises you so much? – I shrugged my shoulders offendedly. - Yes, this is a revolution.
- Strange. In my time they worked differently... What about your Bastille, the famous Peter and Paul Fortress? With what noise, perhaps, its strongholds are crumbling and the formidable citadel is falling, like...
- There is nothing, merci. Costs. And there is not much noise. They will simply go up to the camera and mark with chalk: this one is for the Minister of Internal Affairs, this one is for his comrade, this one is for the Minister of Railways...
- Tell me, it seems that your movement is not interrupted?
– More cargo only. Trains carry bread, and cars of ministers to the Duma.
He looked me trustingly in the eyes and asked:
– So this is now a revolution? Without corpses on lampposts, without the roar of falling buildings, without...
“That’s it,” I nodded my head.
He paused, brushed a feather from his velvet camisole and whispered admiringly:
– How far technology has come...
This is how the sworn attorneys and private assistant professors wanted to see the Russian revolution, raising their glasses of champagne in unison to “Freedom,” “Democracy,” and “The Constitution.” Alas, it turned out differently...
World history has never known great bloodless revolutions. And the years 1793–1794 in France are called the era of terror, just like in our country 1937–1938.
On September 17, 1793, the Committee of Public Safety issues the “Law on Suspects.” According to it, any person who, by his behavior, connections, or in letters, showed sympathy for “tyranny and federalism” was declared an “enemy of freedom” and “suspicious.” This applied to nobles, members of the old administration, competitors of the Jacobins in the Convention, relatives of emigrants and, in general, everyone who “did not sufficiently show their immersion in the revolution.” The implementation of the law was entrusted to separate committees, and not to law enforcement agencies. The Jacobins overturned one of the basic axioms of jurisprudence: according to the “Law of Suspects,” the accused himself had to prove that he was innocent. At this time, Robespierre said one of his famous phrases: “No freedom for the enemies of freedom.” Historian Donald Greer estimates that in Paris and the surrounding area the number of people declared “suspicious” reached 500 thousand.
Jacobin troops staged grandiose massacres in provincial cities. Thus, the Commissioner of the Convention, Jean-Baptiste Carrier, carried out massacres in Nantes. Those sentenced to death were loaded onto special ships, which were then sunk in the Loire River. Carrier mockingly called it a “national bath.” In total, the Republicans killed more than 4 thousand people in this way, including entire families, along with women and children. In addition, the commissioner ordered the execution of 2,600 residents of the city's environs.
An entire army led by General Carto was sent to the city of Lyon, which rebelled “against the tyranny of Paris.” On October 12, 1793, the Convention issued a decree for the destruction of Lyon. "Lyon has risen - Lyon no longer exists." It was decided to destroy all the houses of the rich residents, leaving only the homes of the poor, the houses where the Jacobins who died during the Girondin Terror lived, and public buildings. Lyon was removed from the list of cities in France, and what remained after the destruction was called the liberated city.
It was planned to destroy 600 buildings; in fact, 50 were demolished in Lyon. About 2 thousand people were officially executed, many people were killed without trial by sans-culottes. The royalist Vendée uprising led to the death of 150 thousand people. They died from the war itself, punitive expeditions, famine (“hellish columns” from Paris burned the fields) and epidemics.
The Terror of 1793–1794 resulted in about 16.5 thousand official death sentences, of which 2,500 were in Paris. Victims killed without trial or in prison are not included. There are about 100 thousand of them in total, but this number does not include tens, or even hundreds of thousands of victims in the provinces, where the punitive detachments of the Committee of Public Safety mercilessly burned out everything that they considered the remnants of the counter-revolution.
About 85% of those killed belonged to the third estate, of which 28% were peasants and 31% were workers. 8.5% of the victims were aristocrats, 6.5% were people of clergy. Since the beginning of the terror, more than 500 thousand people have been arrested, and more than 300 thousand have been expelled. Of the 16,500 official death sentences, 15% were in Paris, 19% in the southeast of the country, and 52% in the west (mainly Vendée and Brittany).
When comparing the victims of the French and Russian revolutions, we should not forget that by 1789 the population of France was 26 million people, and the population of the Russian Empire by 1917 was 178 million, that is, almost seven times more.
On November 24, 1793, the Convention of Revolutionary France ordered the introduction of a new - “revolutionary” - calendar (counting years not from January 1 and not from the Nativity of Christ, but from September 22, 1792 - the day of the overthrow of the monarchy and the proclamation of France as a republic).
Also on this day, the Convention, as part of the fight against Christianity, adopted a resolution on the closure of churches and temples of all faiths. The priests were made responsible for all disturbances associated with religious manifestations, and the revolutionary committees were instructed to exercise strict supervision over the priests. In addition, it was ordered to demolish the bell towers, as well as to hold “festivals of reason”, at which they should make fun of Catholic worship.
THE CLERGY PLAYED THEIR ROLE
I note that there was nothing like this in Russia. Yes, hundreds of clergy were indeed shot. But let’s not forget that there were over 5 thousand military priests in the white armies alone. And if the captured red commissars were subjected to the death penalty by the whites, and sometimes extremely painful ones, then the Bolsheviks responded similarly. By the way, how many hundreds (thousands?) of clergy were executed by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and his son Peter, and the vast majority in a very skilled way? Just look at the cost of execution by “smoking”.
But in Soviet Russia, religious activity was never generally prohibited. The Bolsheviks never thought of the cult of “higher reason.” “Renewals”, of course, don’t count. The renovation movement was created by priest Alexander Vvedensky on March 7, 1917, that is, more than six months before the October Revolution.
Representatives of the clergy played a prominent role in both revolutions. In France, the pop-defrocked Lyon commissar-executioner Chalet; former seminarian turned police minister Joseph Fouché; Abbot Emmanuel Sieyes, who founded the Jacobin club, and in 1799 became consul - co-ruler of Bonaparte; Archbishop of Reims, Cardinal of Paris Maurice Talleyrand-Périgord became Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Directory, Consulate and Empire. Further long list spiritual persons will take up more than one page.
After the suppression of the first Russian revolution, in 1908–1912, up to 80% of seminarians refused to take orders and went into business, some into the revolution. In the leadership of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, every tenth person was a seminarian. Anastas Mikoyan, Simon Petlyura, Joseph Dzhugashvili and many other revolutionaries emerged from the seminarians.
On March 4, 1917, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Vladimir Lvov, proclaimed “Freedom of the Church,” and the imperial chair was taken out of the Synod hall. On March 9, the Synod issued an appeal to support the Provisional Government.
Conflicts with the church in France and the USSR were resolved in the same way. On the 26th Messidor of the IX year (July 15, 1801), the Vatican and Paris signed the Concordat (agreement between the Church and the Republic), developed by the first consul. On the 18th of Germinal X (April 8, 1802), the Legislative Corps approved it, and the very next Sunday, after a ten-year interval, bells were ringing over Paris.
On September 4, 1943, Stalin received Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolai in the Kremlin. Metropolitan Sergius proposed convening a council of bishops to elect a patriarch. Stalin agreed and asked about the date of convening the council. Sergius suggested a month. Stalin, smiling, said: “Isn’t it possible to show Bolshevik tempos?”
In wartime conditions, military transport planes were allocated to gather hierarchs in Moscow. And now on September 8, 1943, a patriarch was elected at the bishop’s council. This was Sergius Stragorodsky.
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
There are many dozens of coincidences in the history of revolutions in France and Russia. Thus, in August 1793, not only a general mobilization was carried out, but in general the government began to manage all the country’s resources. For the first time in history, all goods, food supplies, and the people themselves were at the disposal of the state.
The Jacobins quickly resolved the agrarian issue by selling off the confiscated lands of the nobility and clergy at a cheap price. Moreover, peasants were given a deferment of payments for 10 years.
Maximum food prices were introduced. Revolutionary tribunals dealt with speculators. Naturally, the peasants began to hide the grain. Then “revolutionary detachments” began to be formed from the sans-culottes, traveling through villages and taking away grain by force. So it is still unknown from whom the Bolsheviks copied the food appropriation system - from the Jacobins or from the tsarist ministers, who introduced food appropriation in 1916, but stupidly failed it.
The European powers, both in 1792 and in 1917, under the pretext of establishing order in France and Russia, tried to rob and dismember them. The only difference is that in 1918 the United States and Japan joined the European interventionists.
As you know, things ended badly for the interventionists. The Bolsheviks "on Pacific Ocean“We finished our campaign,” and at the same time they gave the British a hard time in Northern Persia. Well, the “little corporal” with large battalions famously walked around a dozen European capitals.
And now it’s worth talking about the fundamental difference between the French and Russian revolutions. This is primarily a war with the separatists. In our country, not only ordinary people, but also venerable professors are confident that the modern borders of France have always existed and that only the French lived there, speaking, naturally, French.
In fact, from the 5th to the 10th centuries, Brittany was an independent kingdom, then it came under the rule of the British and only in 1499 accepted a union with France (became a union state). Anti-French sentiment remained in Brittany towards the end of the 18th century.
The first known manuscript in Breton, the Manuscript de Leide, dates back to 730, and the first printed book in Breton dates back to 1530.
Gascony became part of the French kingdom only in 1453. Let us remember Dumas: Athos and Porthos did not understand d’Artagnan and de Treville when they spoke their native language (Gascon).
In the south of France, the majority of the population spoke Provençal. The first books in Provençal date back to the 10th century. For numerous chivalric romances, the Provençal language was called the language of troubadours.
Alsace and Lorraine were part of the German states from 870 to 1648 and became part of the Kingdom of France at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Their population spoke mainly German.
In 1755, the Corsicans, led by Paoli, rebelled against the rule of the Genoese Republic and became independent. In 1768, the Genoese sold the island to Louis XVI. In 1769, a French army led by the Comte de Vaux occupied Corsica.
So, by 1789, the Kingdom of France was not a unitary state, but a conglomerate of provinces. The king appointed his own governor to each province, but real power belonged to local feudal lords, the clergy and the bourgeoisie. Most provinces had their own States (parliaments), which exercised legislative power. In particular, the States determined what taxes the population would pay and collected them themselves, without the participation of royal power. Local languages were widely used in the provinces. Even the measures of length and weight in the provinces were different from those in Paris.
The fundamental difference between French revolutionaries and Russians is their attitude towards separatists. Kerensky in April–October 1917 strongly encouraged the separatists, giving them rights close to independence, and from April 1917 he began to create “national” units within the Russian army.
Well, all the French revolutionaries - Jacobins, Girondins, Thermidorians and Brumierians - were fixated on the formula: “The French Republic is one and indivisible.”
On January 4, 1790, the Constituent Assembly abolished the provinces and abolished all privileges of local authorities without exception. And on March 4 of the same year, 83 small departments were created in return. The same province of Brittany was divided into five departments.
If you look at the map, all the major “counter-revolutionary actions” in 1792–1800 took place exclusively in the former provinces, which were relatively recently annexed to the kingdom and where local languages were widely used.
Naturally, French historians have always gone out of their way to prove that the civil war in France was exclusively social in nature - republicans against monarchists.
In fact, even in Vendee and Brittany the population fought mainly not for the white lilies of the Bourbons, but for their local interests against the “tyranny of Paris.”
In the summer of 1793, the southern French cities of Lyon, Toulouse, Marseille and Toulon rebelled. There were also royalists among the rebels, but the overwhelming majority demanded the creation of a “federation of departments” independent of the Parisian “tyrants”. The rebels themselves called themselves federalists.
The rebels were energetically supported by the British. At Paoli's request they occupied Corsica.
The generals of the “revolutionary time” captured Lyon on August 22, and Marseille the next day. But Toulon turned out to be impregnable.
On August 28, 1793, 40 English ships under the command of Admiral Hood entered Toulon, captured by the “federalists.” Most of the French Mediterranean fleet and the military reserves of a huge arsenal fell into the hands of the British. Following the British, Spanish, Sardinian and Neapolitan troops arrived in Toulon - a total of 19.6 thousand people. They were joined by 6 thousand Toulon federalists. Command over expeditionary force received by the Spanish admiral Graziano.
As we see, the conflict was not so much social - revolutionaries against royalists, but national: the northerners were expelled, and the southerners (Provencals) were left behind.
In Paris, the news of the occupation of Toulon by the British made a stunning impression. In a special message, the Convention addressed all citizens of France, calling on them to fight the Toulon rebels. “Let the punishment of traitors be exemplary,” the address said, “the traitors of Toulon do not deserve the honor of being called French.” The Convention did not enter into negotiations with the rebels. The dispute about a united France was supposed to be decided by cannons - “the last argument of the kings.”
At Toulon, the Republicans suffered heavy losses. The chief of the siege artillery was also killed. Then the Commissar of the Convention, Salicetti, brought a thin, thin 24-year-old Corsican, artillery captain Napoleone Buonaparte, to the headquarters of the Republicans. At the very first military council, he pointed his finger at Fort Eguillette on the map and exclaimed: “That’s where Toulon is!” “And the fellow, it seems, is not strong in geography,” was General Carto’s remark. The revolutionary generals laughed in unison. Only the Commissioner of the Convention, Augustin Robespierre, said: “Act, citizen Buonaparte!” The generals fell silent - it was unsafe to argue with the dictator’s brother.
What follows is common knowledge. Toulon was taken within a day, Buonaparte became a general.
Napoleon's victories reconciled the Corsicans with Paris, and they accepted the power of the first consul of the Republic.
The first consul and then the emperor Napoleon did everything to digest the Bretons, Gascons, Alsatians, etc. in the French cauldron. He received weekly reports on the use of local languages.
Well, at the beginning of the 19th century, the use of local languages in France was completely prohibited by law. Prohibitions, development economic ties, massive recruitment, universal education (in French), etc. made France a monoethnic state by 1914. Only Corsica represented some exception.
The Bolsheviks, following Kerensky, “took a different path.” If Napoleon Frenchized peoples who for centuries had their own statehood, a language radically different from French, etc., then Kerensky and the Bolsheviks created artificial states such as Ukraine and Georgia, the majority of the population of which did not understand either the Ukrainian or Georgian languages.
Well, the last similarity between the French and Russian revolutions. In 1991, liberals managed to deprive Russians of the gains of socialism - free healthcare and education, high pensions, free housing, etc.
And in France, liberals have been depriving France for half a century of what the revolution and Napoleon gave it, that is, a monoethnic state and the Napoleonic Code (1804). They have created an invasion of migrants, most of whom live on benefits. Migrants actually have legal immunity. Same-sex marriage was introduced. Under the guise of strengthening the rights of women and children, the role of husbands is reduced to the functions of male servants, etc. and so on.
Having systematically visited bookstores for decades, I noticed the lack of literature about the French Revolution. Moreover, even in the educational programs of the USSR there is absolutely no mention of Lenin’s attitude to this phenomenon. But this is strange. After all, we are the first country of victorious socialism. Shouldn't we study the first revolution of the world, which is the French one? Of course, I did not expect from our timid Soviet leaders that they would publish here, especially then in the USSR, the works of theorists and practitioners of the French revolution, such as Robespierre, Marat, Danton, so that we would publish memoirs of active participants those events. We were afraid to publish the speeches of the secretaries of the communist parties of the “fraternal countries”. But it was possible to at least give a Soviet interpretation. But no, we didn’t have that and don’t have it. Of course, you never know what books are missing from our stores. For example, even in our largest bookstores it is impossible to see books on setting up factory equipment or working on machines, in particular on CNC machines. And this despite the fact that our factories at this time are a very wretched sight, more reminiscent of the workshops of a run-down collective farm. Intellectual stupidity in general is a characteristic feature of socialism and remains this feature of ours to this day.
But I won't get distracted. Be that as it may, I was interested in such a strange silence about such a grandiose event as the First World Revolution, and I decided to take a closer look at the reason for our silence and at the same time compare how the French Revolution differs from the Russian. Of course, I mean the so-called Great October Socialist Revolution. Well, let's begin.
So, despite the fact that the French Revolution did not establish socialism, but only put an end to feudalism, it has a lot in common with the Russian one. So what?
Let's start with the most noticeable phenomenon - the liquidation of tsarism.
The Russian Tsar was immediately arrested and sent to the Urals. Louis and his wife for a long time remained not only free, but also actively participated in the public life of the country. For example, Marie Antoinette even had the opportunity to work for the enemy and communicate military campaign plans to him.
The deputies of the convention debated for a long time how to judge the king. And although the king was arrested in August 1792, his first interrogation took place only on December 11.
The convention held an open vote on the king's guilt.
Each deputy had the right to motivate his opinion.
The king even had a lawyer.
The king appeared before the Convention several times before he was executed in January 1793.
Marie Antoinette was also publicly tried before she was executed in October.
And what's interesting. The ten-year-old son of the king was not killed, as happened here in Russia with his almost the same age. The boy was sent to a foster family. Yes, strangers took poor care of him. So bad that the boy eventually contracted tuberculosis and died. Everything is true, but he was not shot in the basement by unknown persons. But we still don’t really know anything about our executioners. So, something about some.
And what’s interesting is that the rest of the royal family’s relatives emigrated safely and lived quite peacefully abroad. No one was going to kidnap or kill them.
Moreover, after the execution of Louis 16 and Antoinette, the remaining Bourbons could return to France without fear.
In Russia, as we know, all the Romanovs were wiped out, along with their infants. In total there are more than a hundred people.
That is, they secretly took him to the Urals, secretly executed him, and then brazenly claimed that they didn’t even know where the grave was. Although they really couldn’t know anything about the grave, because there was no grave. People were buried like dogs, the place was even compacted with a car. In the end, even the house of engineer Ipatiev, where Nikolai’s own family was kept before execution, was demolished. And where the rest were executed and who exactly we still don’t know for sure. It’s as if the Cheka doesn’t have archives.
And if I started talking about kings, then it is necessary to talk about attempts to save those who were crowned especially, as these attempts are depicted in our literature.
In the little literature that exists in Russia on this issue, they are trying to convince us that foreigners, in particular England, did not sleep at night, thinking about how to save the dynasty of France or the dynasty of Russia, to arrange an escape from the country of Louis 16 or Nicholas 2 . Bullshit. In my opinion, these Englishmen, on the contrary, sought to ensure that both the king and the czar were executed by the revolutionaries. The lives of these persons did not play any role, but death brought dividends in the form of compromise of these “bloodthirsty degenerates of revolutionaries.”
And it doesn’t matter that Louis was a relative of Leopold and Nicholas was also related to the lords.
Well, if we are talking about foreigners, then it is not superfluous to talk about their interference in the internal affairs of France and Russia. In our country, any foreign intervention is shown as an attempt to maintain stability and the old order. It's bullshit. We must understand the time and the characters. England, at the height of the revolution in France, was most actively involved in the war with the nascent United States of America. And the fact that there was turmoil inside its main competitor on the mainland, France, was very beneficial for England. What's wrong with a competitor who can't take advantage of your difficulties? So the revolution in France was simply beneficial for England. But what about foreign interference says French scientist Albert Mathiez, author of several monographs on the French Revolution.
Foreign gold was intended not only for finding out military secrets, but also for causing unrest and creating all kinds of difficulties for the government.
And here is what Deputy Fabre d'Eglantine said to members of the Committee of Public Safety.
In the republic there are conspiracies of its external enemies - Anglo-Prussian and Austrian, which are dragging the country to death from exhaustion.
We must understand that any unrest within the country is a blessing for the enemies, and the fact that all these revolutionaries are shouting loud slogans is not scary at all.
No wonder Deputy Lebas wrote to Robespierre:
- Let's not trust cosmopolitan charlatans, let's rely only on ourselves.
Because there were traitors to the revolution at all levels of government. Actually, most often these were not even traitors, but slippery adventurers who joined the revolution for personal gain.
As for Russia, the power of this giant worried everyone. No one wished her well; they were afraid of her. Therefore, turmoil within a country like Russia, which throws the economy back hundreds of years, was very desirable for all countries.
It seems like similar events, but there are so many dissimilarities here.
Although the two revolutions have many parallels. There are some funny ones too.
For example, the revolutionary names that began to be given to children in Russia. Like Krasarmiya, Divide (Lenin’s cause is alive).
In France, no one gave children such names. But something similar happened there. During the French Revolution in Poland, the revolutionary governor was the famous storyteller Hoffmann. At that time he was the Prussian administrator of Warsaw. When Poland was divided, in the Russian part Jews received surnames based on their hometowns or the surnames of their employers. In Prussia and Austria, surnames were given to Jews by officials. So the revolutionary official Hoffman was exiled to the best of his literary imagination. Many Jews at that time received very wild surnames, for example, Stinky or Koshkolapy when translated into Russian.
Or take such a concept as “enemy of the people.” It also comes from the time of the French Revolution. There was even a commissar position in both France and Russia. However, this was also the name given to the assistants of the inquisitor in ancient times, even before all the revolutions. The inquisitor had two kinds of assistants - some were given to him by his superiors, others he selected himself. Some of them were called commissars.
However, the status of state commissars was not only in France and Russia, but also in Nazi Germany. And members of the Nazi Party in Germany addressed each other the same way as ours - comrade.
By the way, the French were the first to send workers to collective farms for agricultural work. Of course, there were no collective farms then, but grain threshing existed. It was to thresh grain that the Committee of Public Safety mobilized the city workers, since the peasants refused to work for nothing.
There are parallels that no one knows about now. For example, no one knows anymore that immediately after the revolution of the seventeenth year we abolished old calendar and, following the example of the French, they introduced their own revolutionary one, where there was no name for the days of the week, and the seven-day week itself was abolished. And we replaced the names of the days with numbers. In general, we began the countdown of the new revolutionary time in 1917. That is, in the USSR we did not have, say, 1937 or 1938, but rather the years 20 and 21 of the new revolutionary era, respectively.
There is another somewhat mystical parallel. For example, a friend of the people, Marat, was killed by a woman, Charlotte Corday.
According to the official version, Lenin was also shot by a woman, blind Kaplan.
And take our cruiser "Aurora", from which we fired at Zimny.
Oddly enough, the French also have something similar. The Jacobins at one time declared an uprising against the bribed deputies. But the signal for such an uprising was a shot from a signal cannon. Not a cruiser, of course, but not bad either.
All these parallels are, of course, a curiosity. And revolution is a movement of property and social strata. So how did property transfers occur in France?
The French Revolution did not envisage a widespread transfer of property from one political class to another.
Community property was divided according to a law issued specifically for this purpose.
Even the property of emigrants, those who fled the revolution, was not taken away. The property of emigrants was sold under the hammer. Moreover, upon purchase, the poor were provided with an installment plan for ten years.
In general, in France there was a sale of national property, while in Russia this property was simply taken away by force on the completely “legitimate basis of the revolutionary moment.”
Bread was not taken from the peasants, as it is in Russia, but bought. Another thing is that the peasants did not want to give their bread for depreciated paper money, but that is another question. No one completely took away the peasant’s bread.
The Revolutionary Assembly even intended to create a section to ensure the inviolability of person and property.
“Personality and property are under the protection of the nation,” said the French.
However, attempts to introduce general nationalization of food in France were made and were even quite successful. And what’s interesting is that these ideas about the nationalization of property were spread mainly by priests, revolutionary-minded priests. For example, the Parisian abbot Jacques Roux toyed with the idea of creating public stores where there would be strictly fixed prices, like ours later.
However, ideas about nationalization remained not only ideas. At the most critical moment for the French Republic, when foreign armies were advancing on all fronts, and this was August 1793, not only a general mobilization was carried out, but in general the government began to manage all the country’s resources. For the first time in history, all goods, food supplies, and the people themselves were at the disposal of the state.
Saint-Just even passed a decree on the confiscation of the property of suspects.
Well, what happened in Russia with personal property and personal inviolability in general, I think there is no need to repeat.
Although it’s still worth talking about terrorism. After all, no revolution is complete without terror. Naturally, the French Revolution was not without terror. Above, I already mentioned such a category of citizens as suspicious. What did they mean in France?
The following were considered suspicious persons:
1) Those who, by their behavior or their communications, or their speeches and writings, have shown themselves to be a supporter of tyranny or federalism and an enemy of freedom;
2) Those who could not prove the legality of their livelihood;
3) Those who were denied a certificate of citizenship;
4) Persons whom the Convention or its commissions have removed from office;
5) Those of the former nobles who did not show devotion to the revolution;
6) Those who emigrated during the period from July 1 to the publication of the decree of March 30, 1792, even if they returned to France within the period specified by this decree or even earlier.
About the French law on suspicious persons, the famous French historian Albert Mathiez wrote that this decree posed a threat to everyone who in one way or another interfered with the government, even if they did nothing. If a person did not take part in the elections, for example, then he fell under the article of the law on suspicious persons.
In Russia we didn’t have any laws about suspicious people. It’s just that every financially secure person was automatically considered an enemy. In general, when we talk about the Red Terror, they always add that the Whites also carried out terror. But, however, there is a significant difference between the Red and White Terrors. The Red Terror actually meant political genocide. People were persecuted not for offenses, not for crimes, but because they belonged to a certain social class. Whites did not kill people just because a person was a loader or a peasant. White terror is, in the end, simply a response of self-defense, but in no case is it genocide against one’s own people. But it was genocide that took place here. By the way, the French quite openly admit that political genocide was taking place in France at that time, but we stubbornly deny this obvious fact even today, just as we denied many other things. For example, we stubbornly did not recognize the authenticity of party archives captured by the Germans in Soviet territories during the Second World War. Well, it's fake. Such monstrous documents cannot belong to the humane Soviet government. We denied the execution of more than twenty thousand, for example, Polish officers for fifty years. Well, how do we know who shot whom and why these corpses have bullet holes in their skulls.
In general, the scale of the Red Terror here and in France of that period can be judged if only because the French used the guillotine for executions. Yes, it was later replaced by executions from rifles and cannons, but still the French terror did not reach the same scale as in Russia. There is no comparison here. But what do the French themselves write about their terror?
For example, they boldly admit that under the pretext of freedom, freedom itself was killed. And terror itself has become endemic.
What then can we say about Russia?
In Russia, they killed millions and not in prisons, but simply in homes. They were not killed by a court verdict. But simply because the man was a nobleman, a priest, simply wealthy. In addition, in Russia, all criminals were released from prisons. They also became judges and executioners on completely legal grounds, joining the ranks of the Cheka and the workers’ militia. A normal person will not just go kill others.
We must not forget that Stalin himself was, after all, first and foremost a criminal authority, a famous cash-in-transit robber in the criminal community. Moreover, bombs were used during robberies, not small arms. During the explosions, not only collectors died, but also innocent people, random passers-by who, like the collectors, also had children and wives. However, both women and children were caught in the explosions of Russian revolutionaries. She doesn’t understand the bomb who’s in front of her. The people throwing it, of course, understood, but they just didn’t give a damn about the fate of others.
Let us once again draw a parallel between our terror and the French terror.
In August and September 1792, prisoners were exterminated in French prisons.
Here, for example, is a description of murders in French prisons given by Albert Mathiez.
“The intoxication with murder was so great that they killed indiscriminately criminals and political criminals, women and children. Some corpses, such as the Princesse de Lamballe, were terribly mutilated. The number of those killed, according to rough estimates, fluctuated between 1100 and 1400."
I repeat, in Russia, criminals in prisons were not killed en masse, except for 1941, when we exterminated all prisoners before leaving the city. By the way, it was exactly these kind of executions that the NKVD failed to hide that the Germans very skillfully took advantage of, showing people the executed poor fellows whom the communists destroyed before retreating, or, more precisely, before fleeing. But these were wartime measures. And so, as Shalamov repeatedly asserted, he wouldn’t know that if a person spent twenty years in the Gulag, criminals in the camps were considered “friends of the people” by the Soviet authorities. With the help of criminals, the security officers maintained discipline in the camps. For example, during the construction of the White Sea-Baltic Canal there were only four hundred security officers. I don't consider security. Until the fifties, our country's security consisted of civilian riflemen. So these four hundred people controlled a huge mass of prisoners with the help of criminals. And it was like that everywhere. That is, power and criminality grew together in our country quite strongly at that time. And why shouldn’t it grow together if the revolutionaries themselves were the same criminals? The most striking example is Stalin himself.
Here is another fact of the French Revolution.
In Nantes, the revolutionary and terrible drunkard Carrier organized mass drownings on ships, barges, and boats. There were up to two thousand victims of drowning.
If we take the Russian Revolution, we can see the discrepancy in the scale of terror. The size of our Gulag surpasses not only everything French, but also has no analogues at all in its atrocities and gigantomania. But the terror in the USSR is not only the years of revolution. This and the subsequent persecution of people for their origin, for the fact that people have relatives abroad, for the fact that the person was in captivity, simply in occupied territory, was taken to Germany. I know one woman who was taken to Germany as an infant along with her mother. Then the path to a career and professional growth was closed to her. It doesn't matter that she was a baby in Germany. All the same, she no longer had the right to enter a university. That is why this woman only graduated from technical school. And then they told her that she should consider this fact as happiness. Terror in the USSR generally took the most various forms, and often completely invisible to others. But this did not make him any more humane.
Although even today we try to carefully hide the scale of terror. For example, few people know about a burial found in the USSR near Chelyabinsk, where in a common pit there were eighty thousand corpses with bullet holes in the skull. By the way, the number of victims only in this secret burial place of communists exceeds the number of victims in the notorious Babi Yar. These people were simply shot, according to the authorities, in the thirties. Of course, the poor fellows were killed by people “without fear or reproach,” that is, our glorious NKVD officers. Moreover, there were many children’s skeletons in the pit. Let's not forget that in the USSR, full criminal liability began at the age of thirteen. This law was repealed only in the mid-fifties. However, as they say, there were skeletons of people of a younger age. This fact suggests that people were not arrested in their homes. Otherwise, they would all be sorted by gender and age: women and men would be in different camps, children in orphanages. In this burial, all the victims were in one common grave. Most likely, this entire mass of people were interned from the Baltic states or from Western Ukraine, or from Moldova, or from Poland, divided between the Germans and the Soviets. For some reason, they decided not to sort them by age and gender, but simply killed them. And what’s interesting is that the then authorities of our humane USSR immediately banned further research in this area. This can only mean one thing - there were other similar burials nearby, just as large.
This is, of course, a very sad topic. Let's talk better about human origins. I'm not talking about Darwin's theory or the racist rants of the Nazis. In this case, I am most interested in our attitude to the class roots of a person. We simply could not do without blaming a person for his class affiliation. But to blame a person for his origin or circumstances that were not his will is simply to be guided by thoughtless fanaticism. Is not it? But in the case of the Chelyabinsk burial, this is not so much fanaticism as simple criminal fanaticism of people endowed with state power.
If in France terror, as the French themselves admit, was permanent, then in our country it was generally all-encompassing.
The Paris newspaper publisher of that time, Jacques Roux, wrote that one cannot demand love and respect for a government that exercises its power over people through terror. Our revolution will not be able to conquer the world through indignation, destruction, fire and blood, turning all of France into one huge prison.
This is what happened to the humane USSR. The country turned into one large concentration camp, where people were divided into executioners and their victims.
Yes, there are many, many similarities between the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, but I would like to point out some serious differences. In this case I mean the main characters of the revolution. The fact is that in the French Revolution there were no leaders from the proletariat. All deputies were nobles. There was one Jacques the Poor from the peasants. That's all. In Russia we had many who were not nobles. And after the revolution, many completely illiterate people found themselves in government positions in Russia. Even among the ministers there were many people with two classes of education. What can we say about the time of the revolution and shortly after it. It is enough to recall the level of education of our Politburo members already in the eighties. Even such a vaunted intellectual, supposedly an intellectual, like Andropov had behind him only river technical school. But this man occupied the very top echelons of power.
Of course, if we are looking for similarities between these two revolutions, then we cannot ignore such phenomena as the abolition of titles, coats of arms, and the demolition of monuments to kings and their associates. In this matter too, we are more vulgar than the French. We not only destroyed all the monuments in the cities, but even in the cemeteries. Well, of course, since the man was a “minion of tsarism,” then his grave must be razed and razed to the ground. This is what we did very diligently in the glorious USSR. And if in all civilized countries there are now very ancient graves, then none can be found anywhere in our country. The communists tried, they tried very hard. This effort is especially clearly seen in the example of former socialist countries, where since the First World War there were military cemeteries of soldiers of the enemy army everywhere. These cemeteries were not destroyed until the countries turned socialist after World War II. Socialism destroyed all old military cemeteries in socialist countries. The graves of famous people have disappeared. IN this issue The communists also showed a completely class approach, rejecting not only faith, but also conscience.
But, if I started talking about faith, then it would not be out of place to compare our attitude to religion and that of the French. In France, by the way, many revolutionary deputies were either bishops or simply priests.
Of course, all priests in France fell into the category of “suspicious”. Moreover, if they did not resign, they were simply sent to prison. Although theoretically there was freedom of religion in France at that time. The Convention, for example, even approved freedom of worship. Moreover, such an active figure in the revolution as Robespierre seriously believed that the persecution of the Christian religion was organized by foreign agents in order to arouse hatred of the revolution among the believing population. Robespierre considered the persecution of religion to be a new fanaticism, growing out of the fight against old fanaticism. Moreover, Robespierre was also of the opinion that the destroyers of churches were counter-revolutionaries operating under the guise of demagoguery.
Yes, in France churches were closed by the thousands, often becoming revolutionary churches. For example, Notre Dame was turned into a temple of reason. But, nevertheless, the French sought to somehow streamline this process, some kind of revolutionary reforms were carried out. In our country, in the USSR, if churches were not destroyed, they were turned not into temples of reason, but into warehouses or workshops, while priests were declared wholesale “enemies of the people” and simply destroyed. And this process of cannibalism and vandalism in our country continued for decades.
Of course, speaking about these two revolutions, it is impossible not to talk about such a common phenomenon for socialism as a shortage of everything, profiteering, global theft, bribery. Let's not forget that the ominous abbreviation VChK itself stands for the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Profiteering and Crimes in Ex officio. In this regard, I would like to note such a detail as the absence of such harsh authorities in the countries of “decaying capitalism”. This whole bouquet of phenomena: sabotage, corruption, profiteering, looting, global shortages of everything, bribery as a way of life are characteristic on such a gigantic scale only for humane socialism. Naturally, the French already had this whole set of ulcers.
Yes, the French introduced fixed prices for products. And what are the consequences? Yes, the shelves are empty, just like ours in our native USSR.
Just like ours, the French introduced a card system for essential products; for bread, for sugar, for meat, for soap, etc., etc. Complete coincidence. What they have is what we have.
And what is especially interesting. In a country that has always been famous for its wines, its winemakers, and its vineyards, counterfeit wines suddenly began to spread widely. The scale of the disaster acquired such proportions that special positions of commissioners were even introduced to sample wine. And this is in wine France! We didn’t have such commissars, but counterfeit wines are still in great use to this day.
But how is the French deficit, the chaos in trade and the economy, different from ours? I will answer briefly – scale. For example, in France, armed force was never used to carry out requisitions, only administrative centralization was strengthened. Our CHON officers raked everything out.
Well, if we started talking about theft, then it’s not superfluous to talk about revolutionary police structures.
In France, the Assembly established an extraordinary criminal tribunal, the judges and juries of which were appointed by the Convention itself, and not chosen by the people.
Please note that there is a jury. In Russia, people were generally shot without trial or investigation simply for belonging to the class of “exploiters and world-eaters.”
In France, the property of those sentenced to death went to the benefit of the republic. Financial assistance was provided to the insolvent relatives of the convicted. Pay attention to such a scrupulous detail as caring for the relatives of convicts who were provided with financial assistance. Our security officers would simply consider these abnormal French fools for such softness. But, as a rule, the security officers were illiterate people and simply did not have any thoughts about this.
What about the French? Well, what can we take from them? These abnormal prisoners even had defenders; moreover, both the defenders and the defendants could freely express their opinions. The liberty is unheard of.
Although by the time of Thermidor, both the institution of defenders and preliminary interrogations of the accused were nevertheless eliminated.
These French were speaking differently by that time.
To punish the enemies of the fatherland, it is enough to discover them. The point is not so much about their punishment as about their destruction.
These speeches are already more similar to ours, Russian ones.
Even the very concept of “enemies of the revolution” was eventually expanded to such an extent that it meant everyone who was trying to mislead public opinion, hinder public education, and corrupt morals and public conscience.
This is already closer to Lenin and even Stalin.
“Let terror be put on the order of the day,” said Deputy Royer.
This is already much closer and clearer to us.
And Deputy Chomet directly proposed organizing a revolutionary army like our CHONs. I already added this about special-purpose parts myself, because humanity does not have a time machine. Simply by the similarity of the tasks. These detachments were supposed to deliver requisitioned grain to Paris. And then the deputy said: “Let the guillotine follow every such detachment.” A completely sensible person who fully understands that no one will simply give their bread to someone else’s uncle.
This is probably why the French began to realize that terror is not a temporary means, but a necessary condition for the creation of a “democratic republic.” Maybe not everyone thought so, but Deputy Saint-Just thought so.
In general, although the French themselves believe that political genocide was taking place at that time, I, as a person born in our humane USSR, am simply amazed by the softness of these paddling pools. Think about it for yourself, Danton, this architect of the revolution ensured that not a single general, minister or deputy could be brought to trial without a special decree of the Convention.
What court? What special decree? Yes, these French are simply crazy. Personally, the gentleness of these French people simply amazes me. For example, the chairman of the tribunal Montana even tried to save Marat's murderer Charlotte Cardet.
Well, who stood on ceremony for so long with this blind hysterical Kaplan, who allegedly shot at Lenin. It doesn’t matter that she can’t see a person two meters away, the main thing is that she was caught. Which means we need to shoot her quickly.
In general, the devil was going on with the French punitive authorities. For example, in the tribunal appointed by the Committee of Public Safety and the Committee of Public Safety, there was not a single worker among the judges and juries.
Well, where is this thing good for?
And among the appointed members of the tribunal, these French even had high nobles, for example, marquises.
Is this in the marquise's tribunal? This is horror! We didn’t have this in Russia, of course.
Yes, these French people are strange people. They also judged kings openly. For example, the political trial of the queen took place openly and lasted several days.
It's mind boggling. No, to execute secretly, as we did, in some basement, so they take everything out to the public. Well, aren't they crazy?
In general, a completely spineless people, no revolutionary firmness. True, they had a law on accelerating sentences, which even led to an increase in death sentences. But numbers, but numbers.
From August 6 to October 1, 1794, only 29 people were sentenced to death.
This is just some kind of mockery of revolutionary justice. Even if we take into account that in the next three months 117 prisoners were sentenced to death.
Is this scale?
And what’s most terrible is that many of those convicted were generally acquitted. Some were sentenced to exile, some to prison, for some the arrests did not even have any consequences.
This is just a mockery of the revolution!
Although not everything is so sad in this soft-bodied France. They have gotten wiser.
The Committee of Public Safety organized the Bureau of Administrative Supervision and the General Police.
These French even began to act decisively. For example, by order of Bonaparte, the Duke of Enghien is captured abroad and brought to France for execution.
The Duke, of course, was executed. But, interestingly, Murat, the governor of Paris at that time, did not agree for a long time to put his signature on the Duke’s death sentence. Murat had to be persuaded and even given him a tidy sum of one hundred thousand francs after the Duke’s execution for his signature on the verdict. But this is not what surprises me, but the fact that in the USSR no one would have tried to persuade Murat in such a case; he would have simply been executed along with the kidnapped duke.
Yes, these French people are strange people. And they are also talking about some kind of genocide. Although the revolution still destroyed several hundred thousand of them. But can this figure be compared with our scale?
In general, even in the similarity of events there are many differences. Take the revolutionary army, for example. The French soldiers were paid, that is, they received a salary. The French even tried to fight unemployment with the help of the army. For example, Deputy Chalier proposed forming an army of unemployed people and paying them twenty sous a day for their service.
In Russia, no one paid for the service. Even now, our soldiers actually serve for free, that is, we don’t even consider service as a profession. They feed you, clothe you and what else? According to our concepts, this is quite enough.
And in general, we mobilized more decisively. With the French, for example, a rich man could buy off the army, like we do today. Although there is a very significant difference in the methods. The sons of wealthy parents could buy themselves out of service by hiring another person to take their place. Nowadays, no one here hires another person for themselves, but money still decides everything.
Although, during the revolution in Russia it was impossible to buy off the army. We forcibly mobilized old career officers who had not yet been killed, taking the relatives of these people hostage. So that they don’t twitch too much.
Similarities with phenomena in the army are also evident in the mass exodus of officers. But there are also differences. French officers en masse had the opportunity to immigrate from the country. Our officers were simply killed en masse. For example, the blood of naval officers made the Neva red.
Misconceptions of illiterate people - anyone can lead. And in the revolutionary armies, people were chosen for command positions by the soldiers themselves.
Naturally, with the help of the army, both revolutions produced a permanent policy, that is, they expanded revolutionary expansion, expanded beyond the borders of the country.
The French, like the Russian revolutionaries, imagined that all peoples were only eager to establish a revolution within themselves.
But, unlike the Russians, the French believed that the main figures in the revolution would be the intelligentsia, writers, and thinkers. After all, in France, the revolution was the work of the bourgeoisie. The workers were not leaders.
Like the French, we also made plans to carry out the revolution abroad.
Dantom, for example, spoke quite definitely on this matter.
“In our person, the French nation has created a great committee for the general uprising of peoples against kings.”
The convention even adopted a draft decree proposed by La Révelier-Lepo: “The National Convention, on behalf of the French nation, promises fraternal assistance to all peoples who wish to regain their freedom.”
We, too, constantly stuck our noses, or rather the barrel of the Kalashnikov, where it was necessary and where it was not needed.
The revolutionaries of France were planning to raise an uprising throughout Europe.
Our scale was much broader; we dreamed of a world revolution, of fanning a “world fire.” No more, no less.
Although, if you look at it, both we and the French were talking about a worldwide war, planning to destroy the old world.
As Albert Mathiez said:
- Like the old religions, the revolution intended to spread its gospel with sword in hand.
The monarchy needs peace, the republic needs militant energy. The slaves need peace, but the republic needs the strengthening of freedom, the French argued. Did we say something else?
Here the French and I have a complete coincidence of views and actions.
The French began to establish revolutionary regimes abroad very, very actively. However, so do we.
Usurping power, imposing revolutionary orders in other countries, both we and the French used the populist slogan - “peace to the huts, war to the palaces.”
In reality, this policy turned into ordinary violence, nothing more.
In general, both of them actively pursued an ordinary policy of conquest, which the local population was not at all enthusiastic about.
Let us at least remember how many millions of people fled from the socialist paradise. Several million people from the GDR alone went west. It was the only country in the socialist camp, where the country's population was catastrophically declining due to mass exodus.
But they fled from all socialist countries. Sometimes the flight took simply extremist forms. In our USSR alone, since the mid-fifties, there have been a hundred hijackings of airliners. This is for some forty years.
And if I started talking about revolutionary expansion, then it is not superfluous to recall that the French not only had numerous agitator agents abroad, but also actively subsidized newspapers.
We, with the help of the Third International, also carried out all kinds of expansion into the internal affairs of other countries. And quite annoying.
But if we compare these two revolutions, then it is necessary to compare the leaders of the revolution. This is quite interesting.
Let's start with Napoleon.
In his youth, Napoleon, like a true Corsican, hated the French.
I wonder what feelings young Dzhugashvili, either a Georgian or an Ossetian, had towards the Russians?
Napoleon had very few women according to Soviet standards, although he had an illegitimate son from a Polish woman, whom no one ever recognized as king. At least his victories on the sexual front do not come close to Beria’s all-encompassing. And he also never had children like Stalin.
Napoleon, like Hitler, was very well read. Napoleon thoroughly studied Plutarch, Plato, Titus Livy, Tacitus, Montaigne, Montesquieu, and Raynal.
I may be asked why, when comparing the French and Russian revolutions, I mention Hitler? How is it possible, when talking about Stalin, not to mention Adolf? Completely unthinkable. They are like two boots that form an unchanging pair in history.
But let’s continue about Napoleon.
Napoleon was deeply disgusted by the crowd storming the Tuileries, calling them notorious rabble and scum.
I wonder what feelings Stalin had when he sent millions of innocent people to their deaths?
Napoleon personally went on the attack. But at that time all attacks were hand-to-hand combat. What is hand-to-hand combat? Yulia Drunina says this best. Napoleon was wounded with a bayonet in one of the attacks. This was a combat officer.
Stalin never flew on an airplane, he was afraid for his precious life.
Napoleon took great care of his large family. Even when he received a very modest salary, even then he did not stop supporting his relatives.
We know how Stalin treated his relatives. All of his wife's relatives were personally destroyed by him.
For his extremist views, Napoleon received the nickname of a terrorist.
Nobody called Stalin that, although he was included in the Guinness Book of Records as the most mass murderer. But even without this, Stalin can easily be classified as a terrorist. Wasn’t he the one who organized attacks on collectors, as a result of which bystanders also died from bombs?
Napoleon flirted with the sans-culottes, borrowing their slang and curses.
Stalin did not borrow anything, he was simply a boor by nature.
During the revolution, Napoleon, as a supporter of Robespierre, was arrested and spent several weeks awaiting execution.
Nobody arrested Stalin after the victory of the revolution.
Napoleon, after the execution of Robespierre, could not find work for some time and even tried to get a job as an officer with the Turks.
For our revolutionaries, such a biography would cost a person his life.
In general, as far as humanity is concerned, Hitler, strange as it may sound, was, in my opinion, more humane than Stalin. For example, Hitler helped his mother’s attending physician emigrate from the country, despite his Jewish origin.
What really unites Hitler with Stalin is the writing of poetry. True, Hitler composed for a specific girl, but what Stalin composed is unknown to the common people to this day.
Both Napoleon and Hitler were in great need of their time. But neither one nor the other even thought of engaging in robbery, as Stalin did.
The military commission declared Hitler unfit for combat, but he submitted a petition to King Ludwig 3 with a request to serve in the Bavarian regiment and after that he was called up for military service.
Hitler was awarded the Iron Cross, first and second class.
Stalin had never been in the trenches.
Napoleon married Josephine Beauharnais, who was a widow and five years older than Bonaparte.
Stalin, as you know, chose young children.
Napoleon carefully controlled the newspapers, personally ensuring that the press portrayed him in a favorable light to the people.
Stalin surpassed him in this. This is not even worth talking about. No wonder Stalin was subsequently accused of creating his own personality cult.
Napoleon, like Stalin, appeared everywhere in modest clothing. But, if Stalin wore a military uniform, then Napoleon appeared everywhere in modest civilian clothes. If he wore a military uniform, then without any gold embroidery.
Napoleon, although at one time he ordered the execution of four thousand captured Turks near Jaffa, was still not as bloodthirsty as Joseph. It's not even worth talking about.
Members of the Directory in Paris were openly despised for their brazen, shameless theft, bribery, and luxurious daily revelry.
Stalin behaved more modestly. He organized carousings at night, but also every night, and this at a time when people were literally dying of hunger in the streets, as was the case in the thirties. We now know about such a depressing situation from German intelligence reports of that time, which were preserved in the archives.
And again I will skip to the Nazis.
In Germany, under the Nazis, a single ideology was introduced and a one-party system was introduced.
It happened to us too.
The foreign policy of both revolutionary France and Soviet Russia was characterized by extreme aggressiveness. However, the same as Germany.
Napoleon did not stand on ceremony with women. For example, there is a well-known case with one actress, to whom he immediately said: “Come in. Take off your clothes. Lie down."
And how did our Politburo members behave during the night revelry? What, Beria sat, drank the best cognac, ate black caviar and did not use his subordinates, I mean the female servants, the servants? I doubt. If it cost him nothing to grab any woman he liked from the street, then what can we say about his subordinates. Has Stalin stopped loving young children? Didn't pay attention to women at all? I doubt. With this kind of grub even a dead person will get a rise.
The emigrants were allowed to return to France. In our country, if anyone returned, then at best they were awaiting a concentration camp for many years.
Napoleon had a completely respectful opinion about religion. He said that if you take away people’s faith, then in the end nothing good will come of it and they will only turn out to be highwaymen.
Stalin did not care about such problems. He himself was a robber, a robber, a raider on collectors.
Fouche organized a very skillful and effective network of police espionage that covered the entire country.
But were our political police worse? Fewer? In addition, it was already equipped at that time with effective electronics, albeit largely purchased abroad.
Desmond Seward, an English historian, in his book Napoleon and Hitler describes the police methods of that period in France.
Arrests for psychological reasons were carried out mainly at night; those arrested were not treated on ceremony and, if necessary, their tongues were loosened by torture.
If I didn’t know that this was being said about revolutionary France, I would have decided that we were talking about the glorious USSR, where even children were tortured, because full legal responsibility came in the USSR from the age of 13. This means that already at this age they could do anything to a person: torture, execute. And this age of thirteen, the age of full legal responsibility, remained in the glorious USSR until the fifties.
Napoleon had absolute power, both civil and military, and was above the law. This is what the English historian Desmond Seward writes about Napoleon.
What kind of power did Stalin have? Absolute or not absolute?
Several attempts were made on Napoleon's life. One of them in 1804 was successfully prevented by the police. The main performer, Georges Cadoudal, a man of extraordinary strength, was captured by the police. During his arrest, Cadoudal killed and mutilated several police agents. He was, of course, beheaded in the end. But what’s interesting is that the main organizer of that failed terrorist attack received only two years in prison and then, after being expelled from France, he lived safely in America.
In the Soviet Union, a person received a death sentence even for misspelling Stalin’s last name, or rather, his nickname.
Napoleon was very abstinent in food. His usual lunch consisted of chicken, broth, a cup of coffee and a small amount of wine.
Everyone now knows how our Politburo members caroused at night. Members of regional committees also reveled. The carousings of comrades from the Smolny Palace during the siege became especially popular. They did not experience any food shortages at all. Even during the entire period of the siege of Leningrad they did not stop baking cakes for them.
On December 2, 1804, Napoleon was crowned Emperor of the French.
No one crowned Stalin. But was his lifestyle different from the royal one? Yes, Joseph himself admitted to his mother that he was a king. After all, no one pulled his tongue. Just as no one pulled Brezhnev’s tongue, who also considered himself a tsar in all seriousness.
Although the French Revolution abolished all titles, Napoleon subsequently created a new nobility. Princes, barons, dukes, and counts appeared. But let's ask ourselves a question: weren't our party leaders the nobility? Weren’t all these secretaries of the regional committee and city committees, in the end, essentially ordinary appanage princelings? They had their own supplies, their own doctors, their own sanatoriums. And all this is at a much higher level, clearly not at the popular level.
Our Soviet director Sergei Gerasimov is quite right in his film “The Journalist” when he asserts that our society, although classless, is not without caste.
When describing the merits of the Soviet government, they usually say that it gave people apartments and built stadiums. But even under Adolf Hitler, huge residential areas and stadiums were built for workers in Germany.
Yes, regarding Hitler. After all, he also wore a completely modest uniform without insignia. Like the great Stalin, like Bonaparte.
When describing Hitler's ruthlessness, they usually say that he destroyed not only real opponents, but also simply potential ones. Yes, just in case. At the same time, Adolf did not destroy the families of his opponents. The Soviet government destroyed everyone at the root.
And, if I inadvertently mentioned Germany, then it’s worth saying a few words about concentration camps. In 1937, there were just over thirty-seven thousand prisoners in all of Germany.
In the same year, our political police, this oprichnina of Stalin, killed over forty thousand officers alone. There were millions in the camps.
And if I’m already talking about Hitler, then it’s worth mentioning his culinary preferences, which were very modest, like Napoleon’s. Yes, he loved cakes and cakes with buttercream, but otherwise he was quite moderate in food. Vegetable soups, nut cutlets. I have no information whether Hitler refused black caviar when he found out its cost, but if he did not refuse, he always remembered this price. Stalin, like his entourage, did not care at all about the cost of caviar, as well as the cost of other delicacies that these members of the Politburo consumed daily and, of course, nightly.
And if I inadvertently mentioned Hitler, then it’s worth saying a little about the Fuhrer’s literacy.
Hitler spoke French and English. Let it not be perfect. But I watched films without translators, read foreign magazines myself, without resorting to the services of translators. And, in general, Adolf read a lot, like Napoleon.
The British believed that in this French republic people lived worse than slaves. This is how one Englishman spoke about that time.
Parisian society looks very pitiful - everyone is afraid of the secret police spies, and Napoleon deliberately cultivates general suspicion, “considering this the best way to keep the population in obedience.”
And what horror did our political police bring to people? But this is just a tiny part of the activities of the all-encompassing NKVD-KGB.
By the way, Napoleon also said: “I rule through fear.”
Modern historians unanimously agree that imperial France was no less a police state than Nazi Germany. I would like to ask another question in this regard. To what extent was the USSR a police state?
Evidence from the time indicates that censorship in France was intolerable. There were only four newspapers published in Paris, down from seventy-three in 1799. Each issue of the newspaper was read by the Minister of Police before publication.
All British newspapers were banned from sale.
I think there is no need to talk about Soviet censorship. Even now we don’t have foreign magazines and newspapers on newsstands, and under “developed socialism” there weren’t any.
Because due to general conscription There were not enough workers in the village, Napoleon began experiments with slave labor, using Austrian prisoners of war for agricultural work. In our country, as we know, we used our own, internal “enemies of the people.” And there were significantly more of them, these enemies, than foreign prisoners.
The police were omnipresent. There were provocateurs all around, hunting down opponents of the regime.
This is about the French police. But, if you don’t know this fact, then you might well think that we are talking about our police.
Napoleon loved it when people showed disobedience to him. In these cases, he could see his opponents, and it was easier for him to break their resistance.
I think Joseph was no less an intriguer, moreover, a very, very hypocritical intriguer. Before arrest, he treated all his victims kindly and said something laudatory to the victim. And then he destroyed the person.
This is what Napoleon wrote to his brother Joseph, who was appointed king of Naples: “I would like the Neapolitans to try to raise a rebellion.” In other words, he advised his brother to provoke a rebellion in order to identify enemies, which he could then destroy.
But this method is the most beloved in the USSR. I, of course, do not have access to Soviet archives, but I’m just sure that the uprising in Hungary, and the uprising in Germany, and the uprising in Czechoslovakia and other socialist countries were artificially provoked by the Soviets. For what? There are many reasons. I'll try to name the most popular ones.
First, to identify the enemies of Soviet power in order to have a reason to destroy them.
Secondly, quietly send your agents into the enemy’s camp. Among thousands of immigrants and even millions, it is very difficult to identify KGB agents. Right?
There’s no point in naming other reasons anymore. The value of provocation is already visible from these two.
There is nothing new in such methods. As for the French, more than two hundred years ago the British Prime Minister accused the French of deliberately provoking the population of Venice to revolt in order to have a pretext for invasion.
The advice required only a little knowledge of history, no innovations.
Yes, a few more words about the difference between the two revolutions.
When an anti-revolutionary uprising broke out in Lyon, after suppressing the houses of the rebel rich people, the French decided to demolish them. Abnormal. We could make big communal apartments out of these houses.
The two largest revolutions in terms of their impact on the world have received surprisingly little comparative study. In the Soviet era, this was made difficult by the ideological factor, which drew a sharp line between “bourgeois” and “socialist” revolutions, and in the conditions of modern Russia - the lack of development of comparative historical research and the (but still incomplete) rethinking of the very phenomenon of revolutions that has occurred over the past two decades. The October Revolution underwent a particularly sharp, polar revision, but also in French historiography by the 1970s. Many key provisions of the classical social theory of the revolution of 1789 were refuted, interpreting it in the usual terms of “feudalism”, “capitalism”, etc. The revolution began to be viewed from the point of view of human rights and freedoms, changes in mentality, etc., and “embedding” it into a long historical context (1).
As a result, already on the approaches to comparing the October and French revolutions, a lot of questions arise. It is not even clear whether the terms “socialist”, “bourgeois”, “great” are applicable to them; what exactly to compare the French Revolution with - directly with the October Revolution; with the February and October revolutions or with the February, October revolutions and the Civil War, increasingly being united by researchers into a single “Russian Revolution”? (Individual French historians: J. Lefebvre, E. Labrousse, M. Bouloiseau, on the contrary, identified several revolutions in the Great French Revolution, either substantively or chronologically.)
Without trying to cover the whole gamut of problems within the framework of a small article, we will try to outline only some fundamental points that united and distinguished the French and October revolutions. This would help us break through the still existing scholastic schemes and get closer to understanding the phenomenon of revolutions.
Despite the 128 years that separated the events of 1789 and 1917. and despite the obvious contrast in the natural, climatic, sociocultural and other conditions of France and Russia, many of the factors that gave rise to and acted during the revolutions under consideration were to one degree or another similar. This was explained not only by the powerful influence of the French experience (to one degree or another it was used by almost all political forces). The Bolsheviks considered themselves followers of the Jacobins. A huge part of Russian revolutionary vocabulary (“Provisional Government”, “Constituent Assembly”, “commissar”, “decree”, “tribunal”, “whites” and “reds”, etc.) originated from the French Revolution. Accusations of Jacobinism and, on the contrary, appeals to the experience of the Jacobins, fears or hopes associated with the “Vendee”, “Thermidor”, “Bonapartism”, etc., have become one of the most common subjects of political discussions in our country (2).
Both the French and October revolutions marked an important (although far from being as self-sufficient as previously thought) step towards the transition from a traditional agrarian society to an industrial one and were associated with the contradictions that arose between them, and to some extent, within the nascent industrial society (to use the usual, ideologized term, within capitalism).
Major European revolutions, as economists have recently discovered, occurred at a similar stage of economic development, when the gross domestic product per capita was from 1200 to 1500 dollars. In France it was estimated at about 1218, and in Russia - 1488 dollars (3)
Moreover, in the pre-revolutionary period, both countries demonstrated extremely high economic growth. Contrary to stereotypes, France in the 18th century. developed noticeably faster than England, its economy was the largest in the world, with GNP twice as large as England's (4). Since post-reform times, Russia has been ahead of all European powers in terms of economic growth.
On the eve of the revolutions, both countries experienced a significant deterioration in their economic situation due to a bad harvest in 1788 and the First World War. However, it was not the plight of the masses that became the main factor in the revolutions. In France in the 18th century. the level of taxation was half that in Great Britain, and in Russia in 1914-1916, despite economic difficulties and interruptions in the food supply of cities, overall production growth continued, and the situation of the masses was significantly better than in Germany, which was at war with it. A. de Tocqueville, who noted long ago that “revolutions are not always led only by the deterioration of the living conditions of the people” (5), turned out to be right.
In the pre-revolutionary period, France and Russia experienced a demographic explosion, caused primarily by a decrease in mortality. Population of France for 1715-1789 increased by more than 1.6 times - from 16 to 26 million people, and the population of Russia in 1858-1914. - 2.3 times, from 74.5 million. to 168.9 million people (without Poland and Finland it was 153.5 million) (6). This contributed to both fast economic growth, and increasing social tension, especially in the countryside, where more than 4/5 of the population of both countries lived. The share of city dwellers was also approximately the same: in France in 1800 it was 13%, in Russia by 1914 it was 15%. In terms of population literacy (40%), our country by 1913 was approximately equal to France in 1785 (37%) (7).
The social structure of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, like that of France in the 18th century. (albeit to a greater extent) had a transitional character - from class to class - in nature. The class division has already undergone noticeable erosion, and the process of class formation has not yet been completed. The fragmentation and instability of the social structure became one of the factors of revolutionary upheavals. To others common factor, which increased the mobility of the population was the replacement of traditional large (composite) families with small ones (8).
In France in the 18th century. and in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. The religiosity of the population and the influence of the church, which was in close connection with state power, fell (9). The abolition by the Provisional Government in Russia of compulsory communion for soldiers led to a decrease in the proportion of those receiving communion from 100 to 10% and below. Such a large-scale decline in religiosity reflected a crisis of traditional consciousness and facilitated the spread of political ideologies.
One of the features historical development Russia since the 18th century was considered a sociocultural split between the “lower classes” and the “highest” of society, which played a crucial role in 1917. However, some modern French historians (R. Mushamble, R. Chartier, D. Roche) noted the presence in their country before the revolution of “two cultural poles ", "two cultures" and even "two Frances".
The approximate similarity of a number of key features of the development of pre-revolutionary France and Russia is not accidental. The predominance of the peasantry served as a necessary factor for the development of a broad “anti-feudal” movement, since many structures of traditional society were rooted in the countryside. At the same time, the presence of an already noticeable share of the urban population provided leadership for this movement, its relatively new, compared to peasant wars Middle Ages, focus and some organization. Demographic explosion, erosion of class barriers; the formation of classes, new social groups striving for property and power; the emergence of a significant, although not yet predominant, proportion of the literate population; the transition from patriarchal families to small ones and the decline in the role of religion - all this was necessary conditions breaking traditional stereotypes of mass consciousness and involving a significant part of the people in the political process.
Pre-revolutionary France and Russia were brought together by the unprecedented power of monarchical power by European standards (which largely determined the strength of the revolutionary explosion), and the decisive role of capitals can be noted in the development of events and the course of revolutions. (“The political predominance of the capital over the rest of the state is not due to its position, size, or wealth, but solely to its nature government", noted Tocqueville.).
The most important revolutionary factor generated by the desacralization of mass consciousness, the growth of education and social mobility of the population of France and Russia, as well as the actions of the authorities, was the discrediting of monarchs, and hence, to a large extent, the institution of the monarchy. When Louis XV fell ill in 1744, 6 thousand masses were ordered for his health at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, and when he died, in 1774, only 3 masses were ordered (10). Louis XVI and Nicholas II turned out to be weak rulers for such turbulent eras. Both of them tried to carry out overdue reforms (Turgot, Calonne and Necker in France, Witte and Stolypin in Russia), but, faced with resistance from the ruling elite, for the most part they were unable to implement or complete them. Yielding to pressure, they made concessions, but sometimes tried to win them back, and in general they pursued a contradictory, wavering course that only teased the revolutionary masses. “Separated from each other by five quarters of a century, the king and the king are represented at certain moments by two actors playing the same role,” noted L.D. Trotsky in “History of the Russian Revolution”.
Both monarchs had unpopular foreign wives. “Queens are taller than their kings not only in physical stature, but also morally,” wrote Trotsky. - Marie Antoinette is less pious than Alexandra Feodorovna, and, unlike the latter, she is ardently devoted to pleasure. But both equally despised the people, could not bear the thought of concessions, and equally did not trust the courage of their husbands.” The Austrian and German origins of the Queen and Tsarina, in conditions of war with their native countries, served as an irritating factor for the masses, provoking rumors of treason and further discrediting the monarchies.
Both revolutions began relatively anemic, initially went through a period of dual power, but underwent rapid radicalization. (“The most amazing thing about the French Revolution,” marveled J. de Maistre, “is its captivating power, which removes all obstacles.”) In terms of the breadth of involvement of the masses, and hence in its radicalism and bloodshed, in terms of secularism, and in one way or another to the extent and anti-religiousness of ideologies, a clear social orientation and messianism, in terms of influence on the world, the October and French revolutions are closer than any others.
Sometimes almost literal analogies can be traced, right up to the people’s petitions to their monarchs. In France, this happened 14 years before the revolution - on May 2, 1775, and in Russia - 12 years before, on January 9, 1905. Although the king deigned to go out onto the balcony of the Versailles Castle, and the tsar was not in the Winter Palace, both attempts to file a complaint turned out to be unsuccessful and caused repressions: in France - the hanging of two people from the crowd, in Russia - the shooting of demonstrations. No less remarkable is the coincidence of the key myths and symbols of these revolutions, which were the “assaults” of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 and the Winter Palace on October 25-26, 1917. In fact, they were not heroic battles at all, but noisy, but anemic (especially for attackers) by capturing objects that did not seriously resist.
The fall of the monarchies in France and Russia did not prevent the further radicalization of the revolutions; on the contrary, it gave them a powerful impetus, which ultimately brought the Jacobins and Bolsheviks to power and served to unleash terror on an unprecedented scale. The number of its victims in France, according to recent estimates, exceeded 40 thousand people, and together with the victims of the civil war that unfolded in the Vendée and other areas, it amounted to from 200 to 300 thousand people - approximately 1% of the country's population (11). There is no complete data on the total number of victims of revolutionary terror in Russia, and the available data are fragmentary and contradictory. But it is known that population losses during the October Revolution and the Civil War of 1917-1922. amounted to from 12.7 to 15 million people (of which 2 million emigrated); Thus, every tenth to twelfth person died or was forced to leave the country. Russia's irretrievable losses in the First World War (1914-1917) - 3-4 million people - were approximately 4 times less. Even the losses of all 38 countries participating in the war, representing 3/4 of the world's population, amounted to 10 million people, i.e. significantly inferior to the losses of Russia alone in the Civil War!
The terrible price of revolutions, their dire consequences do not end there. France gained broad democratic rights and political stability only after two more revolutions and upheavals associated with the lost war with Prussia and the short-lived but bloody history Paris Commune, more than 70 years after the end of the Great Revolution.
Only during the period of the Third Republic, after the completion of the industrial revolution and the creation of an industrial society (the volume of industrial production exceeded the volume of agricultural production in France in the mid-1880s), did revolutionary upheavals become a thing of the past.
Although in the future the French Revolution gave impetus to the industrial revolution (it began in the last years of the 18th century), unprecedented revolutionary upheavals and a decade and a half of devastating Napoleonic wars (12) undermined the French economy and its position in the world. The French economy, which competed with the English economy and surpassed it in scale, easily lost primacy to it in the 19th century (13), and then “let ahead” the United States, Germany, and Tsarist Russia.
The consequences of the October Revolution, which included not only the Civil War, but also mass collectivization, as well as direct political repressions, even according to the most conservative estimates, resulted in about 20 million dead (and this does not include the 27 million who fell in the Great Patriotic War). Moreover, the 74-year socialist experiment for which these sacrifices were made failed and led to the collapse of the USSR. As a result, at the beginning of the 21st century. The country occupies a worse position in the world than at the beginning of the 20th century. (14)
Then the Russian economy was 4th in the world, in 2005 (in terms of GDP) it was only 15th, and taking into account the purchasing power parity of the currency - 10th. In terms of the level of democratic freedoms, efficiency of the state apparatus and corruption, our country is among the developing countries, and not at the top of their list. Already from the mid-1960s. The decline in mortality and the increase in life expectancy stopped, and since the 1990s. Russia's population is inexorably declining.
The unprecedentedly catastrophic consequences of the October Revolution and the socialist experiment it began are attracting increased attention to its distinctive features.
The French Revolution, like other European revolutions, was directed against the structures and relations of traditional society (“remnants of feudalism”). In the October Revolution, even if individual general democratic tasks were initially solved (legislative abolition of estates, separation of the state from the church, division of landowners’ lands), it was only “in passing.” As a result, the revolution led to the virtual destruction of democratic freedoms and the reproduction - in a modernized, industrial form - of many characteristics of traditional society. Equalizing, socialist tendencies, which were only hinted at in the French Revolution by the Jacobins, the “mad”, and somewhat more so by C. Faucher, members of the Social Circle and Babeuf’s Conspiracy of Equals, acquired dominant significance in the October Revolution.
The French Revolution, based on the ideas of the Enlightenment and the principle of the “general will,” emphasized national tasks. Its manifesto was the “Declaration of the Rights and Freedoms of the Citizen,” which declared private property sacred and inviolable, and emphasized: “Men are born and live free and equal before the law,” “the source of sovereignty is based essentially in the nation. No corporation, no individual can wield power that does not clearly emanate from this source.” The revolution caused a patriotic upsurge; the word “patriot” became synonymous with the word “revolutionary.” As a result of the revolution, the French nation was formed.
The October Revolution, which grew out of the First World War (which the Bolsheviks met with the slogan of “defeat in the war of their own government”, and ended with a humiliating, “obscene”, as Lenin admitted, separate peace), as well as from the internationalist Marxist ideology, on the contrary, despised patriotic, common goals and emphasized private, “class” objectives and the redistribution of property. The manifesto of the revolution was the Declaration of the Rights not of the citizen, but only of the “working and exploited people,” which proclaimed the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e., a clear minority) and was included, following the French example, in the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918. The Bolsheviks’ explanations that the working people are the overwhelming majority of the population turned out to be just a screen for the further “division” of the people according to the degree of “class purity” and “consciousness”, and ultimately for the establishment of a totalitarian regime. Russian national consciousness has not yet taken shape.
In the eventual, “technological” plan, such a result became possible not because October 1917, unlike 1789, was purposefully prepared by the Bolshevik Party. Having passed, like the French Revolution, various stages, Oktyabrskaya did not end in “Thermidor”. The Bolsheviks only temporarily adopted partial “self-thermidorization” during the NEP years, which allowed them to survive and then launch a new offensive. (The events of 1991, which led to the collapse of socialism and the USSR, can be considered partly a belated “Thermidor.”
The essential differences of October were largely determined by the fact that this revolution occurred after the industrial revolution. Therefore, by 1917 Russia had a more developed industry and a working class (albeit not yet fully formed)15, a much higher concentration of production and even its partial monopolization. The latter - combined with the strengthening of government regulation during the First World War - significantly facilitated the establishment of state control over the economy and the transition to a new socio-economic model. By the beginning of the 20th century. The ideological brainchild of the industrial revolution, Marxism, which theoretically substantiated such a transition, also managed to gain popularity.
In addition, unlike France at the end of the 18th century, Russia entered 1917 already having experience of revolution (1905-1907), recognized revolutionary leaders and “tested” radical parties. Various socialist parties, whose ideology turned out to be close to traditional mass consciousness, occupied a disproportionately large place in the party system. Already after February 1917, they dominated the political arena, and in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, for the first time in the world, they received more than 4/5 of the votes (16).
The solution to October 1917 lies, first of all, in a unique “proportion”, in a combination of contradictions of early modernization and a mature industrial society, complicated by the crisis Russian Empire and especially the First World War, which had a total impact on all spheres of society and mass consciousness.
In addition, the transition from a traditional society to an industrial one began in our country from a qualitatively different “initial base” than in France - a previous historical path, on which, as we know, there was a 240-year Mongol-Tatar conquest, serfdom, autocracy, “ service state,” Orthodoxy, but there were neither free cities (at least since the 15th century) and burghers, nor strong traditions of written law and parliamentarism (except for the specific and short-lived experience of Zemsky Sobors), nor the Renaissance. That is why the objectively difficult, painful process of industrial modernization was particularly difficult for us. This modernization (and, accordingly, the breakdown of traditional structures and stereotypes of mass consciousness) took place at a speed unprecedented in Europe, skipping and rearranging individual phases.
As a result, in Russia by 1917 (i.e., two decades after the industrial revolution), the agrarian revolution, unlike the leading powers, was not completed; more than 4/5 of the population lived in the countryside, where communal rather than private property dominated on land, and the strength of the Russian bourgeoisie was significantly inferior to the level of economic development of the country due to the increased role of the state and foreign capital (which amounted to about 1/3 of the total share capital).
The combination of a highly concentrated industry, young, closely connected with the countryside, but already acquired the revolutionary traditions of the working class and relatively weak bourgeoisie with the numerically overwhelming communal peasantry, with its egalitarian, collectivist mentality, hatred of “bars” and huge marginal layers (due to the speed of modernization processes and World War) and created that explosive mixture, the explosion of which - detonated by war, weakness, discreditation of power, and then the beginning of the collapse of the empire - “launched” the Russian revolution much further than the European ones.
At first it seemed that in terms of its significance and influence on world processes, the October Revolution overshadowed the French Revolution. But by the end of the 20th century, it became obvious that the French Revolution, despite its bloody transformation and prohibitively high cost, objectively gave impetus to the change from traditional societies to industrial ones. The October Revolution, on the contrary, erased its positive consequences in Russia, and then in a number of other countries that fell into the orbit of the USSR, opening rather not a new era, but, in the words of N.A. Berdyaev, “new Middle Ages”. Socialism, which objectively served as an alternative to capitalism through the formation of an industrial society, showed the dead end of this path. (There is no doubt that it was socialism - the main signs of socialism: destruction private property, the power of the “proletarian party” and others were evident.)
Thus, if the term “socialist” is applicable to the October Revolution, then the concept “bourgeois” in relation to the French Revolution can only be used in a narrow, specific sense. Whether these revolutions can be called great depends on the scale of values: whether they are led by human life or abstract “trends” or “patterns”. Nevertheless, in terms of the scale of their influence on society and the world, these revolutions deserve the name “great”.
French revolution-- Content I. The place of the F. revolution in European history. II. The main reasons for the F. revolution. III. General course of events from 1789 to 1799 IV. The direct influence of the revolution on the internal history of France and other countries. V. Historiography of the F. revolution and an outline of the main judgments about it. VI. Bibliographic index of works relating to the history of the French Revolution. I. The place of the F. revolution in European history. The central events of two large periods into which the history of Western Europe in modern times can be divided are the reformation of the 16th century. and the revolution at the end of the 8th century. Just as the reformation, the preparation of which began in the 14th and 15th centuries, opens up the history of the 16th and 17th centuries, which constitute a special period in the cultural and political life of Western Europe, so the revolution, most closely prepared by the cultural movement and social changes of the 18th century, has the significance of the starting point of modern history, with all the political, social and national movements with which the 19th century was so rich. Like the Reformation, which began in Germany and spread from there throughout Western Europe, the French Revolution of 1789 very soon acquired universal significance in its influence on the rest of Europe, especially since the revolution was only one of the manifestations of an important historical process taking place in the cultural and social life European peoples. Both in Germany at the beginning of the 16th century and in France at the end XVIII century only earlier than in other countries were the results of cultural and social relations revealed, more or less common to all countries where the so-called “old order” existed (see). The influence of the F. revolution on neighboring countries was determined by the fact that state and public order, against which it was directed, were common to almost all of Western Europe, not to mention the cosmopolitan significance of the F. "enlightenment" of the 18th century. (cm.). That is why the history of the F. revolution can, in general, be considered from two points of view, seeing in it either a purely internal F. revolution, or an event whose significance goes beyond the boundaries of F. history. European history XVIII century characterized by two main phenomena: in the political and social sphere - the dominance of royal absolutism and aristocratic privileges, the combination of which constitutes the very essence of the "old order", in the cultural sphere - the dominance of the rationalistic philosophy of "natural law", hostile to all state and public relations", from which this very “old order” was formed. However, even half a century before the revolution, political absolutism entered into a struggle with social privileges, which, in turn, aroused conservative opposition from representatives of class privileges against state power. The very beginning of the revolution in France is explained the combined opposition of two oppositions - the conservative, which defended the old social system, and the progressive, which sought social reorganization. The victory of the revolution over the "old order" in France testifies not only to the strength that new ideas received in society, but also to the disorder in which the entire historically established system of political and social relations was located. Likewise, the victory of revolutionary France over Europe, which had taken up arms to defend its old state and social system, testifies to the internal disintegration of this system and outside France. The revolution in France and the international struggle caused by it accelerated or prepared the fall of the “old order” in other states, while at the same time assisting in the awakening of new social forces, the aspirations of which were formulated under the influence of the “principles of 1789.” The latter became, so to speak, the main program of all political movements of the 19th century, since these latter were directed against the “old order,” in the sense of precisely the combination of political absolutism with social privileges (see the revolutions of 1830 and 1848). At the beginning of the 19th century. For Europe, the Napoleonic Empire was, to a certain extent, a continuation of the revolution, with some features of enlightened absolutism (see). When Imperial France was defeated in the struggle against a united Europe, social elements who were in open hostility to the new beginnings of life immediately went on the offensive and undertook one of the most brutal reactions in modern history. It was like a repetition history XVI c., when the emergence of the reformation movement, after some time, was followed by a Catholic reaction. The fact is that the F. revolution made a very significant change in the formerly rather strained relations between state power and the privileged classes: the revolution, directed equally against absolutism and against privileges, brought closer together, in the interests of protecting the “old order”, both political , and its social representatives. The conservative opposition of the privileged classes of society, which had in the 18th century. enlightened absolutism against itself, turned into the beginning of the 19th century. into a reaction that did one thing with absolutism. In the 19th century The fight against this reaction was waged by political parties known under the names of liberals (q.v.) and radicals (q.v.) and who were, in essence, continuers of certain traditions of the French revolution. Thus, the latter is the starting point of the entire modern political movement aimed at the introduction of representative institutions. At the same time, the F. revolution, having stirred up the masses, became the starting point of the entire new social movement. The abolition of class and the legal equalization of all citizens of the state only exposed, so to speak, the economic basis of social classes, and classless citizenship began - of course, and under the influence of changes in the economic life(cm. Economic revolution) - the rapid development of the social opposition between the bourgeoisie and the people in the sense of the totality of the working classes of society (see. Social issue and Socialism). National movements of the 19th century. F. also have revolution as their starting point. "Principles of 1789" sanctioned not only individual and social self-determination, but also national self-determination; the democratic idea of democracy created from the nation a collective individuality that had the right to freedom and independence; new social orders awakened the self-awareness of the masses. Finally, the very events that arose from the F. revolution contributed to the development of the same phenomenon. The victories of France during the era of the revolution and under Napoleon were accompanied by the spread to other nations of many of the principles of the revolution of 1789, which contributed to the development of national self-awareness in them; on the other hand, affecting the sense of national independence, F.'s dominance in neighboring countries aroused in their populations a desire for unification and freedom (Germany and Italy). II. The main reasons for the F. revolution. The F. Revolution was an event too comprehensive and complex for historians to immediately understand its causes. For a long time, the general consciousness was dominated by the view that the revolution of 1789, with all its consequences, was generated by artificial stimulation of minds, under the influence of the propaganda of new political and social teachings. Both opponents and defenders of the revolution traced its origins to the educational philosophy of the 18th century. Along with this, however, the consciousness developed that the roots of the revolution lay not only in the public mood, but also in the very structure of society and the state. Since the reason for convening the States General was the financial difficulties of the government, they were for a long time ready to see in them almost a decisive moment in the history of the revolution. A more scientific analysis showed that financial difficulties were only a symptom of a general disorder of affairs, expressed in the economic impoverishment of the population, and that the catastrophe was caused not only by the contradiction of the new ideas of freedom and equality with the orders of the absolute monarchy and class system, but also by the decomposition of these orders, which made it difficult for normal course of life. France at the end of the 18th century. needed radical reforms, but the government did not rise to the occasion of its task, and when circumstances became even more difficult, a violent coup took place, in which all social classes and groups dissatisfied with their situation took part: peasants and craft workers, manufacturers and merchants, the lower clergy and representatives of liberal professions, that is, equally the people, the bourgeoisie, the mass of the population, and the intelligent minority. No matter how the interests of these classes and groups sometimes diverged from each other in various respects, they were brought together by dissatisfaction with the socio-political system, which brought benefits only to a small number of “privileged”. But the latter were not happy with everything in the social situation around them, and with their opposition to the government, every time it affected their interests, they undermined the existing order of things. The best answer to the question about the causes of the French revolution can be an image of the state of France before 1789. In terms of its state structure in the 18th century. France was an absolute monarchy, based on bureaucratic centralization and a standing army; nevertheless, there was a kind of alliance between the royal power, which was completely independent of the ruling classes, and the privileged classes. For the refusal of the clergy and nobility from political rights, state power protected the social privileges of these two classes with all its strength and all the means at its disposal. The power of the French kings in the 18th century. had a twofold character: on the one hand, the king was the living embodiment of the state, the unlimited ruler of the country and everything that was in it, and therefore stood above all classes and estates, as if serving only the general interests of the state (very often, however, mixed with the interests dynasty or treasury); on the other hand, he was the “first nobleman of the kingdom”, as a descendant of the feudal overlords of France, who were only “first among equals” - as a result of which the interests of the privileged classes, which originated from the feudal regime, were not only closer to the kings, but were also protected in their eyes, by the same historical right on which the very power of the dynasty was based. This duality of royal power did not correspond to the victory of the state principle over the feudal principle in the political life of the country; sooner or later the feudal tradition had to give way to a view arising from new social relations. The tenacity with which the kings of the 18th century, always surrounded by the court, who knew no other society other than the court, and who, as it were, themselves had turned into the “first courtiers,” defended antiquity, prepared an inevitable conflict between them and the new social classes that wanted from the state a different attitude towards yourself. True, for the time being, the industrial bourgeoisie put up with royal absolutism, in whose interests the government also did a lot, taking great care of “national wealth,” that is, the development of manufacturing and trade (see Mercantilism). It was the balance, to a certain extent established between the opposing interests of the feudal nobility and the capitalist bourgeoisie, that allowed the kings to remain masters of the situation. At the same time, however, it proved more and more difficult to satisfy the desires and demands of both classes, which in their mutual struggle sought support from royal power. On the other hand, both feudal and capitalist exploitation increasingly armed the popular masses against themselves, whose most legitimate interests were completely ignored by the state. In the end, the position of royal power in France became extremely difficult: whenever it defended old privileges, it met with liberal opposition, which became more and more stronger - and whenever new interests were satisfied, conservative opposition arose, became more and more sharp. The body of the liberal opposition was literature, the stronghold of the conservative opposition was parliaments, which in every possible way interfered with reforms in the spirit of the times. Under such circumstances, at the head of the board there would have to be people with a particularly clear understanding of their task and with a will strong enough to carry out decisions recognized as correct; but just at this time the cynically carefree Louis XV and the characterless Louis XVI, who was always under the influence of the court environment, reigned in France. At the beginning of the reign of Louis XVI, Turgot took up the cause of state transformation, thinking that if he were given “five years of despotism,” he would “make France happy”; but he was very quickly overthrown by the conservative opposition of parliaments and the court, the clergy and nobility, financiers and grain dealers, just as the same opposition overthrew another minister, Necker, who also did not fully correspond to the desires and aspirations of the conservative elements of society. It is curious that in the seventies and eighties of the 18th century. parliaments that opposed the government in the name of conservative elements also found sympathy in the progressive sections of society, who welcomed this opposition as a protest against government despotism. Royal absolutism increasingly lost credit in the eyes of the clergy, nobility and bourgeoisie, among whom the idea was asserted that absolute royal power was a usurpation in relation to the rights of estates and corporations (Montesquieu's point of view) or in relation to the rights of the people (Rousseau's point of view; about Rousseau’s influence on the French revolution, see the corresponding article). In a word, the old royal power of France showed itself incapable of leading the country onto a new path, and the idea became popular in society that in general the royal power should have been only an executive body. The whole question was only whose will it would carry out: the privileged dreamed of returning to the times of the class monarchy (see), the bourgeoisie dreamed of founding a people's monarchy. The recognition by the royal power of its powerlessness in the face of the task of general reform of the state was expressed in the convening of class representation, which had not met for 175 years (1614-1789), and before which the government appeared without any program. When it was discovered that new aspirations had triumphed in the assembly, the royal power sharply took the side of the conservative elements, which made the founding of a constitutional monarchy impossible. The revolution of 1789 was not only a victory of the “nation” over royal absolutism, but also a struggle between the separate social classes that made up the nation. In 1789, the population of France was officially divided into three estates (ordres): the clergy, the nobility and the third estate (tiers état). In essence, this division did not completely coincide with actual relations. In the first estate there was a huge difference between the higher and lower clergy; the higher clergy, whose members were, moreover, mostly from the nobility, and the nobility merged into one aristocratic class of privileged (privilegiés), while the lower clergy gravitated, on the contrary, to the third estate. There was a deep gulf between this class of privileged and the rest of the population: the persons of the third estate were roturiers for the “nobles” (roturiers = “arable workers”); it was a taxable class (tailables), and in it there were many people subject (justiciables) to the clergy and nobility (these were the peasants, subject to the seigneurial court), their “vassals” and even “subjects” (sujets, as serfs were designated). On the other hand, the third estate was divided into the bourgeoisie and the people, and the bourgeoisie (urban and rural) included not only representatives of industry, trade and money capital or landowners and rural owners (tenants), but also people of liberal professions who made up the country’s unprivileged intelligentsia - scientists, writers, lawyers, doctors, judges, officials, etc. Between the urban population, free from any feudal power, and the rural people, who were still subject to many remnants of feudalism, there was also a difference in social conditions. The clergy enjoyed special privileges. It alone retained the right of political meetings, at which it voted its “voluntary gift” (don gratuit), which replaced all taxes for it, and made complaints (doléances) to the king. It was considered the first estate of the state and, constituting a kind of single corporation (corps), owned large estates and received seigneurial dues, like the nobility; his lands accounted for almost a quarter of all landed property and generated an income of about 125 million livres per year, and a little less (100 million) gave feudal rights. In addition, the clergy collected almost 125 million in the form of tithes (dîme) from all lands. It also had its own special treasury (caisse du clergé), which was enriched by various kinds of operations and lent money to the king himself. These huge incomes went mainly to the highest clergy and monasteries, many of which became a kind of noble (female) hostels or simply income items for secular abbots from the nobility. The bishoprics themselves were distributed before the revolution mainly to the court nobility, with the exception of some three or four “lackey dioceses” (évêchés de laquais) with small incomes, which were ceded to the roturiers. The parish, especially rural, clergy, on the contrary, were in a sad economic state. There were also two classes in the nobility: the highest court and service (noblesse de robe) nobility was very rich, and the court nobility enriched itself directly from royal favors, receiving various monetary gifts, pensions, subsidies, etc., which absorbed (along with court luxury ) huge sums of money (which, however, did not stop the nobles from owing). On the contrary, the lower rural nobility were mostly ruined. Political role in the 18th century. the nobility did not play, and its local influence was insignificant. Large landowners did not live on their estates; They came to their family castles rather as summer residents. In addition to this “absenteeism,” the reason for the weakening of the local importance of the nobles was the general decline local government , due to which administrative guardianship developed. The intendant usually looked at the lord of a village only as its first inhabitant (premier habitant). But the privileges of the nobility were great. Like the clergy, they were exempt from most taxes and retained feudal rights, many of which were very profitable. For a nobleman, the period of university study was even shortened. Only nobles could occupy many positions in the church, army, and administration. In the total population of France, which reached 25 million, there were about 270 thousand privileged (130 thousand clergy and 140 thousand nobles). Between the privileged and the people in a closer sense of the word stood the bourgeoisie, which was made up of people of different professions and itself enjoyed certain privileges. Dissatisfied with her position, she tried to climb up the social ladder - she became related to the nobles through marriages (which were misalliances for the nobles, but very profitable), acquired positions that gave nobility, bought the lands of bankrupt nobles, leased feudal rights, etc. Although the bourgeoisie appeared in this era in rural life, nevertheless, the real place of its activity was the city. Since the time of Louis XIV, cities in France have lost self-government, but they still retain many privileges. In those areas where provincial states were preserved, i.e. in the so-called pays d'états, cities alone continued to represent the third estate (while in the states general, villages were also represented from the end of the 15th century), and used their representation for in order to alleviate the burden of taxes on the provinces, dumping them on the villages. The interests of the townspeople and villagers thus diverged sharply; just before the revolution, when it was already decided to assemble the general states, the idea arose of the need, next to the three estates, to represented by them, to establish a "class of peasants". At this time, the idea of the opposition between the bourgeoisie and the people was already being created, which began to supplant all other social differences in the 19th century. The assertion of some previous historians (especially Michelet) that during the revolution there were no There was not the slightest difference between the people and the bourgeoisie: in many ways their interests coincided, but in many respects they diverged.The big bourgeoisie was joined by the small bourgeoisie, which in the villages was represented by owners and farmers who had risen from the peasantry, in the cities - by small traders and guild foremen. As a matter of fact, the third estate had a very variegated class composition. There were, firstly, large financiers, creditors of the state, especially concerned about the state of the treasury, which was threatened with bankruptcy, and creditors of the bankrupt nobles, who did not really want the latter to lose their feudal income. These same large financiers also acted as tax farmers for state taxes (salt, wine, tobacco, etc.), and therefore were not particularly inclined to radical financial reforms. Being intermediaries between the state treasury and the public, who turned their savings into government interest-bearing papers, or between the same treasury and the buyers of products taxed in its favor, they became greatly enriched, but on the other hand, the public also began to become more and more interested in the question of the possibility of state bankruptcy and at the same time understand how little of the money paid by the people goes to actual state needs. The second important class of the third estate consisted of merchants, whose interests suffered from the existence of internal customs and various road, bridge, etc. duties. Among this class were various monopolists who were zealous defenders of the old order, since it protected their privileges; These were especially the various grain dealers. The next category was formed by manufacturers, whom the government patronized in every possible way in the interests of “national wealth,” but at the same time regulated all the details of production, which delayed technical progress. Strengthened under the system of patronage, factory owners began to feel burdened by government tutelage and strive for industrial freedom. Special categories were craft masters (maîtres) and journeymen, who were organized into guilds (see), which at that time had already decomposed and were an instrument of exploitation by the class of masters of the apprentice class. The first stood for the preservation of the workshops; the latter felt in solidarity with non-guild craftsmen who existed outside the cities, that is, not only in villages, but also in suburban freedoms (“suburbs”); these were principled opponents of the guild organization. It was in the suburbs, which were not covered by the guild regulations, that large manufactories were established, which provided income to numerous workers, from among small craftsmen, apprentices or peasants moving to the cities. Many poor people lived in the cities from hand to mouth, forming a huge army of beggars, vagabonds, etc. “a dangerous element of society.” In Paris alone, for every 720 thousand inhabitants there were about 120 thousand people of this kind, i.e. about 1/6 of its total population (future sans-culottes). The last category within the third estate were the peasants, who made up (together with other elements of the third estate in the villages) about 75% of the country's population. In the 18th century Most of the provincial coutumes (see Common Law of France) did not recognize the serfdom of peasants (coutumes franches), and only a few (p. serves or mainmortables) allowed it. The remnants of the servage in the estates of the clergy held on most stubbornly. It is believed that out of the rural population of France, which reached 18 million, about one and a half million were in the state of servage, i.e., a little more than 8%. The position of the servants was not the same: some were in servitude personnelle, that is, they were attached to the land and were personally dependent on their masters, while others were in servitude réelle, that is, they were subject to all the conditions of unfreedom while they continued to live on the hereditary plots lands, but, leaving their lands, they became personally free. Over serfs of both categories, lords continued to enjoy the same rights as in the Middle Ages (see Feudalism). The Kutyums, which determined the personal and property rights of the rural population, very diverse in individual provinces, generally adhered to the old legal norms of feudalism, so that the civil law of France in the 18th century. it was the same as at the end of the Middle Ages. The lands were divided into nobles (nobles), removed from the waist (see), and vile ones (roturières), subordinate to the waist. Noble property was predominantly fiefs, of which there were about 70 thousand in France; of these, three thousand were titled and, as a result, possessed higher and middle justice, limited, however, to the royal courts; the owners of simple fiefs had the right only to lower justice (see). All Roture lands depended on one or another fief, by virtue of the rule: “nulle terre sans seigneur”. This rule existed in most of the Kutyum, and only a few of them recognized opposite rule: "nul seigneur sans titre". All lands in France, except for rare noble and peasant allods, were either fiefs or censives, as roture plots were called. The hereditary owner of the censiva (censitary, chinshevik) could mortgage it, sell it, donate it, etc., but certain rights of the lord always remained over it, which in no case were subject to redemption. The very name of the cenziwa came from the qualification or chinsha (cens), i.e., the quitrent paid to the lord. The latter had the right to return the censorship to himself if the censitary refused to own it; when a census changed its owner by right of inheritance, the new owner recognized his censual dependence by a formal act; the buyer of the census had to present the lord with a bill of sale and pay him a special duty, etc. The monetary qualification was usually small, but the champart associated with it was very heavy, making up a certain share (about a quarter) of the harvest. By virtue of exclusive right hunting, which belonged to the nobility, the owner of the census could not exterminate the game that spoiled his crops; could not cut the grass or reap the bread until the partridge had hatched her chicks; could not kill either the pigeons, which were kept in hundreds by the lords in their castles by virtue of the droit de colombier, or the rabbits that lived in reserved areas of the forest (garennes), although pigeons and rabbits caused great harm to agriculture. By virtue of the rule “nulle terre sans seigneur”, the owners of feuds took away lands that were in the communal use of entire villages - wastelands, pastures, forests, etc. Census and communal relations in the 18th century. Finally, they served as the subject of ruinous trials due to the unfair claims of the lords, the intricacies of feudal law, the corruption and dependence of the lordly courts, etc. The lords only had the right to appoint judges and bailiffs, but they used this right with only their own benefits in mind, that is, they appointed people loyal to them or dependent on them, sometimes their own managers or tax farmers of feudal rights, to these positions. The seigneurs also owned the police in their domains, and, among other things, the right to make orders regarding the time of harvesting grain, grapes, etc. A special category consisted of seigneurial monopolies, known as banalités: there were banal mills, ovens, grinders, which the peasants were obliged to grind their grains, bake their bread, squeeze the juice from their grapes. Various road, bridge, market duties or ransom money were also received in favor of the lords, replacing various in-kind duties (like repairing a castle) or paid for the abolition of banality. New seigneurial rights were established back in the 18th century, which often entailed processes that were ruinous for the peasants. This was the legal position of the peasants. Economically, liberation from serfdom, which began in France at the end of the Middle Ages, was accompanied by the dispossession of freed serfs; but if only a certain part of the peasants owned small property, then the majority of the peasants still consisted of small owners who rented land from large and medium-sized landowners. In the 18th century The rural masses in France were divided into independent owners (laboureurs) and farm laborers (manoeuvres, manovriers), i.e., hired rural workers. Small farming, however, was rarely a cash lease: in the vast majority of cases it was a ladle (métayage), in which the ladle (métayer), receiving the farm (métairie), was obliged to pay its owner half of the product. We can say that this was the most typical attitude of the French peasant to the land in the 18th century. Even then, however, small farms were being replaced by large ones and cash rent in kind was being replaced, which caused complaints from the peasants. In general, this means that the rural masses in France were far from homogeneous. In some respects, the interests of independent owners and agricultural wage workers diverged; in others, the interests of small owners and the interests of farmers and the interests of ladles with the interests of farm laborers came closer. The peasant paid taxes to the state, from which the privileged were exempt: tithes to the clergy; landowning aristocracy - feudal dues, duties, duties; to land owners, whatever their rank, - rent. Almost all of the net income from very small farms went to pay taxes, feudal duties and tithes, and from large farms - half of the income. Many small owners directly “deherped”, that is, they returned their lands to the lords or gave them to tax collectors. Under such orders, agriculture could not flourish: the land was poorly cultivated or was empty; years of famine were repeated very often; there was either not enough bread, or it was very expensive; peasants, cut off from agriculture due to the impossible conditions in which it was placed, rushed to work in the cities, where they often did not find any work, begged, wandered, often robbed or committed riots, the reason for which was usually a lack of bread: they robbed bakeries, grain stores barns, flour transports. There was some kind of terrible inconsistency in the entire agricultural life of France: they constantly complained about the lack of bread, and yet a lot of land that had previously been cultivated was empty; they complained about the lack of labor, and yet did not know how to get rid of various vagabonds and beggars; they complained about beggary, and yet the situation of those who worked on the land was no better: quite often the ladles ate bread and sowed the fields with grain borrowed from the landowner; often every farmer had to buy bread at the market from a dealer (accapareur) or an agent of some grain trading company, if only there was something to buy with and if only there was still bread for sale. The terrible poverty of the rural population of France in the 18th century is evidenced by both official data and literary works, testified by one’s own and others (among the latter, Fonvizin, who visited France in the seventies, and especially the English agronomist Arthur Jung, who left a very valuable description of his travels in France ). The poverty of the vast majority of the country's population, the poor state of agriculture, stagnation in industry and trade, the burden of taxes, the insane spending of the court on luxury, on entertainment, on handouts to courtesans, constant deficits eliminated by unprofitable loans, the stubborn conservatism of the government and the privileged, the arbitrariness of the administrative authorities - all this gave rise to discontent in different layers of society and accumulated flammable material that was always ready to burst into flames. The hungry people began to rebel long before the explosion of the revolution. The privileged themselves, as soon as the reform touched them, took a revolutionary stand and demanded the convening of the States General, short-sightedly believing that the relationships between social forces in 1789 were the same as in 1614. Meanwhile, thanks to the activities of Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau and other writers, of whom the groups of physiocrats and encyclopedists are especially important, a revolution took place even in the minds of the educated part of French society. F. literature of the 18th century. received a sharply oppositional character. The first to feel this was Catholicism, against which the polemics of the deists and encyclopedists were mainly directed. Then came a number of political writers who attacked the old political and social order in the name of ideas of freedom and equality, in the name of “natural law” (mainly Rousseau) and “natural order” (physiocrats), opposed to the historical rights of the monarchy, church, aristocracy and orders established during the "Gothic barbarism". True, among writers of the 18th century. bold conclusions from logical premises were often an “enlightened game of the mind”, without any hope of implementation in life; but the traditional worldview of society was undermined, and a mass of new ideas, inherently hostile to absolutism and feudalism, entered the consciousness of its individual members. The bourgeoisie was especially clearly aware of the harm of the old order and the practical significance of new ideas. At first, she relied on beneficent power, as the force that would destroy the old building and erect a new one (the idea of enlightened absolutism in Voltaire and the physiocrats); but then the bourgeoisie began to understand more and more clearly that it had many common interests with the masses of the people, and that mainly the peasants and the urban “small fry” (le menu peuple) would be able to put an end to the domination of the court and the privileged. Therefore, over time, the bourgeoisie began to become more and more interested in the democratic philosophy of Rousseau, Mabley, Diderot and others. In addition, people of liberal professions, some of the nobility, the parish clergy, and even non-commissioned officers of the royal army listened to this sermon. The North American War of Independence, in which both French volunteers and the government itself took part, seemed to suggest to society that the implementation of new ideas was possible in France. III. General course of events from 1789 to 1799 After a number of unsuccessful attempts to get out of a difficult financial situation, Louis XVI announced in December 1787 that in five years he would convene the French government officials. When Necker became a minister for the second time, he insisted that the States General be convened in 1789. The news of the king's final consent to this measure was received with great joy, and Necker became one of the most popular people in France. Only Mirabeau looked at him with different eyes even then; in a letter to Mauvillon, he spoke of this minister as a person who had “neither the talent that was needed under the circumstances, nor civic courage, nor truly liberal principles.” Around the same time, Malouet said to Necker himself: “You don’t need to wait for the states general to demand or order from you; you need to hasten to offer them everything that can be the object of the desires of right-thinking people, within reasonable limits of both power and nationality.” right." The government, however, had no specific program. Mirabeau projected an alliance of royal power with the people against the privileged; but at court they thought least of all about this, at the same time considering it necessary to make a concession public opinion . Much depended on the composition of the states and the method of casting votes, but even on this important issue the government turned out to be inconsistent and indecisive. Necker ensured that in future states the third estate would have as many representatives as the privileged ones combined. This measure could only make sense under the condition of universal votes, since with class voting the privileged would still have two votes against one; but Necker did not draw a logical conclusion from his principle. Everyone who wanted a real renewal of France spoke in favor of universal voting, and in favor of estate voting - the privileged and parliaments. The government hesitated, even when the states-general were already assembled - and the issue was decided against its will. The Royal Regulations of January 24, 1789, convening the States General on April 27, indicated the purpose of the future meeting was “the establishment of a permanent and unchangeable order in all parts of government relating to the happiness of the subjects and the well-being of the kingdom, the fastest possible healing of the diseases of the state and the elimination of all abuses”; at the same time, the king expressed the desire that “both on the extreme borders of his kingdom, and in the least known villages, everyone would be provided with the opportunity to bring their desires and their complaints to his attention.” The right to vote was given to all Frenchmen who had reached the age of twenty-five, had a permanent place of residence and were included in the tax rolls (the latter restriction excluded a significant number of poor citizens from the right to vote). The elections were two-level (and then sometimes three-level), that is, deputies were elected not by the population itself, but by representatives chosen by it. The best idea of the mood of the French nation at this time is given by the brochure press and the so-called orders. The brochures of 1789 were of a very different direction, but there were immeasurably fewer conservative ones than liberal ones, written in the spirit of the ideas of the 18th century. Thanks to such publications, the ideas of political writers were popularized and propagated in such layers of society where they had not previously penetrated, and were also perceived, in a unique way, by the masses. Some pamphlets were specially devoted to the interests of the common people, to whom they sometimes call the "fourth estate"; but mainly they expressed the views and aspirations of the middle classes of society, that is, people of liberal professions and the bourgeoisie, who defended the principles of individual and political freedom, civil equality, democracy, who smashed despotism, privileges, feudal rights, serfdom, etc. p. One of the most popular brochures was the brochure of Abbot Sieyès: “What is the third estate?”, which contained three questions and three answers: “What is the third estate? - Everything.” - What has it been until now? - Nothing. - What does it want to be? - Something." The elections to the Estates General were generally quite calm, and the nation took them very seriously. The direction of the elections was given by people who wanted reforms and expected from the states a complete reorganization of France. An educated and liberal minority became the head of the movement and introduced into the mandates - in which the population expressed their needs, their complaints, their desires - a lot of new ideas borrowed from the political press; Sometimes in the order of some abandoned village we find references to the separation of powers or to the responsibility of ministers. All 1200 deputies were supposed to be chosen (300+300+600), but slightly fewer were chosen. Among the clergy, parish priests predominated (more than 200); Among the third estate, a fairly significant group (also more than 200) were lawyers. The Third Estate also chose several (one and a half dozen) clergy and nobles. The orders of 1789, representing an important historical source, contained an entire political program (see). In Mirabeau's opinion, a solemn promise of reform by the king would immediately reassure the people; but he was afraid that the government “will not give voluntarily today what will be taken from him by force tomorrow.” Reforms, Mirabeau thought, must be extensive and radical; a violent revolution can push society back. Mirabeau saw the main obstacle to reform in what he called “the terrible disease of the old government - never making any concessions, as if in anticipation of being wrested from it by force what it should have given”; He saw another obstacle in the opposition of the privileged. The Estates General opened at Versailles on May 5, 1789, but the first weeks were spent in wrangling between the privileged and the third estate about the method of deliberations: the first two states did not want to submit to the third estate, which demanded joint sessions. Finally, on June 17, the Third Estate made an important decision, declaring itself a national assembly, as representatives of 96% of the nation (see National Assembly for a more detailed account of the events of the first two years of the revolution). This decree turned the medieval class states general into a classless one. national assembly . The said decision was soon joined by parish priests and some nobles; but the court was extremely dissatisfied with him, and the king ordered the meeting room of the national assembly to be closed. Then the deputies gathered in the ball arena (Jeu de paume) and swore to each other not to disperse and to gather wherever possible until France received a strong state structure (June 20). Their next meeting took place in the church, since the playpen was locked. On June 23, the court held a royal meeting, in which Louis XVI made a speech ordering the states to henceforth meet separately. When the king left the hall, the deputies of the higher estates left after him, but the third estate continued the meeting. To the demand of one of the courtiers to disperse, Mirabeau responded with the famous words that the deputies had gathered by the will of the nation and they could only be removed by force of bayonets. A few days later the king relented, and almost all the deputies of the two first states joined the national assembly. In essence, however, the court did not think of giving in. Military forces began to gather around Paris and Versailles, which greatly worried both the national assembly and the people. When, in addition, the news arrived in the capital that Necker, who at that time enjoyed enormous popularity, had received his resignation, and that he was even ordered to leave France, an uprising took place in Paris, in which the main role was played by workers starving from unemployment and the high cost of bread. On July 14, crowds plundered the arsenal and gun shops, attacked the Bastille state prison (q.v.) and took possession of it. To stop the robbery that had begun and repulse the royal troops, the Parisian bourgeoisie also armed itself and formed a national guard (see), electing Lafayette, one of the deputies from the nobility, as its chief commander. The National Assembly was saved, and Louis XVI again gave in: he even went to Paris, where he appeared to the people wearing a tricolor national cockade on his hat (red and blue are the colors of the Parisian coat of arms, white is the color of the royal banner). The capture of the Bastille (which was immediately destroyed) made a strong impression not only throughout France, but also beyond its borders, among other things, in Russia, as F.’s envoy to the court of Catherine II reported. In England there were public celebrations to mark the event; The University of Cambridge has announced the Fall of the Bastille as a competition topic for students. In Italy Alfieri and in Germany Ebeling wrote odes in honor of French heroes. Among the people who welcomed the new France (and even sometimes deliberately came to it to “breathe the air of freedom”) were many celebrities: Kant, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Klopstock, Herder, Wordsworth, etc. Only the later extremes of the revolution began to cause a different attitude her attitude, but at the same time, people who at first, like Goethe, did not attach serious importance to French events, realized their full importance not only for France. As for the European governments, they did not immediately understand the nature of the events that began in France and initially looked at them not from a principled, but from a utilitarian point of view: each individual government had in mind exclusively its own political interests, from the point of view of which the internal confusion that occurred in France and those who weakened it could even seem beneficial. In France itself, the storming of the Bastille served as a signal for a number of uprisings in the provinces. Peasants were especially worried, refusing to pay feudal duties, church tithes and state taxes. They attacked castles, destroyed them and burned them, and several nobles or their stewards were killed. When alarming news began to arrive at Versailles about what was happening in the provinces, two liberal nobles introduced to the assembly a proposal to abolish feudal rights, some free of charge, others by ransom. Then the famous night meeting took place on August 4 (see), in which deputies of the upper classes began to vied with each other to renounce their privileges, and the meeting adopted decrees that abolished class advantages, feudal rights, serfdom, church tithes, the privileges of individual provinces, cities and corporations and declaring the equality of all before the law in the payment of state taxes and the right to occupy civil, military and church positions. On the other hand, popular unrest caused the emigration (see) of defenders of antiquity from France. An example was set by the Count d'Artois (the king's brother), the princes of Condé, Conti and Polignac, Calonne and others, who advised a counter-revolution. Whether the reason for this emigration was fear or hatred of the new order, in any case, the emigrants left their homeland as a dissatisfied political party, which immediately began to look for allies in the small German courts to restore the old order in their homeland. The defiant tone of the emigrants, their threats to the “rebels,” their alliance with foreigners supported and increased anxiety among the people; both the court and all those who remained began to suspect complicity with the emigrants in France, nobles. Responsibility for much of what subsequently happened in France therefore falls on the emigrants. Meanwhile, the national assembly took up the new structure of France. A few days before the destruction of the Bastille, it adopted the name of constituent (Assemblée nationale constituante), officially recognizing for itself the right to give the state new institutions. The first task of the meeting was to draw up a declaration of human and citizen rights (see), which was required by many orders and brochures. The court still did not want to make concessions and did not lose hope for a military coup. Although Louis XVI, after July 14, promised not to gather troops to Paris, nevertheless, new regiments began to arrive at Versailles. At one officers' banquet, in the presence of the king and his family, the military tore off their tricolor cockades and trampled them under their feet, and the ladies of the court handed them cockades made of white ribbons. This caused the second Parisian uprising and a march of a crowd of one hundred thousand, in which there were especially many women, to Versailles: it burst into the palace, demanding the king's move to Paris (October 5-6). Louis XVI was forced to fulfill this demand, and after the king and the national assembly moved to Paris, they moved their meetings there, which, as it later turned out, limited his freedom: the extremely excited population more than once dictated its will to representatives of the entire nation. Another force arose next to the national assembly. In the capital, which in such a centralized country as France enjoyed almost unlimited influence over the provinces, political clubs were formed (q.v.), which also discussed the issue of the future structure of France. One of these clubs, called the Jacobin club (see Jacobins), began to play a particularly influential role, because it had many very popular deputies and many of its members enjoyed authority among the population of Paris. Subsequently, he began to open his branches in all the main cities of France. Extreme opinions began to dominate in the clubs, and they also took over the political press. The brochure, as an organ of political propaganda, has now been replaced by the periodical press. In 1789 a mass of newspapers appeared in France; some of them were a huge success, for example, "Les Révolutions de Paris" by Loustalot (200 thousand copies), "L" Orateur du peuple" by Freron, "Les Révolutions de France et de Brabant" by Camille Demoulin, "Point du jour" by Barrera, " Ami du peuple" by Marat, "Père Duchêne" by Geber and others. The court also had its own organs that attacked the leaders of the revolution ("Journal de la Cour et de la Ville", "Journal des Halles", "Ami du roi", "Actes des apôtres"), In a society brought up in the strictures of the old regime, there was neither the ability to use freedom nor respect for the freedom of others' opinions; therefore, the revolutionary press greatly contributed to the continuation of the general anarchy caused by the disintegration of the old order, popular disasters, alarming rumors, attempts at counter-revolution . The most ardent leaflets added fuel to the fire, reflecting the general ferment, catching rumors circulating in society, casting a shadow of suspicion of unreliability on their political opponents, making direct accusations against individuals and entire categories of citizens and the most rude? preaching violence in harsh terms. Newspapers that received subsidies from the court sometimes did exactly the same thing. Often attempts were made to silence the enemy, at least through violence; publishers and editors were insulted, their newspapers indulged in solemn auto-da-fe in front of the doors of some cafe in which their political opponents gathered. In the national assembly itself, not only were there no organized parties, but it even seemed shameful to belong to any “faction” (see). Nevertheless, several different political trends emerged in the assembly: some (the higher clergy and nobility) still dreamed of preserving the old order; others (Mounier, Lalli-Tollendal, Clermont-Tonnerre) considered it necessary to provide the king with only executive power and, preserving the primacy of the clergy and nobility, to divide the national assembly into an upper and lower house; still others imagined a future constitution with nothing other than one chamber (Mirabeau, Sieyès, Bailly, Lafayette); further, there were figures who wanted to give greater influence to the Parisian population and clubs (Duport, Barnave, the Lamet brothers), and future figures of the republic were already emerging (Robespierre, Grégoire, Pétion, Buzot), who, however, remained monarchists at that time. Mirabeau still understood the general state of affairs more clearly than others. The first speaker in the national assembly, he at times enjoyed enormous influence over it, but his idea of the need to combine political freedom and strong government power was shattered by the distrust that greeted his plans both in the assembly and at court. The general excitement that dominated the capital and the country in 1789 and the following year did not lose its cheerful, joyful character. Back in the autumn of 1789 in different places countries began to organize festivities in honor of freedom, but a particularly grandiose spectacle was the federation celebration on the Champ de Mars in Paris, on the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille (July 14, 1790). The celebration was attended by the king, the national assembly, national guards from all over France and hundreds of thousands of people. This mood began to change by 1791, when fears arose in the nation about the fate of the changes that had taken place in its life. Most of all, they began to fear the machinations of emigrants at foreign courts, especially since the enemies of the new order of things even began to organize troops in the border regions of Germany. Misunderstandings and clashes with foreign powers also arose. Some German princes who owned lands in Alsace, Lorraine and Franche-Comté suffered from the destruction of feudal rights, and this caused displeasure on the part of the empire. In Avignon, which belonged to the pope, papal officials were driven out, and the city became part of France, which extremely irritated the pope. Austria was unhappy that the French supported the Belgian uprising, which Joseph II caused by his measures. Among the French, the idea grew stronger and stronger that the revolution should not be limited to their homeland alone, but should spread to the entire human race. However, in 1791 in France they were not yet seriously thinking about attacking neighboring countries, but were rather afraid of a foreign invasion. In the first years of the revolution, Austria, Prussia and Russia were, however, occupied with Polish affairs; in addition, Austria and Russia were at war with Turkey, Russia was at war with Sweden, Austria had to pacify Belgium and Hungary. While Mirabeau was alive, he strongly advised Louis XVI to take the side of the emigrants and call upon the military forces of foreign powers for help. After his death (2 April 1791), Louis XVI and his family, in June 1791, secretly left Paris, heading towards the eastern border of the kingdom, where a large army was stationed and from where, with the help of Emperor Leopold II, brother of Queen Marie Antoinette , it was supposed to begin the restoration of the old order. This escape attempt ended in failure; the king, detained on the road (in Varenna), was immediately returned to Paris. The National Assembly took him into custody and removed him from power pending his adoption new constitution. Work on the constitution was coming to an end at this time. The flight of Louis XVI served as a weapon for the party that sought the greatest possible reduction of royal rights. There was even agitation in Paris demanding the deposition of Louis XVI; In this sense, a petition was drawn up to the national assembly and put up for the signature of the people on the Champ de Mars, on the “altar of the fatherland” left after the second celebration of the federation (July 14, 1791). The mayor of Paris (Bailly) and Lafayette with the national guard came to the scene to prevent this enterprise. Stones were thrown at them from the crowd of people gathered; National Guard responded with rifle shots, and the steps of the “altar of the fatherland” were stained with the blood of the killed and wounded (July 17). Around the same time, republican thoughts began to be expressed in the Jacobin club, and the constitutional-monarchical club of Feuillants separated from it (see). The flight and captivity of Louis XVI prompted Leopold II to propose to other sovereigns to agree among themselves on common actions in favor of the king; in this sense, a manifesto was drawn up, signed by Leopold II and the Prussian king Frederick William II (these sovereigns gathered in Pillnitz, where the Princes also came to meet with them). This only worsened the situation for Louis XVI, who was now directly accused of conspiring with foreigners against the fatherland. Under such and such circumstances, the constituent assembly completed its work. The new constitution was presented to Louis XVI, who could either accept it or lose his crown. He chose to do the former and swore allegiance to the constitution (September 14, 1791); then he was released from custody. Louis XVI, however, made it known abroad that his consent was forced. The constitution did not promise longevity and the decision of the members of the constituent assembly to renounce the right to be elected to the legislative assembly, which was supposed to begin its activities on the basis of the constitution of 1791. The members of the constituent assembly mistakenly thought that long-term stay in the representative office was contrary to the equality of citizens; They did not foresee that exclusively new people in the new assembly would not have sufficient experience and would not value a work that was not created by them. In just over two years, the constituent assembly accomplished a tremendous job of reorganizing the entire state and social life of France. In its dislike for the old order, it tried to destroy all remnants of antiquity, without too much understanding of what was absolutely bad and what could be improved. The possibility of mistakes in such a complex matter increased because the figures who took on the task of rebuilding France were, by the entire previous state of the public, poorly prepared for practical work and were too swayed by abstract theories, unable to cope with the existing conditions of reality. In general, the work of the constituent assembly is an attempt to restructure the state and society based on the principles of the philosophy of natural law, on the principles of freedom and equality. This is precisely the enormous significance of the activities of the constituent assembly in the history of more than one France, since “the principles of 1789 " became widespread outside this country. The constitution of 1791 developed by the assembly (see) was based on the ideas of democracy, but representative and with separation of powers. Considering the king as a representative of the nation, it based all other authorities on popular election. However, political rights were enjoyed only by "active" citizens who paid a direct tax in the amount of three days' wages, which introduced inequality into the constitution that contradicted the declaration of rights. The king, vested with executive power, could act only through ministers responsible to the assembly, who could not be elected from among the members assembly. In essence, however, the king and the ministers appointed by him were deprived of the opportunity to govern the country, because they did not have officials dependent solely on them. The Constituent Assembly divided the country into 83 departments (divided into districts); the entire administration, both municipal and District and departmental, due to the idea of popular supremacy, should have been entirely elective, which made it independent of the central government. Under the old order, France was not accustomed to self-government even in matters of a local nature, and now state affairs were given into the hands of elected bodies of local self-government. Members of departmental tribunals and justices of the peace were also elected. The same principle of democracy was also the basis of the so-called civil structure of the clergy (see). The publication of this law was preceded by a change in general situation clergy. His class privileges were abolished, as was the tithe. The lands of the church were selected for the treasury and, together with the royal domains, constituted national property (see), with which the state debt was secured. It was decided to provide the clergy with a government salary, on an equal basis with officials. Priests were to be chosen by active citizens, bishops by the same electors who elected deputies to the legislative assembly, departmental administration and tribunal judges. The civil structure of the clergy was a big mistake of the constituent assembly. Almost all of the parish clergy at first were on the side of the meeting and did not complain about the confiscation of church property and the abolition of tithes, since they were mainly used only by the highest clergy. The new structure of the church already affected the religious beliefs of the clergy; the majority (two thirds) refused to recognize him, and in many cases the flock began to follow the example of the shepherds. This caused a religious split and sent government officials on the path of persecution against people who did not want to submit to religious innovations. Particularly important in the legislation of the constituent assembly were the transformations resulting from the decrees of August 4, that is, from the abolition of class and provincial privileges, feudal rights and serfdom. The Constituent Assembly replaced the previous class system of society with civil equality and abolished the unfreedom of peasant land ownership, freeing peasant lands from feudal duties. All were equally to be called citizens; the title of nobility, with all aristocratic titles and coats of arms, was destroyed. The laws of 1790 on the redemption of feudal rights were drawn up very poorly and caused new irritation in the villages. Three years later, these rights were destroyed free of charge, as a punishment for the nobles for emigrating. The fall of class privileges and feudal rights was a profound and lasting change brought about in France by the revolution. All religions were equal in rights. Workshops were also cancelled; freedom of industry and labor was declared, with a ban on establishing any new corporations. In general, the social legislation of the constituent assembly was strongly influenced by the teachings of the physiocrats. In general, the revolution of 1789 had a democratic character, but the bourgeoisie played the main role in it and received the main benefits from it. The division of citizens into active and passive excluded about a third of adult French people from participating in the enjoyment of political rights, which the poorest part of the nation could not be happy with. In order to participate in departmental meetings, due to the qualification conditions, one had to already be a very wealthy person. The bourgeoisie also won because it now became the leading social class and enriched itself by purchasing church estates, which the constituent assembly decided to sell to cover the state debt. The revolution did not end, however, with the introduction of the constitution of 1791. The unsatisfactory economic condition of the people, which was a legacy of the previous system, continued to serve as a source of unrest; but the main reasons for further unrest lay in alarming rumors about the plans of the court, about the machinations of emigrants, about the plans of foreign powers, and in the dissatisfaction of part of the nation with both the exclusion of the poorest citizens from the enjoyment of political rights, and the difficult conditions for the redemption of feudal rights and the interference of the authorities in religious life. The anxious mood and irritation of the people ensured the success of the Jacobins, who had a strong organization throughout the country and were distinguished by great party discipline. They found that the revolution was not yet over, and sought to implement Rousseau’s fully political teachings. Immediately after the constituent assembly ceased to function, its place was taken by legislature (see), in which new and inexperienced people were selected. The right side of the meeting room was occupied by constitutional monarchists (Feuillants); people without sharply defined views took middle places; the left side consisted of two parties - the Girondins (q.v.) and the Montagnards (q.v.). The first of these two parties consisted of very capable people and included several brilliant speakers; its most prominent representatives were Vergniaud, Brissot and Condorcet. The Girondins were challenged for influence over the assembly and the people by the Montagnards, whose main strength was in the Jacobin and other clubs. The most influential members of this party were people who were not part of the assembly: the power-hungry and extremely one-sided Robespierre, the remarkably talented but at the same time immoral Danton, the frantic Marat, who received the nickname “Friend of the People” (he published a newspaper under this name). The rivalry between the Girondins and Jacobins began in the very first months of the legislative assembly and became one of the main facts in the history of the French revolution. The Constituent Assembly left a legacy to the legislature of the struggle against the most stubborn enemies of the revolution - with emigrants who were plotting against France abroad, and with clergy who did not want to recognize the church reforms of the Constituent Assembly (priests who had not sworn allegiance). The Legislative Assembly decided to confiscate the property of emigrants, and punish disobedient priests with deprivation of civil rights, deportation, and even prison. Louis XVI did not want to approve the decrees of the assembly on emigrants and unsworn clergy, but this only aroused extreme displeasure among the people against himself. The king was increasingly suspected of secret relations with foreign courts. The Girondins, in the assembly, in clubs, and in the press, argued for the need to respond to the defiant behavior of foreign governments with a “war of peoples against kings” and accused ministers of treason. Louis XVI resigned the ministry and appointed a new one from like-minded people of the Gironde. In the spring of 1792, the new ministry insisted on declaring war on Austria, where at that time Franz II (1792-1835) already reigned; Prussia also entered into an alliance with Austria; this was the beginning of the revolutionary wars (see), which had a great influence on the history of all of Europe. Soon, however, Louis XVI resigned the ministry, which caused a popular uprising in Paris (June 20); Crowds of insurgents took possession of the royal palace and, surrounding Louis XVI, demanded that he approve the decrees on emigrants and priests and the return of the Girondin ministers. When the commander-in-chief of the allied Austro-Prussian army, the Duke of Brunswick, issued a manifesto in which he threatened the French with executions, the burning of houses, and the destruction of Paris, a new uprising broke out in the capital on August 10, accompanied by the beating of the guards who guarded the royal palace. Louis XVI and his family found a safe haven in the legislative assembly, but the latter, in his presence, decided to remove him from power and take him into custody, and to convene an emergency meeting called a national convention to decide the question of the future structure of France. The legislative assembly entrusted executive power to a new ministry, in which the post of Minister of Justice went to Danton, who was one of the organizers of the uprising on August 10. France was going through a very troubling time. A foreign invasion began, and meanwhile F.’s army turned out to be worthless, its commanders unreliable. After August 10, Lafayette, who commanded one of the armies, wanted to march on Paris to suppress the rebellion, but the soldiers did not listen to him, and he fled to Germany. In Paris they talked only about conspiracies and betrayals; the irritation of the people has crossed all boundaries. The city was in the power of the commune (see) - a new community council that seized the town hall on the night of August 10. Danton obtained permission from the legislative assembly to search the relatives of emigrants, unsworn priests and other “suspects”. Agents of the new authorities and their most zealous supporters began to seize everyone who seemed suspicious, and when the prisons became overcrowded, arrested men and women, old people and even children began to simply be beaten: drunken gangs of murderers, formed from the so-called scum of society, burst into places of detention. and carried out their savage massacre here for three days, in early September (September murders). The elections to the convention were carried out under the influence of these horrors and unfavorable news from the eastern border, through which the Austro-Prussian army entered France. The foreign invasion caused a violent outburst of patriotism in the F. nation. Crowds of volunteers came to replenish the army. At the same time that the national convention opened its meetings in Paris, on September 21, 1792, Dumouriez repelled the Prussian attack at Valmy (September 20). The French went on the offensive and even began to make conquests (Belgium, the left bank of the Rhine and Savoy with Nice at the end of 1792). IN national convention (see) the Girondins already occupied the right side; the left entirely consisted of Jacobin-Montagnards, and the center (“plain”) - of indecisive people who wavered between the two extreme parties. Both the Girondins and the Jacobins were democrats and republicans, admirers of Rousseau and the idealized republics of classical antiquity, but at the same time they differed from each other on very important points. The Girondins were ardent defenders of individual freedom and feared the omnipotence of the state, even in republican form; at the same time, they did not sympathize with the violence of the masses at all. Therefore, they entered into a fight with the new city council and with Danton, who were accused of the September massacre. On the contrary, the Montagnards stood for a policy of intimidation (“terror”), for the direct action of the popular masses against all dissenting thinkers, for arming state power with the most unlimited powers and for suppressing the desire for personal freedom. In essence, the Jacobins resumed in the form of a republican dictatorship all the governmental practices of the old monarchy, and even with greater determination and harshness. Their party was well organized and disciplined, while the Girondins often acted in disarray. Moreover, the F. nation itself, with its entire past, was more prepared for obedience to force than for the use of freedom. The first act of the convention was to declare France a republic. Following this, the Girondins raised the question of a trial of the king. The Jacobins firmly grasped this idea; Robespierre directly stated that this was not a matter of court, but of a political measure, and that “Louis must die in order for the republic to live.” This frank statement frightened the Girondins. They came up with a means to save the king by proposing to submit the verdict of the convention to the approval of the people; but this is precisely what the Jacobins were afraid of. A process began during which Louis XVI behaved with great dignity. The Girondists did not have enough civic courage to save him from execution. By an overwhelming majority of votes, “Louis Capet” was found guilty of conspiracy against the freedom of the nation and against the general security of the state; The appeal to the people was also rejected by a significant majority (by the way, also by the votes of many Girondins), but only a small majority spoke in favor of the death penalty for Louis XVI. The sentence was carried out on January 21, 1793. This event made a terrible impression throughout Europe. A huge coalition was formed against the revolution, which set as its goal the restoration of F. monarchy and the old order. At the very time when France was threatened with a new invasion of foreigners and the nation was ready to rise as one man against external enemies, a struggle was going on inside between the Girondins and the Montagnards. The system of intimidation, or terror (see), received more and more development; the Girondins wanted to put an end to it, but the Montagnards sought to strengthen it, relying on the Jacobin club and the lower strata of the Parisian population (the so-called sans-culottes). The Montagnards were only looking for a reason to reprisal the Girondins. In the spring of 1793, Dumouriez fled abroad with the son of the Duke of Orleans ("Philippe Egalite"), whom he wanted, with the help of troops, to place on the French throne. This was blamed on the Girondins, since Dumouriez was considered their general. The external danger was complicated by internal strife: that same spring, a large popular uprising led by priests and nobles broke out against the convention in Vendee and Brittany (northwestern corner of France). To save the fatherland, the convention ordered the recruitment of three hundred thousand people and gave the system of terror an entire organization. Executive power, with the most unlimited powers, was entrusted to the Committee of Public Safety, which sent its commissioners from among the members of the convention to the provinces (see Terror). The main instrument of terror became the revolutionary court, which decided cases quickly and without formalities and sentenced people to death by guillotine, often on the basis of suspicion alone. At the instigation of the Montagnard party, at the end of May and beginning of June, crowds of people twice broke into the convention and demanded that the Girondins be expelled as traitors and brought before a revolutionary court. The Convention yielded to this demand and expelled the most prominent Girondins. Some of them fled from Paris, others were arrested and tried by the revolutionary court. The terror intensified even more when a fan of the Girondins, a young girl, Charlotte Corday, killed Marat, who was distinguished by the greatest bloodthirstiness, with a dagger, and uprisings broke out in Normandy and some large cities (Bordeaux, Lyon, Marseille, Toulon), in which the fleeing Girondins also took part. This gave rise to accusing the Girondins of federalism (q.v.), that is, of striving to split France into several union republics, which would be especially dangerous in view of a foreign invasion. The Jacobins, therefore, vigorously advocated a tightly centralized "single and indivisible republic." After the fall of the Girondins, many of whom were executed and some committed suicide, the Jacobin terrorists, led by Robespierre, became masters of the situation. France was governed by the Committee of Public Safety, which controlled the state police (committee of general security) and the convention commissioners in the provinces, who everywhere organized revolutionary committees from the Jacobins. Shortly before their fall, the Girondins drafted a new constitution (see); The Jacobins remade it into the constitution of 1793 (q.v.), which was adopted by popular vote by 1,801,918 votes to 11,610; the dominant party decided, however, not to introduce it until all the enemies of the republic were eliminated. By decree of December 10, 1793, the provisional government of France was declared “revolutionary until peace was concluded.” The Jacobins relied mainly on small artisans and workers in the capital, in whose favor the convention passed a law on maximum prices for products, threatening to charge anyone with a state crime who would sell products at a higher price or not allow them to enter the market at all. The convention suppressed the uprisings in the provinces with terrible energy and speed. During the siege of Toulon, which surrendered to the British, the young artillery lieutenant Napoleon Bonaparte especially distinguished himself. During the pacification of uprisings and conspiracies, often imaginary, terrible cruelties were committed (see Terror). The revolutionary court acted non-stop, sentencing to the guillotine every month hundreds of “suspicious” people or those convicted of opposing the convention. In addition to many Girondins, Marie Antoinette, “citizen Egalité”, Malzerbes, once a minister, then the defender of Louis XVI before the convention, the chemist Lavoisier, who was formerly a tax farmer, the poet Andre Chénier and many other famous and outstanding people, died from the guillotine’s axe. During the era of terror, a group hostile to Christianity emerged from the dominant party. In the fall of 1793, she managed to carry out at the convention the replacement of the Christian calendar with a republican calendar (see), in which chronology began with the proclamation of the republic; New names were invented to designate the months. Added to this was the desire to introduce in France, instead of Catholicism, the cult of reason, which was supported by the community council of Paris and which was spread in the provinces by the convention commissioners. Catholic churches began to close; In the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, a holiday was organized in honor of reason, after which similar spectacles began to be organized in other places. Robespierre, who shared Rousseau's deistic views, was against this and made speeches against atheists both at the convention and at the Jacobin club. Danton also rebelled against “religious masquerades,” as he called festivals in honor of reason. Robespierre took measures to ensure that Catholic worship could still be performed, but he fully shared with the followers of the cult of reason, led by Geber, the belief in the necessity of terror. On the contrary, Danton spoke out for an end to terror, finding that even without it France could defend its territory against external enemies and the republic against its internal opponents. For Robespierre, the Hebertists were too extreme, the Dantonists, on the contrary, too moderate, and he led the company against both of them at the convention. In the spring of 1794, first Geber and his followers, then Danton and his supporters were arrested, tried by a revolutionary court and executed. After these executions, Robespierre no longer had rivals who were dangerous to his autocracy. One of his first measures was the establishment in France, by decree of the convention, of the veneration of the Supreme Being, according to the idea of Rousseau's “civil religion”. The new cult was solemnly announced during a ceremony arranged by Robespierre, who played the role of high priest of the “civil religion.” Along with this, there was an intensification of terror: the revolutionary court received the right to try members of the convention itself without the latter’s permission. However, when Robespierre demanded new executions, without naming the names of those against whom he was preparing to accuse, the majority of the terrorists themselves, frightened by this, overthrew Robespierre and his closest assistants. This event is known as the 9th Thermidor (July 27, 1794). The next day, Robespierre was executed, and with him his main supporters (Saint-Just, Couthon, etc.). After the 9th Thermidor, the revolution began to decline. Immediately after the fall of Robespierre, everything that had been suppressed during the era of terror raised its head and began to support the “Thermidorians.” It came to the closure of the Jacobin club (at the end of 1794) and the return of the surviving Girondins to the convention (at the beginning of 1795). In 1795, the surviving supporters of the terror twice raised the population of Paris (12th Germinal and 1st Prairial) to a convention, demanding “bread and the constitution of 1793,” but the convention pacified both uprisings with the help of military force and ordered the execution of several former terrorists (“ the last Montagnards"). In the summer of the same year, the convention drew up a new constitution, known as the constitution of the year III (q.v.). The legislative power was no longer entrusted to one, but to two chambers - the council of five hundred and the council of elders (see), and a significant electoral qualification was introduced. The executive power was placed in the hands of the directory (q.v.) - five directors who appointed ministers and government agents in the provinces. Fearing that the elections to the new legislative councils would give a majority to the opponents of the republic, the convention decided that two-thirds of the “five hundred” and “elders” would be taken from the members of the convention for the first time. In the country, at this time, there was indeed a reaction against the republic, which encouraged the royalists. When this measure was announced, they organized an uprising in Paris itself, in which the main participation belonged to the bourgeoisie, who feared the return of Jacobin rule. The mutiny of the 13th Vendémière occurred (October 5, 1795); the convention was saved thanks to the management of Bonaparte, who met the insurgents with grapeshot. At the end of 1795 the convention gave way to the councils of five hundred and elders and the directory. In both councils, two-thirds of the members were taken from former Girondins and more moderate Montagnards, who did not want either the restoration of the monarchy or the return of terror, most of whom voted for the execution of Louis XVI and made acquisitions during the sale of national property. Among the remaining third there were a number of royalists or constitutional monarchists. A widespread calming of political passions and religious strife began, thanks to the proclaimed freedom of worship, and a revival of agriculture, industry and trade also began. At the same time, emigrants and unsworn priests began to return to the country, propagating, together with local royalists, the need to restore the legal monarchy and campaigning in the elections. In 1797, a lot of royalists were elected, who immediately opened their own club (Clichy) and gained some weight in the councils; one of them (Barthelemy) took the place of Letourneur, who left the directory by lot. Alarmed constitutional monarchists became close to the republicans and founded a common club. There was already a direct monarchical majority in the councils, clearly preparing the restoration. Director Barras informed Generals Gauche (in the Western army) and Bonaparte, who was in Italy, about the danger of the situation. General Augereau, who was sent last, arrested the main royalist deputies; the majority of the directory convened the republican minority of both councils, which, at the proposal of the government, authorized the abolition of elections in 53 departments, the introduction of emergency courts, the exile of 42 members of the council of five hundred and 12 of the council of elders, two directors (Carnot and Barthelemy) and editors of monarchist newspapers; along with which freedom of the press was canceled for a year, the previous harsh laws against emigrants and unsworn priests, etc. This coup, known as the 18th Fructidor, dealt a blow to the revival of royalism, which was in relations with emigrants and the European coalition, but at the same time strengthened the opposite party of extreme “patriots”. The latter circumstance prompted a proposal from the directory to the councils to cash out the elections of 1798 and replace them with others; a new coup took place on the 22nd of Floreal (May 11). Moderate Republicans again gained the upper hand. Both councils were, however, dissatisfied with the directory and helped two directors (Barras and Sieyès) eliminate the other three, replacing them with new ones (Roger-Ducos, Goyer and Moulin). This coup is known as the 30th of Prairial (July 18, 1799). During the era of the directory, an attempt was once again made to establish a civil religion in the spirit of Rousseau's deism: in 1796, a sect of “theophilanthropes” (or theoandrophiles) arose, which was favorably treated by one of the directors (Larevelier-Lepo), who allowed the sectarians to perform the cult of the Supreme Being in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. After the 18th Fructidor, the persecution of the spiritual intensified; any priest could, at the discretion of the government, be sent into exile. The population, however, more and more abandoned the sworn priests and returned to the previous cult. The communist conspiracy of Babeuf also dates back to the time of the directory (see). In general, the era of the directory is characterized by the fragility of the political position and social fatigue. No one believed in the strength of the situation created by the constitution of the third year; the government of the country was in the greatest disorder. At this time, F.'s army and the foreign policy of the republican government presented a different spectacle than the nation and the internal state of the country. The convention showed extraordinary energy in defending the country. In a short time, Carnot organized several armies, into which the most active, most energetic people from all classes of society rushed. Those who wanted to defend their homeland, and those who dreamed of spreading republican institutions and democratic orders throughout Europe, and people who wanted military glory and conquests for France, and people who saw military service the best means of personal distinction and elevation. Access to the highest positions in the new democratic army was open to every able person; Many famous commanders emerged from the ranks of ordinary soldiers at this time. Little by little, the revolutionary fervor of the republican armies, however, gave way to purely military patriotism, and the glory of France became more valuable to them than its freedom. Both the convention and the directory often held out against their enemies only by relying on military force: the victories that were won by the Republicans on the 13th of Vendémière or the 18th of Fructidor were due to bayonets and cannons. The Directory had special motives for encouraging the development of warlike instincts in the nation. The government of the republic saw the war as a means of diverting public attention from internal turmoil and as a way of raising money. The revolution did not correct the sad state of finances; this was hampered by constant unrest, accompanied by stagnation in industry and the decline of trade. The constituent assembly also issued banknotes (see), secured by church property, but this money fell terribly in price. To improve finances, the Directory came up with the idea of imposing large monetary indemnities on the population of the conquered countries: Dutch, German, and Italian money flowed into France, in such quantities that they could continue the war itself (see Revolutionary Wars). The victories of the French were greatly facilitated by the fact that in neighboring regions they were greeted as liberators from absolutism and feudalism. After the execution of Louis XVI, in addition to Austria and Prussia, England, Holland, Spain, Sardinia, Italian owners and minor German sovereigns, i.e. the entire Holy Roman Empire, also took up arms against France. France was again threatened by an invasion of foreign troops, but after several setbacks, the Republican armies repelled the Allies, at this time putting forward several remarkable commanders. One of them (Pichegru) conquered Holland, which from a federal and aristocratic republic was transformed into a “single and indivisible” democratic Batavian Republic, which entered into a close alliance with France. This military success in the same 1795 was accompanied by diplomatic victory: Prussia left the coalition and made peace with France (Basel). Behind Prussia, many other allies lagged behind the coalition. Over the next two years, the French won a series of brilliant victories over Austria and its still loyal allies. At the head of the Italian army, the directory placed the young General Bonaparte, who in 1796-97. forced Sardinia to abandon Savoy, occupied Lombardy, took indemnities from Parma, Modena, the Papal States, Venice and Genoa and annexed part of the papal possessions to Lombardy, which was transformed into the Cisalpine Republic (see). Austria asked for peace. Around this time, a democratic revolution took place in aristocratic Genoa, which turned it into the Ligurian Republic (see). Having finished with Austria, Bonaparte gave the directory advice to strike England in Egypt, where a military expedition was sent under his command (see). While this plan was being carried out, France turned the Papal States, Switzerland and the Kingdom of Naples into democratic republics: Roman (see), Helvetic and Parthenopean (see), and Piedmont and Tuscany were captured by the French; The Sardinian king formally abandoned Piedmont in favor of France. Thus, by the end of the revolutionary wars, France controlled Belgium, the left bank of the Rhine, Savoy and some part of Italy and was surrounded by a number of “daughter republics”. But then a new coalition was formed against it from Austria, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey. Emperor Paul I sent Suvorov to Italy, who won a number of victories over the French and by the fall of 1799 had cleared all of Italy of them. When the external failures of 1799 added to the internal turmoil, the directory began to be reproached for having sent the most skillful commander of the republic to Egypt. Having learned about what was happening in Europe, Bonaparte hurried to France. His unexpected arrival was greeted by the nation with delight: he was seen as the future savior of France, a savior not only from an external enemy, but also from the terrible turn that internal affairs were taking: the nation, apparently, had to choose either between the return of the Bourbons, and with them and the old order, or the resumption of anarchy. The bourgeoisie, fearing a revival of Jacobinism, was in a very reactionary mood. The most influential figure of the moderate republican party, director Sieyès, had long been toying with the idea of the unsuitability of the constitution of the year III and was developing his own project of a state structure, which, in his opinion, should give stability internal order . To this end, he began to unite all anti-democratic elements among the then political leaders who did not want the return of the Bourbons. He managed to win over many members of both councils in favor of his plan, who began to call themselves reformists. Having learned about Sieyès's plans, Bonaparte entered into an agreement with him, and both very quickly prepared a coup d'état with the aim of introducing a new constitution. The soldiers idolized Napoleon, who was called the "little corporal"; the generals, for various reasons, did not want to interfere with the enterprise. Sieyès spread a rumor about a dangerous Jacobin conspiracy and arranged it so that those members of the council of elders, whom he did not count on or whom he feared, did not attend the meeting in which the decisions conceived by the conspirators were supposed to be made. On the 18th Brumaire (9 November) the elders were convened at 7 am. The assembled deputies unanimously voted to move the legislative body to Saint-Cloud, where both councils were to meet the next day no earlier than noon. The execution of this decree was entrusted to General Bonaparte; he was given the right to take all measures necessary for the security of the republic, and all local armed forces were subordinate; at the same time, all citizens were obliged to provide assistance to him at the first request on his part. The council of elders addressed the nation with a special manifesto, in which the decreed measures were justified by the need to pacify people seeking tyrannical domination over national representation, and thereby ensure internal peace. Bonaparte, surrounded by generals and officers, immediately went to a meeting of the council, where he made a short speech, promising to support "a republic based on true civil liberty and on national representation." The deed was already done by the time the meeting of the council of five hundred was to begin; the latter was only informed of the decree of the elders, and Lucian Bonaparte, who was chairman of the council, declared the meeting adjourned until another day. Meanwhile, by prior agreement, two directors, Sieyès and Roger-Ducos, resigned, and the third (Barras) was forced to resign: it was necessary to destroy the executive power that existed at that time - and with the resignation of three members, the directory could not more act. The remaining two directors (Goyer and Moulin) were taken into custody. The next day at 12 o'clock in the afternoon both councils met in Saint-Cloud, the council of elders in one of the halls of the palace, the council of five hundred in the greenhouse, and both were in great alarm. The elders' dismay increased when they were informed of the resignation of the three directors. The Council of Five Hundred decided to universally renew the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the Year III. Having learned about this, Bonaparte, who was in one of the rooms of the palace, decided to act. Quite unexpectedly, he appeared in the hall of the council of elders and began to talk about some dangers threatening the republic, about the need to protect freedom and equality. "What about the constitution?" - one member interrupted him. “The Constitution!” exclaimed the general. “But you violated it on the 18th Fructidor, you violated it on the 22nd Floreal, you violated it on the 30th Prairial! The Constitution! All parties refer to it, and it was violated by all parties; it can no longer save us , because no one respects her anymore." From the meeting room of the elders, the general went to the greenhouse, accompanied by four grenadiers. The sight of armed men in a meeting of representatives of the people led some of them into terrible indignation: they rushed at the general and began to push him towards the exit. Bonaparte, completely confused, with his dress torn, was almost carried out in the arms of the grenadiers, amid cries of “outlaw” heard in the greenhouse. A little later, part of the battalion, with Murat at its head, entered the greenhouse and cleared it of deputies who had jumped out of the windows to escape the violence. The coup d'etat was carried out; All that remained was to formalize it. The elders hastened to postpone the meetings of both councils, appoint a provisional government of three consuls - Bonaparte, Roger-Ducos, Sieyès - and select a commission to develop a new constitution; the same decisions were immediately made by several dozen members of the council of five hundred, assembled on the night of the 19th to 20th Brumaire by Lucian Bonaparte. This coup d'état is known as the 18th Brumaire and is generally considered the end of the French Revolution. IV. The direct influence of the revolution on the internal history of France and other countries. Reforms of the constituent assembly in 1789-1791. completely changed the social system of France. The further development of the revolution did not add a single new feature to the social structure, which was the result of the abolition of estates, with their privileges and titles, feudal rights, serfdom, and other manifestations of inequality before the law. The opinion of some historians is completely wrong that the convention set as its task the establishment of some other social system than the one that was created in the first two years of the revolution. The vast majority of the French benefited from this replacement of social privileges by civil equality; Only the former privileged were dissatisfied, a significant part of whom left France; those who remained in their homeland were sufficiently intimidated that for the time being they did not remind anyone of their existence. After the fall of the privileged classes, the bourgeoisie became the richest, most influential social class, and since the Jacobin regime did not want to take this into account, the bourgeoisie followed alternately both the Thermidorians, who overthrew the Jacobin dictatorship, and the royalists, who raised their heads after the defeat of the extreme revolutionary parties, like Finally, she followed the happy commander, whose firm power protected the new social position of the bourgeoisie both from the return of the “old order” and from the revival of Jacobinism. The form of government receded into the background. In the same way, the peasant masses, freed from feudal rights, from church tithes and from the unfair distribution of state taxes, cared only about consolidating these benefits of the revolution for themselves, even less than the bourgeoisie, dwelling on the question of the form of government. As for the urban proletariat, the era of its active role was very short, and its own interests suffered from stagnation of business, unemployment, and high prices, caused by the abnormal state of society. Political life had not yet put forward a program of social reforms, and the time of the Jacobin dictatorship, based on the lower classes of the urban population, did not change their situation in any way; After the fall of Jacobinism, disappointment quickly set in here too, so that the republic, from which better days were expected for the people, soon lost its former charm. At the end of the nineties, the majority of the French, who valued the social gains of the revolution, were completely indifferent to the republic, as state form. In general, in 1792, a republic was founded in France under exceptional circumstances, by an energetic minority who seized power into their own hands, and the nation submitted new form government as a political necessity. There was not a single social class in the country that had a special, and, moreover, sufficiently strong, interest in valuing this form. On the contrary, in addition to the centuries-old monarchical tradition, which caused a widespread, frequent and strong awakening of royalism, there were also special reasons, which made the republic hateful for some, dangerous for others, and not particularly dear to others. The clergy and nobles sought to restore the monarchy; the bourgeoisie did not trust democracy after sad experience with Jacobinism, and the proletariat lost faith in the magical properties of the republican regime. The first republic in France was a republic without republicans, and this was the root cause of its downfall. In the orders of 1789, the nation spoke out for a monarchy, with only the king being deprived of absolute power; the constituent assembly was also monarchist-minded. The republican tendency emerged only later, and even then only after a number of political mistakes made by the royal power, and due to the fact that the fear of a return to the old social system was combined with the idea of the monarchy. On the other hand, the republic did not bring with it real freedom; The republican dictatorship of the Jacobins was in many respects only a renewal of the despotism of the old monarchy, and what was conceived in the spirit of freedom, in practice turned out to be a source of complete internal disorganization, which many began to include in the account of the sins of the republic. One of the most important facts in the history of 1789 is the sincere desire of the French for freedom, clearly expressed in the orders. The Constituent Assembly was equally animated by the desire to give the country the broadest freedom. However, various statements and events of that time did not always reveal an understanding of what real freedom should consist of and what the conditions necessary for its implementation were. Under the pressure of circumstances, the constituent assembly itself refused in many cases to implement the principle of personal freedom, especially when there was a fear that it would be used to the detriment of the new order of things or public peace. The further the revolution developed, the more and more considerations of this kind forced the demands of freedom to be relegated to the background. The old habits of a nation brought up by centuries of absolute monarchy and suddenly called to the broadest self-government, the incorrect identification of the freedom of the people with the power of the people, whose name covered the most despotic dictatorship, the circumstances of the era, which made it necessary, for the salvation of the country, to concentrate and strengthen power, finally, little the gradually developing distrust of freedom, after so much violence and abuse of power had been committed in its name, all this made the French of that era more capable of living under a regime of unlimited rule than enjoying the benefits of freedom. The Constitution of 1791 was an attempt to combine monarchy with political freedom, but in a spirit of distrust of royal power. On the contrary, the constitution of the VIII year, which transferred power to Napoleon, was conceived in the sense of combining the republican principle with strong individual power, with a very decisive distrust of freedom. Further, neither the constitution of 1791, nor the revolutionary government, nor the directory created an organization in France with the makings of vitality and strength. The old state order, which suppressed social forces, was guilty of an excess of government action. The Constituent Assembly, wanting to give scope to precisely these forces, went to the opposite extreme: it limited the role of the central executive to the last degree, transferring to local governments the management of many such affairs, which essentially should have been in the hands of government agents. By this, the new government weakened itself, and in a society accustomed to expecting instructions from above for everything, the place of the legitimate government was taken for some time, so to speak, by a self-proclaimed government - the Jacobin club, with its provincial branches. The Constitution of 1791 decentralized France to the last extreme; the Jacobin club, on the contrary, gave it the centralization that the country was accustomed to and needed. The revolutionary government that emerged from this club, without destroying in principle the system created by the constituent assembly, in practice acted precisely in the spirit of extreme centralization. The period is over Jacobin terror - and again, under the regime of the directory, phenomena began to arise that were the result of the system of the constituent assembly. Both before the establishment of the revolutionary government, and during the era of the directory, elected local administrations often acted completely independently of the views, aspirations, and direct instructions of the central government, which had only one means of obtaining obedience from municipal and departmental authorities - an artificial system of elections, in complete violation their freedom. Self-government boiled down to the fact that a scattered and intimidated majority, often withdrawing itself from elections, submitted to the will of a united and courageous minority, and this latter, being part of the branches of the Jacobin club, in essence only carried out the orders of the Parisian revolutionary leaders. The extraordinary measures of the Jacobin government, the violent behavior of its commissars in the departments, the unceremoniousness of local adherents of Jacobinism still maintained unity in governing the country: as soon as terrorism fell, everything began to creep apart again, and internal disorder began to inspire the majority with the idea that they would continue to live like this way impossible. Under the influence of failures, disappointments and fears in France, by the last years of the 18th century. The public mood has changed greatly. The uplifting spirit, optimism and vigor of 1789 gave way to some kind of spiritual depression, pessimism and indifference. The ideal aspirations and principles that excited them have lost their power over hearts and minds; selfish instincts and material interests came to the fore. At the same time, a cultural reaction against the general spirit of philosophy of the 18th century began to emerge in society. What this philosophy accomplished for social revival and reconstruction began to be gradually forgotten; they began to pay more attention to the weaknesses (real or imaginary) of the ideological structures of the 18th century, attributing to them all the horrors and disasters of the revolution. The terrible trials experienced by society and the religious persecution, which almost never ceased throughout the revolution, revived the Catholic feelings of the nation. Some wanted the restoration of the church in its rights in the name of satisfying their religious needs; others pointed to the political necessity of religion as the best support of social order. Next to the reaction that originated from the previous conservative opposition against the reforms being conceived and undertaken, another reaction arose, this time among those classes of society that were the initiators of the movement, were at one time ahead, but began to treat it with distrust when the revolution has passed known boundaries . To stop the further development of the movement, to prevent certain facts of the recent past from being repeated, to preserve the achieved results, even with the loss of freedom - all this became the program of the bourgeoisie, which, having survived the Jacobin regime, still remained the most influential class in the new system of society. The war, which began in the name of liberating peoples from tyranny, little by little turned into a simple war of conquest; Already in the last years of the republic, both the solemn statement of the constituent assembly, in which the new France renounced the policy of conquest and attacks on the freedom of other peoples, and the no less solemn promise of the constitution of 1793, which proclaimed the principle of non-interference in the affairs of others, were forgotten. Two facts deserve special attention in the history of these relations: the sympathy with which the French revolution and the French conquest were greeted by certain sections of society abroad in France, and the weakness of the opposition shown to the revolution and the policy of conquest by representatives of the European “old order.” The first significant success awaited the French in Savoy, where local and visiting agitators were active even before the entry of the revolutionary army (September 21, 1792). “The procession of my army,” General Montesquiou wrote to the Minister of War, “is a series of triumphs. The rural and urban population is running towards us.” The convention commissioners also reported that “having crossed the border, they did not even notice that they had entered a foreign land.” Soon after the appearance of the revolutionary army in Savoy, popular assemblies were appointed in all communities of the country (except those where Sardinia still held power) to elect deputies to the national assembly (October 15). Of the 658 communities, 583 were in favor of joining France, and 72 left the decision to the deputies. The "National Sovereign Assembly of the Allobroges" in Chambery abolished royal power, feudal rights, ecclesiastical land tenure, etc. in Savoy - and this whole revolution was accomplished in less than a week. Then an attempt was made to organize Savoy into an independent republic, but soon the leaders of the movement turned to the convention with a request to join France. At the same time, revolutionary ideas began to spread among the Germans on the left bank of the Rhine; many directly began to invite the French to liberate the left bank of the Rhine and advised the population of the region to assist France. Custine, with an ease that surprised himself, occupied Speyer, Worms and Mainz in a short time. “The cities,” wrote one diplomat of that time, “surrender without resistance, and the declaration of rights produces an effect similar to the effect of the trumpet of Joshua” (the mood of the Rhine Germans during the appearance of the French among them was immortalized by Goethe in “Herman and Dorothea”). A circle of “friends of freedom and equality” was formed in Mainz; clubs also appeared in other cities. And here, as in Savoy, an attempt was first made to organize itself into an independent republic, but in the end it was decided (March 21, 1793) to join France. Finally, in the same year, the French also revolutionized Belgium. An uprising began in it even earlier (1787), caused by conservative opposition to the reforms of Joseph II; Soon another movement arose - a democratic one, in the spirit of the French ideas of civil equality and popular supremacy. The dissatisfied were led by two lawyers, van der Noot and Vonk, the first as a representative of old traditions, the second as an adherent of new ideas. In 1789, Belgium was ready to completely break away from Austria; In January 1790, the congress of the “United Belgian States” met in Brussels. If the Austrian government managed to first prevent such an outcome Belgian revolution , then only due to the discord between the clerical-feudal and democratic parties. Relying on the fanaticism of the popular masses, the conservatives won; Austria, without encountering much resistance this time, restored the previous regime in Belgium. The Democrats fled to France to return home with French troops. Here they united with people from Lüttich, which belonged to the sovereign bishop, a member of the German Empire. In this spiritual principality, there had long been quarrels between subjects and their sovereign, which also led in 1789, under the influence of Parisian events, to a small revolution. The bishop first agreed to the demands of his subjects, but then fled; At his request, Austria occupied Lüttich (1791), and those involved in the uprising fled to Paris. When the revolutionary wars began, Dumouriez's victory at Jemappe (near Lüttich) opened the way for the French to Belgium, where cities, one after another, began to go over to the side of the French, seeing them as their saviors. Holland, no less than Belgium, was prepared for the revolution. The old enmity of the two political parties operating in this country (see the Netherlands), under the influence of new ideas and the example of the American Revolution, took on the character of a struggle between conservative oligarchic and democratic aspirations, and both sides at the same time were distrustful of the Stadtholder power. In the mid-eighties of the 18th century, relations between hostile political forces worsened significantly; in 1786 it came to a sharp clash between the stadtholder and the “patriots”. After the victory of the Stadtholder, supported by the Prussians, his opponents fled abroad and many of them found refuge in France. As soon as the French secured Belgium in 1794, the movement of the patriotic party began again in Holland, which set as its goal the overthrow of Orange rule. Even earlier, there was a separate Batavian detachment in the French army operating in Belgium. A revolutionary committee of Dutch patriots was formed in Paris, sending agents and pamphlets to Dutch towns and villages; Revolutionary clubs began to emerge in the country. The Stadtholder government tried unsuccessfully to form detachments of volunteers to defend the country. At the end of 1794, the revolutionary army under the command of Pichegru entered Holland, which allowed returning patriots and local democratic clubs to seize power and begin to organize the entire country on the model of the French Republic. The new republic was named Batavian (1795). A little later, the same thing happened to the aristocratic republics of Northern Italy - Venice and Genoa. In the lands that belonged to Venice, even earlier there was a desire for reform and to change the constitution in a more democratic spirit; The government was able to suppress popular unrest only with the help of military force. During the war with Austria, the French found in the cities of the Venetian region numerous allies from local residents who, being dissatisfied with the oligarchy of the capital, began to found revolutionary clubs and, from mid-March 1797, incite popular uprisings in one city after another. Peasants who were dissatisfied with F.’s requisitions stood up for the old order; They started a counter-revolution, but this movement was suppressed by the French with great cruelty. In Venice itself, a democratic club appeared, which managed to get the government to voluntarily abdicate and agree to elect a provisional government and city council by popular vote. The New Democratic Republic, however, did not survive, as its possessions were divided between Austria and the Cisalpine Republic. At the same time, a democratic club was also formed in Genoa, in which not only local residents took part, but also emigrants from Piedmont, Lombardy, Rome and Naples. When the Genoese government arrested several democrats, the rest rebelled, proclaimed popular supremacy and civil equality and took possession of the city, however, inciting against themselves the villagers, who saw the insurgents as enemies of religion and the church. The French provided active support to the Genoese revolution, and the matter ended (June 1797) with the transformation of Genoa into a democratic republic, under the name of Ligurian. The unity of the Romanesque part of the Swiss Union with France was especially favorable for the spread of new political and social ideas in it. There was not complete equality between the cantons of Switzerland; there was even a positive dependence of entire large districts on the ruling cantons. Vaadtland was subject to Bern; the Ticino valley was under the rule of the canton of Uri. The big cities were ruled by the patriciate; the rest of the population was divided by the old corporate system into separate groups enjoying very unequal rights. Democratic ferment arose in the population of Switzerland even before the start of the French revolution, but the ruling classes suppressed the slightest manifestations of dissatisfaction with the existing order of things, in every possible way persecuting members of the patriotic “Helvetic Union”. The influence of French ideas was especially strong in Geneva, where in the 18th century. There was a struggle between the aristocracy and democracy, and from there many defeated democrats left for France, who later played a role in the events of the revolution. Already during the first occupation of Savoy, the left bank of the Rhine and Belgium by the revolutionary troops, the French made an attempt to support the Geneva democrats, but it was defeated by the resistance of Bern, who helped the oligarchy ruling in Geneva retain power in their hands. The revolutionary mood was no less strong in Waadtland, which was burdened by Berne rule: here the famous La Harpe became the head of the movement. In Lausanne and other places in the region, clubs were formed after the start of the French revolution, which set themselves the task of transforming the whole of Switzerland on a new basis. The movement also spread to Wallis, Freiburg and Basel, where the idea of transforming the old union into a “single and indivisible (modeled on F.) Helvetic Republic” was also strong. In January 1798, Vaadtland turned, under the protection of F. troops, into the Republic of Leman, after which a party was formed in Bern that proposed changing the constitution of the canton in the sense of establishing equality. In the Zurich domains, rural communities began to take up arms in their hands to achieve equality with the townspeople; Democratic changes were carried out in Freiburg and Solothurn. Soon after, F.'s victories led to the establishment of the Helvetic Republic, under the control of five directors, including La Harpe. Holland, Venice, Genoa and Switzerland were already republics before, but these were medieval republics, with the exclusion of the masses from political rights and with the complete domination of some citizens over others; two of these republics were, in addition, federal. France now introduced them to democracy, classless citizenship and strict state unity. In addition to the transformation of the old republics, France founded a new one in territories that had been ruled monarchically up to that time: in Lombardy, in the Papal States and in the Kingdom of Naples. In Lombardy, Austrian rule was hated by the population; General Bonaparte's entry into Milan (in the spring of 1796) was greeted with enthusiastic cries of the city residents. True, soon F.’s extortion began to irritate the people, who in some places rebelled; but such outbreaks were quickly pacified. Preparing for the formation of the Cisalpine Republic in Northern Italy, the French, whenever possible, pushed into the background the Catholic-feudal elements of society, relying mainly on the liberal urban class, which was sympathetic to new ideas and orders. F.'s army also had great success among the population of that part of the Papal States (with the cities of Ferrara and Bologna), which it occupied in the early summer of 1796, later forcing the pope to cede it to France. The revolutionary movement spread throughout Italy. In the winter of 1797-1798. In Rome and other cities of the Papal States, street demonstrations with a republican character began. The police and army began to disperse the participants in these demonstrations. Many of the latter took refuge in the palace of F.'s envoy, Joseph Bonaparte; Because of this, a clash occurred, during which one F. general was killed. The result was the occupation of Rome by General Berthier, and a democratic revolution took place in the papal capital. Piedmont was surrounded on all sides democratic republics ; Revolutionary bands began to invade there from the Ligurian and Cisalpine republics, encountering strong resistance from the rural population led by the clergy, but finding sympathy among the townspeople. The power of the king (Charles Emmanuel), who was in alliance with France, was supported only by the French garrisons that occupied the country in view of the new war with the European coalition. The same thing happened in the urban population of Tuscany as in Piedmont. Finally, in Naples there were many dissatisfied, but F.’s ideas were shared here only by the intelligentsia; the people hated the “godless” revolution, although they themselves were very prone to rebellion. When the Neapolitan army, sent to the Papal States to restore the Holy See to its rights, was defeated, the king fled to the island of Sicily, transferring power to his viceroy. Elected representatives of the capital city community organized a municipal guard, in view of the anarchy that threatened from the Lazzaroni, and were already thinking of seizing power when the governor hastened to buy a truce from the French, giving them Capua and the fortifications of Naples and agreeing to pay a large sum of money. The news of this caused a riot among the capital's mob. The city council turned to the French with a request to occupy the capital and organize a new government, which was immediately carried out, despite the resistance shown by the lower classes of the Neapolitan population (which, however, very soon changed its attitude towards the new order). In January 1799, the Kingdom of Naples was transformed into the Parthenopean Republic. The main reason for the defeat of monarchist coalitions against republican France was mutual distrust, discord and selfish aspirations among the members of these coalitions. Tuscany and Prussia were the first to leave the coalition. On April 5, 1795, a peace treaty was signed between France and Prussia in Basel, by virtue of which Prussia was promised territorial reward on the right bank of the Rhine, and the French government pledged to live in peace with the imperial princes who were in alliance with Prussia, while the republic was approved left bank of the Rhine. The German princes were also burdened by the war, each sought their own benefits and were ready to lag behind the coalition: northern Germany entered into an alliance with Prussia and stopped fighting against the revolution, while southern Germany, which continued to be united with Austria, was formally excluded from the peace treaty. The result of this was the separation from the empire of the left bank of the Rhine, recognized as the “natural border of France,” and the disintegration of the empire itself into two parts, one of which became an ally of the victorious republic. The example of Prussia was followed by Hanover, Spain, Sardinia, Württemberg, Baden, Saxony, Bavaria, for various rewards and promises. Thus the crusade against the revolution was frustrated, and in 1795 it was quite clear that the monarchical principle, in the name of which the war was undertaken, was quite weak connection for the heterogeneous political interests of old Europe. Although hatred of the French flared up among the German people, the German sovereigns generally preferred to make concessions, counting on territorial gains from secularized church possessions and thus preparing the collapse of the medieval Holy Roman Empire. On April 18, 1797, the Leoben Preliminary Treaty was concluded between Austria and France, and on October 18, peace was concluded in Campo Formio. Austria abandoned Belgium and Lombardy, but received various rewards, preparing for its part to have a hand in the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire. After all these successes of F. weapons and F. diplomacy, Germany turned into a territory intended to serve as a reward for all who suffered in the fight against the F. Republic. The German princes vying with each other hurried to conclude secret separate treaties with France, with the intention of proceeding with the division of Germany. In the 18th century general disrespect for the rights of others created a policy of dividing weaker states among stronger ones; The French revolution was embarking on the same path, and monarchical Europe, armed against the revolution, now willingly met it halfway (Napoleon's empire continued the same policy on a wide scale: this was one of the reasons for its military and diplomatic successes). The Rastatt Congress, at which the map of Germany was to be redrawn, opened at the end of 1797. Germany on the eve of the French Revolution was, in its structure, the most backward state in Europe, having retained from the times of medieval political life something that was already outside Germany at that time existed nowhere: ecclesiastical principalities and political feudalism. The former survived the crisis of the reformation era, with its secularizing aspirations, and the bishop-princes survived in Germany until the revolutionary storm. Under the influence of the French revolution and the wars it caused, the possessions of German bishops and abbots went at the beginning of the 19th century. to reward secular princes for their territorial concessions - and during the era of restoration, the spiritual principalities in Germany were not restored. Along with the disappearance of spiritual principalities, one can also put the secularization of church property that was carried out in this era in some Catholic countries under the influence of France. Another remnant of medieval antiquity in Germany was political feudalism. Before its destruction, the Holy Roman Empire consisted of three and a half hundred large, medium and small estates (principalities and free cities), not counting one and a half thousand estates of the imperial knighthood, which were in direct relations with the emperor. The fall of the medieval empire was accompanied by the mediatization of a great many princely houses: from the immediate (immediate) ranks of the empire, they became mediocre (mediat), i.e., they turned into subjects (together with the imperial knights, who also could not maintain their previous position). The real destruction of serfdom began in Germany only during the era of French domination. The principles of 1789 also found supporters among Prussian society, who welcomed the revolution as a new era in the history of mankind. New ideas dominated the minds of a number of government officials (Schön, Hardenberg, Struensee, Wilhelm v. Humboldt, etc.). A progressive party was beginning to form in Prussia; Since the accession of Frederick William III to the throne, the Prussian monarchy seemed not averse to embarking on the path of transformation, but very timidly, hesitantly, without a clearly understood plan, without outstanding leaders. A handful of people who understood, although not always clearly, the need for reforms, could do nothing under the government system that dominated in Prussia and killed the spirit of initiative, civic feeling, and interest in the common cause. Only the defeat of Prussia in the war with Napoleon forced this state to take the path of reform. In England, only a very small minority of educated people were sympathetic to the F. revolution. The hatred towards it that English society showed was influenced by national rivalry, the desire of the French to interfere in the internal affairs of England, the anti-religious character that the revolution took on, and the cruelties that accompanied it, and when war broke out between England and the Republic, then the Parisian revolutionaries became an object of hatred and a dangerous external enemy. This mixed feeling was initially expressed in Burke’s famous pamphlet: “Reflections on the revolution in France,” which was published in 1790 and immediately became extremely popular in English society. Almost the entire English society began to look at the French revolution through the eyes of Burke, whose view was firmly established in the English ruling classes for a long time. Nevertheless, in England there was no shortage of supporters of the revolution. They were also among the Whigs (Fox, Sheridan, Stangop, Lansdowne), although the majority of the party followed Burke; but the revolution in the recently born democratic party aroused particular sympathy. Some prominent figures even defended F. revolution in printing (Mackintosh, Pan, Priestley, Price). Even entire political associations with reform programs were formed. Already in the autumn of 1789, the London “Society of the Revolution” voted, under the chairmanship of Lord Stangope, a congratulatory address to the Paris Constituent Assembly. Even earlier, in 1780, a large association arose in England (Society for promoting Constitutional information), which set as its goal the dissemination of political education among the people through the publication of books and pamphlets in which the ideas of universal suffrage, closed voting, etc. were promoted. In 1791, to achieve parliamentary reform, several societies were formed in London and other cities, of which the London Corresponding Society was especially active. A few months later (1792), the “Society of Friends of the People” arose, which set itself the task of achieving parliamentary reform through peaceful means and thereby counteracting revolutionary machinations. When the oldest of these societies one day decided to send an address to the Jacobin Club in Paris, the government became alarmed and issued a “proclamation” on the need for strict suppression of all attempts to disseminate harmful and seditious writings. Nevertheless, all three societies continued to agitate for reform and, in 1793, held the first two open-air public meetings in London. Other cities followed the example of the capital. At one of these meetings it was even decided that the people could demand universal voting as their right, and that therefore there was no need to ask for it as some kind of favor; Some speakers, carried away by the example of the F. revolution, directly insisted that a national convention be convened, which would carry out parliamentary reform. All this, however, only intensified the general reaction. Much stronger was the fascination with the French revolution in Ireland. There had previously existed a society of “United Irishmen” here, which at first thought only about internal reforms, but after the events of 1789 moved on to the idea of separating Ireland to form an independent republic from it. In 1794--95. Popular uprisings began in the country, and in the following years Irish patriots entered into formal negotiations with France about common actions against the British. The Irish rebellion in 1798 was, however, suppressed, despite the assistance provided to it by the directory. The Poles also had great hopes for the F. revolution. In 1788, the famous four-year Sejm (see) met in Warsaw, which carried out a revolution on May 3, 1791. Since 1792, Poland and France equally had to defend themselves from external and internal enemies of the new order, and this united both revolutions. Already during the era of the Four-Year Diet, the example of the French greatly encouraged the Poles, but the F. revolution had a particularly strong influence on the Kosciuszko uprising; Warsaw even had its own Jacobins. After the third partition of Poland, many defenders of its independence emigrated to France and joined its revolutionary armies. V. Historiography of the F. revolution and an outline of the main judgments about it[For the exact titles of the named works, see below - in the bibliographic list.]. There is still no comprehensive overview of the development of the French Revolution. Janet's one-of-a-kind book is outdated, and only brief historiographical essays by some other writers can serve as additions to it. Meanwhile, the literature on the history of the F. revolution is striking in its enormity. This event made a huge impression on his contemporaries, many of whom (see below) left a number of memoirs about it, which for a long time served as the main sources for historians involved in the French revolution. Often contemporaries even made attempts to compile a real history of this event, which is now, with few exceptions, forgotten. Special meaning for the history of judgments about the revolution, they have essays specifically devoted to its assessment. The first place between them belongs to the English politician E. Burke, whose “Reflections” for a long time (see above) determined the attitude of English society to the French Revolution. A supporter of political freedom, an admirer of the revolution of 1688 and a defender of the North American colonists in their dispute with the mother country, Burke treated the events of 1789 et seq. gg. extremely disapprovingly, mixing with many correct remarks a mass of views prompted by enmity and prejudice. His main idea is that it is necessary to correct state and social orders only in cases of extreme necessity and with the smallest possible deviation from the established order. In particular, Burke was filled with horror and indignation at the thought of the artificial creation (fabrication) of a new order of things. His book caused a whole controversy in its time, in which the Scot Mackintosh took a particularly prominent place, taking the side of the revolution taking place in France in the name of the idea of natural law. In France, already at the end of the 18th century, a whole reactionary school of writers was formed who, being frightened by terror, set themselves the task of discrediting the principles of 1789. Among them, a prominent place belongs to J. de Maistre, who, while recognizing the “satanic” character of the revolution, at the same time time I saw in it God’s punishment for sins and freethinking. Around the same time, Chateaubriand published his first literary work, accusing the philosophers of the 18th century. because they robbed the people of piety, without which there could be no good order. Attacks on “philosophy” became commonplace in all writings of the late 18th and 19th centuries directed against the revolution. This then gave some writers a reason to come out with a defense of the philosophy of the 18th century. against such accusations. Such, for example, is the work of the Russian envoy in The Hague, Prince D. A. Golitsyn (see), justifying the physiocrats. Also remarkable is the “Correction of Judgments about the F. Revolution” by the German philosopher Fichte, who proved the legitimacy of the F. revolution on the basis of Kant’s idea of a free state. In the spirit of justifying the revolution, an essay was written later (1818) by Necker's daughter, Mrs. Stahl. The real development of the history of the revolution became somewhat possible only when the events of 1789-99. enough to have receded into the realm of the past, and people who were not contemporaries of these events began to write about them. The first ones historical works appeared during the restoration era, when the liberal bourgeoisie fought against the clerical-aristocratic reaction and several historians emerged from among the defenders of political freedom, with special interest those who dealt with the past of the third estate, representative institutions and England, as their main representative (Guizot, Augustin Thierry, Armand Carrel, etc.). Both works on the F. revolution, written by Thiers and his friend Mignet and published in the twenties (1823-1827 and 1824) - one very extensive, the other shorter - have the same character of an apology for the F. revolution with the liberal the point of view of the then bourgeoisie. Only in Thiers's work is a peculiar point of view of the worship of success visible; his winners are always right, his losers always turn out to have acted erroneously. Therefore, Thiers also justifies the coup of the 18th Brumaire, in which he sees the beginning of a period of consolidation of the gains of the revolution. Later he wrote "History of the Consulate and Empire" (1845-62), in which he adheres to the same opportunistic view. Both books are still being reprinted in France. The revolution of 1830 brought triumph to the ideas of Thiers and Mignet, but during the period of the dominance of the bourgeoisie, a democratic opposition arose in France, with political and social programs, and the historiography of the F. revolution was enriched with new works in the spirit of this opposition. In 1834--38. the famous socialist Buchez, in collaboration with Roux, published forty volumes of materials entitled “Parliamentary History of the F. Revolution”; they served for a long time as the main collection of documentary sources on the history of the revolution, until they were replaced by the "Archives parlementaires" (see below). Buchet provided some volumes of his collection with prefaces, developing in them a unique view of the history of the revolution. A socialist and at the same time an ardent, although not an orthodox Catholic, Buche derived the principles of 1789 from the commandments of the Gospel and saw in the revolution the desire to realize the Christian principles of equality and fraternity. According to him, during the revolution there was a struggle between individualism, which he derived from egoism, and brotherhood, arising from religious feeling: on one side stood the bourgeoisie, on the other - the people; on the side of the first are the Girondins, on the side of the second are the Jacobins. From this time on, the Jacobin tradition was renewed in France, which played a large role in the events of 1848. The Jacobins, who were essentially only political radicals, were now credited with the socialist aspirations of the thirties and forties. F. Buchet's philosophy of the history of the revolution influenced Louis Blanc, who in 1847-1862. wrote a multi-volume history of the French Revolution. It conveys the idea that the world and history are dominated by three great principles: authority, individualism, brotherhood. The first of them was embodied in the institutions of the old order, the second has only a negative meaning, the future belongs to the third. In the revolution, Louis Blanc distinguished two movements, which in his case were represented by the Girondins and the Jacobins, the bourgeoisie and the people; The Jacobins, too, are portrayed by him not as supporters of the principle of authority, as they actually were, but as supporters of the principle of fraternity, in the sense of a social republic; the people appear to L. Blanc in the image of the contemporary proletariat. Later criticism came to the conclusion that in 1789 there was no proletariat with a modern character in France and that the Jacobins were the same ideologists of the petty bourgeoisie as the Girondins. The difference was not in where Louis Blanc saw it, but in different understandings of purely political issues and different methods of practical politics. Not only after Thiers and Minier, but also after Buchet, Lun Blanc collected a lot of new material, in which his stay in London during his exile from France helped him a lot. Simultaneously with Louis Blanc, Lamartine published “History of the Girondins” - rather an elegiac apology for this party than a serious scientific work. Michelet's History of the French Revolution, published in 1846-53, is of immeasurably greater importance. This French "populist", a friend of the peasants and workers, was an opponent of socialism, but his book was written from the point of view of opposition to the bourgeois regime of 1830-48. In contrast to Buchet and Louis Blanc, he did not want to recognize the class contradictions in the Third Estate of 1789 and imagined the nation as some kind of homogeneous mass that had only common interests in the fight against the privileged. In particular, he was against the identification (by Buchet) of the revolution with Catholicism, which for him, as an opponent of the clerics, is, on the contrary, the complete opposite of the revolution. He treated both the Girondins and the Jacobins equally, as parties that stood above the people as educated people (lettrés). The real hero of the revolution is a loving, generous, fair people who created everything truly great. Individuals from different parties - only “ambitious puppets” who thought to lead the movement and, subordinating it to their false theories, directed it in the wrong direction. They alone are responsible for the horrors of the revolution. Michelet especially rebelled against Jacobin theory and practice. Michelet's idealized people are even the best judge of the revolution: “He loves Mirabeau, despite all his vices, and condemns Robespierre, despite all his virtues.” Works by Buchet, Louis Blanc, Lamartine and Michelet, equally idealizing different sides F. revolutions generally stood in close connection with all that democratic literature that played such an important role in preparing the events of 1848. The short period of the second republic was followed by a second empire - and many naturally asked the question why the French, who made so many sacrifices, in order to achieve freedom, they again fell under a completely absolute regime. Michelet's friend, E. Quinet, wrote his "Révolution" (1866) on this topic, explaining this phenomenon by the French lack of respect for individual freedom, which in turn was one of the legacies of the old order. The most important work in the field of studying the F. revolution in the era of Napoleon III is Tocqueville’s “The Old Order and Revolution,” with the appearance of which in 1856 a new period began in the scientific development of the history of the revolution. Tocqueville's work was conceived in three volumes, but death interrupted the author's work before the end of the second volume. Tocqueville resurrected before the reader's eyes the entire old order of France, for which he rummaged a lot in the archives and extracted from there a lot of forgotten features of pre-revolutionary France. Comparing the new order with the old, he proved how, despite the visible break of the nation with its past, thousands of threads connect post-revolutionary France with the old one, which, as previously thought, was irretrievably buried in 1789. Answering the question that Quinet answered after him, Tocqueville distinguishes in 1789 the desire for freedom and the desire for equality and points out that the old order itself was preparing society for equality, preventing it from being brought up in the spirit of freedom. In Tocqueville's eyes, the revolution was not a sharp break with the past, but it had deep roots in it. Rarely has a work been so influential in the development of historical views in relation to a given era as Tocqueville's little book; subsequent historians only had to develop, supplement and substantiate the judgments expressed by Tocqueville and, in any case, take into account him in case of disagreement with his conclusions. After Tocqueville, French historiography began to intensively search for new material in the capital's and provincial archives, trying at the same time to adhere to Tocqueville's method, although not everyone succeeded. In his work there is nothing resembling either an opportunistic justification of the revolution or its idealization; his calm, objective criticism draws a sharp line between him and those writers who brought more political passion than scientific understanding into their judgments about the revolution. The works of Tocqueville and Quinet were not histories in the sense of narrating events: they were rather historical and philosophical discussions about the causes, character, general course, consequences and results of the revolution. Chassin’s book “Le génie de la révolution” (1865) belongs to the same category of works. Tocqueville already pointed out the importance of orders in the study of the F. revolution, and Chassin made the first attempt to use this rich material. He did not, however, have enough objectivism to paint a true picture of France in 1789; he did not so much want to explain the revolution as to justify it by reference to its compliance with the desires of “an enlightened people who had broken free from the shackles of despotism.” In general, after Tocqueville, a more active development of the history of the old order began in the works of Babot, Boiteau, Gulya, Gomel, Roquin, Sturm, Vallon and others. Particular attention was paid to the unsuccessful attempts at reforms under Louis XVI (in the works of Lucet, Semichon, Lavergne, etc. .). Work on individual issues and episodes of the revolution also intensified. At the very end of the second empire in France, a huge publication of materials for the history of the revolution was undertaken under the general title of "Parliamentary Archives", which, however, turned out to be far from corresponding to the importance of the task, although, of course, it immediately replaced the less abundant collection of documents by Buchet and Roux, tendentiously , moreover, selecting material for greater exaltation of the Jacobins. In the "Archives parlementaires" orders appeared in large numbers for the first time. During the era of the third republic, the number of general works devoted to the F. revolution increased; each of them contributed something new to our knowledge of this era. In 1876, the first volume of The Origin modern France"Taine, containing a brilliant picture of the old regime; it was followed by three volumes of the history of the revolution and an unfinished, after the death of the author, work on the “new order.” Taine began his work with serious philosophical, psychological and literary preparation, but with very superficial knowledge in the field of politics, law and economics, which was reflected in general attitude him to the revolution; This is a brilliant psychology of the era, but a very shallow sociology of it. In the very depiction of the revolution, Taine failed to maintain the heights of scientific objectivism. In the preface to the first volume, he stated that he would consider the transformations of France as a naturalist examines the metamorphoses of an insect - in fact, this is a complete indictment against the revolution and its leaders, in which, with a sometimes tedious monotony, brightened up only by the beauties of style, the facts are selected speaking against the revolution. Its positive side seems to escape Ten’s horizons. Nevertheless, the mass of new facts, comparisons, comments, characteristics that the reader finds in the book will remain as an important acquisition historical science . When reading Taine, one must not forget that the author began his work under the influence of a pessimistic mood caused by the disaster of 1870, the civil war of 1871 and the uncertainty of the situation in the early years of the third republic. Most of Taine's critics treated his work as a kind of historical pamphlet; but where Taine stands on scientific grounds, he only continues Tocqueville. Chéret, the author of the unfinished work “The Fall of the Old Order” (1884 et seq.), represents a complete contrast with Taine in relation to the revolution. He was one of the minor political figures of the conservative camp, who was engaged in the local history of his province and only in his old age turned to such a broad topic as the French revolution. His original intention was to prove that the revolution was unnecessary, that France could peacefully move into a new phase of existence; but when he began to get acquainted with the sources, his point of view changed, and he not only came to the conclusion that defending the thesis about the possibility of a gradual improvement of the old order was a hopeless matter, but also directly pointed out how the revolution became inevitable and how the privileged themselves started a rebellion against the authorities. Almost at the same time, with Chéré’s difficulty, the first volumes of Sorel’s work appeared: “Europe and the French Revolution” (1885; four of them were published). Sorel set out to apply Tocqueville’s point of view to the whole of Europe, showing that “F. revolution, which appears for some as an overthrow, for others as a revival of the old European world, is nothing more than a natural and necessary continuation (suite) of the history of Europe "; “The revolution did not have a single consequence, even the most extraordinary, that did not follow from this history and was not explained by the precedents of the old order.” In his book, Sorel develops, but more successfully, the theme of the German historian Siebel (see below): he examines the French revolution from a pan-European point of view, that is, in its relation to other states. This is the history of the action of F. ideas not only at home, but also abroad, the history of mutual relations between revolutionary France and Europe. Sorel should be credited with his breadth of vision, depth of analysis and scientific impartiality. In general, over the past 20-25 years, the scientific spirit has penetrated more and more into the historiography of the French revolution. In order to impartially study the revolution, there is currently a special scientific society in France ("Société de l"histoire de la rév. fr.", since 1888) and a special journal ("La Rév. fr., revue historique"), around which many serious scientists have grouped. The society has already glorified itself with a mass of documentary publications, competing in this regard with other institutions that, on the occasion of the centenary of the French Revolution in 1889, began printing archival documents; magazine published a huge number of large and small detailed works. General direction both the society and the magazine - completely scientific. One of the most active workers in this field is Olar (q.v.), now one of the vice-presidents of the society, editor of the journal F. revolution, editor of numerous editions of documents (other publishers - Brett, Charave, etc.) and professor of history F. ... revolution at the department, specifically for this subject founded at the Sorbonne by the Paris Municipal Council, which also publishes archival documents. Olar owns one of the last major works, entitled: “Political History of the F. Revolution” (1901), written on the basis of documentary materials, with a clear distrust of memoirs, which were especially readily used by all historians involved in reproducing the actual events of the revolution. Olar started general work , having taught a number of courses at the Sorbonne and published a large number of private studies. In his book, he set out to show how the principles of the declaration of rights, that is, the principles of political equality and the supreme power of the people, were applied in practice in the period from 1789 to 1804; therefore, he tells, in essence, only the history of the origin of democracy and the republic and dwells exclusively on the facts that had an obvious and direct influence on the political life of France (institutions, government systems, parties, etc.), leaving aside the military, diplomatic and financial history of the era. The book contains a lot of new things and no less amendments to old views, which, according to tradition, passed from one author to another. The most recent general work on the French Revolution is so far the Constituent Assembly (1902) by Jaurès, which opens a large collection of Histoire Socialiste. The author sets out to introduce the people, workers and peasants to the first period of the revolution, in which Jaurès sees the initial preparation of the modern social movement. The book is too extensive (756 pp.) to serve exclusively the purposes of political propaganda, and therefore the standard applied to serious scientific works is quite applicable to it. Jaurès's point of view is socialist, somewhat Marxist; but, recognizing economic materialism at its core, the author stipulates that economic forces act on people with passions and ideas, and therefore “human life cannot be roughly, mechanically reduced to any economic formula.” The economic side of the revolution is highlighted, although this does not exclude the depiction of the psychology, culture and politics of that time. Depicting the “bourgeois” revolution, which was supposed to destroy the feudal system, Jaurès everywhere pursues the idea that the bourgeoisie at that time expressed the interests of the entire nation, that is, both peasants and workers. The material on which Jaurès worked was very extensive (including archival material, by the way), but there are no references to sources in the book. On the question of the attitude of the F. revolution to socialism, Jaurès is of the opinion that nothing like present-day socialist thought in that era existed in the minds of the working masses, but among the writers of the 18th century. this thought had only an extremely abstract and, moreover, more moral than economic connotation. In the works of Aulard and Jaurès, a critical spirit dominates, alien to any idealization or partiality. The historiography of the French Revolution developed mainly in France itself, but due to the special importance of this event, foreign historians were also involved in it. Volumes XIII and XIV of the enormous work of the Belgian scientist Laurent, dedicated to this era, deserve great attention: “Etudes sur l"histoire de l"humanité"; The religious history of the F. revolution was especially developed here. In England, Carlyle's history of F.'s revolution is especially popular - more of a poem than a history. Less important is Stephens' book. Of the German works on the same subject - Wachsmuth, Dahlmann, Arnd, Siebel, Geisser and others - the most famous is the work of Siebel, who examines French history in connection with two other contemporary revolutions - the fall of Poland and the collapse of the medieval Holy the Roman Empire of the German nation; but he brings too much of a Prussian point of view into his depiction of the era, and considers the internal affairs of France from the point of view of his party (the National Liberals). Lorenz Stein understood the inner meaning of the F. revolution more deeply, who in the early forties took up the socialism and communism of the then France, and in 1850 published “The History of the Social Movement in France,” in which he gave a general outline of the history of the F. revolution, seeing in it manifestation of class struggle. This view was adopted by Marx, who studied in the middle of the 19th century. the class struggle that was taking place in France at that time. He put the question of the F. revolution from the point of view from which Jaurès now views it. In modern Germany, it is carried out in their works on the history of the F. revolution by Blos, Kautsky and others, who generally make major amendments to the socialists’ understanding of the course of the revolution. In Russia, independent study of the F. revolution began only in the late seventies (see). The history of the peasants (the works of Kareev, Kovalevsky, Luchitsky), the orders of 1789 (Gerye, Onu, Ioroshun), the administration of the old order (Ardashev) was especially fortunate here; general works on the history of the French revolution were written only by Lyubimov and M. Kovalevsky. The first (a professor of physics at Moscow University) published a book in 1893 entitled “The Collapse of the Monarchy in France,” which was formed from his earlier (1879) articles, entitled “Against the Current”; but this is not a historical study, but a political pamphlet warning Russian government and society regarding the dangers threatening them from the revolution. The four-volume work of M. M. Kovalevsky: “The Origin of Modern Democracy” (1895-99) contains a detailed depiction of the old order and a presentation of new ones for the 18th century. ideas (vol. I), a detailed account of the development of political and social legislation by the constituent assembly (vol. II) and the history of this legislation (vol. III), as well as the history of the fall of the Venetian Republic under the influence of the F. revolution (vol. IV). Some works of Russian historians of the revolution have been translated into French. VI. Bibliographic index. Works on the historiography of the F. revolution. R. Janet, "Philosophie de la révolution franèaise" (1875); K. Arsenyev, prefaces to volumes I and II. translation of "History of the F. Revolution" by Mignet; V. Buzeskul, “Review of Literature,” in volume IV of Petrov’s “Lectures on General History”; V. Guerrier, articles about Taine as a historian of the F. revolution, in the "Bulletin of Europe" for 1878, 1889, 1894, 1895; N. Kareev, “The latest works on the history of the F. revolution” (“Historical Review”, vol. 1); N. Karéiev, “La révolution franèaise dans la science historique russe” (“La rév. franè., revue”, 1902); N. Kudrin, “Latest works on the origin of modern France (Russian Wealth,” 1902). In the IV and especially V volumes of “History of Western Europe in Modern Times” by N. Kareev there are pages devoted to the characteristics of some historians of the revolution. Memoirs (and correspondence) of figures and contemporaries of the revolution-- Bailly, Barraza, Barbara, Barera, Besanval, Bertrand de Molleville, Biglot-Varenne, Brissot, Buzot and Pétion, Madames Campan, Chastenet, Camille Demoulin, Gara, Goyer, Grégoire, Dulor, Dumouriez, Ferrier, Fournier -American, Lally-Tolendal, Lafayette, Larevelier-Lepault, Louvet, Mallet-du-Pan, Meillan, Mirabeau, Monlosier, Mounier, Necker, Puiset, Madame Roland, Riuffa, Samson, Thibodeau, Vienot de Vaublans, etc. Many memoirs were published separately; in addition, there are collections - Soulavie (there are fake memoirs); Barrière et Berville, “Collection des mémoires relatifs à la révolution franèaise” (47 volumes; continued by Lescure), etc. The reports and memories of many foreigners who visited France at the end of the 18th century are also important. Attempts of contemporaries to write the history of the F. revolution-- "Two Friends of Liberty" (20 vols.), Montjoye, Lameth, Beaulieu, Toulongeon, Sallieur, Paganel, Tissot, Fantin-Desodoards, etc. Assessment of F. revolution by contemporaries: E. Burke, "Reflexions on the French Revolution" (1790); Mackintosh, "Vindiciae Galliae" (1791); J. de Maistre, "Considerations sur la rev. fr." (1796); Chateaubriand, "Essai sur les révolutions" (1797); D. Golitsyn, "De l"esprit des économistes ou les économistes justifiés d"avoir posé par leur principes les bases de la rév. fr." (1796); Fichte, "Beitrag zur Berichtigung der Urtheile des Publicums über die fr. Rev." (1793); M-me de Staël, "Considerations sur les principaux événements de la révolution fr." (1818), etc. General histories of the revolution-- Thiers, Minier, Buchet and Roux (see below), Louis Blanc, Michelet, Quinet, Tocqueville, Chassin, Taine, Cheret, Sorel, Aulard, Jaurès, Laurent (much has been translated into Russian); popular books by Carnot, Rambaud, Champion ("Esprit de la révolution fr.", 1887), etc.; Carlyle, "French revolution" (1837); Stephens, "History of fr. rev."; Wachsmuth, "Gesch. Frankreichs im Revolutionszeitalter" (1833--45); Dahlmann, "Gesch. der fr. Rev." (1845); Arnd, idem (1851--52); Sybel, "Gesch. der Revolutionszeit" (1853 et seq.); Häusser, "Gesch. der fr. Rev." (1868); L. Stein, "Geschichte der socialen Bewegung in Frankreich" (1850); Blos, "Gesch. der fr. Rev."; in Russian - Op. Lyubimov and M. Kovalevsky. The following works are devoted to individual periods: Barante, “Histoire de la convention nationale” and “Histoire du directoire exécutif”; L. Sciout, "Le directoire"; E. Hamel, "Histoire de la républ. franè. sous le directoire et le consulat" and others. The main editions of documentary sources: Duvergier, "Lois et décrets depuis 1778"; Mavidal et Laurent, "Archives parlementaires"; Buchez et Roux, "Histoire parlementaire de la révolution franèaise"; "Collection de documents inédits", ed. F. Ministry of Public Education; Aulard, "La société des jacobins"; his, “Recueil des actses du comité du Salut public”, etc.; Charavay, "Procès-verbaux de la commune de Paris"; Theiner, "Documents inédits relatifs aux affaires religieuses en France" (1790--1800), etc. Periodicals specifically dedicated to the history of the French Revolution:"Revue de la révolution", ed. Ch. d"Héricault et G. Bord (published in 1883-87); "La Révolution franèaise" (from 1881, and edited by Olard from 1887). Dictionaries on the history of the F. revolution:"Dictionnaire de la constitution et du gouvernement franèaise" (1791); Cougny, "Dictionnaire des parlementaires franèaise"; Boursin et Chalamel, "Dictionnaire de la rév. franè." There is also a whole iconography of the F. Revolution (album edited by Armand Dayot) [In Paris there is a special museum of the history of the F. Revolution.]. Collections of articles on the history of the French Revolution. Aulard, "Etudes et leèons sur la révolution franèaise"; Avenel, "Lundis révolutionnaires"; Combes, “Épisodes et curiosités révolutionnaires” and others. See also biographies of individual figures of the French revolution. Essays on the state of France before the revolution and on the causes of the revolution. In addition to the works of Tocqueville, Taine, Sorel, M. Kovalevsky and the historiography of the old order in the book of Ardashev (see) - Aubertin, "Esprit public au XVIII siècle"; Babeau, "La ville sous l"ancien régime"; his, "Le village sous l"ancien régime"; his, "La vie rurale dans l"ancienne France"; his, "La ville sous l"ancien régime"; his, "Les bourgeois et les artisans d"autrefois"; his, "L"ouvrier sous l"ancien régime"; his, "La province sous l"ancien régime" and others; Boiteau, "La France en 1789"; Broc, "La France sous l"ancien régime"; Bouchard, "Système financier de l"ancienne monarchie"; Bourgain, "Etudes sur les biens ecclésiastiques avant la révolution"; Carré, "La France sous Louis XV"; Chassin, "L"église et les derniers serfs", Cherest, "La chute de l"ancien régime"; Duruy, "L"armée royale en 1789"; Funck-Brentano, "La question ouvrière sous l"ancien régime"; Granier de Cassagnac, "Hist. des causes de la révolution franèaise"; Guglia, "Die konservativen Elemente Frankreichs am Vorrabend der Revolution"; Gomel, "Des causes financières de la révolution franèaise"; Jobez, "La France sous Louis XV"; N. Kareev, "Peasants and the peasant question in France in the last quarter of the 18th century." (there is a French translation); Kautsky, "Die Classengegensätze von 1789" (two Russian translations); Ch. Louandre, "La noblesse sous l"ancienne monarchie"; I. Luchitsky, "Peasant land ownership in France before the revolution" ("Kiev University News", 1895--96); his, "New studies on the history of peasants in France in XVII century." (ibid.), etc.; Maine, "Des causes de la décadence de la proprieté féodale en France et en Angleterre"; Mège, "Le clergé sous l"ancien régime"; Pisard, "La France en 1789"; Raudot, "La France avant la révolution"; Rocquain, "Esprit révolutionnaire avant la révolution" (there is a Russian translation); Sepet, "Préliminaires de la révolution"; Stourm, "Les finances de l"ancien régime et de la révolution"; Vuitry, "Etudes sur le régime financier en France avant le révolution"; Wallon, "Le clergé en 1789". Works on the history of the reign of Louis XVI and the reforms undertaken under him(except for the works indicated in the corresponding article): Deluèay, “Les assemblées provinciales sous Louis XVI”; Larcy, "Louis XVI et Turgot" (as well as other works about Turgot; see the corresponding article); Lavergne, "Les assemblées provinciales sous Louis XVI"; I. Luchitsky, “Provincial assemblies in France under Louis XVI and their political role”; Semichon, "Les reformes sous Louis XVI"; Souriau, "Louis XVI et la révolution"; Oberleiter, "Frankreichs Finanz-Verhältnisse unter Ludwig IV". Essays on the influence of the American Revolution on the French and on France's participation in the American War. Balch, "Les Franèais en Amérique"; Bancroft, "Hist. de l"action commune de la France et de l"Amérique"; Doniol, "Hist. de la participation de la France à l"établissement des États-Unis d"Amérique"; M. Kovalevsky, "The Origin of Modern Democracy" (I); Louis de Loménie, "Beaumarchais et son temps". Essays on the convening of the States General and on the orders of 1789. In addition to the works of Tocqueville, Chassin, Poncins, Cherest, Guerrier, Kareev and M. Kovalevsky, indicated in resp. article, see A. Brette, "Recueil de documents relatifs à la convocation des états généraux de 1789"; Edme Champion, "La France d"après les cahiers de 1789"; H. Lyubimov, "The Collapse of the Monarchy in France" (cahiers' demands regarding public education); A. Onou, "Orders of the Third Estate in France in 1789" ( "Journal of the Ministry of National Education", 1898--1902); his, "La comparution des paroisses en 1789"; Richard, "La bibliographie des cahiers de doléances de 1789"; V. Khoroshun, "Noble orders in France in 1789 G.". Essays on individual episodes of the F. revolution. E. et J. de Concourt, "Histoire de la société franèaise sous la révolution"; Brette, "Le serment du Jeu de paume"; Bord, "La prise de la Bastille"; Tournel, "Les hommes du 14 juillet"; Lecocq, "La prise de la Bastille; Flammermont, "Relations inédites sur la prise de la Bastille"; Pitra, "La journée du juillet de 1789"; N. Lyubimov, "The first days of i. revolution according to unpublished sources"; Lambert, "Les fédérations et la fête du 14 juillet 1790"; J. Pollio et A. Marcel, "Le bataillon du 10 août"; Dubost, "Danton et les massacres de septembre"; Beaucourt, " Captivité et derniers moments de Louis XVI"; Ch. Vatel, "Charlotte Corday et les girondins"; Robinet, "Le procès des dantonistes"; Wallon, "Le fédéralisme"; Gaulot, "Un complot sous la terreur"; Aulard, " Le culte de la raison et le culte de l "Etre Suprème" (presentation in the VI volume of the "Historical Review"); Claretie, "Les derniers montagnards"; D"Héricault, "La révolution de thermidor"; Thurau-Dangin, "Royalistes et républicains"; Victor Pierre, "La terreur sous le Directoire"; his, "Le rétablissement du culte catholique en France en 1795 et 1802"; H Welschinger, "Le directoire et le concile national de 1797"; Victor Advielles, "Histoire de Baboeuf et du babouvisme"; B. Lavigue, "Histoire de l"insurrection royaliste de Fan VII"; Félix Rocquain, "L"état de la France au 18 brumaire"; Paschal Grousset, "Les origines d"une dynastie; le coup d"état de brumaire de l"an VIII". Essays on the history of terror: Mortimer-Ternaux, Wallon, Dauban, Berriat-Saint-Prix, Despois, Des Echérolles, etc., indicated accordingly. article; private monographs Foyard, Rabaud, Guillois, E. Carette et A. Sanson, Fr. Mège and others, named in Kareev's article on the latest works on the history of the F. revolution ("Historical Review", vol. I). Also: Biré, "Journal d"un bourgeois de Paris sous la Terreur"; Compardon, "Histoire du tribunal révolutionnaire"; Fleury, "Les grands terroristes". See also Biré and Eckart's works on the history of Paris during the Revolution. Essays on the history of Paris in the era of revolution. Babeau, "Paris en 1789"; Biré, "Paris en 1793"; Charavay, "Assemblée électorale de Paris"; Chassin, "Les élections et les cahiers de Paris en 1789"; J. Eckart, "Figuren und Ansichten der Pariser Schreckenszeit"; Schmidt, "Pariser Zustände während der Revolutionszeit" (there is a F. translation); Tourneux, "Bibliographie de l"histoire de Paris pendant la révolution"; Isambert, "La vie à Paris pendant une année de la révolution" (1791--92); Dauban, "Les prisons de Paris sous la révolution"; A. Tuetey, "Répertoire général des sources de l"histoire de Paris pendant la révolution franèaise". Social significance of the F. revolution. Lorenz Stein, "Geschichte der socialen Bewegung in Frankreich"; Eugen Jäger, "Die francösische Revolution und die sociale Bewegung"; Lichtenberger, "Le socialisme et la révol. fr."; Kautsky, "Die Klassengegensätze von 1789" and others. Works on the history of legislation and institutions of the French Revolution. Chalamel, "Histoire de la liberté de la presse en France depuis 1789"; Doniol, "La féodalité et la révolution franèaise"; Ferneuil, "Les principes de 1789 et la science sociale"; Gomel, "Histoire financière de la constituante"; A. Desjardins, "Les cahiers de 1789 et la législation criminelle"; Gazier, "Etudes sur l"histoire religieuse de la révolution franèaise"; Laferrière, "Histoire des principes, des institutions et des lois pendant la révolution franèaise"; Lavergne, "Economie rurale en France depuis 1789"; Lavasseur, "Histoire de classes ouvrières en France depuis 1789"; B. Minzes, "Die Nationalgüterveräusserung der franc. Revolution"; Rambaud, "Histoire de la civilization contemporaine"; Richter, "Staats- und Gesellschaftsrecht der francösischen Revolution"; Sciout, "Histoire de la constitution civile du clergé"; Valette, "De la durée persistante de l"ensemble du droit civil franèaise pendant et après la révolution"; Vuitry, "Etudes sur le régime financier de la France sous la révolution"; Sagnac, "Législation civile de la révol. franè." Spiritual culture in the era of the F. revolution. Ferraz, "Histoire de la philosophie pendant le révolution franèaise"; Aulard, "L"éloquence parlementaire pendant la révolution franèaise"; Champfleury, "Histoire de la carricature en France pendant la révolution"; Gallois, "Histoire des journaux de la révolution franèaise"; Duruy, "L"instruction publique et la révolution" ; Pouchet, "Les sciences pendant la terreur"; Despois, "Le vandalisme révolutionnaire: fondations littéraires, scientifiques et artistiques de la convention"; Babeau, "L"école de village pendant la révolution"; Hippeau, "L"instruction primaire pendant la révolution". Works on the military and diplomatic history of the French Revolution. In addition to the essays indicated in resp. Art., see Aulard, "La diplomatie du premier comité du salut public" (in "Rev. Franè."); Bourgoing, "Histoire diplomatique de l"Europe pendant la révolution franèaise"; Chuquet, "Les guerres de la révolution"; Bonnal, "Les Armées de la république"; C. Rousset, "Les volontarires"; Chassin, "L"armée de la revolution"; Sainte Chapelle, "Les institutions militaires pendant la révolution"; Gaffarel, "Les campagnes de la première république"; F. Masson, "Le département des affaires étrangères pendant la révolution"; Marc Dufraisse, "Histoire du droit de paix et de guerre de 1789 à 1815"; L. Ranke, "Ursprung und Beginn der Revolutionskriege"; Hüffer, "Oesterreich und Preussen gegen über der francösischen Revolution"; his, "Die Politik der deutschen Mächte im Revolutionszeitalter"; his, "Der Kongress und die zweite Koalition"; Langworth von Simmern, "Oesterreich und das Reich im Kampfe mit der francösischen Republik"; Mahan, "The Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution"; Jurien de la Gravière, "Guerres maritimes sous la république et l"empire" (there is a Russian translation); E. Daudet, "Les Bourbons et la Russie"; his, "Les émigrés et la seconde coalition"; his, " Coblentz"; A. Lebon, "L"Angleterre et l"émigration"; Forneron, "Histoire générale des émigrés"; Pingaud, "Les franèais en Russie et les russes en France". In addition, about the Vendee wars (see) works by Crétineau-Joly, Bournisseaux, Lambert, Port, Chassin and others. Essays on the influence of the French revolution on other countries. Bonnal, "La chute d"une république"; A. Brückner, "Catharina II und die franc. Revolution" ("Russische Revue", vol. III); Dandolo, "La Caduta della republica Venezia"; Gaffarel, "Bonaparte et les républiques italiennes"; Denis, "L"Allemagne de 1789 à 1810", Franchetti, "Storia d "Italia" (chapter: "Primi efetti della rivoluzione francese"); Guillon, "La France et l"Irlande pendant la révolution"; M. Kovalevsky, "The Origin of Modern Democracy", vol. IV (there is a F. translation); Perthes, "Politische Zustände und Personen in Deutschland zur Zeit der franz. Herrschaft"; De Pradt, "La Belgique de 1789 à 1811"; Rambaud, "Les Franèais sur le Rhin"; his, articles on the attitude of F. revolution to Russia (in "Revue Bleue"); Ch. de la Rivière, "Catherine II et la révolution franèaise"; R. Rochette, "Histoire de la révolution helvétique"; Kieger, "Schillers Verhältniss zur francösischen Revolution"; Sciout's works in the Revue des questions historiques (1886 and 1889) on the Roman and Ligurian republics; Venedey, "Die deutschen Republikaner unter der francösischen Republik"; Wohlwill, "Weltbürgerthum und Vaterlandsliebe der Schwaben" (1789--1815).