European History

Over centuries, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s influence on the French Revolution has provoked great historiographical debate. It seems his influence is more ambiguous today than it was two centuries ago. The influence of historians in ‘constructing’ history lies at the heart of this historiographical debate. The diverse personal, historical and historiographical contexts of these historians, their vastly different methodologies and their differing approaches to history have resulted in this broad range of historical interpretations. The distinct divide between the arguments of the nineteenth and twentieth/twenty-first century historians also clearly reveals the changing nature of history over time, and the questionable sources of such change.

​

These interpretations range from radical revolutionary glorification of Rousseau’s philosophies and their profound impact on the revolution to twentieth century revisionist theories asserting the disconnection between Rousseau and the prominent French Revolutionary sentiments. Prior to the twentieth century, it was widely accepted amongst historians that Rousseau had some form of influence on the French Revolution, be it positive or negative. Revisionist historian Joan McDonald (1965) argues that nineteenth century historians did not enquire into “the extent and nature of Rousseau’s influence” but rather, “differed only in their estimates of which particular ideas were regarded as important and by which particular Revolutionary groups.”[1] The highly conservative, British, Whig historian, Edmund Burke (1791) utilised precisely this method of historical investigation in order to blame Rousseau for the excesses of the French Revolution.

​

Burke is highly critical of Rousseau’s role in the French Revolution and he ardently believed Rousseau was to blame for “The Terror”.[2] His argument revolved around the French revolutionaries and their constant invocation of Rousseau’s name. He represented the commitment of the revolutionaries to Rousseau as obsessive in its rigour; “…In truth, they all resemble him. Him they study; him they meditate.”[3] As revisionist historian Alfred Cobban (1964) explains, Burke’s historical methodology is simply “to take Rousseau as the embodiment of the political philosophy of the revolution.”[4] Edmund Burke’s claim that the French Revolution was caused by the French “philisophes” [5]was very influential on enlightenment historian, Edward Gibbon. Gibbon praised Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France and maintained, “Burke’s book is a most admirable medicine against the French disease, which has made too much progress even in this happy country…”[6] This statement unintentionally reveals the notion that Burke’s condemnation of the French Revolution arose from his motive to defend his own British constitution and to prevent an English Revolution of the same calibre as that of the French. Gibbon reveals that even nineteenth century British historians’ quickness to blame Rousseau as the father of the Revolution may not have arisen from entirely pure motives, further reinforcing the significance of historians’ contexts in affecting their changing approaches to history. Twentieth century political historian, J.S. McClelland (1996), argues that Burke wrote his Reflections in order to create a “counter-revolutionary position” and thus he reinforces Gibbon’s insinuations that Burke wished to present the past in a manner that would affect the present, namely prevent an English revolt.[7]

​

Adding to the band of “nineteenth century” historians who incriminated Rousseau is Hippolyte Taine, who “reserved a place of honour in his attack on the Enlightenment for Rousseau.”[8] Taine’s positivist methodology reflected that of the Empirical historian Collingwood who believed that, “evidence is always an experience of (the historian).”[9] Similarly, Taine relied heavily on his own first-hand experiences when assessing the influence of Rousseau; such as, his witnessing of political figures who, “…have the Social Contract…in their hands as manuals.”[10] However, similar to classical historians such as Herodotus, Taine includes sources such as, “a competent judge, and an eye-witness, Mallet du Pan” yet does not analyse them.[11] However, he footnotes his sources and thus the reliability of his methodology can be perceived as closer to that of Thucydides rather than Herodotus. Twenty-first century revisionist historians, such as James Swenson (2000), can easily criticise Taine’s complete lack of analysis of sources, his present-tense purely narrative writing style and biased statements.[12] Yet, at the time Taine was writing, the Revolution was just drawing to a close and thus, the only sources available to him were oral sources, which he does include, some written propaganda sources such as speeches and pamphlets, which Burke utilises, and his own personal first-hand experiences with the Revolution which forms the basis of his historical work. So, such criticisms that Swenson provides seem anachronistic, as it is only with the advantage of hindsight that recent historians can recognise the flaws in the arguments of nineteenth century historians, such as Taine and Burke.

​

McClelland argues that the events that filled Taine’s historical context severely impacted upon his interpretation of Rousseau. He argues Taine’s criticisms of Rousseau appeared in 1875 after attention began to shift onto the more horrific events of the Revolution, so Taine was pressured by such circumstances to find the origins of such terrible excesses “and he found them in Rousseau.”[13]McClelland cleverly conveys the significance of historians’ contexts, as contextual events can pressure them to produce histories that reflect their contextual concerns. This has ultimately resulted in a distorted ‘construction’ of history over time as history has been recorded to reflect the changing contexts of historians. This aspect of McClelland’s argument strongly reflects the post-modernist theory of historian Carl Becker, who paradoxically claims that a historian’s idea of the past is a construction of their present.[14]

Twentieth century revisionist historians such as McClelland, Cobban and McDonald target nineteenth century French historians such as Michelet and Taine, as they believe that immediately after the French Revolution, French nationalism was soaring and there were two paths French historians[15]commonly took. They would either confront the necessity to ‘lay blame’ and ‘cover up’ the actions of the French Revolution or they would wish to glorify the Revolution. Cobban and McDonald argue that these political motives seemed to rest at the heart of many French historians and inevitably this subjectivity leaked through their pens when recording the events of history. As Cobban asserted, “The interpretation of Rousseau throughout the greater part of the nineteenth century suffered (as) he was viewed through the mists of the revolutionary age.”[16] He goes on to explain that the negative interpretations of Rousseau, “naturally prevailed most strongly in France” where Rousseau’s name was and still remains, “a political war-cry.”[17] Thus, Cobban highlights the destructive role of historians’ contexts as it significantly affects their ‘construction’ of, and approach towards, history.

​

Twentieth century historian, Carol Blum, pursues this line of argument as she claims that nineteenth century historians were dominated by their political motives and thus they were deeply affected by “partisanship” but now historians are emotionally detached and can view the events of the Revolution with less subjectivity than before. [18]Thus, twentieth century historians question the reliability of the nineteenth century historians, seemingly in order to emphasise their own historical reliability. Yet, post-modernist historians such as Jacques Derrida find such arguments as Blum’s fundamentally flawed as they believe that the ideal that a historian can achieve ‘emotional detachment’ is in no way plausible as the historian will always colour their work with their own subjectivities. Derrida argues that historians such as Blum falsely claim that truth is achievable, as truth can never be achieved in history due to the elusive nature of “meaning”. Thus, Blum’s approach to history is significantly undermined by the philosophical, post-modern criticisms of Derrida, ultimately revealing the tremendously differing approaches to history over time.

​

The aforementioned nineteenth century historians all advocated the destructiveness of Rousseau and his philosophies. Conversely, Michelet approved of Rousseau’s influence on the Revolution, just as Carlyle did. Thomas Carlyle (1840) saw the whole Revolution as emanating, in meticulous detail, from the “Gospel according to Jean-Jacques.”[19]Carlyle was a Scottish historian, so he certainly wasn’t tainted by the sense of French nationalism[20] that Michelet may have possessed, and yet, he adopted a narrative writing style very similar to that of Michelet, due to the fact that they were both Romanticist historians. As post-modernist historian, Hayden White claims, “Michelet and Carlyle looked to history for neither understanding nor explanation but rather for inspiration”.[21]White reiterates the notion that historians’ differing approaches to history significantly affected their interpretations of historical events and their ‘construction’ of history. Michelet and Carlyle strived to find inspiration in history and thus they glorified the French Revolution and Rousseau’s intrinsic connection with it.

​

Jules Michelet (1847), described Rousseau as “a figure of right”, thus his personal biases evidently affected his historical interpretations.[22] Swenson argues, “Michelet’s narrative account of the Revolution seldom makes an explicit place for the consideration of such questions of influence.”[23] This is due to Michelet’s motives, as a French nationalist and fervent admirer of Rousseau, he strived to maintain Rousseauian support.[24] This personal bias towards Rousseau certainly affected his representation of him throughout his work, thus reinforcing the twentieth century historians’ allegations of French subjectivity. These allegations reflect the issue of subjectivity surrounding much of modern historiography, namely the debate between modernists and post-modernists. Cobban, McClelland and McDonald almost take a post-modernist stance in their assertions against the nineteenth century historians. They reinforce Carl Becker’s post-modernist notion that historians are subject to their own inherent biases which due to historians’ critical role in the ‘construction’ of history, significantly hinders their reliability and the reliability of history as a whole.[25]

​

Michelet believed that a historian must incorporate themselves into their narratives in order to achieve the historian’s ultimate aim, the resurrection of the past.[26] Such a resurrection must be integral, intertwining all the elements of the past; artistic, religious, economic, as well as political.[27] To an extent, this interdisciplinary approach to history (total history) reflects the aims of the Annales historians. Yet, his narrative style clearly reflects that of the Classical historians. As twentieth century historian John Williams argues, “Michelet is not so much interested in a critical analysis of Rousseau’s ideas as he is in the emotional impact of those ideas.”[28] Thus, Williams reiterates the point that Michelet was driven by his personal motives in writing of Rousseau and as a result, disregarded necessary historical methodologies.

​

Nineteenth century Irish historian, William Lecky (1878) argued, “Of all the great French writers of the eighteenth century, Rousseau had the largest influence on the Revolution.”[29] He includes a source, namely, “a well-known saying of Napoleon (Bonaparte), that if Rousseau had never lived, there would have been no French Revolution” yet like Classical historian Herodotus, he doesn’t analyse his crucial source in any detail but simply states that, “…in spite of its manifest exaggeration, there is a sense in which this saying is not without plausibility.”[30]His justification for such a statement is similar to the rationalisations of Burke, specifically the revolutionaries’ fascination with Rousseau.[31] Lecky, Taine and Burke all refer to the revolutionaries when discussing Rousseau’s influence.

​

However, revisionist historians like McDonald and Cobban completely refute these nineteenth century methodologies as they claim, it does not prove that Rousseau had an influence on the Revolution but rather that the revolutionaries created his influence.[32]These statements are certainly valid in our context, yet for these historians who were recording history during the French Revolution, their reliance on first-hand, primary sources such as the revolutionaries and their speeches seems equally as valid; once again the twentieth century historians seem to have indulged in anachronism. However, Lecky does refer to evidence to support his arguments; he refers to the statues of Rousseau erected by the Revolutionaries and explains how such actions suggest their complete intoxication with the doctrines of Rousseau. [33] He even provides his own subjective interpretation of Rousseau’s key political work, The Social Contract in order to emphasise Rousseau’s revolutionary influence, “…the political influence of Rousseau appears to me to have been almost wholly evil.”[34]  Thus, Lecky’s scathing critique of Rousseau and his political influence on the Revolution reflects the criticisms of his contemporary historians, Burke and Taine. As twentieth century French historian Furet [35] conveniently summarises, “Thus, we can see that for the whole of the nineteenth century Rousseau was at the heart of the interpretation of the Revolution for both its admirers and critics.” [36] Furet’s quote perfectly encapsulates the essence of the arguments of Rousseau’s critics, Burke, Lecky and Taine, as well as his admirers, Carlyle and Michelet.

​

All of these nineteenth century historians have referred to Rousseau’s Social Contract when referring to his influence on the Revolution. Yet, many twentieth century historians such as Mornet, McDonald and Cobban deeply disagree with such methodological approaches. These discrepancies arise specifically from Mornet’s historical research. In 1910, French literary historian Daniel Mornet published a study of five hundred private French libraries that confirmed the fact that Rousseau’s work, the Social Contract, was the least read of Rousseau’s books among prerevolutionary France and as such his role couldn’t possibly have been as significant as nineteenth century historians have claimed.[37] It is easily conceivable that Mornet’s methodology significantly differs from that of the nineteenth century historians as he attempted to derive reliable statistics from previously unconsidered sources such as libraries, while the nineteenth century historians simply relied on biased primary sources from the Revolution, in order to reveal the extent of Rousseau’s influence. McDonald and Cobban possess a similar view to that of Mornet and they both originate from the same “post-Mornet” context and thus they borrow heavily from his ideas and research regarding Rousseau’s non-existent impact on the Revolution. Cobban was also McDonald’s professor and thus their personal contexts were intertwined and it seems these inter-influences have impacted upon their interpretations. Both historians rely on their criticisms of the flawed interpretations of nineteenth century historians as well as the work of Mornet in order to argue Rousseau’s impact on the Revolution was minimal. Such connections further reinforce the significant impact historians’ own personal contexts have on their historical interpretations and ultimately, their ‘construction’ of history.

​

However, twentieth century historian, James Miller (1984) contradicts Mornet’s findings, as he argued that Mornet’s figures were misleading. He asserted that the Social Contract was banned from France and much of Europe and that Mornet’s figures fail to reflect the traffic in counterfeit editions as well as the copies sold after Rousseau’s death.[38] Similarly, Ralph Leigh[39] argued that Mornet’s research did not prove that there was a lack of interest in Rousseau’s theories, simply “systematic suppression” of such theories.[40] This proves Marxist historian E.H. Carr’s post-modernist theory, that historians each interpret evidence differently, leaving much room for discussion and debate and resulting in the absence of one true fact of history. Carr asserted that historical evidence was treated by historians like, “fish on a fishmonger slab. The historian collects them, takes them home, and cooks and serves them in whatever style appeals to him.”[41] This is clearly evident in the arguments of these historians as they simply interpret historical evidence in whatever style appeals to their own subjective contexts. Such arguments also confirm the post-modernist theory that history is not truth but simply a subjective construct of the historians’ making.

​

Therefore, historical interpretations of Rousseau’s role in the French Revolution have significantly transformed over time due to historians’ changing contexts and ultimately, historians’ own subjectivity in recording events and analysing sources. The historiography surrounding Rousseau’s role in the Revolution highlights the significant impact of historians in manipulating the events of history. So, it seems that Rousseau’s role in the Revolution will never be clear, yet as the debate rages on into the twenty-first century, the ever-increasing number of historians who research and comment on Rousseau’s role in the Revolution persist on finding the truth, or at least their version of it.

​

​

[1] McDonald, J., Rousseau and the French Revolution: 1762-1791,  Athlone Press, University of London, 1965, p.13

[2] “The Terror” was the latter half of the French Revolution(5 September 1793 – 28 July 1794) and was a period of excessive violence, incited by conflict between rival political groups, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of alleged enemies and traitors of the revolution.

[3] Burke, E., The works of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke, S. Holdsworth, Michigan, 1837, p.482

[4] Cobban, A., Rousseau and the Modern State, Archon Books, Michigan, 1964,p.23

[5] “philosophes” (French for philosophers) were the intellectuals of the 18th century Enlightenment.

[6] Gibbon, E., The Miscellaneous works of Edward Gibbon, B. Blahe, Catalonia, 1837, p.134, “Burke’s book is a most admirable medicine against the French disease, which has made too much progress even in this happy country. I admire his eloquence, I approve his politics, I adore his chivalry, and I can even forgive his superstition. The French spread so many lies about the sentiments of the English nation, that I wish the most considerable men of all parties and descriptions would join in some public act declaring themselves satisfied with, and resolved to support, our present constitution”.

[7] McClelland, J., A History of Western Political Thought, Routledge, London, 1996, p. 251

[8] Swenson, J., On Jean-Jacques Rousseau: considered as one of the first authors of the Revolution, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 2000, p. 159

[9]  Collingwood, R., The Principles of History, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999,p. 21

[10] Taine, H., Origins of Contemporary France: The Ancient Regime, Kessinger Publishing, Montana, 2004, p. 228

[11] Ibid, p. 228, “a competent judge, and an eye-witness, Mallet du Pan: writes in 1799: “(Rousseau) inoculated the French with…(the Revolution’s) extremist consequences.””

[12] Swenson, op. cit, pp. 3-5, “Hippolyte Taine’s history is generally more sober than Michelet’s, although his treatment of the role of the Enlightenment is just as lyrical – albeit as elegy rather than encomium… Taine’s explanation, based entirely on literary evidence, is fundamentally culturalist in form… (his fundamentally culturalist argument) can be found in just about every other counterrevolutionary screed from Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre on.”

[13] McClelland, op. cit, p.252:“With the irrational mob and institutionalised terror at the centre of the Revolutionary stage, Taine began to look for their origins and he found them in Rousseau.” He explains that “Military glory” was temporarily out of fashion and with it went the political thought which was supposed to have been the French Revolution’s inspiration. He argues, “Laudatory accounts of the Revolution before Taine, had emphasised the heroism of the revolutionary wars of liberation,” but after the aforementioned French national fiasco’s, attention shifted onto the more horrific events of the Revolution such as the lynchings and ‘The Terror’.

[14] Becker, C., What are the Historical Facts?, Doubleday Publications, New York, 1959, c.f. Source Book

[15] Specifically French historians of the 19th century

[16] Cobban, op. cit, p.20

[17] Ibid, p.20

[18] Blum, C., Rousseau and the Republic of Virtue: The language of politics in the French Revolution, Cornell University Press, London, 1985, p. 16-18, “Between the two poles, however, between the affirmation that Rousseau and some other eighteenth-century thinkers had somehow provided a model for the Revolution, the Terror and subsequent manifestations of totalitarianism, and the denial of any connection between literature and events, the distance has begun to close. Within the past ten years a number of works have appeared in which the partisanship and moralism of earlier histories have begun to subside, and in which the following question is being considered more dispassionately: in what specific ways did the ideational material of the Enlightenment contribute to structuring the texts of which the Revolution was made?”

[19] Carlyle, T., On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the heroic in history, Chapman and Hall, London, 1840, p. 52

[20] For more information regarding Michelet’s nationalistic attributes refer to: Colton, J., Aspects of nationalism in Jules Michelet, 1940

[21] White, H., The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation, The John Hopkins University Press, Maryland, 1987, p. 74

[22] Michelet, J., History of the French Revolution, Charles Cocks (trans.), Oxford University, Oxford, 1847, p. v

[23] Swenson, op. cit, p. 3

[24] Williams, J., Jules Michelet: Historian as critic of French Literature, Summa Publications, U.S., 1987, p. 51-52

[25] Becker, op.cit, p.24

[26] Seznec, J., Jules Michelet, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2012, viewed 15/04/2012, <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/380015/Jules-Michelet&gt;

[27] Ibid

[28] Williams, op. cit, p. 51

[29] Lecky, W., History of England in the eighteenth century ,Volume VI, Longmans, Green and co., London 1878, p. 195

[30]Ibid, p. 240

[31] Ibid, p. 240“the Bible of their creed was the ‘Social Contract’ of Rousseau.”

[32] Ibid, McDonald, p.10

[33] Ibid, p. 352

[34] Ibid, p. 243

[35] Francois Furet was a colleague of Alfred Cobban and they were both leading figures in the rejection of the “classic” or “Marxist” interpretation of the French Revolution.

[36] Furet, F. &Ozouf, M., A critical dictionary of the French Revolution,  Arthur Goldhammer (trans.), Harvard university press, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 829-844

[37] Miller, J. Rousseau: Dreamer of Democracy,Hackett Publishing, United States, 1984, p. 134

[38] Ibid, p. 134,Miller specifically states, Mornet’s figures “fail to reflect the traffic in counterfeit and pirated editions – a major market for prohibited works in eighteenth-century France.”He also argues that Mornet’s findings, “do not indicate copies of the Social Contract sold after Rousseau’s death,” and asserts that “they pit the Social Contract against two of the best-selling books…La Nouvelle Heloise…Emile” and thus the Social Contract would undoubtedly seem unpopular in comparison.

[39] For more information regarding Ralph Leigh’s opinion of Rousseauian historiography, refer to: Bloch, J., Words as Weapons: Romantic Literature and the Revolution, History Today, 1989, viewed 03/06/2012, <http://www.historytoday.com/jean-bloch/words-weapons-romantic-literature-and-revolution&gt;

[40] Swenson, op. cit, p.165

[41] Carr, E., What is History?, 2nd edition, Penguin Group, United Kingdom, 2008.