“A revolt rather than a revolution”.
Is this a fair assessment of the Frondes?
The research area of this paper is the observation and discussion of
the differences between “revolt” and “revolution” and whether the
Frondes were right to assess this notion, exciting rebellions in France
during the reign of Louis XIV.
Introduction.
It is a well-known fact that revolts and revolutions often occur in
the course of history, however, revolutions are considered to be a more
recent development. It is difficult to say for sure what is better: a
revolt or a revolution, however, a thorough discussion of these two
phenomena will give us an exact answer. For many centuries people’s
opinions have been divided: some have called for a revolution, while
others have spoken in support of a revolt. For instance, a well-known
movement the Fronde called for “a revolt rather than a revolution”, and
this claim was quite popular among nobles at that time. In order to
evaluate it, let’s observe the reasons, which led to their revolt, and
on their example compare these two notions.
The Frondes and a revolt.
In the French history there was an event called the Fronde (1648–53)
– an open rebellion of several great nobles during the minority of King
Louis XIV, caused by the efforts of the Parliament of Paris to limit the
growing authority of the crown; by the personal ambitions of
discontented nobles; and by the grievances of the people against the
financial burdens suffered under cardinals Richelieu and Mazarini. As a
matter of fact, there were two periods of the Fronde: the Fronde of the
Parliament (1648-49) and the Fronde of the Princes (several years
later).
The first period began, when the parliament rejected a new plan for
raising money, proposed by Anne of Austria and her adviser, Cardinal
Mazarini. According to the scheme, magistrates of the high courts would
give up four years’ salary. The high courts opposed the proposal. As an
answer to their deed, the government arrested several members of the
parliament, but in August 1648 Anne and Mazarini were forced to release
prisoners. However, they didn’t stop at that, and sent the royal army to
take action against the Fronde when the Thirty Years War ended. Anne,
the king, and Mazarini secretly left Paris and the city was blockaded by
royal troops under Louis II, prince de Conde. A peace was signed between
the parliament and the regent at Rueil in 1649.
Evaluating this first period of the Fronde, it is necessary to pay
attention to other reasons of the rebellion. In fact, the rebellion of
the Fronde was justifiable at that time. When Mazarini came to power, he
and Anne wasted much efforts on foreign policy, trying to strengthen the
power of France, and they managed to do it1. However, the cost was
awful. Reforms had postponed, taxes were high, and the people
complained. Thus, the Fronde consisted of three revolts: one by the
lower and middle classes against heavy taxation, a second by the nobles
to increase their political power, and a third by the officeholders to
protect their position. One result of the Fronde was that the French
became willing to accept a much stronger, more centralised government
under their king in order to prevent future civil wars. Another result
was that the youthful Louis XIV decided to take whatever steps were
necessary to avoid future disorders2.
However, the second period of the Fronde wasn’t, in fact, useful
and the revolt was only a political struggle between Mazarini and some
nobles, receiving the name the Fronde of the Princes. It didn’t start as
a result of some reforms, or difficult position of nobles, or unlawful
actions of the government. As a matter of fact, everything began from
the prince de Conde, who expected to control Cardinal Mazarini and Anne
after his help. His intrigues led to his arrest in January 1650, and
caused a second outbreak, the Fronde of the Princes, or the New Fronde.
Madam de Longueville decided to release her brother and called on
Marshal Turenne for help. Government troops managed to defeat Turenne
and his Spanish allies at Rethel (1650), however, Mazarini had to
release Conde. Soon after the release he took up open warfare against
the government. But he lost his principal support of Turenne, who took
the side of the government after Louis XIV reached his majority. Conde
concluded an alliance with Spain, but was defeated by Turenne. The
princes soon made a peace agreement with the government, except for
Conde, who commanded the Spanish forces against France until the Peace
of Pyrenees (1659)3. The second Fronde was the last attempt of the
nobility to resists the king by arms. It resulted in the humiliation of
the nobles, the strengthening of royal authority, and the further
disruption of the French economy. Louis XIV forced his nobility into the
position of his courtiers and he developed the monarchy as a
tax-gathering machine for the manufactures of France, so there was no
need to touch the revenues of the nobility4. Thus, this episode, which
even endangered his life, left a strong impression on Louis. As an
adult, he was determined to prevent any further rebellion by controlling
the nobility.
Thus, despite the fact that the second Fronde wasn’t needed, as it
had no special reasons, it turned France into one of the most powerful
states in the world under the rule of Louis XIV, who, on the example of
the first Fronde and the second Fronde, developed the necessary
principals of his ruling.
The French revolution.
However, two Frondes were not the end of the rebellions. By the
1780’s many in France were influenced by a movement called the
“Enlightenment,” which held that all persons should be equal before the
law. These ideas led to the conflict that caused the revolt5. This was
the beginning of the famous French revolution. On June 17, 1789, the
Third Estate declared itself the National Assembly. On July 11, 1789,
Louis XVI ordered his army to disband the National Assembly by force. On
July 14, 1789, the people of Paris stormed the Bastille looking for arms
and gun powder to protect themselves against the army and to protect the
National Assembly. The next day the Marquis de Lafayette was appointed
commander of the city’s armed forces by a committee of citizens. The
king had lost control of Paris. Throughout the country peasants revolted
and called for reforms and an end to the old feudal relationships.
Frightened nobility gave in to the demands and urged the National
Assembly to end feudal rights.
The Revolution led to high unemployment and increased hunger in the
city. The power of the monarchy was broken. The king had to return to
Paris. The National Assembly abolished the French nobility as a group
with legal rights and created a constitutional monarchy in July 1790.
The king remained the head of state, but the true power rested with the
National Assembly. The National Assembly continued to make further
reforms: dividing the country into 83 districts, adopting the metric
system, promoting economic reforms and freedom, and generally applying
the ideas of the Enlightenment to all of France’s institutions. The
Assembly also confiscated the lands of the nobility who had emigrated
from France and nationalised Church lands. They forced the clergy to
take oaths of allegiance to the new government and sought to subjugate
the power of the Church.
However, the Revolution continued. From 1793 to 1794, the Committee
of Public Safety conducted a reign of Terror upon the French people.
Maximilian Robespierre was the head of the Committee of Public Safety.
The Terror was directed at anyone who was perceived as being an enemy of
the revolution. Over 40,000 people were executed or died in prison.
However, on July 27, 1794, Robespierre was overthrown and the next day
executed. Thus, the Terror was over. In 1795, a new government, a
Directory, was created, but several years later it was overthrown by
Napoleon Bonaparte, who declared himself the “Emperor of the French.”
Thus, the Revolution that had ended monarchy resulted in the
establishment of an Emperor6.
The comparison of a revolution and a revolt.
So, observing a revolt on the example of two Frondes, and a
revolution on the example of the French revolution, we are able to
compare these two kinds of rebellions, and evaluate the notion of the
Fronde which claimed “revolt rather than a revolution”. To tell the
truth, both revolt and revolution have its advantages and disadvantages.
Of course, they bring some benefits, but very often they lead to
misfortunes, problems and troubles as well as deaths of thousands of
people. However, revolutions are certainly better, as they are the
expression of people’s wish (the majority of people), while revolts are
the expression of a small group of people, who seek their own interests.
Revolution does not just mean that an armed group seizes power.
Politically speaking, it means that the masses seize power, and
establish a people’s government. It does not just involve throwing out
foreign armies, as this is, of course, an obligation that a nation must
fulfil without revolution, as well as it should take measures to
nationalise foreign interests in a country. In fact, revolution consists
in the masses seizing power and so a final and decisive solution is
found to the political problem in favour of the people. Revolution is
the victory of liberty, and a genuine and decisive victory in favour of
the masses.
Nowadays the historians and the governments of many countries try to
falsify the history of revolutions. They paint them either Blue or Buff
in the style of their own politics, however, a real revolution has many
colours. It is a revolt that possesses only bad features and dark
colours. Revolts within a state can’t be considered a wise step, even
if they are aimed at making life better or bringing about some reforms.
Reformation always needs further reform, it only brings misery and more
destruction.
An excellent example of the revolt could be the marching of the
ladies of Paris to Versaille and taking the king, queen, and prince back
to Paris with them during the French revolution. They had done it after
hearing a rumour of a stockpile of bread that was being held by the king
at Versaille7. In this case these women were not engaged in a
revolution, but more in a revolt. So, there is a vast difference between
the action of creative revolution, and the action of revolt within
society.
Conclusion.
Thus, the assessment of the Fronde is not fair, as revolution is
certainly better, as it is born of understanding of the whole structure.
Its action produces waves, which are able to create quite a different
civilisation. And even if they fail, we can’t dismiss the prospect of
revolution and the reasons of failure until we carefully examine the
movements. Individual revolts are bound to fail and it is hardly
surprising that these revolts did not go farther – they don’t have the
support of the majority, besides they are often badly thought over. And
revolutions usually are of a great standard, expressing the wish of the
masses and including a large number of forces. Every new revolution take
new and unpredictable forms, leading to positive changes or
establishing new forms of ruling.
In short, a revolution breaks down the social constraints, which
underlie so much of what is considered “mental illness”, freeing people
to discover their own meanings, methods of thinking and feeling. In
fact, it gives people freedom. And freedom belongs to the individual,
and as such it certainly resides in individual responsibility to oneself
and in free association with others. Thus, there can be no obligations,
no debts, only choices of how to act. Revolution remains a better choice
for improvements and changes.
Endnotes.
1. Wendy Gibson. A Tragic Farce: the Fronde (1648-1653), 1998. pp.
27-38.
2. Moote A.L. The Revolt of the Judges: The Parliament of Paris and the
Fronde, 1643-1652. (1972), pp. 2-7.
3. Ibid.
4. Commonweal, Volume 2, Number 21, 5 June 1886, p. 77.
5. Roger Chartier (trans. Lydia Cochrane), The Cultural Origins of the
French Revolution (Durham, 1991), pp. 124-8. 6. Ibid, pp. 127-128.
7. Ibid.
Bibliography.
1. Burke P., The Fabrication of Louis XIV. New Haven and London, 1992.
2. Commonweal, Volume 2, Number 21, 5 June 1886, p. 77.
3. Chartier R. (trans. Lydia Cochrane), The Cultural Origins of the
French Revolution (Durham, 1991), pp. 124-8.
4. Gibson W. A Tragic Farce: The Fronde (1648-1653), 1998, pp. 23-148.
5. Hanley S., The Lit de Justice of the Kings of France: Constitutional
Ideology in Legend, Ritual, and Discourse. Princeton, 1983.
6. Kantorowicz E., The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medireview
Political Theology. Princeton, 1957.
7. Knabb K. (ed. and trans.), Situationist International Anthology.
Bureau of Public Secrets, 1981, p. 81.
8. Marin L. (trans. Martha M. Houle), Portrait of the King. Minneapolis,
1988.
9. Maza S., Private Lives and Public Affairs: the Causes Celebres of
Prerevolutionary France. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1993, pp. 167-211.
Нашли опечатку? Выделите и нажмите CTRL+Enter
