Friday, 20 January 2017

Historical Research Plenary Lecture 2017: (sponsored by Wiley) The English Revolution as a Civil War by John Morrill.

The first thing that strikes you about John Morrill's lecture was that it was a rare treat to hear a man with such erudition. Whether you agree or disagree with his historiography, he is a man worth going out of your way to see and listen to.

Anyone who knows Morrill's work will know that he rejects the premise that a revolution took place in the 1640s'. He seems to have spent most of his academic career opposing this conception. Wednesday night's lecture was no different. Morrill believes there was a series of civil wars which fits into his support for the war of three Kingdoms historiography.[1]

Morrill avoided a search for the origins of the English Civil War'. He has recently written, that this 'is the early modern historian's Holy Grail.' Early on in his career, Morrill opposed the Marxist approach to the English revolution. He rejected the "rather triumphalist claim that you could now produce a kind of social determinist view of the long-term causes and origins of the English revolution. It was that I think, which several people quite independently reacted against". Morrill characterized the Civil Wars as England's 'Wars of Religion'.

He rejects the conception of a bourgeois revolution, and he certainly does not believe that this period witnessed a transition from feudalism to Capitalism. At one stage, he quipped that the Socialist Workers Party(SWP) had asked him to lecture on the English revolution. He told them that the only revolution whereby land was transferred in any great amount took place in Ireland. They were not interested.

Joking aside Morrill's work on Ireland is worth a look at. The massive land grab that was undertaken by the English bourgeoisie was staggering. This smash and grab raids were done brutally.

At least half of Morrill's lecture was given over to how non-revolutionary the events of 1640s England were. However, even he did not deny how much savagery was involved.
During his talk, the subject of the Clubmen arose. 

His studies on the Clubmen movement is another indicator of his attempt to downplay the revolutionary events. John Morrill was emphasizing the apathy felt by most during the conflict, arguing previously that  "A majority had no deep-seated convictions behind their choice of side."  

Many in England simply chose to support the faction they felt gave them the best opportunity to preserve the status quo; whether it be royalists, parliamentarians, or local neutralists such as the Clubmen".

Morrill believes that many "ordinary" Englishmen were unconcerned with fomenting revolutionary ideas. During his lecture, it was not surprising to hear that Morrill rejected any social understanding of the revolution.

This was a strange comment to make since even a cursory look at his work shows he was influenced by the New Social history historiography in an interview he describes his attitude towards those historians who were in the forefront of the group "So there came along the new social history which opened up a whole range of types of evidence, and so one of the most important things to happen for my period was the work which is most obviously associated with Keith Wrightson (who trained in Cambridge, spent many years in St Andrews, returned to Cambridge and then moved to Yale). And the Wrightson revolution, in the way in which social history is done, had a huge impact on those of us who were more interested in high politics. I mean popular politics, constructed high politics. Wrightson's importance for my work is again something that people might be a bit surprised to hear about, but I personally, in my mid-career, saw it as absolutely fundamental".

To conclude Morrill is worth listening to and his work read. It is also hoped that his major project on the works of Oliver Cromwell is finished and that it reaches a wider audience.





[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms

No Newes is Good Newes



Events

'A cabinet of rarities-: the curious collections of Sir Thomas Browne
30 January 2017 to 27 July 2017

Royal College of Physicians of London

11 St Andrews Place, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4LE

The Putney Debates 2017

Constitutional Crisis in the United Kingdom

2–3 February 2017

St Mary’s Church, Putney

Books

The Leveller Revolution- by John Rees Verso Books (2 Nov. 2016)

John Lilburne & The Levellers: Reappraising the Roots of English Radicalism 400 years on (Routledge Studies in Radical History and Politics) Hardcover – 31 May 2017 by John Rees (Editor)

Alehouses and Good Fellowship in Early Modern England (Studies in Early Modern Cultural, Political and Social History) Paperback – October 21, 2016, by Mark Hailwood (Author)

Early Modern Women’s Writing: Domesticity, Privacy, and the Public Sphere in England and the Dutch Republic, published in the Early Modern Literature in History series by Palgrave Macmillan.

TV & Radio

George Fox and the Quakers-In Our Time-http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f67y4
Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the origins of Quakerism. In the mid-seventeenth


Sunday, 1 January 2017

A Socialist History of the French Revolution-Jean Jaures -Pluto Press-Abridged -2015- 288 pages- ISBN-13: 978-0745335001

"Every revolutionary party, every oppressed people, every oppressed working class can claim Jaurès, his memory, his example, and his person, for our own" - Leon Trotsky

For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones.  Marx, German Ideology (1845)

Published just a few years before his death, A Socialist History of the French Revolution is one of the most important books  written on the French Revolution.

Despite the passage of time, interest in the French revolution has not diminished. Aside from the abridged translation of Jean Jaures's multi-volume Socialist History of the French Revolution, the last decade has seen a significant output from writers like Éric Hazan's People's History of the French Revolution (published in French in 2012) and several other high profile books.

The French Revolution was an event of world-historical importance. It would not be an overstatement to say that it changed not only European history but world history. The revolution also changed the way future generations saw revolutions. Like the English revolution, the French revolution is till being fought over by historians.

This new abridged version of the writings of Jean Jaures painstakingly put together by translator Mitchell Abidor is a welcome addition to an already crowded market. Jaures's original work filled several volumes.

Biography

Jaurès was born in Castres in Midi-Pyrénées in 1859. He became a leading international socialist who was later assassinated for opposing the first world war. He was also the celebrated leader of the French Socialist Party leader. His history of the revolution was published in 1914.

His work has stayed fresh and has endured the rigors of time. It is one of the most important and influential accounts of the French Revolution. Mitchell Abidor's much-anticipated translation brings Jaures's work to an English audience for the first time. Jaures application of the historical materialism method will help students, academics, and the public to a greater understanding of this complex event.

Jean Jaures

Jaures account of the revolution is not without controversy. Throughout his work on the revolution, he defended Robespierre's reputation. Jaures believed that Robespierre acted out of necessity and in the words of one writer "to save the new republic from its enemies. Robespierre, like Jaurès after him, was anti-militarist and argued passionately against war with Europe in 1792.

Jaures use of narrative history makes his work very readable without lowering political or academic standards. Despite Jaures concern to portray ordinary people in his work, this is not a "history from below".
Despite the working class appearing on the scene, Jaures was careful enough not to portray this revolution as a proletarian revolution while the working class may have stormed the Bastille this was firmly a revolution in the control of the developing bourgeoisie.

As Jaures states "The revolution's origins were so profoundly bourgeois that a few weeks after July 14, when the National Assembly, freed by the people from the court's attacks, set up the electoral regime and excluded millions of the working poor from the vote... not even the most democratic of them remembered that at the Bastille the workers of Paris had conquered the title of active citizens for the poor of France.[1]

Jaurès continues "that the proletarians were neither bold enough, conscious enough, nor organized enough to substitute their revolution for the revolution, they marched light-heartedly against the chateaux and turned against the ancien régime the weapons they'd seized... We can see that there was a kind of conservative movement of contraction, or tightening, which was followed by a revolutionary expansion. Under the fear of the unknown and before the uprising of the have-nots, the communities of the villages withdrew into themselves, elected men of whom they were sure, established a militia, and, having thus guaranteed the order of property within the revolution, attacked the feudal system". The contradiction between the entry of the working class onto the stage of history and the bourgeois nature of the revolution is at the heart of Jaures work on the revolution.

Henry Heller, in his introduction, is correct to point out that Jaures saw the French revolution as the first struggle of socialists to overthrow capitalism. Given the abridged nature of the book, Heller's introduction takes a more important role than is normal for an introduction.

As Jaurès writes "Perhaps one generation alone could not bring down the ancien régime, create new laws and rights, raise an enlightened and proud people from the depths of ignorance, poverty, and misery, fight against an international league of tyrants and slaves, and put all passions and forces to use in this combat while at the same time ensuring the evolution of the fevered, exhausted country towards normal order and well-ordered freedom".

The Bourgeois Revolution

Jaures was an astute enough writer to know the French revolution was not a chemically pure revolution. The bourgeoisie was not a homogenous class and was made up of factions who were still integrated into the social and economic structures of the ancient regime.

Other sections of the middle class who were unable to profit under the old regime established new forms of production undertook a revolution to profit from it. As Jean Jaures said, the finance bourgeoisie represented a hybrid social force at the crossroads of the ancient regime.

The reaction to the revolution of the European bourgeoisie was one of fear and horror. Best summed up by Edmund Burke "France has always more or less influenced manners in England; and when your fountain is choked up and polluted, the stream will not run long, or not run clear, with us, or perhaps with any nation. This gives all Europe, in my opinion, but too close and connected a concern in what is done in France. Excuse me, therefore, if I have dwelt too long on the atrocious spectacle of October 6, 1789, or have given too much scope to the reflections which have arisen in my mind on the occasion of the most important of all revolutions, which may be dated from that day, I mean a revolution in sentiments, manners, and moral opinions".[2]

The French revolution was the catalyst for national revolutions to follow. The 18th century was a century of crises for various European regimes. The French revolution was not the only one to take place, i.e. the French heavily influenced the American Revolution. Therefore, it is not surprising that this time was called "The age of democratic revolutions".

Having said this, the bourgeoisie in France and Europe was not opposed to scupper democratic norms when they got in the way of making money.

As the Marxist writer, Ann Talbot shows us "The imperatives of private property and profit were not about to stand still, and the Jacobins had no alternative form of social organization to offer. Robespierre did not need to imagine conspiracies. They arose in plenty. Just across the Channel, the emerging capitalist power of Britain could afford to finance the armies of the surviving ancien regimes and uprisings such as that in the province of La Vendée. The domestic opposition was produced by the war profiteers and grain merchants, who exploited the continuing shortages of grain".[3]

Jaures was clear that this most dramatic revolution was certainly the most politically significant within Europe. While there are some parallels with the English revolution, this was unlike any other previous revolution.

In Britain and America, Tom Paine was an extremist in France he was a moderate. As Talbot writes "Paine's life story reflects the experience of a new social type: self-educated men from poor backgrounds who were making their way in industry, science and, in Paine's case, politics. He was the most brilliant example of this new phenomenon".The country of which he had become a citizen was menaced from within by aristocratic conspiracies and from without by aggressive neighbours, as intent on furthering their own interests as restoring the ancient regime. France was isolated; its economy and currency were collapsing. These facts coloured the history of the revolution. The French revolutionaries were increasingly forced to create an emergency wartime regime and take drastic measures. The Great Terror grew out of the Great Fear".[4]

Reasons for revolution

Like many things regarding the French revolution, the reason for its outbreak has little or no agreement amongst historians.The crisis began in 1787 the trigger being the king's attempt to stop state bankruptcy. Coupled with this was the fact that France had been involved in a significant number of wars on an international scale.

Deregulation of agriculture began to hit the poor the most. Hostility against the excess of the clergy and the nobility who had creamed off most of the money. The advent of the humanist and scientific development produced the ground for the philosophers to challenge the monarchy. Many thinkers came from the bourgeoisie who sought to undermine the aristocracy.

The position of the peasantry had been growing worse for over 20 years. France had run up huge debts during the war in America. The revolution was started by the assembly of notables demanded an extension of their privileges. The revolution was not led by a formal political party with a systematic program. The revolution did have a striking consensus amongst its leader's. At its heart was a new capitalist class, who had enlightened thinkers who were confident of their ideas. Although the revolution would have happened without them. They made sure that when the regime broke down, something could replace it.

Their demands were laid down in the declaration of the rights of man, men are born equal, but some are more equal to than others l. Their regime would, however, constitute the will of the people and to represent the French nation. A national assembly was constituted to enshrine the power of this new class. Absolutism was at an end, Mirabeau was to declare to the king "sire, you are a stranger in this assembly, you have not the right to speak here" [5].

The new assembly had a broad base and represented the labouring masses and peasantry. A Bad harvest had turned things nasty, and open revolt occurred. The king refused to accept the status quo' the next stage of the revolution saw the storming of the Bastille. July 14. What began as peasant uprising sparked a wider movement? Feudalism was abolished in1793; the middle class finally consolidated its regime.

The middle class had to deal with both the conservative right and left-wing who were determined to pursue their agenda? This brought two groups to the fore, the Jacobeans and the Sansculottes both represented the small middle class. Small farmer's artisans who were being squeezed by the new larger middle class. The sharp changes brought about in France stirred fervent actions outside its borders, as monarchies grew fearful that it could be repeated elsewhere. The purpose of the revolution was to usher in a new class.

The bourgeoisie, however, unstable this was to be the subsequent revolutions were an attempt by the various contending factions to gain power at this the working class did not constitute an independent class yet sided and was led by one section of the middle class. In much respect, the history of this revolution determined the history of Europe.

Historiography– Classical and revisionists

It is not within the realm of this review to discuss every single revisionist historical trend of the revolution. There is a similar theme amongst all of them in that the French revolution was not a bourgeois revolution.
Eric Hazan, the author of numerous books of the revolutions in France, claims that Marxist historians have exaggerated the presence of the bourgeoisie in France "In their struggle against the bourgeoisie, the revolutionary peasants and sans-culottes were working against the grain of history as they opposed the establishment of capitalism."

Hazan continues "that the words "bourgeois" and "bourgeoisie" were rare in late-18th-century France: "I have found 'the rich', 'hoarders', 'aristocrats', 'plotters', 'mono­polists', 'rogues', 'rentiers', but scarcely a single 'bourgeois'." He concludes that the question "Was the revolution bourgeois or not?" does not mean anything.[6]

Amongst the more classically minded historians was Alfred Cobban (May 24 1901-1 April 1968)who opposed a historical materialist understanding of the French revolution.   Cobban wrote an article entitled The Myth of the French revolution whose basic premise was to deny the anti-feudal and bourgeoisie nature of revolution.

Albert Soboul sought to defend a materialist method of understanding the cause of the French revolution. He believed that even within the liberal school of historians, the revolution was a social act that paved the way for the bourgeoisie to come to power. That the revolution had been prepared ideologically had prepared its ideas, which undermined the existing feudal regime.

Conclusion

To conclude as  Lefebvre "Without scholarship there is no history".[7] It is clear the revolution itself was the result of complex changes in inside France and Europe. Each generation of historians has added immense understanding to this event. It also must be stated that the attack on a historical materialist understanding of the revolution has done great damage. Despite this, there will be a thirst in the coming period for a materialist understanding of past revolutionary events.

In this context, the work by translator Mitchell Abidor should be a tremendous service to increasing one's knowledge of the complex historical event. While the problem with any abridgement is that it must choose what to leave out, it will hopefully push readers into reading far more on the subject than they had intended which mean that some readers might want to read further on the revolution.

I leave the final word with Jaurès "We will not mock the men of the revolution who read Plutarch's Lives. It's certain that the great burst of inner energy Plutarch inspired in them did little to change the march of events, but at least the men of the revolution remained upright in the storm." To judge them as if they should have brought the drama to a close as if history was not going to continue after them, is both childish and unjust. Their work was necessarily limited, but it was great."




[1] Jean Jaurès, History of the French Revolution. 1901-https://www.marxists.org/archive/jaures/1901/history/july-14.htm
[2] Reflections on the Revolution in France-Burke
[3] Present historic: Carlyle, Robespierre and the French Revolution
Part one-By Ann Talbot-15 July 2010-https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/07/fren-j15.html
[4] Citizen of the world: a brief survey of the life and times of Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
By Ann Talbot-8 June 2009
[5] Age of Revolution: 1789-1848- By Eric Hobsbawm
[6] France's left will never accept the revolution is over-Ruth Scurr-http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2015/08/frances-left-will-never-accept-revolution-over
[7] Quoted in https://thecharnelhouse.org/tag/albert-soboul/