The Coming of the French Revolution

by Georges Lefebvre, R.R. Palmer (Preface), Timothy Tackett (Introduction)

"The Coming of the French Revolution" remains essential reading for anyone interested in the origins of this great turning point in the formation of the modern world. First published in 1939, on the eve of the Second World War, and suppressed by the Vichy government, this classic work explains what happened in France in 1789, the first year of the French Revolution. Georges Lefebvre wrote history "from below"--a Marxist approach. Here, he places the peasantry at the center of his analysis, emphasizing the class struggles in France and the significant role they played in the coming of the revolution.

Eloquently translated by the historian R. R. Palmer and featuring an introduction by Timothy Tackett that provides a concise intellectual biography of Lefebvre and a critical appraisal of the book, this Princeton Classics edition continues to offer fresh insights into democracy, dictatorship, and insurrection.

Genres: History, French Revolution, France, Nonfiction, European History, Politics, War

232 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1939

About the author

Georges Lefebvre was a French historian, best known for his work on the French Revolution and peasant life.

Reviews

[Renin · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Dismayed by popular excesses, the bourgeoisie tried to blame them on provocative agents, foreigners, ‘‘brigands” and crimi­nals such as inevitably mingled with the insurgents. It is true that men who are the dregs of society are not the last to take part in mobs. But the allegations of the Assembly and the bour­geois authorities have a note of apology. The ordinary people neither condemned nor repudiated the murders of July, nor did Barnave or Mme. Roland. The elements in the revolution­ary complex cannot be taken apart. In this sense Clemenceau was right: the Revolution is a bloc, a single thing. The moralist must praise heroism and condemn cruelty, but the moralist does not explain events.”

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well-written history of that momentous first year of the French Revolution -- 1789. Georges Lefebvre's The Coming of the French Revolution describes the sad state of France in that momentous year, when the king, the aristocracy, the clergy, the middle class, and the peasantry were all at each other's throats. The book begins with the creation of the Estates-General, which morphed into the National Assembly, and ends with the masses forcing the king to vacate Versailles and move to the Tuileries in Paris.

This all was before the guillotine and the terror, but it shows that already some 200,000 Frenchmen emigrated out of fear of what was to come. Lefebvre's book is a sine qua non for anyone who is interested in how the Revolution came to be.

[Marian Tully]

To be clear: this was for school

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published in 1939 as a celebration of its 150 years, Georges Lefebvre's book offers an easy to understand overview of the beginning of the French Revolution: started by the aristocratie, followed up by the bourgeoisie and, crucially and decisively, later on joined by wide popular revolts in general -peasants in particular- the author indeed let it unfolds under our eyes like a domino effect. Such an overview, sharp, reveals itself to be of an enlightening simplicity. The fact Georges Lefebvre solely deals with the year 1789 (until the imprisonment of the king in the Tuileries) without extrapolating upon the events that will follow up just makes this read even more straightforward.

Sure, he is a classic historian of the French Revolution. It doesn't mean, though, that he reduces it only to a simple matter of class struggle. Rightly underlining how cautious we have to be with such a concept for such an event (e.g. there was no unity nor class consciousness among the bourgeoisie and the nobility...) he demonstrates in fact through various factors how it's individuals coming from different strata of society that merged months after months to end the French Old Regime, an end those final stop would ultimately be the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen. Class still matters, but not only.

Thus, reading very simply like a play in four acts (the revolution by the aristocrats, the revolution by the bourgeoisie, the revolution by the people, the revolution by the peasants) 'The Coming of the French Revolution' may still oversimplifies things (in its overall Marxist approach) but, nevertheless, it makes for an accessible and clear snapshots of events otherwise highly complex and controversial. An enlightening read.

[GoldGato · Rating 4 out of 5]

Two revolutions in two different countries. In one, the bloodthirsty inhabitants turned to a Reign of Terror to achieve their objectives. In the other, disenfranchised shopkeepers threw off their overlords to begin a new nation. The differences between the French and American Revolutions have always intrigued me, which is why I picked up this paperback. What the heck caused the Gallic disturbance to be so...disturbing?

This really is an excellent introduction to the reasons for the French Revolution, focusing on each affected group, from king to nobles to middle class to peasants. This is not an overview of the later Reign of Terror or the beginning of the Empire, so the focus is very strong and full of details.

Still, I wonder how the future of France would have turned if there had been stronger protagonists. Danton, Robespierre, Marat, Isnard? Or Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin?

Book Season = Winter (Paris is grey)

[Daniel Zadravec · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview of the causes and initial outline of the French Revolution

[Edward Champion · Rating 4 out of 5]

This "classic" overview of the French Revolution has largely been superseded by later volumes in terms of pith and scholarship, but it is useful at showing the conditions that lead to the famous moment in history in which democracy became a dealbreaker. Lefebrve spends a surprising amount of time with Jacques Necker. And, honestly, that should tell you everything you need to know about the way that this "famed historian" glosses over the proletariat. You're honestly much better off with Jeremy Popkin's A WORLD BEGINS or any other truly comprehensive volume.

[Mshelton50 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great introduction to the first stage of the French Revolution from a top-notch French historian. In addition, the translation is by the distinguished American historian R.R. Palmer. Very clear cut and nicely written.

[James Dempsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Neat explanatory run up to July 1789, with lovely emphasis given to activity outside of Paris, in the country, and the climate of ferment that had been building hitherto among the peasant folk.

[Kay · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this work, though I think it would be a fairly challenging read without a somewhat solid overview of French history going into it. I think Lefebvre does a very compelling job of looking at the different motivations (and, even, different overlapping revolutions) that all fed into the events of 1789. That said, there are some odd gaps in Lefebvre's analysis; for instance, women are oddly absent, and when they do appear Lefebvre is oddly dismissive of their actions.

Also worth noting: my edition contained a final two paragraphs that were initially omitted by R.R. Palmer in his initial translation, that situates the book far more firmly within its historical milieu.

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting look at the lead-up to the French Revolution. Lefebvre suggests a kind of revolutionary cascade: what started as a power struggle between the King and the aristocracy spilled over into the bourgeoisie when the Estates General were called in the spring/summer of 1789, and the actions that took place there spurred wider revolutionary action in the poorer classes of the cities and countryside. It's considered a classic of the Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution, and I think on the whole that's pretty fair. It does a nice job showing how class resentments and economic hardships both led to and aggravated the situation.

Lefebvre tries to a limited extent to reach beyond this model, and mentions in passing other influences on the revolution (political philosophy, religion). I think his work on the whole would have been a bit stronger if he considered these a bit more instead of putting such heavy weight on the economic factors. It's also not a terribly lively book considering its subject matter. Lefebvre (or perhaps Palmer, the translator) is a bit of a dry writer. But it's still certainly worth a read.

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the study of history there are a number of must-read books, often read not because one *wants* to but because one *needs* to. "The Coming of the French Revolution" is one of those must-read, classic books; but most of all, readers of all abilities will be delighted by the accessibility and sheer persuasive power of this short study of the causes of the French Revolution.

[Robert Jeens · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a Marxist interpretation of one of the events in history for which a Marxist interpretation is appropriate. The historian Georges Lefebvre published the book in France in 1939, but the Vichy regime repressed it and so it became more popular in English translation in the English-speaking world.
Lefebvre sees the deep underlying cause of the revolution as the rise of the bourgeoisie, which more and more financed the state, provided officials for it, and whose ideology rose in importance, but which had no formal power. However, the immediate cause was a financial crisis in governance which forced the King to call the Estates-General to meet to provide money for the state. This, plus the provincial estates, in which the aristocracy and clergy predominated, actually started the revolution. The aristocracy started the revolution because they wanted back powers they had lost to the King, but this opened the way to the bourgeoisie and then carried to popular revolution in the streets.
Although the ideals of the revolution had deep roots in French Enlightenment thought, the American Revolution was the proximate cause of the French Revolution. It stirred up the idea of human rights and the French military intervention in it had to be paid for by the French government by loans, which then had to be repaid, but could not. Thus the need for fiscal reform. The problem was that generally, in France, the richer a person, the less tax he paid. Therefore, the Estates-General had to be called to raise taxes on the rich to pay back loans. The nobles, however, would only agree to pay taxes if they received more power in government. Mistakes made by the King and his ministers transformed the situation from one in which the aristocracy was trying to get back power from the King in return for paying taxes into a situation in which the King and aristocracy were allied in defense of the old order and the bourgeoisie won for the new.
The action moves through the decisive bodies, the Paris Parliament, the Estates-General, the Provincial Parliaments, and the National Assembly. The bourgeoisie at first recognized the King as a part of the state in his own right with his own powers and the rights of the clergy and nobility to sit in the assembly on their own terms. The King was outsmarted by the bourgeoisie lawyers in the assemblies and so he determined to use force and it backfired.
It backfired because, in addition to the lawfare at the top of the state, the harvest of 1788 was poor and the common people were hungry. There were bread riots in Paris and other cities and towns in France, and in the countryside the peasants revolted against their aristocratic masters. The Bastille was stormed and LaFayette was put in charge of a new National Guard. In the violence, the bourgeoisie were divided. Some encouraged it, while others were its victims. Generally, peasants did not like the bourgeoisie either, inasmuch as the bourgeoisie had sometimes managed to make themselves masters of estates.
This brought about the decisive events of August, 1789, in which the National Assembly abolished all feudal and clerical rights and proclaimed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. The King refused to accept them until, in October, a mob forced him from Versailles to the Tuileries Palace in Paris. He was now under their control and the old feudal order was dead. The Revolution was only beginning.
This is a masterful yet concise book. Lefebre displays a deep knowledge of his subject. Some of his lines have become classic. “[T]he death certificate of the old order.” “[W]e cannot run history over like an experiment.” “The moralist must praise heroism and condemn cruelty; but the moralist does not explain events.” He places the blame for the resort to force on the King and aristocracy: the violence of the people was a response. It then spun out of the control of anyone.
I struggle to make sense of the French Revolution I agree with the ideals of the French Revolution: equality, liberty, fraternity: no aristocracy, no slaves. Over the long term, those ideals have triumphed in most of what we call the free world. However, in France itself, they led to tumult, wars, the Terror, and ultimately to a dictatorship. I don’t think they were fully realized in France until after World War Two. Perhaps the ideals that were espoused at that time were not possible for that time and place: the American acceptance of political reality was a better political compromise. Or maybe the force of events was most important in bringing about a disaster from what could have been a better if not perfect country.
Freedom is not free.

[Anderson Paz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nesse livro de 1939, Lefebvre trata apenas do início da revolução francesa. A abordagem marxista de luta de classes é saliente. Ainda assim, trata-se de um bom texto, bastante informativo.

A aristocracia era a nobreza, maior beneficiária dos direitos feudais. Diante da falta de dinheiro, muitos começaram a sonhar com uma nova ordem socia. Ao ajudar os americanos, a França se endividou. O rei, na tentativa de fazer reformas fiscais, colidiu com o Parlamento e a aristocracia. Os Estados gerais foram convocados, mas o Terceiro Estado não se submeteu à aristocracia.

A burguesia (negociantes, industriais, burocratas, etc) era parte do Terceiro Estado. No seio da sociedade, cultivava ódio aos privilégios da nobreza e valorizava ideias republicanas. Líderes burgueses conduziram o Terceiro Estado em busca de reformas republicanas por mais igualdade. Os deputados do Terceiro Estado se uniram contra o rei, que reagiu conservando a ordem social tradicional e a proeminência da aristocracia. O rei ordenou tropas para cercar a Assembleia do Terceiro Estado. A força popular reagiu.

Em meio à crise econômica, a massa foi levada à penúria e culpa a aristocracia, que ainda sufocava os burgueses representantes da massa. Com medo de Paris ser invadida por tropas, o povo corre e toma a Bastilha em busca de armas. O rei se entrega. Instalou-se o terror: repressão e punição para evitar um contragolpe à revolução. A revolução se espalha pelas províncias, não de forma violenta. Segue-se um processo de centralização e de medo de um contragolpe.

A Assembleia Nacional decidiu anular privilégios, promover reformas e se opor ao domínio da aristocracia. A Declaração tinha finalidade, primordialmente, negativa de condenar o Antigo Regime e impedir seu retorno.

Luíz XVI resistiu aprovar atos da Assembleia, gerando controvérsia sobre o que fazer. Os patriotas defenderam levar o rei para Paris a fim de pressioná-lo. Em meio à crise econômica, o rei e a aristocracia foram acusados e se tornaram bode expiatório. O rei foi conduzido para Paris a fim de ficar sob vigilância do povo. Em 1789, a revolução só tinha começado.

[Dalton Lundy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was looking for an overview and introduction to the French Revolution as a whole however this was not it. That was my fault for not knowing that this book deals primarily with the history leading up to the 1789 revolution and the drafting of the declaration of rights. That being said, this book alone provides much more insight and understanding how and why the revolution started in the first place.

By the way Lefebvre organizes and emphasizes his sections, you can tell he is familiar with and very much so integrates dialectical materialism in his historical methodology. He carefully considers the material (class relations and state of productions), spiritual (ideology of such classes in such a place and time), and the politics that are detailed by the individuals involved. He makes a very interesting point about how the revolution originally started not as a peasant revolution, nor even a Bourgois revolution, but an aristocratic one. It is from there an unfolding of events occurred all the more stimulated by the tensions between the tensions between all the classes and the financial and nutritional issues that were plaguing the region at the time.

I am not a big fan of the translation itself however; some passages left me confused or caught in a re-reading loop. It doesn't help either that much confusion is also brought on by the large cast of characters and the collections of byzantine legalities that detailed the old-regime. If you can get past this, then you should read this book.

I wanted a full overview but still not disappointed with my choice. I guess I will have to read all of his dozen other works on the revolution now to get the original big picture that I wanted.

[Metal Nyankos · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm always a little hesitant reading an older history book; this hesitancy is not usually grounded in informational concerns, but rooted entirely in the issue of readability. I am happy to say that this classic work (first published in 1939) by French historian Georges Lefebvre holds up, as far as style and readability is concerned, very well. I can't say how it is in regards to information, as I have very little knowledge of France at this time in it's history beyond what Hollywood (i.e. "Start the Revolution Without Me" and "History of the World: Part I") has shown me.

That all said, Lefebvre has written an excellent little history (it's just over 200 words) outlining the major reasons behind the French Revolution, including the pertinent historical figures and underlying economic, social, and agricultural tensions. If this was a superhero film it would probably have been styled as "1789: Origins." I left Lefenvre's book feeling like I knew and understood substantially more than I did going into it, no matter how amusing those older Hollywood stories may be. He connected everything together as he told the story and each section did well at introducing and explaining the next. A top notch work.

[John Majerle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book takes you through the months leading up to the French revolution. It makes the case that both the aristocracy and the King had plenty of warning concerning the changing of the tide of history and had plenty of opportunity to both minimize bloodshed and retain most of their effective power if they had the imagination to do so. All they needed to do was be willing to compromise and help draft a new constitution that defines a constitutional monarchy. But either from bad advice or lack of imagination they failed to do so. Who knows, perhaps they thought they could simply kick the can down the road and let a future monarch deal with it. Either way I am left with much less sympathy for the execution of Louis and Marie Antoinette and the rest of the nobility. I also have a better feel for how Napoleon was eventually able to seize control of the situation.

[Lucio A. Bianchi · Rating 5 out of 5]

​As a historian, I am struck not only by the accomplishments of this book but also by the profound and lasting impact of Georges Lefebvre's career on French academia.

​The work is a landmark contribution to two major bodies of scholarship. First, it offers a masterful synthesis for the historiography of the French Revolution. Drawing on his life's work, Lefebvre compellingly divides the conflict into four distinct yet interconnected acts: the Aristocratic, Bourgeois, Popular, and Peasant revolutions. Second, the book is a foundational text in the field of ‘history from below’. Informed by his influential doctoral thesis on the peasantry of the Lille region, Lefebvre's pioneering methodology is equally evident throughout this work, showcasing his commitment to telling history from the perspective of the masses.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel indifferent about it. I have no interest in this topic but I saw people say it's good to read this before other books (mainly the black Jacobins) so you have some background knowledge on what's going on. It briefly covers the aspects of the revolution but doesn't go into much detail about anything. To be fair I don't think it's supposed to go super in depth but rather just give you some general knowledge. But this paired with my lack of interest just made for a meh read. If you are interested in the topic tho I'd say this is a solid book to start out with then you can dive deeper into it.

[Herb Hastings · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a nuts and bolts history. It gives precise details of voting patterns and the make up of the three divisions of French society. It does not make for light reading but it is fascinating.

One statement jumps out as a message to our times. The author points out on page 21 that the financial crisis which led to the economic collapse of the monarchical government which led to the Revolution, could have been avoided if only the tax system was reformed so that the richest classes paid equivalently as the poorest. This book was first published in 1939.

[Iago · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un clásico de la historia contemporánea, y una genial exposición sobre los inicios de la Revolución Francesa. Se analiza la misma bajo la óptica del materialismo histórico, poniendo el énfasis en los factores económicos del momento y en los choques de intereses entre clases.

He echado en falta una categorización de los diferentes estatus sociales de los campesinos (siervos, aparceros, jornaleros...) y esperaba que la obra hubiese tratado también el desarrollo de la revolución tras la toma del poder, pero no por ello la obra me parece menos interesante e instructiva.

[Todd L · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Liberty is by no means an invitation to indifference or to irresponsible power; nor is it the promise of unlimited well-being without a counterpart of toil and effort. It supposes application, perpetual effort, strict government of self, sacrifice in contingencies, civic and private virtues. It is therefore more difficult to live as a free man than to live as a slave, and that is why men so often renounce their freedom; for freedom is in its way an invitation to a life of courage, and sometimes of heroism, as the freedom of the Christian is an invitation to a life of sainthood." (p. 218)

"Revolutionary action takes place in the realm of the spirit." (p. 209)

[Gage Hoefer · Rating 4 out of 5]

While Lefebvre covers only the advent of the French Revolution (ie around 1786-1790), his analysis of the internal contradictions of each class from the aristocracy down to the peasants clearly shows the direction the Revolution would take in the years to follow. This is a great introduction for those wanting to learn more about the Revolution from a class perspective (along with, of course, Marx’s 18th Brumaire)

[Peyton · Rating 4 out of 5]

"For the French of 1789 liberty and equality were inseparable, almost two words for the same thing; but had they been obliged to choose, it is equality that they would have chosen; and when the peasants, who formed the overwhelming majority, cheered the conquest of liberty they were in fact thinking of the disappearance of the authority of the manorial lord, and his reduction to the status of a mere citizen. They were thinking, that is, of equality."

[Humphrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very readable account of the initial phases of the french revolution that rightly foregrounds economic causes. The most striking aspect of Lefebvre's account is his emphasis on the non-identity of the estates with the crucially still-only-incipient class system. It's meant to be accessible, but I wish there was a bit more of Lefebvre's source data.

[Leo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Wooh this one was a struggle to get through. The author was obviously very knowledgeable but as a casual history fan this book was very hard to finish. Very academic, unnecessarily verbose. Good info though. 2 stars.

[Leah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very helpful for my coursework, and necessary for a thorough understanding of the revolution I think. Easy to understand but needs a general understanding of france and it’s politics. Would recommend to anyone interested in the topic though!

[☆ · Rating 3 out of 5]

okay really great way to get all the information of the revolution in one sitting. there were points that seemed too confusing and moving too fast paced to get a clear opinion on what author is trying to show us but overall okay

[Greg Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written, well-schemed, and very explanatory. Hard to ask for much more than that, even if this was from 1939 and has been amended by scholarship since.

I didn’t know what any of the place-names meant outside of Paris and Versailles, but I don’t think that made much of a difference.

[Alexandria · Rating 4 out of 5]

The last half of the conclusion sucks.