FRENCH REVOLUTION, The. There are several revolutionary periods and events in French history which stand out prominently from the national records; but the Revolution of 1789 is, by common consent, known as The Revolution. This is because it marks, for the French people, the parting of the ways and forms the most prominent landmark along their pathway of progress. Behind the Revolution is autocratic France with its cynical abuses, profligacy, immorality and disregard for the rights of all but the governing class. On this side of the Revolution is modern France, force ful, imaginative, ever hopeful, working out her own political and social future along demo cratic lines which her far-seeing public and literary men laid down more or less clearly fully a century and a half ago, principles which served as a beacon light to the strug gling American colonies in their fight for free dom, and unified the New World provinces of Spain against the incompetency and non-pro gressiveness of autocratic Spanish rule. Wher ever democracy has made any true advances since 1789 it has been in the name of the prin ciples of the French Revolution. This is why France is still to-day looked upon with peculiar affection by all the republics and democratic nations of the earth, why she was, from the beginning of the European War, the central figure in the immense drama played upon the stage of the world. France has been rightly called the mother of republics and of democ racy, though the •outbreak of the Revolution took place 13 years after the declaration of American independence. This is due to the fact that intellectually the Revolution had been going on in France for years before the fall of the Bastile, an event which symbolizes the high tide of public resentment against the auto cratic and unjust acts of the irresponsible rulers of France during the pre-Revolutionary period. The growth of the principles announced by the Revolution is, in fact, the history of the rise and fall of the autocratic power of the French sovereigns; and it is the symbol of the revolt of the nation against the accumulated griev ances of two centuries.
Pre-Revolution Prance.—After the break ing up of the Roman Empire, Europe became split up into many principalities and a few larger powers. All these political bodies were frequently at war with one another; and the country suffered from the unsettled condition of the age and the lack of anything like unity of aim. The whole of Europe was overrun with robbers and military, many of whom were not much better than robbers. Little by little the icings of France, whose power, in the beginning was very shadowy, succeeded in con quering the different principalities now in cluded within modern France, and consolidating the of the whole country under one royal • head. But though this had been done the government of the sovereigns of France was still far from arbitrary; for the nobility retained very extensive power, and throughout the rural districts the communities practically governed themselves without the in terference of the central authorities. The peasants had preserved the memory of their freedom and local autonomy under later Roman rule. This spirit was shown in 997 when the peasants of Normandy conspired against the oppression of their masters, proclaiming the equality of man. In 1224 the peasants of Brit tany, under very similar conditions, revolted; and a most desperate and bloody war ensued before the nobility got the upper hand. Some cities had actually preserved their independence since the days of the Romans; others had pur chased freedom from needy nobles; while others had boldly fought for and won independence in local government. This spirit of independ ence grew as the wealth of the country in creased. But there was no unity in all these concessions or different forms of local govern ment, each of which thought only of securing its own advantages and liberties. So when the French sovereigns had finally broken the power of the great barons and established the sover eignty and power of the Crown over all France, they turned their attention to the communes, as these local governments were called. Louis XIV consolidated all this power in his own person and became virtually autocratic ruler of France. The consolidation of the power of the nobles in that of the sovereign was beneficial for the country as it tended to make it a united nation, which it in no sense was previous to this extension of the sovereign power over the whole country. This concentration of power
enabled the sovereign to do away with many abuses from which the peasantry and the mid dle classes suffered at the hands of the nobles. But all this was not done without a long and interesting battle. The independent princes and barons having been subdued by playing one off against another, the uking's peace" was es tablished throughout the land for which univer sal laws were made instead of local observances. Francis I (1515-59) largely increased the royal power. He refrained from calling together the States-General; and he proceeded to divest them of power by taking each separate entity by itself ; and he forbade the Parliament of Paris to "meddle in affairs of state or any other matters except those of justice.* He set the fashion for the building of magnificent palaces and residences in imitation of those of Italy; and the nobles and the rich generally followed his example all over the land. Extravagance became fashionable at court. But the States General were not dead. In 1576 they so seriously threatened the authority of Henry III that he was forced to side with them. Thus the struggle went on, sometimes quietly, some times openly, until Louis XIV proclaimed the doctrine of absolutism "I am the State," and succeeded in as nearly making good his boast in this direction as any other sovereign of Europe.. He not only believed in it himself, but he made France believe in it and he suc ceeded in getting the Church to teach it. Dur ing his long reign (1643-1715) the States-Gen eral were never called together. He did away with state and municipal liberties; and by an edict passed in 1683, the financial management of the cities of France was placed in the hands of the royal intendants. Under Louis XIV municipal life became a thing of the past. Thus every attempt was made, unfortunately for the royal family itself, to incapacitate the French people for democratic ideas or self-government. The king himself became the centre of all life, whether court or municipal. He destroyed the independence of everything but himself. To please his own vanity he patronized the brilliant literary men, philosophers and thinkers of his day, who all shone in his reflected glory. These very men, practically all of whom belonged to the middle classes, represented the rise of that class which Louis further encouraged by ad vancing them in industry and commerce as well as literature. Boileau, Racine, Moliere, and the other brilliant thinkers of the age, were digging the grave for the autocracy that their royal master was so sedulously upbuilding. The middle class was also advanced in the Church. All these factors were with the sover eign; but the very fact that they were indicated a breaking away from the old policy of the value of blue blood and long ancestry. The king even raised illegitimate children of princes and nobles to power. Brilliancy, debauchery and profligacy distinguished the court, while the peasantry remained in ignorance, wretchedness and poverty. The long and costly wars of the reign of Louis XIV and the extravagance of the court, coupled with the vast scale on which royal palaces and other edifices were con structed, had already, toward the end of the reign of the king, placed the country deeply in debt. Monopolies, trade and commerce re strictions and the quartering of soldiers on the populace increased this misery of the peas antry and the middle classes; and the constant plundering of the unpaid military made life unbearable. In many districts the peasantry had become almost savages. But the king was set against all reform. Finelon, exiled to Greece for suggesting the improvement of the condition of the masses, from there proclaimed that "governments are made for the governed,) one of the first signs of the coming revolution. This excessively angered the king, who did not know that he was himself playing the prin cipal part in the greatest tragedy of the age (though he thought it a royal drama) when he was fostering the brilliant lights of poetry, drama, history, art, philosophy and science; for they embodied the idea of liberty of thought which was destined to ultimately destroy the doctrine of autocracy and the divine right of kings.