Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

General Discussion
1

Tomorrow is Bastille Day.


14 July 1789 was the beginning of the revolution that began to make modern France. It was actually considerably more complicated than that. After the storming of the Bastille, on 4 August feudalism was abolished and on 26 August the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen proclaimed. The cycle of royal power was then limited by an uneasy constitutional monarchy until 1792 when the the abolition of royal rule and replacement of Louis XVI, the aristocracy and church with a radical, secular, democratic republic, which, in turn, became more authoritarian, militaristic and property-based occurred. Louis was executed in 1793 as part of the radicalisation of France. That radical social change was in principle based on nationalism, democracy and Enlightenment principles of citizenship and inalienable rights. The Society of the Friends of the Constitution, the Jacobin Club, was the most famous and influential political club in the development of the French Revolution. They were responsible for many of the numerous slogans including: Egalité, Liberté, Sûreté and Propriété (Equality, Liberty, Safety and Property), Liberté, Unité, Égalité (Liberty, Unity, Equality); Liberté, Égalité, Justice(Liberty, Equality, Justice) ; Liberté, Raison, Égalité (Liberty, Reason, Equality). Union, Force, Vertu" (Union, Strength, Virtue), was a popular slogan used beforehand by masonic lodges, then there were also "Force, Égalité, Justice" (Strength, Equality, Justice), "Liberté, Sûreté, Propriété" (Liberty, Security, Property). In other words the one we all know today, Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity), was only one slogan among many others.


The notion of fraternity or brotherhood as a universal quality was perhaps one of the profoundest revolutionary principles. Indeed, history shows that the emphasis on fraternité during the revolution led Olympe de Gouges, the female journalist, to write the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in 1791, a declaration which is largely forgotten or one might say has been discarded since.


However, here we are and it is highly likely that Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité is quite well known to many of us. Yesterday we were talking about it during my physiotherapy session. The physio is Dutch, I am also not French as we know but the other person in the room was very much French. The man is a ‘punk’, much pierced and tattooed, thus seemingly 'different' indeed is a tattooist professionally. We were talking about the slogan and the outcome of the Revolution as he sees it. The man is a little short of 40, well educated and knows a fair bit about French history. In fact, appearances and attitude deceive because at base he is actually far more 'conventional' than it seemed. He is simply disillusioned with his society.


He was the one who questioned 14 July celebrations by saying that liberty in France has so many conditions and rules attached that it is necessary to look at what you think is freedom before being certain. Equality has never existed and never will, in fact in his view has never been encouraged but probably seemed like a good idea to have it in the slogan. As for fraternity and his view on that, there he was entirely scornful of the notion. He was quite explicit about his view that as soon as the people marched on the Bastille, the new elite was in place and that he sees his country as dominated by numerous fraternities but never one for all people. As he put it in conclusion, he chuckled and said that Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité “is learned by all and forgotten immediately”.


I raised the topic with a friend during the afternoon. He is a sports teacher and professional referee in one of his sports. He has recently begun to travel to referee international events. For the first time in his life he is meeting people in their own countries and talking to them and with that his view of the world is changing. His wife does similar work but has had a different upbringing whereby she visited other countries with her parents as a child and travelled alone when younger. The couple have more or less built their own house and are trying to become ‘independent’ of the state and its services and utilities in as far as that is ever possible. However, the man is seriously thinking ahead about preparing for their daughter’s future. What does the future offer for her? It was to that I threw in the discussion from earlier and then heard this man all but denounce his country.


Personally I am rather shocked. I am most certainly learning that what we imagine France to be and what there is when we scratch the surface are different. Thus I am shocked because I have somehow in all probability euphemised what I found ‘good’ and quietly accepted there was naturallu quite a lot of bad in the French Revolution and its outcome. I have often been critical about the Declaration of the Rights of Woman being more or less overlooked since 1791 and only recently some of the principles of a contemporary version of parts of it becoming legal standards.


France has nonetheless always fascinated me for its history and more recently its contradictions are beginning to intrigue me as well. France is many places all at once and I think we all see different versions of that place and that is what I am trying to get other SFN users to explore. What do you see? How do you see it? What is the significance of a day like 14 July for you?

2

I think you are a bit hard on Talleyrand. The alternative view would be that he always acted in what he saw as the interests of France, albeit doing well for himself on the side. His initial support for the revolution makes sense, as does his support for Napoleon as an alternative to anarchy and weak government. His disillusionment with Napoleon was when he, N, overreacted himself and became obsessed with conquest. A Bourbon restoration, while not ideal was probably the only practical solution. No one other than Talleyrand could have persuaded the other powers at the Congress of Vienna that France should be treated as an equal, rather than as the defeated country which had caused all the trouble. I thought Charles X succeeded Louis XVIII on his death. It is a bit hard to say he faded before 1848 as he died in 1838.

3

What French officials, amazingly inspired for once, chose to celebrate in 1880 was this brotherhood, this heavenly universal love people bore in their mind by that day ( a few days ) . Fête de la fédération, all united . At that point, unexperimented French masses thought it was for good ! Several description of the atmosphere can be read, and boy ! I would have liked to be there . Just to believe in paradise on earth for a day . Of course, like in Petrograd in 1917, it's always the rich who start massacres . In Paris, July 1791, an unarmed crowd bearing a petition to the King was shot dead by the until then bourgeois Garde Nationale . In the Champ-de-Mars, the place were is now the Eiffel Tower .

About the colours, there are a few theories, but the most probable is this : the king was in Versailles, and it was a huge threat because he could maneuver, ally to Austrians or Prussians, and smash the people in Paris . They had a luminous idea, without which the revolution would have failed . Led by some women, they went to Versailles and brought back the Royals into the ancient kings Palace, les Tuileries, by the Louvre . The King was then under Paris people control .

The colours of the city of Paris are the blue and red, since the early Middle Age . The King's colour was the white . In the French flag, the king is stuck between the people; by then Paris was for the people, nobles and kings were in Versailles . ( It's again from Versailles that the bourgeois government directed the slaughtering of the Commune of Paris in 1871 ) . People said " "les Versaillais" speaking of them .

The red flag for revolution didn't exist at that point . It comes from the very massacre I evocated, the "Massacre du Champ-de-Mars" jn 1791 . Before that time, on every battlefield, when an army showed the red flag it meant " No mercy, no prisoners" . They showed this flag before shooting on the crowd . What happened ? When the no more naive people of Paris assaulted the Tuileries Palace one year later to throw the Royals to jail, some genious had the idea of showing the same flag, in remembrance or vengeance . In 1830, they used it a little, and more in 1848, while revolutionaries of Central Europe paid a tribute to the first "people's" revolution by adopting this flag, and it became the colour of all revolutions .

4

Which shows how poor my grasp of English can be. That's what I meant; The celebration was not the failure, but the birth of a constitutional monarchy which was thought to be have meant the successful end of the revolution that actually had many years to run. Isn't this still celebrated in the tricolor? The red for revolution, the white for the Bourbons and the blue for Paris? I may of course have got that wrong, too

5

About Talleyrand Napoleon described him so : " De la merde dans un bas de soie" ( Shit in a silk stocking ) .

Talleyrand was a too soft diplomat to "grab" anybody . He did what you say, but your description is really too violent . He was a snake, not a bear .

6
One of the key people in the manipulation of french politics from the abolition of the monarchy to Napoléon's reign as emperor and two subsequent monarchies, was Charlie Talleyrand. He officiated at a supposedly "we support the king" as the bishop of Autun, then promptly helped get rid of the king. When things got a bit too hot, he hightailed it to England, (he may even be the basis for mysterious Scarlet Pimpernel) he put Napoléon on the throne. (Incidentally the house of Napoléon isn’t a monarchy: they never claimed to be king.) After Waterloo, Talleyrand, who was president of the senate, pulled the plug on Boney, grabbed Louis XVIII back from flight, plonked him on the throne, got rid of him, tried Charles X who was a prat, then tried Louis Philippe, but faded away before 1848 and the second Vienna convention. It was he and Metternich who carved up Europe good and proper, but the stitching gave way in 1848. In passing through his career, he was made Prince of Benevento (good wind), but the original name of the town was Malevento: meaning “bad wind” (shome mishtake here shurley :the late Billy Deedish)
7

Thank you for catching me at a boring point in the edit I'm doing.

1. Yes. I am too am so surprised that the people forget the Bonaparte monarchy as too the revolutions post 1789 as well.

2. Interesting. I suppose from my little European history it does look that way as you say.

3. Electoral systems are interesting. One of my areas of 'expertise' is citizenship and there one is so often drawn to examining franchise as one of the big issues. Once one has looked at that closely it becomes often quite clear that even the most 'democratic' systems have so many exclusions, disincentives and so on that the ability and/or access to the vote for all who should be eligible is rarely, even where there is 'compulsory' voting, to be 100% inclusive. To a certain point, the Stalinist Soviet Union and Obama USA today are not entirely dissimilar. Potentially, early on in the revolution, perhaps around 1792 when they arrested the royalty and much of the aristocracy, they had the potential in their hands but never got to apply it.

4. I have heard that one too. Certainly Welsh friends have said they would vote for Scots independence in order to have their precedent for their own referendum later, as well as the English who would love to get rid of the troublesome Jocks. Actually, the electorate will be all people resident in Scotland since date X rather than just Scots.

8

Many interesting points in this wide ranging thread that Brian started. To comment on a few:

1. When French friends tell us happily that they executed their king I tell them we did it first, and that the difference was the failure of the French restoration. I am surprised by how many French seem to think that the country has been a republic since 1789. The UK's Charles II had many faults but they were nothing against those of France's Charles X.

2. The quasi monarchical fifth republic created by de Gaulle was a reaction to the perceived failures of the Third republic in the inter war years and the Fourth republic in the post war years. In many ways Hollande is more akin to leaders of the Third and Fourth republics than his predecessors. Whether that is good or bad time may tell.

3. Democracy may be better than other systems of government, but has its own major problems. The US has long been wedded to the concept but its own system of elections has its limitations and the results of "democratic" votes elsewhere have not always been well received. The middle east contains many examples of the problem, as in many ways did Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Both, of course, distorted results of "elections" but may well have had majorities in any event.

4. The potential UK "divorce" is interesting in this context. The electorate for this will just be the Scots. It is arguable that if the English also had a vote Scottish independence would be more likely.

9

I have read a bit and easily grabbed one as an example.

John Morrill, 2003, 'Rewriting Cromwell—A Case of Deafening Silences', Canadian Journal of History, December edition: 'Of course, this has never been the Irish view of Cromwell. Most Irish remember him as the man responsible for the mass slaughter of civilians at Drogheda and Wexford and as the agent of the greatest episode of ethnic cleansing ever attempted in Western Europe as, within a decade, the percentage of land possessed by Catholics born in Ireland dropped from sixty to twenty. In a decade, the ownership of two-fifths of the land mass was transferred from several thousand Irish Catholic landowners to British Protestants. The gap between Irish and the English views of the seventeenth-century conquest remains unbridgeable and is governed by G.K. Chesterton's mirthless epigram of 1917, that "it was a tragic necessity that the Irish should remember it; but it was far more tragic that the English forgot it."'

There is no 'brit line' to toe. We are many and varied and some millions of us would like to see a 'divorce' process begin in September of next year. My ex-brother-in-law is a protestant from SW Ireland who is no less patriotic Irish than those supposedly catholic, common to his entire social circle now actually very secular and very much more European than the people he lives amongst who are not Irish in London.

10

Brian, I'm definitely speaking with a particular set of prejudices. Maybe you should read the many books on the subject of Cromwell and what he did to the Irish, who were at the time classed as "subjects of the king". English history education carefully leaves all that out: just part of the denial syndrome. I think Stalin and friends took a leaf out of english history writing, when fiddling with photographs and the facts.

Just because I'm an english speaking expat, doesn't mean I'm going to toe the brit line: far from it. France and the continent have a hell of a lot more to offer than a country, which is obsessed with property prices and personalized number plates.

As Patrick Hay has said: Vive la France.

11

The way i see it is this - they had a revolution and overthrew the monarchy and have ended up how they are today as a result with so much red tape and the socialist society being burdened with taxes on anything that has a value (if they could tax the citizens for having sex then i am sure they would ) so where is the libertie ????????????

Equality well we all know some men are more equal than others .................... ie those with money and well connected families sending kids to private schools like the one where all the french politicians have been schooled.

Fraternitie or brotherhood - not in my village where different factions and families detest each other

so i think its wishful thinking from a byegone era

Steve

12

Some of what you say is historically inaccurate and with respect to how British oriented the responses are I feel you are writing from a point of view of somebody with a particular set of prejudices.

OK, I certainly did not put the topic up from any 'British' biased point of view. It is simply a question that has arisen. Self same 'punk' mentioned and I were at our physio again this morning and when I said that a couple of French people, one of them very emphatically, had wished France a monarchy again. The man laughed and said that if he could use an English expression translated, it would be roughly "tomber de la poêle dans le feu". We changed the subject and talked about forthcoming music events...

Cromwell's government murdered innocents? I think a closer examination of history would show a massive exploitation of the change of regime and not the deeds of parliamentarians for the injustices. That those who sat in the English parliament turned a blind eye after the event is probably what we might find. The driving out of people from homes and suppression of catholicism was going on in the Highlands of Scotland until the 1950s as some of my now deceased relatives who finished their lives in Aberdeen, Dundee and other cities would have borne witness. It was not necessarily something encouraged or officially tolerated by parliament, but there were many blind eyes including the British royal family. Hence my own total distaste for them, my politics aside. Certainly, this notion of 'mother of parliaments' is a myth, but around the world there were numerous 'parliaments' far older, more representative and thus far more of a threat to the occupying colonial powers that existed until living memory.

As a Scot, I do not think the idea of the English as the enemy is true. Ultimately, given that until the recentish injection of German aristocracy and royalty, in fact just about the entire nobility and monarchy were more French than 'English', I suspect it is something else. I am not a historian, but think there are a number on both sides of La Manche who could explain what it really is.

You mention the inhabitants of the 'island of Britain'. It is part of the misreading of history you are presenting. There is no such place. There is an archipelago known as the British Isles, to which the northern 'Scots' do not belong but there is also part of France, Bretagne, from which the archipelago derives its name. A single people on your one island does not exist even. I came here from five years in Wales, even that is a country of 'parts', none of which are like England. Previous to that I lived some decades in East Anglia where people considered those in London and SE England an entirely different species almost, perhaps the ancient Danish blood of those people is that strong.

Yes, England has had its revolutions. They do not compare with the ones the French have had. Indeed the French Revolution had as much to do with England fighting France under Napoleon as much else. History is delivered in particular ways, sadly often far too patriotically, which an oaf called Gove is trying his utmost to enforce in schools at present in England. It would expunge all the backyard events, which for those of us above Berwick includes an Act of Union in 1707 that was a deal between a number of businessmen, some of whom were aristos, and the English crown but had nothing to do with 99% of the people.

Europe. Perhaps the UK has not contributed as much as it might have to the EU, but de Gaulle debarring the UK from entry early on set an agenda that may have created a stigma. Do not simply dismiss that as you have. Anyway, post-revolutionary France is also not Eire and you are comparing underneath all else as well it seems.

13

I have suffered from the French bureaucrats and the rejoicing my French friends showed when I took them to the Commission and won was amazing. However, they never get off their backsides and do anything for themselves. Too much like hard work. They find other ways round the bureaucracy, hence so much black economy.

14

It is interesting to note the comments about the revolutionary government after the big event. The comments are very British orientated, and as usual are part of the general denial of British thinking. Britain had two very important so-called revolutions. Cromwell's government murdered thousands of innocents because they were catholic and or royalists. The so called "glorious revolution" again was based on discrimination and the killing of catholics, and the UK is still blighted by that era. People were driven from their homes and their land given to English soldiers in lieu of pay.

Part of the British denial system is the laughable myth that Westminster is the "mother of parliaments". If one was to add the word "corrupt" then maybe it might have some meaning. It was only in the 20th century that Westminster became a genuine (more or less) decent parliament. Tynwald in the Isle of Man is the oldest known parliament, excepting the Greek and Roman versions of ancient times.

Having been brought up in Eire, I love it when I listen to the Brit version of events, bringing to notice the faults of others, while conveniently forgetting their own backyard.

No system is perfect, but I prefer the french to that of the UK, where I did live for some of my life and have relatives, who still live there. I even, at one time, sat alongside Michael Young, when he was trying to get Blair to make the parish councils into something worthwhile. As for the three words of the french slogan, I have seen them quoted and thrown in the faces of lazy civil servants, who very quickly change their attitude!

Oddly enough, many French still regard England as the enemy, and I'm not talking about the likes of LePenn and friends, I refer to well educated liberal thinking people. In their opinion Britain has done nothing to improve the Union. I remember having a discussion with Roy Jenkins when he was the President, and he said that in reality, Britain wasn't suited to being part of Europe. He said it was the "English speaking world" problem that was the real barrier.

Only when the inhabitants of the island of Britain, get rid of that barrier, will they be able to understand the French and the Continent, and be able to think like Ben Mongoose. (A name like that would make a fantastic cartoon strip!)

15

Most of my French friends admire the British monarchy, in particular our Queen, and many of them would gladly have their monarchy return in a similar capacity to ours. The 14th here, in rural Cantal, is just another excuse for a party... which is fine by me.

16

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité:

I don't know of any other nation that can boast such a fine aspirational national motto. And, even if the reality falls somewhat short of the sentiment in some areas, at least there is an implied obligation on French citizens to try to live up to a high standard of democratic co-operation and mutual understanding.

Moreover it's not one of those phony religious statements, usually in Latin, designed to remind people that God has ordained their lot in life, and that it's not for them to try to change the way the state is run.

Vive La France!

17

As Philippe rightly says, it was really the fact there have been several 'revolutions' and a process that brought change. Nick is probably on the nail with his assessment of a significant difference between the UK and France too, look closely and amongst ordinary people and the cohesion of society is there. It is the gap between the different 'ruling classes' and ordinary people that remains vast though and as I learned listening to people this weekend disturbs them and causes them to worry about the future of France.

18

The 14 July celebrates the " Fête de la Fédération" of 1790, which was a day when the naive French masses still thought fraternity was obviously going to reign . Delegates from all France gathered in Paris to show that all France was beside the Parisians . It was a day of universal love and hope . The masses included the king and nobility in this naive hope and love, believing they were sincere . The 14 juillet celebrates that, and not a failed monarchy .

19

The fact that 14 July is not really the celebration of the revolution, but of a failed constitutional monarchy, is quite refreshing. The storming of the Bastille was a curious event as well; although a symbol of monarchical autocracy, it was due for closure anyway because it wasn't economic givent hat the only occupants were a handful of debtors and possibly "perverts". It was one of several significant events at that early stage of the Revolution. Liberté Egalité, Fraternité? Was that also not finished with "ou la mort" at one time? A slogan, but delivering it was fanciful. Today there are over 60,000,000 people in France, like the UK. We do not have the capacity to deliver those three ideals - which are often in conflict with one another anyway. For all the inequalities, lacks of freedom and missing communal spirit, to paraphrase Morrisey, in either country you are unlikely to die with your hands tied behind your back. We can question our freedoms in a public forum. That's a start, when you look around the world. (provided GCHQ, NSA et al aren't poking around too closely...)

20

The choices were aristocracy or bourgeoisie, and under which form . But meanwhile, the workers started realizing something was wrong . The National Assembly waited for years after 1989 to truly abolish the feudal property, although its members needed to destroy the aristocratic power . The explanation is they were thinking that, once a type of property simbly abolished the masses could start wondering about the new form, the new rich property .

But who said that, out of the bourgeois type of property there's only room for anarchy ?

There's also a thing I never see mentioned, to explain some violence in these years : beside inner struggles, the new Republic had to fight alone against nearly all European powers, who constantly made war to France, whose officers, all noble, had joined the enemy . The so cute Marie-Antoinette and the king exchanged correspondance with foreign monarchs, urging for an invasion . You can understand, but the king had sworn he would be the king of the nation, in the first phase of revolution . Many proofs, letters, were found in Marie-Antoinette's cupboard when they were arrested and the Republic finally proclamed . In those years, many revolutionaries were warrying about betrading . There were frequent treasons, and many false accusations of betrading too . It was impossible to keep one's calm intelligence during this incredible time .