Origins of the French Revolution

Both Bossenga and Andress offer interesting and well-supported perspectives on the origins of the French Revolution and the reasons it came about. Bossenga purports that the public fervor of the time had little to do with the actual revolution, other than providing bodies for insurrection. Rather, the institution of the royal state was an inherently flawed one by the reign of Louis XVI, to the extent that only a full revolution would effectively produce solutions to the problems of the ancien regime. Andress places a greater emphasis on the will of the people as an effective mechanism for change. His belief is that the French Revolution offered an effective convergence of enough political, social and economic turmoil to incite a popular revolution. While Andress would probably agree with Bossenga that institutional problems played a major role in the incitement of the revolution, Andress stresses that the revolution was not an inevitable outcome; rather, the popular force compelled it to be so. And while both arguments have merit, and, as stated formerly, are well supported by evidence, Bossenga’s argument is more plausible in the given circumstances. This incident is largely unique in its efficacy and durable nature in the history of the world. There was a necessity of serious problems within the structure of the state to allow for such an immense collapse. Simply put, the will of the people was never an effective force against the state before this period; therefore the power of the state must have weakened in order for this to occur.

Bossenga is clear in her assessment of the origins of the French Revolution that deep-seated issues within the institution of the state caused circumstances in which revolution was the only pos...

... middle of paper ...

...tion of the emphasis of the argument is based on. Andress continually points to the drastic conditions of the people in the mid to late 1780’s, creating fervor that culminated in revolution. Bossenga, conversely, sees the people as mere vehicles for this process to come about, as the institutions within the state were simply too inefficient to exist in part, and thus a revolution was the only answer to the problem. Bossenga surely cannot argue that the people did not play an important role. Obviously the duc D’orleans was not slinging shingles from rooftops, however, she does not believe that these events did not have roots in larger issues in the institution of the state. Andress sees this revolution through the eyes of the people. He attempts to show the incredible poverty of the common man, and the large burden he was bearing in relation to the privileged orders.