Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - History Other Literary oomparisons of Revolutionary France Literary oomparisons of Revolutionary France The period of time in France prior to the French Revolution was know as the ancien regime, which translates to, “the old way.” This was a time where if you were fortunate enough to be born into an upper class family, you lived very well, but if you were not so lucky, you lived quite miserably. Chances were, however, that you did not belong to this upper class society. Only about three percent of the population made up this class and consisted of nobles and the clergy. The remaining 97% was referred to as the third estate and included middle class merchants and professionals, collectively known as the bourgeoisie, as well as the farmers and peasants. The third estate essentially was France’s economy at that time. “This complicated tax system was both inefficient and unfair,” (Hanson 34). The upper class enjoyed many privileges such as tax exemptions that the third estate did not have. Therefore, the third estate basically funded the wealth and luxury of the upper class. When the economy slumped, the already struggling peasants were asked to contribute more. It is estimated that peasants “paid direct taxes equal to 50 to 60 percent of his gross harvest. Given that a fifth to a quarter of the harvest had to be saved for seed for the following year, this left very little grain for the family to consume,” (Hanson 34). Needless to say, with this state of economic instability and unhappiness among the masses, a drastic change (i.e. the Revolution) was inevitable. The works of many writers influenced these changes. Three such authors were Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, and Emanuel-Joseph Sieyes and are known for their respective works, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, The Barber of Seville and The Marriage of Figaro, and What is the Third Estate? Each writer succeeds in pointing out the faults of France’s current social structure, primarily the rights and privileges of the aristocracy, and influences change to occur. Rousseau criticizes the aristocracy by pointing out that the only reason that they are in their current position is because of the family they were born into. Throughout his discourse, he points out that there are two types of inequalities that exist, natural and unnatural. A natural inequality would be something such as size or strength that gives one person an advantage over another. An unnatural inequality is something such as family privileges or inherited property where a person has an advantage due to the family they were born. Throughout Rousseau’s discourse, he explains in a scientific manner the progression of natural inequalities leading to unnatural inequalities along with the development of man. During this discussion, Rousseau touches upon three main topics; the purposes of society, the nature of man, and the origin of inequality. The purpose of society is to allow all individuals to co-exist and help each other out by having different roles. Rousseau frequently refers to “savage man.” This man relies on no one. If he doesn’t catch his prey, he starves. If he doesn’t make his clothes, he will freeze. As society develops, each person has a particular role which helps the community as a whole. The nature of man boils down to one thing, survival. Savage man has one goal, live to see tomorrow. Natural equalities allow some men to survive while others might not. Within an early society, natural inequalities such as strength might lead to more power in the community or obtaining more property. The power gained from this natural inequality probably stayed in that family and eventually became the nobility. Wealth came to that family because of it’s power and more power came because of it’s wealth. This is the origin of unnatural inequalities. Rousseau points out that with this faulty social structure, the way one improves his status is also unnatural. “Moreover, citizens allow themselves to be oppressed only insofar as they are driven by blind ambition; and looking more below than above them, domination becomes more dear to them than independence…” (Rousseau 66). In other words, in order to improve your social status, it is much easier to push those below you farther down, rather that trying to move up. To try to elevate ones status could be viewed as an attack on the aristocracy and therefore is difficult to do. Ultimately, the peasants suffer immensely due to the abuse from everyone else. At the conclusion of the discourse, Rousseau does offer a solution. France’s current state is headed on a downward spiral. The only way to fix the problem is to take a step backwards in societal progression. The unnatural equalities must be eliminated. Rousseau’s proposal basically states that the current form of government must be reformed. By getting rid of the king, more power is distributed among the middle class and thus making the lives of peasants better as well. Another writer whose works influenced the revolution was Beaumarchais. He is best known for his two plays, The Barber of Seville and The Marriage of Figaro. The purpose of these two works was to show how ridiculous the rights of the Aristocracy were. In Beaumarchais’ plays, the main characters are each representatives of the different social classes. The count represents the aristocracy, Figaro represents the bourgeoisie, which is the upper end of the third estate, and there are also many servants and pages which represent the lower class. The main theme in The Marriage of Figaro is that Figaro is going to be married, and the count wishes to exercise his right to copulate with his bride. This story points out how outdated and ludicrous some of the aristocracy’s rights are and a change needs to be made. The story also emphasizes, that the only reason the count has these rights, is that he was fortunate enough to have been born. As Figaro puts it, “Let those who are well born rejoice,” (Beaumarchais 217). Unlike Rousseau, Beaumarchais’ story does not call for a complete overhaul of the social structure. Figaro (who represents Beaumarchais in real life,) is an opportunist. Being a member of the bourgeoisie, he did enjoy some privileges and was not readily willing to give those up. Beaumarchais was only asking that the rights of the aristocracy be more reasonable and they be given less power, but of course he still wants to remain as far as he can above the peasantry. One final note of interest about Beaumarchais; he did include some hints towards the rights of women, which was extremely rare for this time. In the play Suzanne sings, “Let a husband break his vows, it’s just a joke the world allows- But should a wife like freedom take, the world will punish her mistake. The strong it is for all they say, who in the end will have their way (Beaumarchais 217). The third author to have an impact was Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyes with his persuasive pamphlet entitled What is the Third Estate? This pamphlet appeared in early 1789, a year in which many important events significant to the revolution occurred. The pamphlet ultimately protests that the current state of the estates general was unfair. The third estate should have at least an equal vote if not more than the other estates. The pamphlet ultimately leads to the transfer from the estates general to the national assembly (Sieyes 230). Sieyes’ pamphlet has three main objectives. The first one is to define the third estate. Sieyes describes the third estate as those who “perform the labors which sustain society.” The main point behind this definition is that the third estate could exist as a complete nation without the other two estates. It makes up 19/20 of the entire population, but has very little say if any in the estates general. Sieyes summarizes his first point by restating the title of his pamphlet with a firm reply, “What is the third estate? Everything!,” (Sieyes 231-2). In the second point, Sieyes states the demands of the third estate. Simply stated, the third estate currently has nothing, and their demand is to become something. Since the third estate makes up the vast majority of the population, they believe they should have at least equal representation within the estates general. “The third estate demands, then, that votes be taken by head and not order,” (Sieyes 233). The third section of the pamphlet looks toward the future of the third estate. It states how the third estate should utilize its newfound political rights to benefit the nation. The third estate must meet apart from the other two estates. Ultimately, the pamphlet concludes that since they represent 97% of the population, the estates general should be terminated and a national assembly should be founded (Sieyes 234). All three of these writers are extremely successful in their attempts to criticize the aristocracy and each are persuasive in his own way. In some ways, all three works played a part in bringing about the changes. Beaumarchais’ play demonstrates how wrong things are by over dramatizing the situation so everyone could be made aware. Sieyes lays down the blueprint in order to take action. Finally, Rousseau tells the way things should be and how to return society to a “natural” state. Of the three writers, I feel that Sieyes was the most influential. Beaumarchais appealed to all classes and had the potential to reach many people. With the high illiteracy rate at the time, a play could be very effective. However, his plays were forbidden and not performed much and thus did not have the impact it could have. Rousseau was also very influential, especially during the times after 1789. The first statement in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, reads “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights,” (reader 235). This definitely has Rousseau’s influence. Sieyes, however, has a bit stronger influence. It is by far the most direct and the most radical of the three works. What is the Third Estate? comes out at the right time and has a very direct impact. It sets the wheels in motion for what is going to occur in 1789 and in the following years. The pamphlet ultimately leads the transition from the estates general to the national assembly, which forms a constitution, which in turn levels the social structure between the aristocracy and the third estate. Bibliography: Rousseau - Discourse on the origins of inequality Beaumarchais - Marraige of Figaro Word Count: 1723
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.