The French and Russian Revolutions

[Elisabeth]

Let's contrast and compare the French and Russian Revolutions. What were the similarities? What were the differences? Is this a useful comparison to make?

[Tsarfan]

Well, I am glad we finally agree on something, RichC.

However, my post might have been worded too ambiguously.  I was suggesting that if the Bolsheviks had been overturned even after they murdered the imperial family, we would not be so obsessed with Nicholas and Alexandra today.

And thanks for the new thread, Elisabeth.

[Elisabeth]

I was suggesting that if the Bolsheviks had been overturned even after they murdered the imperial family, we would not be so obsessed with Nicholas and Alexandra today.

You make an interesting point, Tsarfan. As I said before, I think the canonization of the imperial family had a lot to do not only with the need for a new national myth but also with the lasting psychic damage done to the Russian people by the communist regime. One of the major differences between the French and Russian Revolutions was in the length of their respective periods of Terror – the French Terror was over within a relatively brief amount of time, whereas the Russian Terror endured, with varying degrees of intensity, for some 35 years (1918-1953). Also, the Russian Terror is fairly recent in memory, and survivors of the Gulag and their children are still among us. For these reasons I think the Russian – or should I say, the Bolshevik Terror – remains a more immediate and traumatic presence for Russians living today, whereas the memory of the French Terror has faded for the French and become something one only reads about in books or sees in films.

So I agree with you: if the Bolshevik Terror had only lasted from 1918-1921, and instead of triumphing, the Bolsheviks had been thrown from power and replaced with some kind of representative government, it does seem rather unlikely that the imperial family would have become such symbols of national suffering that they would eventually have been canonized as saints. Nicholas II, like Charles I or Louis XVI, would probably still be viewed ambivalently, as a somewhat pitiable figure, but not as a martyr. More importantly, Russia would have a Romanov-free national myth because the March Revolution would no longer be linked to the October Revolution in the popular consciousness (the Bolshevik Terror would be remembered as just an unpleasant detour, as the French Terror was). In fact, the anniversary of the March Revolution would no doubt be celebrated to this day as a glorious event of transcendent national importance.  

On the other hand, a sentimental cult would probably still attach to certain members of the imperial family, such as the children. And there would still be a lot of interest in the IF’s terrible fate, since IMO the murder of the imperial family stirs a deeply primal fear of sudden, violent loss in most people – indeed, it’s always reminded me of the cult of interest surrounding the murder of the Clutter family in 1950s Kansas, as depicted in Truman Capote’s classic, In Cold Blood. On some level this interest is prurient and voyeuristic, but on another it’s reflective of the close identification many people feel for certain historical figures who suffered violent deaths despite their obvious innocence (the Princes in the Tower, Anne Boleyn, Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI, etc.).  

[Tsarfan]

(the Bolshevik Terror would be remembered as just an unpleasant detour, as the French Terror was).

We are in general agreement here.  I would contest one point, though.

While brief in time, the Terror so discredited some of the ideas of the Enlightenment in many minds that reactionary forces, especially in central and eastern Europe, were given an additional lease on life that lasted into the 20th century.  Metternich, for instance, had a much easier row to hoe with the spectre of the "French Revolution gone wrong" hanging over Europe.

[Elisabeth]

While brief in time, the Terror so discredited some of the ideas of the Enlightenment in many minds that reactionary forces, especially in central and eastern Europe, were given an additional lease on life that lasted into the 20th century.  Metternich, for instance, had a much easier row to hoe with the spectre of the "French Revolution gone wrong" hanging over Europe.

Very true. I find it interesting that the Bolshevik/Stalinist Terror seems to have been far less publicized at the time than the Jacobin one was when it was occurring. Of course there were contemporaries who saw the Bolsheviks for what they were and were not afraid to say so: Churchill called them "hyenas laughing over the ruins of civilization" (I am paraphrasing). Bertrand Russell met Lenin and said that he had never encountered anyone with such dead eyes before; he looked into Lenin's eyes, he said, and saw "gallows in them." Nevertheless there were Western observers like John Reed who glamorized the October Revolution for the Western audience from the very outset. And throughout the 1920s and 1930s not only the left but even moderate liberals refused to believe the terrible stories emerging from the Soviet Union about the concentration camps and famine. The Webbs, highly influential, seem to have deliberately lied, saying the famine was all capitalist propaganda, rather than admit the truth that the socialist paradise had turned into a hell on earth. Alexandra Tolstoy, when she emigrated to the West, was met with general disbelief when she tried to relate the terrible suffering the communists had inflicted on her native land. Even Jane Addams of Hull House, a great admirer of both Tolstoy and his daughter, could not countenance the idea that the socialists in the Soviet Union were deliberately starving and terrorizing the peasantry.  

Even today I wonder if there are more people who are aware of the French Terror than there are people - at least those of us in the West - who are aware of the horrors of the Gulag and the Great Famine. This is yet another apparent contrast between the Russian and French Revolutions. The Jacobin Terror seems to have aroused all but universal disgust and dismay - whereas the Bolshevik Terror of the Civil War period faded quickly in the public's memory, perhaps balanced by the atrocities perpetrated by the White Army. But what followed under Stalin was obfuscated to such an extent by Soviet propagandists and Western journalists that when Alexander Solzhenitsyn published Gulag Archipelago in the early 1970s it was such a bombshell in the West that, just to give one example, it is credited with having destroyed the French Communist Party virtually overnight! And this was a party which until then had been a very powerful force in French politics.  

[Mike]

Bolsheviks idolized French revolutionaries and particularily the Jacobins. As late as the end of 1980s, Leningrad boasted Marat St. and Robespierre Enbankment. And - believe it or not - there is still Danton St. in Astrakhan!

[Tsarfan]

I think there is another thread running between the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks.

Had the Terror not so discredited the concept of liberalism, Europe might have evolved more along those lines throughout the 19th century -- with that evolution touching even Russia, particularly during the reigns of Alexander I and II.

Instead, with liberalism so thoroughly discredited, the alternatives to reactionary monarchy became increasingly extreme.  Take Karl Marx, for example.  He thought the most fertile soil for his theories lay in the most-developed western nations.  In fact, those nations turned out to be the least receptive to his theories, largely because their adoption of representative government gave them a more constructive alternative to absolutist rule.

So, in a sense, by discrediting liberalism at the beginning of mainland Europe's leap into the industrial era, the Terror paved a road leading directly to the Bolsheviks.

[Elisabeth]

Eloquent as always, Tsarfan. I agree with everything you have written here, I only wonder if you have left out one important element:

Had the Terror not so discredited the concept of liberalism, Europe might have evolved more along those lines throughout the 19th century -- with that evolution touching even Russia, particularly during the reigns of Alexander I and II.

And that element is Napoleon. The French Revolution would probably not have succeeded without him. And not only his aggression but also his espousal of the ideals of the French Enlightenment struck their own particular brand of terror in the hearts of the more conservative rulers of Europe, including Catherine the Great and Alexander I. There was much fear amongst the Russian upper classes that the invasion of 1812 would leave in its wake the emancipation of the serfs, as well as that of the Jews from the ghetto of the Pale. It's interesting that well into the late nineteenth century Russian Jews in the Pale were still naming their sons "Napoleon" in memory of the Emperor of the French. I admit I sometimes wonder, would Russia not have been better off if Napoleon had triumphed there? Civil rights, emancipation of the serfs and Jews, the Napoleonic code of justice, etc. Heretical thoughts!

[Tsarfan]

I only wonder if you have left out one important element:  Napoleon.

Napoleon poses a difficult case for me.  On one hand, his approach to government contained strong strains of Enlightenment thinking -- the replacement of feudal law with a rationalized legal code based on the equality of all before the law; the basing of military and civil service promotion on merit (although Peter the Great had moved in that direction without the benefit of the Enlightenment); and the view that the citizens of all civilized nations were equally deserving of good government.

On the other hand, he was a conqueror driven by a very personal vision of history and his ordained role in it that brooked no opposition.  Although he had a uniquely progressive vision of a unified Europe, it was a vision of a unified Europe spread out at the foot of his imperial throne.  Liberal though his thinking might have been on some points, it was a liberalism to be conferred by him, not one based on inalienable rights of the citizenry.

I think the watershed in Napoleon's legacy occurred when he crossed the Rhine.  Before that crossing, Napoleon's principles of internal government were admired even among large factions of the upper classes -- including Russia.  Beethoven who, despite his irascibility, took care not to cross certain lines with the nobility from whose hands he fed, saw no risk in dedicating his third symphony to Napoleon.  It was not Napoleon's liberalism, but Napoleon's crowning of himself as emperor, that caused Beethoven to scratch his dedication to Napoleon.

Had Napoleon stayed within the "natural" borders of France, there might still be a Bonaparte on the throne of France today.  But that crossing changed everything.  In the minds of Europe, the tattered credibility of liberalism that Napoleon had pulled from the flames of the Terror were finally and utterly destroyed by putting them in the service of military aggression and personal imperial glory.

So, I think the net result of Napoleon was to complete the job of discrediting liberalism that the Terror had begun in the minds of the the rest of continental Europe.

(I don't quite get the Catherine / Napoleon connection.  She died in 1796, just as Napoleon assumed control of the French army in Italy as reward for his service in suppressing a royalist riot in Paris in 1795.  He was just beginning to make a name for himself that she had probably seen only as a footnote in diplomatic dispatches, if at all.)

[Mike]

well into the late nineteenth century Russian Jews in the Pale were still naming their sons "Napoleon"

I've never heard or read of a Russian Jewish boy named Napoleon. Even in assimilated Jewish families children were given only traditional Hebrew names, which might have been complemented with European or Russian names: e.g. Yitzhak often became also Alexander, Tzvi - Grigoriy, Sarra - Sophia, etc. But no Russian Jewish - or non-Jewish - father in his senses would ever name his son Napoleon, however much he could revere the great emperor.

[Elisabeth]

So, I think the net result of Napoleon was to complete the job of discrediting liberalism that the Terror had begun in the minds of the the rest of continental Europe.

This was the point I was trying to make, in a typically roundabout way.

(I don't quite get the Catherine / Napoleon connection.  She died in 1796, just as Napoleon assumed control of the French army in Italy as reward for his service in suppressing a royalist riot in Paris in 1795.  He was just beginning to make a name for himself that she had probably seen only as a footnote in diplomatic dispatches, if at all.)

You don't need to get any connection - that's just me being absent-minded and sloppy with my dates!

[Elisabeth]

I've never heard or read of a Russian Jewish boy named Napoleon. Even in assimilated Jewish families children were given only traditional Hebrew names, which might have been complemented with European or Russian names: e.g. Yitzhak often became also Alexander, Tzvi - Grigoriy, Sarra - Sophia, etc. But no Russian Jewish - or non-Jewish - father in his senses would ever name his son Napoleon, however much he could revere the great emperor.

I also thought that traditionally Jewish children were only named after dead relatives, who in turn had been named from the Bible. But the story about Jewish sons being named Napoleon is absolutely true. It is recounted in Solzhenitsyn's recent, very scholarly (almost too scholarly) two-volume work about the history of the Russians and the Jews. Apparently the Jews of the Pale made an exception in the case of Napoleon, because he had liberated the German Jews from the ghetto and they had had similar expectations that he would liberate them. (He told the German Jews, "don't bow and scrape before me, you are free men" - I am paraphrasing.)

[Tsarfan]

I admit I sometimes wonder, would Russia not have been better off if Napoleon had triumphed there? Civil rights, emancipation of the serfs and Jews, the Napoleonic code of justice, etc. Heretical thoughts!

I don't think your thoughts are so heretical.  I have wondered the same thing at times.

However, the paradox is that Napoleon could have only done lasting good for Russia had he sought to rule only in Russia.

But he was trying to forge a united Europe under his rule.  And I don't think it could have been held together after his death.  With perhaps the exception of the Mongol khanate (which was really about overlordship instead of rule), every pan-national empire that was borne of one man's aspirations fell apart almost instantly upon his demise:  Alexander the Great's, Charlemagne's, Henry II's.  

[Mike]

traditionally Jewish children were only named after dead relatives

Often - but not necessarily. In any case, only Hebrew names were given.

It is recounted in Solzhenitsyn's recent, very scholarly (almost too scholarly) two-volume work about the history of the Russians and the Jews.

I have an electronic copy of "Two hundred years together" but couldn't find it there. The more I think about it, the less likely it seems.

By the way, liberal and emancipation ideas were not that popular among Russian Jews in XIX c. Almost all of them lived in closed self-governed communities and weren't interested in common civil rights - only in a reasonable degree of religious and economic freedom.

[Elisabeth]

Mike, it's either in Solzhenitsyn or else I read it on a Napoleonic web site, of which there are a multitude. Sorry I can't be more precise. But I'm sure I did read it somewhere, because I was so surprised by it.

At any rate, I thought it would be interesting to contrast and compare on the one hand, Marie Antoinette and Alexandra Feodorovna, and on the other, Louis XVI and Nicholas II.

At first glance, MA and Alexandra seem to have had little in common, aside from their tragic fates at the hands of revolution: MA was a social butterfly, flitting from one social event to the other - balls, the opera, etc., whereas Alexandra was very much a homebody, and seems to have suffered from some sort of anxiety disorder when confronted with large groups of people. Certainly she rarely appeared in public and then only at some risk to her emotional well being. Yes, both were beauties, but Alexandra much more conventionally so than Marie Antoinette, who was celebrated for her grace and posture but who had had the misfortune to inherit the Habsburg lip. And while Marie Antoinette was interested in going to parties and playing the role of shepherdess at Le Petit Trianon, Alexandra had more serious concerns on her mind, trying and failing to set up charity sewing circles amongst the women of the Russian aristocracy. Nevertheless, both had favorites they showered with special attentions - Marie Antoinette was devoted to the Duchesse Yolande de Polignac, while Alexandra spent much of her time with the ubiquitous Anna Vyrubova. And both favorites, like their mistresses, came in for much venomous abuse and vilification in revolutionary propaganda, which was often sexual in nature.

Nicholas II and Louis XVI, on the other hand, seem to have had much in common in terms of their personalities: both were non-intellectuals who prided themselves on being simple men. They enjoyed being outdoors and engaging in the pursuits of more common folk - Louis XVI liked to practice carpentry, while Nicholas II was fond of taking long walks and chopping wood. Both were well aware that they had not been educated to rule and both would have preferred to live out their lives as simple country gentlemen, devoted to their families. They looked back with regret at succeeding to the throne.

What else did these two couples have in common and in what other ways were they different? For example, were Nicholas II and Louis XVI both equally to blame for the fact that revolutions broke out in their countries? Or was one less responsible for this development than the other? Who do you have more sympathy for, Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI, or Alexandra and Nicholas II?