The French and Russian Revolutions

[Tsarfan]

I'm on vacation and am reading a new biography of Madame Pompadour by Evelyne Lever, a French historian.

The following passage describes a time of particular crisis in the French monarchy (which was to prove a prelude to the collapse of the monarchy under Louis XVI two decades later), with Louis XV at war with England and the Paris Parlement clamoring for limitations on the King's absolute authority by refusing to register his edicts.  Paris was rife with uncomplimentary rumors about Pompadour, and clandestine presses were printing all kinds of revolutionary attacks on the King and his government.  It was also a point at which Louis XV had become almost totally reliant on Pompadour for political counsel and the management of ministers.  Notice any parallels with Nicholas and Alexandra?

"Madame de Pompadour liked the monarchy as much as the King.  The state of depression that had come over Louis XV since the assasination attempt contributed to bringing him even closer to a female companion in whom he could confide freely and openly.  She gave him the strength he lacked and needed in order to take on the heavy responsibilities of government.  His insatiable need for her reassuring presence gave this perpetually ailing woman indomitable strength.  In spite of the exhortations of his confessor and those of the royal family, he and his former mistress continuted to form an apparently indissoluble couple.

"Madame de Pompadour was intelligent and had a great fund of knowledge, but she was not qualified to take on genuine political responsibilities.  She thought, however, that her long conversations with the King, the ministers and the ambassadors had given her the experience she lacked.  With most of the councillors indebted to her, she hoped she could govern with the sovereign in perfect harmony.

"The kingdom at that moment needed the competence and skills of a clear-sighted statesman, experienced in the subtleties of politics.  The hesitant initiatives of a woman, motivated as much by her love for the monarch as by resentment of her personal enemies, could endanger Louis XV; in addition, the Marquise [Pompadour] did not fully grasp the magnitude of the problems facing him . . . .  She apparently also underestimated the gravity of the domestic crisis . . . .  Madame de Pompadour found it unacceptable that the parliament should have the audacity to go against the King.  She was firmly convinced that Louis XV had to end this revolt with a show of authority; the magistrates [the Paris Parlement] were simply rebels who had to be punished.  Royal power, in her view, had to be absolute and inviolable."

I find the events leading up to the toppling of the French and Russian monarchies -- each the dominant absolutist regime of its time -- remarkably similar on many, many counts.  Indeed, those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

[Silja]

I'm on vacation and am reading a new biography of Madame Pompadour by Evelyne Lever, a French historian.

The following passage describes a time of particular crisis in the French monarchy (which was to prove a prelude to the collapse of the monarchy under Louis XVI two decades later), with Louis XV at war with England and the Paris Parlement clamoring for limitations on the King's absolute authority by refusing to register his edicts.  


I find the events leading up to the toppling of the French and Russian monarchies -- each the dominant absolutist regime of its time -- remarkably similar on many, many counts.  Indeed, those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

However, one cannot really compare the French parlement with the Russian Duma. In fact the French parlement(s) would always block any kind of reforms. Under Louis XVI it was precisely the parlements which, by refusing to register the edicts, would always prevent any kind of reform  initiated by Louis's various ministers which was meant to abolish privilege regarding taxation.  

The parlements, that is,  their recently ennobled members , loved to present themselves as the representatives of the nation, whereas in reality they only always defended their own interests, which were diametrically opposed to the interests of the majority of the Third Estate. Ironically enough, until just before the Revolution, which was to a great deal caused by the blocking policies on the part of the parlements (Louis XVI was unable to act anymore), the parlements did in fact enjoy the support of the people. But the former did not seek to reform the status quo, but they sought to maintain the Ancien Regime as it was, with the small difference that they wanted to defed their oligarchical interests towards the crown.

So, actually Louis XVI's decision to reinstate the defiant old parlements after his grandfather had dissolved them and created  new ones which would carry out his decisions, that is, register his edicts, was one of the major mistakes of his reign. From that moment on true reform was very difficult as the parlements would constantly stalemate the king's ministers' intended changes.

[Tsarfan]

Quite right, Silja . . . and an apt analysis of the differences between the political lead-ins to the two revolutions.

However, I posted this quote hoping to invite a discussion on the similarities (and differences) between Louis XV's dependence on Madame Pompadour and that of Nicholas on Alexandra.

The obvious difference, of course, is that Alexandra was Nicholas' wife and herself of royal lineage, whereas Pompadour was a bourgeoise of rather racy background who started as Louis' mistress and ended up his best friend.

But both women were physically frail, paired with weak men who were adrift in times they did not understand, the focus of unrelentingly hostile public rumor, and exposed to the enmity of their partners' families.

And both women ended up calling the shots on ministerial appointments, removing people who more clearly understood the sentiments of the populace, and encouraging their sovereigns to intervene directly in situations where doing so made the monarch personally responsible in the eyes of the public for failed policies.

[rskkiya]

    Louis XV was a weak king who sired an even weaker king... while Alexander III was a forceful- if rather narrow minded- Tsar, and it was this dynamism that was so painfully lacking in Nicholas.
   While Alixandra was frail and while I do see the connection to Madame P.  -- I'm not sure that a comparison with Marie A isn't a better one. Both were painfully 'alien' to their new court, both had some difficulty in producing heirs and both were percieved of as shallow/selfish/and as possible spys...
   Although Marie didn't seem interested in politics at all -- Alixandra did make a fuss of keeping a painting of MA in her study and often refered to it in her letters.
Was this more fatalism on Alix' part?

rs

[Tsarfan]

I, too, find remarkable parallels between Alexandra and Marie Antoinette in the personal dimension of Alexandra's life . . . but I think the parallels to Pompadour dominate in the political dimension.

Either way, it's interesting that women played such dominant roles (and not necessarily causative ones) in the demise of two of Europe's most absolutist monarchies.

As much as I feel Nicholas was the chief factor in bringing down the Romanovs, I really think Louis XV set the low water mark for royal endeavor at a critical period.  Nicholas at least tried to steer right (at least up until the final months), albeit by his own misguided lights . . . but Louis was outright derelict for the run of his reign.