Tuesday, January 19, 2010

France in 1789 - The Royal Decree

essay by cheryl yow





















Question the value of this document ( below)
for a historian writing a study of ‘France in 1789’


The extract:
The king, in sending letters of convocation to the Estates
General to the different provinces within his obedience,
desires that his subjects should all be called to take
part in the election of the deputies who are to form this
great and solemn assembly.


His Majesty wishes that everyone, from the extremities of
his realm and from the most remote dwelling places, may be
assured that his desires and claims will reach his Majesty.
 His Majesty has further endeavoured to achieve this special
object of his care by summoning to the assemblies of the
clergy all the good and useful pastors who are in close
and daily contact with the poverty and relief of the people
and are most intimately acquainted with their fears and
their anxieties.


The king, in arranging the order of the convocations and
the structure of the assemblies, wished as far as possible
to follow the old traditions. Guided by this principle, His
Majesty has preserved the time- honoured privilege for all
bailliages who had send a representative to the 1614
estates general to do so again.


His Majesty expects above all that only the voice of
conscience will be heard in the choice of deputies to the
Estates General. Therefore His Majesty has commanded
and commands the following:
Each order shall draw up a list of grievances
(cahier de doleances). And choose its deputies
separately, unless they prefer to do so jointly,
in which case the consent of the three orders,
obtained separately, will be needed.

Given and decreed by the king in his council at
Versailles, 24 January 1789.


Signed: LOUIS
( Richard Cobb and Colin Jones (eds.),

(The French revolution:
Voices From A Momentous Epoch 1789-1795, p.28)





The royal decree of 24 January 1789 is an official order
by the French king instructing the people to elect their
deputies. The historian writing a study of
‘France in 1789’ should consider the value of this decree;
by analysing the strength and weakness of the date, the
source and credibility of the creator. Special attention
is needed to tease out the unusual words and its implicit
messages.


Firstly, we need to verify the authenticity of the document
and relevance of the date. Being an official ‘open’ document
of record made it automatically reliable. Although based
solely on this source we cannot ascertain the election did
really take place but we can be sure by its existence
records the king’s instruction did take place. The date;
24 Janauary 1789 was a significant period for election to
the estate General which had last met in 1614.


Secondly, we need to establish the credibility and
intention of the creator of the source. Necker, the writer
was the king’s principal minister, seen as a champion
of traditional regulation was popular with all classes.
His intention was probably to be balanced and accurate in
outlining the king’s order as well as sensitive to any
potential negative reaction, as not to further provoke
the existing intense tension between the king and the
people. His style of writing is formal, articulated
and the tone is balanced. The strength of this document
is based on it being an official ‘open’ public
‘document of record’ decreed by the king and the
credibility of the author; is deemed to be an accurate
primary source.


However, we need to consider its limitations: Did the
election actually take place? What were the percentages
of people who had taken part in the election or was there a
manipulation dominated by factions? To discern the above
weakness, more of other sources from the archives or
record offices of the French provinces are needed.


Next, to illuminate the precise message of the decree to
contemporaries, we have to tease out all obscure references
and technical terms. The phrase ‘different provinces
within his obedience’, we need to ascertain were ‘all’
French provinces included or only the selected provinces?
What is ‘from the extremities of his realm’ referring to?
And where exactly were these ‘remote dwelling places’?
Since 95% made up the third estate, most of the poor would
most likely lived in these remote places. The phrase
‘ all the good and useful pastors’- what kind of support
specifically was provided to help the poor?
It is important to find what these ‘old traditions’ were
referring to and why were they considered reliable and
substantial? What specifically were these ‘voice of
conscience’ referring to?


Finally, we need to work out the distinct differences of the
writing (intentional) and unwitting (unintentional) messages
of the source to discern its hidden information. The witting
message here is the king’s intention to gather the three orders
with their lists of grievances to attend a meeting and to
elect their own deputies. They had the choice of choosing
their deputies separately or if they prefer, jointly. The
king also summoned the pastors who had work closely with
the poor on a daily basis to the convocation.


Unwittingly ( unintentional message), as I have observed;
‘His majesty’ and ‘The King’ begins most paragraphs, does
strongly etched in our minds the king was still very much
in control. By getting everyone to attend ‘this great and
solemn assembly’ suggest the ‘seriousness’ of the
‘first gathering’ of the 3 orders. The king in assuring that
everyone’s desires would be heard, we can assume that only
certain groups were able to exclusively relate their
concerns to the king. We get the impression that the clergy
were rarely actively helping the poor. ‘only the voice of
the conscience’ seems to hint at the existing manipulation
of certain people of high social status and who did not
discharge their responsibilities adequately. His majesty in
wishing to follow the ‘old traditions’ indicates that the
old traditions seem to be fading away and the new reforms
might not be as effective as the old traditions.


Curiously enough, the word ‘separately’ appears twice
and ‘jointly’ appeared briefly, could reveal that the king
preferred the orders to choose their deputies separately.
I think having orders separated the king would have more
control; should any disagreement arises, the whole
population as one group can easily assert control over
the king’s authority.


In analysing this document the historian should focus
on the date/document, the intention and credibility of the
creator and the ability to discern unwitting testimony
is absolutely crucial.

(854 words)

No comments:

Post a Comment