Jonathan Israel, a professor of modern European history at Princeton, embarked on a bold attempt to reinterpret the French Revolution for an attentive audience of students, faculty and community members in MacMillan 115 Wednesday afternoon. The lecture, entitled "Democratic Republicanism and the Making of the French Revolution," was the 32nd William F. Church Memorial Lecture, a series of lectures begun in 1980 by the widow of a former University professor that has featured eminent speakers in the field of history from institutions all over the world.
In his one-hour lecture, Israel, one of the foremost experts in the history of the Enlightenment, explained his reinterpretation of the French Revolution, a pivotal period of time in French history, as an upheaval caused not primarily by socioeconomic or nationalist factors, but instead by a small group of intellectuals driven by radical ideology.
"You can't understand anything about the revolution at all in terms of its political stages if you accept that all we're looking at here is social groups in competition with each other," Israel said. He added that the French Revolution found its roots in a single overarching cause - not corruption of the monarchy, not dissent of the bourgeoisie, but philosophy. He described Maximilien Robespierre, Jean-Paul Marat and authoritarian populists as the radical, anti-democratic and almost fascist counterpart to the more moderate faction of the revolution, which he called "democratic republicans." He presented the revolution as stemming almost entirely from the Enlightenment and the resulting philosophical changes that occurred in the intellectual world in the 18th century, tying both events to issues such as women's rights and slave emancipation.
"This is the central drama - the Enlightenment and the revolutionary eruption that followed on from the Enlightenment," he said.
Israel also spoke of the democratic republican revolution as a well-intended intellectual movement until it was ruined by Robespierre and authoritarian populists, who captured power in a coup. After this upheaval, the ideals of the Enlightenment were reversed, he said, and all progress was lost. Israel called this phenomenon the counter-Enlightenment, the flip side of all that was good about the initial revolution and its democratic roots.
The lecture was concluded by a short question-and-answer period and a reception.
"The speech was really engaging," said Alex Homer '13, noting that his history professor recommended that he attend Israel's lecture. "His perspective on the French Revolution is what you would want to expect from it - black and white."
