Editing French Revolution (section)

== Historiography ==
{{Main|Historiography of the French Revolution}}
The first writings on the French revolution were near contemporaneous with events and mainly divided along ideological lines. These included [[Edmund Burke]]'s conservative critique [[Reflections on the Revolution in France]] (1790) and Thomas Paine's response Rights of Man (1791).{{Sfn|Rudé|1988|pp=12–14}} From 1815, narrative histories dominated, often based on first-hand experience of the revolutionary years. By the mid-nineteenth century, more scholarly histories appeared, written by specialists and based on original documents and a more critical assessment of contemporary accounts.{{Sfn|Dupuy|2013|pp=486–487}}

{{Multiple image
 |total_width=400px
 |image1= Hippolyte Taine cropped.png
 |caption1=[[Hippolyte Taine]], conservative historian of the French Revolution
 |image2= Georges_Lefebvre.jpg
 |caption2=[[Georges Lefebvre]], Marxist historian of the French Revolution
}}
Dupuy identifies three main strands in nineteenth century historiography of the Revolution. The first is represented by reactionary writers who rejected the revolutionary ideals of popular sovereignty, civil equality, and the promotion of rationality, progress and personal happiness over religious faith. The second stream is those writers who celebrated its democratic, and republican values. The third were liberals like [[Germaine de Staël]] and [[François Guizot|Guizot]], who accepted the necessity of reforms establishing a constitution and the rights of man, but rejected state interference with private property and individual rights, even when supported by a democratic majority.{{Sfn|Dupuy|2013|pp=487–488}}

[[Jules Michelet]] was a leading 19th-century historian of the democratic republican strand, and [[Adolphe Thiers|Thiers]], [[François Mignet|Mignet]] and [[Alexis de Tocqueville|Tocqueville]] were prominent in the liberal strand.{{Sfn|Rudé|1988|pp=441–442, 444–445}} [[Hippolyte Taine]]'s ''Origins of Contemporary France'' (1875–1894) was modern in its use of departmental archives, but Dupuy sees him as reactionary, given his contempt for the crowd, and Revolutionary values.{{Sfn|Dupuy|2013|p=488}}

The broad distinction between conservative, democratic-republican and liberal interpretations of the Revolution persisted in the 20th-century, although historiography became more nuanced, with greater attention to critical analysis of documentary evidence.{{Sfn|Dupuy|2013|p=488}}{{Sfn|Doyle|1990|p=440}} [[François Victor Alphonse Aulard|Alphonse Aulard]] (1849–1928) was the first professional historian of the Revolution; he promoted graduate studies, scholarly editions, and learned journals.{{Sfn|Furet|Ozouf|1989|pages=881–889}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tendler |first=Joseph |date=2013 |title=Alphonse Aulard Revisited |journal=European Review of History |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=649–669 |doi=10.1080/13507486.2012.763159 |s2cid=143535928}}</ref> His major work, ''The French Revolution, a Political History, 1789–1804'' (1905), was a democratic and republican interpretation of the Revolution.{{Sfn|Rudé|1988|pp=15–16}}

Socio-economic analysis and a focus on the experiences of ordinary people dominated French studies of the Revolution from the 1930s.{{Sfn|Rudé|1988|pp=16–19}} [[Georges Lefebvre]] elaborated a Marxist socio-economic analysis of the revolution with detailed studies of peasants, the rural panic of 1789, and the behaviour of revolutionary crowds.{{Sfn|Dupuy|2013|p=489}}{{Sfn|Rudé|1988|pp=18–19}} [[Albert Soboul]], also writing in the Marxist-Republican tradition, published a major study of the ''sans-culottes'' in 1958.{{Sfn|Doyle|1990|p=444}}

[[Alfred Cobban]] challenged Jacobin-Marxist social and economic explanations of the revolution in two important works, ''The Myth of the French Revolution'' (1955) and ''Social Interpretation of the French Revolution'' (1964). He argued the Revolution was primarily a political conflict, which ended in a victory for conservative property owners, a result which retarded economic development.{{Sfn|Rudé|1988|p=20}}{{Sfn|Doyle|1990|p=445}}

In their 1965 work, ''La Revolution française'', [[François Furet]] and Denis Richet also argued for the primacy of political decisions, contrasting the reformist period of 1789 to 1790 with the following interventions of the urban masses which led to radicalisation and an ungovernable situation.{{Sfn|Dupuy|2013|p=490}}

From the 1990s, Western scholars largely abandoned Marxist interpretations of the revolution in terms of bourgeoisie-proletarian class struggle as anachronistic. However, no new explanatory model has gained widespread support.{{Sfn|Spang|2003|pp=119–147}}{{Sfn|Bell|2004|pp=323–351}} The historiography of the Revolution has expanded into areas such as cultural and regional histories, visual representations, transnational interpretations, and decolonisation.{{Sfn|Dupuy|2013|p=490}}