Our collective understanding of the French Revolution is deep and the historiography of the revolution is complex. Any student or historian seeking an understanding of the French Revolution and its contrasting perspectives faces a number of challenges. Despite the already portrayed contrasting views between the Marxist and the revisionist interpretation, presence of different interpretations does arise within the revisionist perspective as well. Taken upon the sources provided, it can be identified which sources confirm or discard Eisentein’s and/or Lucas’ interpretations of the preparatory stage of the French Revolution. Lucas focuses on the imposition of artificial barriers between nobles and non-nobles as a catalyst that brought latent …show more content…
Very few of the deputies of the Third Estate, who actually made the revolution, were merchants or manufacturers; most were lawyers or lower-level state or municipal officers. Having identified their essence of their arguments, it can be noted which sources correlate or provide evidence to each of these historians’ interpretations. Looking upon the cahiers as a collective work of body, it can be noted that they were not primarily voicings of the ideas on government prevalent in France at the time, but rather expressions of discontent with existing conditions. Thus the presence of a willingness to compromise is shown not so much by the proposals for new forms of government as by concessions to existing forms. Taking this into account, it should be highlighted that the anomalies in these collective cahiers play a higher relevance in accordance with these historian’s interpretations. As a collective the cahiers strengthen Lucas’ interpretation as they demonstrate the unwillingness of the First and Second Estate to relent their privileges. …show more content…
Starting with the former source, it can be identified that Mirabeau (add in full name afterwards) who is a noble has been denoted as the voice of people as he advocated for a constitutional monarchy. This signifies that the French Revolution was not a bourgeois revolution but rather a coalition of men from all the estates sharing homogenous beliefs. Moving on to the latter source, it can be identified from this that the account was demonstrated by Third Estate deputy that was not a merchant nor manufacturer but rather a lawyer. This signals, much to the contrary of the Marxist interpretation, that the Revolution was not led by a single-unified bourgeois group but rather a group with men of different