I wrote this essay as part of the Coursera course The French Revolution. The instructions are somewhat vague:

How revolutionary was the French revolution?

Did the Revolution simply replace the old ruling elite with a new, bourgeois one?

What were the major effects on different groups of people, including nobles, priests, peasants, urban workers, slaves and women?

Those are three different questions with only partial overlap. How much attention should you give to each point? I chose to give less attention to the last. But then, the grading guidelines—by peers—don't even ask if the essay addressed the question. The closest they come is to address comprehension of the course material.

Here's the essay:

The collection of events commonly called the “French revolution” transformed the way of life in France, and ultimately in much of the civilized world. Is that revolutionary? It's a matter of viewpoint, and there are several possible viewpoints.

First, what does “revolutionary” mean? Strangely, the Oxford English Dictionary does not have a suitable definition. The earliest relevant reference is to Karl Marx. But the description there seems to fit: a radical reformation of society. I have based this essay on this definition. It leaves no room for unnecessary violence, despotism or arbitrariness. By this definition, occurrences like the Terror was not revolutionary, only barbarous.

The notion of radical change is important. All societies evolve. The distinction between revolution and evolution is largely one of scale. The biggest difference today between the United Kingdom and France is that the United Kingdom still has a symbolic monarch. This difference does not significantly affect the lives or the rights of the man in the street: the visible differences between the United Kingdom and France are predominantly cultural. But the general opinion is that the changes in the United Kingdom were not revolutionary, because they occurred over a period of 800 years of gradual change. By contrast, France changed fundamentally in the 6 years between 1789 and 1795. Even then, the changes weren't as far-going as those that happened between 1215 and today in Great Britain.

So: how revolutionary was the French revolution? What was the French revolution? It's clear that there were several phases. In the summer of 1789 the structure of French government was transformed radically. The National Constituent Assembly proclaimed the abolition of feudalism only 3 weeks after the storming of the Bastille. It took only another 3 weeks for the publication of the first Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. Both of these were great steps for France, worthy of being called revolutionary. But they were steps, not a complete revolution.

At the end of this period the head of state was still the king—and was to be for nearly another 3 years—though his influence had been radically diminished. Nevertheless he had the power of veto. Women and “people of colour” had fewer rights than men, and even the men were divided roughly the same number of politically inequal “active” and “passive” citizens. This shouldn't detract from the achievements: they were monumental, but incomplete.

The Declaration based heavily on similar documents written in and for the United States of America, and it did not confer all rights that citizens of the United Kingdom enjoy today. Its shortcomings were the cause of significant friction in the years 1789 to 1792.

After this time the pace of the revolution slowed down. The constitutional committee did not complete its work until 3 September 1791, two years later. The constitution was adopted on 30 September 1791 after considerable misgivings by the king, who was still the head of state.

The constitution made many changes to the political structure of the country: taxes were unified, internal customs barriers were eliminated, the provinces were replaced by départements. Given the events of 1789, the constitution was not so much revolutionary as a statement of the revolution that had occurred. It just set forth the detailed implementation of the revolution.

Inevitably an upheaval of this magnitude must leave many people worse off. The clergy of the first estate were disenfranchised, as was the nobility. The clergy of both the first and the third estates were required to swear an oath to the country, in conflict with their loyalty to the church. On the other hand, non-Catholics, notably protestants and Jews, were better off. But the changes for the third estate were also not all positive. I have already mentioned that women and “people of colour” were disadvantaged. It took a long time for peasants to see an improvement in their livelihood. Even without knowing the details of the struggles that ensued, it's understandable that a period of correction had to ensue. So it's not surprising that this period showed little of really revolutionary value. It was necessary to unify the country, especially in view of the challenges from outside the country. The means by which this was done were a reaction, not any form of revolution.

The constitution of 1791 lasted less than a year: on 21 September 1792 the National Convention abolished the monarchy and declared the First French Republic. The corresponding Constitution of the Year I was not ratified until 24 June 1793 of the old calendar. It was clearly revolutionary: it was the first republican constitution in Europe in modern times, and it coincided with sweeping reforms, including the republican calendar (sometimes referred to as the “revolutionary calendar”).

It may have been revolutionary, but it was never implemented. The National Convention declared a revolutionary government and delayed the implementation of the constitution until the country was at peace. Despite the name, this government was reactionary, not revolutionary. The “revolution” had degenerated into confusion. It may be revolutionary to abolish the monarchy, but the execution of the king can only be considered barbarous.

And yet worse things were to come with the Terror. Again, there's nothing revolutionary here, certainly nothing of which today's French Republic is proud. Yes, there are many explanations for it, but none that could be justified by the intended transition from absolute monarchy to liberal and equal democracy.

The Terror effectively came to an end with the execution of Robespierre and his associates and making way, not for the adoption of the constitution, but writing yet another constitution, less liberal than the previous one, which came into force on 22 August 1795. Nevertheless it saw the introduction of the Franc as a unit of currency, roughly equivalent to the livre of the old régime, with decimal subdivisions instead of the previous 20 sous of 12 deniers, and also of the metric system. While all was still not well with the French Republic, this constitution and the Directory remained in force until the coup of 18 Brumaire when Napoléon Bonaparte took control of the country. The revolution was over.

But was it? Certainly a number of the features of the republic were removed, and the nation once again had a monarch. The revolution also had a monarch until 1792. And Napoléon also introduced many reforms that were in the spirit of the revolution. Why should the Code Napoléon not be called revolutionary? In many ways, the biggest difference was that Napoléon provided the strong government that had been missing in the French administrations of the 1790s.

So: when was the revolution? For me it was summer 1789. The ten years that followed were simply an attempt, ultimately incomplete, to implement the ideals of that early revolution. The only other time that comes close is the second revolution of 1792, where the monarchy was abolished and the country declared a republic. But as the United Kingdom and also the Napoléonic empire show, this is a relatively minor difference.

Evaluation

I made and make no particular claims for this essay, and I probably wouldn't have mentioned it if it hadn't been for the evaluation. I got 9 out of 10, more than I expected, and more than one of the comments would lead you to believe:

peer 1 → A very well thought out and written assignment. I like your idea that the revolution had degenerated into a period of confusion.

peer 2 → Excellent understanding of the events before and after the French Revolution.

peer 3 → I am very confused as to what you are trying to tell me. There is no structure to your argument that I can see. Perhaps it is the work of a machine. This is dangerous because it produces a string of words that do not make sense. You quote Karl Marx but have given no reference. What is the connection between the UK and the French Revolution? You speak of a 'general opinion'. This is a very vague statement and is something called a filler - words that just fill up the space and indicates that you do not know it. Who holds that opinion? Perhaps you do not know what a revolution is although we have been studying one. Few of your statements have any evidence. I can only give you minimum marks.

peer 4 → [This area was left blank by the evaluator.]

I can only assume that the views of “peer 3” weren't included in the marks. But exactly his views are interesting: on the one hand, of course, it bears out my “blind leading the blind” expectation, and his own suggestion of random words appears to be reflexive. I passed the text through dissociated-press, but it didn't make it any less intelligible.

Maybe he didn't understand the concept of links (the essay as submitted was the same HTML as here, including the links). He claims that I quote Marx, when in fact it was just an indirect reference. Are some of his objections valid? I thought a number were, but on closer examination it seems that only “general opinion” might have benefited from more explanation.

That's an extreme view, but what if some poor participant had had his essay evaluated only had that kind of peer? Without feedback from an expert on the subject, the results—good or bad—aren't really very useful.