The Making of Revolutionary Paris. .

The Making of Revolutionary Paris. By David Garrioch (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. xiv, plus 382 pp.).

Showing a masterful command of a large historical literature, David Garrioch has accomplished the daunting task of writing a history of eighteenth-century Paris. No comparable study exists; finally we have acquired a superb urban history of eighteenth-century Paris. This well-written and interesting book explores the Parisians and their city, linking them to the revolution and later developments. With this framework, Garrioch has fashioned an up-to-date social interpretation that will contribute to on-going historical disputes.

First, this nuanced, detailed and ever colorful account of Parisian life requires discussion. For Garrioch, in the first half of the eighteenth century, "custom," "hierarchy," and a "corporate" economic system dominated the city. Fundamental to Parisian life was the neighborhood where most lived and worked. Manufacturing trades, controlled by guilds, were geographically concentrated. Within the guilds a kind of rough democracy existed among the masters who regulated economic affairs. Garrioch is sympathetic to corporate life, allowing that it favored Parisians and masters over others but also provided some social mobility. Further, the laboring classes generally accepted the overall economic system. Even when restless, they did not challenge the status quo. Most agitation focused on specific injustices, violations of the "moral economy," and thus reinforced custom.

Above the workers was an agreed on hierarchy topped by the nobility. The second estate dominated socially and culturally as well leading in administrative posts. The bourgeoisie, defined as those commoners who lived without manual labor, occupied the second rank and constituted the professional and commercial elite. They differed from the nobility by embracing moderation and were quite influenced by Jansenist notions of inner goodness and personal sacrifice. Finally, royal authority provided an important cement as it capitalized on the respect for the law that was the foundation for the "customary" system. To this end the king upheld the hierarchy and provided necessary services.

Garrioch opines that even before 1750, change had come to this comfortable world of interlocking parts; but after mid-century a new trajectory emerged. Labeling these developments "metropolitan," the author articulates the various elements to include the creation of "public opinion." Garrioch is interested, not in theories on the subject, but in the actual opinion of the public. Although he does not employ a consistent standard of membership to define the public, he argues that in this period Parisians began to care about political matters, about items of national feeling, patriotism, royal actions, and the like. Over time, these French men and women came to believe that public opinion ought to guide the efforts of the administrators. Such broadly shared views created similarities throughout Paris that undermined the power of those who reigned in the neighborhoods. Also declining was the authority of the Church as Parisians became increasingly secular. Garrioch emphasizes that most remained religious, but sig nificant signs of declining interest emerged. Feeding this ironically was Jansenism which while originally a fervent faith later became interpreted as at least anti-clerical, if not positively secular.

A dramatic shift in the city scape accompanied these changes. Authorities rebuilt city streets, improved traffic conditions, and proposed new, imposing building projects. The book presents fascinating material that shows precursors of Baron Haussman at work. Although sometimes more talk than results, these changes did provide a more vigorous regime for those needing assistance. As the economy of Paris developed, increasingly an urban integration began to prevail which, of course, fostered the public opinion that was already coming into its own. This urban upgrading had effects. Interestingly, argues Garrioch, the working people resented some of these alterations, relating them to the king and understanding them as despotic. Parallel to such developments in the city and its functions was an increasing breakdown of the neighborhoods.

In his final chapters, Garrioch pulls together his observations about the two cultures. For him, elites abandoned the customary culture, and it became largely plebeian after 1750. This does not seem to mean, however that the peuple merely accepted the status quo. In fact, based on their cultural isolation, they developed a shared class culture across the city and a sense of solidarity. What remains unexplained is why this geographical unity for workers--which according to Oarrioch, made Parisians of all classes more alike even in appearance--did not fatally undermine customary culture. On the other side of the cultural gulf primarily stood the bourgeoisie who embraced the newer metropolitan culture. They could easily agree with the notions of self improvement and reform. Their own emphasis on cleanliness and acceptance of modern consumerism dovetailed with the new upward bound culture. They felt emboldened in their entrepreneurialism by the reformism associated with this "metropolitan" thinking. Another aspec t of these new beliefs was a decline in deference, increased mobility, and a general hostility to despotism.

Although Garrioch is not as specific as one would like, he apparently argues that cultural development brought classes much more clearly into relief on the eve of the Revolution. He does hedge from such a clear cut argument, but, in my view, this is the direction in which he heads. As such, he believes these cultural developments and their attendant class effects can help explain the Revolution. He specifically denies that these changes made the Revolution; rather they fed into the climate that emerged after 1789 and accelerated events. Specifically, Garrioch sees the pre-existing patriotism, anticlericalism, anti-noble feelings, and the integration within the city as enabling the Revolution. Indeed, in a brief concluding chapter, Garrioch finds the genesis of the nineteenth-century Paris metropolis, particularly in the developments after 1750.

The thesis propounded in The Making of Revolutionary Paris points directly at those who would write the social our of the story of the Revolution. It does update social causation by having classes emerging from a cultural cauldron. Inflected by a generation of scholars who emphasized everything but the social, the argument here tries to reintegrate the cultural with the social. But a close examination of some of Garrioch's cultural factors, such as his version of public opinion, finds its emergence from the self assuredness that he discovered in bourgeois business practices. Even if Garrioch is cautious about the role of the melding of class and culture in creating the Revolution, he is clear about the social sources for many of the most salient characteristics of the Revolution. Consequently, Garrioch is unlikely to win over those most enamored with the project of the late Francois Furet. For that eminent French scholar, the ideological both created the Revolution and expanded the revolutionary possibilitie s; here in Garrioch's book, class certainly provides an essential part of the latter explanation.

To illustrate further the boldness of Garrioch's claims, one might compare them to Marxian interpretations of the Revolution. Garrioch defines a sharp social/cultural break at mid-century that leads to revolution. Marxists generally envision a slow social development exacerbated by political happenstance. Yet Garrioch identifies a sharp shift in factors that historians usually believe can only evolve. Few would argue that the two cultures (with their attendant social characteristics) existed, but some might see far more interpenetration among them throughout the century than Garrioch allows. For example, historians of the boulevard theater have seen the elite jostle plebeians. Garrioch's clear chronology may be difficult to sustain. At times, this change from "custom to plebeian" sounds like a philosophe speaking. Might Garrioch's sources have overinfluenced his view?

Thus, this book provides brilliant descriptions and a provocative hypothesis. Most will admire the former; some will suggest that the author overinterpreted his findings. This book stands as a very worthy adversary to Furetian interpretations; moreover, it is also a great read.