On Restoration and Reaction

In this work, André Jardin and André-Jean Tudesq argue that the French Restoration and the July Monarchy are simply a transitional period between the First Republic and subsequent regimes. They argue that there are three reasons why the Restoration and July Monarchy were a transitional period.

First, the monarch was forced to conform to public opinion. At the end of the ancient régime, public opinion began to emerge, fueling the French Revolution, but it still was not a deeply rooted institution. By the Third Republic, successful administrations needed public opinion to succeed. The Restoration saw a period where the monarchy was still testing the water of public opinion.

Secondly, the “notables” of the Restoration were a transitional class between the old, rigid power structures of the aristocracy and the burgeoning capitalist class that truly began to grow during the July Monarchy. Indeed, Jardin and Tudesq argue that aristocrats and capitalists had analogous power over those they controlled (peasants and workers, respectively). By the Second Empire, capitalists would fully replace the aristocracy as the center of power in France, thus completing the transition from pre-modern to modern in France.

Thirdly, the limited suffrage of the Restoration and July Monarchy represented an “ideological transition” in its attempts to balance between order and freedom (391). To Jardin and Tudesq, liberalism began as a radical left-wing ideology but by the end of the July Monarchy it became an ideology adopted by conservatives, leading to socialist critiques of liberalism. Early socialists included Saint-Simon and Fourier, although these “utopian socialists” were not taken seriously by the general public. It was not until 1848 that socialist critiques of liberalism became a formidable ideological force in France.

Throughout the course of this book, Jardin and Tudesq rely most heavily on secondary sources. While there are inclusions of primary sources, Jardin and Tudesq attempt to paint a sweeping picture of the Restoration and July Monarchy so they resort to secondary sources. Unfortunately, the book lacks footnotes or endnotes and the sources the authors use can only be found in a bibliography, without specific citations. The sources cited in the bibliography appear outdated even at the time this book was published (1988). Most sources were published in the 1960s, which makes sense given that this book was originally published in France in 1973, but updated versions of the book have few updated sources. Many other secondary sources used were published as early as the 1920s. Furthermore, the charts and graphs in this book are difficult to read and are often superfluous.

The structure of the book makes for an interesting read: the first half focused on the national history of France in the period between 1815 and 1848, while the second half gives snapshots of different regions (e.g. “the North,” “the Mediterranean South,” “the Paris Basin”). I was most interested in the first half, but the second half does an excellent job of de-centering the traditional, Paris-centered history of France. On the other hand, the provincial analyses get bogged down with demographic statistics, making it difficult to get a vivid picture of the diversity of France.

While the Restoration and July Monarchy are often neglected periods of French historiography, it is better to find something else to read. “Restoration and Reaction, 1815-1848” is both dry and outdated. It belongs to a much older tradition of historiography that lacks nuanced argumentation and theoretical framing. Ultimately, this work is worth passing by.