The problems of popular movements during the French bourgeois Revolution of the late eighteenth century still attract the attention of researchers today .1 Sharp discussions are being held around the actions of the urban masses and the struggle of the peasantry at that time .2 This review addresses only one of the points of controversy that has developed in France around these issues. We are talking about Soboul - Guerin's counter-argument in connection with their consideration of the urban grassroots movement, its character and ideology, as well as how this dispute was perceived in French historiography.

The name of Albert Sobul , an outstanding researcher of the French Revolution at the end of the XVIII century, who headed the Department of its history at the Sorbonne from 1967 until his death in 1982, is widely known to the Soviet scientific community. One of the main directions of his research was the study of the urban popular movement of the revolutionary era.

Only a narrow circle of specialists knows about Daniel Guerin. He describes himself as a proponent of "anarchist Marxism", claiming that there are supposedly no serious contradictions between anarchism and Marxism and that they are inseparable from each other. In his works, he often refers to the founders of Marxism, but distorts, however, the essence of their ideas. Guerin makes extensive appeals to Trotsky's writings; his attitude towards Leninism is hostile. He contrasts the spontaneous actions of the masses with their organization, denies the need for a political party of the proletariat, and opposes centralized revolutionary power. Guerin, like other French ultra-leftists, is characterized by anti-communism and anti-Sovietism .3
Guerin is the author of numerous historical and journalistic works: on fascism and the Popular Front, on the state of affairs in post-war America and colonialism, on the revolutionary movement and anarchism4 . One of his areas of interest is French-

1 See, for example, Ado A.V. The peasant movement in France during the Great Bourgeois Revolution of the late 18th century, Moscow, 1971; Gauthier F. La voie paysanne dans la Revolution francaise. L'exemple de la Picardie. P. 1977; Contributions a l'histoire paysanne de la revolution francaise. P. 1977.

2 Ado A.V. Modern disputes about the Great French Revolution. In: Voprosy metodologii i istorii istoricheskoi nauki [Issues of Methodology and History of Historical Science], Moscow, 1977; Soboul A. Problemes agraires de la revolution franchise. In: Contributions a l'histoire paysanne de la revolution franchise; Furet F. Pour une definition des classes inferieus. - Annales, E. S. C. 1963, N 3; Hunecke V. Antikapitalistische Strornungen in der Franzosischen Revolution. - Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 1978, N 3.

3 Markova V. D. Review of D. Guerin's book "The Popular Front-a failed Revolution". - New and Recent History, 1965, N 1; Panteleeva E. L. Modern bourgeois-reformist doctrines and their influence on non-communist youth organizations in France. 1968 - 1981. Author's abstract of the cand. Diss. M. 1982, p. 53-60.

4 Guerin D. La peste brune a passe. P. 1933; ejusd. Fascisme et le grand capital. Italie, Allemagne. P. 1936; ejusd. Ou va le peuple americain. Tt. 1 - 2. P. 1951; ejusd. Au services de colonises. 1930 - 1953. P. 1954; ejusd. Front populaire. Revolution manquee. Temoignage. P. 1963; ejusd. L'anarchisme. De la doctrine a l'action. P. 1965; ejusd. Pour un marxisme libertaire. P. 1969; ejusd. Rose Luxembourg et le spontaneity revolutionaire. P. 1971; ejusd. Proudon, oui ou non. P. 1978.

page 154

the Russian bourgeois revolution of the late eighteenth century, and especially the urban grassroots movement of that time .5 Guerin's main work devoted to these subjects is the two-volume " Class Struggle in the era of the First Republic. The bourgeois and the "proletarians" (1793-1797) " 6 .

Central to this book is a far-fetched thesis about the proletarian character of the Sans-Culottes movement. The author does not put forward any serious arguments in its favor, based mainly on a priori statements. Turning to the demonstration of September 4, 1793, he deviates from the analysis of the demands made during it. Guerin also approaches the views of the political groups associated with the Sans - Culottes movement-the "rabies" and the Ebertists, which he characterizes as proletarian in their ideology.

This interpretation is completely inconsistent with reality. Hence the obvious contradictions in assessments, sometimes just mutually exclusive statements. In one passage of his book, Guerin describes the "rabies" as "the true heralds of the proletarians" 7, and in another admits that " Jacques Roux, Leclerc, and Varlet did not represent modern proletarians who emerged from large-scale industry.. but a heterogeneous mass, dominated by the petty bourgeoisie and artisans associated with private property. " 8 The situation is even more complicated with the Ebertists, for whom he uses the term "Plebeians". In his interpretation, these are people "who have come out of the people, but have already risen above them" 9 . Guerin points out that unlike the disinterested rabies, "they were motivated almost exclusively by their own petty interests," the interests of the "cabal." And yet the only political movement that, after the defeat of the "rabies", remained associated with the Sans-Culottes (i.e., according to Guerin, the workers') movement, was the Ebertists. "In order to restrain the proletarians, it was necessary to destroy Ebertism." 10 The Babuvists were the third group to speak out from the proletarian position. Guerin's tendency to modernize history is clearly evident here. Under his pen, Babeuf appears almost as the founder of scientific socialism, who anticipated Marx .11
The thesis about the proletarian character of the urban grassroots movement had a decisive impact on Guerin's entire concept of the French bourgeois Revolution of the late eighteenth century, which he formulated as follows: "In the French Revolution... a bourgeois revolution is combined with the embryo of an anti-bourgeois revolution, which we will call proletarian"12 . At the same time, Guerin makes absolutely groundless references to the founders of Marxism. But the founders of Marxism, who based on the experience of the revolution of 1848 concluded that continuous revolution was possible, had in mind mature bourgeois forms corresponding to the factory stage of capitalism .13 Guerin, however, grossly violates the principles of historicism, transferring these provisions to the manufacturing stage of capitalism and even to the era of the Peasant War in Germany and the Reformation, as well as to the Florence of the XIV century. (the Chompi rebellion) 14 .

The modernizing approach also affects Guerin's characterization of the role of the bourgeoisie in the revolution. Even here, contrary to the principle of historicism, he ignores the differences in ti-

5 Guerin's views on these problems are briefly described in: Kahn S. B. Paris workers in the Revolution of 1789-1794. - Voprosy istorii, 1956, N 1; Zaher Ya. M. Dvizhenie "beshenykh" [The Beshenykh movement], Moscow, 1961, pp. 13-14; Zilberfarb I. I. Idei i traditsii Velikoi frantsuzskoi revolyutsii [Ideas and traditions of the Great French Revolution], Moscow, 1971, pp. 208-209. For a more detailed analysis, see: Revunenkov V. G. Marxism and the problem of the Jacobin Dictatorship], Moscow, 1966, p. 147-154.

6 Guerin D. La lutte des classes dans la premiere republique. Bourgeois et " bras nus "(1793-1797). Tt. 1-2. P. 1946 (literal translation of the second part of the title - "Bourgeois and " bare hands").

7 Ibid. Vol. 1, pp. 250-251.

8 Ibid., p. 80.

9 Ibid., p. 251. Guerin's term "plebeians "has nothing in common with the widespread notion of" plebeianism "or"Plebeian masses" in Marxist literature.

10 Ibid. Vol. 2, pp. 65, 95.

11 Ibid., pp. 344 - 346.

12 Ibid. T. 1, pp. 1 - 2.

13 For more information, see: Marxist Philosophy in the XIX Century, Moscow, 1979, book 1, part 2, chapter 3. Formation of the Marxist theory of Continuous Revolution.

14 Guerin D. La lutte des classes. T. 1, p. 7; t. 2, p. 392.

page 155

the groin of bourgeois revolutions. The assessment of the position of the German bourgeoisie, which was cowardly and inclined to compromise with the pro-feudal elements of the mid-19th century, is transferred to the revolutionary French bourgeoisie of the late 18th century. Guerin's approach is similar to that of the petty bourgeoisie of the French bourgeois Revolution of the late eighteenth century, which is also affected by the estimates that are correct for the mid-nineteenth century .15
By contrasting the Sans-Culottes, whom Guerin regards as the proletariat, with the entire bourgeoisie, including the petty bourgeoisie, he downplays the differences among them, smooths out the contradictions between the Mountain and the Gironde, without seeing a "fundamental difference"between them .16 The activities of Gore during the Jacobin, dictatorship and Robespierre periods are clearly evaluated negatively, and their policies are portrayed as allegedly anti-Sankulot, anti-people 17 . Guerin's claim that the agrarian measures of the Jacobins were useless for the peasantry is also significant .18 Guerin describes the Jacobin leader as a "moderate" figure, and calls the regime of "public salvation" that Robespierre headed "reactionary" .19 It is characteristic that Guerin considers the beginning of the downward line of the revolution not Thermidor, but the events that unfolded at the height of the Jacobin period-namely, November 1793, when Robespierre spoke out against de-Christianization, for freedom of worship. 20 .

This is the essence of Guerin's concept. The approach of Sobul ' 21 , who studied the urban popular movement using archival sources and quantitative analysis, is fundamentally different from this approach. He stated that the Sans-Culottes were not homogeneous: they included factory workers, poor people who received assistance, apprentices, small artisans and merchants, as well as some other social groups. In the main organs of the city sections - civil and revolutionary committees, as well as among ordinary activists, artisans and merchants predominated. Wage-earners (factory workers and apprentices, servants, clerks and clerks) formed a minority in the staff of the sections.

Pointing out some contradictions between shopkeepers and artisans, on the one hand, and people who live exclusively by their own labor, on the other, Sobul, however, rightly notes that "neither in their thinking nor in their actions could the workers in the era of the revolution be an independent element", since "they remained imbued with the spirit of handicraft activity." environment" and experienced a decisive impact on the part of small owners. They did not yet put their demands in the foreground, but maintained a line common to all the Sans-Culottes .22 Federal regulations and the corporate organization of crafts did not allow "free disposal of one's person and one's labor." Hence the hatred of the "old order" and its main support - the feudal nobility. "The social antagonism between the aristocracy and the Sans-Culottes was most clearly expressed in the popular consciousness." This antagonism, which remained central throughout the revolution, was combined by the Sans-Culottes as it unfolded, with a growing hostility to the upper ranks of the "third estate." They were opposed to large-scale property, to the "monopoly of wealth" that was fraught with poverty for them. However, the small shopkeepers and artisans, as well as the apprentices and factory workers who followed them, did not demand the abolition of private property altogether; their ideal was an egalitarian society of "small proprietors, where everyone would own his own field, his own workshop, his own shop."23
On the basis of extensive factual material, Soboul convincingly refutes Guerin's characterization of the Sans-Culottes and their aspirations. Paying considerable attention to:-

15 Ibid. Vol. 1, pp. 12, 20.

16 Ibid., p. 100.

17 Ibid. T. 2, p. 22.

18 Ibid. Vol. 1, pp. 308-314.

19 Ibid., p. 387; t. 2, p. 349.

20 Ibid. T. 1, p. 404.

21 Soboul A. Paris sans-culottes during the Jacobin dictatorship. Moscow, 1966. About the views of A. Sobul, see also: Ado A.V. Introductory article. In the book: Sobul A. From the history of the Great Bourgeois Revolution of 1789-1794 and the revolution of 1848 in France. M. 1960; Manfred A. Z. Introductory article in the book: Sobul A. Parisian Sans Culottes; his. Introductory article in: Sobul A. The First Republic. 1792-1804. Moscow, 1974.

22 Soboul A. Paris sans-culottes, pp. 239-242, 243-245.

23 Ibid., p. 265.

page 156

On September 4-5, 1793, he notes the inconsistency of Guerin's definition of these events as a "specifically working-class manifestation." 24
Looking at the "Conspiracy of Equals", the activities and views of Babeuf, Soboul discovers the closeness and a certain continuity between the members of the section and the participants of the "Conspiracy". However, while noting that both were recruited from among small artisans and shopkeepers, whose minds "undoubtedly remain at the level of the Sans-Culottes ideology based on personal work", he also rightly points out that these views do not correspond to the ideas of the leaders of "equals". "The ideology of the leaders of the Conspiracy, committed to the commonality of property and labor," Sobul notes, is "a renewal or, more precisely, a sharp shift" in comparison with the Sans-Culottes 25 . While he does not agree with Lefebvre, who saw Babouvism mainly as "communism in distribution," he does not ignore the weaknesses in Babouvism's teaching, noting "the preference that Babouvism gave to the old economic forms, in particular handicrafts, and the complete absence in his work of a description of a communist society based on an abundance of consumer products." 26 This characteristic corresponds to Karl Marx's instructions on the "rough equalization" characteristic of communist theories of the early bourgeois revolutions .27
One of the most important aspects of the urban popular movement is the relationship between the Sans-Culottes and the Jacobin government. Having justly pointed out the mistakes of Mathieu 28 , who smoothed out the contradictions between the masses and the government and embellished the latter's policy, Soboul himself admits a certain "inflection" of the opposite nature. The relations between the sectionists and the leaders of the Mountain are portrayed by him mainly as a confrontation. By advocating property restrictions, the Sans-Culottes affected bourgeois interests, which the Jacobin government ultimately protected. The urban lower classes also insisted on direct democracy, direct government of the people, and the Jacobins supported the concept of representative democracy. Finally, the desire of the sections for broad autonomy came into conflict with the centralizing policy of the Jacobin government, pushed by military necessity. However, in some works Sobul interprets the relationship of the parties differently: "The Committee of Public Safety and Robespierre were to a certain extent concerned with maintaining a balance between the heterogeneous social elements on which the revolutionary government relied - between the middle bourgeoisie and the masses of the people." 29 Here he approaches the understanding of the Jacobin dictatorship as a bloc of various social forces.

But even by contrasting the Sans-Culottes with the Jacobins, Soboul, unlike Guerin, does not distort the role of the revolutionary bourgeoisie and its leaders, and does not allow the essence of Jacobin politics to be distorted. He is convinced that the Jacobin period was the highest stage of the revolution. Soboul's exaggeration of the differences between the Sans-Culottes and the revolutionary government stems from the opposition of certain aspirations of the lower classes to the tasks of the bourgeois revolution. Speaking about the correlation between the urban popular movement and the bourgeois revolution, Sobul emphasizes that the main enemy of the sectionists was the feudal aristocracy and that, acting against it, they kept pace with the revolution. In the conflict with the bourgeoisie, the Sans - Culottes, the most politically advanced force of the revolution, adhered, according to Soboul, to the "economically conservative line", opposing the concentration of property and the means of production, which hindered the development of capitalism. This prompted him to single out the autonomous Sans-Culottes movement 30 .

24 Ibid., p. 31.

25 См.: Soboul A. Paysanns, Sans-culottes et Jacobins. P. 1966, pp. 304 - 305.

26 Sobul A. Pervaya Respublika, pp. 238-239.

27 K. Marx, F. Engels Soch. Vol. 4, p. 455.

28 Soboul A. Paris sans-culottes, p. 29.

29 Sobul A. From History, p. 151.

30 Sobul A. Classes and class struggle during the French Revolution. In the book: Sobul A. From History, p. 51. Soboul follows Lefebvre, who, considering the equalizing aspirations of the peasants to be contrary to the goals of the bourgeois revolution, put forward the thesis that there is an "autonomous peasant revolution" within its framework (see Lefebvre A. Etudes sur la Revolution franchise, P. 1954, pp. 249-250).

page 157

Soboulem's elaboration of the Sans-Culottes movement influenced his interpretation of the entire French bourgeois Revolution of the late eighteenth century. At the same time, it is characteristic that with each new book, the author shows more and more clearly the powerful influence of the masses on the content of the revolutionary process, and the latter is more and more characterized precisely through the popular movement, although this movement may be somewhat separated from the general course of the bourgeois revolution.

The controversy between Guerin and Sobul aroused considerable interest among the scientific community. Lefebvre, who back in the 1920s and early 1930s wrote a number of original works on peasant problems of the revolution, 31 and led a group of historians who studied popular movements, immediately responded to Guerin's work .32 He emphatically rejected the author's attempts to identify the Sans-Culottes with wage-earners, and did not conceal his surprise at Guerin's characterization of the Paris Commune at that time as proletarian.

In 1958, in a historiographical report at the Franco-Soviet colloquium, the then head of the Department of the History of the French Revolution at the Sorbonne, M. Reynard, focused on the state of development of the problems of the urban popular movement .33 Under the influence of Soboul and other students of Lefebvre, researchers of the Sans-Culottes movement, Raynard came to the conclusion that this movement was significantly unique, that the interests and moods of the urban masses did not coincide with the views and actions of the "business bourgeoisie" and "people of talent" who were at the head of the revolution .34
One of the most significant publications on the study of the urban popular movement brought together historians of various fields 35 . Its material is devoted to the research of the "school" of Lefebvre, which appeared shortly before, and especially to the work of Sobul. However, all the authors of this publication relate to the Geren concept in one way or another. Speaking from Marxist positions, K. Mazorik pointed out the failure of attempts to portray the Sans-Culottes as proletarians and stressed that it was not only the struggle for cheap bread that consolidated the Sans-Culottes. There was also a deeper basis for this commonality: "Social egalitarianism is the most important feature of their mentality." 36 The bourgeois historian L. Bergeron, contradicting Guerin, who identified the Sans-Culottes with the workers, emphasizes that the former were an "incredible accumulation" of various social categories. What united the Sans-Culottes was their joint struggle against the "growing concentration of wealth", the "pressure of capitalism", and the egalitarian aspirations that brought them closer to the small village people .37 Finally, the future head of the revisionist movement in the modern historiography of the French bourgeois Revolution of the late eighteenth century, F. Furet, also gave a positive review of Sobul's work, although he tried to present his conclusions as a departure from the Marxist interpretation of its history. Joining the view that the Parisian sectionists were not proletarians, and at the same time simplistically explaining that they were united only by common interests as consumers, Fuhrer believes that an adequate idea of the urban lower classes of the revolutionary era allegedly "refutes" Marxism, since the lack of an "economic definition of Sans-culottes at the level of production" does not make it possible to identify their belonging to a certain social system. The French bourgeois revolution of the late eighteenth century is portrayed by him as a set of unrelated revolutionary currents .38
Authors who wrote in the second half of the 40s and first half of the 60s about Guerin's book and Soboul's research generally rejected the view of the Sans-Culottes as pro-

31 Lefebvre J. Agrarian question in the era of Terror, L. 1936; Levebvre G. Op. cit.; ejusd. Le grande Peur de 1789. P. 1956; ejusd. Les paysans du Nord pendant la Revolution francaise. P. 1959.

32 See: Levebvre G. La Revolution et l'Empire (lere partie). Periode revolutionnaire. - Revue historique, 1951, N 1.

33 Reinhard M. Sur l'histoire de la Revolution francaise. Traveux recents et perspectives. - Annales, E. S. C. 1959, N 3.

34 Ibid., pp. 562 - 564.

35 Furet F., Mazauric C., Bergeron L. Les Sans-culottes et la Revolution francaise. - Annales, E. S. C. 1963, N 6.

36 Ibid., p. 1105.

37 Ibid., pp. 1126 - 1127.

38 Ibid., pp. 1099 - 1100.

page 158

the proletariat, and the sectional movement - as the embryo of the proletarian revolution. Many of Soboul's conclusions about the Sans-Culottes and the role of the urban lower classes are firmly embedded in the arsenal of Marxist science. Guerin's concept, however, proved tenacious. In 1968, the second edition of his book was published. Among the responses to it were also positive assessments, while some bourgeois historians began to fiercely attack the interpretation of the revolution proposed by Sobul, while keeping in mind its methodological basis .39
A prominent expert on the history of the French bourgeois Revolution of the late eighteenth century, J. Godchaux, in another review of the literature on the problem under consideration, referring to the second edition of Guerin's work, points out the futility of trying to resume the dispute about the urban lower classes, since this controversy is not based "on the presentation of new documents"40 . Godchaux notes that Guerin's concept is not based on an analysis of the social structure of the Sans-Culottes. Later, Godchaux recalled Guerin's simplistic approach to the revolution, the modernizing nature of his proposed interpretation, and "inattention to the special conditions of the epoch." 41 J. Vidalenc, in his review of the second edition of Guerin's book, although he does not criticize it, nevertheless notes that Guerin is based more on a "purely political doctrine" than on a "political theory".actual stories"42 . But A. Gerard, who wrote a work on the historiography of the French bourgeois Revolution at the end of the XVIII century, claims that Guerin did a lot to " study the popular categories of this pre-industrial era." It notes the deep divergence of Geren's" Marxist-anarchist " concept with Marxism-Leninism, sympathizing with the former .43
In an article dedicated to Sobul's memory, M. Vovel emphasizes that Guerin is characterized by "conclusions before analysis", a mythical image of the "people's class", a schematic, anachronistic vision of the class struggle. Vauvel notes the obvious bias of bourgeois historians in their approach to the concepts of Sobul and Guerin: while reproaching the former for dogmatism, he notes that bourgeois historiography is very lenient towards the writings of the latter .44 The benevolent attitude of bourgeois interpreters of the revolution towards Guerin can be explained by the desire to use leftist doctrines against the PCF and Marxism-Leninism45 .

Sympathy for Guerin is also associated with serious changes in bourgeois historiography itself, with attempts by a significant part of its representatives to revise the traditional interpretation of the French bourgeois Revolution of the late XVIII century .46 On the basis of the revision of the achievements of science in the study of its history, the paths of Guerin and some of its modern bourgeois interpreters also converge. In one of his works, Guerin calls for the "de-Jacobinization"of the French revolution. This directly echoes the statements of revisionist historians against the "neo-Jacobin traditions" of advanced historiography from Jaures to Lefebvre and Soboul .48 It is significant that both Guerin, Fuhrer, and Richet associate Jacobinism and Leninism with equally anti-Soviet positions. Not me-

39 In this regard, F.'s behavior is particularly characteristic. Furet (see Furet F. Le cateshisme revolutionnaire. - Annales, E. S. C. 1971, N 2).

40 Godechot J. La periods revolutionnaire et imperiale. Publications des annees 1966 a 1971. - Revue historique, 1972, N 502, p. 486.

41 Godechot J. Un jury pour la Revolution. P. 1974, pp. 362 - 364.

42 Revue d'histoire economique et sociale, 1970, N 3, pp. 437 - 438.

43 Gerard A. La Revolution francaise, mythes et interpretations (1789 - 1970) P. 1970, p. 109.

44 Vovelle M. La place d'Albert Soboul dans l'histoire de la Revolution francaise. - La Pensee, 1982, N 6, p. 14.

45 This is facilitated by the position of the Goshist groups, which attack not so much the bourgeois system as the organized labor movement and the Communist Party, often joining forces with the reaction (see: Bolshakov V. V. Revolt in a dead end? M. 1973, p. 257; Polyakov Yu. A. Ways and concerns of young people. M. 1974, p. 83-90; Grachev A. Defeat or lesson? M. 1977, p. 156-158).

46 On the revisionist trend, see: Ado A.V. The French Bourgeois Revolution of the late 18th century and its contemporary critics. - New and recent history, 1981, N 3.

47 Guerin D. Pour un marxisme libertaire.

48 Furet F., Richet D. La revolution francaise. P. 1973.

49 Guerin D. Pour un marxisme libertaire, p. 65.

50 For these parallels in Furet and Richet, see Mazauric C. Sur la Revolution francaise, P. 1970, pp. 59-60.

page 159

By encouraging Gauchists like Guerin to sing the praises of "revolutionary anarchy" and spontaneity , 51 bourgeois ideologues actively support their attacks and slander of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship, which played a great transformative role in the revolution.

Guerin ignored criticism of his views, did not resort to sources and did not engage in a deeper analysis of phenomena and facts. Sobul, on the other hand, deepened and expanded his research on popular movements of the revolutionary era. He turned to the agrarian question and the peasant struggle of that time, to the study of the objective and historical significance of the economic demands of the peasantry. He paid much attention to the achievements of Soviet historiography in developing these problems .52 He recognized that the equalization of land redistribution would not only not slow down bourgeois development, but, on the contrary, would serve as a starting point for rapid capitalist evolution. Therefore, Soboul noted, Lefebvre's concept of the existence of an autonomous, "anti-capitalist in its tendencies" peasant revolution within the framework of the French bourgeois Revolution of the late eighteenth century is practically groundless .53 Sobul's understanding of the role of the peasants in the revolution should help clarify the place of the urban lower classes in it.

An active and lengthy discussion around the concepts of the urban popular movement put forward by Guerin and Sobul back in the 40s and 50s is one of the evidences of growing interest in this issue. Its content reveals a close connection between the debate about the French bourgeois Revolution of the late eighteenth century and the modern ideological struggle .54 In this struggle, the ultra-left is now on the same side of the barricades as the bourgeois historians who attack Marxism-Leninism.

51 Gretsky M. N. Marxist philosophical thought in France, Moscow, 1977, p. 146. "New" theories of Revolution, Moscow, 1975, p. 498.

52 See his review of A.V. Ado's monograph on the peasant movement during the French bourgeois Revolution (Soboul A. Problemes paysanns de la revolution (1789-1848), P. 1976).

53 Ibid., p. 440.

54 See: Manfred A. Z. Some trends in foreign historiography. - Kommunist, 1977, N 10; Ado A.V. Bourgeois revision of the history of the French Revolution of the XVIII century. In: Social Movements and the Struggle of Ideas, Moscow, 1982.

page 160

Permanent link to this publication: