HOME > 논문 > 논문 상세
Comparaison signifie “une action de chercher les ressemblances ou les différences qui peuvent exister entre deux personnes ou deux choses.” Cela ne présume pas l’équivalence ou la corrélation entre deux. Mais analogie est “former un raisonnement fondé sur les ressemblances ou les rapports d’une chose avec une autre”. Dans l’histoire et l’historiographie, trois variétés de l’analogie opèrent: heuristique, pratique, rhétorique. Un exemple typique de l’analogie heuristique est The Anatomy of Revolution de Crane Brinton, qui cherche à établir les uniformités dans quatre révolutions: la Révolution d’Angleterre des 1640s, les Révolutions amérique, française, et russe de 1917. Cet article examine les interaction entre la Révolution française(surtout sa historiographie) et la Révolution russe, en analysant trois exemples historiques: Li Ta-chao(李大釗; 1889-1927), communiste chinois éminent, Albert Mathiez(1874-1932), historien révolutionnaire français prééminent, et Lénine(1870-1924), leader révolutionnaire russe. Li exécuta la méthode de comparaison, cependant Mathiez pratiqua une ‘analogie rhétorique’, et Lénine fit une ‘analogie pratique’. Qu‘est-ce qui conduisait trois hommes de milieux très différents à comparer ou faire de l’analogie entre deux révolutions ainsi d’urgence? C’est parce que deux révolutions appartiennent à le monde historique commun de ‘la modernité’. En fait, faire de l’analogie entre deux révolutions est un mode de convocation pour une révolution non-existente mais imminente. C’est un simulacre de révolution qui appelle constamment le sens de réalité et discipline la volonté d’action. En vérité, c’est une gesticulation tragique qui comble la rupture entre l’intention des révolutionnaires pour une réforme radicale et la réalité incontrôlable.
Comparison means “an evaluation of the similarities and differences of two(or more) things”. It doesn’t assume the equivalence or correlation of things. But analogy is “a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects”. In history and historiography, three kinds of analogy operate: heuristic, practical, rhetorical. An typical example of ‘heuristic analogy’ is Crane Brinton’s The Anatomy of Revolution, which seeks to establish uniformities in four revolutions: the English Revolution of the 1640s, the American, the French, and the 1917 Russian Revolution. This paper examines the interactions between the French Revolution (especially its historiography) and the Russian Revolution, analysing three historical examples: Chinese notable communist, Li Ta-chao(李大釗; 1889-1927), French prominent historian, Albert Mathiez(1874- 1932) and Russian leading revolutionary, Lenin(1870-1924). Li carried out the method of comparison, but Mathiez practiced a ‘rhetorical analogy’, and Lenin did a ‘practical analogy’. What induced three men of very different background to compare or make an analogy between two revolutions so urgently? This is because French and Russian Revolutions belong to the common historical world of ‘modernity’. In fact, Doing an analogy between two revolutions is a mode of conjuring up a non-existent but plausible revolution. It is a mock revolution which stirs up constantly the sense of reality and disciplines the will power of action. Indeed, it is a tragic gesticulation which covers the gap between revolutionaries’ intention of radical reform and the uncontrollable realty.
Comparison means “an evaluation of the similarities and differences of two(or more) things”. It doesn’t assume the equivalence or correlation of things. But analogy is “a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects”. In history and historiography, three kinds of analogy operate: heuristic, practical, rhetorical. An typical example of ‘heuristic analogy’ is Crane Brinton’s The Anatomy of Revolution, which seeks to establish uniformities in four revolutions: the English Revolution of the 1640s, the American, the French, and the 1917 Russian Revolution. This paper examines the interactions between the French Revolution (especially its historiography) and the Russian Revolution, analysing three historical examples: Chinese notable communist, Li Ta-chao(李大釗; 1889-1927), French prominent historian, Albert Mathiez(1874- 1932) and Russian leading revolutionary, Lenin(1870-1924). Li carried out the method of comparison, but Mathiez practiced a ‘rhetorical analogy’, and Lenin did a ‘practical analogy’. What induced three men of very different background to compare or make an analogy between two revolutions so urgently? This is because French and Russian Revolutions belong to the common historical world of ‘modernity’. In fact, Doing an analogy between two revolutions is a mode of conjuring up a non-existent but plausible revolution. It is a mock revolution which stirs up constantly the sense of reality and disciplines the will power of action. Indeed, it is a tragic gesticulation which covers the gap between revolutionaries’ intention of radical reform and the uncontrollable realty.
A revolution, when the people forcibly overthrow the current government in favor of a new one, is a major turning point in a country’s history. Three of the major revolutions in history are the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution. In the American Revolution, the colonists fought the overreaching British government for their freedom to govern themselves. The French Revolution fought for the people to be free from the class oppression that hurt the lower class people. During the Russian Revolution, the peasants and working class people revolted against the government of Tsar Nicholas II. These revolutions all occurred for different reasons and contain different events, however, they do share many general themes between them.
Each country had different characteristics of people. In America, there was no legal, social class structure due to the…show more content…
After the American Revolution, the amount of money brought to the country had declined due to the removal of the British from America, however, this left the American economy suffering due to the deep debt. The politics in America included more working class citizens in the political process in an effort to have their new government represent the people’s desires. The revolution also changed the social attitudes of Americans from slavery to women’s rights, from views on religious beliefs to voting. After the French Revolution, France increasingly became the land of peasants, growing into a more modern society. In Russia the banks were nationalized and a national assembly was assembled to run the economy; however, the economy was destabilized, which led to starvation and a lack of public order. The revolution lead to the end of an autocratic rule and the establishment of a socialist government. There was a large shift in focus onto education which largely impacted the population of
Revolutions are big changes regarding political power or government that occurs when people starts to revolt against their authorities. In the late 1700s and early 1900s, both France and Russia had some troubles with their government that some what triggered the beginning of their revolutions. In this paper, I will argue that there are more similarities than differences when it comes to the causes of both French and Russian Revolution. Both revolutions were triggered by previous events that involved them; France was involved in the American Revolution that made them have economic problems, and Russia lost to a war with the Japanese that revealed the weakness and problems of the Russian government. In the causes of both French …show more content…
In Russia, workers, peasants and serfs, were asking for improvements regarding their poor conditions in life. Serfs or slaves were treated very harshly and some were even being sold by their nobles. At the same time, workers in Russia had some economic demands that eventually turned into political ones. They were demanding for an eight-hour working day, right payments, and democratic rights. Although, the government established a duma, or assembly, they still failed to grant most of the people's demands or wishes, which caused them to revolt. Likewise, in France, people also had demands and complaints against their government. While France was almost bankrupt, the King and Queen still continued to live a very extravagant life, while the people outside of the palace were living very poorly. When the time for famine came, people were complaining because they had nothing to eat, but the King and Queen were still eating and getting a lot of food. This unbalanced equality caused the people to revolt and start a revolution. Unfairness and inequality were the main reasons why people in both countries started a revolution that will eventually end up to the changing and throwing out both of their …show more content…
Their only difference is that the Russian Revolution was caused by an event that involved more violence. The Russian Revolution began because the troops shot on a vulnerable crowd of workers that were marching towards the Winter Palace to petition Czar Nicholas II. This day was called "The Bloody Sunday" and it marked the beginning of the violent period of the 1905 Russian Revolution. On the other hand, although the French Revolution had very violent methods, the causes of the revolution however was not violent at all, and just started because of economic problems and inequality among all the people in the