Defending the Liberal Revolution in France: Provincial Reactions to the Parisian <i>journée</i> of 20 June 1792
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 20 June 1792 popular militants from the Paris Sections marched in arms to the Legislative Assembly where they demanded that the deputies constrain or remove the king. The crowds then invaded the Tuileries palace to intimidate Louis XVI directly. While forced to don the red cap of the Sans-Culottes, the king made no concessions to the demonstrators. Historians of the French Revolution have interpreted this episode as a step toward the insurrection of 10 August 1792 which overthrew the monarchy. While acknowledging that the journée of 20 June provoked protests throughout France, both Marxists and revisionists have construed these as expressions of royalism and minimized their importance. Yet the provincial reactions provide evidence of a more subtle division in the country as the revolution shifted to a more radical phase. This article examines the petitions and addresses that were sent from the departments to the Legislative Assembly to protest the events of 20 June 1792 in Paris. While these texts denounced the outrages committed against the king, they went beyond manifestations of loyalty to express commitment to the ideal of constitutionalism. Some addresses reflected local conflict between administrators and popular revolutionaries. Not all protests against the events in Paris were sent by wealthy bourgeoisie, however, and the petitions provide evidence of a political and ideological division beyond class conflict. The provincial reactions to 20 June 1792 suggest that many in France still hoped to defend the liberal revolution with its promise of individual liberty, property rights, and the rule of law, and to identify national sovereignty with the decisions of an elected legislature under a constitution rather than direct manifestations of popular will, on the eve of a second revolution, which would sweep away the Constitution of 1791.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".