Last Days of October

The Last Days of October are invoked as a possible sequel to the taking of the Bastille: the march on Versailles could be understood as the later consequence of popular strength first asserted in 1789. The example shows how an event’s place in history remains open to reinterpretation, as later projects connect past actions to new political meanings.

The Bastille and Its Possible Consequence

The account begins from an undisputed fact: the Bastille was taken in 1789. What remains undecided is what that fact means. It can be treated as an inconsequential revolt, a popular outburst against a half-dismantled fortress, or as the first expression of popular power. In the latter interpretation, the taking of the Bastille gives the populace confidence and prepares it to undertake the march on Versailles during the Last Days of October.

Meaning in Historical Perspective

The march does not settle the meaning of the earlier event once and for all. The interpretation that links the two episodes depends on seeing the fall of the Bastille as the beginning of an assertion of popular strength; another account could instead regard the event as having no consequential political force. The historical sequence is therefore not simply a chain whose significance is fixed by chronology. Later events can make an earlier act appear either foundational or negligible.

The Past Held in Suspense

The passage uses this example to argue that the social past remains “in suspense.” A definitive judgment about the Bastille would require human history to be finished, but history is not viewed from outside its unfolding: the historian is historical too, interpreting the past in light of personal and social projects. The Last Days of October thus illustrate how a political project can illuminate an earlier event and make it serve as a beginning, while leaving its ultimate meaning unsettled.