Would be interested to hear your take on Arendt's comparison of French and US Revolutions in On Revolution.
With all the soul-searching related to the Declaration's 250th - especially in the shadow of Trump, I can't help thinking Zhou Enlai's response is also apt regarding the American Revolution.
The dilemma of the First French Republic, as shown in its overturned elections, was that it never represented the mass of the French people—largely because the French people at the time did not exist outside Paris. In the provinces, people were loyal to the church, to their local aristocrats, to feudal institutions and traditions. It was only with the experience of Coalition invasion, the levee en masse, and military triumph that the country split the chrysalis of medieval society and a cohesive French national identity emerged. The problem was this new political community was represented in the undemocratic structure of the army, not the rules and processes of the Republic: at that point, the ascent of Army’s greatest general to power was probably inevitable—though not as the emperor of France, but emperor of “the French.”
The other problem, of course, is that the experience of occupation and humiliation at French hands birthed countervailing German nationalism, with all its nightmarish consequences.
Relatedly, at some level one simply knows of course that Les Bleus’ humiliation on Bastille Day at the hands of the impeccable Spanish midfield was obliquely due to Rabiot and Tchouaméni out there distractedly meditating on “Is it too early to tell?” It’s just something sensible people know.
Timothy Tackett’s “The Glory and the Sorrow” is a very approachable, highly readable account of the revolution through the eyes of one particular person. I love how it centers the affective experience of individuals as they were going through it. This is a great starting point for someone just starting out, imo.
And then for the real nuts and bolts, stations-of-the-cross approach, William Doyle’s Oxford History of the French Revolution is still a classic. Have pen and paper handy for remembering who’s who.
Otherwise, works by Robert Darnton, Colin Jones, Laura Mason, the aforementioned Tackett, and Sara Maza (one of my diss committee members) are all also great reads. The French Revolution is both fun and maddening because we’ve been writing and debating its history since 1789. Follow what sounds interesting to you and have fun!
Sorry if this is a repeat comment, I thought I had posted this but cannot find it- all of Mike Duncan's Revolution podcast seasons are amazing, including the one about the French Revolution season. Really worth a listen. Here are some of his book recommendations: https://tertulia.com/voices/mike-duncan-books
My version of the Zhou Enlai story is that he was asked this by a French reporter at the 1954 Geneva conference about Vietnam. Supposedly John Foster Dulles refused to shake hands with him at the beginning of the conference.
I recommend the work of Charles Manceron (in 5 volumes) who dug out of the documents of the times and the memoirs of the participants a sense of what was going on beyond a sequence of events (primarily in France) in the period between 1776 and 1789. Very entertaining as well!
Would be interested to hear your take on Arendt's comparison of French and US Revolutions in On Revolution.
With all the soul-searching related to the Declaration's 250th - especially in the shadow of Trump, I can't help thinking Zhou Enlai's response is also apt regarding the American Revolution.
"and the third with a symbol which we could make nothing of, for it was neither literal nor allegorical"
this is off your point perhaps, but hazlitt is a very funny & a very modern writer, & i love him
Obviously I didn't. That is, I stopped too soon, when the phone rang and my ADHD kicked in. Mea maxima culpa. Love the piece.
Nietzsche points out (correctly!) that we Jews are great despisers, and this Hazlitt quote is music to my ears. We're built for this moment, baby.
Related, though I rarely admire Emerson as a philosopher, his writing on Napoleon (and the ascendant generation whose aspirations he embodied) is worth reading in the present context: www.emersoncentral.com/texts/representative-men/napoleon-man-of-the-world/
The dilemma of the First French Republic, as shown in its overturned elections, was that it never represented the mass of the French people—largely because the French people at the time did not exist outside Paris. In the provinces, people were loyal to the church, to their local aristocrats, to feudal institutions and traditions. It was only with the experience of Coalition invasion, the levee en masse, and military triumph that the country split the chrysalis of medieval society and a cohesive French national identity emerged. The problem was this new political community was represented in the undemocratic structure of the army, not the rules and processes of the Republic: at that point, the ascent of Army’s greatest general to power was probably inevitable—though not as the emperor of France, but emperor of “the French.”
The other problem, of course, is that the experience of occupation and humiliation at French hands birthed countervailing German nationalism, with all its nightmarish consequences.
Before the Revolution started the British were terrified that this would happen in England.
So as usual, they used a propaganda campaign.
I suspect many of these poets succumbed out of fear of the British Establishment. Either way it is abhorrent behaviour.
The 1805 Prelude is very much pro-Revolution, the 1850 version not. But by that time WW had published his pro-capital punishment sonnets.
Hello Kevin.
As the Revolution in France intensified, the spies on both sides of the North sea intensified.
Always the case with the British..............they had no brains and the propaganda intensified.
God forbid that the British would shoot the heads off the Royalty.
Relatedly, at some level one simply knows of course that Les Bleus’ humiliation on Bastille Day at the hands of the impeccable Spanish midfield was obliquely due to Rabiot and Tchouaméni out there distractedly meditating on “Is it too early to tell?” It’s just something sensible people know.
Fine piece, by the way, as always.
Showing my ignorance - what book(s) should I read to better understand the French Revolution?
Timothy Tackett’s “The Glory and the Sorrow” is a very approachable, highly readable account of the revolution through the eyes of one particular person. I love how it centers the affective experience of individuals as they were going through it. This is a great starting point for someone just starting out, imo.
And then for the real nuts and bolts, stations-of-the-cross approach, William Doyle’s Oxford History of the French Revolution is still a classic. Have pen and paper handy for remembering who’s who.
Otherwise, works by Robert Darnton, Colin Jones, Laura Mason, the aforementioned Tackett, and Sara Maza (one of my diss committee members) are all also great reads. The French Revolution is both fun and maddening because we’ve been writing and debating its history since 1789. Follow what sounds interesting to you and have fun!
Listen to the French Revolution episodes of Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast. They're great.
Sorry if this is a repeat comment, I thought I had posted this but cannot find it- all of Mike Duncan's Revolution podcast seasons are amazing, including the one about the French Revolution season. Really worth a listen. Here are some of his book recommendations: https://tertulia.com/voices/mike-duncan-books
Eric Hazan's A People's History of the French Revolution would be a good start
I wish I could remember but I am 77ys old!
Simon Schama’s “Citizens” may be worth a look.
"To he a true Jacobin, a man must be a good hater."
May those words echo into eternity.
Absolutely, lovely thought-provoking piece, thank you.
I fucking hate tyrants
My version of the Zhou Enlai story is that he was asked this by a French reporter at the 1954 Geneva conference about Vietnam. Supposedly John Foster Dulles refused to shake hands with him at the beginning of the conference.
I recommend the work of Charles Manceron (in 5 volumes) who dug out of the documents of the times and the memoirs of the participants a sense of what was going on beyond a sequence of events (primarily in France) in the period between 1776 and 1789. Very entertaining as well!
Um, did you read what I wrote?