Reviews for The Old Regime and the Revolution: Notes on the French Revolution and Napolean, Vol. 2

The average rating for The Old Regime and the Revolution: Notes on the French Revolution and Napolean, Vol. 2 based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-02-04 00:00:00 Maria T Lymberis To those who study it as an isolated phenomenon the French Revolution can but seem a dark and sinister enigma; only when we view it in the light of the events preceding it can we grasp its true significance. And, similarly, without a clear idea of the old order, its laws, its vices, its prejudices, its shortcomings, and its greatness, it is impossible to comprehend the history of the sixty years following its fall. (p227) The Old Regime and the French Revolution, written in 1856, is a short book (just 206 pages in this edition plus an appendix and endnotes) with a contemporary audience in mind. Despite this Tocqueville's insights and understanding mean that the book is still interesting and provides a model for thinking about revolutions as a whole. Part of his intention was to take issue with interpretations of the revolution current in his own time and also to address what he felt were short comings in French political life. Primarily the lack of political liberties and the absence of an aristocracy or something very like it, some powerful, self-confident group, not dependant on the central authority of the government and able to resist it in the interests of the locality in which they lived and so guarantee liberty. Tocquevilles view was not that these deficiencies were the result of the Revolution, but rather that they and the Revolution itself were the result of long term trends in French history. Tocqueville was interested in the longue duree long before the annales school. His final conclusion is that given the long term tendencies in French history the Revolution was not a "sinister enigma" but a "foregone conclusion". Tocqueville's key to understanding this was to grasp the mentalite of the pre-revolutionary generations. Once you are in tune with the Zeitgeist the paradoxes of the pre-revolutionary period are resolved. This is why the book is valuable. What Tocqueville is doing is taking down and smashing a simple mental model to explain revolutions in their social and historical context. Revolutions don't occur because the living conditions of people are harsh - quite the contrary. They occur in his view in times when living conditions have been improving (p196). Countries in which serfdom was a complete system did not have revolutions, it was the very fact that there were only nonsensical remnants that rankled the peasantry (pp52-61). It is not the extent of arbitrary power that is resented, but its inconsistency. It is not that the state is hated, but rather that the idea is wide spread that its power can be used more effectively. When Tocqueville read through the cahiers of complaints submitted to the Estates General what he found was that cumulatively if you followed all the advice and recommendations then the whole of the Old Regime would be swept away. In other words from Tocqueville's perspective it was no surprise that the Soviet Union collapsed under Gorbachev when living conditions were reasonably good but the government made clear through its actions that the way it had been running things was deeply flawed and invited public criticism while it stood firm under Stalin whose government was harsh, brutal and did not admit to shortcomings. That is perhaps one of Tocquevilles central paradoxes, that the way that the government itself tried to change and reform undermined faith and confidence in the regime. The limits of its effective power were unclear. In his image it groped forward until it met opposition before which it would withdraw (p133). Tocqueville is surprised that the writers on economic issues under the Old Regime looked to China as their model of an ideal state. But taking into account that impressionistic image of an uncertain, hesitant government this makes sense as China was, at least in how educated opinion in Eighteenth Century France understood it, a uniquely self assured and stable authority, wisely governed thanks to a class of civil servants selected through competitive examinations. There an articulate body of opinion that did not seek to increase political liberty but instead "sought to increase the power and jurisdiction of the central authority" (p.50) and so we should not be taken aback to find that one of the results of the breakdown of the authority of the Old Regime was the creation of a stronger regime that built on the existing centralising tendencies with the result that "since '89 the administrative system has always stood firm and amid the debacles of political systems...The same duties were performed by the same civil servants, whose practical experience kept the nation on an even keel through the worst political storms" (pp219-220). His key point being that the new regime is built out of the material of the old regime and was not an complete and absolute break with the past. What strikes Tocqueville as new and different about the French revolution is that it was not restricted to France. "The French Revolution, though ostensibly political in origin, functioned on the lines, and assumed many of the aspects, of a religious revolution" (p.42). It looked abroad and sought converts beyond its boarders. It had a gospel, based on 'natural' and 'universal' principles in his words and sought to propagate it. Perhaps this is his final paradox and one that he doesn't fully explore in this exploration of the causes of the collapse of the Old Regime, how the ideas developed in a specific local context were assumed to be transformative beyond the limits of France.

Review # 2 was written on 2018-10-14 00:00:00 Jeffrey Lather L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) The "Old Regime" published in 1856 is a study of the Governance of France from the dark Middle ages up to Louis XVI. And further to understand and explain why and how the terrible and violent Revolution of 1789 came to happen. Alexis de Tocqueville is best known for his "Democracy in America."(1835) a book that I appreciated and that should be read by every European and American who wants to understand the differences in understanding democracy in Europe at the time and America. In his study of the Old Regime, in order to produce a credible backup, Tocqueville undertook a comprehensive reading over several years of ancient documents available throughout France concerning the functioning of administration at all levels from basic villages to small towns and provincial cities and finally of Paris. From St. Louis (1226-1270) to Louis XVI, oppression, serfdom and heavy taxation of the peasants were the usual practice ever since centuries. Aristocrats, however, historically providing armed protection for the king and governing and administrating their provinces were taking care of their farming and village communities. They were exempt from any taxation. Things changed when governance was concentrated as from Louis XIV and onwards to Paris and administration, justice and taxation organised by the king's council. Social classes were strictly separated into aristocrats, bourgeois and illiterate peasants. There was no communication between these classes, rather enmity. This situation, of course, facilitated despotic and tyrannic ruling By the time of Louis XVI the aristocratic cast had lost all their political and administrative power and had no longer any contact with their rural communities. They had left their castles, selling their land little by little and moved to Paris and became courtesans. They had kept their immunity from taxation and held on to and even increased all their privileges. This situation was the first and most incomprehensible for the lower population. This is where hatred between social classes had started and kept burning for generations. Philosophers and writers of a new kind appeared and published political brochures proposing new governing systems to replace the old constitution thus preparing the readers for possible emerging changes in the country. Tocqueville never mentioned the name of Chateaubriand, like he rarely mentioned any other name, but it seems likely that he pointed at him when he mentioned this as one of the causes of the coming revolution. The Church is another stepping stone that seemed to have led to unrest. Exempt from taxes, implicated in all local politics and administrations, rich land and farm owners, providers of local judicial decisions. It was not against the Christian Religion the revolution attacked and destroyed churches and Monasteries but because the church occupied the strongest most privileged position in the old regime. Tocqueville wants to show in this work that the revolution was necessary, even taking into account the excessive violence, according to his conclusion it was the only way to shake off the tyranny of the despotic ruling of the monarchy. Tocqueville wrote this work at the time of a new despot ruling France. Napoleon Bonaparte. He never mentioned his name. He was serving as a minister in Bonaparte's government. The book ends with the sad conclusion that the revolution had only led to the government of another despot and that the French population was not worthy of liberty. I had chosen to read this work after having read "Memoires d'Outre Tombe" by Chateaubriand in order to get a complete picture of this important period of French History. I would only recommend it to readers very interested in the period of the French Revolution, not for its literary quality.