Reviews for The French Revolution from its origins to 1793

The average rating for The French Revolution from its origins to 1793 based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-01-13 00:00:00 Jerson Perdo This book is definitely not one for beginners. Lefebvre assumes some knowledge of both the Revolution itself and the the late 18th century in Europe more generally, and if you either have no knowledge or aren't quick on your feet when dealing with names and politics - well, this will be a hard book to read. Me, I'm pretty good on the French side of things, and that's the only way I managed to read this without feeling like a complete idiot. There's also no glossary, so woe betide the reader that misses a term that was explained early on... or wasn't explained at all and you're just meant to understand it, but maybe don't. One of the most awesome aspects of the book is the very fact that it places the Revolution in its broader European context. I had no idea of the Austrian/Prussian/Russian machinations that were going on at the same time as they were posturing about and around France; the controversy over Poland in particular made me realise just how much I have always viewed the French Revolution in isolation. That is, I know that the American Revolution had an impact, and so on; but I had forgotten that of course those countries who eventually invaded had other things on their mind than just an annoying neighbour. This is a common failing of mine, I have realised. So Lefebvre's insistence on providing a really broad context - much broader than I would have thought necessary, with the internal politicking of Pitt etc - makes this a quite remarkable part of revolutionary historiography. The most annoying thing about this is that it is part one of two. And this translator did not, apparently, do part 2 - which incorporates the Terror, and Thermidor, and Danton being his most awesome. Still, Lefebvre does give a succinct overview of the issues leading to the Revolution, as well as description of the early years. Perhaps the most amusing aspect is that he appears not to like anyone. He doesn't seem to like the proletariat (as he terms them), nor the peasants, and the bourgeoisie quite often come in for disapproval. And let's not talk about the aristocracy. The other thing of note for those of us who've done history more recently and have been forced to deal with issues of historiography and the post-modern/post-structuralist turn is Lefebvre's utter conviction that his interpretation of events is right. In fact, it's not even a conviction - that would suggest it was something he had given thought to. No; this is just the facts, and that's all there is. Which is very appealing, if a little dangerous in the 21st century. The translation is superb; there was no point at which I thought that it was convoluted or messy.

Review # 2 was written on 2013-08-17 00:00:00 Gary Hughes They don't write books like Lefebvre's anymore. As one of the two or three twentieth century experts on the French Revolution, Lefebvre was entitled to give a definite interpretation of the Revolution. But actually, his certainty of analysis and representation comes from a different era of history writing - the era before the rise of post-structuralism, with its emphasis on contingency and uncertainty. None of that wishy-washiness (or sophistication, if you prefer) for Lefebvre. For him, the French revolution was a bourgeois revolution, no ifs or buts about it. In his classical marxist interpretation, the revolution passed through a series of phases, as social power moved increasingly towards those at the bottom of the social scale. Thus it began with an aristocratic revolt. The first revolution - of 1789 - was one of the 'nation' as a whole, led by the bourgeoisie. The second revolution - of 1792 - was led by those who represented the lower classes, the Girondists and the Jacobins, who represented the sans-culottes (the mob composed of petit-bourgeoisie, aritsans, proletarians). For Lefebvre, this is not so much an analysis as a series of facts immanent in events. It's not so much an interpretation as the only way to read the revolution, not so much born out as inscribed in the facts themselves, such as when the National Assembly stated its aim was to destroy the feudal regime in its entirety. How else might one read this? It's a reading that's almost impossible to challenge, though a whole generation of historians (particularly in the 1980s) did in fact challenge it. These claimed that the revolution was not a bourgeois revolution, but a democratic one - erasing the class dimensions - or in some cases not a revolution at all. Distressingly, Lefebvre's book ends with the Girondists in power, just before the rise of Robespierre, the most fascinating of the leaders. We're thus left half-way, the revolution in full flight and not yet at its zenith. The second volume is difficult to find in English, and so the whole experience is both enriching and frustrating. Lefebvre is one of the greats, but here we have only half of his story (less if we include his 'Napoleon', thankfully available). Still it's half of a terrific story and Lefebvre is singularly suited to telling it.