Customer Reviews

The French Revolution: A History (Modern Library Classics)

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

The authors of the previous review were too harsh on the text - it isn't a mere display of literary muscle turned lightly to the French Revolution, it's an interesting take on the subject from a penetrating mind.

The other reviews saying "Don't read this if you don't know everything about the revolution" seem a little bit silly to me having read it - if you know nothing about French history and the revolution, ok, you might have some difficulties. But if you have even a rough view of the revolution (from a textbook chapter, short article, almost anything) you won't be lost. Once or twice one might be forced to read back or do a tiny bit of side-reading to get a colourful 19th century reference, but it isn't nearly as oblique as the first reviewer made out.

The style is not difficult to read, considering the date, and the narration is often captivating or amusing. The individual, literary portraiture of historical figures is unique and valuable to me in building a kind of familiarity with events, however cautiously. And the claim that it isn't "historically" written by modern standards - perhaps the reviewer was too busy composing clever jabs to note the date of writing? If you want Francois Furet, read Francois Furet, but Thomas Carlyle unfortunately didn't have the benefit of 20th century developments in historical methods.

Thomas Carlyle's unique poetic style of prose may be tough to take early on, but after a few pages, it does grow on you. It's all overly dramatic and sensational, but what subject could be more so than the French Revolution itself? Carlyle paints a grim description of the complete and utter chaos of the times, particulary the Great Terror of mid-1794. He does, however, remain somewhat non-judgemental regarding the Revolution's key figures, and lets the readers sort out for themselves who the real culprits are. He may over-simplify the obvious at certain junctures in the book, but his style is riveting and as this shocking and dismal tale of woe continues, the reader is further drawn into a daze and trance similar to the Terror's unfortunate victims.
Some have suggested that it's better to read a "normal" history of the French Revolution before one undertakes this famous volume. I disagree. This is as good a place to start as any concerning that most volatile of times. Simply put, Carlyle's "French Revolution" is both informative and exciting, and it has held up well since it was first published in 1837.

Definitely a classic. Don't be put off by the warnings other reviewers have about unfamiliar words and phrases: like any great writer, Carlyle does the work of presenting every event and person in a way to give us a feel for what was going on--at least in his vision of what happened between 1789-94 in France. The prose isn't straightforward, but you can get a summation of events straight from any encyclopedia or textbook: what Carlyle does is go much, much more in depth. Terms like 'Sansculottism' or 'sea-green Robespierre' bring very vivid impressions by the time you get near the end, and his insights into character and motive are amazingly vivid (no wonder George Eliot was impressed!)
This history does indeed read like a novel, and it really is quite good. Yes, there are unusual words and phrases (like Shakespeare, Carlyle coined and invented words, several now currently used in the language). That's all part of the fun though. The Modern Library edition has a good introduction, plus a timeline of events to orient you better while reading.
A very worthwhile and satisfactory book, current tastes not withstanding.

This is indeed a very strange work of history; Carlyle narrates the events of the Revolution as those of a Victorian novel. It is difficult to convey a true sense of the hyper-dramatic prose that results, so it might be better to include some excerpts from the text:

The surrender of the Bastille:

"For four hours now has the World-Bedlam roared: call it the
World-Chimaera, blowing fire! The poor Invalides have sunk under their
battlements, or rise only with reversed muskets: they have made a white
flag of napkins; go beating the chamade, or seeming to beat, for one
can hear nothing. The very Swiss at the Portcullis look weary of firing;
disheartened in the fire-deluge: a porthole at the drawbridge is opened,
as by one that would speak. See Huissier Maillard, the shifty man! On
his plank, swinging over the abyss of that stone-Ditch; plank resting
on parapet, balanced by weight of Patriots,--he hovers perilous: such
a Dove towards such an Ark! Deftly, thou shifty Usher: one man already
fell; and lies smashed, far down there, against the masonry! Usher
Maillard falls not: deftly, unerring he walks, with outspread palm. The
Swiss holds a paper through his porthole; the shifty Usher snatches
it, and returns. Terms of surrender: Pardon, immunity to all! Are they
accepted?--"Foi d'officier, On the word of an officer," answers half-pay
Hulin,--or half-pay Elie, for men do not agree on it, "they are!" Sinks
the drawbridge,--Usher Maillard bolting it when down; rushes-in the
living deluge: the Bastille is fallen! Victoire! La Bastille est prise!"

The execution of Robespierre:

"At four in the afternoon, never before were the streets of Paris seen so
crowded. From the Palais de Justice to the Place de la Revolution, for
thither again go the Tumbrils this time, it is one dense stirring mass;
all windows crammed; the very roofs and ridge-tiles budding forth human
Curiosity, in strange gladness. The Death-tumbrils, with their motley
Batch of Outlaws, some Twenty-three or so, from Maximilien to
Mayor Fleuriot and Simon the Cordwainer, roll on. All eyes are on
Robespierre's Tumbril, where he, his jaw bound in dirty linen, with
his half-dead Brother, and half-dead Henriot, lie shattered; their
'seventeen hours' of agony about to end. The Gendarmes point their
swords at him, to shew the people which is he. A woman springs on
the Tumbril; clutching the side of it with one hand; waving the other
Sibyl-like; and exclaims: "The death of thee gladdens my very heart,
m'enivre de joie;" Robespierre opened his eyes; "Scelerat, go down to
Hell, with the curses of all wives and mothers!"--At the foot of the
scaffold, they stretched him on the ground till his turn came. Lifted
aloft, his eyes again opened; caught the bloody axe. Samson wrenched
the coat off him; wrenched the dirty linen from his jaw: the jaw fell
powerless, there burst from him a cry;--hideous to hear and see. Samson,
thou canst not be too quick!"

The book succeeds in portraying such of the more dramatic events of the Revolution with a striking immediacy that makes the book worthwhile. At other points, however, Carlyle frustrates by including lengthy passages of melodramatic commentary.

Other writers have related the events of the French Revolution with as much detail, but none has been able to bring it as vividly to life. The style is very unusual and at first it is difficult to follow. But then a moment comes when the whole thing clicks, and suddenly it is as if you are there in France in 1788 and the years that followed with a guide pulling at your sleeve and pointing, saying "look here" and "look there." The entire procession of people and events becomes extraordinarily vivid and dream-like. The storming of the Bastille becomes almost a comic event. The Reign of Terror becomes truly frightening and horrifying. The rise of Napoleon becomes completely understandable. The parallels to our own time become evident and disturbing. This is not a book for those who want a straighforward recounting of facts. But if a reader wants to gain an understanding of why events unfolded the way that they did, it would be difficult to find a better book on this topic.

I am not sure why I picked up this book in the first place, but boy was it wonderful. Some history books are interesting, some dull, this one was beautiful. Every page gorgeous. Let me try to explain. I am not the smartest guy out there, and I know it, and some of you can tell by my writing style.

The book is a mixture of prose and poetry, action and wise musings. I have never seen history treated so poetically. In some scenes, I really felt that I was there witnessing the events as they occurred, such as when the living quarters of the royal family was besieged. It was almost as if he wrote the book having been there, certainly having read the newspapers day after day.

The book proceeds sometimes day by day, hour by hour...and the tension during the French Revolution was very intense at times.

I don't do this justice, but I will try...in the beginning Carlylse describes the funeral procession of the dead king (forgot his name), and he describes the next king and his wife Marie Antoinette, and he muses at one point how they haven't a clue how they are walking on gossamer above a precipice.

Here are the bad points: If you know nothing of the French Revolution, it may be tiresome as he alludes to events and names you may not know. If you have a hard time with hard reading, this is very hard reading, don't bother. I would suggest you read two books concurrently, a regular dull history book, then Carlisle, month by month.

I am ashamed to admit, I think I only fully grasped 1/3 of what I read. But wading through that which I did not understand was well worth the delight of finding gems that were intelligible to me.

Carlylse wrote with perspective, wisdom and poetry.

I read this book for 4 months. Really. I put this in the same class as Boethius's Consolations of Philosophy. Those who truly are literate may think him primitive and lowbrow, but Boethius was beautiful in dealing with fortune and fate.

If you are up for a challenge, and are patient and love beauty, then read it. If you just want a factual read, stay away.

"The French Revolution: A History" is an important book to learn about the French Revolution. Thomas Carlyle describes the interesting characters, turbulent events and the chaotic period of the Revolution.

The book was first published in 1837, thus benefitting from first hand account of events in the Revolution. This has its pros and cons to the value of the book since such first hand influence could dilute the objectivity of the author. However, Thomas Carlyle managed to produce a vivid and thoughtful account of events and leading characters involved in the Revolution.

The author uses a unique prose style which some readers may find interesting and poetic whilst others may find hard to comprehend. However, if looked at from its historical context, the writing style should make sense, particularly to those already familiar with the subject.

This is an informative and insightful book that is well worth reading.

Bob-Blair.org has an amazing annotated copy of THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. Working through its first chapters, I find that the first chapter requires a fairly good knowledge of Louis XV's reign, which Wikipedia or Bob Blair's site can give you.

The next chapters are absolutely lucid, and state clearly and repeatedly that the great causes of the French Revolution are the decline of the nobility, the exploitation of the poor, and a general atmosphere of skepticism. Loss of belief, Carlyle says, leads to an outbreak of the diabolical in human beings.

Dickens got almost all his feeling for the French Revolution from Carlyle's history. In their time the revolution was no farther away than World War Two is from us, which means they had a good general feel for it. Even at our present distance, it's not that tough to read Carlyle -- and his main points, rather than being hidden as some reviewers have said, are virtually screamed at the reader over and over again.

Those who call his writing stilted don't know what "stilted" means. It means pompous and over-formal. Carlyle coined words and wrote the kind of wild poetry that influenced Melville in his MOBY DICK. That's not stilted. Calling it stilted is like calling a rock star soft.

It is a poetic style, for sure. The Modern Library introducer compares it with Milton's. He also calls the book a kind of epic. If you don't like epic poetry, don't read Carlyle. He won't miss you; I won't miss you; and you'll be so much happier wherever you end up.

This is a classic work of history by one of the greatest thinkers and writers of all time. Probably best to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the core event before jumping into Carlyle's majestic work.

Are you already extremely knowledgeable about the French Revolution, with a detailed memory of all events and individuals involved? Are you uninterested in what has been said about the French Revolution in this century or the last? Did you find other 19th century accounts of the Revolution (e.g. those by Guizot, Michelet, Tocqueville, Mill) too easy to follow? Do you prefer a pretentious, self-important, and overly ornate literary style that calls attention to its own artfulness to one that is simple and direct? Do you like pretentious authors who assume that you're more interested in seeing them display their verbal wit than in learning anything about the subject they're purportedly writing about? Well then, Thomas Carlyle's history of the French Revolution may be the book for you!

I am, of course, being somewhat tongue-in-cheek here... Thomas Carlyle was one of Victorian Britain's great writers. He's an important historical figure and his prose style is unique, distinctive, and is in many ways, quite beautiful and poetic. Yet, the fact remains that those who are not already familiar with Carlyle should be wary-- very, very wary-- of picking this book up.

There are several reasons for this. First, the fact of the matter is that Carlyle's 'history' is not history as we might think of itThere is little/nothing in the way of exposition or explanation in the sense of laying out 'what happened' or 'who was involved'. Rather, this book is written from the premise that the readers are already familiar with all the facts and details of the Revolution and are more interested in reading an artful, witty, and clever 'retelling' of it. Individuals and events are alluded to vaguely, metaphorically, with the expectation that the reader knows all of this already like the back of his/her hand. When you read something like, "With Rumor unleashed, She flies from De Berry! That Scarlet Woman!", you're expected to already know who's being talked about and to know pretty much everything there is to know what it is that's being alluded to... Carlyle, you see, doesn't explain, or introduce, or contextualize... and you don't read Carlyle for explanation or introduction or contextualization. Rather, you're supposed to already be informed-- and then to read him for the sheer pleasure of his witty wordplay and to nod appreciatively at it. But if you're not already familiar with the persons and events of the Revolution-- you'll quickly find yourself unable to understand anything and will just be lost.

Nor can one consider Carlyle's _The French Revolution_ to be a scholarly study. The man *was* extremely learned of course-- he knew his stuff. But he's not really advancing an argument or thesis about the Revolution or why it happened... the sorts of things academic scholars dispute. He does wax abstractly on occasion, but not to make general claims about the Revolution (or even history in general), but rather to make vague interjections on obscure metaphysical matters (largely derived from German idealist philosophy... and again, these are unexplained... you're expected to already be familiar with thus stuff).

Finally, there the matter of Carlyle's style. As noted above, it's highly poetic and possesses a kind of ornate (if pretentious) beauty that can be appreciated in small doses. Yet, the fact remains that his peculiar mannerisms (including unnecessary capitalization, archaic and pompous turns of phrase, incomplete sentences followed by exclamation points, the constant use of the present tense even though he's writing about the past, apostrophic asides, etc.) become extremely annoying to read after more than a few pages. At best, it's an acquired taste... and personally, I'm not sure that there are many folks around today who will find the effort spent in acquiring the taste to be worthwhile.

In sum.... don't get this book hoping to learn anything about the French Revolution. Only get this book if you want to read Carlyle for the sake of reading Carlyle. Put otherwise, don't get this if you want to read a work of history about the French Revolution-- you'll be wholly disappointed. The only reason to get it, in fact, is for its value as an example of Carlyle's unique and self-indulgent literary style.