5.0 out of 5 stars
To Judge a King, January 4, 2010
This review is from: Regicide and Revolution: Speeches at the Trial of Louis XVI (Paperback)
Being a young historian interested in the French Revolution, I am surprised just how few books there are in English on the trial of Louis Capet, and so this book was an enticing find. It is important to note that the title is a bit misleading, as the book is not entirely first-hand source material from the trial, nor is it entirely on Louis Capet. The first half of the book is a comparative essay between the ideology of kingship, the trial, and the execution of Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France, with more of an emphasis on the latter, followed by a selection of speeches. Despite this unexpected twist, Michael Walzer's essay is phenomenally well done and is an invaluable insight into the trials, compellingly arguing for historians of England to place greater importance on Charles' trial and justifying both trials. Rather than offering a chronological background of the ancien régime, the author provides a detailed analysis of the mythology, role, and powers of the kings of England and France up to those points, and comparing their significance, both real and in the popular imagination, as compared to the aristocratic councils and parliaments. Afterward, he analyzes the origins of and true meaning of the monarchy's claim to "inviolability," so crucial in the trials to come. Next, he offers the kings' defenses before the accusations by the respective prosecutors, in light of the history laid out previously. With that established, he follows up with a convincing argument that first of all the king can be judged, and furthermore judged by legislative councils, since neither the English Parliament nor the French National Convention were traditionally judicial bodies, and separates and addresses in detail both the political and legal arguments involved in the whole process. Moreover, when the author progresses to the National Convention's debate on the issue, he analyzes all the possibilities discussed on Louis Capet's fate and individually addresses the arguments forwarded by each of the factions, especially noting the ideological differences between the royalists, Girondins, and Jacobins, with the first and last opposing holding any trial at all (although for entirely opposite reasons).
Overall, I found the author's essay to be one of the best writings on the subject of the Trial of former-Louis XVI available, written in a clear and interesting style, yet not shy on details. It presupposes a minimal level of knowledge of the French Revolution and political theory, but it is not filled with complex-jargon or unnecessarily complicated expressions and phrases, so although not seemingly aimed at students, it should not be a terrible challenge for one at that level to grasp the work. This book deserves a place on the shelf on anyone interested in the French Revolution, political history in general, or revolutionary political theory.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
