Customer Reviews

Old Regime and the French Revolution

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) wrote many books, but his best-known one is probably "Democracy in America". Despite that, reading "The Old Regime and the Revolution" (1856) is essential in order to understand how much Tocqueville contributed to an accurate analysis of the present and past of his society, and to Political Science.

Why is "The Old Regime and the Revolution" a classic?. Why do teachers keep recommending it to their students?. In my opinion, the answer to both those questions is that this book is an example of the kind of work a political scientist is capable of producing, if inclined to do so. Here, Tocqueville doesn't pay attention to the conventionally accepted truth, but looks beyond it, in order to form his own opinion. And when the result of that process is shocking, he doesn't back down bounded by conventions: he simply states his conclusions.

In "The Old Regime and the Revolution" Alexis de Tocqueville does what at his time was considered more or less unthinkable: to put into question the revolutionary character of...the French Revolution. He said that the only way to understand what happened in 1789 was to study the previous social processes, and to find what they have in common with what came about later. This change of perspective was radical, but effective. It didn't presuppose anything, and so it helped the author to arrive to a seemingly strange conclusion: that the French Revolution had not only continued with the social processes that were taking place in France, but accentuated them. For example, the governmental centralization was much worse after 1789. In a way, then, the French Revolution only carried forward with what the Old Regime had already started.

On the whole, I recommend this book mainly to those interested in French History and Political Science. It isn't overly easy to read, but you will realize that it is full of interesting information, and permeated by a painstakingly careful analysis regarding social processes that is remarkable. In my opinion, "The Old Regime and the Revolution" is a book that you won't regret buying :)

Belen Alcat

Tocqueville was one of the first if not the first sociologist historians. He shows how the centralizing tendencies were actually started under the monarchy and continued under the Revolution. This book will give a view of someone whose life was spent with the results of what he was writing about. His memoires cover the later Revolution of 1848. Among other things he talks of how taxes that were seen as oppressive under the monarchy were accepted without a whimper under more "popular" government. This is a must for those interested in this topic.

I give this book four stars. It is a fascinating investigation into the political and cultural environment in France that led up to the revolution.

But be forewarned! This book is NOT a history of the revolution. The author makes that very clear right at the beginning, but I think it bears emphasizing. If you aren't already pretty familiar with the history of the revolution you may have trouble at times following what this book is talking about.

Overall, this book is well worth the cover price for anyone with an interest in the French revolution.

"What was the true aim of the Revolution? What was its specific character? Why did it take place and what exactly did it achieve?" As Tocqueville addresses these questions herein (without, I should add, detailing the specific events of the actual Revolution---this treatise is not a history of that event) he makes these points: "The aim of the Revolution was not, as once was thought, to destroy the authority of the Church and religious faith in general." (Although Tocqueville does admit that "Christianity was attacked with almost frenzied violence," but he points out that "there was no question of replacing it with another religion," suggesting that religion got caught in the maelstrom against traditional bodies; and that the discrediting of religion which was becoming prevalent during the latter half of the 18th century "had a preponderant influence on the course of the French Revolution," as the people having lost faith in GOD became more inclined to start believing in anything---as Émile Cammaerts has put it; though often mis-attributed to G.K. Chesterton.) "Appearances notwithstanding," according to Tocqueville, the Revolution "was essentially a movement for political and social reform and, as such, did not aim at creating a state of permanent disorder in the conduct of public affairs or (as one of its opponents bitterly remarked) at 'methodizing anarchy.'

On the contrary, it sought to increase the power and jurisdiction of the central authority. (Nor was it intended, as some have thought, to change the whole nature of our traditional civilization, to arrest its progress, or even to make any vital change in the principles basic to the structure of society in the Western world. If we disregard various incidental developments which briefly modified its aspect at different periods and in different lands, and study it as it was essentially, we find that the chief permanent achievement of the French Revolution was the suppression of those political institutions, commonly described as feudal, which for many centuries had held unquestioned sway in most European countries.") "The reason why the principle of centralization of power did not perish in the Revolution is that this very centralization was at once the Revolution's starting-off point and one of its guiding principles." "In the long period of rankling unrest and rising discontent preceding the Revolution all sorts of schemes were worked up for the establishment of a new social order and a new method of government. The ends proposed by the reformers varied greatly, but the means were always the same. They wished to make use of the central power, as it stood, for shattering the whole social structure and rebuilding it on lines that seemed to them desirable.""Firmly convinced of the perfectibility of man, they [the French people]" it appears elevated themselves above God with a "fanatical faith in their vocation---that of transforming the social system, root and branch, and regenerating the whole human race."

Tocqueville further comments in this fine work of informed, and very readable, scholarship that "It is remarkable that of all the ideas and aspirations which led up to the Revolution the concept and desire of political liberty, in the full sense of the term, were the last to emerge, as they were also the first to pass away." Freedom's fundamental basis, after all, had been thoroughly discredited for some time; particularly during the reigns of Louis XV and Louis XVI when "the administration persistently instilled into the minds of Frenchmen...the notion that private ownership need not, indeed, should not, invariably be respected." (See Richard Pipes' learned examination on the intrinsic correlation between these two notions in his work Property and Freedom). As to why liberty was given short shrift Tocqueville leaves us to consider the French mind as represented by none other than the view of Voltaire; who Tocqueville characterizes thusly: "The truth was that he envied the English above all for their freedom to write as they liked, while their political freedom left him indifferent and he quite failed to realize that the former could not have survived for long without the latter." That, in short, was the dilemma of the French Revolution was it not? And what distinguishes it from its American variant, as "...it is no exaggeration to say that a man's admiration of absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him." (07Apr) Cheers

The French Revolution remains one of the crucial events of modern European and world history. The revolution stands as an event that hailed the fall of feudalism and marked the triumph of the common person over the aristocracy. In truth, reality is much more complex than that presented in a common textbook. The French revolution has been an object of praise as much as it has been the focus of heated debate. While the old regime may have fallen "in a night", the revolution was a product of a gradual resentment which went far beyond an outburst of revolutionary fervor. In The Old Regime and the French Revolution Alexis de Tocqueville allows us a definitive glimpse at the circumstances that lead to revolt. In Tocqueville's mind there was never an event in which "stemming from factors so far back in the past, (was) so inevitable yet (so) completely unforeseen." In this less read work, he takes on the origins of the French Revolution and the peculiar French form of democracy it brought, in stark contrast to his portrayal in Democracy in America. The Old Regime and the French Revolution is deserving of its status as a classic for the remarkable insight it provides. While Tocqueville's work is a classic, it draws upon the work and thought of other scholars and it is revisionist in the way it changes the way the French revolution is discussed. Along with more widely accepted views on the revolution, which is important in marking it a classic) Tocqueville describes history in a way that allows the reader to place the revolution in a global perspective, while dissecting it enough to understand its intricacies.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the history of the French Revolution. Alexis De Tocqueville's research for his book The Old Regime and the Revolution taught him that there were several socio-political and economic causes that led to the Revolution. There is enough excellent historical scholarship available to finally put to bed the myth that the Enlightenment was in and of itself the impetus that caused French citizens to storm the Bastille. According to Tocqueville's excellent analysis in his book, he argues that the waning vestiges of feudalism sowed the seeds of destruction of the Old Regime. The reasons why in France the vestiges of feudalism were torn down in the cataclysmic crash of the French Revolution and not discarded as peaceably, as say in England, is the question to which his book was devoted. The first social structure he turns his attention to is the Church, the Second Estate of France, because of the socio-economic and political power it occupied in the nation.

When it came to his observations that the influence the philosophes had on the Revolution, he found that it was not unusual to find intellectuals writing about improving society and that ambition had been historically evident since the early Greeks. What Tocqueville became interested in was that since the mid-eighteenth century, this desire became the bedrock of Enlightenment writing in France and was soaked up like a sponge by its citizenry. Thus, he wrote, "The philosophy of the eighteenth century is rightly considered one of the principle causes of the Revolution and it is certainly true that that philosophy was deeply irreligious" (Tocqueville, 96). Therefore, Tocqueville argued that one of the central causes of the Revolution was the attacks on the Church by the Philosophes throughout the eighteenth century. "The priests were not hated because they claimed to regulate the affairs of the other world, but because they were landowners, lords, tithe collectors, and administrators in this one" (97).

Tocqueville noted in his book that during the eighteenth century, for the most part, French intellectuals had no experience or say in governmental affairs. Tocqueville lamented that the philosophe's lack of experience created, "A frightening sight! For what is merit in a writer is sometimes vice in a statesman, and the same things which have often made lovely books can lead to great revolutions" (Tocqueville, 201). However, Tocqueville also found that the country, "...was at the same time the most educated of all nations on earth, and the most fond of things intellectual, one will understand without difficulty how writers became a political power in France, and ended up being the most important one" (Tocqueville 200).

Recommended reading for anyone interested in political philosophy, enlightenment history, and the French Revolution. I also recommend you read the book that Tocqueville is most famous for "Democracy In America" although written in the 1830's it is still the most prescient look at America and its citizenry.

Alexis De Tocqueville's work "The Old Regime and the French Revolution" marked the foundation of the prevailing historical argument of the causes of the French Revolution and is by far one of the most interesting and influential works on the subject. This being said de Tocque Ville's argument was certainly influenced by the events in Europe during his lifetime: mainly the increased centralization of political power in Germany and Europe at large and the revolutions of 1831 and 1848. In historiographical terms this book was written relatively soon after the event itself and it is certain that de Tocqueville conversed and interacted with people who were directly involved in the events of the revolution. This is both a bane and a boon to the value of the work since such direct influence would certainly obscure the objectively of hid ideas even though being able to gather data before the "dust has settled" is always advantageous. I certainly believe this book is deserving of five stars and on many levels. It is a great historical record and wonderful example of mid 19th century historiography sociology and political thought.

The idea that political centralization caused the downfall of the old regime in 18th Century France is taken for granted by most historians and political thinks now. While we learn early on that it was because of the excess of the Bourbon dynasty from Louis XIV's wars and building Projects to Louis XVI's Court etc, de Tocqueville blames centralization of power; the foundation of the nation state on the revolution. Thus, all nations by this idea will face revolution and ultimately democracy.

This book is an interesting read and when put into the proper perspective has a lot to offer. I found this book more profound and less idealistic than "Democracy in America". This is a great source and example of 19th century historiography and when read in the proper light offers an interesting and very plausible argument for the cause of the French Revolution. It also provides an interesting analysis of political philosophy thought de Tocqueville categorically discounts most of the famous thinkers in this field. If you have to read this work in part or whole for school do yourself a favor and read it thoroughly. If you are reading it for your own benefit I trust you will do the same. Either way "The Old Regime and the French Revolution" has a lot to offer and is a worthwhile read.

-- Ted Murena

My friend Ron used to say that he was an extreme right-wing Menshevik - that he knew the revolution was coming, he just didn't approve (does he still think so, I wonder? Must ask). "Disapproval" is probably too strong a word to use for anyone with de Tocqueville's stoicism and aristocratic detachment. But he certainly knows that the revolution is upon us. At the same time, he understands the responsibilities and opportunities of governance. The persistent question is: if we are to have democracy, how do we fashion one where good government can prosper?

De Tocqueville's "French Revolution" is more compact, less discursive then his "Democracy in America" because in France, he was not a tourist. This is both a strength and a weakness. His points are crisp, direct and forceful, and you never get over your admiration for his acuity. On the other hand, there is something to be said for the marvel of unfolding that presents itself as he travels through the young United States and tries to imagine the new world that is being born.

This book does an excellent job at comparing the Old Regime with post revolutionary France, in describing their similarities and differences such as class distinction. Also was interesting to read about the movement away from Religion and the monarchical form of government, an aspect which Tocqueville writes was unique to the French revolution. I did find the book to be more of a challenge to read than usual, but overall great insight into the changes that occurred in 18th century France.

The French Revolution is among the most important events that shaped world history. A lot has been written about it and Alexis de Tocqueville is among the most interesting and insightful writers on the subject.

The book was first published in 1856, which allowed the author to interact and talk to people who participated or lived through the Revolution. This provides the author with unique insights and information that enabled him to come up with interesting arguments, claims and conclusions. His in-depth analysis of the revolution makes this book a classic which any serious scholar on this significant event needs to read.

Drawing on the works of other authors, Tocqueville came up with unconventional views concerning the Revolution, claiming that it was in fact not a sudden occurence but a gradual social process taking place in France culminating in the revolt and continuing after it. He concluded that the Revolution was due to too much centralisation of political power. Such centralisation of political power could then explain the revolutions of 1831 and 1848 in parts of Europe.

This book is recommended to those interested in in-depth insights into the French Revolution and for history students.