The study of the French Revolution has evolved in many different directions since the bicentennial of 1989. Like historical studies in general, it has taken the “global turn,” relating developments in France to world-wide patterns of imperial expansion, commerce, migration, intellectual exchange, and conflict (this shift led me, nearly a decade ago, to write an
Thank you. A fascinating article which usefully describes the changing 'fashions' of interpreting this period of history , something of which I, as a non-specialist with an interest in French history, had little idea. I appreciate your clarity.
Compelling, too, are your references to the American Revolutionary War and the Sullivan expedition. I had no idea that the peoples I have always heard referred to as Iroquois were/are called Haudenosaunee.
It's with huge sadness I reflect on how little humanity seems to have learned from history, and wonder how valid your Putin/Navalny simile is, when something surely akin to a reign of terror is conveniently swept aside after systematic, blanket denial - not only in Russia but in other states too.
Feb 5, 2023·edited Feb 5, 2023Liked by David A. Bell
A great piece--especially valuable for me as someone who wants to know what's happening in this field while I concentrate on a different field. Certainly there is no comparison between violence in the American Rev and violence in the French Rev. Unfortunately, each generation of historians is so keen to prove itself superior to previous generations that we rarely get an in-depth account of what the previous generations said. I could be convinced that Furet's theoretical work in the "1970s" as you put it is not conclusive on the centrality of the terror. But the detailed linguistic work one sees in the Baker edited volume (I think it's vol. 4 of The French Rev. and the Creation of Modern Culture) and in other works seem conclusive to me: that "terror" was not a retrospective invention but an organizing idea in the Fr. Rev. I think this is worth your writing a fuller article. I also thought the opening paragraph was very good (and useful to me as I try to figure out what to make of the transnational turn in 18th century American historiography, given my current commitment to writing about the Federalist Papers). I am now going to click "Post" and see what happens. It is not easy to comment on this site.
Thank you for your insightful essay. It is quite illuminating for me who studied Japan’s Meiji revolution and started comparative studies of revolutions with you. I think it crucial for the historians to face the dark side of the French revolution if we are to revitalize sincere concern for the revolution. Today, we watch too much violence in the world. In the twentieth century, especially in non-Western world, people were taught that violence and propaganda were essential for the creation of better world. When East Europeans, Koreans and Taiwanese realized liberal societies through bloodless revolutions, this belief seemed to decline. Yet today we are watching not a few societies cling to the use of violence. To cope with this trend, I think it insufficient to praise the ideals presented in the French revolution. On the one hand, we have to prove the merit of liberal society in daily life in front of the people living in a wealthy, illiberal societies. We also have to present the process of try and error before the establishment of liberal democracy. This means we have to face the dark side of modern history. How did people get into the downward spiral that demanded many lives? And how did they escape from the vicious circle? The answer to the latter question may include the bitter historical facts that both France and Japan experienced. Peoples could escape from their repressive regimes only after the failure of large-scale imperialistic wars. In Japanese case, the defeat in WW2 enabled the second revolution that changed the mindset of the people from imperialism toward liberal, peaceful society.
In terms of the life toll during the revolution, France stood between Bolshevik revolution and Japan’s Meiji revolution. It may be interesting for us to observe the try and error in nineteenth France that at last reached a large-scale liberal democracy.
I admit this is a very ruff argument. Yet, I think it necessary for us to engage in this kind of comparison of revolutions if we are to avoid much bloodshed in the future and present our more convincing histories to the people living in illiberal societies.
Thank you. A fascinating article which usefully describes the changing 'fashions' of interpreting this period of history , something of which I, as a non-specialist with an interest in French history, had little idea. I appreciate your clarity.
Compelling, too, are your references to the American Revolutionary War and the Sullivan expedition. I had no idea that the peoples I have always heard referred to as Iroquois were/are called Haudenosaunee.
It's with huge sadness I reflect on how little humanity seems to have learned from history, and wonder how valid your Putin/Navalny simile is, when something surely akin to a reign of terror is conveniently swept aside after systematic, blanket denial - not only in Russia but in other states too.
A great piece--especially valuable for me as someone who wants to know what's happening in this field while I concentrate on a different field. Certainly there is no comparison between violence in the American Rev and violence in the French Rev. Unfortunately, each generation of historians is so keen to prove itself superior to previous generations that we rarely get an in-depth account of what the previous generations said. I could be convinced that Furet's theoretical work in the "1970s" as you put it is not conclusive on the centrality of the terror. But the detailed linguistic work one sees in the Baker edited volume (I think it's vol. 4 of The French Rev. and the Creation of Modern Culture) and in other works seem conclusive to me: that "terror" was not a retrospective invention but an organizing idea in the Fr. Rev. I think this is worth your writing a fuller article. I also thought the opening paragraph was very good (and useful to me as I try to figure out what to make of the transnational turn in 18th century American historiography, given my current commitment to writing about the Federalist Papers). I am now going to click "Post" and see what happens. It is not easy to comment on this site.
Thanks Dan!!
Thank you for your insightful essay. It is quite illuminating for me who studied Japan’s Meiji revolution and started comparative studies of revolutions with you. I think it crucial for the historians to face the dark side of the French revolution if we are to revitalize sincere concern for the revolution. Today, we watch too much violence in the world. In the twentieth century, especially in non-Western world, people were taught that violence and propaganda were essential for the creation of better world. When East Europeans, Koreans and Taiwanese realized liberal societies through bloodless revolutions, this belief seemed to decline. Yet today we are watching not a few societies cling to the use of violence. To cope with this trend, I think it insufficient to praise the ideals presented in the French revolution. On the one hand, we have to prove the merit of liberal society in daily life in front of the people living in a wealthy, illiberal societies. We also have to present the process of try and error before the establishment of liberal democracy. This means we have to face the dark side of modern history. How did people get into the downward spiral that demanded many lives? And how did they escape from the vicious circle? The answer to the latter question may include the bitter historical facts that both France and Japan experienced. Peoples could escape from their repressive regimes only after the failure of large-scale imperialistic wars. In Japanese case, the defeat in WW2 enabled the second revolution that changed the mindset of the people from imperialism toward liberal, peaceful society.
In terms of the life toll during the revolution, France stood between Bolshevik revolution and Japan’s Meiji revolution. It may be interesting for us to observe the try and error in nineteenth France that at last reached a large-scale liberal democracy.
I admit this is a very ruff argument. Yet, I think it necessary for us to engage in this kind of comparison of revolutions if we are to avoid much bloodshed in the future and present our more convincing histories to the people living in illiberal societies.
Another very compelling piece which deserves to be a full-fledged essay or even book.
Thank you, Lynn! I do hope to write this up as a full-fledghed essay at some point.