A Short History of the French Revolution, 1789-99

by Albert Soboul

English, French (translation)

Genres: History, French Revolution, Nonfiction, France, Politics

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1965

Reviews

[Edward · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a Marxist approach to the French Revolution, by one of the top scholars on the topic. And it is written for serious students. If you're looking for an armchair history, this is NOT it.

Soboul's handling of the material not for someone who is completely innocent of its subject matter. It isn't impossible to absorb the contents of this book without prior knowledge, but you're going to find it heavy going if you're not already familiar with the French Revolution, Marxist historical analysis, or both.

Rather than a pleasant introduction to the basic facts of the period, this volume is what you get in an entry-level course on French or Western European history, or more particularly in a low-level "honors" course, where your knowledge of basic events is likely to be established or supplemented by lecture from a professor. If you are used to the likes of Jared Diamond (of Guns, Germs and Steel fame), then you will find the writing in here a jarring shock, because this is written by an academic, for academics. Soboul is interested in discussing class struggle as the underpinning reason for the events discussed, not in holding beginners' hands. This was not written for a popular readership.

A couple of other things that you should know:
1. This is a Marxist analysis. That doesn't mean it's Communist. "Marxist" in this context means "tending to explain events in terms of struggle or conflict between socio-economic classes." It's entirely possible for a committed capitalist to argue in Marxist fashion.
2. This is old-school history. That means there are lots of specific dates. There are lots of references to specific numbers and figures, especially with regard to monetary inflation, food prices, and wages. Specific names and places are mentioned. It's complicated further because the Revolutionary Government abolished the preexisting Julian calendar in favor of a new calendar. So after a bit, you get dates in both the revolutionary calendar and the Julian date.

Now, having made all that clear, for what this is, it is really, really good.

[Rob M · Rating 4 out of 5]

A useful overview of the main political and economic forces at play throughout the French Revolution.

The book assumes a basic knowledge of the timeline of events and therefore doesn't waste any pages describing events like the Storming of the Bastille or the execution of the King. Instead, it's focused on the overall balance of power, whose interests were represented by which tendencies, and - in particular - what was the role of the masses in influencing the direction of the revolution.

The translators footnotes, which give a brief biography of every named individual as they appear in the text for the first time, are a godsend.

On the one hand, this book left me wishing I'd read a more detailed, descriptive, and textured history of revolutionary France. On the other hand, it left me with a working knowledge of the politics of the revolution after only a few hours reading.

[lukas · Rating 5 out of 5]

kratučké, ale banger, odporúčam

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

The French Revolution is the "definitive model" of bourgeois revolution, a conflict between the feudal structure of the Ancien Regime and the growing needs and demands of the bourgeois class in alliance with the petty-bourgeois and labouring classes. The Revolution assumed such a violent and explosive character because of the harsh crises that preceded and plagued the revolutionary period.

The period immediately succeeding the Tennis Court Oath and the establishment of the National Assembly was one of compromise between the liberal nobility and the moderate bourgeoisie: many aspects of the feudal regime were sanctified under the Revolution as "property rights," and it was the peasant's struggle to free their land which continued to propel forth the Revolution until 1793. The conservatives, led by Mounier, Lafayette and finally Barnave, attempted compromise with the aristocracy and the monarchy. When they proved non-pliable, the bourgeoisie turned to the masses. With the Flight of Varennes, power passed to the rich bourgeoisie under the Girondins, who saw foreign war as the mechanism for uniting the nation and restoring value of the assignats.

The Girondin inability to deal with the king in a matter satisfactory to the masses as well as the Revolt of the Vendee led to their purge in June of 1793 and the rise of the Montagnards. The Montagnards under Danton attempted to compromise, but were forced to act decisively by the masses. "Terror" was made official policy to appease the popular democrats and channel it into a controllable force able to eliminate the enrages. The end of de-Christianization was a detachment of the government from the popular masses of Paris. As the Terror was winded down and the revolutionary Jacobin government detached itself from the masses whilst the war began to go in their favour, the reluctant bourgeoisie within the Convention made their strike against Robespierre, ending the revolutionary period.

The Directorate was a direct continuation of the collaborationist and liberal policies of the rich bourgeoisie with the Girondins, interrupted only slightly by the Conspiracy of the Equals, and the authoritarian course of corruption and bourgeois "liberty" laid the basis for the establishment of the Napoleonic Consulate.

Soboul corrects some of the mistakes of Mathiez and Lefebvre, whilst making a wonderful contribution to Marxist historiography of the French Revolution. Many reviewers take issue with the fact that this book seems to expect one to have some knowledge of the French Revolution, but my copy says just that: "...it is an essay in analysis rather than a narrative." Soboul should have devoted more time to the Cordeliers Club, Herbertists, and enrages. His contention that they represented "popular democracy" against the revolutionary dictatorship of the Jacobins seems somewhat flimsy to me, given the complete support for the Terror given by the enrages until it targeted them. Perhaps I am missing something.

[Moravian1297 · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is heavier than a dumpster full of neutronium. It's so heavy it would tip the scales on a feckin' neutron star. Likewise, if it were music, it would make bands like Godflesh and Gulch sound like blimmin' K Pop or Muzak. It's heavy! Heavy! Heavy man! Ooft! My arms are in sheer agony, holding this book up for a couple of days!
However, there WAS ample warning in other reviews I had read before deciding whether or not to attempt Albert Soboul's, thankfully short, history of the French Revolution. It also mentions in the book's synopsis, that the work is in of itself, a 'synopsis' of the author's further, more detailed Marxist interpretation of the eighteenth century French Civil War. Now, there's a book I will want to give as wide a berth as possible!

I only had this book to read because it had been loaned and recommended to me by my uncle, which he claimed was a nice wee introductory piece to the French Revolution, the polar opposite to what it said in those previously mentioned 'difficult reading warning' reviews.
Which pointed out, in no uncertain terms, that this book was definitely NOT for French Revolution beginners or novices. The reviews warned that the book was more for students whom were in the fourth year of a French Revolution history degree and not for people like me, who’s only knowledge of the era is derived from that one episode of Blackadder the Third, ‘Nob and Nobility’
(”This huge sausage is very suspicious!”).
So I can only imagine my uncle had been sniggering into the back of his hand after lending me this book, and indeed shouting, "Psych!" while flicking his fingers on an outstretched arm, once I'd closed his front door! I can think of no other reason beside 'a prank', on why my uncle would think I'd enjoy this book, or even understand it to any degree. I'd once told him that I'd quickly given up on the only other non-fiction book covering the French Revolution that I'd tried up to that point, a work by an A. Goodwin. Which had been far too detailed for my tastes and level of reading I had at the time, where the author was going deep into the minutiae of the French tax system and the detailed extent of French involvement in the American Revolution. But 'f*ck you uncle!', I not only finished this challenging book, I managed to take something from it too……. I think?

'So from 1789 to 1793 a full-scale civil war was fought out between the peasants and the aristocracy, with varying ferocity from region to region.'

Firstly, terminology like this quote got me wondering why some historical events are called, 'revolutions' while others, 'civil wars'? Or indeed interchangeable from writing to writing.
I appreciate that it's not black and white, like say, in twentieth century Russia, where you had 'the people' rising up against the 'system/establishment', which is easily defined as a 'revolution'. Then you had half the Russian poulation, as counter-revolutionaries, the 'White Russians' fighting back against the other half of the Russian population, as revolutionaries, the 'Reds', which can easily be described as, and is seemingly an archetypal 'Civil War'. However things don't seem as clear cut as Russia and Ireland (Although the Irish civil war of the early twentieth century is obvious, their initially failed ’revolution' was termed ’rebellion' by their oppressors. Here however, the author uses the French Revolution inspired United Irishmen revolt/revolution of 1798 as an example), when it comes to terming the English, American, French and indeed, Scottish (Jacobite) Civil Wars/Revolutions. Where even the author of 'The English Civil Wars: A People's History', Diane Purkiss, feels the need to argue in her book, that the author and historian, Christopher Hill, is wrong to call the English civil wars of the seventeenth century, the ’English Revolution'. Along with her (Purkiss) erroneous claim that he's (Hill) the only author and historian to do so (see my review of 'Revel, Riot & Rebellion' by David Underdown), I personally think Purkiss should wind her neck in a bit, because it's far from a done deal, and Hill, Underdown et al. are pretty much on the button, and the author here, Albert Soboul uses Christopher Hill as a specific example to hit home some of his points. Nevertheless, it is indeed a minefield, and truth be told, I may not know what I’m talking about, haha!

Unfortunately this short essay, for me was somewhat ardous, due to the overall complexity of the French Revolution and the myriad movers and shakers involved. Actors like Sans-Culottes, Girondins, Montagnards, Jacobins, the Sections, Sectional Societies, Revolutionary Committees, Cordeliers and Indulgents to name but a few. Where even periods of time within the revolution had names, like 'Thermidorian Reaction', all extremely confusing and often seemingly bizarre, and you certainly had to be on your toes at every point while reading this book, to keep up even a semblance of just what the feck was going on. It certainly didn’t help either, that during the years of the Revolution, they started using a different calendar! So on top of the innumerable flood of different events and players, you can also throw terminology like Years I, II, III, IV etc into the mix, making an already overcrowded and bewildering situation all the more disconcerting!
But ultimately, I was never a stranger to the book, when it stated things like this,

'On 22 July 1789 the Intendant of Paris and the Ile-de-France, Bertier de Sauvigny, and his father-in-law, the financier Foullon de Doué, who were under arrest and being conducted to the Hôtel de Ville, we're seized by the crowd and hung from the nearest lamp post (both victims were reactionaries suspected of speculating in grain and of aiding the royal army sent to overawe Paris in July 1789)'

Harsh, perhaps but hey! C'est la vie baby!
I also really enjoyed the mention of dechristianization (first things first, get rid of the God botherers!), the 1793 'Levée en masse', the conscription of a people's army. Reminding me of the mid to late twentieth century East German, 'Hundertschaften' factory combat groups. Finally the Enragés seemed to be a particular delight, whom definitely came across as raging right up my riotous alley! And I wouldn’t be averse to finding out a bit more detail on these justifiably angry people.

As for the 'Marxist’ interpretation, I may be generalizing a tad, and/or barking up the wrong tree, but to me, this passage seems to boil down the main premis,

'The worker's view of the world was dominated by that of the petty-bourgeois craftsman, which was ultimately that of the bourgeoisie. Thus, the workers did not form an independent group either in the realm of thought or action. They failed to realise the connection between the value of their labour and the level of their wages; for them, wages were still determined by the price of basic commodities and they had not fully realised the social function of labour.'

Therefore, it would seem to me that the workers (which would generally also include peasants, the poor, plebeians and the ’mob’, all classifications that are used by the author), are being sold down the river by the middle classes, whom are looking after the interests of their own class........ again, which left the door wide open for an egregious Cromwell/Hitler/Stalin type person, in this case, Napoleon Bonaparte.
Right, after that complicated headache of a book, where all things are relative, to the minor enjoyment I derived, I'm off down the library to ask the librarian if they've any books on the French Revolution that explains it to me like I'm five years old.
Wham, bam, merci madame!
Vive la révolution!
**La Marseillaise plays in the background**

[Nathaniel Flakin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am trying to overcome my terrible ignorance about 1789. First I read the "People's History" by Eric Hazan, which offered an easy-to-read overview of the names, dates, and factions. But Hazan was almost entirely focussed on speeches by leaders — his attempts to looks at the social forces driving the revolution forward were almost comically bad.



This book is the exact opposite: it offers a profound analysis of the character of the revolution, and how different social classes and layers created the different factions. It was petty bourgeois artisans driving the big bourgeoisie forward and forcing them to destroy the aristocracy. Soboul explains how the French Revolution is the prototype of bourgeois revolutions, and compares it to other processes from England to the U.S.A. to Japan.



But: this book offers zero assistance understanding the basic facts — it assumes that all the big events and historical figures are known. So it reads like an interpretive essay for young people in France who have spent years and years studying the revolution in school. In other words, I am still looking for a standard history of the French Revolution.

[Alexandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This history is sooooo Marxist. That's not a bad thing - Soboul was one of the leading historians of the French Revolution and also a leading Marxist historian, and he followed Lefebvre is showing that Marxist contributions to the study of history are immensely useful in understanding things like this revolution. Still, it's kind of amusing, from 2011, to read bits of this - there are such classic Marxist comments, and classic lines about class consciousness, that almost feel cliched today... because they got used by people like Soboul to make important and influential points.

Anyway. Soboul does make some really interesting points about the influence of the masses, and the sans-culloutes, particularly after 1791 or so - his discussion of the Girondins and Jacobins, and their different attitudes towards the masses, is perhaps a little bit too black and white but intriguing nonetheless.

This is a really enjoyable overview of the French Revolution - and particularly readable given that it's a translation.

[sube · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a general overview of the French revolution until the coup by Bonaparate; it seeks to explain at a general level the causes, who were driving the revolution (in terms of classes) and why certain groups failed and the continuities between them. As such, it does not provide an in-depth chronological account but focuses more on key events among other things.

It was a very interesting book, giving me an increased understanding - however, it requires already a basic knowledge of French revolution, as it does not at length introduce the history of everyone, but presuppose knowledge of them to some degree (though some small tl;dr is often given in footnotes).

The book largely does not soruce specific claims, but relies on a bibliography at the end. Which is a bit unhelpful. However, all in all, it's a good book though I wish a more in-depth account of the events would have been the case. Learned a lot ultimately still.

[Damilola Ojikutu · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an attempt to analyze the social groupings and reasonings for the French Revolution using a traditional “Marxist POV.” Its very precise and I do like how blended the history is into it despite the books brevity. Overall, it has made me a bit more interested in not only the history of the French Revolution, but helped me understand the rationales for the social groups involved.

[Ray W · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good additional history for those with a basic knowledge of the French Revolution.

[Jon · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found this book to be more of a scholarly analysis than a narrative history. I think that misconception may turn many other readers off. Fortunately, the introduction is pretty clear on this fact, so it's unapologetic.

That said, I found this to be a pretty dry read for someone who reads a lot of history but didn't already have a solid background on the French Revolution (or feudal France, or the French monarchy, or the French language).

The most engaging part of the book ended up being the multi-page timeline highlighting key events in the Revolution.

[Electric · Rating 2 out of 5]

Marxistische Analyse der französischen Revolution. Ohne detaillierte Kenntnisse der handelnden Personen und der historischen Eckdaten nicht zu verstehen. Als Einführung und Überblicksdarstellung also leider nicht geeignet. Werde ich nochmal zu Hand nehmen sobald ich eine Einführung gefunden habe die mir das Wissen vermittelt um die sehr klar strukturierten Analysen Sobouls zu verstehen.

[Sdugre · Rating 1 out of 5]

I finally put this piece of rubbish down for good. This book should be called "A Short History of the French Revolution, Assuming You Are An Expert On It Already, In Which Case You Shouldn't Actually Need To Read This Book".

[Alexis]

A Short History of the French Revolution, 1789-1799 by Albert Soboul (1977)