What do you think?
Rate this book
Liberty or Death: The French Revolution
The French Revolution has fascinated, perplexed, and inspired for more than two centuries. It was a seismic event that radically transformed France and launched shock waves across the world. In this provocative new history, Peter McPhee draws on a lifetime’s study of eighteenth-century France and Europe to create an entirely fresh account of the world’s first great modern revolution—its origins, drama, complexity, and significance.
Was the Revolution a major turning point in French—even world—history, or was it instead a protracted period of violent upheaval and warfare that wrecked millions of lives? McPhee evaluates the Revolution within a genuinely global context: Europe, the Atlantic region, and even farther. He acknowledges the key revolutionary events that unfolded in Paris, yet also uncovers the varying experiences of French citizens outside the gates of the city: the provincial men and women whose daily lives were altered—or not—by developments in the capital. Enhanced with evocative stories of those who struggled to cope in unpredictable times, McPhee’s deeply researched book investigates the changing personal, social, and cultural world of the eighteenth century. His startling conclusions redefine and illuminate both the experience and the legacy of France’s transformative age of revolution.
Was the Revolution a major turning point in French—even world—history, or was it instead a protracted period of violent upheaval and warfare that wrecked millions of lives? McPhee evaluates the Revolution within a genuinely global context: Europe, the Atlantic region, and even farther. He acknowledges the key revolutionary events that unfolded in Paris, yet also uncovers the varying experiences of French citizens outside the gates of the city: the provincial men and women whose daily lives were altered—or not—by developments in the capital. Enhanced with evocative stories of those who struggled to cope in unpredictable times, McPhee’s deeply researched book investigates the changing personal, social, and cultural world of the eighteenth century. His startling conclusions redefine and illuminate both the experience and the legacy of France’s transformative age of revolution.
480 pages, Hardcover
First published May 24, 2016
186 people are currently reading
1136 people want to read
About the author
Peter McPhee
35 books34 followersMcPhee was educated at Caulfield Grammar School and Trinity College while studying at the University of Melbourne, where he earned his Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees, a Diploma in Education and a Doctor of Philosophy degree.
He later taught at LaTrobe University (1975–79) and the Victoria University of Wellington (1980–86) before teaching history at Melbourne. He specialises in research on French history and the French Revolution, having published numerous books on the subject. His academic management positions at Melbourne have included working as Deputy Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, head of the Department of History and President of the university's academic board. In 2003 he became the deputy vice-chancellor for academics and in 2007 was appointed as the inaugural provost. As part of this role he has been responsible for planning and introducing the university's controversial new Melbourne Model, which is designed to maintain consistency with the Bologna Accords' structure for European higher education.
In 2003 he was awarded the Centenary Medal for services to education.
McPhee retired from the University of Melbourne on 14 June 2009 but continues to serve as a professorial fellow.
In 2014 Peter McPhee, with the University of Melbourne and Coursera, developed a free online course on the French Revolution. The course follows the chapters in his eBook, The French Revolution.
He later taught at LaTrobe University (1975–79) and the Victoria University of Wellington (1980–86) before teaching history at Melbourne. He specialises in research on French history and the French Revolution, having published numerous books on the subject. His academic management positions at Melbourne have included working as Deputy Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, head of the Department of History and President of the university's academic board. In 2003 he became the deputy vice-chancellor for academics and in 2007 was appointed as the inaugural provost. As part of this role he has been responsible for planning and introducing the university's controversial new Melbourne Model, which is designed to maintain consistency with the Bologna Accords' structure for European higher education.
In 2003 he was awarded the Centenary Medal for services to education.
McPhee retired from the University of Melbourne on 14 June 2009 but continues to serve as a professorial fellow.
In 2014 Peter McPhee, with the University of Melbourne and Coursera, developed a free online course on the French Revolution. The course follows the chapters in his eBook, The French Revolution.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews
August 20, 2025
What a peasant surprise.
It seems a little unfair on Mr. McPhee to review his excellent history of the French Revolution in such proximity to Simon Schama’s awe inspiring Citizens, which I think has only risen in my estimations since I closed its covers. This was just as comprehensive -for which McPhee should be applauded - but much more dethatched.
Liberty or Death is impeccably researched and clearly put forward, overflowing with statistics and percentages; dates and estimations. But, to my sensationalist tastes, it was something of a statistician’s history: not because it dealt so often in numbers, but because it didn’t do enough to make you feel what those numbers mean. Characters were introduced only to disappear again very quickly, before you had drawn any connection to these names on a page as living breathing people.
In short, this was a little impersonal (to use that term in its most expansive sense) for me to fall in love with.
Finally, the writing style, though clear and concise, became quite repetitive, which meant some sections became, regrettably, a bit of a wash.
Nevertheless, this is a great source, it has everything you need to know and, it’s a little softer on Robespierre and the Jacobins than most other sources you’ll find.
It seems a little unfair on Mr. McPhee to review his excellent history of the French Revolution in such proximity to Simon Schama’s awe inspiring Citizens, which I think has only risen in my estimations since I closed its covers. This was just as comprehensive -for which McPhee should be applauded - but much more dethatched.
Liberty or Death is impeccably researched and clearly put forward, overflowing with statistics and percentages; dates and estimations. But, to my sensationalist tastes, it was something of a statistician’s history: not because it dealt so often in numbers, but because it didn’t do enough to make you feel what those numbers mean. Characters were introduced only to disappear again very quickly, before you had drawn any connection to these names on a page as living breathing people.
In short, this was a little impersonal (to use that term in its most expansive sense) for me to fall in love with.
Finally, the writing style, though clear and concise, became quite repetitive, which meant some sections became, regrettably, a bit of a wash.
Nevertheless, this is a great source, it has everything you need to know and, it’s a little softer on Robespierre and the Jacobins than most other sources you’ll find.
July 19, 2016
Every generation gets the French Revolution it deserves™*, and this book might be ours.
Drawing parallels between long-gone periods and one's own time can be tedious and pointless. Nevertheless, here I go, inspired by this book. I will attempt brevity (minimizing tediousness) and leave it to the reader to judge whether I have a point.
Let X equal a profound idea: revolutionary equality then, globalization now. A small group of self-styled original thinkers of the capital and similar large cities introduce X into the public discourse. Some people object to X.
“You fail to understand the great benefit X will bring,” the s.-s. original thinkers say. “With that additional prosperity and brotherhood, we will have more resources to help those disadvantaged by the inevitable changes.”
After a while, the thinkers convince a sufficient number of politicians and average citizens that X is a great idea. Objectors, the thinkers say, are hopelessly shortsighted and/or insufficiently interested in the greater public interest. X is adopted as government policy.
X causes some people to be better off (I call them, non-judgmentally, “winners”) and others worse (“losers”). Some of the losers are those who objected to X in the first place; others are former enthusiasts. Many of the losers live outside the capital, which is generally the place that the ambitious wish to be, thanks to X.
“Hey, wait a minute,” the losers say. “You said X would bring great benefit, but things suck worse than before outside the capital, and that help you implied would materialized never did so. Plus I have lost A, B, and C, all things that I cherished before.”
The winners reply: “Overall, however, X has benefitted many people, even though none of them are friends of yours. Sorry about the lack of help, maybe some will come soon. Also, A, B, and C were all things that were holding you back and you are really better off without them.”
The losers do not agree, especially with the last, and take arms (literally and figuratively) against the winners.
End of (over-)extended metaphor.
This excellent book is an interesting reworking of the story of the French Revolution. The dramatic stories (e.g., Louis's attempted escape, the taking of the Bastille, Marat's assassination, etc.) appear but in dried-out, minimized versions, so the focus of the book can stay on a category of people whom (I believe) have been underreported in virtually every episode of history, specifically, average folks living outside the capital. Because of this unorthodox approach, this might not be the best starting point for complete French Revolution newbies. However, it is very clear and readable, so anybody who can recall their last European history survey class should not be confused.
This book seeks to do the same admirable thing for 1790's France that English historian David Kynaston is doing for mid-20th century England, that is, bring to our attention the voices of the unfamous who were living through the events, through their letters, memoirs, diary entries, and the like. I find this extremely admirable, no matter the era, and I invite you to think the same.
Thanks to those most excellent people at Netgalley and Yale University Press for a free electronic review copy of this book.
*Nota bene: There is no documentation (on Google) that the profound-sounding turn of phrase “Every generation gets the French Revolution it deserves” has been uttered by anyone, not even Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, or Oscar Wilde, who between them seem to have said most everything else. I therefore claim it as the property of the International Bon Mot Partnership, LLC, a legal entity with registration pending in the state of Delaware and the Cayman Islands. Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this quotation, in writing, by voice, or by any other means (including but not limited to Morse Code and semaphore flags), without the express written consent of the International Bon Mot Partnership, LLC, is prohibited. Violators will be hounded to death by greed-crazed intellectual property attorneys to the fullest extent of the law, which is a much further extent than is seemly or reasonable.
Drawing parallels between long-gone periods and one's own time can be tedious and pointless. Nevertheless, here I go, inspired by this book. I will attempt brevity (minimizing tediousness) and leave it to the reader to judge whether I have a point.
Let X equal a profound idea: revolutionary equality then, globalization now. A small group of self-styled original thinkers of the capital and similar large cities introduce X into the public discourse. Some people object to X.
“You fail to understand the great benefit X will bring,” the s.-s. original thinkers say. “With that additional prosperity and brotherhood, we will have more resources to help those disadvantaged by the inevitable changes.”
After a while, the thinkers convince a sufficient number of politicians and average citizens that X is a great idea. Objectors, the thinkers say, are hopelessly shortsighted and/or insufficiently interested in the greater public interest. X is adopted as government policy.
X causes some people to be better off (I call them, non-judgmentally, “winners”) and others worse (“losers”). Some of the losers are those who objected to X in the first place; others are former enthusiasts. Many of the losers live outside the capital, which is generally the place that the ambitious wish to be, thanks to X.
“Hey, wait a minute,” the losers say. “You said X would bring great benefit, but things suck worse than before outside the capital, and that help you implied would materialized never did so. Plus I have lost A, B, and C, all things that I cherished before.”
The winners reply: “Overall, however, X has benefitted many people, even though none of them are friends of yours. Sorry about the lack of help, maybe some will come soon. Also, A, B, and C were all things that were holding you back and you are really better off without them.”
The losers do not agree, especially with the last, and take arms (literally and figuratively) against the winners.
End of (over-)extended metaphor.
This excellent book is an interesting reworking of the story of the French Revolution. The dramatic stories (e.g., Louis's attempted escape, the taking of the Bastille, Marat's assassination, etc.) appear but in dried-out, minimized versions, so the focus of the book can stay on a category of people whom (I believe) have been underreported in virtually every episode of history, specifically, average folks living outside the capital. Because of this unorthodox approach, this might not be the best starting point for complete French Revolution newbies. However, it is very clear and readable, so anybody who can recall their last European history survey class should not be confused.
This book seeks to do the same admirable thing for 1790's France that English historian David Kynaston is doing for mid-20th century England, that is, bring to our attention the voices of the unfamous who were living through the events, through their letters, memoirs, diary entries, and the like. I find this extremely admirable, no matter the era, and I invite you to think the same.
Thanks to those most excellent people at Netgalley and Yale University Press for a free electronic review copy of this book.
*Nota bene: There is no documentation (on Google) that the profound-sounding turn of phrase “Every generation gets the French Revolution it deserves” has been uttered by anyone, not even Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, or Oscar Wilde, who between them seem to have said most everything else. I therefore claim it as the property of the International Bon Mot Partnership, LLC, a legal entity with registration pending in the state of Delaware and the Cayman Islands. Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this quotation, in writing, by voice, or by any other means (including but not limited to Morse Code and semaphore flags), without the express written consent of the International Bon Mot Partnership, LLC, is prohibited. Violators will be hounded to death by greed-crazed intellectual property attorneys to the fullest extent of the law, which is a much further extent than is seemly or reasonable.
August 10, 2018
A detailed history of the Revolution's effects on the whole range of French society. McPhee uses interesting and even quirky primary sources to draw conclusions and make points about the minutiae of life in France during this period - which makes it a revealing history that goes beyond the main characters and moments of the Revolution.
While avoiding broad narrative strokes is, therefore, probably a deliberate choice, it's a choice that means the book lacks drama, emotional investment and a 'page-turner' quality for the reader. At times it can read like a very long and complicated list of events, which is probably a very sober historical approach, but sucks the joy out of learning about the past. For example, major events like the storming of the Bastille or the execution of the King are devoid of drama and a sense of significance, and complex characters like Robespierre get lost in the wide focus of the book.
There is also a lot of assumed knowledge about the Revolution - occasionally the book attempts to revise or otherwise engage with a consensus historical view, but doesn't give much of a background, so a reader unfamiliar with the Revolution may find themselves lost or missing the point.
In general, a meticulously-researched book for Revolution buffs that lacks a bit of "liberty or death" drama some readers may be looking for.
While avoiding broad narrative strokes is, therefore, probably a deliberate choice, it's a choice that means the book lacks drama, emotional investment and a 'page-turner' quality for the reader. At times it can read like a very long and complicated list of events, which is probably a very sober historical approach, but sucks the joy out of learning about the past. For example, major events like the storming of the Bastille or the execution of the King are devoid of drama and a sense of significance, and complex characters like Robespierre get lost in the wide focus of the book.
There is also a lot of assumed knowledge about the Revolution - occasionally the book attempts to revise or otherwise engage with a consensus historical view, but doesn't give much of a background, so a reader unfamiliar with the Revolution may find themselves lost or missing the point.
In general, a meticulously-researched book for Revolution buffs that lacks a bit of "liberty or death" drama some readers may be looking for.
July 5, 2024
To be able to write a great book of one the most complex events in human history of which there exists countless different contradictory interpretations is an impressive accomplishment. To be able to do it under 400 pages and to be actually good and nuanced is amazing. I'm happy to say this book is a complete succes.
As far as I'm concerned it balances perfectly between being scholarly and very readable. It's only failing is also it's blessing : it's length. I just would have loved to get more info or details about certain aspects of the Revolution but because it serves as a general introduction it can't do that. Fortunately it has a great bibliography with a lot of recommended other books.
The biggest aspect of this book that I love is that it takes the French Revolution seriously. It doesn't choose for some hollow cynicism that focuses only on the negative or for some sensationalism that likes to dwell on the violent. It shows why people wanted a revolution, it shows people enacting that revolution and trying to making it a succesful in incredible hard circumstances. And in many cases succeeding. Also McPhee's treatment of Robespierre is amazing and I can't wait to read his biography of him. As the book shows very well the successes, failures and tensions of the Revolution resonate and influence us to the day of today. It's a historical period worth thinking about and this is a book worth reading about it.
As far as I'm concerned it balances perfectly between being scholarly and very readable. It's only failing is also it's blessing : it's length. I just would have loved to get more info or details about certain aspects of the Revolution but because it serves as a general introduction it can't do that. Fortunately it has a great bibliography with a lot of recommended other books.
The biggest aspect of this book that I love is that it takes the French Revolution seriously. It doesn't choose for some hollow cynicism that focuses only on the negative or for some sensationalism that likes to dwell on the violent. It shows why people wanted a revolution, it shows people enacting that revolution and trying to making it a succesful in incredible hard circumstances. And in many cases succeeding. Also McPhee's treatment of Robespierre is amazing and I can't wait to read his biography of him. As the book shows very well the successes, failures and tensions of the Revolution resonate and influence us to the day of today. It's a historical period worth thinking about and this is a book worth reading about it.
December 27, 2016
I received a B.A. degree in French years ago. The study of French history and culture were included in the curriculum. After graduation, I've read several other history books specifically related to the French Revolution.
This particular work was far more granular in detail than many of the other works. It's scope was expansive but not to the extent that the author lost control of the narrative. The major players throughout the revolution were identified and their driving divergent philosophies were cogently presented. It is a respectable work and should be recognized for its merit.
However, it is a depressing narrative. The madness, the inconceivable numbers of deaths, some for the most frivolous perceived notions is repulsive. The lofty goals were at great odds with the methods used to achieve them. It speaks volumes for the dark side of humanity and inhumane tactics used to achieve justice and equality.
This particular work was far more granular in detail than many of the other works. It's scope was expansive but not to the extent that the author lost control of the narrative. The major players throughout the revolution were identified and their driving divergent philosophies were cogently presented. It is a respectable work and should be recognized for its merit.
However, it is a depressing narrative. The madness, the inconceivable numbers of deaths, some for the most frivolous perceived notions is repulsive. The lofty goals were at great odds with the methods used to achieve them. It speaks volumes for the dark side of humanity and inhumane tactics used to achieve justice and equality.
March 29, 2022
Not a bad book exactly but has some frustrating inadequacies as a single volume history. There's a deliberate decision to focus a lot on what's happening outside of Paris but it means the writing is spread way too thin. A lot of key events are just sort of glossed over and there's no real sense of how the Convention went through so many political changes. For example, the narrative sort of displays the Jacobins at the height of their power, doesn't really show any significant opposition... then Thermidor happens, Robespierre is killed and suddenly everyone has changed their views within a page. There's not even an attempt at explaining what on earth happened. Just a sudden switch. The other major events get similar treatment.
The focus on how the provinces reacted to what happened in Paris is a logical choice but because his explanation of what happened in Paris is so thin, even in terms of just the basic facts, a lot of the time you don't have the context to understand why X town is doing what it is. A lot of random stories and details about single small settlements are included but they don't form a cohesive whole or give you an understanding of how X broad area of France reacted. When useful statistics are introduced which give you an idea of opinion past anecdotes, they're still hard to interpret - for example if x% of priests in y area were non jurors, I have no idea what the size of y area is or where it is because I'm not familiar with the administrative geography of Revolutionary France!
Neither of these make the book bad exactly but I just keep feeling like I'm missing key information or it's just assumed I'll know it. There's lots of interesting stuff but I'm missing a big picture understanding of lots of stuff too
The focus on how the provinces reacted to what happened in Paris is a logical choice but because his explanation of what happened in Paris is so thin, even in terms of just the basic facts, a lot of the time you don't have the context to understand why X town is doing what it is. A lot of random stories and details about single small settlements are included but they don't form a cohesive whole or give you an understanding of how X broad area of France reacted. When useful statistics are introduced which give you an idea of opinion past anecdotes, they're still hard to interpret - for example if x% of priests in y area were non jurors, I have no idea what the size of y area is or where it is because I'm not familiar with the administrative geography of Revolutionary France!
Neither of these make the book bad exactly but I just keep feeling like I'm missing key information or it's just assumed I'll know it. There's lots of interesting stuff but I'm missing a big picture understanding of lots of stuff too
November 22, 2024
This was a grand book. McPhee is an excellent historian.
February 27, 2025
How tf did the marquis de sade of all people manage to survive the terror I will never understand
July 18, 2018
A good look at the overall impact of the Revolution, particularly incorporating perspectives from outside of Paris. The basic narrative as well as biographical portraits are included, but the impact on the normal citizens of France are clearly delineated. A great medium between the shorter Hibbert classic, which does not analyze the impact of the events as well as McPhee does here, and the epic Schama version which might be dauntingly complex and complete for most readers. The latest book on this epochal moment in Western history.
September 12, 2016
While I applaud the author's inclusion of multi-dimensional impacts of the Revolution, such as changes to communal land use and the destruction of forests (!), it doesn't quite manage to become engaging in terms of storytelling. This subject needn't be dry.
June 29, 2018
Blow by blow, systematic, exhaustive account of the causes, events and legacy of the French Revolution.
A fascinating read, and beautifully written.
I highly recommend this book.
A fascinating read, and beautifully written.
I highly recommend this book.
April 5, 2019
"They said to her in a harsh voice: 'Cry out: Long live the nation!' – 'No! no!' she said. They made her climb onto a heap of corpses. ... Then a killer seized her, tore off her dress and opened her belly. She fell, and was finished off by the others." So ended the life of the Princess de Lamballe, a close confidante of Marie Antoinette, in 1792.
This harrowing episode is one of many documented in Peter McPhee's 2016 book about the French Revolution, Liberty or Death: The French Revolution. This thorough and well-researched work takes off in pre-revolutionary France, which the author explains "was a land of mass poverty in which most people were vulnerable to harvest failure" and "in which the weight of authority guaranteed relative obedience and stability." This state of obedience gradually disintegrated throughout the eighteenth century, as food-rioting and "complaints about the presumptions of the privileged" increased. A patchwork of overlapping authorities of monarchy, aristocracy and Church in those days, France was economically backward compared to England, where the Industrial Revolution was well underway by 1789. France's peasants and artisans had ample reason for discontent with their rulers.
Their fury, however, set in motion a chain of events that few had foreseen, and that few would argue led ultimately to an improvement upon Louis XVI's rule. McPhee details chapter by chapter the many phases of the Revolution, which in the eyes of its protagonists was never "completed", not least because resistance to the rapid changes grew by the day. Concepts completely alien to the French population, such as a uniform rule of law, (more or less) free enterprise, separation of church and state and a national system of taxation, were introduced virtually overnight, to the dismay of many French.
A major pocket of rebellion was the Catholic Church, which had effectively been rendered a minion of the state, its property nationalized and its clergy forced to swear an oath of loyalty to the new government. "This was the moment that fractured the Revolution," writes McPhee, for it split the clergy and their respective communities into two camps violently opposing each other. Full-scale civil war broke out in the Vendée region along France's west coast.
To make matters worse, further pressure was put on the new republic by surrounding countries, which, in a precursor to the 'domino theory' in the era of Communism, feared they could fall prey to the republican virus too. Before long, the new French government found itself at war on multiple fronts.
The internal and external resistance to the young republic proved more than its defenders were willing to tolerate. Gradually new-found liberties were dialed back, sweeping government powers were instituted, enemies (real of perceived) were preventively detained, and in 1973 the infamous Committee of Public Safety was set up. Though the goal was to "secure the Republic" to a point where the new constitution could be fully implemented, instead the Revolution's leaders grew more radical as all this played out -- and their suspicions weren't just aimed at recalcitrant Catholic priests either: "Those who battled over the implementation of the revolutionary changes," McPhee says, "worked within pre-existing or newly formed networks of friends and the like-minded. There were others they came to mistrust, even to hate. Particular individuals came to be seen to personify particular phases of the Revolution, and were consequently loved or demonized."
After the election of Maximilien Robespierre to the Committee of Public Safety on July 27, 1793, this government body, formed to protect the new republic against foreign and domestic threats, ignited a period of bloodshed later branded the 'Reign of Terror' and turned into a de facto dictatorship. Or did it? McPhee writes: "It has often been caricatured as a dictatorial, even totalitarian regime imposed by ideologues, particularly Robespierre and Saint-Just, to create a 'virtuous' society based on the violent exclusion of the 'other'. Robespierre ... was indeed the most articulate and admired of the Jacobin leaders (as well as the most despised by opponents), but the Jacobins were a mixed group of republicans applying exceptional laws in extraordinary circumstances as they grappled both to create a republican society and to defend it against its enemies." He adds later: "It was the counter-revolution and the mixed emotions of panic, outrage, pride and fear that it aroused that fostered a willingness to believe that enemies were omnipresent. Then the outbreak of war transformed political divisions into matters of life and death."
As is usual within these regimes, the revolutionaries ate their own before long and Robespierre was arrested and executed along with a few of his cronies, bringing an end to the Terror. A new constitution was adopted in 1795 with more emphasis on equality before the law than equality of outcome. However, the new leaders "were never able to feel confident that they acted with the willing support of most citizens," and remained eager to resort to repression. The post-Robespierre regime "had the misfortune of having to establish itself during years of subsistence crisis," McPhee writes. "But by its religious, military, economic and social policies, the regime further alienated large numbers of people ..." There was ample resentment against military conscription, especially when the armies were employed to fight uprisings like in Brittany. The military adventures abroad, too, looked more and more like naked occupation than "revolutionary emancipation".
It was within this political turmoil that an up and coming general by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte staged a military coup in 1799 and effectively ended the French Revolution. A new constitution was adopted under which France was ruled by three consuls, Napoleon being one of them. "A Tribunate of a hundred members members was to discuss legislation but not vote," while "a Legislative Assembly of three hundred was to vote on legislation without discussion." Government was centralized and made more hierarchical in the years that followed. This is the point where Liberty or Death is concluded.
The book's author is fairly even in his judgements of the many events between 1789 and 1799. On the one hand, he notes, "The most powerful image has always been the legacy of 1789 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, seen to exemplify the highest aspirations for a society based on popular sovereignty, freedom of expression and opportunity, and respect for the rights of others." On the other hand, an image can be painted "of 1789 as unnecessary popular excess that degenerated into destructive, bloody civil war. This image has been one of loss: of tradition, of respect for religion and authority, and of the rich tapestry of provincial institutions and cultures."
Nevertheless, McPhee's verdict on Robespierre and his fellow Jacobins, whom he argues were merely grappling to seize control of a nation in a state of panic and fear and not acting as all-out dictators, seems oddly mild. In the author's own words, "the net necessary to ensnare enemies of the Revolution trapped many thousands of people whose only mistake was to be critical of government policy rather than being engaged in armed counter-revolutionary activity." By "trapped", McPhee means that their heads were chopped off by the guillotine, an act of cold-blooded murder of French citizens by their government. The Jacobins' actions were based on an ideology preaching "the certainty about the innate goodness of the common people, corrupted by centuries of misery and ignorance and now by the deception, even conspiracy, of those who would prevent them from reaping the revolutionary harvest." They learned this folly from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose works are today widely considered to be one of the foundations of socialism.
This reviewer is therefore tempted to give some consideration to Edmund Burke's remark that "An ignorant man, who is not fool enough to meddle with his clock, is however sufficiently confident to think he can safely take to pieces, and put together at his pleasure, a moral machine of another guise, importance and complexity, composed of far other wheels, and springs, and balances, and counteracting and co-operating powers. Men little think how immorally they act in rashly meddling with what they do not understand. Their delusive good intention is no sort of excuse for their presumption. They who truly mean well must be fearful of acting ill." These words were written in 1790, mind you. 'Leaders' who, in service of a radical ideology, demonstrate such ample disregard for a people's culture and traditions should not be given a free pass by the chroniclers of history, even if their actions helped spread the virtues of limited, republican government -- for that outcome was only one side of the coin. It's not a compliment that Lenin and his fellow Russian revolutionaries looked to the Jacobins with admiration a hundred years later.
I have another, smaller beef with the book. If you were looking for an engaging, invigorating account of the French Revolution, Liberty or Death might not be for you. Though at times interesting and packed with illustrative anecdotes, it often made me think of Dr. Johnson's quip about Milton's Paradise Lost that "None ever wished it longer than it is." The book's protagonists never really come to life. Their backgrounds are left in the dark and their personal motives are left unexplored. Too much the book lapses into providing a bird's eye view of the events at hand. It makes for dry reading. The author's use of the silly revolutionary calendar throughout the book doesn't help matters.
That said, it is plain that an enormous amount of research went into Liberty or Death and Peter McPhee is to be commended for his efforts. I would recommend this book to serious students of the French Revolution, if perhaps not to those dipping their toes into this important subject for the first time.
This harrowing episode is one of many documented in Peter McPhee's 2016 book about the French Revolution, Liberty or Death: The French Revolution. This thorough and well-researched work takes off in pre-revolutionary France, which the author explains "was a land of mass poverty in which most people were vulnerable to harvest failure" and "in which the weight of authority guaranteed relative obedience and stability." This state of obedience gradually disintegrated throughout the eighteenth century, as food-rioting and "complaints about the presumptions of the privileged" increased. A patchwork of overlapping authorities of monarchy, aristocracy and Church in those days, France was economically backward compared to England, where the Industrial Revolution was well underway by 1789. France's peasants and artisans had ample reason for discontent with their rulers.
Their fury, however, set in motion a chain of events that few had foreseen, and that few would argue led ultimately to an improvement upon Louis XVI's rule. McPhee details chapter by chapter the many phases of the Revolution, which in the eyes of its protagonists was never "completed", not least because resistance to the rapid changes grew by the day. Concepts completely alien to the French population, such as a uniform rule of law, (more or less) free enterprise, separation of church and state and a national system of taxation, were introduced virtually overnight, to the dismay of many French.
A major pocket of rebellion was the Catholic Church, which had effectively been rendered a minion of the state, its property nationalized and its clergy forced to swear an oath of loyalty to the new government. "This was the moment that fractured the Revolution," writes McPhee, for it split the clergy and their respective communities into two camps violently opposing each other. Full-scale civil war broke out in the Vendée region along France's west coast.
To make matters worse, further pressure was put on the new republic by surrounding countries, which, in a precursor to the 'domino theory' in the era of Communism, feared they could fall prey to the republican virus too. Before long, the new French government found itself at war on multiple fronts.
The internal and external resistance to the young republic proved more than its defenders were willing to tolerate. Gradually new-found liberties were dialed back, sweeping government powers were instituted, enemies (real of perceived) were preventively detained, and in 1973 the infamous Committee of Public Safety was set up. Though the goal was to "secure the Republic" to a point where the new constitution could be fully implemented, instead the Revolution's leaders grew more radical as all this played out -- and their suspicions weren't just aimed at recalcitrant Catholic priests either: "Those who battled over the implementation of the revolutionary changes," McPhee says, "worked within pre-existing or newly formed networks of friends and the like-minded. There were others they came to mistrust, even to hate. Particular individuals came to be seen to personify particular phases of the Revolution, and were consequently loved or demonized."
After the election of Maximilien Robespierre to the Committee of Public Safety on July 27, 1793, this government body, formed to protect the new republic against foreign and domestic threats, ignited a period of bloodshed later branded the 'Reign of Terror' and turned into a de facto dictatorship. Or did it? McPhee writes: "It has often been caricatured as a dictatorial, even totalitarian regime imposed by ideologues, particularly Robespierre and Saint-Just, to create a 'virtuous' society based on the violent exclusion of the 'other'. Robespierre ... was indeed the most articulate and admired of the Jacobin leaders (as well as the most despised by opponents), but the Jacobins were a mixed group of republicans applying exceptional laws in extraordinary circumstances as they grappled both to create a republican society and to defend it against its enemies." He adds later: "It was the counter-revolution and the mixed emotions of panic, outrage, pride and fear that it aroused that fostered a willingness to believe that enemies were omnipresent. Then the outbreak of war transformed political divisions into matters of life and death."
As is usual within these regimes, the revolutionaries ate their own before long and Robespierre was arrested and executed along with a few of his cronies, bringing an end to the Terror. A new constitution was adopted in 1795 with more emphasis on equality before the law than equality of outcome. However, the new leaders "were never able to feel confident that they acted with the willing support of most citizens," and remained eager to resort to repression. The post-Robespierre regime "had the misfortune of having to establish itself during years of subsistence crisis," McPhee writes. "But by its religious, military, economic and social policies, the regime further alienated large numbers of people ..." There was ample resentment against military conscription, especially when the armies were employed to fight uprisings like in Brittany. The military adventures abroad, too, looked more and more like naked occupation than "revolutionary emancipation".
It was within this political turmoil that an up and coming general by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte staged a military coup in 1799 and effectively ended the French Revolution. A new constitution was adopted under which France was ruled by three consuls, Napoleon being one of them. "A Tribunate of a hundred members members was to discuss legislation but not vote," while "a Legislative Assembly of three hundred was to vote on legislation without discussion." Government was centralized and made more hierarchical in the years that followed. This is the point where Liberty or Death is concluded.
The book's author is fairly even in his judgements of the many events between 1789 and 1799. On the one hand, he notes, "The most powerful image has always been the legacy of 1789 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, seen to exemplify the highest aspirations for a society based on popular sovereignty, freedom of expression and opportunity, and respect for the rights of others." On the other hand, an image can be painted "of 1789 as unnecessary popular excess that degenerated into destructive, bloody civil war. This image has been one of loss: of tradition, of respect for religion and authority, and of the rich tapestry of provincial institutions and cultures."
Nevertheless, McPhee's verdict on Robespierre and his fellow Jacobins, whom he argues were merely grappling to seize control of a nation in a state of panic and fear and not acting as all-out dictators, seems oddly mild. In the author's own words, "the net necessary to ensnare enemies of the Revolution trapped many thousands of people whose only mistake was to be critical of government policy rather than being engaged in armed counter-revolutionary activity." By "trapped", McPhee means that their heads were chopped off by the guillotine, an act of cold-blooded murder of French citizens by their government. The Jacobins' actions were based on an ideology preaching "the certainty about the innate goodness of the common people, corrupted by centuries of misery and ignorance and now by the deception, even conspiracy, of those who would prevent them from reaping the revolutionary harvest." They learned this folly from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose works are today widely considered to be one of the foundations of socialism.
This reviewer is therefore tempted to give some consideration to Edmund Burke's remark that "An ignorant man, who is not fool enough to meddle with his clock, is however sufficiently confident to think he can safely take to pieces, and put together at his pleasure, a moral machine of another guise, importance and complexity, composed of far other wheels, and springs, and balances, and counteracting and co-operating powers. Men little think how immorally they act in rashly meddling with what they do not understand. Their delusive good intention is no sort of excuse for their presumption. They who truly mean well must be fearful of acting ill." These words were written in 1790, mind you. 'Leaders' who, in service of a radical ideology, demonstrate such ample disregard for a people's culture and traditions should not be given a free pass by the chroniclers of history, even if their actions helped spread the virtues of limited, republican government -- for that outcome was only one side of the coin. It's not a compliment that Lenin and his fellow Russian revolutionaries looked to the Jacobins with admiration a hundred years later.
I have another, smaller beef with the book. If you were looking for an engaging, invigorating account of the French Revolution, Liberty or Death might not be for you. Though at times interesting and packed with illustrative anecdotes, it often made me think of Dr. Johnson's quip about Milton's Paradise Lost that "None ever wished it longer than it is." The book's protagonists never really come to life. Their backgrounds are left in the dark and their personal motives are left unexplored. Too much the book lapses into providing a bird's eye view of the events at hand. It makes for dry reading. The author's use of the silly revolutionary calendar throughout the book doesn't help matters.
That said, it is plain that an enormous amount of research went into Liberty or Death and Peter McPhee is to be commended for his efforts. I would recommend this book to serious students of the French Revolution, if perhaps not to those dipping their toes into this important subject for the first time.
June 5, 2019
For a long time French Revolution fascinated me as a grand historical event and I have been searching for a solid history book that is neither a textbook nor a historical novel, only loosely based on evidence. In other words, I have been looking for a popular history book, on the model of Gordon Wood's histories, aimed at a general, but educated and interested public.
I first tried Eric Hobsbawm's first installment of his trilogy, the Age of Revolution. That didn't work, as it was mostly a theoretical work, only briefly touching on the events of the French Revolution, and requiring a solid background knowledge. I then purchased William Doyle's Oxford History of the FR and got through about half of it, only to quit, because I found it a dull aggregation of countless facts and events, without much conceptual framework or analysis. I then read Tim Blanning's installment of Penguin History of Europe - the Pursuit of Glory - which spanned a 170 year period, capping off with some 30-40 pages about the FR. I found it more interesting and insightful than the others, but ultimately unsatisfying, as it was too brief.
Enter Peter McPhee's new book about the FR, with an added originality: an extended focus on the provincial places outside of Paris. It is a 370 pg. book (reading pages, not including bibliography) that unfortunately tends to drag the reader through a thick forest of countless facts, introducing hundreds, if not thousands, of names in the process, who make nothing more than a cameo appearance. One quickly loses the forest for the trees and ends up with no better broad knowledge and conceptual understanding of the FR than before starting this book.
This is a true disappointment, especially in light of the fact that McPhee is probably the first academic and author to give France's peripheral provinces their due, in terms of their role and significance in the Revolution. One gets a fuller sense of what was going on for a decade in all of France, as opposed to just in Paris. Unfortunately, McPhee gives as much attention to the storming of the Bastille, the fleeing and execution of Louis XVI and intellectual debates as much as he does to any given ordinary person jotting something down in his or her diary on a given day. In other words, if a reader is a total novice to the FR and has absolutely no clue about any events of the FR, he/she wouldn't know the difference between significant and insignificant events that took place.
More importantly, McPhee provides close to no intellectual or conceptual framework for understanding the FR. He is so obsessed with providing countless facts, absolutely useless and trivial statistics, diary entries, composed songs and poems, that one gets a sense that he is not interested in imparting his knowledge to the reader at all. The book often feels like a PhD thesis, or a monograph aimed at a graduate student looking for a source of facts and stats.
If you are like me, who is still looking for a popular and balanced history of the FR, that is neither a purely theoretical work, nor one peppered with unguided facts and stats, I would not recommend this book.
I first tried Eric Hobsbawm's first installment of his trilogy, the Age of Revolution. That didn't work, as it was mostly a theoretical work, only briefly touching on the events of the French Revolution, and requiring a solid background knowledge. I then purchased William Doyle's Oxford History of the FR and got through about half of it, only to quit, because I found it a dull aggregation of countless facts and events, without much conceptual framework or analysis. I then read Tim Blanning's installment of Penguin History of Europe - the Pursuit of Glory - which spanned a 170 year period, capping off with some 30-40 pages about the FR. I found it more interesting and insightful than the others, but ultimately unsatisfying, as it was too brief.
Enter Peter McPhee's new book about the FR, with an added originality: an extended focus on the provincial places outside of Paris. It is a 370 pg. book (reading pages, not including bibliography) that unfortunately tends to drag the reader through a thick forest of countless facts, introducing hundreds, if not thousands, of names in the process, who make nothing more than a cameo appearance. One quickly loses the forest for the trees and ends up with no better broad knowledge and conceptual understanding of the FR than before starting this book.
This is a true disappointment, especially in light of the fact that McPhee is probably the first academic and author to give France's peripheral provinces their due, in terms of their role and significance in the Revolution. One gets a fuller sense of what was going on for a decade in all of France, as opposed to just in Paris. Unfortunately, McPhee gives as much attention to the storming of the Bastille, the fleeing and execution of Louis XVI and intellectual debates as much as he does to any given ordinary person jotting something down in his or her diary on a given day. In other words, if a reader is a total novice to the FR and has absolutely no clue about any events of the FR, he/she wouldn't know the difference between significant and insignificant events that took place.
More importantly, McPhee provides close to no intellectual or conceptual framework for understanding the FR. He is so obsessed with providing countless facts, absolutely useless and trivial statistics, diary entries, composed songs and poems, that one gets a sense that he is not interested in imparting his knowledge to the reader at all. The book often feels like a PhD thesis, or a monograph aimed at a graduate student looking for a source of facts and stats.
If you are like me, who is still looking for a popular and balanced history of the FR, that is neither a purely theoretical work, nor one peppered with unguided facts and stats, I would not recommend this book.
September 20, 2021
Liberty or Death: the French Revolution is an extraordinarily detailed historical piece written by Peter McPhee, an expert in French history and a former professor at the University of Melbourne.
As a French woman, I have, in my teenage years, studied the French Revolution from the taking of La Bastille on July 14th 1789 until Napoleon Bonaparte's successful coup in 1799 (which put an end to the First Republic). However, the various events and consequences that I learnt about during my history classes were always focused on Paris and a few other important French metropolises. This is why I have immensely enjoyed reading Peter McPhee's Liberty or Death: the French Revolution as, in this historical piece, I have been able to discover the various actions and events that occurred in other regions, towns and villages across France.
Another aspect that I found extremely interesting was being able to see the different ramifications of both Girondins' and Montagnards' actions onto the French people in a very detailed manner.
Moreover, his take on the reason why the French revolution grew more and more radical throughout the years was quite thought-provoking (the decline of the relationship between the church and the state as well as the many threats coming from neighbouring countries ready to invade France due to its regime perceived as an unstable.).
To conclude, this book is impeccably researched, thorough and written in a clear manner. However, it is not an easy read.
I highly recommend you to read this book if you have an interest in French history and want to know all there is to know about the French revolution.
As a French woman, I have, in my teenage years, studied the French Revolution from the taking of La Bastille on July 14th 1789 until Napoleon Bonaparte's successful coup in 1799 (which put an end to the First Republic). However, the various events and consequences that I learnt about during my history classes were always focused on Paris and a few other important French metropolises. This is why I have immensely enjoyed reading Peter McPhee's Liberty or Death: the French Revolution as, in this historical piece, I have been able to discover the various actions and events that occurred in other regions, towns and villages across France.
Another aspect that I found extremely interesting was being able to see the different ramifications of both Girondins' and Montagnards' actions onto the French people in a very detailed manner.
Moreover, his take on the reason why the French revolution grew more and more radical throughout the years was quite thought-provoking (the decline of the relationship between the church and the state as well as the many threats coming from neighbouring countries ready to invade France due to its regime perceived as an unstable.).
To conclude, this book is impeccably researched, thorough and written in a clear manner. However, it is not an easy read.
I highly recommend you to read this book if you have an interest in French history and want to know all there is to know about the French revolution.
March 23, 2017
Peter McPhee, an outstanding historian and a brilliant writer, did a spectacular job of researching the social currents and economic cataclysms of 18th century France, which sparked the French Revolution in his latest book” “Liberty or Death: The French Revolution.”
Though the revolution was ruthlessly waged almost 230 years ago for principles near and dear to the hearts of western democracies of today, namely, popular sovereignty, human rights, religious toleration, equality before the law, McPhee poignantly reminds readers that the revolutionary spirit for some of these very same principles are still being waged today across the globe as recent regime changes in eastern and south-eastern Europe and the ‘Arab Spring can plainly attest.
McPhee’s sharp analysis of 18th century Europe, along with placing the revolution in a broader global context (Europe, the Atlantic region, e.g.) is exemplary.
--Bill Lucey
Though the revolution was ruthlessly waged almost 230 years ago for principles near and dear to the hearts of western democracies of today, namely, popular sovereignty, human rights, religious toleration, equality before the law, McPhee poignantly reminds readers that the revolutionary spirit for some of these very same principles are still being waged today across the globe as recent regime changes in eastern and south-eastern Europe and the ‘Arab Spring can plainly attest.
McPhee’s sharp analysis of 18th century Europe, along with placing the revolution in a broader global context (Europe, the Atlantic region, e.g.) is exemplary.
--Bill Lucey
May 25, 2019
If you're interested in the French Revolution or French history in general, I highly recommend this book. McPhee focuses on how the revolution affected the lives of ordinary people and French society and culture. For many ordinary people the events of 1789-99 were a disaster, and for many others they were an empowering experience, when they were able to take control of their own lives and help to create a new society. McPhee talks about powerful people as well, but they aren't the only focus. However, if you aren't familiar with the basic narrative of the revolution I'd recommend reading Sylvia Neely's "A Concise History of the French Revolution" first.
June 17, 2016
This was a great account for simplicity and comprehensiveness of coverage of the French Revolution from start to finish. Gave a good idea of the myriad causes of the revolution and why it happened in the way that it did and also went some way to explain some of its legacy in the modern world such as the notion of citizenship which I had always assumed was something of an intrinsic human idea not a concept which owes its modern definition very much to ideas expressed during this period. For a detailed walk through of one of histories critical events you cant go wrong with this.
October 19, 2016
This is a tough read. I'm sure the author has done extensive research on his subject and is proud to share all of it with extensive details.
As such it reads more as a text book then a story of the events, and there in lies the rub. I wanted to read the story of the French Revolution, but this isn't that book.
Oh well
As such it reads more as a text book then a story of the events, and there in lies the rub. I wanted to read the story of the French Revolution, but this isn't that book.
Oh well
August 6, 2018
This book along with The Great Courses lecture series by University of Wisconsin professor Suzanne Desan has made me even more interested in the French Revolution. Up next for me will be a political bio on Napoleon and a bio on Robespierre. I’ll finish up my French History kick with a book on modern France since 1815.
January 5, 2020
The book is like a general survey on whats happening around the time of French Revolution. If you are first time into this subject, I will not recommend this book as it may dive too deep into details and make you fail to grasp the bigger picture. The book will be a good supplement or reference material once you understand the major actors and the trajectory of the event.
May 6, 2017
Very in-depth, while also accounting for the broad picture. You get a good sense for the mindset and conditions over time and regions, and the experiences of both those in power, and those just trying to survive and thrive.
August 30, 2017
A good, thoroughly well-researched history of the French Revolution from 1789 until the establishment of the Consulate in December 1799. I would recommend it to anyone interested in French history. I bought the paperback edition, which is a beautifully made little book.
December 27, 2017
This came well recommended, and rightly so. I needed a basic history to begin to address my woeful ignorance of the Revolution, and this really fit the bill. McPhee writes wonderfully, weaving lots of themes very deftly into a mostly chronological narrative.
October 5, 2020
An excellent synthesis of the whole revolutionary period in France and a very interesting reflection on it's lasting consequences to this day.
June 17, 2022
This is closer to 2.5-2.75 stars. I liked a lot of it:
1. McPhee focuses on the Revolution throughout France, and not simply on Parisian events. This gives a helpful perspective of where the Revolution was welcome and where it was resisted (or, if initially welcomed, where that welcome changed).
2. He gives one of the most coherent explanations of ancien regime finances/economics that I have ever read. I always dread the lead-in chapters of a history of the Revolution because Royalist economic policy was so convoluted and confusing. I'm certainly not a master of the subject now, but I felt as if I finally had a handle on what was so crazy about the system.
3. He tends to focus on themes in each chapter, then sums them up at the end of the chapter, and does follow through with them in later chapters. Sometimes this is a drawback, but it could also be quite helpful. For example, he clearly feels that the move to make the Catholic Church an organ of the state, and require priests to be "constitutional" priests who embrace the Revolution's ideals and reject Catholic hierarchies, was decisive in turning a significant portion of the country against the Revolution. After laying out this theme, he followed up later to talk about the ways that forcing "non-juring" priests (e.g., those priests who wouldn't take the required oath to the constitution) into exile devastated not only the religious life of a lot of the country, with its established rituals and rhythms, but also a key component of welfare to the poor, without a national public welfare program to replace that which was lost.
4. I also appreciated that, in reflecting on the Terror, he (a) laid out the antecedents (the Girondins' push to declare war on Austria and England; the early military struggles; the rebellion in the Vendee) and (b) clearly rejected the idea that Robespierre was solely--or almost solely--responsible for it. I thought he put together a strong thesis that much of the country was okay with the Terror while the military struggled and the internal civil war in the Vendee raged. As the French army began to win and make advances, and the Vendee revolt was subdued, many no longer saw a need for terror; unfortunately for Robespierre, Saint-Just and their ideological companions, they didn't (or couldn't) change their perspective on the necessity of the Terror.
But there are drawbacks that make me hesitant to rate this more highly:
1. McPhee has a tendency to introduce a term of art without defining it. Thus, he begins making frequent references to "deputy/deputies-on-mission," but never explains what that means. I've Googled the term, so I now understand that the phrase refers to members of the Legislative Assembly and National Convention deputed to enforce law and order in the departements or army. He also begins referring to the "Year One/Two/Three," again without explanation. Again, Google helped me to understand that Year One referred to 1792 (though it's not entirely clear if Year One starts on Mar. 21st--the first day of the month of Germinal in the Revolutionary calendar). But I shouldn't have to look this sort of thing up when reading a popular history.
2. As much as I appreciate his focus on the whole of France, and not just Paris, it gets confusing when he refers to specific villages/towns/departementes without more information/context. I don't know where most of these places are or how they are typical/atypical. Along a similar vein, he has a tendency to elucidate his argument by throwing out statistics for specific areas (e.g., "20 priests refused to take the oath") without contextualizing it--for example, what was the total number of priests in the area? how did that compare to areas immediately around it/farther away? Without meaningful context, it just comes across as a bunch of names/numbers.
3. McPhee devotes three chapters to the Terror, which is one of the more dramatic and tragic Revolutionary periods, but the chapters are comparatively dull. I'm not looking for narrative drama ("It's a far, far better thing . . . .") or sensationalism, but it's weird to feel like I have to slog through this period. For example, the trials/executions of the Hebertistes and Dantonists are disposed of briefly, in a couple of paragraphs or so for each. But, these trials indicated that, by this point in the Terror, not even members of the Convention were safe; I didn't get any sense of whether Convention members were afraid for themselves or perfectly find with what was happening.
4. As the history progressed, I found it harder and harder to read a chapter in one sitting. At some point, the detail--in people and place names, in numbers and statistics, in differing ideologies--became overwhelming, and I couldn't take it in except in small doses.
1. McPhee focuses on the Revolution throughout France, and not simply on Parisian events. This gives a helpful perspective of where the Revolution was welcome and where it was resisted (or, if initially welcomed, where that welcome changed).
2. He gives one of the most coherent explanations of ancien regime finances/economics that I have ever read. I always dread the lead-in chapters of a history of the Revolution because Royalist economic policy was so convoluted and confusing. I'm certainly not a master of the subject now, but I felt as if I finally had a handle on what was so crazy about the system.
3. He tends to focus on themes in each chapter, then sums them up at the end of the chapter, and does follow through with them in later chapters. Sometimes this is a drawback, but it could also be quite helpful. For example, he clearly feels that the move to make the Catholic Church an organ of the state, and require priests to be "constitutional" priests who embrace the Revolution's ideals and reject Catholic hierarchies, was decisive in turning a significant portion of the country against the Revolution. After laying out this theme, he followed up later to talk about the ways that forcing "non-juring" priests (e.g., those priests who wouldn't take the required oath to the constitution) into exile devastated not only the religious life of a lot of the country, with its established rituals and rhythms, but also a key component of welfare to the poor, without a national public welfare program to replace that which was lost.
4. I also appreciated that, in reflecting on the Terror, he (a) laid out the antecedents (the Girondins' push to declare war on Austria and England; the early military struggles; the rebellion in the Vendee) and (b) clearly rejected the idea that Robespierre was solely--or almost solely--responsible for it. I thought he put together a strong thesis that much of the country was okay with the Terror while the military struggled and the internal civil war in the Vendee raged. As the French army began to win and make advances, and the Vendee revolt was subdued, many no longer saw a need for terror; unfortunately for Robespierre, Saint-Just and their ideological companions, they didn't (or couldn't) change their perspective on the necessity of the Terror.
But there are drawbacks that make me hesitant to rate this more highly:
1. McPhee has a tendency to introduce a term of art without defining it. Thus, he begins making frequent references to "deputy/deputies-on-mission," but never explains what that means. I've Googled the term, so I now understand that the phrase refers to members of the Legislative Assembly and National Convention deputed to enforce law and order in the departements or army. He also begins referring to the "Year One/Two/Three," again without explanation. Again, Google helped me to understand that Year One referred to 1792 (though it's not entirely clear if Year One starts on Mar. 21st--the first day of the month of Germinal in the Revolutionary calendar). But I shouldn't have to look this sort of thing up when reading a popular history.
2. As much as I appreciate his focus on the whole of France, and not just Paris, it gets confusing when he refers to specific villages/towns/departementes without more information/context. I don't know where most of these places are or how they are typical/atypical. Along a similar vein, he has a tendency to elucidate his argument by throwing out statistics for specific areas (e.g., "20 priests refused to take the oath") without contextualizing it--for example, what was the total number of priests in the area? how did that compare to areas immediately around it/farther away? Without meaningful context, it just comes across as a bunch of names/numbers.
3. McPhee devotes three chapters to the Terror, which is one of the more dramatic and tragic Revolutionary periods, but the chapters are comparatively dull. I'm not looking for narrative drama ("It's a far, far better thing . . . .") or sensationalism, but it's weird to feel like I have to slog through this period. For example, the trials/executions of the Hebertistes and Dantonists are disposed of briefly, in a couple of paragraphs or so for each. But, these trials indicated that, by this point in the Terror, not even members of the Convention were safe; I didn't get any sense of whether Convention members were afraid for themselves or perfectly find with what was happening.
4. As the history progressed, I found it harder and harder to read a chapter in one sitting. At some point, the detail--in people and place names, in numbers and statistics, in differing ideologies--became overwhelming, and I couldn't take it in except in small doses.
February 16, 2020
This book was written by an Australian. France is big. Really big. So mind-crunchingly large that most people's understanding of the French revolution is worshiping an idol of reason in a church. But France is big. So big that sometimes the priests were left more or less alone, and some times the bells were melted down for bullets. This book has many details and funny names. They make it easier to stay awake. I read this ostensibly to study for the FSOT. Whether this was a good idea remains to be seen.
I started writing a poem with a meter scheme I made up in order to stay awake while reading:
Killed, caught, directors dropped
At the Rhune of Rastadt princes were paid
A Rangle army burst Batavia
Bonaparte brought his brother battlers
consuling constitution not Nivose
Dispowering prefects procedural
dictating tritely tutelage
Austrians at Allessandria all
most at Morengo, Moreau at Munich
both beaten as Brittain on the borders
Proposing peace with pope and parishes
pressure of power preserved this peace
the break with bourbon burgeoned citizens
Persuasion politic for factional
fraternities for Frenchification
Markers of money cut clearer Culottes
Provinces parasite, Arras, Angers
men's motion mended dies destitute
Ronceray wrtechtes tax laden laborers
legal loss of nobles, notables not
dominant dispenser of seignoural sweate
retained reward tall proud peasants.
Mill monopolies regally resigned
Bayeux, Balleroy, parishes unpriest
republic not replacing the monarch
revolving does not remove ritual
mental markers of elite entrenched
mobs made the man's strong sovereignty so
Malesherbes Louis' Lawyer was lowered
Lafayette gave Washington the keys to the Bastille "as a son to my adoptive father, as an aide-de-camp to my general" (87). Washington told Lafayette that France would be an example for all of Europe (87). He was wrong. Europe would unite to stop France (367). If Washington had had a more detached view of Lafayette, he might have been more skeptical of his actions. In this respect, his personal relationship to Lafayette clouded his judgment and placed a seal of approval on a reign of terror.
I started writing a poem with a meter scheme I made up in order to stay awake while reading:
Killed, caught, directors dropped
At the Rhune of Rastadt princes were paid
A Rangle army burst Batavia
Bonaparte brought his brother battlers
consuling constitution not Nivose
Dispowering prefects procedural
dictating tritely tutelage
Austrians at Allessandria all
most at Morengo, Moreau at Munich
both beaten as Brittain on the borders
Proposing peace with pope and parishes
pressure of power preserved this peace
the break with bourbon burgeoned citizens
Persuasion politic for factional
fraternities for Frenchification
Markers of money cut clearer Culottes
Provinces parasite, Arras, Angers
men's motion mended dies destitute
Ronceray wrtechtes tax laden laborers
legal loss of nobles, notables not
dominant dispenser of seignoural sweate
retained reward tall proud peasants.
Mill monopolies regally resigned
Bayeux, Balleroy, parishes unpriest
republic not replacing the monarch
revolving does not remove ritual
mental markers of elite entrenched
mobs made the man's strong sovereignty so
Malesherbes Louis' Lawyer was lowered
Lafayette gave Washington the keys to the Bastille "as a son to my adoptive father, as an aide-de-camp to my general" (87). Washington told Lafayette that France would be an example for all of Europe (87). He was wrong. Europe would unite to stop France (367). If Washington had had a more detached view of Lafayette, he might have been more skeptical of his actions. In this respect, his personal relationship to Lafayette clouded his judgment and placed a seal of approval on a reign of terror.
November 23, 2020
This was good. I particularly liked how McPhee used the experiences of common people during the revolution to give us insight into what it was like for the regular people living through it, including correspondence and family histories of these people, which I thought was unconventional, but a brilliant idea.
My main complaint with the book is with his treatment of the more central “historical” figures at the heart of the Paris conventions. With the exception of Robespierre, who is given plenty of ink to introduce and develop through the arc of the story, hardly any of the other legislators or prominent figures are given much detail. Often times, he will simply list people who were involved in a critical event, but without having given the reader any context into who these people are, or what they have been doing during the Revolutionary period. As such, it can be quite hard to keep track of who is who—instead you feel inundated with a revolving door of names, none of which have any personality attached to them. I read this book after listening to the “Revolutions” podcast’s season on the French Revolution, and while I appreciate that McPhee is operating with far stricter spatial constraints (that podcast season was probably north of 60 hours long), I found that even coming to this book with that previous familiarity with the subject matter, I often felt disoriented with respect to the central figures of the Revolution, and who exactly was doing what.
Perhaps though, this was a conscious decision to be less a story about the “historical” people at the heart of legislation, and frame this account more from the perspective of the people who actually had to live through the ramifications and events that the Paris legislators created across the country. As I said, I think he does a good job of portraying that, but still, I can’t help but wish he’d given a little more exposition to some of the central figures of the narrative; if not as effusive as what he affords Robespierre, at least something halfway, so we have more of a mental image of these people.
My main complaint with the book is with his treatment of the more central “historical” figures at the heart of the Paris conventions. With the exception of Robespierre, who is given plenty of ink to introduce and develop through the arc of the story, hardly any of the other legislators or prominent figures are given much detail. Often times, he will simply list people who were involved in a critical event, but without having given the reader any context into who these people are, or what they have been doing during the Revolutionary period. As such, it can be quite hard to keep track of who is who—instead you feel inundated with a revolving door of names, none of which have any personality attached to them. I read this book after listening to the “Revolutions” podcast’s season on the French Revolution, and while I appreciate that McPhee is operating with far stricter spatial constraints (that podcast season was probably north of 60 hours long), I found that even coming to this book with that previous familiarity with the subject matter, I often felt disoriented with respect to the central figures of the Revolution, and who exactly was doing what.
Perhaps though, this was a conscious decision to be less a story about the “historical” people at the heart of legislation, and frame this account more from the perspective of the people who actually had to live through the ramifications and events that the Paris legislators created across the country. As I said, I think he does a good job of portraying that, but still, I can’t help but wish he’d given a little more exposition to some of the central figures of the narrative; if not as effusive as what he affords Robespierre, at least something halfway, so we have more of a mental image of these people.
July 17, 2025
Before I get into anything, I should note that the French Revolution spanned a very long decade, within a vaster context, and most comprehensive histories exceed a thousand pages. Liberty or Death has managed a succinct 370. Succinct was exactly what I was looking for: a simple primer so that I could obtain a general knowledge before diving deeper into more niche areas of interest.
Liberty or Death is not a primer, or at least not a successful one. McPhee’s aim with his book was to represent the entire revolution across all of France (i.e., the underrepresented provinces). He is, I think, successful, but not effective. In attempting to capture so much in so little space, McPhee creates a rather disjointed narrative. He jumps higher and thither from place-to-place; person-to-person; paragraph-to-paragraph; sentence-to-sentence: all in too-rapid succession. It’s difficult to follow. Not much is paid sufficient attention, and the significance of certain events is consequently lost. One comes away with only vague knowledge of happenings, attitudes, and statistics.
Nonetheless, I do admire McPhee as an authority in his field. He treats fairly every perspective, gives the good and the bad, and does not appear to take sides. He is a just and honest historian, and I’d like to read his more focused work in the future (especially Robespierre: A Revolutionary Life).
In short, I’d describe Liberty or Death as a fair, broad, but disjointed history. It served its purpose, but in the time that it took me to push through it, I think I would have been better off reading something longer and more attentive.
June 4, 2019
French Revolution was the greatest ‘serves you right’ moment in history. Kingdom of France supports to American Revolutionaries against the British Empire during the American Revolutionary War backfired spectacularly for the french, for it burdened the kingdom with economic hardships and exposed the inadequacy of the Ancien Regime. Armed with the mantra, “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”, french revolutionaries set upon a quest to build a whole new world free from the tyrannies of the old. However, the revolution, consumed by fear of saboteurs among its own people and and foreign conspiracies to restore the old system, quickly descended into reign of terror, in which so many heads rolled, which only ended with the severing of Jacques Robespierre’s head. Afterwards, command was taken by The Directory, which sought to moderate the excesses of earlier time, yet mistakenly shifted its focus towards exporting the revolution all around europe, ironically giving popular and powerful military figure like Napoleon Bonaparte way to take over.
Overall, for a book that take on a series of important events, the author had done a good job in compressing about a decade of French Revolution into something that is coherent and flowing to read. However, I get the feeling that many important events are only given a passing glances, one paragraph at its best, which put a damp in my enthusiasm in this book.
Overall, for a book that take on a series of important events, the author had done a good job in compressing about a decade of French Revolution into something that is coherent and flowing to read. However, I get the feeling that many important events are only given a passing glances, one paragraph at its best, which put a damp in my enthusiasm in this book.
May 9, 2022
I picked this up as my first book on the French revolution. Mostly I read US and 20th century history. If you think that you will be reading an exciting tale of Danton, Robespierre, Marat and Napoleon you are mistaken. These icons of the books and movies of our popular culture are scarcely mentioned. What we have here is a social/economic history of France between 1789 and about 1800. It is packed with obscure names and places. One is constantly being sent off to Wikipedia for clarification of what a Girondine is and how the French parliament works and many other unfamiliar terms that the author simply assumes that you are aware of. Still, it's a great read and it inspires me to go back to the library for another book on the subject. Well, of course the topic is far too extensive for only one book. It reminds how I have read two books on Andrew Jackson, one of which never mentions Indians and the other never mentions Banks. Time is short and there isn't enough of it to read everything. If you don't have the time or inclination to probe this deep into study of cultural themes rather than personal biography at least go to the library and read the last chapter which seems to me (the new comer to the French revolution) to be an excellent summary of the world before the French revolution and the world after. It ties in nicely with 1848, Year of Revolution by Michael Rapport. Which of course leads to the Franco Prussian War and all that follows.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews