|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
The Historians' French Revolution
| Article
# : |
16019 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
7 / 1989 |
6,853 Words |
| Author
: |
Jack Censer
Jack Censer is professor of history at George Mason University
and the author of Prelude to Power: The Parisian Radical Press
1789-1791 |
The tumultuous political storms of the French Revolution as well as the complexity of the event have made agreement elusive among generations of historians. This article intends to analyze a school of thought--generally framed by the Frenchman Francois Furet--that currently seems in the ascendant.
To place Furet's work in context requires a brief survey of twentieth-century historiography. Although the first quarter of this century witnessed various approaches, including that of the rather conservative Augustin Cochin (1876-1916) as well as that of the socialist leader Jean Jaures (1859-1914), the most visible battle in this period was the struggle between Alphonse Aulard (1849-1928) and Albert Mathiez (1874-1932).
Like many other scholars of his day, Aulard ignored social and economic factors and focused on ideas and politics. In his best-known book The French Revolution: A Political History, he approvingly chronicled the rise of republicanism. But what is most notable about Aulard's work was his overwhelming commitment to Georges Danton rather than to Maximilien Robespierre as the representative man of the Revolution. Aulard and his followers were especially concerned about rescuing Danton's reputation from charges of corruption. All these positions fitted well with Aulard's political commitment to a moderate Third Republic. By cheering on revolutionary republicanism and giving it the more human face of Danton, Aulard could praise a regime vaguely akin to the republic of his own day.
Matheiz, who had been Aulard's student, broke with his mentor in nearly every way. Interested in social and economic more than political theory, Mathiez identified with the Jacobin dictatorship. Mathiez's politics--sometimes socialist, occasionally communist--doubtless reinforced his historical perspective. In Robespierre's rhetorical claims for equality, Mathiez could find intimations of his own twentieth-century position.
Although Aulard and Mathiez both demonstrated extraordinary mastery of the historical sources, the tendency of each to lionize his personal hero made their work often unconvincing. Such history seemed to approach propaganda and encouraged the emergence of an entirely new set of consideration. It was mainly the avowedly Marxist George Lefebvre (1874-1959) who supplied fresh perspective in the 1930s. This historical vision, whose later champions would include Albert Soboul (1914-1982), generally maintained--like other Marxists--that class antagonisms led to the founding of a new order. Specifically, argued Lefebvre, the
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
