How Did the Linguistic Turn Again Change Accounts of the French Revolution

The historiography of the French Revolution stretches back over two hundred years, equally commentators and historians have sought to respond questions regarding the origins of the Revolution, and its meaning and effects. By the year 2000, many historians were maxim that the field of the French Revolution was in intellectual disarray. The quondam model or image focusing on course conflict has been challenged but no new explanatory model had gained widespread support.^[1] ^[ii] Withal, in that location persists a very widespread agreement to the event that the French Revolution was the watershed between the premodern and modernistic eras of Western history.^[three]

Contemporary and 19th-century historians [edit]

The literature in French is vast, and in English language quite substantial.^[four]

Adolphe Thiers and French historians [edit]

The kickoff major work on the Revolution by a French historian was published between 1823 and 1827 past Adolphe Thiers. His historic Histoire de la Révolution française, in ten volumes, founded his literary reputation and launched his political career. The complete piece of work of x volumes sold ten thousand sets, an enormous number for the time. It went through four more editions. Thiers' history was particularly pop in liberal circles and amid younger Parisians. Written during the Restoration, when the tricolor flag and singing the Marseillaise were forbidden, the book praised the principles, leaders and accomplishments of the 1789 Revolution; the articulate heroes were Mirabeau, Lafayette, and other moderate leaders. It condemned Marat, Robespierre and the other radical leaders, and likewise condemned the monarchy, aristocracy and clergy for their inability to modify. The book played a notable role in undermining the legitimacy of the Bourbon authorities of Charles Ten, and bringing nearly the July Revolution of 1830. Thiers went on to go a Deputy, twice Prime Minister, and the offset president of the Third French Democracy. He also headed the French government in 1871 which suppressed the Paris Commune.^[5]

Thiers' history of the Revolution was praised by the French authors Chateaubriand, Stendhal, and Sainte-Beuve, was translated into English language (1838) and Spanish (1889), and won him a seat in the Académie française in 1834.^[6] It was less appreciated by British critics, in large part considering of his favorable view of the French Revolution and of Napoleon Bonaparte. The British historian Thomas Carlyle, who wrote his own history of the French Revolution, complained that it "was far as possible from meriting its high reputation", though he admitted that Thiers is "a brisk human in his way, and volition tell yous much if you know zero." The British historian Hugh Chisholm wrote in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, "Thiers' historical work is marked by extreme inaccuracy, past prejudice which passes the limits of accidental unfairness, and by an almost consummate indifference to the merits as compared with the successes of his heroes."^[seven] ^{[ full citation needed ]}

Attacks from the right [edit]

The constant stream of major books began with Edmund Shush's Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). In information technology he established the conservative stream of opinion, wherein even the revolution of July 1789 went "too far". His book is not so much studied today equally part of Revolution studies, just rather equally a classic of conservative political philosophy. In French republic, conspiracy theories were rife in the highly charged political temper, with the Abbé Barruel, in perhaps the most influential piece of work Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism (1797–1798), arguing that Freemasons and other dissidents had been responsible for an attempt to destroy the monarchy and the Cosmic Church.^[eight] Hippolyte Taine (1828–1893) was among the more conservative of the originators of social history. His most famous work is his Origines de la France Contemporaine (1875–1893).

From 1833 to 1842, the prolific British author Sir Archibald Alison wrote and published a ten-volume history of the Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, called History of Europe from the Starting time of the French Revolution in 1789 to the Restoration of the Bourbons in 1815. His view was markedly conservative and quite akin to that which Shush held; Alison saw the practical use of theoretical Enlightenment ideas as foolhardy and unsafe. The immense work was highly popular in its time despite its writer's notorious wordiness.

Many minor studies appeared, such equally The French Revolution: A Study in Democracy past British writer Nesta Webster, published in 1919. It advanced the theory that the progress of the French Revolution was considerably influenced by a conspiracy conducted by "the lodges of the German language Freemasons and Illuminati".^[9] ^{[ meliorate source needed ]} ^{[ undue weight? – talk over ]}

Liberal back up for 1789–1791 [edit]

A simplified description of the liberal approach to the Revolution was typically to back up the achievements of the constitutional monarchy of the National Assembly but disown the subsequently actions of radical violence similar the invasion of the Tuileries and the Terror. French historians of the first half of the 19th century like the politician and man of letters François Guizot (1787–1874), historian François Mignet (published Histoire de la Révolution française in 1824), and famous philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville (L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution, 1856) established and wrote in this tradition.

Jules Michelet (1798–1874) – His Histoire de la Révolution française, published after the Revolution of 1848, is a major history. Historian François Furet, a leader of the Annales School, argues that his multivolume history remains "the cornerstone of all revolutionary historiography and is also a literary monument."^[10] His aphoristic style emphasized his anti-clerical republicanism.

Others in the 19th century [edit]

Other French historians in the 19th-century include:

Louis Blanc (1811–1882) – Blanc's thirteen-volume Histoire de la Révolution française (1847–1862) displays utopian socialist views, and sympathizes with Jacobinism.
Théodore Gosselin (1855–1935) – Better known by the pseudonym "One thousand. Lenotre".
Albert Sorel (1842–1906) – Diplomatic historian; L'Europe et la Révolution française (8 volumes, 1895–1904); introductory section of this piece of work translated equally Europe nether the Quondam Regime (1947).
Edgar Quinet (1803–1875) – Belatedly Romantic anti-Cosmic nationalist.

Thomas Carlyle [edit]

One of the well-nigh famous English works on the Revolution remains Thomas Carlyle's iii-volume The French Revolution, A History (1837) [1]. It is a romantic work, both in style and viewpoint. Passionate in his concern for the poor and in his interest in the fears and hopes of revolution, he (while reasonably historically accurate) is frequently more concerned with conveying his impression of the hopes and aspirations of people (and his opposition to ossified ideology – "formulas" or "Isms" – every bit he called them) than with strict adherence to fact. The undoubted passion and intensity of the text may also exist due to the famous incident where he sent the completed typhoon of the first volume to John Stuart Mill for comment, but for Factory's maid to accidentally burn the volume to ashes, forcing Carlyle to start from scratch. He wrote to Ralph Waldo Emerson that the writing of the book was the "dreadfulest labor [he] ever undertook".^[11]

Anarchists [edit]

In 1909, Peter Kropotkin, a Russian anarchist, published The Great French Revolution, which attempts to round out the political approach with the perspective and contribution to the Revolution of the common human being.

Alphonse Aulard and bookish studies [edit]

Alphonse Aulard (1849–1928) was the showtime professional historian of the Revolution; he promoted graduate studies, scholarly editions, and learned journals.^[12] ^[xiii] His appointment to the Sorbonne was promoted and funded by Republicans in the national and Paris governments, but he was not himself involved in party politics. He promoted a republican, bourgeois, and anticlerical view of the revolution. From 1886 he taught at the Sorbonne, trained advanced students, founded the Société de l'Histoire de la Révolution, and edited the scholarly journal La Révolution française. He assembled and published many key main sources. He professionalized scholarship in the field, moving away from the literary multi-book studies aimed at an upscale general public, promoting special political ideals, that had characterized writing on the Revolution earlier the 1880s. Instead his work was aimed at boyfriend scholars and researchers. His broad interpretation argued:

From the social betoken of view, the Revolution consisted in the suppression of what was called the feudal arrangement, in the emancipation of the private, in greater division of landed belongings, the abolition of the privileges of noble nascence, the institution of equality, the simplification of life.... The French Revolution differed from other revolutions in being not just national, for it aimed at benefiting all humanity."^[14]

Aulard's historiography was based on positivism. The assumption was that methodology was earth-shaking and the historian'south duty was to present in chronological club the duly verified facts, to analyze relations between facts, and provide the almost probable interpretation. Total documentation based on research in the primary sources was essential. He took the lead in training advanced students in the proper use and analysis of master sources. Aulard's famous four volume history of the Revolution focused on technical issues.^[15]

Aulard's books favored the study of parliamentary debates, not action in the street; institutions, not insurrections. He emphasized public opinion, elections, parties, parliamentary majorities, and legislation. He recognized the complications that prevented the Revolution from fulfilling all its platonic promises – as when the legislators of 1793 made suffrage universal for all French men, just also established the dictatorship of the Terror.^[xvi]

Marxist/Archetype interpretation [edit]

The dominating approach to the French Revolution in historical scholarship in the first half of the 20th century was the Marxist, or Archetype, approach. This view sees the French Revolution as an essentially bourgeois revolution, marked by course struggle and resulting in a victory of the bourgeoisie. Influenced past socialist politician Jean Jaurès and historian Albert Mathiez (who broke with his instructor Aulard regarding class conflict), historians on the left led past Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul developed this view.

Lefebvre was inspired by Jaurès and came to the field from a mildly socialist viewpoint. His massive and reputation-making thesis, Les paysans du Nord (1924), was an account of the Revolution among provincial peasants. He connected to research along these lines, publishing The Great Fearfulness of 1789 (1932, first English translation 1973), about the panic and violence which spread throughout rural France in the summer of 1789. His work largely approaches the Revolution "from below", favouring explanations in terms of classes. His most famous work was Quatre-Vingt-Neuf (literally 80-Nine, published in 1939 and translated into English equally The Coming of the French Revolution, 1947). This skilfully and persuasively argued work interprets the Revolution through a Marxist lens: outset there is the "aloof revolution" of the Assembly of Notables and the Paris Parlement in 1788; then the "bourgeois revolution" of the 3rd Estate; the "popular revolution", symbolised by the fall of the Bastille; and the "peasant revolution", represented by the "Neat Fright" in the provinces and the called-for of châteaux. (Alternately, one can view 1788 as the aristocratic revolution, 1789 the bourgeois revolution, and 1792/three the popular revolution). This interpretation sees a rising backer middle-class overthrow a dying-out feudal aristocratic ruling caste, and held the field for almost twenty years.^[17] His major publication was La Révolution française (1957, translated and published in English in two volumes, 1962–1967). This, and especially his later piece of work on Napoleon and the Directory, remains highly regarded.^[eighteen]

Some other influential French historians of this menstruation:

Ernest Labrousse (1895–1988) – Performed extensive economical enquiry on 18th-century France.
Albert Soboul (1914–1982) – Performed exhaustive inquiry on the lower classes of the Revolution; his most famous piece of work is The Sans-Culottes (1968).
George Rudé (1910–1993) – Some other of Lefebvre's protégés, did farther work on the popular side of the Revolution: The Crowd in the French Revolution (1959) is i of his most famous works.
Daniel Guérin (1904–1988) – An anarchist, he is highly disquisitional of the Jacobins.

Some of the meaning conservative French historians of this period include:

Pierre Gaxotte (1895–1982) – Royalist: The French Revolution (1928).
Augustin Cochin (1876–1916) – Attributed the origins of the Revolution to activities of the intelligentsia.^[19]
Albert Sorel (1842–1906) – Diplomatic historian: Europe et la Révolution française (viii volumes, 1895–1904); introductory section of this work translated every bit Europe nether the One-time Authorities (1947).

The following five scholars have served as Chairs in the History of the French Revolution at the Sorbonne:

Hippolyte Taine
F.A. Aulard – 1891 (for more than thirty years)
Georges Lefebvre – 1937–1959
Albert Soboul – 1967–1982
Michel Vovelle – 1982

Revisionism and modern work [edit]

"Revisionism" in this context means the rejection of the Orthodox/Marxist model of a revolution carried out by the bourgeoisie against the elite on the right, with intervention from the proletariat pushing it to the left. J. B. Shank finds that 21st century trends include a broader range of topics regarding the effects of the Revolution, and a more global perspective. He cites heavy utilise of the Cyberspace, resources such equally the H-France daily discussion email list,^[xx] and use of digital sources to browse through massive amounts of text.^[21]

Alfred Cobban [edit]

In 1954, Alfred Cobban used his inaugural lecture as Professor of French History at the University of London to attack what he called the "social interpretation" of the French Revolution. The lecture was later published as "The Myth of the French Revolution", but his seminal work arguing this indicate was The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution (1963). It was published in French translation only in 1984. His chief bespeak was that bullwork had long since disappeared in France; that the Revolution did not transform French lodge, and that it was principally a political revolution, not a social ane every bit Lefebvre and others insisted.^[22]

Although dismissed and attacked by the mainstream journals at first, Cobban was persistent and determined, and his arroyo was shortly supported and modified by a flood of new research both within and outside French republic. American historian George V. Taylor'southward research established that the suburbia of the Tertiary Estate were not quite the budding capitalists they were made out to be; indeed Taylor showed the aristocrats were just as entrepreneurial if not more and then. John McManners, Jean Egret, Franklin Ford and others wrote on the divided and circuitous situation of the nobility in pre-revolutionary France. The most meaning opposition to arise in France was that of Annales historians François Furet, Denis Richet, and Mona Ozouf. Furet in the 1960s worked in terms of the Annales School, which locates the 1789 revolution in a "long" history of 19th century revolutionary France.

Richard Cobb [edit]

Another seminal figure in the revisionism fence is the Francophile Englishman Richard Cobb, who has produced a number of immensely detailed studies of both provincial and city life, fugitive the revisionism fence by "keeping his nose very close to the basis".^[23] Les armées révolutionnaires (1968, translated every bit The People's Armies in 1987) is his well-nigh famous work.

William Doyle [edit]

William Doyle, professor at Bristol Academy, has published The Origins of the French Revolution (1988) and a revisionist history, The Oxford History of the French Revolution (2d edition 2002). Some other historian working in this tradition is Keith Michael Bakery. A collection of his essays (Inventing the French Revolution, 1990) examines the ideological origins of the Revolution.

Timothy Tackett [edit]

Timothy Tackett in particular has changed approach, preferring archival research to historiographical dialectics. He challenges the ideas about nobility and bourgeoise in Becoming a Revolutionary (2006), a "commonage biography" via letters and diaries of the tertiary estate deputies of 1789. His other major work is When the King Took Flight (2004), a report of the rising of republicanism and radicalism in the Legislative Associates in 1791-2. Tackett also has several works focusing on Reign of Terror, The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution (2015), and the psychology behind the paranoia affecting the Committee of Public Safety during the Terror. These insights provide a deeper look into how and why this result happened.^[24]

Simon Schama [edit]

Simon Schama's Citizens: A Relate of the French Revolution (1989) is a pop, generally moderate/conservative history of the menstruum. It is ostensibly a narrative of "Persons" and "Events", and more in the tradition of Carlyle than Tocqueville and Lefebvre.^[25] Its narrative- while massive- focuses on the virtually visible leaders of the Revolution, even through its more "popular" phases. The book's allegiance is to historical literary styles rather than schools. Thus Schama is simultaneously able to deny the existence of a so-called "bourgeois" revolution, reserve apotheoses for Robespierre, Louis Sixteen, and the sans-culottes alike, and apply historical nuance to a degree ordinarily associated with more liberal historians. Borrowing from the Romantics for imagery (the introduction closely follows that of Michelet'southward "History..."), "Citizens" also argues against the Romantics' belief in the necessity of the Revolution. Schama concentrates on the early years of the Revolution, the Republic simply taking upwardly about a 5th of the book. He also places increased accent on insurrectionary violence in Paris and violence in general, challenge that it was "non the unfortunate by-product of revolution, [merely] the source of its energy."^[26]

Lynn Hunt and feminism [edit]

Lynn Chase, though often characterized every bit a feminist interpreter of the Revolution, is a historian working in the wake of the revisionists. Her major works include Politics, Civilization, and Class in the French Revolution (1984), and The Family Romance of the French Revolution (1992), both interpretative works. The former focuses on the cosmos of a new democratic political culture from scratch, assigning the Revolution's greatest pregnant here, in a political culture.^[27] In the latter study she works with a somewhat Freudian interpretation, the political Revolution equally a whole being seen as an enormous dysfunctional family haunted past patricide: Louis every bit begetter, Marie-Antoinette as female parent, and the revolutionaries every bit an unruly mob of brothers.^[28]

François Furet [edit]

François Furet (1927–1997) was the leading figure in the rejection of the "classic" or "Marxist" interpretation. Desan (2000) stated he "seemed to sally the victor from the bicentennial, both in the media and in historiographic debates."^[29] A disillusioned ex-Communist, he published his La Révolution Française in 1965–66. It marked his transition from revolutionary leftist politics to liberal middle-left position, and reflected his ties to the social-science-oriented Annales School.^[30] He then moved to the right, re-examining the Revolution from the perspective of 20th century totalitarianism (as exemplified by Hitler and Stalin). His Penser la Révolution Française (1978; translated every bit Interpreting the French Revolution 1981) was an influential volume that led many intellectuals to reevaluate Communism and the Revolution as inherently totalitarian and anti-autonomous. Looking at modern French Communism he stressed the close resemblance between the 1960s and 1790s, with both favoring the inflexible and rote ideological soapbox in party cells where decisions were made unanimously in a manipulated direct democracy. Furet further suggested that popularity of the Far Left to many French intellectuals was itself a consequence of their delivery to the ideals of the French Revolution.^[31] Working much of the year at the University of Chicago after 1979, Furet also rejected the Annales Schoolhouse, with its accent on very long-term structural factors, and emphasized intellectual history. Influenced by Alexis de Tocqueville and Augustin Cochin, Furet argues that Frenchmen must stop seeing the revolution every bit the key to all aspects of modern French history.^[32] His works include Interpreting the French Revolution (1981), a historiographical overview of what has preceded him and A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution (1989).^[33] ^[34]

Others [edit]

Some other modern historians include:

Marcel Gauchet (b. 1946) – Author of La Révolution des droits de l'homme (1989) and La Révolution des pouvoirs (1995).
Patrice Higonnet – Writer of Goodness Beyond Virtue: Jacobins in the French Revolution (1998).
Owen Connelly (1924–2011) – The French Revolution and Napoleonic Era (1993).
Henry Heller – Author of "The Bourgeois Revolution in France: 1789–1815"; his work maintains a defence of the Classic (Marxist) Interpretation of the Revolution.
Alan Forrest (historian) (b. 1945) - Writer of The French Revolution (1995) and numerous works on the social and military history.
Olwen Hufton (b. 1938) – Writes on women in history; her master piece of work on the Revolution is Women and the Limits of Citizenship in the French Revolution (1999).
Dale K. Van Kley (b. 1941) – Historian of religion, particularly in 18th century French republic.^[35]
Marking Steel (b. 1960) – Columnist and comedian; authored the humorous and accessible Vive La Revolution (2003).

Bibliography [edit]

Works mentioned, by date of beginning publication:

Burke, Edmund (1790). Reflections on the Revolution in French republic. Printed for J. Dodsley ...
Barruel, Augustin (1797). Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire du Jacobinisme. Fauche.
Thiers, Adolphe (1823–1827). Histoire de la Révolution française.
Mignet, François (1824). Histoire de la Révolution française.
Guizot, François (1830). Histoire de la civilisation en French republic. Paris, Pichon.
Carlyle, Thomas (1837). The French Revolution: A History.
Michelet, Jules (1847–1856). Histoire de la Révolution française.
Tocqueville, Alexis de (1856). L'Ancien régime et la révolution. Lévy. Ordinarily translated as The Former Regime and the French Revolution.
Blanc, Louis (1847–1862). Histoire de la Révolution française.
Taine, Hippolyte (1875–1893). Origines de la France contemporaine.
Sorel, Albert (19 Apr 1895). L'Europe et la Révolution française. Introductory part translated as Europe nether the Old Regime (1947).
Aulard, François-Alphonse. The French Revolution, a Political History, 1789–1804 (4 vol. 3rd ed. 1901; English translation 1910); book 1 1789–1792 online; Book two 1792–95 online
Webster, Nesta (1919). The French Revolution – A Study in Republic.
Mathiez, Albert (1922–27). La Révolution française. Paris, Colin.
Lefebvre, Georges (1924). Les paysans du Nord.
Cochin, Augustin (1925). Les Sociétés de pensée et la Révolution en Bretagne.
Gaxotte, Pierre (1928). La Révolution française.
Lefebvre, Georges (1932). La Grande Peur de 1789. Translated equally The Great Fear of 1789 (1973).
Lefebvre, Georges (1939). Quatre-Vingt-Neuf. Translated every bit The Coming of the French Revolution (1947).
Guérin, Daniel (1946). La lutte de classes sous la Première République.
Lefebvre, Georges (1957). La Révolution française. Translated in 2 volumes: The French Revolution from its origins to 1793 (1962), and The French Revolution from 1793 to 1799 (1967).
Rudé, George (1959). The Oversupply in the French Revolution.
Cobban, Alfred (1963). The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution. Cambridge.
Cobb, Richard (1968). Les armées révolutionnaires. Translated as The People's Armies (1987).
Soboul, Albert (1968). Les Sans-Culottes. Translated equally The Sans-Culottes (1972).
Furet, François (1978). Penser la Révolution française. Gallimard. Translated as Interpreting the French Revolution (1981).
Hunt, Lynn (1984). Politics, Civilization, and Class in the French Revolution . ISBN9780520052048.
Doyle, William (1988). Origins of the French Revolution. Oxford.
Doyle, William (1989). The Oxford History of the French Revolution. Oxford.
Furet, François; Mona Ozouf (1988). Dictionnaire critique de la Révolution Française. Translated every bit A Critical Lexicon of the French Revolution (1989).
Gauchet, Marcel (1989). La Révolution des droits de l'homme. Gallimard.
Schama, Simon (1989). Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. Knopf.
Baker, Keith Michael (1990). Inventing the French Revolution.
Chase, Lynn (1992). The Family Romance of the French Revolution .
Connelly, Owen (1993). The French Revolution and Napoleonic Era.
Van Kley, Dale K. (1996). The Religious Origins of the French Revolution.
Hufton, Olwen (1999). Women and the Limits of Citizenship in the French Revolution.
Steel, Mark (2003). Vive La Revolution.
Tackett, Timothy (2004). When the King Took Flight . ISBN9780674010543.
Tackett, Timothy (2006). Becoming a Revolutionary.
Heller, Henry (2006). The Bourgeois Revolution in France: 1789–1815.

References [edit]

^ Rebecca L. Spang, "Paradigms and Paranoia: How modern Is the French Revolution?" American Historical Review (2003) 108#1 pp. 119–47
^ Bong, David A. (2004). "Class, consciousness, and the fall of the bourgeois revolution". Critical Review. 16 (2–3): 323–51. doi:ten.1080/08913810408443613. S2CID 144241323.
^ Rebecca L. Spang, "Paradigms and Paranoia'
^ For a summary of the older studies see Alfred Cobban, "The Beginning of the French Revolution" History 30#111 (1945), pp. 90–98 online covers the older studies.
^ De la Croix de Castries 1983, pp. 44–45.
^ Guiral 1986, p. 41.
^ Chisholm 1911. sfn error: no target: CITEREFChisholm1911 (assistance)
^ Robert Tombs (1996). "Paranoia". France 1814–1914. London: Longman. p. 89. ISBN0-582-49314-5.
^ Webster, Nesta (1919). The French Revolution: A Report in Republic.
^ François Furet, Revolutionary France 1770–1880 (1992), p. 571
^ Quoted in John Hall Stewart, A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution, Macmillan, 1951.
^ François Furet and Mona Ozouf, ed. (1989). A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution. Harvard Upward. pp. 881–89. ISBN9780674177284.
^ Tendler, Joseph (2013). "Alphonse Aulard Revisited". European Review of History. 20 (4): 649–69. doi:10.1080/13507486.2012.763159. S2CID 143535928.
^ A. Aulard in Arthur Tilley, ed. (1922). Modern French republic. A Companion to French Studies. Cambridge UP. p. 115.
^ François-Alphonse Aulard, The French Revolution, a Political History, 1789–1804 (4 vol., 3rd ed. 1901; English ed. 1910); volume 1 1789–1792 online; Book ii 1792–95 online
^ Furet (1989)
^ William Doyle. The Origins of the French Revolution. Oxford Academy Press, 1988, pp. 8–9
^ Paul H. Beik, foreword to Georges Lefebvre, The French Revolution from its Origins to 1793, Columbia University Press, 1962
^ Kaplow, Jeffrey (1965). "Introduction". New Perspectives on the French Revolution: Readings in Historical Sociology. p. x.
^ See habitation page
^ Shank, J. B. (2009). "Is Information technology Really Over? The French Revolution 20 Years later the Bicentennial". French Historical Studies. 32 (4): 527–thirty. doi:x.1215/00161071-2009-007.
^ A. Cobban, The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution (1963)
^ David Troyansky, review of Hunt's Politics, Civilization, and Form. From The History Teacher, 20, 1 (November 1986), pp. 136–37
^ Tackett, Timothy (2000). "Conspiracy Obsession in a Time of Revolution: French Elites and the Origins of the Terror, 1789–1792". The American Historical Review. 105 (3): 691–713. doi:ten.2307/2651806. JSTOR 2651806.
^ Simon Schama, "Prologue", Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution, Knopf, 1988
^ Schama, Citizens, ch. 14 "September 1791 – Baronial 1792", p. iii "Marseillaise"
^ William H. Sewell. Review of Politics, Culture, and Form in the French Revolution by Lynn Hunt. Theory and Society, 15, half dozen (November 1986), pp. 915–17
^ Jeff Goodwin. Review of The Family unit Romance of the French Revolution by Lynn Hunt. Contemporary Sociology, 23, 1 (January 1994), pp. 71–72; quote from Madelyn Gutwirth. "Sacred Begetter; Profane Sons: Lynn Hunt's French Revolution". French Historical Studies, 19, two (Fall 1995), pp. 261–76
^ Suzanne Desan, "What'due south later on Political Civilisation? Contempo French Revolutionary Historiography," French Historical Studies, Volume 23, Number one, Winter 2000, pp. 163–96 in Project MUSE
^ Michael Scott Christofferson, "François Furet between History and Journalism, 1958–1965." French History, December 2001, Vol. 15 Issue 4, pp. 421–47
^ Michael Scott Christofferson, "An Antitotalitarian History of the French Revolution: Francois Furet'south Penser la Revolution francaise in the Intellectual Politics of the Late 1970s," French Historical Studies, Book 22, Number iv, Autumn 1999, pp. 557–611
^ James Friguglietti and Barry Rothaus, "Interpreting vs. Understanding the Revolution: François Furet and Albert Soboul," Consortium on Revolutionary Europe 1750–1850: Proceedings, 1987, (1987) Vol. 17, pp. 23–36
^ Claude Langlois, "Furet'due south Revolution," French Historical Studies, Autumn 1990, Vol. xvi Issue 4, pp. 766–76
^ Donals Sutherland, "An Assessment of the Writings of François Furet," French Historical Studies, Fall 1990, Vol. 16 Issue 4, pp. 784–91
^ Dale Van Kley Archived 24 Oct 2006 at the Wayback Car, Ohio State University

External links [edit]

French Revolution History in Hindi
H-France daily discussion email listing

murraydrinto.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_French_Revolution