What do you think?
Rate this book
The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution
Between 1793 and 1794, thousands of French citizens were imprisoned and hundreds sent to the guillotine by a powerful dictatorship that claimed to be acting in the public interest. Only a few years earlier, revolutionaries had proclaimed a new era of tolerance, equal justice, and human rights. How and why did the French Revolution’s lofty ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity descend into violence and terror? The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution offers a new interpretation of this turning point in world history. Timothy Tackett traces the inexorable emergence of a culture of violence among the Revolution’s political elite amid the turbulence of popular uprisings, pervasive subversion, and foreign invasion. Violence was neither a preplanned strategy nor an ideological imperative but rather the consequence of multiple factors of the Revolutionary process itself, including an initial breakdown in authority, the impact of the popular classes, and a cycle of rumors, denunciations, and panic fed by fear―fear of counterrevolutionary conspiracies, fear of anarchy, fear of oneself becoming the target of vengeance. To comprehend the coming of the Terror, we must understand the contagion of fear that left the revolutionaries themselves terrorized. Tackett recreates the sights, sounds, and emotions of the Revolution through the observations of nearly a hundred men and women who experienced and recorded it firsthand. Penetrating the mentality of Revolutionary elites on the eve of the Terror, he reveals how suspicion and mistrust escalated and helped propel their actions, ultimately consuming them and the Revolution itself.
480 pages, Hardcover
First published February 23, 2015
62 people are currently reading
761 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
November 13, 2019
Well, that was depressing.
November 30, 2018
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!
William Wordsworth
An excellent work: thought-provoking and eminently readable.
Professor Tackett uses personal correspondence of the time to illuminate the way of thinking of those caught up in the French Revolution. His emphasis on the emotional response to events: the fear, the insecurity, the obsession with possible conspiracies to counterrevolution, the hubris, the downright panic at times, can go a long way to explaining some of the reactions of the main protagonists, action and reaction that was never explicable through ideology alone.
Nevertheless, there comes a time.
Early 1794. (Year II in the new Republican calendar).
There were so many executions that the guillotine was moved to the Eastern edge of Paris to facilitate the cleaning up of the blood and the bodies. As many as six or seven cartloads of people per day lumbered through the streets of Paris on their way to the scaffold.
By this time most of the correspondents that Prof. Tackett uses are too fearful to commit anything to paper, only occasionally if they can make use of a private delivery, but even there, even there... Thus his sources suddenly go quiet. But that is not the reason why any argument seems inadequate. How could anyone possibly explain mass extermination on that scale?
Professor Tackett argues factionalism, he argues suspicion and fear combined with the breakdown in authority, he argues that betrayal by such figures as Lafayette and Dumouriez provided a model of how there really could be conspirators who were hiding behind a mask of patriotism and thus engendered shame and mortification that radicals had missed such conspiracy in the past, he argues coercion by the armed mob and finally he argues a certain inner dynamism to the revolutionary process.
Magnificent, yes, but a certain mystery remains.
But to be young was very heaven!
William Wordsworth
An excellent work: thought-provoking and eminently readable.
Professor Tackett uses personal correspondence of the time to illuminate the way of thinking of those caught up in the French Revolution. His emphasis on the emotional response to events: the fear, the insecurity, the obsession with possible conspiracies to counterrevolution, the hubris, the downright panic at times, can go a long way to explaining some of the reactions of the main protagonists, action and reaction that was never explicable through ideology alone.
Nevertheless, there comes a time.
Early 1794. (Year II in the new Republican calendar).
There were so many executions that the guillotine was moved to the Eastern edge of Paris to facilitate the cleaning up of the blood and the bodies. As many as six or seven cartloads of people per day lumbered through the streets of Paris on their way to the scaffold.
By this time most of the correspondents that Prof. Tackett uses are too fearful to commit anything to paper, only occasionally if they can make use of a private delivery, but even there, even there... Thus his sources suddenly go quiet. But that is not the reason why any argument seems inadequate. How could anyone possibly explain mass extermination on that scale?
Professor Tackett argues factionalism, he argues suspicion and fear combined with the breakdown in authority, he argues that betrayal by such figures as Lafayette and Dumouriez provided a model of how there really could be conspirators who were hiding behind a mask of patriotism and thus engendered shame and mortification that radicals had missed such conspiracy in the past, he argues coercion by the armed mob and finally he argues a certain inner dynamism to the revolutionary process.
..all major revolutions... involve intense convictions that the society must and can be changed, convictions that easily breed impatience and intolerance with opposition. All revolutions engender counterrevolutionary opposition among those whose interests and values are threatened. All revolutions, during the inevitable process of transition, tend to produce power vacuums and create situations in which every authority is put into question, in which- as Mirabeau expressed it -"all the old boundaries have been erased." All revolutions can be pushed in unanticipated directions by the influence of the popular masses. And it may well be that all major revolutions are beset by periods of conspiracy obsession, of intense suspicion and lack of trust, of agonizing uncertainty as to who are one's friends and who are one's enemies, who are the true revolutionaries and who are the wolves in sheep's clothing, hiding behind the mask of revolutionary commitment.
Magnificent, yes, but a certain mystery remains.
July 12, 2016
I think this is a fantastic example of how to write about history. Timothy Tackett keeps the book anchored around a specific question - what caused The Terror of 1793 and 1794? - but he's broad enough in his scope to answer other questions he may not even be aware we're asking. For instance, you get a good sense of the dissonance between rural peasants and the urban working class that probably speaks to many countries and time periods.
Much of the narrative is built on letters of correspondence between the middle-class Parisian "elites" who would come to dominate the revolution. Through their writing you get a strong sense of the uncertainty, fear, and sometimes ludicrous optimism that colored this tumultuous period.
A couple things to note: First, most of the revolutionary leaders didn't start out with very radical positions. But as the Sans-Cullottes become a bigger political force and as factionalization took it's toll, the legislative deputies staked out more and more radical positions. This resulted in a lot of re-written laws and badly destabilized the government. Secondly, I was not aware of the tremendous impact rumors had on the psyche of the French populace. Some of them sound absurd in retrospect, such as the nobles releasing prisoners and paying them to set fire to all of Paris, but I suppose it's easy to judge when not living in such terrifying and uncertain times.
Ultimately this is a very insightful look into a very important topic. The French Revolution and The Terror have seen various analogues throughout history from the 16th century witch trials in Europe to the Cultural Revolution in China. And many of the underlying factors, such as castigating and demonizing those on the other side of the political aisle, are still with us.
Much of the narrative is built on letters of correspondence between the middle-class Parisian "elites" who would come to dominate the revolution. Through their writing you get a strong sense of the uncertainty, fear, and sometimes ludicrous optimism that colored this tumultuous period.
A couple things to note: First, most of the revolutionary leaders didn't start out with very radical positions. But as the Sans-Cullottes become a bigger political force and as factionalization took it's toll, the legislative deputies staked out more and more radical positions. This resulted in a lot of re-written laws and badly destabilized the government. Secondly, I was not aware of the tremendous impact rumors had on the psyche of the French populace. Some of them sound absurd in retrospect, such as the nobles releasing prisoners and paying them to set fire to all of Paris, but I suppose it's easy to judge when not living in such terrifying and uncertain times.
Ultimately this is a very insightful look into a very important topic. The French Revolution and The Terror have seen various analogues throughout history from the 16th century witch trials in Europe to the Cultural Revolution in China. And many of the underlying factors, such as castigating and demonizing those on the other side of the political aisle, are still with us.
October 10, 2015
another book about the French revolution, this time focused on the political processes that led to the Terror of 1793-94 and the famous show trials (King, Girondins, Hebertists, Dantonists etc) and mass executions that culminated with the fall of Robespierre and the final showdown of strength between the Paris Commune and the government as it was (the Commune which was the ultimate support of Robespierre tried to save him, but this time the Convention managed to defeat it and in the process and much less well known than the deaths of Robespierre and his few close associates - executed close to 100 - about 2/3 - of its members, executions that ultimately allowed the Thermidor regime to consolidate its grip on power and swiftly get rid of all others associated with the Terror who didn't change sides fast enough - as a note, after this the main threat to the Thermidor and Directorate government that succeeded it will be the Royalist quarters of Paris and Napoleon's rise to fame will be in crushing those with artillery for the regime)
well written and quite compelling, showing again how when order breaks down even with the best of motives, rumors and the least setback (of which there will be inevitable some) will lead to the extremists with the loudest voices and simplest explanations "we are great but we were betrayed" swiftly rising and eventually even if not directly taking power (as here Robespierre faults and all was still a legalist and believer in the Convention - "his" Convention maybe but still - and channeled the Commune, while executing their most extreme representatives like Hebert, while Marat was killed before he could take full power), they would still force the government to do their bloody bidding until stopped by force
recommended
well written and quite compelling, showing again how when order breaks down even with the best of motives, rumors and the least setback (of which there will be inevitable some) will lead to the extremists with the loudest voices and simplest explanations "we are great but we were betrayed" swiftly rising and eventually even if not directly taking power (as here Robespierre faults and all was still a legalist and believer in the Convention - "his" Convention maybe but still - and channeled the Commune, while executing their most extreme representatives like Hebert, while Marat was killed before he could take full power), they would still force the government to do their bloody bidding until stopped by force
recommended
October 17, 2024
It’s pretty factual which makes it a little hard to get into. But it is filled with information. I could definitely reread this someday. Very interesting. 4.3 stars
November 5, 2015
Tackett, Timothy. The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution, The Belknap Press, Harvard University, Cambridge MA and London, 2015 (463pp.$35)
The scramble by historians and to unscramble the “meaning” of terror in the French revolution commenced as soon as heads began to roll. The French middle class, its bourgeois sympathizers, certain ideologically converted aristocrats, and many lawyers, clerks and administrators who created a National Assembly in 1789, witnessed the utter transformation of the French state towards, in the name of popular sovereignty, a polity dedicated to “equality” and human rights, including free speech, a free press, religious tolerance, careers determined by talent rather than blood, and equal justice under written laws. Four years later, by mid-1793, a dictatorial government of “committees” had emerged from the chaos of civil war, foreign invasion, internal dissension, and furious rumor that relied on spies, surveillance and summary execution. Revolutionary tribunals sent the King and Queen to their deaths; they were followed in short order by many revolutionists themselves, as well as numerous deputies to the National Convention, men and women who claimed to be fervent supporters of the Revolution.
At the height of the Terror, at least 300,000 suspects were awaiting trial or being held under guard. Contemporary estimates of executions are set at just under 17,000, but those figures do not include other deaths from torture or miserable conditions in many prisons. A figure of 40,000 deaths seems likely. All classes were touched by death; a fourth were peasants, a third were artisans or workers; clergymen and nobles were killed, as were members of surveillance committees. The henchmen of radical militias also died protesting their allegiance to the terror. On June 10, 1794, the mystical ideologue Robespierre (head of the Revolutionary Tribunal) formulated the Prarial Law, streamlining “trial” procedures, intending as he said at the time, “not to make a few examples, but to exterminate the implacable satellites of tyranny.” And so, a revolution undertaken in the name of liberty and equality, transmogrified into a tyranny against tyranny.
Timothy Tackett, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of California, Irvine, is a scholar of uncommon talent, common sense, and narrative skill. His new book, “The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution” does, in many profound ways, unscramble the “meaning” of the terror in the revolution by de-coupling ersatz philosophical explanations offered up during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (usually focused on Rousseau’s theory of “general will” or the philosophy of the Enlightenment and utopian endeavors) explained as a disjunction between “circumstances” and “ideals”, in favor of a precise exploration of the origins of a culture of political violence connected to historical process. This means for readers that Tackett examines carefully the actual behavior (through letters, correspondence, diaries, newspaper accounts and first-hand reports) of political elites in order to understand their psychological and mental states. In short, Tackett accounts for everyday emotions like anger, fear, shame, humiliation and the desire for revenge and the rapid and often concomitant alternation between emotions like joy and anguish, empathy and hatred. Unlike other historians, he also uses modern neuroscience, psychology and historiographical tools.
One of Tackett’s strategies is to avoid reference to standard accounts by correspondents like Talleyrand or Lafayette, or to other famous memoirs written as much as thirty years after the events in question. Instead, Tackett dispenses with “historical accounts” (disposing, as he says of, “undifferentiated sentiment”), preferring to expend attention on the specific emotions of specific people involved in the enthusiasm, fervor, and finally the fear of the time. His conclusion is that fear was one of the central elements in the origins of Revolutionary violence—fear of invasion (by Prussians and Austrians), fear of chaos and anarchy, fear of revenge. Tackett’s list of witnesses is culled mainly from the letters of a group of sophisticated observers, mostly located in Paris, but who represent a variety of social milieus including men and women, commoners and nobles, wives of officials, and soldiers headed to the “front”. For example, Adrien-Joseph Colson, the principal estate agent for a noble family living in the city wrote two or three letters each week to a friend and business associate in the province of Berry in central France. Rosalie-Julienne, wife of a future member of the National Convention pursued an intense and intelligent correspondence with her husband’s family in the southeastern province of Dauphine. Other letter-writers include retired landowners, theater impresarios, a playwright and novelist, and some minor political functionaries. They were, in both a literal and figurative sense, “looking down” from their apartment windows.
An utter pleasure to read—easy to understand and vivid in its depictions of the sequence of psychological events, Tackett’s book not only paints portraits of the major political leaders of the Revolution (men like Le Peltier, Marat, Chaillon and Robespierre), but also brings to life many of the hitherto unknown women who participated and whose histories are not much recorded. Beautifully supported by copious notes (many of which are brilliant, minor essays), a grand bibliography, and a significant number of illustrations, “The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution” will pave the way for its readers to new understanding.
To succeed, as Tackett does, in delivering us into the arms of claustrophobic fear means inculcating readers into the psychological terrors of terror itself. For members of the Convention and all Parisian citizens, the night of July 27-28 was tense and uncertain. The city gates were closed and bells began to ring. Armed men roamed the streets, gendarmes carried torches, and local militias declared emergencies in their bailiwicks. The next afternoon, the Robespierre brothers, Saint-Just and Couthon, were taken before the Revolutionary Tribunal and condemned to death, along with Hanriot, the mayor of Paris and sixteen other supporters of the Commune. They were carted along the “passage of infamy” (through the streets) and delivered to the scaffold. Robespierre, with a broken jaw, showed great courage in his final moments. Despite his democratic vision, he had never overcome his debilitating suspicions and his self-absorption. As Tackett explains, “his mental anguish and physical agony”, was ended by the blade.
The scramble by historians and to unscramble the “meaning” of terror in the French revolution commenced as soon as heads began to roll. The French middle class, its bourgeois sympathizers, certain ideologically converted aristocrats, and many lawyers, clerks and administrators who created a National Assembly in 1789, witnessed the utter transformation of the French state towards, in the name of popular sovereignty, a polity dedicated to “equality” and human rights, including free speech, a free press, religious tolerance, careers determined by talent rather than blood, and equal justice under written laws. Four years later, by mid-1793, a dictatorial government of “committees” had emerged from the chaos of civil war, foreign invasion, internal dissension, and furious rumor that relied on spies, surveillance and summary execution. Revolutionary tribunals sent the King and Queen to their deaths; they were followed in short order by many revolutionists themselves, as well as numerous deputies to the National Convention, men and women who claimed to be fervent supporters of the Revolution.
At the height of the Terror, at least 300,000 suspects were awaiting trial or being held under guard. Contemporary estimates of executions are set at just under 17,000, but those figures do not include other deaths from torture or miserable conditions in many prisons. A figure of 40,000 deaths seems likely. All classes were touched by death; a fourth were peasants, a third were artisans or workers; clergymen and nobles were killed, as were members of surveillance committees. The henchmen of radical militias also died protesting their allegiance to the terror. On June 10, 1794, the mystical ideologue Robespierre (head of the Revolutionary Tribunal) formulated the Prarial Law, streamlining “trial” procedures, intending as he said at the time, “not to make a few examples, but to exterminate the implacable satellites of tyranny.” And so, a revolution undertaken in the name of liberty and equality, transmogrified into a tyranny against tyranny.
Timothy Tackett, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of California, Irvine, is a scholar of uncommon talent, common sense, and narrative skill. His new book, “The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution” does, in many profound ways, unscramble the “meaning” of the terror in the revolution by de-coupling ersatz philosophical explanations offered up during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (usually focused on Rousseau’s theory of “general will” or the philosophy of the Enlightenment and utopian endeavors) explained as a disjunction between “circumstances” and “ideals”, in favor of a precise exploration of the origins of a culture of political violence connected to historical process. This means for readers that Tackett examines carefully the actual behavior (through letters, correspondence, diaries, newspaper accounts and first-hand reports) of political elites in order to understand their psychological and mental states. In short, Tackett accounts for everyday emotions like anger, fear, shame, humiliation and the desire for revenge and the rapid and often concomitant alternation between emotions like joy and anguish, empathy and hatred. Unlike other historians, he also uses modern neuroscience, psychology and historiographical tools.
One of Tackett’s strategies is to avoid reference to standard accounts by correspondents like Talleyrand or Lafayette, or to other famous memoirs written as much as thirty years after the events in question. Instead, Tackett dispenses with “historical accounts” (disposing, as he says of, “undifferentiated sentiment”), preferring to expend attention on the specific emotions of specific people involved in the enthusiasm, fervor, and finally the fear of the time. His conclusion is that fear was one of the central elements in the origins of Revolutionary violence—fear of invasion (by Prussians and Austrians), fear of chaos and anarchy, fear of revenge. Tackett’s list of witnesses is culled mainly from the letters of a group of sophisticated observers, mostly located in Paris, but who represent a variety of social milieus including men and women, commoners and nobles, wives of officials, and soldiers headed to the “front”. For example, Adrien-Joseph Colson, the principal estate agent for a noble family living in the city wrote two or three letters each week to a friend and business associate in the province of Berry in central France. Rosalie-Julienne, wife of a future member of the National Convention pursued an intense and intelligent correspondence with her husband’s family in the southeastern province of Dauphine. Other letter-writers include retired landowners, theater impresarios, a playwright and novelist, and some minor political functionaries. They were, in both a literal and figurative sense, “looking down” from their apartment windows.
An utter pleasure to read—easy to understand and vivid in its depictions of the sequence of psychological events, Tackett’s book not only paints portraits of the major political leaders of the Revolution (men like Le Peltier, Marat, Chaillon and Robespierre), but also brings to life many of the hitherto unknown women who participated and whose histories are not much recorded. Beautifully supported by copious notes (many of which are brilliant, minor essays), a grand bibliography, and a significant number of illustrations, “The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution” will pave the way for its readers to new understanding.
To succeed, as Tackett does, in delivering us into the arms of claustrophobic fear means inculcating readers into the psychological terrors of terror itself. For members of the Convention and all Parisian citizens, the night of July 27-28 was tense and uncertain. The city gates were closed and bells began to ring. Armed men roamed the streets, gendarmes carried torches, and local militias declared emergencies in their bailiwicks. The next afternoon, the Robespierre brothers, Saint-Just and Couthon, were taken before the Revolutionary Tribunal and condemned to death, along with Hanriot, the mayor of Paris and sixteen other supporters of the Commune. They were carted along the “passage of infamy” (through the streets) and delivered to the scaffold. Robespierre, with a broken jaw, showed great courage in his final moments. Despite his democratic vision, he had never overcome his debilitating suspicions and his self-absorption. As Tackett explains, “his mental anguish and physical agony”, was ended by the blade.
June 12, 2023
Tackett's "The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution" is a comprehensive prologue to the Terror of 1793-94, demonstrating that the violence and bloodshed under the National Convention was bubbling just below, and sometimes at, the surface in past iterations of the Revolution. More than any idea, fear and anxiety did the work of driving revolutionaries into the throes of state-directed violence: with enemy armies poised at France's doorstep and continuous revelations of figures like Louis XVI, Lafayette, and Mirabeau working for counter-revolutionary causes, there is little wonder why not only Jacobins, but ordinary French citizens latched on to a paranoia about the changing world around them.
November 20, 2024
Ihan ok yleisesitys siitä, miten Ranskan vallankumous päätyi terrorin kauteen. Juurikaan tämä ei kuitenkaan pysty antamaan aiheeseen mitään kovin uutta, jos tapahtumat ovat tuttuja edes pääpiirteissään.
Tackett päätyy selostamaan tapahtumien pääasiallista kulkua aika tavanomaiseen tapaan mutta toisaalta aika yleisluontoisesti, koska kuitenkin terrori on näkökulman pääkohde. Osaltaan tämä johtaa vähän epätyydyttävään pinnallisuuteen.
Omalla kohdalla myös ”massojen” käsittely juuri kasvottomina väkijoukkoina on vähän pettymys. Pariisin tavallisen kansan radikalisoitumista (jonka vaikutus terrorin syntyyn ei suinkaan ollut vähäinen) avataan lopulta aika vähän. Kyllä, radikaalit populistit lietsoivat vihaa ja epäluuloa mutta lietsonta ei tahdo tarttua ilman jotain taustalla (tai näkösällä) olevaa juurisyytä. Viljan vähyyteen ja huoltoepävarmuuteen viitataan mutta aika kevyesti. Samoin vanhan hallinnon aikainen räikeä taloudellinen epätasa-arvo ja sen kärjistyminen kassakriisin aikaan jäävät käsittelemättä.
Tackett tosin näyttää kirjoittaneen ”tavallisesta pariisilaisesta” toisen teoksen, joten ehkä tämä on syynä käsittelyn ohuuteen. Mutta silti vähän harmillista.
Analyysi-osion dumppaaminen loppuun on yleinen tapa mutta uskoisin, että kokonaiskuvaa palvelisi se, että näitä teemoja käsiteltäisiin vahvemmin myös tapahtumien selostuksen lomassa.
Tackett päätyy selostamaan tapahtumien pääasiallista kulkua aika tavanomaiseen tapaan mutta toisaalta aika yleisluontoisesti, koska kuitenkin terrori on näkökulman pääkohde. Osaltaan tämä johtaa vähän epätyydyttävään pinnallisuuteen.
Omalla kohdalla myös ”massojen” käsittely juuri kasvottomina väkijoukkoina on vähän pettymys. Pariisin tavallisen kansan radikalisoitumista (jonka vaikutus terrorin syntyyn ei suinkaan ollut vähäinen) avataan lopulta aika vähän. Kyllä, radikaalit populistit lietsoivat vihaa ja epäluuloa mutta lietsonta ei tahdo tarttua ilman jotain taustalla (tai näkösällä) olevaa juurisyytä. Viljan vähyyteen ja huoltoepävarmuuteen viitataan mutta aika kevyesti. Samoin vanhan hallinnon aikainen räikeä taloudellinen epätasa-arvo ja sen kärjistyminen kassakriisin aikaan jäävät käsittelemättä.
Tackett tosin näyttää kirjoittaneen ”tavallisesta pariisilaisesta” toisen teoksen, joten ehkä tämä on syynä käsittelyn ohuuteen. Mutta silti vähän harmillista.
Analyysi-osion dumppaaminen loppuun on yleinen tapa mutta uskoisin, että kokonaiskuvaa palvelisi se, että näitä teemoja käsiteltäisiin vahvemmin myös tapahtumien selostuksen lomassa.
April 19, 2021
Tackett traces the descent of the French Revolution from the lofty ideals of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" into the bloody horror of the Terror of 1793-94. Based on a wealth of thoroughly scoured sources, this was another highly interesting read on a topic that will never cease to fascinate me. At least some knowledge of the basic history of the French Revolution and its major events and players is required to avoid being buried in confusion by the avalanche of information Tackett unleashes.
May 12, 2024
This is a survey of the first years of the Revolution only, up to the symbolic death of Robespierre in July 1794, and it tackles a complex, difficult question: How did the excitement and ebullience of the early Revolution spiral so quickly and violently into the years of Terror under the Convention? Particularly disturbing are the chapters on the blaming of foreigners and “others,” the powerful role of rumor, disinformation, and propaganda, and the rise of cult-like personalities. Probably a few relevant parallels here. . .
November 7, 2023
This was quite in-depth study which is focused on the lead up to the Terror. Stresses the importance of actually FEELING what the people were feeling rather than abstract discourse. Really helps to understand the Terror from a more human point of view.
September 24, 2023
Just a great overview of the lead up to The Terror. The French Revolution is like a damn soap opera and this is just as entertaining. Wish they included The Terror more into the book than just the final chapter? Could’ve used a few more beheadings.
May 28, 2025
This was a really interesting read. I think that Timothy Tackett does an excellent job of examining the psychological aspects of the French Revolution that help to explain many of its violent excesses. I also like that Tackett manages to do this while largely avoiding the moralistic partisan infighting among academics over their preferred “good guys” and “bad guys”. Tackett approaches these matters quite impartially and I appreciate that.
I also really enjoyed the scope of this book. In my experience, most books on the French Revolution tend to focus more heavily on two things
a) the early stages of the revolution from 1787 through to the removal of the king to Paris in October 1789
b) The period from the death of the king to the death of Robespierre from 1793-1794
This book put alot more emphasis than I am used to seeing on the defining events and debates of the National Assembly and the short-lived Legislative Assembly.
Overall, it was a nice read, full of interesting information and perspectives that I hadn’t been exposed to before.
4.5/10
I also really enjoyed the scope of this book. In my experience, most books on the French Revolution tend to focus more heavily on two things
a) the early stages of the revolution from 1787 through to the removal of the king to Paris in October 1789
b) The period from the death of the king to the death of Robespierre from 1793-1794
This book put alot more emphasis than I am used to seeing on the defining events and debates of the National Assembly and the short-lived Legislative Assembly.
Overall, it was a nice read, full of interesting information and perspectives that I hadn’t been exposed to before.
4.5/10
August 31, 2019
Great context but something does become repetitive...
The book is highly recommended for those that want to learn about the French Revolution, from beginning to the end of Robespierre. Beyond personalities and individuals it is always necessary to get into context by talking about the direction of the masses of the people, I think you can never describe these too much but you can easily miss out the details of the era if you focus or overstate singular personalities, without describing the sauce in which everyone is cooking in...
This environment of fear and anxiety mixed with joy and ecstasy is something that perhaps can never be fully understood somebody who has never been in a revolutionary movement, it doesn’t matter how much you describe this feelings and state the facts. But the book does repeatedly try.
The book is highly recommended for those that want to learn about the French Revolution, from beginning to the end of Robespierre. Beyond personalities and individuals it is always necessary to get into context by talking about the direction of the masses of the people, I think you can never describe these too much but you can easily miss out the details of the era if you focus or overstate singular personalities, without describing the sauce in which everyone is cooking in...
This environment of fear and anxiety mixed with joy and ecstasy is something that perhaps can never be fully understood somebody who has never been in a revolutionary movement, it doesn’t matter how much you describe this feelings and state the facts. But the book does repeatedly try.
June 24, 2020
I read a lot of history, and particularly books about revolutions, and I think that this work is a model of not only the difficult art of bringing together many different sources, both primary and secondary, but of writing so that any reader can understand. I admire that gift, and Tackett has it.
I also admire the purpose of the book, though every writer tackling those years must consider how the Terror came about. Tackett from the start has it as his focus and that focus helps us see the Revolutionary times a little differently. His previous book on the backgrounds of the revolutionaries helps here too. I would read The Coming of the Terror for that reason alone. The reader will come away with many new insights and views.
However, I'm not confident Tackett has answered the question. Revolutions, true revolutions, such as the French--and not those which end up in civil war or are independence movements, such as the American, the Russian, the Chinese, and the Spanish (1936-1939)--are in the end an enigma why they started and why they failed. Tackett says it arose from a "financial and fiscal crisis of the French monarchy" and a "geopolitical struggle." (p. 40) But many nations have had such crises and no revolution arose. As Tackett knows and writes, this nation went within a couple of years, some might say within a few months. from an undemocratic autocratic aristocracy--backward socially and politically--to the most democratic nation on earth, producing amazing documents on rights and liberty. How this happened was to any student of history almost supernatural. Then, only a few years later, how it turned into a bloodbath, after such marvelous thoughts and feelings, with such admirable achievements in such a brief time, is incredible. My point is that any explanation has to work within an environment. Why did the environment arise? We can throw out explanations--and I know of no book that offers a better analysis--but the overall origin of the atmosphere of conspiracy and fear that would lead to such behavior seems to me inexplicable. How could the leadership go mad all at once to allow such behavior? And how could the populace take seats and enjoy it?
At the least, this book will get you thinking about this strange phenomenon called the French Revolution. Highly recommended.
I also admire the purpose of the book, though every writer tackling those years must consider how the Terror came about. Tackett from the start has it as his focus and that focus helps us see the Revolutionary times a little differently. His previous book on the backgrounds of the revolutionaries helps here too. I would read The Coming of the Terror for that reason alone. The reader will come away with many new insights and views.
However, I'm not confident Tackett has answered the question. Revolutions, true revolutions, such as the French--and not those which end up in civil war or are independence movements, such as the American, the Russian, the Chinese, and the Spanish (1936-1939)--are in the end an enigma why they started and why they failed. Tackett says it arose from a "financial and fiscal crisis of the French monarchy" and a "geopolitical struggle." (p. 40) But many nations have had such crises and no revolution arose. As Tackett knows and writes, this nation went within a couple of years, some might say within a few months. from an undemocratic autocratic aristocracy--backward socially and politically--to the most democratic nation on earth, producing amazing documents on rights and liberty. How this happened was to any student of history almost supernatural. Then, only a few years later, how it turned into a bloodbath, after such marvelous thoughts and feelings, with such admirable achievements in such a brief time, is incredible. My point is that any explanation has to work within an environment. Why did the environment arise? We can throw out explanations--and I know of no book that offers a better analysis--but the overall origin of the atmosphere of conspiracy and fear that would lead to such behavior seems to me inexplicable. How could the leadership go mad all at once to allow such behavior? And how could the populace take seats and enjoy it?
At the least, this book will get you thinking about this strange phenomenon called the French Revolution. Highly recommended.
September 1, 2020
This book is Timothy Tackett's attempt to get inside the heads and lived experiences of the men who led the French Revolution into the horrible wave of violence during the Reign of Terror. Tackett aims to "understand and contextualize why they (the terrorists) did what they did" (12) before he condemns their obvious crimes.
By using letters and diaries of the men and women who experienced these events and went on to participate in the waves violence, Tackett is able to highlight the critical role of emotions and the contingency of events in the evolution of the revolution. From the summoning of the Estates General in April of 1789 to the summer of 1789, nearly every remnant of the ancien regime was either overturned, or radically altered. Tackett writes that "we sometimes overlook the extraordinary emotional experience of those who lived through such events" (61). Events transpired way faster than anyone could have dreamed and "for a great many people, the experience that summer and the ensuing commitment to the new system of political values had all the impact and power of a religious conversion, with much the same intensity of commitment as in the Protestant Reformation 250 years earlier" (63). Participants in the revolution truly believed they were remaking the world for the better. Their emotions were completely captured by the endless possibilities looming on the horizon and the boundless promise for a better world. However, this excitement and optimism was fragile and the "hopes for the future were always bound together with fear and anxiety: fear of the chaos generated by the revolution, fear of the potential for revenge by those whose special rank and privileges had been stripped away by the sweeping transformations" (63). Tackett captures how these contrasting emotions of hope and vulnerability interacted with the course of events to fuel more and more violence and paranoia.
The events that drove this cycle were heavily contingent and Tackett argues convincingly against any monocausal explanation. To start with, there's probably no Revolution in 1789 without climatic factors that led to an extremely poor harvest and the resultant starvation that radicalized the commoners. Other human factors contributed ranging from an increasingly radical press, rising partisanship, and the preexisting culture of street violence in Paris that political leaders rationalized until they embraced. However, Tackett's analysis of Louis XVI's poor leadership seemed especially crucial. Louis' waffling and inconsistent messages led many delegates to assume his support for the Revolution, until the Flight to Varennes in June 1791 revealed his concealed disloyalty. The King's flight meant that "all of the seemingly paranoid predictions had come true" (138). Combined with the very real counterrevolutionary threat from non-juring priests and emigres, revolutionary leaders experienced this betrayal in a climate of intense vulnerability that made radical notions like liquidating their enemies seem justified. At the same time, if the revolutionaries had been a little more Burkean and not assaulted every historic institution simueltaneously, the nobility and Church may never have embraced the mantle of counterrevolution with such vigor. Symbolic attacks on the church, such as in April of 1790 when the Assembly refused to acknowledge Catholicism as the official religion of France, shocked many sincere Catholics who supported the revolution up to this point. In November of 1790, the Civic Oath further pitted loyal Catholics agains the Revolution, a critical mistake and the one most responsible for the Revolution's worst bloodbath in the Vendee.
Another critical step in the process leading to the Terror would be the declaration of war in the Fall of 1791, which took the suspicion and fear to another level across France. After an early wave of successes, 1792 brought news of revolt in the Vendee in March and of Dumoriez's betrayal a few days later. To the embattled revolutionaries, the armies threatening Paris were obviously aided by internal traitors and to respond they erected what became the machinery of the terror including the Representatives on Mission and the Revolutionary Tribunal. When the army struggled and the state turned to proscription, rural communities who had been suffering under governmental instability for years resisted fighting a revolutionary war over many policies they questioned. Despite these facts, in the face of resentment to the draft "virtually every deputy who left contemporary testimonies - whether of the Mountain or or the Gironde or the Plain - was convinced such as conspiracy existed" (277).
As the fights between revolutionaries and their opponents continued throughout 1790 and 1791, Tackett explains how a cycle of demonizing the other side on any issue became the key factor in the path to Terror. Those on the other side of a debate were not just mistaken, but evil and treasonous and therefore too dangerous to be left alive. Once this became part of revolutionary culture things seemed bound to get really bloody. How this polarization evolved over time until even hair splitting differences between ideologically similiar factions like the Jacobins and Girondins led to all out war is hard to fully grasp. Even Tackett writes that "the original of such passionate rivalries remains one of the most mysterious aspects of the Revolution" (150) and he argues that rivalries for power, rather than ideological concerns, may have been the origin of these divides. Regardless, once these divisions entered into a "culture of suspicion" a factional rivalry absorbed the "Manichean imagery touching so much of French society, in which factional rivals were not simply misguided or dull minded, but treacherous and morally tainted" (158). Intense factionalism amidst an environment of suspicion arising out of the revolutionary process itself made the physical elimination of ones rivals seem necessary. Tackett outlines the psychology of factionalism and documents the revolutionary events in detail, but how events spiraled into actual violence is still hard to fathom. If anything, it is a cautionary reminder about how demonizing the other is a dangerous move, especially during tumultuous events.
The purging of revolutionary enemies would sweep up thousands of innocent victims at the paranoid height of delusional frenzy known as the 'Great Terror' in Paris that even Tackett compares to a "witch hunt" (330). During this stretch from the Spring to early Summer of 1794, "Whole categories of individuals were sent to the guillotine, not apparently on the basis of any specific crimes committed but because of the positions they held under the Old Regime" (333). These executions committed on the basis of collective guilt epitomized the break down of civil liberties and individual rights. Fears, suspicions, and even base motives of revenge for "wrongs perpetrated under the Old Regime" could justify the liquidation process. This period's extremes are all the more incomprehensible because it occurred amidst a backdrop of massive success by the revolutionary armies and after the provincial revolts had been suppressed. Typically, violent revenge occurred during setbacks and amidst fears of the revolution's defeat, but in the summer of 1794 terror seemed to carry on irregardless of circumstances. One is reminded of Stalin's purges that carried on relentlessly, long after he had consolidated power. Fortunately for those living in France, such an incongruity between terror and threat eventually led to Robespierre's downfall in the Thermidorian reaction.
The two main takeaways from Tackett's analysis that helps me comprehend the puzzle that is the extreme violence of the French revolution involve the dangers of zealous commitment and toxic factionalism.
The zealous commitment of the revolutionaries can best be understood as a new religious movement that christened sacred values of liberty, fraternity, and equality. In commenting on the public processions celebrating the Constitution of 1793, Tackett quotes Rosalie Julien's describing the days festivities. "I watch the whole universe parade before me as in a religious service in honor of the new divinities of liberty and equality" (297). The passion and devotion to these values was as heart felt and transcendent as the yearning for religious deliverance. Tackett writes "The very intensity of their commitment could easily lead to intolerance toward those who refused to adopt their vision of the future, or even worse, those who attempted to aggressively undermine it" (343). When the most sacred values of society are up for grabs, compromise can seem impossible and victory a zero sum game. Even the use of violence can be justified to come out on top and enshrine one's sacred commitments.
Tackett also illustrates how the dangers of "toxic factionalism" drove much of the violence that is so hard to understand. Groups that shared far more in common than their differences lost sight of this during the stresses and fears of the revolution. Men and women who were not enemies of the revolution, but merely held different viewpoints got swept up in a process of demonizing all opponents as traitors and counterrevolutionary spies. To save the revolution, they had to die. That the executioners believed this with sincerity should frighten us and serve as a reminder whenever we create black and white narratives that demonize those with whom we disagree.
Lastly, Tackett makes a compelling that "Many of these problems arose from the tenacious logic of the Revolution itself. The 'supernatural' affect of liberty, the difficulty of setting the bounds of democracy, the tendency to question authority: all continued apace during the era of the second National Assembly, disrupting attempts to impose order and civic discipline" (144). Any revolutionary project is going to dramatically disrupt existing institutions and this comes with immense danger. I think that Tackett's book makes a compelling case that if at all possible revolutionary changes should be massaged gradually over time and not all unleashed in a chaotic deluge, as Edmund Burke argued. Whether or not this is possible without the forces of complacency and counterrevolution setting in is hard to say. Without dramatic, punctuated moments of transformation, with the accompanying collateral damage and violence, things may never change as we want. But we should at least try to avoid the worst abuses of the revolutionary process.
By using letters and diaries of the men and women who experienced these events and went on to participate in the waves violence, Tackett is able to highlight the critical role of emotions and the contingency of events in the evolution of the revolution. From the summoning of the Estates General in April of 1789 to the summer of 1789, nearly every remnant of the ancien regime was either overturned, or radically altered. Tackett writes that "we sometimes overlook the extraordinary emotional experience of those who lived through such events" (61). Events transpired way faster than anyone could have dreamed and "for a great many people, the experience that summer and the ensuing commitment to the new system of political values had all the impact and power of a religious conversion, with much the same intensity of commitment as in the Protestant Reformation 250 years earlier" (63). Participants in the revolution truly believed they were remaking the world for the better. Their emotions were completely captured by the endless possibilities looming on the horizon and the boundless promise for a better world. However, this excitement and optimism was fragile and the "hopes for the future were always bound together with fear and anxiety: fear of the chaos generated by the revolution, fear of the potential for revenge by those whose special rank and privileges had been stripped away by the sweeping transformations" (63). Tackett captures how these contrasting emotions of hope and vulnerability interacted with the course of events to fuel more and more violence and paranoia.
The events that drove this cycle were heavily contingent and Tackett argues convincingly against any monocausal explanation. To start with, there's probably no Revolution in 1789 without climatic factors that led to an extremely poor harvest and the resultant starvation that radicalized the commoners. Other human factors contributed ranging from an increasingly radical press, rising partisanship, and the preexisting culture of street violence in Paris that political leaders rationalized until they embraced. However, Tackett's analysis of Louis XVI's poor leadership seemed especially crucial. Louis' waffling and inconsistent messages led many delegates to assume his support for the Revolution, until the Flight to Varennes in June 1791 revealed his concealed disloyalty. The King's flight meant that "all of the seemingly paranoid predictions had come true" (138). Combined with the very real counterrevolutionary threat from non-juring priests and emigres, revolutionary leaders experienced this betrayal in a climate of intense vulnerability that made radical notions like liquidating their enemies seem justified. At the same time, if the revolutionaries had been a little more Burkean and not assaulted every historic institution simueltaneously, the nobility and Church may never have embraced the mantle of counterrevolution with such vigor. Symbolic attacks on the church, such as in April of 1790 when the Assembly refused to acknowledge Catholicism as the official religion of France, shocked many sincere Catholics who supported the revolution up to this point. In November of 1790, the Civic Oath further pitted loyal Catholics agains the Revolution, a critical mistake and the one most responsible for the Revolution's worst bloodbath in the Vendee.
Another critical step in the process leading to the Terror would be the declaration of war in the Fall of 1791, which took the suspicion and fear to another level across France. After an early wave of successes, 1792 brought news of revolt in the Vendee in March and of Dumoriez's betrayal a few days later. To the embattled revolutionaries, the armies threatening Paris were obviously aided by internal traitors and to respond they erected what became the machinery of the terror including the Representatives on Mission and the Revolutionary Tribunal. When the army struggled and the state turned to proscription, rural communities who had been suffering under governmental instability for years resisted fighting a revolutionary war over many policies they questioned. Despite these facts, in the face of resentment to the draft "virtually every deputy who left contemporary testimonies - whether of the Mountain or or the Gironde or the Plain - was convinced such as conspiracy existed" (277).
As the fights between revolutionaries and their opponents continued throughout 1790 and 1791, Tackett explains how a cycle of demonizing the other side on any issue became the key factor in the path to Terror. Those on the other side of a debate were not just mistaken, but evil and treasonous and therefore too dangerous to be left alive. Once this became part of revolutionary culture things seemed bound to get really bloody. How this polarization evolved over time until even hair splitting differences between ideologically similiar factions like the Jacobins and Girondins led to all out war is hard to fully grasp. Even Tackett writes that "the original of such passionate rivalries remains one of the most mysterious aspects of the Revolution" (150) and he argues that rivalries for power, rather than ideological concerns, may have been the origin of these divides. Regardless, once these divisions entered into a "culture of suspicion" a factional rivalry absorbed the "Manichean imagery touching so much of French society, in which factional rivals were not simply misguided or dull minded, but treacherous and morally tainted" (158). Intense factionalism amidst an environment of suspicion arising out of the revolutionary process itself made the physical elimination of ones rivals seem necessary. Tackett outlines the psychology of factionalism and documents the revolutionary events in detail, but how events spiraled into actual violence is still hard to fathom. If anything, it is a cautionary reminder about how demonizing the other is a dangerous move, especially during tumultuous events.
The purging of revolutionary enemies would sweep up thousands of innocent victims at the paranoid height of delusional frenzy known as the 'Great Terror' in Paris that even Tackett compares to a "witch hunt" (330). During this stretch from the Spring to early Summer of 1794, "Whole categories of individuals were sent to the guillotine, not apparently on the basis of any specific crimes committed but because of the positions they held under the Old Regime" (333). These executions committed on the basis of collective guilt epitomized the break down of civil liberties and individual rights. Fears, suspicions, and even base motives of revenge for "wrongs perpetrated under the Old Regime" could justify the liquidation process. This period's extremes are all the more incomprehensible because it occurred amidst a backdrop of massive success by the revolutionary armies and after the provincial revolts had been suppressed. Typically, violent revenge occurred during setbacks and amidst fears of the revolution's defeat, but in the summer of 1794 terror seemed to carry on irregardless of circumstances. One is reminded of Stalin's purges that carried on relentlessly, long after he had consolidated power. Fortunately for those living in France, such an incongruity between terror and threat eventually led to Robespierre's downfall in the Thermidorian reaction.
The two main takeaways from Tackett's analysis that helps me comprehend the puzzle that is the extreme violence of the French revolution involve the dangers of zealous commitment and toxic factionalism.
The zealous commitment of the revolutionaries can best be understood as a new religious movement that christened sacred values of liberty, fraternity, and equality. In commenting on the public processions celebrating the Constitution of 1793, Tackett quotes Rosalie Julien's describing the days festivities. "I watch the whole universe parade before me as in a religious service in honor of the new divinities of liberty and equality" (297). The passion and devotion to these values was as heart felt and transcendent as the yearning for religious deliverance. Tackett writes "The very intensity of their commitment could easily lead to intolerance toward those who refused to adopt their vision of the future, or even worse, those who attempted to aggressively undermine it" (343). When the most sacred values of society are up for grabs, compromise can seem impossible and victory a zero sum game. Even the use of violence can be justified to come out on top and enshrine one's sacred commitments.
Tackett also illustrates how the dangers of "toxic factionalism" drove much of the violence that is so hard to understand. Groups that shared far more in common than their differences lost sight of this during the stresses and fears of the revolution. Men and women who were not enemies of the revolution, but merely held different viewpoints got swept up in a process of demonizing all opponents as traitors and counterrevolutionary spies. To save the revolution, they had to die. That the executioners believed this with sincerity should frighten us and serve as a reminder whenever we create black and white narratives that demonize those with whom we disagree.
Lastly, Tackett makes a compelling that "Many of these problems arose from the tenacious logic of the Revolution itself. The 'supernatural' affect of liberty, the difficulty of setting the bounds of democracy, the tendency to question authority: all continued apace during the era of the second National Assembly, disrupting attempts to impose order and civic discipline" (144). Any revolutionary project is going to dramatically disrupt existing institutions and this comes with immense danger. I think that Tackett's book makes a compelling case that if at all possible revolutionary changes should be massaged gradually over time and not all unleashed in a chaotic deluge, as Edmund Burke argued. Whether or not this is possible without the forces of complacency and counterrevolution setting in is hard to say. Without dramatic, punctuated moments of transformation, with the accompanying collateral damage and violence, things may never change as we want. But we should at least try to avoid the worst abuses of the revolutionary process.
April 5, 2017
Loved the book-- LOVED it. A great performance. But at times, it did as if I were reading a description of our own time: "a Manichean language would increasingly be used by patriots to refer to rival factions of other Revolutionaries. Indeed, the inflationary hatred and verbal violence of the first years of the Revolution, born from a culture of fear, rumor [alternate facts?] and denunciation, as well as from a genuine menace of counterrevolution, would anticipate and help foster the psychology of the Terror." (141) Urgh!
I don't know the literature well enough to situate Tackett in the current debates surrounding the French Rev, but he is at pains to point out that "circumstances had a powerful impact on the coming of the Terror. Yet circumstances alone would have been insufficient without a prior transformation of the psychology and mentalite of the revolutionaries, a transformation with a tragic inner logic that was integral to the process of the French Rev" (348). Which is slightly different than, say, Georges Lefebvre's idea that class conflict was at such a pitch that all that followed was more or less inevitable.
Another aspect I appreciated very much was how the book was structured; in the first half Tackett outlines his 'theoretical' approach to the Terror and the causes that gave rise to it, while the second half is a straightforward narrative in which we see how these theoretical aspects of the issue come into play.
April 17, 2018
Outstanding. In highly readable narrative, Tackett shows the complexity and constantly changing dynamics of the French Revolution over the course of 6 years as the republicans and their supporters grappled with the need to build a new state and social/political structure from scratch; the political vacuum after the fall of the centuries-old monarchy; social and economic chaos; the real counterrevolutionary forces of the nobility and sections of the Catholic hierarchy within France and the external enemy forces of monarchical Europe; fear, panic and rumors; political factions and deepening in-fighting; ultra-leftism; and legacies of feudalism and violence. Tackett uses letters written by contemporary participants and observers, personal notes and diaries, newspaper columns of the time, and transcripts of legislative debates, to give a really deep picture of what really went on and how the revolution eventually collapsed in episodes of Terror, and at the same time hes shows the profoundly progressive and enduring transformative changes that the French Revolution brought about whose effects endure today around the world. Nothing is simple about revolution.
November 28, 2021
Explanation of how the terror came to be.
I read and listened to the audio book and would do both again. The explanation of how the terror arose came from correspondence between certain friends and family members living through the early 1790s. The shifting allegiances and the fear of counterrevolutionary activities lead to more fear and more denunciations. I can see that.
As a genre reporting on other's letters won't last forever. The beautiful correspondence will eventually fade away in our time in favor of text messages. More's the pity.
I read and listened to the audio book and would do both again. The explanation of how the terror arose came from correspondence between certain friends and family members living through the early 1790s. The shifting allegiances and the fear of counterrevolutionary activities lead to more fear and more denunciations. I can see that.
As a genre reporting on other's letters won't last forever. The beautiful correspondence will eventually fade away in our time in favor of text messages. More's the pity.
June 22, 2015
I only wish this book was longer. The text is 349 pages. Tackett's style pulls you into the era. Fear, anxiety, and terror are made sharply felt.
October 8, 2020
Extremely Prescient
November 12, 2020
Amazingly researched and very engaging- even for lay historians.
March 21, 2021
Explaining terror
As close as I have ever seen an historian come to presenting a balanced account of the chaos leading up to and following the reign of terror
As close as I have ever seen an historian come to presenting a balanced account of the chaos leading up to and following the reign of terror
May 15, 2021
A fantastic book. Well researched and written with a great pace that keeps you eager to read on and learn more.
October 22, 2024
This is a solid history of the French Revolution, focused on the violence rather than the politics (including war, civil war, riot, and suchlike). This focus makes it mostly fairly easy to follow - trying to understand the Revolution in all its complexity is a near impossible task, so focusing on specific aspects makes it far more comprehendible.
However, TBH I'm not convinced it really delivers on the promise of explaining how an idealistic movement got perverted into an orgy of conspiracy theory, paranoia and unthinking execution. The general impression is it was a gradual drip of rumour and overexcitment over a long period of time, with idealism itself leading to extremism almost as an inevitability, and conspiracy theories providing one of the few ways to make sense of all the chaos and rapid shifts in France's fortunes.
Fine - but if that's the hypothesis, I want a bit more comparative history of other idealistic or revolutionary movements where similar shifts happened, or at least more first-hand evidence of individuals' thinking evolving over time (surely possible in a period where so many wrote so much), to justify the theory. There was some of that here, but not enough for me to come away with much greater insight into how an industrial scale state killing machine came into being.
Still, it's not a bad overview. Worth a read if you're interested in the period - which, increasingly, I think everyone should be. The more I read, the more fascinating I find it - and the more I want to try and understand the (probably) un-understandable.
However, TBH I'm not convinced it really delivers on the promise of explaining how an idealistic movement got perverted into an orgy of conspiracy theory, paranoia and unthinking execution. The general impression is it was a gradual drip of rumour and overexcitment over a long period of time, with idealism itself leading to extremism almost as an inevitability, and conspiracy theories providing one of the few ways to make sense of all the chaos and rapid shifts in France's fortunes.
Fine - but if that's the hypothesis, I want a bit more comparative history of other idealistic or revolutionary movements where similar shifts happened, or at least more first-hand evidence of individuals' thinking evolving over time (surely possible in a period where so many wrote so much), to justify the theory. There was some of that here, but not enough for me to come away with much greater insight into how an industrial scale state killing machine came into being.
Still, it's not a bad overview. Worth a read if you're interested in the period - which, increasingly, I think everyone should be. The more I read, the more fascinating I find it - and the more I want to try and understand the (probably) un-understandable.
December 20, 2024
Decent recitation of the facts of the French Revolution without focussing too much on the famous names. However, the theorising that lends this book a sheen of originality is only propounded in the introduction and conclusion.
If you haven't read much of anything about the French Revolution before, this would be a decent unbiased introduction but you would then need to go read other books to learn anything about the people named here or to get the details of any of the major events.
Tackett drops phrases like "the flight to Varennes" or "Year 2" as though the reader already knows what those are, which I do thankfully. However, if you have that pre-existing knowledge, I'm not sure what they expect you to get from re-iterating the facts chronology without weaving it into the unique theory.
This book is very good at citing primary sources and pretty good at considering what was happening outside Paris.
If you haven't read much of anything about the French Revolution before, this would be a decent unbiased introduction but you would then need to go read other books to learn anything about the people named here or to get the details of any of the major events.
Tackett drops phrases like "the flight to Varennes" or "Year 2" as though the reader already knows what those are, which I do thankfully. However, if you have that pre-existing knowledge, I'm not sure what they expect you to get from re-iterating the facts chronology without weaving it into the unique theory.
This book is very good at citing primary sources and pretty good at considering what was happening outside Paris.
October 10, 2020
I'd recommend this thorough, but secular, summary of the contributing history that culminated in the Terror of the French Revolution. This work was comprehensive and I found it fascinating to listen to the echos of our American Revolution in a far more tragic period of French History. The French surnames were challenging, and beyond the famous few: The Jacobins, Russo, Louis XVI and Robespierre, I can't remember any of them, but the historical narrative left me stunned at the terrible turn the French Revolution took from liberty to paranoia and mass murder (really genocide when one considers the ways in which Roman Catholics were specifically targeted for extermination). Mr. Tackett placed his focus on the emotions of the various factions involved that led to the Terror. In the end everyone went (some willingly) to the guillotine in the name of Reason.
February 7, 2023
Neat history of the French Revolution. Picks an interesting aspect of the revolution - the Terror: causes and evolution - and sticks to it. As the Revolution is such a complex series of interwoven events this approach is beneficial. In particular Tackett’s explanation of how rumours fill the informational vacuum created by the collapse of the state is very interesting and goes a long way to explain the passions and suspicions aroused. His summary and conclusion at the end brings in the treads he discussed and ties the book up nicely - I would like him to teach more historical writers how to do this and the synthesis at the end is usually my favourite part.
If looking for a more unorthodox, immersive experience would also recommend Simon Schama’s Citizens if you already know the outline of The Revolution.
If looking for a more unorthodox, immersive experience would also recommend Simon Schama’s Citizens if you already know the outline of The Revolution.
October 31, 2022
Très bien renseigné, le moins qu’on puisse dire et que j’ai appris beaucoup de choses Voir de plus la Révolution, non du point des événements en eux-mêmes, mais des sentiments qui poussent à de telles actions est une nouvelle manière d’appréhender cette période, et j’ai apprécié le fait que cette dernière soit humanisée : les événements n’arrivent pas d’eux-mêmes, ils sont créés par des personnes, en réaction à ce qu’ils éprouvent.
Cet ouvrage est en revanche assez long, et il y a quelque chose dans le style qui fait qu’il se lit lentement, sans pour autant être particulièrement compliqué. Mais j’ai ressenti une certaine lassitude à sa lecture.
Cet ouvrage est en revanche assez long, et il y a quelque chose dans le style qui fait qu’il se lit lentement, sans pour autant être particulièrement compliqué. Mais j’ai ressenti une certaine lassitude à sa lecture.
November 9, 2023
This is an outstanding work that goes over the origins of the terror during the French Revolution in great detail with a long slow buildup of the wide variety of factors, political, cultural, military, diplomatic, even artistic and gender related that drove underlay what became the Terror. As with Hemingway's definition of bankruptcy, slowly at first, and then all at once. The work is driven by first person accounts of the terror by both its perpetrators, its victims and the many observers who the terror was meant to, and did, terrify. The book is a tour de force and extremely readable, I highly recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews