do you have any knowledge of the validity of Ian Davidson’s “the french revolution: from enlightenment to tyranny”? im not sure how completely accurate this is. it appears as it he is going out of his way to push robespierre as the shrewd leader of the Montagnards who pushed out/ brazenly attacked anyone who disagreed with him and gained the majority through intimidation
The summary you've given me is not a good sign, and neither is the title which betrays a liberal political alignment. I don't know this author so that gives me to opportunity to show what you should do when you are faced with a similar question.
HOW TO EVALUATE A BOOK
The first thing you do is look who the author is. Is he a historian? What's his field of expertise? Is the book about a general topic or a very specific one? How well is this author familiar with the topic? Did he write other books that help us know more about him? Can we find who he studied with (i.e. who was his adviser) and where? Does he write with other authors? Can we find his political/ideological beliefs?
All of this is important for any academic book, but even more so for the French Revolution.
For example, you might have a book written by a historian but their expertise is on the mid-18th century. It doesn't mean the book will be bad - on the contrary, you might find some great insights! But it tells you there might be some limits in their knowledge, some nuances they're not familiar with. You might have a brilliant historian on the American Revolution but when it comes to the French Revolution... well, it won't be as brilliant. On the other hand, you might have a book written by a non-historian, but it could still be very good! There might still be certain weaker aspects though.
The second thing you do is look for academic reviews of the book. Not the kind of praise you'll see on Amazon or on the backcover - that's meant to sell the book. What you need is an actual critique that might answer the questions previously asked about the author as well as give you a good idea of what the book's main thesis is, what it tries to demonstrate, and possibly give you the structure as well (i.e. tell you what's in the chapters or parts). Those can be harder to access because they could be behind paywalls - but there's a way to get a free account with jstor.
Now let's look into this author and this book together!
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
One of the first things I find is a conference talk he gave at the Franco-British Society where he replaced John Hardman, who's an expert who's written many books on the French Revolution. That means Davidson was considered an acceptable substitute for a learned society. It is not, however, an academic or historian society. It's described as an "independent charitable organisation, privileged to have His Majesty King Charles III as its patron". This kind of details can be kind of important.
Let's see what they say about Davidson and his book:
The French Revolution: from Enlightenment to Tyranny by IAN DAVIDSON
The book reminds us that the Revolution was both an inspiration of the finest principles of a new democracy and an awful warning of what can happen when idealism goes wrong.
'Marvellous stuff and an indication of the perennially absorbing nature of the Revolution. Davidson's book is a worthy addition to the canon.' (Spectator); 'Terse, tightly written ... allows certain critical aspects of the Revolution to stand out in a way that doesn't usually happen. (David Aaronovitch - The Times)
Ian Davidson worked for the Financial Times for many years, as Paris correspondent and as chief foreign affairs columnist. He studied English and Classics at Cambridge University, before being awarded the Frank Knox Memorial Fellowship at Harvard and later becoming Visiting Fellow at the School for Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University. Based in London, he is author of Voltaire in Exile (2004) and Voltaire: A Life (Profile, 2010).
I see a few potential red flags. He doesn't have a training as a historian. The two other books he wrote are about Voltaire. This might skew his perspective on the French Revolution, or explain why it's skewed. His other non-history books also reveal his interests, especially his ideological leanings:
So let's continue our investigation.
REVIEWS OF THE BOOK
Because Davidson is a journalist (former Paris correspondent for the Financial Times) rather than an academic historian, his book is classified as popular history. Thus, when I look for reviews of his book, I don't seem able to find anything in an academic journal - because he doesn't have abe to abide by those standards, and academics might not really bother. This kind of book is usually analyzed by prominent literary and cultural publications that bridge the gap between popular and academic history. I found a review in The Times and The Spectator, but both are behind paywalls.
I think the best we'll find is the one written by Political Science MA student Roberto Castelar. It's posted on the LSE Review of Books, which claims to post reviews by academics and experts.
So let's take a look.
This new history of the French Revolution avoids immersing readers in the complex scholarly debates that have long characterised the subject, instead seeking to offer the best of what is currently known about this crucial historical process.
This is literally the first sentence and already this is a bad sign.
Are scholarly debates tedious? Yes. Are they necessary on an event like the French Revolution? YES.
Davidson describes how the democratic institutions established at the beginning of the Revolution were quickly overturned by the revolutionaries when circumstances proved particularly difficult for their political projects.
Already I'm not sure what that means. The Terror or something else? Also define "democratic institutions": they were census-based.
Davidson’s narrative is more orientated towards description than to explanation, however, and the book does not propose reasons for understanding why the turn towards tyranny and terror happened.
Okay this is... this is just really bad? He wants to tell you this is tyranny and terror but refuses to explain because you might make up your own mind. We're just at the end of the second paragraph of the review btw.
The book generally succeeds, nevertheless, in describing with clarity how events developed and interacted. Davidson highlights how the revolutionaries were unable to achieve broad support throughout the country and proved incapable of attaining comprehensive legitimation of their actions. The problems attached to the currency (‘assignats’) introduced by the National Assembly, the strictly Parisian boundaries of the popular movement and the direct confrontation with the Catholic Church are all described as salient factors that contributed to the estrangement of the revolutionaries from the majority of the French population, predominantly religious and peasant. This exacerbated discontent and generated many popular rebellions, such as that of Vendée, all of which were brutally repressed by the revolutionaries.
I would be very curious to know his sources on this topic because it sounds like hot garbage because it sounds like a very popular myth spread by Anglo liberals.
A more detailed account was needed, perhaps, to show why the National Assembly consented so easily to the demands of the sans-culottes in the latter’s insurrection in 1792 as well as to illustrate how the power relations within the National Assembly and the National Convention were configured, and how Robespierre manoeuvred to consolidate his political authority within them.
Red flag.
Given the variety of the topics covered, the central theme of the book might also escape the reader at certain points. But perhaps the problem is that it is considerably difficult to portray the events of the Revolution in a methodical manner. Their complexity makes the Revolution look like an erratic storm constantly changing direction and intensity in unpredictable ways.
So this is not a good sign either.
A strong feature of The French Revolution is its reliance on a wide array of relevant literature, including ‘classic’ historians of the Revolution such as Michelet, Mathiez and Tocqueville, as well as some of the most important contemporary authors. Davidson is particularly indebted to the work of François Furet, perhaps the most widely known of recent historians of the French Revolution.
I did have a feeling he was mostly inspired by Furet, no big surprise here...
However, he approaches his work and the wider literature with a critical disposition, often diverging from what is normally taken as the safer interpretation. For instance, one of the most intriguing aspects about which scholarly opinions widely split, and for which Davidson proposes new explanations, is Robespierre’s manifold positions and attitudes, whose underlying motives are often hard to determine with the available evidence.
And now I'm very curious about this novel intriguing approach on Robespierre.
What is important to keep in mind in this narration, as well as in any history of the Revolution, are the differences between the symbolic and intellectual impact of the Revolution both inside France and abroad, its actual outcomes and what the revolutionaries intended to do: distinctions which Davidson makes to some extent clear in the epilogue of the book.
This is actually a good thing! Kinda sad it's in the epilogue but that's often where it's usually discussed. Might be worth looking what he says...
WHAT ELSE TO LOOK FOR
Are there footnotes? If there aren't, it isn't always proof that a book is bad, because some publishing houses are just allergic to footnotes. Vinot's Saint-Just doesn't have footnotes, but it was written from his PhD thesis, so it's good - just irritating.
In absence of footnotes, look for the bibliography. It's not as precise but it gives you an idea on what the author read, and might give you other titles you'd want to look up!
Another useful thing is to look for the table of contents. Sometimes you can be lucky enough to find it online, as in this case!
What this tells me is this book is trying to be a synthesis of the events from 1789 to 1794. This kind of book can be tricky as you'll need to generalize. Actually, Castelar's review does bring it up as a weakness:
"Given the variety of the topics covered, the central theme of the book might also escape the reader at certain points."
Syntheses are tough for historians already, who are taught to specialize more than generalize. It can also be tedious to read depending on how engaging the author's tone is. That's where a journalist might sell you a more enjoyable story to read. Of course, enjoyable doesn't mean accurate - doesn't mean it's entirely inaccurate either though. Just some things to consider when reading the book: is the author trying to tell the facts or to tell a good story? That's where many mistakes can crawl in. (For example, Twelve Who Ruled is very enjoyable! But often factually incorrect.)
I also found a part of his introduction. So we can check his style and tone.
It's an engaging style, but that's all I can say about it. In just 6 pages, he's already invoked Furet, Tocqueville and Burke... okay, to be fair, it cuts off before I know what he actually thinks of Burke:
And while this (the 3rd paragraph of the introduction) is actually a surprisingly refreshing take:
The one that came just before is a bit bizarre:
Especially because I don't think he talks about the Directoire much beyond one chapter before the epilogue, and the strongest example for the argument he's making here is not the Revolutionary Government but the Directoire invalidating elections with purges and coups d'État when the results didn't favor the center - a complete violation to the rule of law that led to the end of the Republic. Then again, maybe he addresses it. I'm not super optimistic though.
VERDICT
This is the kind of book that might seem easier to read, but the price you will pay is in nuance and complexity. The French Revolution is complex. It's complex to explain, to understand, to analyze. You'll need to get through it eventually so avoiding it doesn't seem like a great idea to me. Unless you want to keep things on the surface, but I get the feeling you might want a deeper dive - or at least a more accurate one.
I don't think this should be the first synthesis on the French Revolution you read - I recommend McPhee's instead. Either this one or that one.
Davidson's book seems better suited to serve as an exercise to examine ideology because I get the vibes it was funded by the Burger Eagle Institute to Promote Democracy and Liberty. Sorry - His Royal Majesty's Baked Beans on Toast Institute to Promote Democracy and Liberty. My mistake. There's a number of red flags I recognize well enough to confidently say this book seems like a rather traditional "liberal" British interpretation.
I am curious about what nonsense it says about Robespierre though.
Usually, my post are bilingual (BR-PT/EN), but this one is a special post to Brazilian fellas who may be interested in academia aesthetic. However, later I’ll probably do an all English post about the basics of Academia
Primeiramente, o que é o estilo Academia?
O estilo Academia é um estilo estético de uma subcultura que valoriza literatura, arte e conhecimento acadêmico inspirada nas roupas usadas por estudantes universitários europeus durante a década de 1940 misturada a elementos da arte gótica (não confundir com subcultura gótica, mas se quiser pode). Ele tem vários subgrupos (que serão abordados mais a baixo) e pode ser usado por QUALQUER pessoa, não apenas aquelas que tem “boas notas” ou estão na universidade.
Quais os principais valores do estilo Academia?
• Curiosidade
• Sede de conhecimento
• Sabedoria (importante lembrar que inteligência e sabedoria são coisas diferentes)
• Existencialismo
• Autodescoberta
Correntes dentro do Academia
• Dark Academia
O mais popular, se diferencia do demais pelas cores das roupas que tendem a ser escuras (preto, tons terrosos, cinza).
• Art Academia
Inspirada nos movimentos clássicos da Arte.
• Chaotic Academia
Mistura estética academia com estéticas tidas como “caóticas”. Em geral são pessoas que, apesar de serem fascinadas por literatura, conhecimento etc, não são exatamente “alunos modelos”. Tendem a ter quartos/mesas de estudo bagunçadas, bebem muito café e estão sempre meio perdidos
• Classic Academia
Mistura vários tipos de estilo Academia e é o tipo “aluno modelo”. Tendem a gostar de usar palavras rebuscadas.
• Darkest Academia
Uma versão de Dark Academia com tons ainda mais escuros (predominancia de looks monocromáticos pretos, por ex) e costumam ler livros com temas mais pesados e obscuros.
• Fairy Academia
Inspirada nas eras Vitoriana e Edwardiana, em especial em elementos infantis.
• Gray Academia
Se apresenta como uma alternativa para o comportamento muitas vezes elitista e arrogante das pessoas no meio Academia. Costumam discutir sobre questões como eurocentrismo, direitos civis, capacitismo etc dentro do meio acadêmico e fora dele. Tem pouco a ver com estética, mas sim com a luta pelo acesso à educação, arte e cultura por minorias.
• Light Academia
Estética academia mas em tons claros .
• Pagano-Lovecore
Mistura de estética Academia com Lovecore, usando a cultura greco-romana antiga como inspiração.
• Pastel Academia
Mistura de elementos kawaiicore, elementos harajuku e cores pastéis com estilo academia.
• Romantic Academia
Parecido com Light Academia, mas com grande foco em literatura romântica e elementos do barroco.
• Theatre Academia
Baseado em peças teatrais, óperas, balés e musicais, uma espécie de mistura de Theatre Kid com Academia.
• Witchy Academia
Estilo academia com elementos da bruxaria e/ou neopaganismo, geralmente greco-romano.
• Poetcore/Writer Academia
Um estilo academia mais baseado em pessoas que gostam de escrever. Tem como filosofia principal que qualquer um pode ser um poeta/escritor, desde que goste de escrever.
O que eu posso fazer para ser mais Academia?
• Estude/leia sobre coisas que gosta por puro hobby.
• Procure ler de tudo um pouco, em especial clássicos da literatura.
• Pesquise sobre moda dos anos 1940 e tente adaptar pra sua realidade.
• Se você gostar da ideia, entre em um clube do livro (ou crie o seu!).
• Visite museus, leia sobre história da arte.
• Tente hobbies artísticos como escrever, desenhar, teatro etc.
• Algumas pessoas do meio Academia gostam de estudar outras línguas por pura diversão. Muitos estudam latim e grego só por estudar! Se você gostar da ideia, vá em frente!
• Experimente journaling (tipo ter um diário, mas que você pode fazer artes e colagens).
• Procure por filmes fora do mainstream, filmes estrangeiros etc (apesar de haverem filmes vibe Academia que são mainstream como Sociedade dos Poetas Mortos). Se você gostar de filmes, ver clássicos é uma boa.
• Experimente estudar em bibliotecas e cafeterias (no meu caso eu nem faço pelo aesthetic, é q me ajuda mesmo).
• Experimente criar o hábito de tomar chá ou café.
• Procure ouvir música em vinil.
• Acima de tudo, seja você mesmo! Você não precisa fingir alguém que não é ou fazer coisas que não gosta só por causa da estética.
Avisos!
• Não é porque você vai ler um bando de livros e aprender palavras difíceis que você é melhor que os outros.
• Boa educação é um privilégio. Lembre-se sempre disso e lute para que ela se torne um DIREITO. Um verdadeiro apreciador do conhecimento quer que ele seja algo que todos possam alcançar.
• O mundo não gira ao redor da Europa, então não fique preso apenas a referências europeias.
• NÃO romantize perder horas de sono e vida social pra estudar, isso não é bacana
• Basicamente, não seja um babaca :)
Fonte pra esse post: https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Dark_Academia
Dark Academiais an aesthetic that revolves around classic literature, the pursuit of self-discovery, and a general passion for knowledge and
(Or at least that's how I learned to do it at the History department of my North American university in the late 2000s - early 2010s. Some details may vary.)
A title is obviously not enough, but don't worry, I've been fooled myself by titles that seemed really good, and then the contents didn't really match. Don't blame the authors, they have little control over that. The publishers wanted to market it and make more money from books that are kind of niche.
The short summaries in the back? Well they're not very detailed... Sometimes they're just praise from other historians. Not the most helpful.
What you really need to check is the table of contents. It's a much better indicator than a title or back summary. Some are very detailed too!
History books often have forewords. They're written by a senior historian, someone who supervised the thesis this book was based on, etc. Sometimes it will have more than one foreword, especially if it's a classic that's started to age. This is where you find information about the author. This is where you'll find out if the author is a historian or someone of another trade who picked it up as a hobby or is doing a serious second career out of it, if there are flaws or biases in their research, if they have an agenda they are willing to admit to or not. Because subjectivity is not BAD. Pure objectivity is a myth. You teach that to first year students because it's easier and otherwise it might make teaching (and grading) a nightmare. First you need to learn the basics. Then you learn how to interpret. Only after that can you pick your side. (I mean, you can pick it fairly early, but you have to be aware that there are sides, because there are always sides. You just have to know what it means to choose that side because yes they are political choices too.) The foreword is also usually where you will learn if this book resulted or was part of a controversy. Causing or being part of a controversy doesn't mean the book is bad. Some topics are just... like that. The French Revolution, for example, is like that.
A note: if it's a book with multiple authors, there will usually be a shorter section that gives you a summary of what each author has published most recently, works on, where they studied, etc. You most likely have a specific type of academic book in your hands: the printed result of a day or two of conferences historians held somewhere in the previous year.
Next you look at the introduction and the conclusion. The introduction might also mention if there's a controversy, in which case the book inserts itself into a longer tradition of it, and isn't sparking anything new - it's already existing. The introduction might also have the author give details on themselves. Usually there should be a section that introduces you to what each chapter/part of the book is about. That's how we learn to write introductions. But it's tedious to do, so not everyone sticks to the formula. Introductions sometimes are... just not that. It's up to the author, and how traumatized they've been by academia I guess.
The conclusion should recap, obviously, but it also showcases ways this book can help bridge the gap between preexisting research that's lacking in some way and future research that could fix that. It's also where the author might connect the past to the present, and talk about how history is relevant to the present day. Well, that's how I write conclusions anyway. There's a bit more leeway, depending.
Bibliographies are you friends. Study them. Look at the titles. Look at authors mentioned. Repeat the process.
One last note: if a book doesn't have footnotes, don't necessarily consider it garbage. There are publishing houses that refuse to do footnotes, even end of chapters or end of book notes. There are authors forced to sacrifice their notes in order to be published to a prestigious house in a sort of Faustian deal. Sacrificing your notes mean sacrificing the entire critical support system of your study. That's where your research happens. Sometimes my footnotes take two-thirds of a page. It's not fun to read (I don't know, I think it's fun), but that's how research is. But the Great Public doesn't seem to Like That. Or that's what publishers believe. There's a lot of socio-politics involved in publishing, and it's not very fair - unsurprisingly. You might have to go back to look if the book was based on a thesis. Bernard Vinot's biography on Saint-Just (396 pages), which is one of the best that exists, has no footnotes, but it was based on his PhD thesis which makes up three volumes and almost a thousand pages if I remember correctly. That's not a format publishing houses like very much alas. There's enormous work involved in turning your thesis into a book that can be published... and no guarantee it will be published. Again, socio-politics.
