A History of Modern France, Volume 1

“The simple interpretations imposed on eighteenth century France by historians writing under the influence of later social and political ideologies may have to be abandoned, but the history that is beginning to emerge from more detailed studies, if it is more complex, is still coherent.”

I did not read the back cover blurb initially, but after finishing I see that the all knowledgeable Professor of French History, Alfred Cobban, had written the above as some challenge to the great unwashed.

In my not so humble opinion this is self-serving clap trap considering the arrogance of the opinions served up chapter after chapter with the use of the words “obvious” and “obviously” to make a point as if the good professor is the only interpreter of events. But then at one point when it suits, the reader is told “Whether anything that any eighteenth-century government could have done to have remedied the poverty of the rural masses in France is more than doubtful.” Hang about Professor, within the next few pages we are talking about mass uprising with heads rolling and the elites running the country as a god given right, having no idea as to the great unwashed not particularly enjoying their lot in life for various reasons and that included lack of bread. How this is not “obvious” is beyond this reviewer.

Little comments such as this come aplenty. In discussing the extravagant spending on the arts and palaces of Louis XIV we are told in what seems to be defence of him that “the expense of even a small war was greater than that of the biggest palace.” The search engine of choice is my friend at this moment and with that I read that “Actual building costs for Versailles are debated by modern historians, because currency values are uncertain. However, Versailles' price tag ranges anywhere from two billion dollars (in 1994 USD) all the way up to a maximum cost of $299,520,000,000!” Having been to Versailles a couple of times I will take the latter price any day of the week, and considering that profligacy of the French Monarch and his nation's financial ineptitude as discussed in this book, I suspect that figure is closer to the truth.

As to the historians having literary pretences, I at one point read “.... and to find in Figaro the spirit of the Revolution is to see in the first breezes of autumn, shaking the petals of the roses one by one, the gales of winter.” Oh my goodness! What waffle. Want some more? “For the Assembly itself, filled with worthy and high-minded characters amongst whom he was as out of place as Gulliver among the Lilliputians, he had the utmost contempt.”

The good professor is disdainful of just about everyone. Those that questioned Marie Antoinette involvement or lack thereof in the Diamond Ring affair are described “the scum of society” He has particular disdain for the Sans-culotte who he may have well as described as, to use modern parlance, a brain-dead mob who knew nothing as to what they were doing and the scum of society.
I found his writing very limited in discussing the Sans-culotte.

His attempt to describe Danton was an utter jumble. “He probably took bribes to betray the Revolution and his country, yet there is no evidence that he betrayed them” In one sentence Danton is described as “lazy” but in the next “tireless”.

Only surnames are used and there is a tendency to occasionally throw in an obscure individual that had no mention in the index. There are few assessments of character that would have assisted the reader, and some terms such as Brissotins instead of Girondins had me confused at first.

I have only recently delved into modern French history with several podcasts, a brief history and plenty of internet resources, so I came into this very much looking forward. I have all three volumes, but after this first one am very hesitant to read any more. I know I have a preference that tells me the facts of events as opposed to the author's opinion and am aware that as a lay reader I have to expect this, but this one was a bit too opinionated. First released in 1957 this is no popular history written for the curious beginner or for that matter anyone outside the academic world and then even I wonder as to that. I found it all arrogant and turgid. For what has been an exciting adventure into one of the most definitive times in world history, I am in awe that this volume could be so dense and dull. I think this will be a very hard to read for anyone other than those that have a deep understanding of modern French history.

With that, I recommend this to only those that are very well immersed in this period of French history, and then only for Cobban's interpretations.