Peregrine Worsthorne on The French Revolution

Which book shall we begin with? Is there one particular book that you felt was the defining one of all of these?

Well, there are two French writers among my recommendations. One of them puts the case for the revolution as far as it can be put, in my view. And it's a beautifully written book, a marvelous book to read: that's Jules Michelet: who wrote his History of the Revolution in two volumes. And what it does, really, is to describe the ancien regime in a way that convincingly makes one clear that the revolution had to happen. It doesn't underplay the horrors of the French Revolution, but neither does it underplay the horrors of the ancien regime. So it seems to me that even if you regard the French Revolution as having done more harm than good, you can still see that it was in fact inspired by idealism, however squalid and brutal the eventual form that it took. I don't think you can do better than start with Michelet, who gives you a marvelously clear and eloquent explanation of why it had to happen and how the ancien regime failed to mend itself, and therefore had to be violently removed. I think he puts the case for that as well as it could be put. Against that of course, the other French historian, Hippolyte Taine, does exactly the opposite. He makes you think that despite its high ideals, the French Revolution was an absolute disaster. Neither of these are weekend reading: they are very serious books, but they are both in fact beautifully written, and both well translated.

Is the Michelet more of a justification than a history?

No - both of them are extremely serious historians. Neither of them could be regarded as propagandists or apologists. But on the whole, Michelet believes that the revolution is necessary, and in fact started a new period of glory for France. And Taine rather thinks it was the end of France: I mean that getting rid of the old order in a violent fashion troubled French politics for the next century. And like all these great historians, you read the one and you feel convinced, and then you read the other and you feel you've got to see the other point of view. They’re a model of how history should be written. You don't just find out about the French Revolution (and this is true of all great histories), you find out much more about politics in general, society in general, human nature in general. You broaden your knowledge not only of the particular subject - you begin to understand the richness of the human condition, and how interesting it is to study. These histories bring all of the problems of social organisation into perspective. You come away understanding not only more about French 17th and 18th century politics, but about politics today. And politics in general. For anybody wanting to go into politics, to be able to have a mastery of the subjects the French revolution involved is an enormous help, and will deepen their understanding of what they ought to be doing today. In my view, that’s the trouble today: so few politicians do know any history. More than a trouble, it’s a disaster. I mean, you can't be a politician without being deeply interested in history. In any case those are two books that provide the pro and con of the French Revolution.

Let's look at Tocqueville, because here is someone who was absolutely personally involved in the historical process.

Tocqueveille, yes: of course his book is about the American Revolution. But if you read it, it's more about the French Revolution than the American Revolution. Well, it’s about democracy in general. But as Tocqueville perceives it the great problem… well, in a way, perhaps his book should be called the American Aristocracy rather than American Democracy, because it’s really all about the need in democratic politics to have a public-spirited aristocracy. Of course you didn’t use the word aristocracy then, because despite being the ideal, the word was out of fashion, and Tocqueville was writing about democracy. But he did worry that America didn't have that aristocratic element and that a democracy without that aristocratic element would not work. The Americans hadn't by then - at the time he was writing - found a substitute for the French aristocracy in France. And then Tocqueville began to see the glimmerings of possibility in America, and found an aristocracy suitable for democracy, and again I suppose you would argue that this is a subject relevant to today: as we've just got rid of our aristocracy, or toffs, or grandees as they're called, and the meritocracy that has taken their place is a disaster, rather as it happened in Republican France, and still in a way pertains, because they never found a political elite which the public was prepared to trust. All of these subjects are beautifully considered in Tocqueville's books: two volumes about the American democracy.

What was Tocqueville’s answer?

He never found one. It’s a sort of gaping hole: he struggled and struggled and struggled to find an alternative. I suppose what has taken its place in France although it hadn't quite materialised in his day was - what are those French schools called the brightest children go to?

The Grandes Ecoles?

Yes, they do have in France an educational aristocracy, and that in itself has to some extent now become hereditary, because the children of the very clever tend to be very clever too, so you've got a case where there are very many families who are top notch in France - not the old aristocracy, but the political aristocracy - much as our hereditary peers kept producing people for the House of Lords, there's this group in France who go on producing the high technicians, the elite, who are all running the civil service and the banks and even the newspapers.

Do you think Tocqueville was writing very much with a view to influencing events in France?