Writing Worth Reading
Writing Worth Reading
A marvelously clear and eloquent explanation of why the French Revolution had to happen; 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.
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.
Read full interview.png)
Peregrine Worsthorne is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. He was a leader writer and foreign correspondent for the Times from 1948-1953, and was the editor of the Sunday Telegraph from 1985-1991. He contributes to the New Statesman and to the online magazine The First Post. He is the author of The Socialist Myth, 1972, Tricks of Memory, 1993 and In Defence of Aristocracy, 2004.
