There is much to recommend in David Andress' The Terror. It is a well-argued account of the causes and effects of the French Revolution, and its continuing after effects. That is, his assessment rises from a clear view of the facts presented in a highly compelling and usually readable history. Andress makes it clear that the Revolution was not, as Wordsworth famously opined, "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive."
There is many a slip between history and family stories although each relies on the memories of those who were there. My family (5 generations back) fled France in 1789 just ahead of the executioner's blade. History says that our progenitor, the physician Jean Formeduval, was part of a failed plot to rescue some members of the royal family. Fleeing eventually to Haiti, we arrived in time for their Revolution of 1791 and departed again to end up in the swamps of Southeastern North Carolina where some of them made a hardscrabble living fishing, hunting, and farming. The doctor bought rich farmland and, with his family, entered the census in 1800. Descendants still live on the original tract of land. The oral history I learned as a boy is a bit more colorful (We tried to assassinate Napoleon!) but is not supported by the facts a cousin continues to unearth from the French archives. The story of the Terror continues to be a developing story as new information is uncovered and shared with readers. So it is with all history, which is being revised continually.
There is many a slip between history and family stories although each relies on the memories of those who were there. My family (5 generations back) fled France in 1789 just ahead of the executioner's blade. History says that our progenitor, the physician Jean Formeduval, was part of a failed plot to rescue some members of the royal family. Fleeing eventually to Haiti, we arrived in time for their Revolution of 1791 and departed again to end up in the swamps of Southeastern North Carolina where some of them made a hardscrabble living fishing, hunting, and farming. The doctor bought rich farmland and, with his family, entered the census in 1800. Descendants still live on the original tract of land. The oral history I learned as a boy is a bit more colorful (We tried to assassinate Napoleon!) but is not supported by the facts a cousin continues to unearth from the French archives. The story of the Terror continues to be a developing story as new information is uncovered and shared with readers. So it is with all history, which is being revised continually.
Andress has researched his subject exhaustively. Extensive chapter notes (But, where is the formal bibliography!?) make this clear. Two particularly helpful sections are a detailed time line and a cast of characters, both of which I happily referred to frequently. Nevertheless, though this is intended as a popular version, one should have more than a passing interest. Otherwise, the reader will get bogged down in the myriad facts and names. One is overwhelmed by the scope of the detail.
The first three sentences of the introduction pose the questions Andress seeks to answer: "How far can a state legitimately dehumanize its enemies? When is it right arbitrarily to detain those suspected of subversion? Can terror ever be justified as an instrument of policy?" The Terror in 1794 was the result of a process that led to what was truly a civil war pitting friends against one another. The King and Queen were not immediately deposed; in fact, Louis was still seen as the savior of the state as late as 1792. Ironically, the effort to overthrow what some viewed as oppressive aristocratic rule resulted, of course, in the ascension of Napoleon. The weakness of The Terror lies in those first three sentences, however, for Andress never answers these questions as succinctly as he states them. He clearly places the Terror and its participants in the context of that time, while framing it in the beginning and conclusion as the logical progenitor of our current world political situation.
The first three sentences of the introduction pose the questions Andress seeks to answer: "How far can a state legitimately dehumanize its enemies? When is it right arbitrarily to detain those suspected of subversion? Can terror ever be justified as an instrument of policy?" The Terror in 1794 was the result of a process that led to what was truly a civil war pitting friends against one another. The King and Queen were not immediately deposed; in fact, Louis was still seen as the savior of the state as late as 1792. Ironically, the effort to overthrow what some viewed as oppressive aristocratic rule resulted, of course, in the ascension of Napoleon. The weakness of The Terror lies in those first three sentences, however, for Andress never answers these questions as succinctly as he states them. He clearly places the Terror and its participants in the context of that time, while framing it in the beginning and conclusion as the logical progenitor of our current world political situation.
The justification for the Terror was first voiced by the Jacobins on September 5 1789: "It is time to horrify all the conspirators. So legislators, place Terror on the order of the day! Let us be in revolution, because everywhere counter-revolution is being woven by our enemies. The blade of the law should hover over all the guilty." (p. 179) The blade fell on the just and unjust alike.
As critics have pointed out, Andress draws a parallel between 9/11 and the Revolution: "If we do not honour the message of human rights born in the revolutions of 1776 and 1789, as the French in their case most clearly failed to do, we too are on the road to Terror." (p. 7) "It is the close parallels between our own age's concern with individual rights and the French Revolution's invocation of that concept that make the comparison yet more pointed. . . . (Or, as Danton put it, in what Andress clearly sees as a U.S. justification for the war in Iraq) "Let us be terrible so that the people will not have to be." (p. 376)
As critics have pointed out, Andress draws a parallel between 9/11 and the Revolution: "If we do not honour the message of human rights born in the revolutions of 1776 and 1789, as the French in their case most clearly failed to do, we too are on the road to Terror." (p. 7) "It is the close parallels between our own age's concern with individual rights and the French Revolution's invocation of that concept that make the comparison yet more pointed. . . . (Or, as Danton put it, in what Andress clearly sees as a U.S. justification for the war in Iraq) "Let us be terrible so that the people will not have to be." (p. 376)
The irony of the French Revolution is that those who inspired the rebellion and those who perpetuated it, even to the Terror, believed they were truly fighting for liberty and equality and that the ends justified the means. Look back at the Crusaders against the Saracens, each of whom felt its side was in the right. Fast forward to today and much the same argument can be made for Western culture versus Middle Eastern culture. Each believes the sanctity of its cause, and there seems to be no middle ground and no hope of reconciliation.
David Andress has long-focused his efforts on the French Revolution. Previous books have included French Society in Revolution, 1789-1799; Massacre at the Champ de Mars; and The French Revolution and the People. He is currently working on yet another, 1789 - The World Turns, which he calls the defining moment of western culture for the next 200 years. A Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, he is reader in modern European history at the University of Portsmouth.
David Andress has long-focused his efforts on the French Revolution. Previous books have included French Society in Revolution, 1789-1799; Massacre at the Champ de Mars; and The French Revolution and the People. He is currently working on yet another, 1789 - The World Turns, which he calls the defining moment of western culture for the next 200 years. A Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, he is reader in modern European history at the University of Portsmouth.
