What do you think?
Rate this book
La Révolution Française #1-3
La Rivoluzione Francese
in8. Broché.
989 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1924
13 people are currently reading
116 people want to read
About the author
Albert Mathiez
59 books2 followersAlbert-Xavier-Émile Mathiez was a French historian, best known for his Marxist interpretation of the Great French Revolution.
He entered the École Normale Supérieure in 1894, by which time he had already displayed a strong anti-clerical bias. After graduation, he passed the aggregation in history and after doing his military service entered the teaching profession. He taught at a variety of local lycèes until he completed his doctorate which he wrote under the direction of François Victor Alphonse Aulard, then the leading historian of the Revolution, who admired Georges Danton.
Mathiez was greatly influenced by Jean Jaurès, who propounded a more radical economic and social interpretation. At first a good friend of Aulard, he broke with his mentor in 1907, founding his own society, the Société des études robespierristes, with its journal, the Annales révolutionnaires. He also moved up from the lycée to the university level, teaching at Besançon and Dijon.
He made extensive use of archival documents in producing his numerous publications. Initially he studied the political and religious achievements of the Revolution and, after the First World War, its economic and social consequences emphasized class conflict. He argued that 1789 pitted the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy and then the Revolution pitted the bourgeoisie against the sans-culottes, who were a proletariat-in-the-making.
Mathiez greatly influenced Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul in forming what came to be known as the orthodox Marxist interpretation of the Revolution. Mathiez admired Maximilien Robespierre, praised the Reign of Terror and did not extend complete sympathy to the struggle of the proletariat.
A commemorative plaque in his likeness is still to this day in the amphitheater of the Sorbonne.
He entered the École Normale Supérieure in 1894, by which time he had already displayed a strong anti-clerical bias. After graduation, he passed the aggregation in history and after doing his military service entered the teaching profession. He taught at a variety of local lycèes until he completed his doctorate which he wrote under the direction of François Victor Alphonse Aulard, then the leading historian of the Revolution, who admired Georges Danton.
Mathiez was greatly influenced by Jean Jaurès, who propounded a more radical economic and social interpretation. At first a good friend of Aulard, he broke with his mentor in 1907, founding his own society, the Société des études robespierristes, with its journal, the Annales révolutionnaires. He also moved up from the lycée to the university level, teaching at Besançon and Dijon.
He made extensive use of archival documents in producing his numerous publications. Initially he studied the political and religious achievements of the Revolution and, after the First World War, its economic and social consequences emphasized class conflict. He argued that 1789 pitted the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy and then the Revolution pitted the bourgeoisie against the sans-culottes, who were a proletariat-in-the-making.
Mathiez greatly influenced Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul in forming what came to be known as the orthodox Marxist interpretation of the Revolution. Mathiez admired Maximilien Robespierre, praised the Reign of Terror and did not extend complete sympathy to the struggle of the proletariat.
A commemorative plaque in his likeness is still to this day in the amphitheater of the Sorbonne.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Read
August 2, 2023"[...] i Giacobini avevano ragione e che
Terrore o no la Rivoluzione Francese era stata una cosa giusta"
Terrore o no la Rivoluzione Francese era stata una cosa giusta"
November 23, 2016
incredibly pro-Robespierre, does not hesitate to denigrate anyone who ever clashed with him, casting aspersions right, left and centre. He even thinks the festivities in honour of the Supreme Being were a delightful event. Still, it is a decent narrative history where Robespierre doesn't come into it
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews