What do you think?
Rate this book
Lectures on the French Revolution
This collection of the lectures of Lord Acton on the French Revolution comprises a disciplined, thorough, and elegant history of the actual events of the bloody episode. It is as thorough a record as could be constructed in Acton’s time of the actions of the government of France during the Revolution. Delivered at Cambridge University between 1895 and 1899, Lectures on the French Revolution is a distinguished account of the entire epochal chapter in French experience by one of the most remarkable English historians of the nineteenth century. In contrast to Burke a century before, Acton is not concerned with condemning the Revolution, but in providing an accurate history of its advent, its bloody action, and its aftermath. There are twenty-two essays in the collection, commencing with “The Heralds of the Revolution,” in which Acton presents a taxonomy of the intellectual ferment that preceded and prepared the Revolution. An important appendix explores “The Literature of the Revolution,” offering assessments of the accounts of the Revolution written during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by, among others, Burke, Guizot, and Taine. Stephen J. Tonsor is Professor Emeritus in History at the University of Michigan. He is a longtime student of the history of Germany and of Lord Acton.
350 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1910
12 people are currently reading
165 people want to read
About the author
John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton
305 books68 followersJohn Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, and usually referred to simply as Lord Acton, was an English historian.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 26, 2016
Who writes like this anymore? Lord Acton's mellifluously measured, sober prose is Whigging me out. An immensely and impressively wise, learned, considered, and impartial reflection upon the French Revolution—the best I've ever encountered, if truth be told (well, Carlyle is right up there, from what I've read, but it is of an entirely different timber...)
September 4, 2020
What did Lord Acton believe caused the French Revolution [1789–1799]? For what it’s worth, here is a bit of referenced analysis I’ve found about his lectures on the subject:
… “Acton’s analysis of the Revolution in the Lectures reflects this devotion to history infused with moral judgment: he describes the Revolution as a clash of old privilege against new economic power. The rising middle classes that had grown in strength had long been denied royal prerogative or rights equal to the aristocracy or the Church. But in the 1780s, they “demanded that the State should be reformed and that the ruler should be their agent, not their master. That is the French Revolution.” Acton does not spare the monarch of responsibility. He acknowledges its real flaws, not least its indecisiveness and the occasional, almost unconscious, cruelty of the ancien régime. Louis XVI is portrayed as weak, his queen scheming, and both forgo numerous chances to save their monarchy, as well as their lives.
“The Revolution’s original, seemingly modest, goals of reform were, within a decade, swallowed by civil war, terror, and authoritarianism. Acton does not shy from the horrors of the Revolution (though he does not describe them with the same delight in gore that one finds, say, in Hippolyte Taine’s history), but he also expresses admiration for some of the main players in the revolutionary drama. Jean-Joseph Mounier, the author of the Tennis Court Oath and the presenter of the grievances to Louis XVI, is praised as a sincere lover of liberty. During the deliberations in the summer and fall of 1789, Mounier tried to have the representatives adopt a reasonable plan of government, but resigned when his proposals were rejected in favor of the absolutist democratic proposals being circulated by radicals such as Marat. These proposals placed “the people” as the absolute authority for all laws, and if the emerging legislature could not immediately enforce the people’s will, it should be cashiered and a new legislature formed.
“The Lectures begin by tracing the influences of Rousseau, Turgot, Voltaire, and others on the intellectual foundations of the Revolution, but this is not a dry intellectual history. Acton’s prose is almost always sharp and engaging. Each of the writers made contributions to the revolutionary ferment in the years leading up to 1789. Not least was the notion—imported from Rousseau—that the will of the people is the final arbiter of political life, above magistrates, elected representatives, or even the king:
“So many lines converging on destruction explain the agreement that existed when the States-General began, and the explosion that followed the reforms of ’89 and the ruins of ’93. No conflict can be more irreconcilable than that between a constitution and an enlightened absolutism, between abrogation of old laws and multiplication of new, between representation and direct democracy, the people controlling and the people governing, kings by contract and kings by mandate.
“The other source for the Revolution, its “spark,” as Acton calls it, was the American Revolution. This influence came in two forms. First, the writings coming from pre-revolutionary America confirmed France in its quest for liberty and equality. Here was another revolution devoted to an abstract principle—liberty—that the French too had found almost irresistible. But there were differences in execution, which John Adams noted when he described the Revolution as one not made, but prevented. Most of the Founders were clear in their devotion to the many aspects of the English system as transplanted in America. Even in their devotion to an abstract liberty from the (relatively light) tax burdens of the distant British throne, the Founders wanted to preserve as much of the English system as possible. For example, in most colonies the English common law was adopted in toto. And there were no structures of feudalism to destroy, unlike in France, where landowners still controlled much of the wealth and power and had few enforceable responsibilities.
…
“Louis XVI was not the worst French king—indeed, he was something of a reformer—but his support for America strengthened revolutionary sentiment that ultimately he could not control.
“It was not enough, however, to have French theory or American action foment the Revolution. It was the confluence of both, in Acton’s account, that “caused the Revolution to break out, not in an excess of irritation and despair, but in a moment of better feeling between the nation and the king.” At the exact moment when the spark struck, in other words, things were not so bad. The people were expressing grievances, and the king was not unsympathetic. Yet one of the lessons Acton brings out is that history is not reducible to physics. Character and personality come into play and can change history. This is not a Marxian “people’s history” that attributes history to impersonal forces working toward a postmodern future. Acton emphasizes what a close call the Revolution was, even months after the fall of the Bastille. Had Mounier been more flexible and accommodating, had the king intervened at different times when it could have made a difference, had the queen not been so intransigent and the clergy not so rigid, history may have been different.
“Even as late as the summer of 1792, Louis XVI could have saved the day by rallying the troops and joining his allies massing outside Paris, who had vowed to restore the monarchy. Yet Louis did nothing, and was arrested, opening the way for two revolutionary leaders named Danton and Robespierre. “The issue between constitutional monarchy, the richest and most flexible of political forms, and the Republic one and indivisible [that is, not federal], which is the most rigorous and sterile, was decided by the crimes of men, and by errors more inevitably fatal than crime. There is another world for the expiation of guilt; but the wages of folly are payable here below.” Louis was to pay for his folly early the next year; in the first of the modern political show trials, he was executed. Meanwhile, with the monarch deposed and the legislature in disarray, the Commune came into its own, lead by Robespierre and Danton. Being an extralegal government, the Commune ruled by fear: the legislature and people were cowed by its violence, and that of the Committee of Public Safety. Inspired initially by moderate grievances, as Acton shows, with each further stage, men of darker character took over, until France descended into the Terror and “bare cupidity and vengeance, to brutal instinct and hideous passion” and even its architects, such as Danton, were murdered.”
The above commentary -- IMHO, a faithful and insightful interpretation of Lord Acton's relatively long and not-so-easy-to-read book -- is from Gerald J. Russello's "Lord Acton's Revolution."
Bottom line from a fellow author: highly recommended!
… “Acton’s analysis of the Revolution in the Lectures reflects this devotion to history infused with moral judgment: he describes the Revolution as a clash of old privilege against new economic power. The rising middle classes that had grown in strength had long been denied royal prerogative or rights equal to the aristocracy or the Church. But in the 1780s, they “demanded that the State should be reformed and that the ruler should be their agent, not their master. That is the French Revolution.” Acton does not spare the monarch of responsibility. He acknowledges its real flaws, not least its indecisiveness and the occasional, almost unconscious, cruelty of the ancien régime. Louis XVI is portrayed as weak, his queen scheming, and both forgo numerous chances to save their monarchy, as well as their lives.
“The Revolution’s original, seemingly modest, goals of reform were, within a decade, swallowed by civil war, terror, and authoritarianism. Acton does not shy from the horrors of the Revolution (though he does not describe them with the same delight in gore that one finds, say, in Hippolyte Taine’s history), but he also expresses admiration for some of the main players in the revolutionary drama. Jean-Joseph Mounier, the author of the Tennis Court Oath and the presenter of the grievances to Louis XVI, is praised as a sincere lover of liberty. During the deliberations in the summer and fall of 1789, Mounier tried to have the representatives adopt a reasonable plan of government, but resigned when his proposals were rejected in favor of the absolutist democratic proposals being circulated by radicals such as Marat. These proposals placed “the people” as the absolute authority for all laws, and if the emerging legislature could not immediately enforce the people’s will, it should be cashiered and a new legislature formed.
“The Lectures begin by tracing the influences of Rousseau, Turgot, Voltaire, and others on the intellectual foundations of the Revolution, but this is not a dry intellectual history. Acton’s prose is almost always sharp and engaging. Each of the writers made contributions to the revolutionary ferment in the years leading up to 1789. Not least was the notion—imported from Rousseau—that the will of the people is the final arbiter of political life, above magistrates, elected representatives, or even the king:
“So many lines converging on destruction explain the agreement that existed when the States-General began, and the explosion that followed the reforms of ’89 and the ruins of ’93. No conflict can be more irreconcilable than that between a constitution and an enlightened absolutism, between abrogation of old laws and multiplication of new, between representation and direct democracy, the people controlling and the people governing, kings by contract and kings by mandate.
“The other source for the Revolution, its “spark,” as Acton calls it, was the American Revolution. This influence came in two forms. First, the writings coming from pre-revolutionary America confirmed France in its quest for liberty and equality. Here was another revolution devoted to an abstract principle—liberty—that the French too had found almost irresistible. But there were differences in execution, which John Adams noted when he described the Revolution as one not made, but prevented. Most of the Founders were clear in their devotion to the many aspects of the English system as transplanted in America. Even in their devotion to an abstract liberty from the (relatively light) tax burdens of the distant British throne, the Founders wanted to preserve as much of the English system as possible. For example, in most colonies the English common law was adopted in toto. And there were no structures of feudalism to destroy, unlike in France, where landowners still controlled much of the wealth and power and had few enforceable responsibilities.
…
“Louis XVI was not the worst French king—indeed, he was something of a reformer—but his support for America strengthened revolutionary sentiment that ultimately he could not control.
“It was not enough, however, to have French theory or American action foment the Revolution. It was the confluence of both, in Acton’s account, that “caused the Revolution to break out, not in an excess of irritation and despair, but in a moment of better feeling between the nation and the king.” At the exact moment when the spark struck, in other words, things were not so bad. The people were expressing grievances, and the king was not unsympathetic. Yet one of the lessons Acton brings out is that history is not reducible to physics. Character and personality come into play and can change history. This is not a Marxian “people’s history” that attributes history to impersonal forces working toward a postmodern future. Acton emphasizes what a close call the Revolution was, even months after the fall of the Bastille. Had Mounier been more flexible and accommodating, had the king intervened at different times when it could have made a difference, had the queen not been so intransigent and the clergy not so rigid, history may have been different.
“Even as late as the summer of 1792, Louis XVI could have saved the day by rallying the troops and joining his allies massing outside Paris, who had vowed to restore the monarchy. Yet Louis did nothing, and was arrested, opening the way for two revolutionary leaders named Danton and Robespierre. “The issue between constitutional monarchy, the richest and most flexible of political forms, and the Republic one and indivisible [that is, not federal], which is the most rigorous and sterile, was decided by the crimes of men, and by errors more inevitably fatal than crime. There is another world for the expiation of guilt; but the wages of folly are payable here below.” Louis was to pay for his folly early the next year; in the first of the modern political show trials, he was executed. Meanwhile, with the monarch deposed and the legislature in disarray, the Commune came into its own, lead by Robespierre and Danton. Being an extralegal government, the Commune ruled by fear: the legislature and people were cowed by its violence, and that of the Committee of Public Safety. Inspired initially by moderate grievances, as Acton shows, with each further stage, men of darker character took over, until France descended into the Terror and “bare cupidity and vengeance, to brutal instinct and hideous passion” and even its architects, such as Danton, were murdered.”
The above commentary -- IMHO, a faithful and insightful interpretation of Lord Acton's relatively long and not-so-easy-to-read book -- is from Gerald J. Russello's "Lord Acton's Revolution."
Bottom line from a fellow author: highly recommended!
January 2, 2023
What a confusing mess was the French Revolution. This book does not help. It assumes you have a good understanding of the history. Without that, it is very difficult to follow.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews