Paris in the Terror

by Stanley Loomis

Named one of the “books of the century” by the University of California, Berkeley, Paris in the Terror tells the story of the Reign of Terror in terms of the chief performers in that particularly bloody phase of the French Revolution: Marat... Charlotte Corday...Danton...Mme Roland...Robespierre...Camille Desmoulins...Fouche.
The murder of Marat: July 1793
The trail of Danton: April 1794
The end of Robespierre: July 1794
Bibliography
Index

Genres: History, France, French Revolution, Nonfiction, World History, 18th Century

415 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1964

About the author

Stanley Loomis was the author of four books on French history: Du Barry (1959), Paris in the Terror (1964), A Crime of Passion (1967), and The Fatal Friendship (1972). Paris in the Terror was named one of the “books of the century” by the University of California, Berkeley.

Reviews

[Mir]

I apparently read up to page 89 of this as a child. I cannot imagine how I came by it, much less decided I wanted to read it. The only possibility that comes to mind is that after encountering The Scarlet Pimpernel I mistakenly imagined that I was interested in the French Revolution.

[Geoff Sebesta · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can't believe that this book is considered the classic on the French Revolution. When I read it, I was mostly struck by how they don't write history like this any more, and that's a good thing. To heck with the impartial eye of the ages, Loomis says. He's not afraid to pick sides and make history fit his theories.

Why do people hate Robespierre so much? Okay, that was an easy one, but the real question is this: how are these people totally unaware of how silly it is to hate one figure of the French Revolution and exalt another one? They were all guilty of terrible crimes, in direct proportion to the length of time they were able to stay alive. If Mme. Roland hadn't been the first to die I guaran-damn-tee she would have had an atrocity under her belt, and if Danton had been the last man standing I bet he would have been haunted by the ghosts of his crazier moments until he was executed just like everybody else was.

In fact, the main reason we consider Roland and Louis XVI fools is that they couldn't manage to stay alive long enough to do any damage.

But Loomis is a crazy sixties anticommunist type, so of course Robespierre and the Jacobins and the REIGN OF TERROR are the WORST THING EVER and Danton and the Cordeliers and the September Massacres are quite understandable, unremarkable, a high-spirits sort of thing. He neatly ducks having to think about Marat by making the assassin, Charlotte Corday, more or less the main character of the book. In fact the structure of the book could be perfectly described as the Good (Corday), then the Bad (Danton), then the Ugly (Robespierre, for whom he breathes contempt in every word. Stanley Loomis Does Not Like You, Mister Robespierre).

Though this story fails in fairness, and badly, it does do a pretty good job of making the characters come alive. There's enough anecdote and interest to keep it lively, and I enjoyed it tremendously -- I was sorry it was over. He does a very good job of bringing the Revolution to life.

But I would never, never recommend this as a starting point. It would give some very strange impressions. I don't know how you'd see things if this was your first contact with the period and you accidentally had to actually believe it. You'd have some strange idea that it was all a Disney movie except at the end Beauty and the Beast get eaten alive by Jafar and his cannibal courtiers.

[Jeffrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned that killing people is not a way to solve problems

[Jamie Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The insanity of Marat, the ignorance of Charlotte Corday, the spite of Mme. Roland, the self-indulgence of Danton, the vanity of Camille Desmoulins contributed as much to the tragedy as the malice, jealousy, and ambition of Robespierre. Yet all who played a role in the drama, even Marat, believed themselves motivated by patriotic or altruistic impulses. All in consequence were able to value their good intentions more highly than human life, for there is no crime, no murder, no massacre that cannot be justified, provided it is committed in the name of an Ideal." (p. 403)

One of the best reasons to read history is the illumination it can shed on contemporary events. Times change, but people never do. Mark Twain is often, though apocryphally, credited with saying “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” You can be reading about something that happened long ago and far away, and then find yourself staring at a phrase that could have been pulled from today’s headlines. For example, in discussing Robespierre’s use of slander and innuendo Stanley Loomis uses a quote that sounds exactly like something Donald Trump might say: “Some people say that Danton is in the pay of the English and that the money which supports the pleasures to which he is addicted is drawn from the veins of patriots...gossip such as this, if it is idle, does not do credit to the people of our great Republic [emphasis in the original].” (p. 244)

The gift of history is insight, but the curse of history is to play the role of Cassandra, forever pointing out that similar causes usually have similar effects, only to be ignored as events grind their way inexorably toward fatal outcomes. The French Revolution reminds us that good intentions do not always lead to good outcomes, and there will always be people waiting in the wings to exploit chaos for their own ends.

The Revolution started with high ideals about liberty, justice, and fraternity, but at every stage was subverted by personal animosities, and constantly in danger from the Parisian mobs. The leaders discovered too late that the “people” did not want rhetoric and philosophy, but bread and blood. “The poor, the derelict and the dispossessed do not always want or need pity. Many of them are more interested in vengeance.” (p. 94) It was the fatal flaw of the various factions that when they felt they could not control the mobs they tried to accommodate them, but violence only breeds more violence. Had they taken a decisive stand, as Napoleon would later do in Toulon with his “whiff of grapeshot” they might have succeeded, but they were too fragmented, too quarrelsome, and too ready to appropriate mob violence for their own ends, thinking that they could control it. As Simon Schama says in his history of the Revolution, Citizens:

The willingness of politicians … to tolerate these acts, only to find themselves and their regime on the receiving end, perpetuated the notion that ‘popular justice’ was part and parcel of the legitimate self-expression of the ‘sovereign people.’ At each successive phase of the Revolution, those in authority attempted to recover a monopoly on punitive violence for the state, only to find themselves outmaneuvered by opposing politicians who endorsed and even organized popular violence for their own ends.” (p.623)

When this book starts the Revolution is already four years old and has begun to slip into anarchy, which will lead to Robespierre’s dictatorship. The Monarchist group, which supported the king and wanted a constitutional monarchy such as Britain had, were already defeated, many of them having wisely fled for their lives. The Girondans were ascendant but were unable to form a stable government; they were more a collection of men with philosophies than leaders with goals, and their inability to overcome their differences was a fatal weakness. The reader wants to be sympathetic with them, because they held noble aspirations and truly tried to do what was best for France, but they too could not resist violence when it looked like an easy solution. “The Girondins never hesitated to use for their own purposes the same methods of violence that they deplored in others. It is this fact which alienates them from the full sympathy of posterity.” (p. 192)

The first part of the book recounts the life of Charlotte Corday, up to her fatal encounter with Marat. Stanley Loomis uses her to illuminate France far from Paris. She was a member of the impoverished gentry, a genuinely kind person who was educated in a convent school, and joined the order, only to be set loose when the religious orders were suppressed in 1791. She was raised reading the classics, whose protagonists were selfless and noble, willing to sacrifice themselves for the causes they believed in. She was also, like many in her time, a devotee of Rousseau, the champion of fuzzy ideas about individual dignity and honor and the need for people to take action if they wanted to change the world.

Corday became infatuated with the Girondans, and when they were overthrown many of them fled to Caen, where she lived. From them she kept hearing the name Marat as the symbol of their downfall, and decided that he must die in order to restore the Revolution’s original high ideals.

Marat himself was a leader, but an ineffective one. He could raise the rabble but he had no plans of his own. “Marat was too occupied with dreams of mass destruction and large-scale massacre....Among his colleagues, Marat was indeed singular in that his rancor was directed at the whole of organized society rather than at individuals. Had he live long enough, he would certainly have found himself among Robespierre’s victims.” (p. 211) Although he has had his defenders, as indeed has Robespierre, he was a vile human being. He perfected a form of journalism, sadly common today, in which anyone who disagreed with him was not just wrong, but willfully, perniciously wrong, to be destroyed without pity or remorse. Inevitably, his murder by Charlotte Corday had the opposite effect of what she intended, and unleashed a wave of violence and murder. The Terror moved outward from Paris and spread through the country.

The book’s focus then moves to others who would see the Revolution to its climax. Mme. Roland was influential but too self-absorbed and too dismissive of anyone not in her circle. “It is the fault of many self-centered people that they are often incapable of estimating others beyond the framework of their own limits or of recognizing the existence anywhere of talents that are not their own.” (p. 186) Danton would have been a natural ally for her but she despised him for petty and selfish reasons; together they might have been able to stop Robespierre, but separately they were no match for him.

Robespierre is one of history’s great villains, although even he believed he was acting in the best interests of the people of France. He was willing, however, to destroy anyone whose vision of France differed from his own. “High-flown words were scattered everywhere by Robespierre: ‘liberty,’ ‘virtue,’ ‘freedom’; but the exact definition of these words, on which depended the animosity or favor of Robespierre, was governed by the exigencies of the moment.” (p. 32)

His specialty was to divide and conquer, using innuendo to alienate people so that they could be isolated and dispatched.

Pitting party against party, he weakened each to his own advantage. He watched the Girondins destroy the Monarchists and profited by that. He watched Danton and Marat destroy the Girondins and he profited by that. He watched the dissension between Hébert and Danton and he profited by that. Dissension characterizes his relations not only with political parties but with individuals. Jealousy and quarreling seem to have been inevitable in any association with him. So it had been with Rousseau. (p. 272)

It was just a matter of time before Robespierre would clash with Georges Danton, who is remembered by history as a force of nature: strong willed, strong voiced, with a clear vision for what he wanted France to be. He was also a deeply flawed figure, who voted for the king’s execution simply for political expediency; helped plan the horrific massacres of September 1792; and was a profligate thief who misappropriated public funds with abandon. History has few more compromised heroes, but the fact that he stood bravely against Robespierre when most of the legislature cowered in fear is enough for him to remembered favorably. But he too underestimated his opponent, who was able to isolate him from potential allies, and then condemn and send him to the guillotine.

By this point the Terror had reached its horrifying peak.

During the months that preceded Danton’s death the Tribunal had claimed 116 victims. In the following two months more than 500 were sent to their deaths. After the Law of 22 Prairial (June 10) was passed, the carnage began in earnest. Between June 10 and July 27, the day of Robespierre’s fall, 1,366 victims perished. There can be no doubt that if Robespierre had not been overthrown, these numbers would have increased in the months after Thermidor (p. 328)

For all his political skills, Robespierre had fatal weaknesses, ones that he could not comprehend. “Robespierre was a man of very mediocre parts, totally lacking in any insight into his own real motives – and consequently into the motives of others. That combination of faults is a dangerous one for men who have achieved a position of power that can only be maintained by a cold and realistic awareness of the conditions on which their supremacy rests." (p. 351)

He had no friends, only accomplices. The worst of these was Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, one of history’s most cold blooded killers, ready to send anyone to their death. “We must not only punish traitors,” he said, “but all people who are not enthusiastic. There are only two kinds of citizens: the good and the bad. The Republic owes the good its protection. To the bad it owes only death.” (p. 285) For a modern parallel the closest is probably someone like Reinhard Heydrich, Himmler’s deputy in the SS, the man with the iron heart.

Robespierre finally met his match in Joseph Fouché, another deeply flawed person whose good deeds just barely outweighed his crimes. The consummate schemer, he was even better than Robespierre at the whispered allegation, the insinuation that spreads doubt and divides loyalties. “Those who like their heroes to be white and their villains black will always find Fouché either incomprehensible or abhorrent, for the elements of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ were of equally small weight to him in the measurement of political force. He was that rara avis, the totally amoral man.” (p. 356) He would survive the Revolution to become chief of police under Napoleon, then under the Directory, the Consolate, and the restored French empire, serving each of them faithfully until it was in his interest to betray them, which he did without compunction. Before that he voted for Louis XVI’s execution, led the pillaging of the churches even though he had been a lay member of one of the religious orders, and savagely repressed the city of Lyon after its insurrection, murdering thousands of people. He was known for chaining men together and then blowing them apart with canon fire.

It was clear that the situation in Paris in July 1794 was reaching a boiling point. Fouché was in hiding, doing his work in the shadows. Robespierre still controlled the legislature and the Parisian mob, but then he overplayed his hand. It was known that another purge was imminent, but no one knew who would be culled, and the members of the Convention were in an ecstasy of terror and dread. “No man was safe. In menacing tones Robespierre himself hinted at an approaching purge. ‘The Convention in general is pure,’ he pronounced one night at the Jacobin Club, ‘The Convention can therefore be above fear as it is above crime. It has nothing in common with the conspirators it presently shelters in its midst….’ (p. 376-377) If he had just released the names of those to be condemned the majority would have known that they were safe, at least for the time being, but he did not, and so in the fevered atmosphere where every man rightfully feared for his life, Robespierre was finally denounced.

Even then it was a near-run thing. History is full of what-ifs. If the leader of his militia had not been dead drunk, and had led his troops to the Convention before it could assemble its own military forces, or if a thunderstorm had not dispersed the large mob guarding Robespierre and his faction, history might have been very different.

As it was, the Convention forces were able to seize Robespierre without a fight. When they burst in on him some say he tried to kill himself, but he was always a physical coward, and the most likely explanation is that one of the arresting party fired the shot that shattered his jaw. He lay in great pain for most of the next day until taken to the guillotine. As he was laid down the executioner ripped off his bandage and he went to his death with animal screams of agony. The final word on him belongs to Stanley Loomis:

For us therefore it is difficult not to tender some expression of pity to that suffering soul and broken body. But in doing so we must remember that on the day that Robespierre was executed nearly eight thousand people filled the prisons of Paris. Had he not died, it is probable that most of them would have been guillotined in his stead. He was a man to whom the suffering of others seems to have meant little. Mankind was everything to him; men were nothing. (p. 402)

This is an amazing book. This is history with far more drama than most fiction. The main characters have come down to us as larger than life figures, but in fact, Paris in the Terror reveals that they were really just ordinary men in extraordinary times. Some were brave, and some cowards, some believed in their cause and some were just in it for their own gain. The French Revolution is a cautionary tale that we need to choose our leaders wisely.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stanley Loomis's Paris in the Terror is an absorbing chronicle of the French Revolution's darkest moment: the chaotic tumult of June 1793-July 1794, where the Revolutionary government devoured itself in a cycle of coups, purges and all-around disorder. Loomis's book downplays the political dimension of this epochal struggle, focusing on the personalities of the men and women who drove France to this moment of cannibal excess. And what personalities! The main figures, almost inevitably are leaders like Jean-Paul Marat, the doomed, sickly fanatic who organized the Committee of General Security, routed the moderate Girondins and famously met his end in a bathtub; Georges Danton, the ugly, opportunistic lawyer-statesman who spent his last months trying to forestall France's descent into anarchy; and Maximilian Robespierre, the brutal, paranoid dictator who outmaneuvered them all, briefly plunging Paris into a fit of murder only to fall victim to the beast he created. Other figures flit colorfully about them, from Marat's assassin Charlotte Corday to Robespierre's brutal enforcer St. Just, creating a collage of a country in turmoil. If Loomis's account of the motives and ideologies of different Revolutionary factions occasionally feels superficial (more than once he makes allusions to 20th Century totalitarians which, while not inappropriate, also feel unnecessary) the book never lacks for exciting prose or colorful incident. A reader comes away from books like this with the sense that humanity, in its combination of idealism and greed, altruism and slaughter, seems incapable of learning its lesson; and that while the Robespierres and Bonapartes may fall, other leaders will keep on killing for the sake of ideology, power or simple insecurity.

[Furnison · Rating 1 out of 5]

Supposed to be nonfiction but reads like historical fiction and not in a good way. The subject matter is confused but seems to concentrate on Charlotte Corday who assassinated Marat. You best be expert on the French Revolution before starting. The author has a strange and affected writing style that I could not tolerate. DNF

[Mark Alfieri · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book in the clearance section of my bookstore. It was an old edition from the 1960's. I happen to pick it up and started reading it and was mesmerized by the historian's writing ability on a convoluted and difficult subject. I bought it and finished reading it last week. I immediately bought all of the other 3 books Loomis wrote in his brief lifetime. If the French Revolution is of interest and the Terror that gripped Paris before the rise of Napoleon I think you will like this book and author.

[Denise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loomis's account of the Reign of Terror, that bloodiest year of the French Revolution, is generally counted among the classics on the subject. It is easy to see why, as it is as vivid and gripping as a good novel. From the murder of Marat to the downfall of Robespierre, Loomis jogs back and forth between events, biographical sketches, brief anecdotes and more, only loosely sticking to a coherent timeline which didn't bother me all that much as I'm quite familiar with the chronology of the French Revolution, but might be rather confusing for readers who aren't. The author makes little pretense of approaching the subject with anything resembling an unbiased view, his at times very black and white prejudices and opinions are evident - he appears to adore Charlotte Corday (on whom he spends vastly more time than on her victim), makes excuses for Danton, rather discounts Desmoulins, and despises Robespierre and St. Just with a passion. His portraits of all these figures should be taken with a few grains of salt. That aside, it's well worth the read.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rather than a dry recounting of the main political events of the Terror during the French Revolution, Paris in the Terror by American historian Stanley Loomis is an excellent account that focuses on the personalities (and personality clashes) of its main players: Jean-Paul Marat, Charlotte Corday, Georges Danton, Madame Roland, Camille Desmoulins, Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, and Maximilien Robespierre.

Loomis's well-written account is gripping. It reads like a thriller, even more so since the history is real. As the title indicates, it is not a history of the whole French Revolution, but rather of the Terror which lasted roughly the year between Marat's assassination in July 1793 to Robespierre's downfall and execution in July 1794. He mentions only in passing the genocides and mass murder happening elsewhere in France, such as at Lyon, in Brittany, and in the Vendée.

Paris in the Terror is divided into three parts. First, he tells the story of the murder of Marat by Charlotte Corday, a Girondin sympathizer from Normandy. Second, the rise, fall and execution of Georges Danton. Third, the rise, fall, and execution of Maximilien Robespierre. These three episodes constitute the beginning, the high-water mark, and the end of the Terror, respectively.

Loomis takes each character and paints vivid portraits of their personalities, motives, and flaws. Each one had qualities and serious vices (such as intense envy, resentment, vanity, insecurity, megalomania) that were often key to why they played such central roles in the Terror and also why they were destroyed by it. He makes very accurate and intelligent observations about human nature and the psychology of the mob.

He backs up his opinions about these protagonists of the Revolution with copious facts from primary sources and quotes from speeches. "The vessel of the Revolution," said Saint-Just to the Convention, "can arrive in port only on a sea reddened with torrents of blood." And on another occasion, "There are only two kinds of citizens: the good and the bad. The Republic owes the good its protection. To the bad it owes only death."

"History," Loomis writes, "is made by men. So by studying the Terror on its human rather than its economic, political or military level one is able to discern certain causes of that upheaval which are often overlooked. The insanity of Marat, the ignorance of Charlotte Corday, the spite of Madame Roland, the self-indulgence of Camille Desmoulins contributed as much to the tragedy as the malice, and jealousy and ambition of Robespierre."

Sometimes Loomis describes the characters so well that one is tempted to sympathize with them. Loomis is very favorable to the Girondins. This comes out in his portrayal of Charlotte Corday, who to him incarnates a type of Joan of Arc heroism of the Revolution. Danton is another object of his admiration, who although a Jacobin was not such a megalomaniac as Robespierre or an anarchist as Hébert. He was, however, guilty of many atrocities and would have committed much more if given the chance. Corday had no problem with overthrowing and killing the king, just like the Girondins she loved. Regicides and mass murderers deserve no sympathy. Both Danton and Corday and all the other Revolutionaries reaped what they sowed.

Overall, Paris in the Terror is an excellent book on the bloodiest phase of the French Revolution as it happened in Paris.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

It has been a long time since I have read a book this hard to put down - Loomis spins a compelling narrative of Paris during the terror by focusing on the character and downfalls of three of its leaders: Marat, Danton, and Robespierre. Interspersed and intertwined with these accounts are the psychological portraits of other key figures who shaped the course of the bloodshed, including (among many others) Charlotte Corday, Mme. Roland, Hebert, and St. Just.

[Jennifer · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is creative nonfiction at best, historical fiction at worst. Would not recommend as an introductory text to the subject, nor really as anything unless the reader has a particular interest in Charlotte Corday, made up dialog, and some pretty heavy bias. A significant part of the historiography, I guess, and may be entertaining for some, but do yourself a favor and skip this one.

[Vincent O'Neil · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished reading a superb book on a tragic period in history. It's called Paris in the Terror, and here's my review:

This is a fantastic book. It's absolutely chilling because it focuses on the personalities and backgrounds of the main figures around the blood-soaked phase of the French Revolution known as The Terror. The book starts out slow, and its first parts do seem bogged down with minutiae, but then it picks up speed without sacrificing detail. Before long the unbridled injustice, insane bloodlust, and endless rivalry that resulted in The Terror are in full fury on these pages.

Author Stanley Loomis is careful to point out that the factions jockeying for position throughout the French Revolution could be one thing one day and something different the next. A politician's power base at the start of the revolution could turn into one of his biggest detractors not many months later. These shifting sands became increasingly hazardous, as mere accusation became the standard of proof and new laws banned an accused individual from even presenting a defense in court.

Two things stood out for me as this epic tragedy unfolded in this book. First, several of the parties or factions that rose to prominence did so with the statement that the revolution had ended with their ascendance to power. They seemed unaware that, by dispatching their predecessors at the top of this tumultuous heap, they had not just replaced them at its summit--they had also taken their place as a new target that actually prolonged the revolution. Second, the methods used to topple political opponents quickly degraded into the merest suggestion of counter-revolutionary sentiment and, in the end, completely unverified accusations of non-specific conspiracy. Even so, a great many of these figures fell victim to the rigged system they had themselves created.

The Terror ended when its chief orchestrator Robespierre was fed into the guillotine, but he was just one among many leading figures in the revolution who blindly condemned hundreds and thousands of people before riding the tumbrels to execution themselves. The final lines of the book speak volumes about Robespierre and the other creators of The Terror:

"Yet all who played a role in the drama ... believed themselves motivated by patriotic or altruistic impulses. All in consequence were able to value their good intentions more highly than human life, for there is no crime, no murder, no massacre that cannot be justified--provided it is committed in the name of an Ideal."

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading about the French Revolution can be a bewildering task. A lot of books examine the abstract ideologies at the expense of the people who participated in it. Those ideologies can seem like a haze of minute details and inconsistent theories. A lot of those books also prostitute the subject matter, be it Marxists, conservatives, anarchists, American libertarians or Thomas Carlyle; the revolution gets used as a means of pushing a political agenda adding extra elements of confusion into an already murky historical subject. This is where Stanley Loomis’ Paris In the Terror:June 1793 – July 1794 comes in since it focuses on the people more than the ideas of the French Revolution.

Loomis’ approach is to describe the human side of those times. The major figures are portrayed as detailed individuals and their psychological motivations are brought out into the open for the world to see. This book is written almost like a novel with vivid descriptions and plot elements so that the reader feels like they are present as the events unfold. This makes the history easier to relate to and more comprehensible. Another thing that Loomis gets right is that he does not try to tell the story of the whole revolt in one book. By narrowing the scope of the narrative, the events and their significance are easier to grasp. It probably does not matter that it solely examines the Reign of Terror that happened at the climax of the French Revolution. A basic knowledge of what came before and after that notorious time is enough to make this book comprehensible. The well-defined characters and sharp focus on one segment gives Paris In the Terror more structure, clarity, and gravity than other accounts therefore justifying it as a significant text for serious readers.

It is possible to say the character driven narrative makes Loomis’ writing almost cinematic. You may wonder why so much of the first section is dedicated to the life of Charlotte Corday who many authors might consider to be of little value since she is only remembered for the assassination of Jean-Paul Marat. But learning about her motivations clarifies a lot of the conflicts inherent in the story. She exemplifies the contrast between Paris and the outlying provinces, the division between the Girondins and Montagnards in the Assembly, and the ambiguous intellectualism and attitudes to the revolution that were current among the French populace.

A larger section of Paris In the Terror describes the life of Danton. Loomis portrays him as the moderate leader of the Cordelier Club that tried to unite the naively idealistic Girondins with the action-oriented thugs and ruffians of the Montagnards. All the while he was embezzling money from the national treasury to purchase property despite his loyalty and patriotism to the country of France that he deeply loved. The complexities and contradictions of his motives get thoroughly examined; Loomis makes him one of the central figures of the story and his mixture of admiration and disappointment is easy to see.

The other major player is Robespierre. The cutthroat lawyer who loved the guillotine more than the French people gets cast as a horrifying villain. His character is cowardly and humorless, unable to love and asexual. His lofty moral standards were impossible for anyone to live up to except for himself. His intention was to purge France of anyone who was not revolutionary enough so he cut through a lot of red tape by eliminating due process of law and sending thousands of people to the Place de la Revolution to be butchered by the executioner Samson. Eventually his followers began to realize that the longer they lived, the closer they got to the guillotine. It is difficult to sympathize with the character of Robespierre but it also becomes more apparent as the book goes on that the French Revolution was mostly a populist uprising; the members of the Jacobins who made up most of the Assembly were politically naive and inexperienced in running a government. One lesson that might be learned is that having merchants, farmers, and thugs seize control over government can easily lead to a bloodbath, especially when they feel their goals are not being reached quickly or efficiently enough.

Paris In the Terror is not without it faults. Jean-Paul Marat gets portrayed as a ranting, resentful instigator of violence; this portrayal may be true but there are many people who consider him a hero and Loomis’ does not draw him as a three-dimensional character which he does for others like Charlotte Corday who has her share of detractors as well. Overall, the accuracy of Loomis’ depictions can be called into question but then again, so what? It is clear who the author loves and who he hates but any writer or historian will bring their own personal prejudices into their writing. Besides, so far no other author can claim a monopoly on truth when it comes to portraying the French Revolution. It was a time when too much happened, there were too many people involved, and they all brought their own ideas, legitimate or not, into the events of the day. It would be natural for even eye-witnesses of the revolution to give contradictory accounts of what happened.

Paris In the Terror is a fascinating book. Its vivid descriptions put the reader right at the sidelines of the action while exemplifying how human nature and psychology caused the French Revolution to take all the disastrous turns that it did. The ideologies of the participants take a back seat to the people who believed in them. It also does not revel in the gore and inhumane slaughter that characterized the Reign of Terror. History is made by people and the people, with all their imperfections, who made the French Revolution are at the center of this storm. You do not have to agree with Loomis’ interpretations to get a lot out of this book; you just have to observe and decide for yourself what to think.

https://grimhistory.blogspot.com/

[Artie Rubin · Rating 5 out of 5]

An oldie but a goodie!

When Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" came out in 1966, it was hailed (not least of all by him) as a new genre: the "nonfiction novel." That is, nonfiction which reads like a novel.

But Loomis' book beat him by a year. "Paris in the Terror" reads just like the most gripping novel and is filled with those little details of a scene which sweep you right into that scene.

For instance, when he describes the July morning on which Charlotte Corday went to the market to buy the knife with which she'd assassinate Jean-Paul Marat that evening, you can feel the heat of the day coming right off the page. At least I could--and I was reading it in January.

This book also has one of the most memorable lines I've ever read. To set the stage for it:

As you may know, after the French revolutionaries overthrew the aristocrats, the revolutionaries held daily tribunals where they'd try everyone who had even the slightest connection to an aristo. Everyone who was tried was found guilty within minutes, sentenced to die, and transferred to the Tulieres prison where they'd spend the night. The next morning someone would assign each of the prisoners a number and they'd be taken across the city in tumbrels to the guillotine, and executed in numerical order.

[This is a paraphrase:] On this particular morning, one of the aristos (I'll call her Madame A.) is weeping as she waits to be taken to the guillotine. A friend (I'll call her Madame B.) comforts her: "There, there, it will all be over very quickly."

Madame A. says, "That isn't why I'm weeping. I'm weeping because they're right! I treated my peasants horribly. I didn't care if they starved or got sick." She looks at her friend. "But you, Madame--you always took care of your peasants. You made sure they always had enough food and got medical attention when they were ill."

And now she says that memorable line!

"Truly, Madame, you are leaving life by the grand staircase."

When I first read that line, I shivered at the sheer beauty of its image: that someone who treats others decently and has a kind heart . . . when they leave life, they leave it by "the grand staircase."

That image still sends a shiver through me. And it's been one of my life's greatest inspirations.

[Mickey · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book takes a critical look at the major players of the French Revolution. Loomis does a good job of rounding out all the characters and talking in depth about each person's psychological and social considerations. I would classify it as more of a series of biographies than a straight history due to the focus on the people involved, even if, admittedly, certain people did have a major impact on the history of events and it would be impossible to totally separate the two.

I've always been cognizant of a quirk of mine of preferring the point of view of a biographer than the actual subject, particularly if that point of view is rather old-fashioned and exotic. I think this could partially be explained by the fact that I grew up in a very rural town out west where there were no bookstores locally, so I had to wait until I visited my father in the big city (Bismarck, North Dakota) where the thrift stores featured mostly books with copyright dates usually a few decades past from people who had recently died. Not only that, but I've always found it interesting how different ages interpret the same events. Also, I'm a bit of a natural contrarian who feels obligated to hate the current interpretation on principle.

Anyway, I found this book to be incredibly enjoyable. It gives such full and complete characterizations of the people that it's about, especially Maximilien Robespierre. (Honestly, the description of how Robespierre would look over his glasses in a characteristically unsettling way stuck with me.) The rivalry between Danton and Robespierre was well-done and highlighted the different motivations and ideals of each man. I could see this book as inspiring a good historical movie set in this time.

[Ron · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The past is also the present and the future. The nation that forgets that is doomed.” Marcus Tullius Cicero

A cautionary tale. These men and women meant to do away with all that was old and bad and create a heaven on earth. They not only failed but failed so horribly and spectacularly that the Reign of Terror has become the byword for populous hubris. It is not only the elites who degrade and dehumanize people; it is sometimes also those who purport to represent and lead the masses.

“The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know.” Harry S Truman

Having said that, Loomis had a transparent agenda as well. He picks favorites among the revolutionaries and brings them to life, sometimes horrible, often fascinating. But after all, history is not fundamentally about days and documents and battles, it’s about people: who they are, what they believe, what they do. And also, how they influence or forecast what happens thereafter.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana

(quotes not from book)

[Pinko Palest · Rating 1 out of 5]

wildly reactionary, a true waste of time. I'd forgotten I read it some time ago, but for some reason Goodreads put it up as a suggestion on my main page. Most of their suggestions to me in history and politics are wildly reactionary by the way. Is that their general policy, I wonder, or does their algorithm think I need a more balanced book diet?

[Shane Hill · Rating 5 out of 5]

I rarely give out 5 stars for a book but this read was worthy of that rating. A tremendous read. I have read many books on the French Revolution but this has been the best. Chock full of fascinating anecdotes of the major and minor personalities of the French Revolution under the time of the terror!
A great book for the novice or the serious student of this epoch making event.!

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating description of the players in the French Revolution. Fleshes out the relationships between Danton, Robespierre, Marat, and others in a way that makes you understand the motives and of each.

[Terry Madden · Rating 5 out of 5]

This does not read as dry history, but as an emotionally moving narrative of the lives of the major players of the Terror. In my research of the revolution, this book paints the most vivid picture of the world and the minds of its actors. Loomis was an amazing writer.

[Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow, I did not expect to find this book as fascinating (albeit in a horrifying way) as I did. It's been in my TBR pile for awhile, and every time it would come to the top I'd think "should I really try to read this considering the subject and the age of the book?" I only picked it up in the first place because I'm always on the hunt for books about Paris, particularly ones that are not focused on WW II (seems like there's a ton of those.) I spent two weeks in Paris some years ago and I've been obsessed with it ever since, particularly its pre-1900's history. I simply never realized just how overwhelmingly spectacular Paris was until I was immersed in it - I've always overlooked it because I was so interested in British history, which also tends to bias one towards how they feel about France. 14 days in Paris, investigating every nook and cranny of the city that I could, absolutely schooled me in just how freaking incredible Paris is and how stunning the history is. I swear there were places where I could feel the presence of people from hundreds of years ago (going up the claustrophobically tiny circular staircase to reach Sainte Chapelle almost had me in tears imagining who had walked those stairs in the past. It really is staggering.) Paris not only has an amazing history, She is extremely deft at making sure people don't forget - I mean, where else can you go and see an actual blade from a guillotine? Brrrr.

I've really never had any kind of grasp on what actually went on during the French Revolution beyond vague ideas about guillotines and the slaughter of nobility and this book really opened my eyes on the subject (let's just say I'm really glad I read it now, long after I roamed through the Concierge - I think I would have had a panic attack down there if I'd known these details beforehand.) The events and the people involved have an extremely chilling similarity to what is going on in the U.S. right now, so much so that I have a ton of highlights where the text might as well be referring to a Certain Someone and his followers because it's so freakishly similar (I used to think Hitler, but now I'm thinking the comparison would be closer to Robespierre.)

I would highly recommend this to folks interested in the history of Paris, as well as folks interested in the sort of atmosphere and chain of events that could bring a country's capital to it's knees in reverence of people who were truly unhinged. You can't read about all the absolute destruction that went on in the name of "Patriotism" without hearing the echoes loud and clear in our current events.

[Keith Jackewicz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good read, but more akin to something like “In Cold Blood” than actual history. Definitely not something that should be your first introduction to the French Revolution; it would be both misleading and confusing if you didn’t have some context for what he is describing. There’s been some reevaluation of both the Revolution and the Terror in recent decades - sometimes justificatory, sometimes merely explanatory of the excesses and atrocities - but this is a decent, quasi-literary distillation of a kind of an old-school, High Tory, anticommunist, even anti-political read on what happened in that period. (That it’s the product of an American man’s pen is perhaps its oddest aspect.) Read it to get vivid, well-curated vignettes of major Revolutionary personages, as well as the petty human drama that underlay the events of 1793-94. (The quote from Fouche’s writings about going to visit Robespierre while he was getting his hair done is simply unforgettable.) Do not read it if you want to understand any of this with any kind of historical insight with respect to the larger picture (the lone exception being the depiction of poor rural nobles, which does give some insight into the intra-class tensions among the aristocracy). Would do 2.25 or 2.5 if it were an option.

[Joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book! Some great lines from Loomis, including:
“Idealists of a certain stamp have always found something thrilling in the sacrifice of life, usually not their own, that war demands.”
“It is the fault of many self-centered people that they are often incapable of estimating others beyond the framework of their own limits or of recognizing the existence anywhere of talents that are not their own.”
“Like many another sentimentalist he (Robespierre) equated the ownership of property with dishonesty and immorality. In his simple creed poverty made a man virtuous and wealth made him vicious.”
(Quoting Danton) “In times of Revolution power will always go to the worst scoundrel.”
Of Fouché: “I know men well and I am quite familiar with the base passions that motivate them,”…He looked on human virtue as an old wive’s tale. “He could not but conclude that with very few exceptions the world is made up of scoundrels who are more or less hypocrites and of imbeciles who are more or less happy.”
The book looks at the terror through the lens of Marat, Danton, and Robespierre. Really, the section on Marat is about Charlotte Corday and what motivated her to appear out of nowhere and murder Marat. Well written, well paced, and fascinating.

[Denis Karsten · Rating 5 out of 5]

Suuperbly well written narrative of the events that lead up to the manifestation of the Terror in the French Revolution and the culmination of it with the demise of Robespierre. All the main characters that play a part in the French Revolution are well depicted and analyzed for their personalities as well as to their objectives of the times. It is interesting Loomis' take on the Marat episode as it is basically seen through the actions of a very minor character: Charlotte Corday.

Wonderfully reserched and a noted the events a presented in a dramatically vibrant way that makes it hard to put it down!!!

[William P. Cawley · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bibliography would have made it more "academic," still I enjoyed it quite a bit. My wife and I are headed for a week in Paris in November (2025). I made a copy of Danton's "final trip" as written in the book. It will make a great walk for us. If I can find Duplay's house, I just might cry out, "Vile Robespierre you will follow me. Your house will be leveled and the ground where it stood will be sowed with salt!" Did Danton really say that? Well, if not he should have.

[Tom Gray · Rating 4 out of 5]

A compellingly written history of the French Revolution. I do not know enough to be able to usefully assess the validity of the version of history presented in the book but I can say that I developed an understanding of the revolution that I did not have before.

[Aurora Dimitre · Rating 5 out of 5]

my god this was incredibly fun

[Davy Bennett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bought it in 1989 [-200 = 1789].

READ IT IN 2005 per notes in th book, BUT forgot I had until today, in 2024.

[Silo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Accidentally hit a squirrel yesterday in my car. Feel so guilty I could barely sleep. Maximilien Robespierre is a monster.

[Celeste · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book for research purposes but my goodness was this fun to read!
Because I have been researching the life of Camille Desmoulins for a while, I've been scrapping for practically anything that I can come across. This book was very insightful when it came to discussing things such as Camille's execution and how, perhaps, it was arranged by a vengeful Louis Antoine de Saint-Just.
Details such as the destruction of the Girondin and Cordeliers Clubs were very well-discussed and analyzed. Loomis wrote about some of the leaders of the revolution in a way that I had never thought of them before and I found it very interesting.
I found this book to be very helpful in learning more about the Terror and some of the leaders of the Revolution and I would highly recommend it to anyone reading on the Terror or the French Revolution.