A History of Modern France, Volume 1: Old Regime and Revolution, 1715-1799

A History of Modern France #1

by Alfred Cobban

rare

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

292 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published November 30, 1957

About the author

Cobban was educated at Latymer Upper School and Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. Before his professorship [in French History] at University College, London, he was a lecturer in history at King's College in Newcastle-on-Tyne. He held a Rockefeller Fellowship for research in France and was a visiting professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard University.

Reviews

[zed · Rating 2 out of 5]

"The simple interpretations imposed on eighteenth century France by historians writing under the influence of later social and political ideologies may have to be abandoned, but the history that is beginning to emerge from more detailed studies, if it is more complex, is still coherent.”

I did not read the back cover blurb initially, but after finishing I see that the all knowledgeable Professor of French History, Alfred Cobban, had written the above as some challenge to the great unwashed.

In my not so humble opinion this is self-serving clap trap considering the arrogance of the opinions served up chapter after chapter with the use of the words “obvious” and “obviously” to make a point as if the good professor is the only interpreter of events. But then at one point when it suits, the reader is told “Whether anything that any eighteenth-century government could have done to have remedied the poverty of the rural masses in France is more than doubtful.” Hang about Professor, within the next few pages we are talking about mass uprising with heads rolling and the elites running the country as a god given right, having no idea as to the great unwashed not particularly enjoying their lot in life for various reasons and that included lack of bread. How this is not “obvious” is beyond this reviewer.

Little comments such as this come aplenty. In discussing the extravagant spending on the arts and palaces of Louis XIV we are told in what seems to be defence of him that “the expense of even a small war was greater than that of the biggest palace.” The search engine of choice is my friend at this moment and with that I read that “Actual building costs for Versailles are debated by modern historians, because currency values are uncertain. However, Versailles' price tag ranges anywhere from two billion dollars (in 1994 USD) all the way up to a maximum cost of $299,520,000,000!” Having been to Versailles a couple of times I will take the latter price any day of the week, and considering that profligacy of the French Monarch and his nation's financial ineptitude as discussed in this book, I suspect that figure is closer to the truth.

As to the historians having literary pretences, I at one point read "…. and to find in Figaro the spirit of the Revolution is to see in the first breezes of autumn, shaking the petals of the roses one by one, the gales of winter.” Oh my goodness! What waffle. Want some more? “For the Assembly itself, filled with worthy and high-minded characters amongst whom he was as out of place as Gulliver among the Lilliputians, he had the utmost contempt.”

The good professor is disdainful of just about everyone. Those that questioned Marie Antoinette involvement or lack thereof in the Diamond Ring affair are described “the scum of society” He has particular disdain for the Sans-culotte who he may have well as described as, to use modern parlance, a brain-dead mob who knew nothing as to what they were doing and the scum of society.
I found his writing very limited in discussing the Sans-culotte.

His attempt to describe Danton was an utter jumble. “He probably took bribes to betray the Revolution and his country, yet there is no evidence that he betrayed them” In one sentence Danton is described as “lazy" but in the next “tireless”.

Only surnames are used and there is a tendency to occasionally throw in an obscure individual that had no mention in the index. There are few assessments of character that would have assisted the reader, and some terms such as Brissotins instead of Girondins had me confused at first.

I have only recently delved into modern French history with several podcasts, a brief history and plenty of internet resources, so I came into this very much looking forward. I have all three volumes, but after this first one am very hesitant to read any more. I know I have a preference that tells me the facts of events as opposed to the author’s opinion and am aware that as a lay reader I have to expect this, but this one was a bit too opinionated. First released in 1957 this is no popular history written for the curious beginner or for that matter anyone outside the academic world and then even I wonder as to that. I found it all arrogant and turgid. For what has been an exciting adventure into one of the most definitive times in world history, I am in awe that this volume could be so dense and dull. I think this will be a very hard to read for anyone other than those that have a deep understanding of modern French history.

With that, I recommend this to only those that are very well immersed in this period of French history, and then only for Cobban’s interpretations.

[Davy Bennett · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read all 4 volumes about 1990. Still don't know much about France. Hope to go. I only see 3 volumes. Maybe that.
Update
Just pulled from attic, it is 3 volumes.
Donating. Excellent. Read in 2007, all 3 volumes.

[Alexandra · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm glad to have read this because Cobban was quite influential in his time (the third edition was published in 1963), but historiography has definitely moved on. Still, there were some interesting points... and some interesting attitudes.

He's largely dismissive of women: Mme de Stael was "less decorative" than some counterparts but had a good mind.

He despises the san culottes and attributes to them almost no real political understanding or desire.

He really, really doesn't like Bonaparte. On the second page, he talks of the "jumped-up lieutenant from a wild island" who led the armies of France after the revolution.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can’t speak to it being dated, as some reviewers have said, not knowing enough about French history. I can agree with the ones that say he assumes a lot of knowledge for a general history. Just to give an example, he uses the word “enrages” without explaining its history or meaning. It was a generally good history though Napoleon does seem to arrive deus ex machina.

[olivia · Rating 2 out of 5]

dated yes. but still very interesting! this appealed to me as i had done the revolution in highschool,, so i did have a little knowledge on the revolution. but out of my mums finds i’m glad i kept this, regardless of the low ratings.

[Mohammad · Rating 4 out of 5]

خارج از انقلاب، نظامی جدید و به مراتب قوی تر ظاهر شد که در آن نفع پرستی تقدم داشت. (آلفرد کومان)

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

i'm not sure what audience this was aimed at, because it seems to presuppose a fairly extensive background knowledge of French history, as well as some basic familiarity with the language. for instance, he frequently uses the Fronde as a reference point without really explaining its importance, and it's pretty much only by chance (viz. flicking through a copy of Notre Dame de Paris one time) that i was aware that the prévôt des marchands was in charge of more than just administering trade in the city.

the text itself is mostly readable, though some sentences are overly long and convoluted. it's also fairly idiosyncratic: Cobban's tendency to use only surnames (and noms de terre when strictly necessary) can make it a bit difficult to look them up for further reading. he keeps referring to the Girondins by the rather less common name of brissotins. he frequently covers something in a superficial manner, then moves onto other matters before going back to it in significantly more depth a page or so later.

not sure how well his analysis and conclusions have held up, but i found the book helpful in filling in some gaps, and generally tying together my rather disjointed knowledge of the period.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not knowledgeable enough about French history to weigh in on Cobban's anti-Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution (he offers a state-centric interpretation, where the weakness of the French state unleashed the aristocracy to challenge royal authority, which in turn inspired privileged non-aristocrats to challenge the aristocracy; the French republic, saddled with weak state infrastructure, buckles and French Revolutionary Army officers, now tested in the crucible of the Revolutionary wars, stage a coup and install their own in power). He is a great writer and has some really nice turns of phrase. He is a bit ostentatious, and expects his reader to have familiarity with the French language (often deploying French phrases without explaining what they mean) and French 18th century personages. It seems to me that such a reader would not have need of the survey he is writing here.

[Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fairly quick and short read. Published 1957 so very old scholarship. It seems to be strongly arguing the liberal position while situated against a Marxian lens.

Really enjoyed the pre-revolution narrative of events, thats all quite new to me. Skimmed the latter section on the revolution as I’ve covered that countless times at university, school and in my own time.

Worth a read? I guess but, like other pelican books, it probably isn’t great to learn a basic narrative with truly archaic theoretical / analytical lens.

This being said Alfred Cobban seems to have been particularly influential in the 60s. This book encapsulates the quality that writers of this era were able to deploy when writing for a ‘popular’ audience.

[James Dempsey · Rating 5 out of 5]

pp112-218. Well written and convincingly argued. Author has little patience for the marxist reading of the revolution which during the time of publication were then prevailing with the french, Annales school. There is also a glimmer of personality which shines through the paragraphs; this always makes for better history - a discipline, after all, which is simply one of opinion.

[Al Maki]

"The eighteenth century was something more: it was, and above all in France, the nursery of the modern world."

I'm probably up to my tenth or twelfth book about 18th century France and this is my favourite so far. He has an extensive knowledge of the events, a clear style and a deeply thought through perspective.

[James Armstrong · Rating 3 out of 5]

The devastatingly detailed account of pre- Revolution and Revolutionary France. Enjoyable in parts but lingering sections about fashion and philosophy fall a bit flat for the casual history book enjoyer. Good book and interesting throughout, despite some dry passages.

[Claudia]

It's a balanced and concise overview of the Revolution, its causes and early results.

[Lysergius · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little bit more detail on the ancien regime and the revolution, especially the mutations and permutations of the assemblies.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I seem to be in a minority here but I thought this was an excellent introduction to the period. I love Cobban's writing style: intelligent, sometimes wryly amusing, and very readable.

[Ian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very formal and old-fashioned history of France covering the death of Louis XIV to the Revolution. Quite a sweeping overview, and does well to make sense of what were undoubtedly chaotic times of intrigue and danger, but for me, it could have been more focussed on individual moments and momentous individuals, which would have made it more engaging for me as a (fairly) casual reader. Still looking forward to volume two and the rise of Napoleon.