What do you think?
Rate this book
Paris Babylon: The Story of the Paris Commune
Between 1869 and 1875, Paris was known to the world as "the new Babylon." A city obsessed with sex and money and ruled by the ailing tyrant Louis Napoleon and his ruthless wife Eugenie, Paris was a place of intensity, violence and volatility. Tracing Europe's most glittering capital as it tettered on the verge of the Franco-Prussian War and the horror that ensued, Christiansen evokes one of the most dramatic periods of modern history. photos.
448 pages, Paperback
First published October 17, 1994
6 people are currently reading
199 people want to read
About the author
Rupert Christiansen
19 books11 followersRupert Christiansen is an English writer, journalist and critic, grandson of Arthur Christiansen (editor of the Daily Express) and son of Kay and Michael Christiansen (editor of the Sunday and Daily Mirror). Born in London, he was educated at Millfield and King's College, Cambridge, where he took a double first in English. As a Fulbright scholar, he also attended Columbia University from 1977 to 1978.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
July 30, 2011
The actual history of the Commune takes up considerably less than a third of the book. Most of it is spent portraying Parisian society in the years leading up to it, the years of Louis Napoleon. This is all quite interesting and makes use of much original source material in the form of letters, diaries, etc. But, of course, the views of the upper classes are largely the ones represented. How many original sources, after all, can one find representing the views of classes largely illiterate and, in any case, too occupied with earning a subsistence to write many letters or keep a diary?
The result is that there is too little explanation of the social conditions that led to the
Commune, even though Christiansen's attitude is fairly sympathetic in the end.
A good taste of what the times were like in Paris, but not a very good history of the Commune, and almost no analysis of its roots.
The result is that there is too little explanation of the social conditions that led to the
Commune, even though Christiansen's attitude is fairly sympathetic in the end.
A good taste of what the times were like in Paris, but not a very good history of the Commune, and almost no analysis of its roots.
January 1, 2019
The Second Empire casts a strange shadow over our present. It was incompetently led by someone completely out of his depth who was given to posturing and showmanship to distract the people from the nation’s growing problems, while insisting that the country was superior militarily and culturally to everyone else on earth. His wife was cold and distant, unliked by the people whom she made scant efforts to cultivate, and who preferred to associate with shallow and grasping toadies. The government ran on corruption and self-dealing and everyone could see it was headed for a fall. Does this all sound familiar enough? It ended very badly for France, with humiliating defeat, a crushing loss of international standing, and internal revolution. Sometimes the past really is prologue. Mark Twain is reported to have said that history does not repeat itself but it sometimes rhymes; perhaps a more apt quote is from John W. Campbell, Jr, “History doesn't always repeat itself. Sometimes it just screams, 'Why don't you listen to me?’ and lets fly with a big stick.”
Keep your eyes open for large flying sticks.
Louis Napoleon blundered into war after allowing himself to be manipulated by Bismark, who baited him into declaring war with the simple ruse of an altered telegram. The French armies were brave but badly led, suffered enormous casualties in poorly coordinated and executed attacks, and were soundly beaten. The emperor himself was taken prisoner in the debacle at Sedan. The Second Empire was not so much overthrown as it simply collapsed, and the Germans had difficulty even finding someone who had the authority to enter into peace negotiations. The French dithered, declared hopeless defiance, and eventually ceded to German demands after Paris was invested and facing starvation. The country was forced into humiliating surrender and had to pay punishing indemnities and give up key industrial territories.
Hard to believe, but things only got worse from there.
With the regular army away the defense of Paris was left to the National Guard, a sorry, disorganized, undisciplined mob made up mostly of working class men who had been radicalized by nascent Marxism and the promise of equality. They refused to accept the authority of the provisional government and on 18 March 1871 turned back an army attempt to seize armaments, leading to open insurrection and renewed siege, this time by their own people.
The Commune had leaders, plenty of them, but no central power. Factions of the left and the right bickered and could not agree on strategy. They were probably always doomed, but their disorganization made them ineffectual and led to the demise of the Commune after only ten weeks, followed by horrific bloody reprisals from the government. Total casualty figures are disputed, but 20,000 deaths is a commonly accepted figure. Many of these surrendered and were subsequently murdered by the government.
A strong leader might have enabled the Commune to hold out longer by enforcing discipline on the National Guardsmen, and might have negotiated a peace that stopped short of the slaughter that actually occurred. One key entry point to Paris was captured by the army without a shot because most of the guards had wandered away for the evening and the rest were drunk. This was a lesson that subsequent communist thought embraced, and Lenin became an enthusiastic proponent of absolute central control and terror as a means to impose authority.
It was a strange moment in history, of bluff and blunder, of unnecessary war and pointless bloodshed. It led a humiliated France to swear vengeance and start the rearmament process that eventually led to the carnage of World War I.
Keep your eyes open for large flying sticks.
Louis Napoleon blundered into war after allowing himself to be manipulated by Bismark, who baited him into declaring war with the simple ruse of an altered telegram. The French armies were brave but badly led, suffered enormous casualties in poorly coordinated and executed attacks, and were soundly beaten. The emperor himself was taken prisoner in the debacle at Sedan. The Second Empire was not so much overthrown as it simply collapsed, and the Germans had difficulty even finding someone who had the authority to enter into peace negotiations. The French dithered, declared hopeless defiance, and eventually ceded to German demands after Paris was invested and facing starvation. The country was forced into humiliating surrender and had to pay punishing indemnities and give up key industrial territories.
Hard to believe, but things only got worse from there.
With the regular army away the defense of Paris was left to the National Guard, a sorry, disorganized, undisciplined mob made up mostly of working class men who had been radicalized by nascent Marxism and the promise of equality. They refused to accept the authority of the provisional government and on 18 March 1871 turned back an army attempt to seize armaments, leading to open insurrection and renewed siege, this time by their own people.
The Commune had leaders, plenty of them, but no central power. Factions of the left and the right bickered and could not agree on strategy. They were probably always doomed, but their disorganization made them ineffectual and led to the demise of the Commune after only ten weeks, followed by horrific bloody reprisals from the government. Total casualty figures are disputed, but 20,000 deaths is a commonly accepted figure. Many of these surrendered and were subsequently murdered by the government.
A strong leader might have enabled the Commune to hold out longer by enforcing discipline on the National Guardsmen, and might have negotiated a peace that stopped short of the slaughter that actually occurred. One key entry point to Paris was captured by the army without a shot because most of the guards had wandered away for the evening and the rest were drunk. This was a lesson that subsequent communist thought embraced, and Lenin became an enthusiastic proponent of absolute central control and terror as a means to impose authority.
It was a strange moment in history, of bluff and blunder, of unnecessary war and pointless bloodshed. It led a humiliated France to swear vengeance and start the rearmament process that eventually led to the carnage of World War I.
November 29, 2016
I should note that the edition that I read was subtitled 'Grandeur, Decadence, and Revolution 1869-1875', which is more accurate, as well as more exciting, than 'The Story of the Paris Commune'.
This book is an involving, exciting, and wittily narrated history of the fall of France's Second Empire, the siege of Paris, and the Commune. It's a fascinating period in history and Christiansen does it justice. The book begins with anecdotal discussion of Second Empire culture, introducing the unhealthy and beleaguered Louis Napoleon. Once we reach the Franco-Prussian war, however, a narrative of events takes over. Throughout the siege and Commune, Christiansen includes diary entries, letters, and other documents that give the book considerable colour and interest. Personally, I found the perspectives of Romantic writers particularly amusing. Victor Hugo supported the Commune in his rather self-involved way; given how amazing a writer he was, he'd earned the right to self-involvement. Various other Romantics fled Paris and passed judgement from the provinces, whilst Théophile Gautier spent his time in the National Guard typically drinking and playing cards. 'Paris Babylon' adds to other books I've read about the period by bringing to life the ways in which Paris life was experienced. As well as political and military developments, we are told what people ate, sang, and joked about.
The account of the Commune also added a detail that I found very interesting. It has been observed elsewhere that the contents of the Bank of France were miraculously not expropriated by the Commune, despite the fact that this would surely have placed them in a stronger negotiating position with their encircling enemies. Christiansen mentions the adroit role played by the bank's Director the Marquis du Ploeuc. He cheerfully offered credit to the Commune, giving them no excuse to interfere in, occupy, or expropriate the bank. This was an impressively clever and cool-headed move, albeit one that probably cut the Commune's lifespan. Another point discussed here and elsewhere is the lack of dominant personalities within the Commune. As Christiansen comments, it might have become a much more effective, even successful, revolutionary dictatorship had Auguste Blanqui not been imprisoned in Rouen. Perhaps he could have been the Robespierre or Lenin of the moment. Of course, it's always tempting to wonder what if? In this case, unless the Commune has somehow managed the incredible feat of negotiating a settlement with Thiers and his government, it is hard to imagine the tragic slaughter that ended the Commune being avoided.
What Christiansen really emphasises, though, is that throughout political upheaval, war, capitulation, revolution, and bloodbath, daily life went on and Paris endured. He paints a vivid picture, which reminded me that, despite having been born in London and only visiting Paris once, I much prefer Paris to the UK capital. There, I said it.
This book is an involving, exciting, and wittily narrated history of the fall of France's Second Empire, the siege of Paris, and the Commune. It's a fascinating period in history and Christiansen does it justice. The book begins with anecdotal discussion of Second Empire culture, introducing the unhealthy and beleaguered Louis Napoleon. Once we reach the Franco-Prussian war, however, a narrative of events takes over. Throughout the siege and Commune, Christiansen includes diary entries, letters, and other documents that give the book considerable colour and interest. Personally, I found the perspectives of Romantic writers particularly amusing. Victor Hugo supported the Commune in his rather self-involved way; given how amazing a writer he was, he'd earned the right to self-involvement. Various other Romantics fled Paris and passed judgement from the provinces, whilst Théophile Gautier spent his time in the National Guard typically drinking and playing cards. 'Paris Babylon' adds to other books I've read about the period by bringing to life the ways in which Paris life was experienced. As well as political and military developments, we are told what people ate, sang, and joked about.
The account of the Commune also added a detail that I found very interesting. It has been observed elsewhere that the contents of the Bank of France were miraculously not expropriated by the Commune, despite the fact that this would surely have placed them in a stronger negotiating position with their encircling enemies. Christiansen mentions the adroit role played by the bank's Director the Marquis du Ploeuc. He cheerfully offered credit to the Commune, giving them no excuse to interfere in, occupy, or expropriate the bank. This was an impressively clever and cool-headed move, albeit one that probably cut the Commune's lifespan. Another point discussed here and elsewhere is the lack of dominant personalities within the Commune. As Christiansen comments, it might have become a much more effective, even successful, revolutionary dictatorship had Auguste Blanqui not been imprisoned in Rouen. Perhaps he could have been the Robespierre or Lenin of the moment. Of course, it's always tempting to wonder what if? In this case, unless the Commune has somehow managed the incredible feat of negotiating a settlement with Thiers and his government, it is hard to imagine the tragic slaughter that ended the Commune being avoided.
What Christiansen really emphasises, though, is that throughout political upheaval, war, capitulation, revolution, and bloodbath, daily life went on and Paris endured. He paints a vivid picture, which reminded me that, despite having been born in London and only visiting Paris once, I much prefer Paris to the UK capital. There, I said it.
January 18, 2008
Read it after visiting that graveyard in Paris. Gossipy description of the best anarchy ever.
May 21, 2019
If I were evaluating the book only for myself without any sense of the general readership, it'd get one star at best. This book, despite the author's considerable credentials and rhapsodic blurbs on the cover, is not just not particularly good, the whole of Part II (pages 167-296 or 132 pages about of 399 total or 33 percent) is so disorienting as to be unreadable.
Okay, the book purports to be about the period from the late 1860s to about 1875. This is a short period of time, indeed. Part II is a day-by-day rambling account of the Siege of Paris by the Prussian army, the shift to civil war between the Versaillais (official French government removed to Versailles) and the Communards, the erstwhile Republicans and others leaning to the left, nearly all of the Parisians.
The problem over all is that Christiansen has cherry picked documents from the era and cobbled together not so much a narrative but a babble of competing tongues. For instance, the introduction is 16 pages, selective quotations from "Paris Partout! A Guide for the English and American Traveller in 1860 or, How to see PARIS for 5 guineas. (This is 16 more pages that Christiansen chose to hide behind rather than write.) It is mildly interesting, particularly to the Anglo-American reader, and does set the cultural and stereoptypical tourist stage at that moment just prior to the Franco-Prussian war, but it is merely one point of view, a summary of attitudes of unreliable authenticity. And that problem worsens as the book continues.
Part I involves more of Christiansen's own writing but I find his tone snotty, his language faintly racist and borderline misogynist, and his sense of scholarly responsibility entirely missing. Part III, the aftermath of the Commune and the arrival of the colorful cheer of Impressionism, is similar. Part II, however, is gawdawful. It is broken up day-by-day, and information about that day, about the people, about the government, is somehow supposed to be extracted from brief quotations from this person's diary or that person's letter to some unknown. A writer for "The Observer" opines that the author "skillfully brings to life the chaos of the times." Well, he certainly brought chaos to life in my mind.
Nor is the index much good. It omits a great deal and makes it near impossible to search back through pages one might want to revisit. And coordinating the bibliography with the chapters? Damned near impossible. Christiansen doesn't really footnote his text except to editorialize on this point or that. When I flipped to the bibliography for "The Siege" to find a reason that the American Mrs Conklin is "admirable" the best I could do is determine, slowly and painfully, that the reference is taken from the papers of Englishman Edwin Child. Few sources are provided with context or biography or some sense of the value of their interpretations. So the reader is left bouncing around the text as voices constantly change and all sense of time is destroyed. Why some of this material could not have been woven into a more straightforward narrative for Part II is beyond me. Maybe it is because Christiansen seems very taken with his own cleverness, wit and erudition and just loooooves the sound of his words. And maybe because stringing these bits together like so many random beads, bits of macaroni, old Cheerios and heaven knows what into something that purports to be a necklace is just easier for him.
For those of you who write: Don't EVER "organize" your sources they way he has or his book designer has. Just don't. It's unreadable and unusable.
So yeah, a HUGE disappointment. I thought it would be a terrific addition to my fun and interesting art-history reading list for students and anyone generally interested, but it's not. At all. And I wouldn't inflict it on any, with the possible exception of a graduate student in art history whose focus is French art of the second quarter of the 19th century. The only reason I would assign it to such a graduate students is that part of graduate study, a big part, is reading things that are tedious and not especially useful just so you can claim familiarity with the bibliography of the period.
Okay, the book purports to be about the period from the late 1860s to about 1875. This is a short period of time, indeed. Part II is a day-by-day rambling account of the Siege of Paris by the Prussian army, the shift to civil war between the Versaillais (official French government removed to Versailles) and the Communards, the erstwhile Republicans and others leaning to the left, nearly all of the Parisians.
The problem over all is that Christiansen has cherry picked documents from the era and cobbled together not so much a narrative but a babble of competing tongues. For instance, the introduction is 16 pages, selective quotations from "Paris Partout! A Guide for the English and American Traveller in 1860 or, How to see PARIS for 5 guineas. (This is 16 more pages that Christiansen chose to hide behind rather than write.) It is mildly interesting, particularly to the Anglo-American reader, and does set the cultural and stereoptypical tourist stage at that moment just prior to the Franco-Prussian war, but it is merely one point of view, a summary of attitudes of unreliable authenticity. And that problem worsens as the book continues.
Part I involves more of Christiansen's own writing but I find his tone snotty, his language faintly racist and borderline misogynist, and his sense of scholarly responsibility entirely missing. Part III, the aftermath of the Commune and the arrival of the colorful cheer of Impressionism, is similar. Part II, however, is gawdawful. It is broken up day-by-day, and information about that day, about the people, about the government, is somehow supposed to be extracted from brief quotations from this person's diary or that person's letter to some unknown. A writer for "The Observer" opines that the author "skillfully brings to life the chaos of the times." Well, he certainly brought chaos to life in my mind.
Nor is the index much good. It omits a great deal and makes it near impossible to search back through pages one might want to revisit. And coordinating the bibliography with the chapters? Damned near impossible. Christiansen doesn't really footnote his text except to editorialize on this point or that. When I flipped to the bibliography for "The Siege" to find a reason that the American Mrs Conklin is "admirable" the best I could do is determine, slowly and painfully, that the reference is taken from the papers of Englishman Edwin Child. Few sources are provided with context or biography or some sense of the value of their interpretations. So the reader is left bouncing around the text as voices constantly change and all sense of time is destroyed. Why some of this material could not have been woven into a more straightforward narrative for Part II is beyond me. Maybe it is because Christiansen seems very taken with his own cleverness, wit and erudition and just loooooves the sound of his words. And maybe because stringing these bits together like so many random beads, bits of macaroni, old Cheerios and heaven knows what into something that purports to be a necklace is just easier for him.
For those of you who write: Don't EVER "organize" your sources they way he has or his book designer has. Just don't. It's unreadable and unusable.
So yeah, a HUGE disappointment. I thought it would be a terrific addition to my fun and interesting art-history reading list for students and anyone generally interested, but it's not. At all. And I wouldn't inflict it on any, with the possible exception of a graduate student in art history whose focus is French art of the second quarter of the 19th century. The only reason I would assign it to such a graduate students is that part of graduate study, a big part, is reading things that are tedious and not especially useful just so you can claim familiarity with the bibliography of the period.
December 29, 2015
Wittily told and extensively researched, this brief account of the Second Empire, the Franco-Prussian War and the Commune has two special merits. First, it is more sociological than ideological: Christiansen aims neither to condemn nor exalt the revolutionary Communards or the Versaillais who tried (and ultimately succeeded) to destroy them, but rather to understand all sides. He is of course appalled by the atrocities, a few by the communards (much exaggerated by Versailles propaganda, but there were some) and far more by the Versailles government troops, especially during the semaine sanglante and following, but such horrors by one side do not necessarily justify the decisions and confusions by the other. The book's second great virtue is its descriptions of curious aspects of Paris and Louis Napoleon's II Empire on the eve of the series of disasters that destroyed it: war with Prussia, then the siege of Paris and finally the Commune. There is a brief account of Baron Haussmann's transformation of the city's space, and its unintended social and economic consequences. And the chapter, "The Spermal Economy," on French medical opinion and prejudices about sex (how much to indulge and how, and how upper-class men used the Opéra as their exclusive brothel) is very amusing, though of doubtful relevance to the Commune, whose proletarian defenders' sexual behavior surely had little to do with such official notions. The account of the war is too brief to understand it, and the intense debates among Blanquistes, Prudhonniens and Marxistes, Républicains, and monarchists and other conservatives, are merely alluded to.
For readers new to the subject, this book provides a lively and fair overview of events, with bibliographic notes for those who want to understand more. And for anyone, its anecdotes and portraits, e.g. of the Empress Eugénie and of the pathetic and mysteriously uncommunicative Emperor, or Haussmann and even of the young and insolent Rimbaud (who may or may not have got to Paris during the Commune — we don't really know) make it a lively and suggestive addition to the bibliography.
For readers new to the subject, this book provides a lively and fair overview of events, with bibliographic notes for those who want to understand more. And for anyone, its anecdotes and portraits, e.g. of the Empress Eugénie and of the pathetic and mysteriously uncommunicative Emperor, or Haussmann and even of the young and insolent Rimbaud (who may or may not have got to Paris during the Commune — we don't really know) make it a lively and suggestive addition to the bibliography.
July 11, 2024
A better title would be “Voices from the End of the Second Empire”. Descriptions of a mass murder and a poetic ménage a trois unconvincingly top and tail a straightforward calendar of events, all gleaned from newspaper clippings, correspondence and diaries. The author has the good grace to admit in a note on sources that his book is primarily a narrative with no claim to analytical profundity or originality and he is to be congratulated on succeeding to this extent.
March 18, 2018
Good wee snapshot of paris 1869-75, my interest being my great etc aunt living there at that time, Cora Pearl, there's only two brief mentions of her and one photograph, but i enjoyed the read anyway.
April 19, 2019
Highly readable account of the lead-up to the Commune, and eyewitness accounts of the Suege of Paris and the Commune. Not sure what the Rimbaud chapter had to add, though!
July 17, 2014
Worth reading, particularly if you're interested in the decline and fall of Louis Napoleon and the Second Empire. Less so if you are wanting to know more about the Paris Commune, which gets far less attention.
August 6, 2008
As even today left wing politicians cite the Commune with approval, this history of the fall of the French Second Empire and the brief life of the Commune is relevant to present day politics
August 12, 2008
8/10/2004
December 10, 2009
This book was o.k. A little sensational, but presented a good all around feel to the Commune.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews