Tocqueville had witnessed the reality of 1848 - the chaos and the anarchy - and thus injected a large dose of pessimism into his writings on the French Revolution. He shared many of their instincts and inclinations and undeniably placed a premium on the protection of liberty. Tocqueville's major work was The Old Régime and the French Revolution (1856). The middle years of the nineteenth century were not a vintage period for French historical writing, and perhaps this is part of the reason why Tocqueville stands out. On an international level, Tocqueville the writer was probably most famous for his two-volume study, Democracy in America, published in 1835. Tocqueville was critical of French feudalism in the pre-1789 era, but he also attempted to put the system in perspective by engaging in some comparative analysis.

This introduction presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in the chapters of this book. The book examines the earliest theorising on the subject: by non-historians who were chiefly interested in scoring political points and the 'grandparents' of revolutionary historiography, the liberal writers, Mignet and Thiers. It deals with a tranche of nineteenth century historians: those who put forward epic, idealist and romantic interpretations and those who responded to the dawn of the Third Republic by revisiting the events of 1789 and the revolutionary decade. Sandwiched in between is an in-depth examination of the work of Alexis de Tocqueville, possibly the most celebrated French historian of modern times. The Revolution, and its interpretations, cannot be detached from France's post-revolutionary history. The book focuses on those individuals who are generally perceived to be the 'major' or 'preeminent' figures within revolutionary historiography.

This chapter intends to spotlight the earliest interpretations of the French Revolution; these emanated from intellectuals, politicians and writers who found themselves caught up in events. Predictably, most of the early commentators approached the Revolution from the right. They had been provoked into writing by the 'evils' of 1789 and the 'disaster' it had brought upon France. The chapter considers a number of issues: How did the first commentators view the Revolution? What motivated them in their writings? And what kind of impact did they have? Edmund Burke applauds the way in which this revolution took great care to preserve, conserve and consolidate key elements of the past rather than dramatically break with them. Probably the most notorious of all early writers on the Revolution was Augustin Barruel. He was a dogmatic Jesuit priest who spent most of his career advancing the view that the Revolution was an intricate plot.

The writers who put forward the Marxist line on the French Revolution began to coalesce under the banner of the 'Annales School'. It was also interesting that many of the key left-wing historians were not just historians, but political activists too, involved either in the French socialist or communist parties. This chapter deals with a number of key issues: What was the left-wing view of the Revolution? How exactly did the Marxist interpretation become the 'orthodoxy'? How should we measure the contribution of the key historians and thinkers? And what were the strengths and weaknesses of the socialist/Marxist view of events? Lefebvre's is probably the most famous left-wing interpretation of the Revolution, and if one historian's writings can be taken to represent what has become known as 'Marxist orthodoxy', then it is probably his.

This chapter deals with the 200th Anniversary of the French Revolution in 1989. It addresses these questions: How should we characterise the Bicentenary as an 'event'? In general terms, how did it impact on the academic community? Which major studies emerged and what significance did they have? And finally, what kind of themes emerged in the literature that appeared around this time? In 1989 Mitterrand was no less conscious of history and the political symbolism of the moment. He had long anticipated the Bicentenary and was determined to celebrate it as a landmark with profound social and philosophical overtones. The academic world was no less affected by the 1989 celebrations. For historians, the Bicentenary was the ideal 'peg' on which to hang their new interpretations. The chapter considers studies published in 1989 and also during the periods immediately before and after the 200th Anniversary.

This chapter explores how the historiography of the French Revolution evolved. The 200th Anniversary was certainly a catalyst. In the years that followed, historians continued to work in new and stimulating areas. Interestingly, the work of French historians came to predominate. Political culture has absorbed scholars in the 1990s and beyond. The emphasis on culture in its broadest form has been maintained, as if acknowledging the strides made in this area during the Bicentenary period. The idealists and romantics of the mid-nineteenth century were inspired by epic visions. France was in the process of ridding herself of a selfish, narrow-minded bourgeois monarchy. The writings of Michelet reflect this. Thereafter, historians of the Revolution were motivated by an array of factors: most notably, class loyalty (Tocqueville), France's defeat in 1871 (Taine), support for the infant Third Republic (Aulard), the experience of the Russian Revolution (Mathiez), and anti-Communist zeal (Furet).

This chapter considers the middle years of the nineteenth century, when there was a discernible shift in focus. Historians and writers started to emphasise the 'idealistic' and 'romantic' nature of the French Revolution. The chapter addresses the main questions: Why did historians seek to romanticise the people and the Revolution? How did these 'romantic' writers view the 'liberal' position? How did the 1830 and 1848 revolutions colour the judgement of these mid-century historians? In one sense, Thomas Carlyle was an ally of Thiers and Mignet. He had liberal inclinations and shared many of their main concerns. The chapter explains the nature of Carlyle 'as historian' by examining his commentaries on some of the key phases of the Revolution. Jules Michelet romanticised the way in which le peuple achieved prominence during the Revolution. His 'romantic' interpretation of the Revolution attracted both admiration and criticism.

Hard revisionism' went even further than 'soft revisionism'. It postulated not only that the Marxist interpretation was misinformed, but also that any theory of the French Revolution based on social factors was inherently faulty. The central figure in 'hard revisionism' has been François Furet. This chapter explains the main tenets of 'hard revisionism' via an examination of Furet's work. The main issues considered are these: What was Furet's peculiar contribution to the historiography of the Revolution? What are the main themes and ideas in his work? How did he 'revise' the 'soft revisionists'? And who followed in his wake? Colin Lucas, Donald Sutherland and Michel Vovelle should also be mentioned as historians who have made a contribution to 'hard' revisionism as a school of revolutionary historiography. Furet's death left a void in revisionist circles. But the Bicentenary of the Revolution, celebrated in 1989, was still fresh in people's memories.

The liberal interpretation of the French Revolution incorporated a range of inter-linked themes and ideas. The growth of the middle classes was acknowledged and accepted as a progressive thing; the trauma and anarchy of the Terror was viewed as 'unprecedented' and 'unexplainable'; but at the same time the view was that liberty - true liberty - would triumph in the end. This chapter weighs up the significance of the liberal view. In what sense were the liberal historians self-consciously 'liberal'? What common ideas and concepts did they put forward? And to what extent was there dissent from this liberal view? It acknowledges the role of Thiers and Mignet as pioneers, for they are viewed, not without reason, as the founding fathers of the liberal interpretation. Mignet's general position was that the Revolution had occurred because of the prevailing social and economic conditions in France.