History, it is easily perceived, is a picture-gallery containing a host of copies and very few originals. ~ The Old Regime and the French Revolution by Alexis de Tocqueville, Chapter VI
I would say I’m a pretty eclectic reader in general. While fiction—particularly 1800’s British
Literature—is probably my favorite to read for pleasure, I also enjoy poetry,
drama (to a lesser extent) and nonfiction.
Of the vast nonfiction subjects I read, history would probably be the
top choice. Yet while I've read a great
deal on ancient history, I've come to notice there are quite a few “blind spots.” One of these blind spots is the French
Revolution period.
It’s a bit ironic, actually, that I haven’t read much nonfiction
on the era that is just around the time people started writing the fiction books I love. Most of what I understand about Regency
England, for example, is from Jane Austen’s works. However, I’m slowly trying to fill in the gaps,
knowing that the reality of the world where Austen and my other preferred
authors lived will inform me more about the fictions they created.
That’s why I picked up Alexis de Tocqueville’s The Old
Regime and the French Revolution.
Part history, part sociology, and part philosophy, I recommend this book
not only because it is a more “contemporary”* take on the French Revolution,
but because as I read it I kept seeing parallels to our own time and to my own
country. Chapter VI in particular seemed
a lot more relevant today than I had expected.
Now, I could easily go into a political
rant about what I think is wrong with the United States government, but I think
I’ll let the following quotations from de Tocqueville do it for me…
A marked characteristic of the French government, even in
those days, was the hatred it bore to every one, whether noble or not, who
presumed to meddle with public affairs without its knowledge. It took fright at
the organization of the least public body which ventured to exist without
permission. It could brook no
association but such as it had arbitrarily formed, and over which it
presided…. In a word, it objected to
people looking after their own concerned, and referred general inertia to
rivalry.
Nobody expected to succeed in any enterprise unless the
state helped him. Farmers, who, as a
class, are generally stubborn and indocile, were led to believe that the
backwardness of agriculture was due to the lack of advice and aid from the
government.
Government having assumed the place of Providence, people
naturally invoked its aid for their private wants. Heaps of petitions were received from persons
who wanted their petty private ends serves, always for the public good.
Just to be clear, de Tocqueville is referring to the
failings of the Revolutionary Government, after the people had ousted the
tyrannical monarchy. According to de
Tocqueville, there are two motivations for revolution: a love of liberty or a
hatred of despotism. When revolts are
motivated by hatred, then once one despot is overthrown then the
revolutionaries have no better option with which to fill that void in
authority, and predictably another despot takes the first one’s place. When the love of liberty is the motivator,
however, those who revolt against tyranny will try to replace it with something
better in order to preserve their newly-earned liberty.
Maybe my seeing a connection between Revolutionary France
and modern America is a little exaggerated.
Possibly there are other countries who fit that comparison even
better. But to me, reading history books
like this is an opportunity not only to learn about the past, but to open my
eyes about the truth of the world around me, and to expand my perception of my
world beyond what the media or current books are telling me to believe.
*I’m using this word in the historical sense, meaning de
Tocqueville was writing about it closer to the time it actually occurred than
OUR contemporary history books written two centuries later.
No comments:
Post a Comment