French Revolution Source Evaluation

Posted On April 14, 2010

The secondary source I read was a section, p.757-761, from the history textbook The World: A History, written by Felipe Fernández-Armesto and published by Pearson Prentice Hall, which is a trademark of Pearson Education, Inc. Usually in history textbooks, the information is hopefully very accurate, and there tend to be broad summaries of the varying topics covered. For the most part, this is the case with Armesto’s writing of the French Revolution and Napoleon. He first talks about the Bastille and the urban myth that is associated with it. Then he says that historians have tried very hard searching for causes in the prerevolutionary old regime, but in reality, the French Revolution didn’t have any true causes and just arose suddenly. He then gives a brief background of the state of France prior to the Revolution, and he names possible causes. He then discusses revolutionary radicalism and that the King(Louis XVI)’s opposition to it ended up being the reason why he lost his title and the monarchy was overthrown. Also, in the Revolutionary Radicalism section, he goes in great, somewhat disturbing detail about Marquis de Sade and his strange personal beliefs. Lastly Armesto discusses Napoleon and his background and accomplishments as a ruler, and also how he was liked and respected by both the poor and rich people of France. However, Armesto also mentions that critics and historians say that Napoleon “lack[ed] any general principles in his behaivor” (760).

This source does a good job of staying in an objective point of view to create a cohesive narrative. For example, Armesto mentions both opinions of Napoleon so the reader understands that most people at the time liked him, but not everyone was fond of him because critics today say that to Napoleon, “reason was a substitute for morality” (760). In addition, in the eras of the FR that Armesto talked about, he gives a good overview of what happened during those specific periods of time. Armesto also talks about how the FR helped reshape the world both inside and outside of Europe which is good. Although this source had some good qualities to it, there were also some bad qualities.

There were definitely some negative aspects to the source. I felt that some of the information Armesto included wasn’t really necessary. The urban myth about the Bastille was a random topic to include, and it also wasn’t necessary to take up half a page discussing in great detail the beliefs of Marquis de Sade. In addition, parts of it were confusing. For example, at the beginning of the section, Armesto first wrote that “the French Revolution arose suddenly in the particular circumstances of the time and unrolled rapidly in ways previously unseeable” (758), but he then mentioned several events that were occuring in France at the time that could definitely be considered to be causes of the FR. Armesto also never talks about the Liberal Revolution Era of the FR. Because the source was too general in important parts and too specific in insignificant parts of the FR, it was hard to follow at times.

Callie's Blog