dnt understand dis quote.

[VCE22]

"For schama the French revolution was a bloody interlude and as with furet he feels that the revolution lost its way with the terror"


" The french revolutionaries were an assortment of unexceptional circumstances who when things fell apart responded to an overwhelming need to make sense of things according to new principles"

[derivativex]

"For schama the French revolution was a bloody interlude and as with furet he feels that the revolution lost its way with the terror"


" The french revolutionaries were an assortment of unexceptional circumstances who when things fell apart responded to an overwhelming need to make sense of things according to new principles"

The second quote is supposed to be

"The French revolutionaries were not Stalinists. They were an assortment of unexceptional persona in exceptional circumstances. When things fell apart, they responded to an overwhelming need to make sense of things by ordering society according to new principles. Those principles still stand as an indictment of tyranny and injustice. What was the French Revolution all about? Liberty, equality, fraternity." - Darnton

Which - to match what you posted:

"The French revolutionaries... were an assortment of unexceptional persona in exception circumstances.  When things fell apart, they responded to an overwhelming need to make sense of things by ordering society according to new principles" - Darnton

I don't know about the first one as I don't know who said it, but it sounds like something from a text book.  Still, I can tell you it means that Simon Schama and François Furet (both historians) believe that during the Reign of Terror (5 September 1793 – 27 July 1794), the principles of the revolution (for example Liberty) were compromised.

Daniel

[Trent]

Perhaps in the first one (which seems like a textbook or a student) they mean Schama saw the revolution as an interlude into the wider instability which concluded in 1815? Schama always thought that violence was the driving force of the revolution.I see the connecton with furet (a revisionist if i remember - correct me if im wrong) as a bit strange, as he would have thought the revolution as fundamentally progressive and freeing, and merely sees the reign of terror as a dictatorship not disimilar from the ancien regime.

[mypurpleundercracka]

Perhaps in the first one (which seems like a textbook or a student) they mean Schama saw the revolution as an interlude into the wider instability which concluded in 1815? Schama always thought that violence was the driving force of the revolution.I see the connecton with furet (a revisionist if i remember - correct me if im wrong) as a bit strange, as he would have thought the revolution as fundamentally progressive and freeing, and merely sees the reign of terror as a dictatorship not disimilar from the ancien regime.

schama really shits me, he will never provide you with any new information - ive noticed almost every quote by him is about bloodshed and killing

[Trent]

Yeah because he is a conservative historian who dislikes the overthrow of monarchy, therefore he is always going to see as the revolution as violent. However, I subscribe to his view point to an extent that violence was always a part of the revolution, I mean even in 1789 violence was the catalyst for the popular revolution.