The Days of the French Revolution by Christopher Hibbert

The Days of the French Revolution Reviews

• 
  Paul Bryant

  Excellent account but my God the French Revolution was total merde and completely exhausting. Frankly, it's one damned thing after another - each thing usually being more hacked about and with more bleeding orifices than the last one. Hard to figure out who was left alive in Paris after 1795, fully functioning necks being a rare luxury. There is the usual can't-see-the-wood-for-the-trees problem in this book as with most historiography - I would moan that the participants in this dizzy dance of death should be grasped more meaningfully than jargonny epithets like enrages, Septembrists, Dantonists, Montagnards, or Thermidoreans allow - but I can't deny that the whole thing rattles along faster than a tumbril en route to the Place de la Chop Your Head Off, and those tumbrils were fast.
  
  MEMO
  
  Invite to dinner : Danton. He was a laugh.
  
  
  
  Not to invite to dinner: Robespierre. Unless you like lectures over the buttered trout.
  
  
• 
  Kate Woods Walker

  With an avalanche of names, French phrases not found in the glossary, selectively-chosen facts, and an artificial structure built upon ten distinct (but not chronological) time periods the author terms "days," The Days of the French Revolution by the late English historian and biographer Christopher Hibbert is an absolutely dreadful book that pretends to give an introductory overview of the French Revolution, but instead delivers a sneering, elitist condemnation of the common man and his desire for liberty, equality and fraternity.
  
  There is no context whatsoever given for the revolutionary impulse. Instead, the hapless reader who mistakes this royalist apologia for objective history is treated to page after page (after gory page) of beheadings, dismemberments, graphic violence and bloody wounds. But nowhere in this book will one find the phrase "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen," and certainly nowhere is it quoted. There are no descriptions of starvation and hardships amongst the peasants. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, about the massive income disparity of pre-revolutionary France, other than a listing of king's failed finance ministers and how they tried mightily to keep the tax burdens squarely on the peasants and off the backs of the aristocracy and clergy. As far as the corruption of the church, there is one sentence that implies the Inquisition may have been a bit excessive. Other than that, the author presents a France where everything was just hunky-dory until those dirty, ignorant, bloodthirty leftist peasants got their hands on the guillotine.
  
  The author breaks out of his extremely dull, dry style two-thirds of the way into the book to give us an appropriately nasty description of Robespierre. So bitingly perfect is the condemnation that one can see an almost perfect reflection of that character type all the way into the 21st Century and in the person of a certain former governor of Alaska, right down to the dandified appearance and endless sentences that say nothing.
  
  But, ultimately, the book is classist, sexist, homophobic, reactionary and unforgivably boring. I am reading it as the first book in a series of five about the French Revolution and I marvel at the misguided scholarship that placed it in the leading position. Merde! What a culotte-load it was.
• 
  Antigone

  Hibbert covers the French Revolution from the meeting of the Estates General to the emergence of Napoleon. This is roughly ten years of a country's journey from negotiable concern to rampant homicidal psychosis. Because the author chooses to concentrate exclusively on the character of the major players and the tenor of the events they wrought - eschewing ideals and philosophies - that madness is granted center stage. Remove the over-arching political, financial and cultural rationales (all intellect, in essence) from the revolutionary equation and what we're left with are men (and a very few women) struggling with the Oedipal dilemma writ large. I don't imagine for a moment this was Hibbert's intention - yet it is where the work takes us.
  
  The narrative teases the reader into an analysis of the psychology of the uprising; the tremendous guilt and fear that accompanied the imprisonment of the father-figure of a monarch, and the manner in which this elicited massive, violent communal reactions of displacement and projection. The spasming emotional component of the mob (whom Hibbert refers to as the enrages) is tracked as it attempts first to assist the befuddled yet beneficent King, and then to supplant him entirely - taking on his function as lawgiver and disciplinarian. The full constellation of adolescent rage, resentment and despair is on display in the larger rebellions of the Bastille, the storming of the Tuileries, and the September Massacres. It is so much easier to see here, truly, how the guillotine was a civilizing measure and, in many ways, the reintroduction of a modifying element of compassion. That's how insane the times had become.
  
  Always on the hunt for an evocative image, I found one here in the midst of the royal family's attempt to flee the country. Their carriage had been caught and surrounded at Varennes. Lafayette dispatched a contingent of National Guard to escort them back to Paris - a return made dreadful by the vast crowds who gathered to jeer and curse them all along the way. When they passed through Sainte-Menehould, the carriage was halted as its mayor made a speech "of admonition and rebuke."
  
  Later, an old quixotic nobleman, who rode up with the cross of St. Louis on his breast to make the King an elaborate salute, was shot in the back as he rode away.
  
  Tempts my every fascination, that ancient warrior does.
  
• 
  Margaret

  This is a popular history which covers the time from the meeting of the Estates General at Versailles in 1789 to the coup d'etat which brought Napoleon to power ten years later. It's concise and nowhere near as in depth as say, Simon Schama's massive
  Citizens, but it's vividly told and highly readable, offering an excellent overview of the events which changed the course of history. If you know a lot about the French Revolution, it likely won't tell you anything you don't already know, but it would be a very good place to start for those just beginning the subject.
• 
  Asif

  A good introductory book on the subject of French Revolution, It could be better if the difficult french terms were followed by bracket meaning in English and its most of narrative is more a blood and gore less a revolutionary, nonetheless it is a simple and straightforward narrative history of important days of French Revolution hence its name days of French Revolution.
• 
  AC

  This book was disappointing -- I had expected more, given the positive reviews on Amazon.
  
  Written for a general readership as an introduction, and promising only to present the events (and not an analysis) of the Revolution -- the author spends untold pages narrating the most trivial matters, describing tiny details of meetings and marches -- and then suddenly skips, in a clause, over the great issues of the day - it is disorienting and ultimately not very informative. Because the syntax and diction and even the punctuation are very British, the book doesn't read as quickly as something like this deserves --
  
  On the plus side, the author presents a sympathetic (and plausible) account of the characters of Louis XVI and of Marie Antoinette -- as also of Danton, who here greatly resembles the magnificent portrait of Gérard Depardieu:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danton_(...
  
  I suspect there are much better things out there -- even for an introductory book.
• 
  Jennifer

  The French Revolution was a time of great upheaval for France and its colonies. It started with the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 and ended in the late 1790s with the ascension of Napoleon Bonaparte.
  
  The Days of the French Revolution starts with a brief overview of the reign of Louis XVI and ends with the rise of Bonaparte. Pulling from many sources, Hibbert brings this tumultuous period alive. There is a lot of good information here, but the arrogance of the author was a bit off putting.
  
  This book is a little dry and assumes you know French terms and the French government during this period. There is a glossary in the back that defines some of the terms but flipping back to the glossary made for a choppy read. If the French Revolution is something you know little about, which was the case for me, I would not recommend starting with this book.
  
• 
  Nostalgia Reader

  Billed as an intro to the Revolution for those who know little to none about it, this was an extremely vague book in terms of context and there is zero narrative structure to make it seem more approachable. The lack of contextualizing events and the constant throwing around of names and terms (untranslated at that), combine with the obvious pro-royalty stance, and general lack of focus on what was also happening with the Third Estate peeps just made this boring to read and provided a complete lack of framing. The events were told, people were described, but I never got the feeling that any of these events were truly important or revolutionary. I was never sure who was one what side and why and why it was important in the first place.
  
  While it was fortunately a quick read, that simultaneously was part of the problem, and I was retaining zero of the information I was reading.
  
  I have gotten more from skimming the Wikipedia article on the Revolution than from this book, so it's sadly going in the dnf pile.
• 
  Horia Visan

  It was informative - I didn't know much about the revolution before and I do a lot more now. But there were so many details it was easy to get lost which is probably more to do with my reading ability than the book : ))
• 
  Brian Willis

  A simple straightforward historical narrative of the events of 1789-1797, from the first rumblings of unrest through the Terror and finally the accession into power of Napoleon Bonaparte. It's more of the old guard account, no political angles, no original claims or blames, just the facts and basic biographical backgrounds of the major players. It's a great read for those simply wanting the narrative account or for those who want a great refresher.
  
  Most accounts of this event aren't a mere 304 pages or focus more specialized on key figures (such as Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, Marat, Robespierre, or Bonaparte). No person is centralized, not even really Louis, and the many revolts, revolutions, executions, and movements feel organic, as they surely must have at the time. Recommended for those who for whom a simply straightforward and relatively brief account will do. The best narrative overview out there at this word count.
• 
  Aurélien Thomas

  Christopher Hibbert claims to have here 'written for the general reader unfamiliar with the subject'. Well, this condensed history of the French Revolution is surely as simple a narrative as can be! The issue is, this approach is actually its weakness. Staying clear from historiographical quarrels allows for a better focus on the events; but, sadly, since such crucial events were first and foremost motivated by strong clashes of ideas, the lack of analysis and of any insight into the political, economical, and even religious background that drove them cannot but give no proper understanding of it all. If anything, we are left here with the appalling spectacle of various personalities murdering each others, in what seems like a chaotic and dog-eat-dog parade of regimes tumbling each others; whereas it was, obviously, more complicated than that... (although violent indeed).
  
  I also confess having found the author's writing style quite tedious and dull. It feels like he wanted to give as much details as possible, but had to restreint himself to focus only on events which are, nevertheless, impossible to describe if not by providing the necessary background analysis he is shying away from all along... Confused? That's because it's confusing indeed! In fact, the confused reader can be excused for loosing track and/ or feel a bit dizzy trying to make sense of it all.
  
  It was relatively nice to go through as a refresher, but, apart from that, there's not much to say... Not a very exciting book, then.
• 
  Bill

  This is an excellent general reader book describing the French Revolution. Hibbert's descriptions of the Bastille and the events leading to the execution of Louis XVI are as exciting as fiction. Most helpful are a 27 page prologue, a 13 page epilogue, a detailed index and an appendix showing significant events by date. The prologue provides information concerning the situations of the various classes on the eve of the revolution while the prologue describes the rise of Napoleon.
  
  The revolution fed on itself. Danton was executed first and then Robespierre. The telling of these events is tedious, but Hibbert is not at fault. The matters are complex with much in fighting and require a detailed and long explanation.
  
  If you want to obtain some knowledge about the French Revolution from a well written source, Hibbert should be your choice
• 
  Cyril

  I thought I knew a little bit about the French revolution. It turns out I knew nothing. This book is a very good introduction to the bloody topic. Imagine George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John and Samuel Adams, all their colleagues, supporters and many more innocent people executed, and you will get a sense of the savagery of the times. Very few characters - and there are many - are presented in a sympathetic light. There are a few French phrases which remain untranslated, and there are so many names that it is difficult to remember the backgrounds of everyone. The book focuses on the events that occurred more so than the ideas behind them, and so it is fairly fast-paced.
• 
  Joshua Thompson

  I wanted to learn more about the French Revolution, and this was a very good book to do so. Very concise, and the author was very good at making the events and the characters come alive.
• 
  John Reino

  History
  
  The names lost me,to much French, in sentence and the names. Couldn't remember the people involved. It was hard to read, not enjoyable.
• 
  Will R

  An excellent story of the French Revolution, but not much of a history of the French Revolution. Hibbert's work is primarily plot-driven, detailing at an almost breathtaking pace the people and events of those tumultuous times. However, I don't feel like he did enough work to explain the various factions, grievances, and people involved. The barrage of names honestly becomes exhausting, and I struggled to keep track of the major players. I feel like I understand the overarching question of "What happened during the French Revolution?" — but I'm looking to know a bit more about the Why.
• 
  Jason Vanhee

  A delightfully abridged version of Revolutionary history. Will leave you confused and breathless if it's your first take on the French Revolution but if you have some familiarity it's wonderful.
• 
  Ralitsa Mitova

  Historically completely true, but hard and slow for reading, because of the choosen style for writing.
• 
  Stephen

  Exciting, fun & popular in style history of the French Revolution. Can be a touch confusing as the pace is quick & the cast of characters large.
• 
  Zippity do Dah

  I really liked the descriptions of all the revolutionaries. Sometimes I lost track of what was happening. A knowledgable and readable account of the French Revolution.
• 
  Jesse Field

  Christopher Hibbert's short, pithy account of the French Revolution feels like a necessary upgrade to my sense of the political and social turmoil of the times. The speed and intensity with which political institutions can be built up and demolished again is on display front and center here, as well as the rabid, radical nature of the major stakeholders inside and outside Paris at this time, along with the reminder that most of the country was transitioning to a society dominated by middle-class property holders and business types, which means the Terror and all that bloodshed affected some lives little at all. Despite the granular view of the political events, questions do remain, especially regarding the re-organization after the Terror, and just how this left Napoleon Bonaparte (along with, crucially, his brother Lucien!) an opening for the coup and fundamental reorganization.
  
  As the 1780s wore on, France was a country with levels of poverty that could shock British travelers, but at the same time, bourgeois areas like Bordeaux were nicer than their counterpart areas of Great Britain. How to compare these countries and get a clearer picture of the differences and commonalities? Obviously that's for a different book. Hibbert mainly seeks to show how the loosely allied poor and middle-class of the Third Estate tried and failed to get along with Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette, both of whom were terribly banal and normal human beings, in retrospect painfully infected with the bourgeois values themselves -- Louis reportedly read and approved of the Encyclopedie -- and entirely unsuited to roles as medieval embodiments of statehood. In fact, that political form has simply worn out, along with the belief that the King's touch could cure sickness.
  
  An important part of the story that keeps turning up here is that France's political economy is in shambles. Or perhaps better to say, France is coming to terms with having a political economy, thanks to expert administrators like Jacques Necker. France's growing middle class wants Necker and others to institute reforms, the most important of which was the creation of the National Assembly. Thanks to brokering and politicking by figures like Mirabeau, the three estates all agreed on the formation of this National Assembly in 1788. But in the following months, it seems the king and royalists could not agree on how far to take political and economic reform, and the dithering over the coming years led to the explosion of mob anger that included the storming of the Bastille in the summer of 1789. Eyewitness accounts by people like Governour Morris from the USA detail the extraordinary mob violence as even the royal palace at Versailles suffers riots and looting. Some of the blame falls squarely on the King and Queen and their circle, who fail utterly to do anything that would inspire and unify the public, when really the seemed starving for sympathetic central leadership. So perhaps this was a missed opportunity for a reformed constitutional monarchy in France.
  
  By 1792, after the Bourbon's failed attempt to flee, the public could tell that royalists would rather call on alliances in Austria and elsewhere to crush the republican movement than support continued reforms like the Declaration of Rights, and the elimination of kingly powers like his veto right in the early Assembly. This decision, made haltingly over a period of years, really cost all political stability in France. A preview of the rabid violence to come was the attack and vicious mutilation of much of the king's Swiss guard, that year. There is the rise of Marat, a wielder of new mass media that seems to make Alex Jones look like Mr. Rogers. In September, the Girondins government witnesses another preview of things to come -- to them -- when prisoners, including priests, royals and others, are cruelly massacred. Continuing historical questions might focus on how Paris was in tension with the rest of the country, and radicals and bourgeois had many confusing points of tension and alignment in this period. Institutions like the Jacobin club can't possibly be done justice in such a short book, though the portrait of Danton is of particular interest.
  
  So much of what happened does seem to revolve around poverty and economic distress, which is confusing because middle class and even wealthy French are also gaining ground at the same time, leading to grand feasts for some while others join mobs and scream for bread, which apparently French consumed at an average of three pounds a day at the time. But the economic motivation does not explain the rise of first Danton and then Robespierre -- two very colorful and opposing figures -- and the imposition of rapid trial and execution of so many people. Considering that during the period 1793-95, mere comments against the revolution could get you guillotined, we seem to have reached a moment when media and public opinion grow feverishly intense, and the political machinery in place is complex, but poisoned by fear. One appreciates' Hibberts carefully woven account, but wants more analysis. His book is simple documentary, a chilling tale of some few thousand people killed and traumatized, while apparently middle class life -- and grinding poverty, too, one supposes -- simply went on. The shocking violence -- eyes popped out, a jaw destroyed by a bullet, and so much blood, continues through the famous journee of the 9th of Thermidor, when Robespierre and members of his Committee on Public Safety finally fell.
  
  An epigraph to Hibbert's final chapter runs, "A burning fever is followed by complete prostration of strength." But in fact the French bourgeois (formerly Girondins?) stakeholders moved to consolidate power and purge out the radical Jacobin and Sans Cullottes and other forces, which just leaves us with so many questions. Did radicalism just play itself out, some pattern of the mass psychology of the newly formed public opinion? Were the political institutions created since 1789 (must have been hard to believe at the time that it had only been six years!) stable enough after all? Clearly the ultimate answer to the latter question is "no," given the weirdly rapid rise of Napoleon Bonaparte in the complex struggles of the new Convention in Paris against a renewed radical movement, a minor royalist threat, and military fronts against Austria, England, Italian city states, at times Turkey? And possibly more. Hibberts treads very lightly on these military matters, which perhaps are after all for another book.
  
  For what it wants to do, tell a historically sound but exciting story of this briefest and yet most intense periods of historical change, in Europe and with implications for the whole world in the centuries to come, this is a great place to start.
• 
  Jerry Smith

  Not knowing much about this time in history, and with a desire to find out more about European history, I thought this might be a good place to start and I wasn't disappointed. The book has an interesting approach, breaking down this tumultuous time into a series of time frames. As a result it is highly chronological but is somewhat top level. There is a slight lack of depth but that is OK as I was trying to get an overview as I said, and that was delivered well.
  
  The issue with these type of histories is endemic to the genre - there are a ton of bit part characters and unless you are really reading consistently, it is easy to forget who is who (outside the main players such as Robespierre of course) but that isn't the fault of the book and is a minor quibble, easily overcome by concentrating better!
  
  I did find the approach relatively easy to read although I did have to go back a couple of times, and look up some of the terms offline so to speak, as some of the introductions to terms were a little thin I thought, especially the terms for the different factions/crowds that are central to the story. The French Revolution is fascinating to contemplate and I look forward to delving into it at greater depth which is what I wanted to achieve reading this.
• 
  Ensiform

  Another well-told history “written for the general reader,” this book was perhaps a bit too general. That is, it flew over its horde of major and minor characters and ruck of events, only seldom pausing to clarify things by, for example, setting out the main points of difference between the revolution’s political factions, or to give the reader a brief reminder of the identity of a person last mentioned 100 pages earlier. Nevertheless, the narrative of events, from the first rumblings against the tailles and corvées to the coup by Napoleon, was cohesive.
  
  I knew generally of the bloodiness and fickleness of the revolution, but was still repulsed by some of the more grisly details of the massacres (especially the cannibalistic episodes). I would have liked the book to attempt to answer why the leaders were so sadistic and cruel. Did they really think they were protecting freedom? Were they being cruel to save their skins? Were they, in the end, just bloodthirsty maniacs who saw their moment and took it? Hard questions to answer. A dizzyingly bloody period of history.
• 
  Nora

  This narrative history of the French Revolution is a page turner. While this is not a casual read, I was hooked from the beginning. The day by day account helped me grasp the confusion of events which composed the French Revolution. Although this is not a light weight book, I recommend it as a great introduction into this subject.
• 
  Frank Stein

  As some reviewers have pointed out, Hibbert often spends pages of this book dealing with a few minutes of the French Revolution (a detailed account of an assassination, or an attack on a palace), but then spends just a sentence or two on big, world-changing events or ideas. He also trots out hundreds of minor characters that distract from the main thrust of the narrative (the book has a 13 page appendix detailing the fates of dozens of characters, few of which I remembered by that point).
  
  All of that said, the French Revolution itself was fiendishly complicated, and this is one of the few books that gives a straight, narrative, chronological accounting of it, and which largely allows one to understand how it unfolded, and of course, how it went so wrong.
  
  The book hits the usual high-points, which I'll lay out here. There is the financial crisis and the convening of the Estate General in June 1789, and the Tennis Court oath (the Tennis Court location suggested by Dr Joseph Ignance Guillotin) to resist the King's efforts to limit the ambit of the assembly. Later radical "market-women" march on Versailles and drag the King to Paris in late 1789. In the summer of 1791, the new government's troops, led by the Marquis de Lafeyette, perpetuate the "Massacre" of the radical Parisians on the Champs de Mars and force the temporary disbandment of the left-wing Jacobin Club (and cause the temporary rise of the moderate, monarchist Feuillants, offshoot of the Jacobins). Then there's the meeting of the franchise-restricted Legislative Assembly in October 1791, with the moderate Girondins led by Jacques Pierre Brissot in the lead, and the King's vetoes of emigre confiscation legislation, followed by his reluctant agreement to a declaration of war against Austria and Prussia. The radicals won't allow the King to stand still, however, and the "san-culottes" of Paris invade of the King's new palace at the Tuilleries in August 1792, along with the National Assembly, and try to implement the temporary rule of the "Insurrectionary Commune" of Paris. The suffrage-widened National Convention the following month goes some way to meeting the radicals demands, along with their vote for the end of the monarchy (which by the next year is denoted "Year I" of the new French calendar). With the radicals truly in the lead, the Convention creates a "Revolutionary Tribunal" and "Committee of Public Safety" in March 1793 and begin attacks against enemies foreign and domestic, including some of the radical "enrages." Yet the mob strikes back again, led by the local Paris Commune. Their storming of the Assembly, and demand for the new expulsions of the Girondins in June, along with a promulgation of a new Constitution, leads to the true radicalization of the revolution. The Terror followed, with up to 20,000 guillotined in an orgy of violence lead by Danton and Robespierre. Finally, on 9 Thermidor (of the new revolutionary calendar) July 27th 1794, the viscous Robespierre (who had already killed Danton) was overthrown, and a temporary "White Terror" followed. Yet within a year the "Directory" had overthrown a new Assembly composed of moderate constitutional monarchists, which itself was soon overthrown by Napoleon Bonaparte.
  
  So yes, a confusion of dates and names, but that's what the French Revolution was. If there's a lesson here it is that the radical Parisian mob dictated events to the National Assembly, and pushed the country further and further down a radical path, until the mob itself was restrained and overthrown. I remain a bit confused about the whole process, but now I feel I finally understand at least a piece of it.
• 
  Aaron Kleinheksel

  I was looking for a shorter explanation of the French Revolution, of which I knew almost nothing going into this, my public education having failed in this regard. I tried to sort through the more highly reviewed English-language overviews and settled on Hibbert's Days.
  
  What this book misses is at least an attempt at explaining the zeitgeist of the populace and the 'why?' behind many of the events that occurred, from the more general causes of the Revolution to things like the declarations of war. I *think* after finishing this book that I can come up with some pretty good generalizations in answer to these questions, but I wish the author had weighed in more heavily in these areas.
  
  It was an age of chaos, to be sure! No reader should expect to keep all the personalities straight, as they enter the stage and then exit, usually by way of the guillotine. I get the feeling that French history is an exercise in trying not to miss the forest for the trees. The author VERY helpfully includes a timeline of important events at the back of the book, as well as a glossary and a "fate of characters whose end is not recorded in the text." These actually act as a sort of mortar for the overarching narrative.
  
  For this type of book, I did appreciate the author's writing style, and the inclusion of many interesting anecdotes that helped put me into the events being described. For example, an included eyewitness description of the speech and behavior of the Parisian women was startling when compared to similar examples I've witnessed over the last year in some of our own cities. I think because of their role in childbirth and rearing, women are typically a stabilizing and civilizing force in society, and it is therefore a dangerous sign of societal unraveling when they act out in particularly coarse, licentious, and violent fashion.
  
  I think this book is a good primer to my plan to read Toqueville's
  The Ancien Régime and the Revolution. I also now have a better appreciation for things I see on the news in relation to all the mass demonstrations happening in France, since the symbols of the Revolution are always everywhere on display, to include the red liberty caps!
• 
  Ben

  “ The Days of the French Revolution” by Christopher Hibbert is a narrative telling of the history of fall of the Royalty and its replacement by a people’s government. It is not an exhaustive , comprehensive cataloging of all the events went on in France in those tumultuous and frightful months. But it satisfies anyone who desires to learn about the forces that nearly led to the destruction of France, did lead to the killing of untold tens of thousands and the rise of Napoleon.
  Mr. Hibbert writes clearly and informatively, giving all the needed details: the notables ( Danton, Robespierre, Marat) , the fractioned politics, the grim horror of deaths uncounted. Reading how the crowd’ hatred of royalty, wealth and privilege became hatred of anyone who did not demonstrate sufficiently radical speech and thought was all too familiar. Weeping at the execution of a husband was enough to get the wife condemned. Not attending ( or attending) a rally could be fatal. Simply complaining about the cost loaf of bread became a counter- revolutionary act.
  
  “ Days of the French Revolution” is a very good book, informative, entertaining, in the serious sense and a needed reminder how easy it is for a country to tear itself apart. The example , rhetoric, animosity and actions of the 18th century carried over into early years of the twentieth with deadly results. And now? As the French say, “The more things change....”
  Notes: historical slaughter. Translations provided of Important French words and descriptive phases in text and in an glossary. Many pages of illustrations.
  Well worth reading. Note that it did not take me four days to read the book; life intervened now and then.