#french political history

[animentality]

[mysharona1987]

[skf-fineart]

Guillotine earrings commemorating the execution of Louis XVI during France’s Reign of Terror, c. 1793

[theorahsart]

Me pretending to interview a guy who died 230 yrs ago just for a really silly comic

[pinkblanc]

“The origins of Russia are lost in the darkness of antiquity”

Gustave Doré, L’Histoire pittoresque, dramatique et caricaturale de la sainte Russie, 1854, p.p. 1

[yeoldecryptid]

This is such a bizarre time to be researching The French Revolution.

It is also such a bizarre time to be studying autistic traits in history.

And it’s a REALLY bizarre time to be studying how autistic traits affected The French Revolution.

[garthnadermemestash]

Deny, defend, depose

[czerwonykasztelanic]

En route to Charleroi

[blackswaneuroparedux]

For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

[enlitment]

I dont know if you already answered this question (I'm sorry if you did!) but, which JJ's book do you recommend for starters?

Hi, thank you for the ask. I don't think I've ever answered it publicly actually!

It depends entirely on what interests you:

1. The Social Contract/Du contrat social

-> start here if you want to pick up Rousseau because you're interested in the French Revolution/politics/political philosophy. It is probably his most famous work (along with Emile maybe)

It's surprisingly readable (and funny at times!), though if you expect a perfectly coherent and logical system, be prepared for disappointment. It also helps to know at least some basics (like the gist of Hobbes' or Locke's political philosophy), but don't worry if you don't, you're still understand most of it.

2. Letter to M. d'Alembert on Spectacles

-> start here if you want a genuinely fascinating insight into late 1700s misogyny. It's chilling how some of the arguments feel so contemporary. It's fairly short, and reads more like a ramble/angry twitter thread that just pulls you right in.

It's great to get your blood boiling, but not a great start if you want to like Rousseau. Oh, and if you read it alongside Confessions, the sheer level of cognitive disonance/denial it's simply delicious.

3. Confessions

-> start here if you want to learn about Rousseau's life. It won't necessarily give you the true facts, but it will offer you a fascinating insight into his mind.

It's one hell of a ride, but it's not all weird psychosexual wtf moments. You can learn a lot from it about what life was like in the 18th century, and about the (usually unspoken) social norms. One thing I loved was that it revealed how much power French women actually had in the society, though it wasn't immediately obvious.

Also, there are some passages in which he talks about his social anxiety and insecurities where I genuinely find myself sympathising with him.

I'm also sorry to say that I firmly believe that it's a fun read. It gets very, very frustrating at times, but the man could write.

4. Introducing Rousseau by Dave Robinson

-> Start here if you want a quick overview/something to hold onto before jumping straight in!

Yeah, it's an illustrated guide, it's a tiny book and it looks a bit daft, but I personally swear by it. It's a very quick and engaging read, but it represents his philosophy and his life fairly well from what I can tell.

Pictured here with my hand and the man himself:

Honourable Mentions:

5. Discourse on the Arts and Sciences -> start here if you want to start with a text that first made Rousseau famous/are keen to approach his works in a chronological order

6. Emile, or On Education -> I haven't read this one I'm afraid (though I now own it!), but it's one of his most influential works. If you're interested in the idea of childhood and education, this one's for you! (but prepare to be angry re: Education of Sophie I guess)

Hope this helps, and do let me know how you get on!

[empirearchives]

The keys to the city of Lyon, France. 1805.

Joseph Chinard drew the pieces and the goldsmith Antoine Saunier made them.

They are symbols of Lyon’s allegiance to Napoleon I, who lifted the city from its ashes after the French Revolution. They were created in 1805 on the occasion of the emperor’s visit to Lyon.

These three keys are works of art and do not materially open any door of the city. They symbolically represent the three divisions (north, west and south) that made up the city under the First Empire (1804-1814). Each is decorated with a symbol illustrating the specificity of the neighborhood.

They were made for the visit to Lyon on April 10, 1805, of Emperor Napoleon I and Empress Josephine. They are presented to him publicly, in front of a floor of politicians —whose names are engraved on the back of the dish — as a sign of allegiance and gratitude on the part of the city.

MHL - Musée d'Histoire de Lyon

[karl-marxs-ghost]

The U.S. war for independence really takes on a different tenor when you learn:

Those evil taxes the British added primarily affected wealthy colonists

which were added to recoup the debt Britain incurred after defending the colonies during the French and Indian War

which was started by a young George Washington ambushing a French patrol over Ohio River Valley territorial disputes (which of course was native land colonists were fighting over)

and the colonists engaged in tons of mob violence, property destruction, and other forms of what is now considered illegal protest by the very government that once did that against the British.

Oh and that after winning the war the new US government implemented taxes that were:

2-3 times higher than the British ones were

which now primarily targeted poorer people like yeoman farmers who did not have voting rights.

I’m addition, a majority of the soldiers who fought in the war were paid in valueless continental currency and never given the acres of farmland they were promised

both of which led to widespread violent protests and outright rebellions which the new government ruthlessly crushed.

As is usually the case, history is a lot more complicated that any nation’s foundational narrative constructs it as.

[theorahsart]

Incorruptible Interlude pt 2

If you didn't know where the terms 'left wing' and 'right wing' come from...now you know! Also, can you spot the Robespierres in these pages? lol

[lily-of-the-valley-2001]

la chinoise!(1967)

[wonder-worker]

"The remarkable thing about [Gerberga of Saxony's] widowhood is that she seems to have carried on exercising her queenly status without open challenge more or less until her death in 969, and without an obvious break when her son reached majority. As well as making regular appearances as petitioner in royal charters, she is also referred to consistently and unproblematically by Flodoard as ‘queen’. In this respect, she was arguably the most politically active royal widow since the late ninth-century Italian empress Engelberga. The fact that Gerberga retained such a high profile should not be taken for granted. The participation of royal widows in the public life of the kingdom was extremely vulnerable to criticism because (unlike kings, who remained kings until death regardless of how many wives predeceased them) they were not automatically categorized as political actors—their roles usually had to be justified and rationalized. Because of the peculiar role of queens in articulating the shape of royal dynasties, widowhood was conceptualized as a specific state onto which various ideologies could be projected. The Ottonians are thought to have developed a distinctive approach to this problem by turning royal widows who played crucial political roles into saints.

[The charter Gerberga issued in 959 for the monastery of Homblière exemplifies her prominent role]. The ‘gratia Dei (by the grace of God)’ clause is particularly striking, implying that her status derived not from a husband or son but, like a king’s, directly from God. In fact, there are very few surviving charters of any kind issued by queens before the twelfth century, a pattern that cannot be dismissed as an accident of survival. Those we have were mostly composed for queens who were, like Gerberga, widows. But in contrast to Gerberga’s case, the status of these queens was carefully framed in reference to the authority of their late husbands, often using the past tense. Thus two charters recording gifts made to the monastery of Gorze in 910 by Richildis, widow of Charles the Bald (840–77), refer to her as ‘former queen’ (‘quondam regina’). Similarly, the testament of Ageltrude, widow of one dead Italian king and mother of another (respectively Guy, 889–94, and Lambert, 894–8), describes her as ‘former empress’ (‘olim imperatrix augusta’) and invokes the authority of both men in claiming her right to dispose of her property. Even the Empress Engelberga, one of the most powerful queens of the ninth century and someone who was able to exercise independent power in Italy after the death of her husband Louis II in 875, shrouded her public persona in this kind of rhetoric. Her testament, which dates from 877, is an impressive statement of her power and connections, but opens by establishing that she was, above all, ‘former wife and august empress of the most pious emperor Louis of blessed memory’, and goes on to emphasize that she was even now acting on his authority. Compare Gerberga’s charter of 959, in which her late husband Louis IV is conspicuous by his absence and it is the queen herself who is rhetorically inserted into the role of ruler.”

— Simon MacLean, Ottonian Queenship

[unhinged-arsonist]

I miss the good ol' days when we could chop off corrupt rulers' heads to solve political problems. It was like enrichment for the working class.