***Come to class with written notes/answers for each question below, in order to facilitate your active participation. This will make your success in the class participation portion of this course much easier.

--The preface and introduction to this book are quite helpful.  Read them carefully.  Use them as a reference as you go through the larger book.  It will help you keep in mind the major points in the writings of each author, at least the major points according to Cox.  These are things you can look for as you read each of the individual entries.

--The first part of the book presents three brief passages by Alexis de Tocqueville.  How did he present the French Revolution?  That is, what are the main characteristics that he attributes to the event?  Cox, in his head note to this section, for example, says that, "in all three  selections, he (Tocqueville) compares the bourgeoisie unfavorably with the nobility."  Do you think this is an accurate description of Tocqueville's texts, or not?  If so, why?  If not, how would you characterize his texts?  Identify, as closely as possible, the original dates of publication for each text. 

--The second part of the book begins with two passages from the writings of Hippolyte Taine.  Who was Taine?  When did he live?  What are the titles of these texts?  How did he present the history of the French Revolution?  What were its crucial characteristics, in his opinion? 

--Both Taine, and the historian whose work follows in this volume, Alphonse Aulard, are described by Cox as "positivists."  When did Aulard write, and what did he argue?  In what sense was he a member of the positivist school?  Were his views on the French Revolution similar to or different from those of Taine, and why?  

--Part III of this book is on Marxist interpretations of the French Revolution.  The first passage is from the writings of Jean Jaurès.  Who was he?  When did he write?  What were the main elements in his interpretation of the Revolution?  How did he characterize the significance of this revolution?

--The second Marxist historian included in this volume is Albert Mathiez.  Who was he and when did he write?  How did the time period in which he wrote affect his interpretation?  Cox has something to say about this matter in the head note, but go further.  Do you find evidence of what Cox was suggesting in this passage?  Who were the heroes of the Revolution in Mathiez's opinion, do you think?  What was the effect of the actions of the National Convention, in Mathiez's view, and why is this important for his argument?

--Georges Lefebvre was a Marxist historian who also wrote the clearest expression of what Cox calls the "orthodoxy" in the introduction to this volume.  Identify Lefebvre: who was he, when did he write, and especially, who was he in the French historical establishment?  What are the main elements in his interpretation of the events of the French Revolution?  How did he portray it?  Cox said that the "orthodoxy" was an interpretation that stressed the social implications of the event: it was a social revolution in which the bourgeoisie triumphed over the aristocracy.  Do you find this in the writings of Lefebvre, and if so, where?  

--The last of the Marxist historians presented in Part III of this book is Albert Soboul.  Who was he, and when did he write?  Did his "Marxism" include agreement with all the other Marxist historians of the French Revolution with whom you are familiar?  That is, do you think, that taken together they constitute a "school" of historical interpretation?  Why or why not?  How did he define the sans-culottes?  What are the main characteristics of Soboul's interpretation of the revolution? 

--François Furet is the first historian included in Part IV, which covers "post-Marxist interpretations."  Who was Furet?  When did he write?  What were the decisive influences on his historical outlook, according to Cox?  In what sense, in your opinion, is he "post-Marxist?"  What were the major points he made in these passages, and how do they connect with the Marxist interpretations of the French Revolution that you became familiar with in Part III?  In the introduction to this book, Cox described at some length the "myth of the founding event."  Indeed, that myth is probably part of the "orthodox" interpretation of the French Revolution.  Cox argued in the same introduction that this myth is absent in the work of Furet.  Do you agree?  Why or why not?

--Cox also included Mona Ozouf and Lynn Hunt in Part IV.  Who were these historians, and when did they write?  How would you describe the approach of these two to history, based on the selections presented here?  That is, what sort of questions in history were they interested in asking and answering, if this passage is representative of their other work?  Both had a debt to Furet.  In what ways do their works seem connected to that of Furet?

--The final historian included in this part of the book is Robert Darnton.  Cox included two selections from his work.  What are the main points in each of the two sections, and how are the two sections related?  Is the "orthodoxy" Cox identified in Georges Lefebvre present in the work or Darnton?  If so, where? 

--In Part V of this book, Cox presented "postmodern perspectives."  If the characterization "postmodern" refers to a situation in which a number of explanations of an historical event and its significance coexist simultaneously, then just how "postmodern" are the interpretations provided here? In order to answer this question, you will have to do some preliminary note-taking.   Identify the historians included, and when each wrote.  Identify the major points made by each of these historian/scholars.  Then draw a conclusion about the matter of their "postmodernism".  

--Establish a table/timeline/chart/diagram that outlines the major and minor theses presented in these writings, and that identifies the time periods in which the interpretations were advanced.  Be creative!