I think this is typical of Schama's failure to grasp (or convenient/lazy refusal to be bothered with) the big picture: this was an era of high mortality and when something like 70% of the population had smallpox at some point in their life (hence the layers of make-up evident in every portrait from the Tudor period until Jenner's Smallpox innoculation was invented - i'd have thought someone who reckons he's an 'art historian' might have noticed that in the course of his 'work'), but he thinks not having post-plastic-surgery-Hollywood standards of physical 'perfection' would be abnormal and single you out and traumatise you - David as The Elephant Man. Ditto stuff like dead siblings, dead parents and so on (though - again, typical Schama - in 'Citizens' he seems to be the only historian not to mention Robespierre's parents - and that's one of the cases where I do think this fact had a bearing on the subject's life. I presume he feared that mentioning that he was an orphan might make his readers think 'aww, poor kid!' and he couldn't have that! Oh, here it is, p 577, US edition, Schama's sole mention of the powdered monster's childhood: "these lessons in moral earnestness he learned from his lawyer father" - which is, to put it mildly, a 'take' on Robespierre's father unique amongst historians! A page letter he says the letter from Saint-Just was sent in August 1789 (that's quick work)and then goes on to describe Robespierre's 'long nose', which may fit in with Schama's general portrayal of him as slinking around like the Child-Catcher, but no relationship to reality whatsoever...
What I find utterly extraordinary is that Schama apparently lectured on the French Revolution at Brasenose: it's not an Oxford college with a great academic reputation, but he can't even get basic, basic facts right! Dates, for christ's sake! And in a period where events are as concentrated as this, when weeks are like years, to get something as simple as dates wrong is like saying the Romans came to Britain on Concorde. It's not just Schama's politics that I loathe, the way he lathers every noun with a dozen negative adjectives, the way he sneers about people whose bravery and achievements he could never come close to, the way he says 'objectivity' isn't his job - it's his total inability to write basic facts. I've just read an interview with him where he calls Michelet 'Michelin' throughout...jesus wept!
no subject
What I find utterly extraordinary is that Schama apparently lectured on the French Revolution at Brasenose: it's not an Oxford college with a great academic reputation, but he can't even get basic, basic facts right! Dates, for christ's sake! And in a period where events are as concentrated as this, when weeks are like years, to get something as simple as dates wrong is like saying the Romans came to Britain on Concorde. It's not just Schama's politics that I loathe, the way he lathers every noun with a dozen negative adjectives, the way he sneers about people whose bravery and achievements he could never come close to, the way he says 'objectivity' isn't his job - it's his total inability to write basic facts. I've just read an interview with him where he calls Michelet 'Michelin' throughout...jesus wept!