I've read the middle two, so I'll try to give a brief critique:
Fatal Purity isn't that bad until the last two chapters, despite its over-reliance on sources written by conservative 19th century Britons. The last two chapters are completely unoriginal and if you want the view of history they supply, you could do just as well reading Michelet or even Carlyle.
Hampson's Saint-Just....well, considering he literally refers to Saint-Just as "demonic," you can see why it might be wise to tread carefully.
As to the others, I don't know, but I hope they're better than most, for your sake, if nothing else.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-11-19 12:46 am (UTC)Fatal Purity isn't that bad until the last two chapters, despite its over-reliance on sources written by conservative 19th century Britons. The last two chapters are completely unoriginal and if you want the view of history they supply, you could do just as well reading Michelet or even Carlyle.
Hampson's Saint-Just....well, considering he literally refers to Saint-Just as "demonic," you can see why it might be wise to tread carefully.
As to the others, I don't know, but I hope they're better than most, for your sake, if nothing else.