SOURCE: “The Two French Revolutions,” in New York Review of Books, April 13, 1989, pp. 11–14.

In the following review, Hampson criticizes Schama's Citizens for lacking coherence or “credible explanations for why things happened in the way that they did.”

In one respect at least the very different books by Simon Schama and George Rudé have something in common: each is based on the reinterpretation of old evidence rather than on new discoveries. They incorporate a kind of tribute to their authors’ student days. In Rudeé's case this implies very heavy dependence on the French Marxist historian Georges Lefebvre: “I have followed fairly closely the arguments of G. Lefebvre”; he is “greatly indebted” to Lefebvre's “masterly portrayal” of Napoleon; “the best work on the outbreak of the Revolution is still G. Lefebvre's”; for the social and economic history of the Revolution one should consult “above all, … the work of Georges...