AULARD, with whom I want to deal first, has exercised great influence as an expert of the Revolution period, and founded a school. Appointed in 1886 as the first holder of a new chair in the History of the Revolution in the University of Paris, he produced in 1901, when he was over fifty, after many editions of sources and monographs, a great work of synthesis, Histoire politique de la Révolution française. The leader of the new historical tendency which claimed to study and appraise events in an objective, scientific way, 'historically and not politically',1 Aulard presented a conception which, though based upon an impressive amount of factual material, strictly sifted and arranged, is in truth dominated by a rigid ideology, and that in a tyrannical manner. He follows the history of Bonaparte as far as the imperial coronation: this in his opinion brings the Revolution to a definitive end, a conception which already implies a judgment. Mignet went to 1815; Thiers saw in the solemnity at Notre Dame the coronation of the Revolution, while Quinet thought that it was its untimely conclusion.2 In the eyes of Aulard, also, Napoleon is the man who arrested the Revolution, who even initiated a reaction towards the ancien régime, who abolished liberty and encroached upon equality. His chapters dealing with the Consulate give little else than the story of the derailment of the Revolution, of the gradual demolition of liberty, and the establishment of despotism.
The brutality with which force was used on the 19th Brumaire, says Aulard, was unintentional, and at first Bonaparte seemed to make himself as inconspicuous and innocent a figure as possible in the hope of being forgiven. Public opinion indeed allowed____________________