Michelet Sentence Examples

Michelet's wonderful depiction in his Histoire de France (livres 13 to 17) has never teen surpassed for graphic word-painting, but it is inaccurate in details, and superseded in scholarship. Of the original sources for the reign the Lettres de Louis XI.

Assisted by his friend Edgar Quinet, he began a violent polemic against the unpopular order and the principles which it represented, a polemic which made their lectures, and especially Michelet's, one of the most popular resorts of the day.

These books do not display the apocalyptic style which, partly borrowed from Lamennais, characterizes Michelet's later works, but they contain in miniature almost the whole of his curious ethicopolitico-theological creed - a mixture of sentimentalism, communism, and anti-sacerdotalism, supported by the most eccentric arguments, but urged with a great deal of eloquence.

Despite or because of its enthusiasm, this was by no means Michelet's best book.

The first of these (by no means the best) was Les Femmes de la revolution (1854), in which Michelet's natural and inimitable faculty of dithyrambic too often gives way to tedious and not very conclusive argument and preaching.

The next year (1862) the most striking of all Michelet's minor works, La Sorciere, made its appearance.

Nos fils (1869), the last of the string of smaller books published during the author's life, is a tractate on education, written with ample knowledge of the facts and with all Michelet's usual sweep and range of view, if with visibly declining powers of expression.

Almost all Michelet's works, the exceptions being his translations, compilations, &c., are published in uniform size and in about fifty volumes, partly by Marpon and Flammarion, partly by Calmann Levy.

At this time he was introduced to Cousin, and made the acquaintance of Michelet.

In French Louis Blanc's Histoire de la Revolution (12 vols., Paris, 1847-1862), and Michelet's Histoire de la Revolution Francaise (9 vols., Paris, 1847-1853), are the most elaborate of the older works.

Michelet's book is marked by great eloquence and power.

His published works include some volumes of speeches and well-known studies of Ignatius Loyola (1876) and of Michelet (1876).

At the beginning of the 19th century, however, some Neapolitan exiles at Milan called attention to the merits of their great countryman, and his reinstatement was completed by Michelet, who in 1827 translated the Scienza nuova and other works with a laudatory introduction.

He found time also to write elaborate articles on French history and Greek history in the Edinburgh Review apropos of Michelet, Guizot and Grote, besides some less elaborate essays.

In the great division of the Hegelian school, he, in company with Michelet and others, formed the "centre," midway between Erdmann and Gabler on the one hand, and the "extreme left" represented by Strauss, Feuerbach and Bruno Bauer.

Of the ordinary historians of France Michelet is fullest on the private life of the king.

Besides the histories of post-Kantian philosophy by Erdmann, Fortlage (whose account is remarkably good), Michelet, Biedermann and others, see Wm.

At the end of his studies he hesitated for some time before deciding what career he would follow, until Michelet put an end to his indecision by inspiring him with a taste for history.

Michelet has remarked.

In Michelet's words, "le nouveau Messie est le roi"; and the monarchy alone seemed capable of guiding the state through the social and political anarchy which threatened all nations in their transition from medieval to modern organization.

The period of the restoration and the July monarchy was one of the most favourable to rising men of letters of a somewhat scholastic cast that has ever been known in France, and Michelet had powerful patrons in Villemain, Victor Cousin and others.

Four years later, in 1831, the Introduction a l'histoire universelle showed a very different style, exhibiting no doubt the idiosyncrasy and literary power of the writer to greater advantage, but also displaying the peculiar visionary qualities which made Michelet the most stimulating, but the most untrustworthy (not in facts, which he never consciously falsifies, but in suggestion) of all historians.

But when the actual revolution broke out Michelet, unlike many other men of letters, did not attempt to enter on active political life, and merely devoted himself more strenuously to his literary work.

The coup d'etat lost Michelet his place in the Record Office, as, though not in any way identified with the republic administratively, he refused to take the oaths to the empire.

In some of the best of them natural science, a new subject with Michelet, to which his wife is believed to have introduced him, supplies the text.

In La Montagne (1868), the last of the natural history series, the tricks of staccato style are pushed even farther than by Victor Hugo in his less inspired moments, though - as is inevitable, in the hands of such a master of language as Michelet - the effect is frequently grandiose if not grand.

The picture of the industrious and famishing populations of the Riviera is (whether true to fact or not) one of the best things that Michelet has done.

Michelet was perhaps the first historian to devote himself to anything like a picturesque history of the middle ages, and his account is still the most vivid that exists.

Uncompromisingly hostile as Michelet was to the empire, its downfall and the accompanying disasters of the country once more stimulated him to activity.

The new republic was not altogether a restoration for Michelet, and his professorship at the College de France, of which he contended that he had never been properly deprived, was not given back to him.

Joao and Vida de Nun' Alvarez, he painted an admirable series of portraits and, following his master Michelet, made the past live again.

Those periods which have been dominated by the great masters of style have been less interested in the criticism of the historian's methods of investigation than in the beauty of his rhetoric. The scientific historian, deeply interested in the search for truth, is generally but a poor artist, and his uncoloured picture of the past will never rank in literature beside the splendid distortions which glow in the pages of a Michelet or Macaulay.

His chair was one of Southern Literature, but, neglecting his proper subject, he chose, in conjunction with Michelet, to engage in a violent polemic with the Jesuits and with Ultramontanism.

He is less inaccurate in fact than Michelet, but he is also much less absorbed by a single idea at a time, and the result is that he seldom attains to the vivid representation of which Michelet was a master.

For many years Quinet received little attention in France, but it was revived, though not very strongly, by the publication in 1899 of Madame Quinet's Cinquante ans d'amitie (that between her husband and Michelet), and by the centenary of his birth.