Abstract
No theory of revolution is complete without explaining counter-revolutions. Historians of the Vend6e uprising have compiled evidence consonant with a "psychological" explanation style which directs our attention to motives of a few actors capable of conscious collective action; historiographical questions have been about motives -and responsibility (almost in a legal sense). Thus sources giving direct accounts of the events and testimony of the participants' intentions have been exploited rather than the Vend6e election records. This inhibits careful distinctions among the groups whose behavior is to be explained, and problems-such as ideology-not readily subsumed as "states of mind" disappear. Comparative analysis of states of mind being so difficult, the essential question why counter-revolution breaks out one place rather than another is omitted.