Click on the title to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for the great french revolutionary,Maximilien Robespierre.
BOOK REVIEW
ROBESPIERRE,David Warden, Harper Books, New York 2003
One of the enduring historical legends of the French Revolution is the tendency of historians and others to call the period of the reign of Robespierre, as the presiding genius of the Committee of Public Safety in 1793-94, the 'Reign of Terror'. That the domestic situation in France, and more especially its position in the bewildering status of European politics at the time, and the person of Robespierre himself were far more complex than that simple designation has only fairly recently become a decisive factor in historical studies of the revolution. The biography under review here is one example of the more reasoned approaches to the life and times of Robespierre. Although the author is clearly no admirer of Robespierre he is at least willing to give the devil his due, if only by comparison to the disastrous effects that later modern ‘dictators’ have had on history. For those, like this reviewer, who see the work of Robespierre, Saint Just and the other workaholic members of the Committee of Public Safety as critical to the lasting effects of the French Revolution, that is, as an embryonic attempt at a 'Republic of Virtue', this is all that one can ask for.
The author organizes his book around several themes and does a more than adequate job of presenting the social, economic, philosophical, literary and legal positions that influenced Robespierre over his career. Especially interesting and previously unknown to me were the possible influences of freemasonry, illuminism and rosicrucianism on the thought and actions of Robespierre in the course of his struggle for power. At this historical distance it is, however, hard to judge the true effect of such beliefs on his judgements. Let us just leave it that in revolutionary times the odd and eccentric get a hearing that they would not get in more stable times. Including by leaders who would ordinarily dismiss such ideas and persons.
Professor Warden also traces Robespierre’s career into the law as one of the routes that the self-made revolutionaries of the period saw as a stepping stone to power;his early literary and philosophical proclivities, particularly his devotion to Rousseau; his rise into the revolutionary leadership as the revolution moved left; his reputation as the ‘incorruptible’ man of personal virtue; his desire to create a reign of virtue; his personal mental and physical problems and their effect on his thoughts and actions; and, the inevitable controversy over the use of the death penalty and other repression laws to settle scores with real undying enemies and mere political opponents. This more well-rounded approach toward his life may not win Robespierre, an admittedly hard character to warm up to, more admiration. However, the approach has the virtue of at least changing the debate from one of the ‘axis of evil’ to one of a mainly rational approach to the problems confronting French in the early 1790’s not the least of which was how to deal with real internal and foreign counterrevolutionary plots and military actions. Other, lesser, men of the times broke their teeth trying to solve those problems as well.
One of the major points that I have tried to emphasize in my study of the French Revolution is the formation of the initial ‘popular front’ nature of the uprising and the subsequent breakup into its basic class components that has lessons for the situation in France and Western society today. For those who are unfamiliar with the term- 'popular front', it is a political strategy that assumes the bulk of society have the same social and class interests. It is counterposed to the Marxian notion that the working class, independently, must lead society out of the morass that capitalism has put it in. In the France of 2007 that 'popular front' strategy is the favored one of the Socialist Party as it seeks the presidency of the Republic.
The French Revolution as it moved left, a phenomena witnessed in all great revolutions, became less and less of a 'popular front', as we know it. Robespierre, it is clear, consciously made a decision to find support for his politics in the sans culottes masses of Paris. Others like Marat, the Hebertists and Babeuf also worked that same political vein. What makes Robespierre different from latter day revolutionaries like Marx, Lenin and Trotsky who like Robespierre were also not from the working classes was that he was driven by the revolution itself into his position in defense of the lower classes whereas the later mentioned revolutionaries were won to working class politics well before hand. That, among other things, may help explain why when Robespierre and his supporters were overthrown his support literally evaporated and the denigration of his reputation as a ‘terrorist’ began. Read this book for more insights on this question.
BOOK REVIEW
ROBESPIERRE,David Warden, Harper Books, New York 2003
One of the enduring historical legends of the French Revolution is the tendency of historians and others to call the period of the reign of Robespierre, as the presiding genius of the Committee of Public Safety in 1793-94, the 'Reign of Terror'. That the domestic situation in France, and more especially its position in the bewildering status of European politics at the time, and the person of Robespierre himself were far more complex than that simple designation has only fairly recently become a decisive factor in historical studies of the revolution. The biography under review here is one example of the more reasoned approaches to the life and times of Robespierre. Although the author is clearly no admirer of Robespierre he is at least willing to give the devil his due, if only by comparison to the disastrous effects that later modern ‘dictators’ have had on history. For those, like this reviewer, who see the work of Robespierre, Saint Just and the other workaholic members of the Committee of Public Safety as critical to the lasting effects of the French Revolution, that is, as an embryonic attempt at a 'Republic of Virtue', this is all that one can ask for.
The author organizes his book around several themes and does a more than adequate job of presenting the social, economic, philosophical, literary and legal positions that influenced Robespierre over his career. Especially interesting and previously unknown to me were the possible influences of freemasonry, illuminism and rosicrucianism on the thought and actions of Robespierre in the course of his struggle for power. At this historical distance it is, however, hard to judge the true effect of such beliefs on his judgements. Let us just leave it that in revolutionary times the odd and eccentric get a hearing that they would not get in more stable times. Including by leaders who would ordinarily dismiss such ideas and persons.
Professor Warden also traces Robespierre’s career into the law as one of the routes that the self-made revolutionaries of the period saw as a stepping stone to power;his early literary and philosophical proclivities, particularly his devotion to Rousseau; his rise into the revolutionary leadership as the revolution moved left; his reputation as the ‘incorruptible’ man of personal virtue; his desire to create a reign of virtue; his personal mental and physical problems and their effect on his thoughts and actions; and, the inevitable controversy over the use of the death penalty and other repression laws to settle scores with real undying enemies and mere political opponents. This more well-rounded approach toward his life may not win Robespierre, an admittedly hard character to warm up to, more admiration. However, the approach has the virtue of at least changing the debate from one of the ‘axis of evil’ to one of a mainly rational approach to the problems confronting French in the early 1790’s not the least of which was how to deal with real internal and foreign counterrevolutionary plots and military actions. Other, lesser, men of the times broke their teeth trying to solve those problems as well.
One of the major points that I have tried to emphasize in my study of the French Revolution is the formation of the initial ‘popular front’ nature of the uprising and the subsequent breakup into its basic class components that has lessons for the situation in France and Western society today. For those who are unfamiliar with the term- 'popular front', it is a political strategy that assumes the bulk of society have the same social and class interests. It is counterposed to the Marxian notion that the working class, independently, must lead society out of the morass that capitalism has put it in. In the France of 2007 that 'popular front' strategy is the favored one of the Socialist Party as it seeks the presidency of the Republic.
The French Revolution as it moved left, a phenomena witnessed in all great revolutions, became less and less of a 'popular front', as we know it. Robespierre, it is clear, consciously made a decision to find support for his politics in the sans culottes masses of Paris. Others like Marat, the Hebertists and Babeuf also worked that same political vein. What makes Robespierre different from latter day revolutionaries like Marx, Lenin and Trotsky who like Robespierre were also not from the working classes was that he was driven by the revolution itself into his position in defense of the lower classes whereas the later mentioned revolutionaries were won to working class politics well before hand. That, among other things, may help explain why when Robespierre and his supporters were overthrown his support literally evaporated and the denigration of his reputation as a ‘terrorist’ began. Read this book for more insights on this question.
No comments:
Post a Comment