Robespierre ( 1758-1794 )
Whenever I have uttered the word ' Robespierre ' before French men or French women, they were horrified, as if they imagined a guillotine arising in front of them.
Maximilien Robespierre is one of the most vilified figures in history. Englishmen find him repellant, Frenchmen ( his own countrymen ) even more so.
I remember when I was on a visit to Paris I mentioned the name Marie Antoinette ( the same Queen of France who heartlessly remarked " If the people do not have bread let them eat cake ") to some French people gathered at the Hotel de Ville. They were full of sympathy for her But at Robespierre's name they recoiled, as if confronted with a man eating tiger. There are no memorials or monuments in his honour in France, only a shabby metro station in a poor suburb of Paris bears his name.
I have always been an admirer of the French Revolution ( 1789-1794 ), and Robespierre has always been one of my heroes. Like me, he was a disciple of the great French thinker Rousseau. Although belonging to the middle class in France, he identified himself with the poor people, the sans culottes and championed their cause.
After being elected to the Estates General in 1789 Robespierre consistently attacked the French monarchy and aristocracy, which had become unjust, tyrannical and outdated institutions, and championed democratic reforms. He supported the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, universal male suffrage ( the principle of womens' suffrage had not then been conceived of ), abolition of slavery and establishment of a Republic. He proclaimed : " The secret of freedom lies in educating the people, whereas the secret of tyranny lies in keeping them ignorant ".
Nobody ever questioned Robespierre's personal integrity, whereas the financial integrity of some of his colleagues in the Revolution like Danton was always suspect. Robespierre never benefited personally in any way by being one of the leaders of the French Revolution. When he died he left behind him hardly any assets.
His secretary, Pierre Villiers, has written in his Memoirs " Several times I have known him to refuse offers of money that required from him no return, not even thanks, and if sometimes I allowed myself to insist on his accepting, he abused me " .
Robespierre has been accused of being a demagogue, dictatorial, and a fanatic. The truth is that he was a spokesman for the poor and oppressed people of France and of the whole world, a fierce adversary of royalists, aristocrats, dishonest and corrupt politicians, and staunch guardian of the French Republic which was then in its infancy.
In 1792 when the French people and most members of the French Legislative Assembly were carried away by war hysteria, whipped up by Brissot and the Girondins, who wanted to declare war on Austria, Robespierre repeatedly warned people about its outcome.
Robespierre argued that whether the French armies were victorious or defeated , in either case it would be disastrous for France. If victorious, the French generals would come back and become dictators, if defeated, the victorious foreign armies would hang the revolutionaries, restore the monarchy, and enslave the people.
" In troubled periods of history," he said in a speech to the Assembly " Generals often become the arbiters of the fate of their countries. If they are Caesars or Cromwells, they seize power for themselves. If they are spineless courtiers, they are yet dangerous and harmful, for they lay their power at their master's feet and help him resume arbitrary power on condition that they become the chief servants ".
He added " The most extravagant idea that can arise in a politician's head is to believe that it is enough for a people to invade a foreign country to make it adopt the invader's laws and ideas. No one loves armed missionaries. The Declaration of the Rights of Man ( passed by the French National Assembly in August, 1789 ) is not a lightning bolt which strikes every throne at the same time. I am far from claiming that our Revolution will not eventually influence the fate of the world. But I say that it will not be today "
On 29th October, 1792, Louvet Couvrat attacked Robespierre viciously in the French Convention, accusing him of condoning acts by the people which were illegal.
Robespierre replied on 2nd November " I am accused of condoning acts which were illegal. But Citoyens ( Citizens ), the Revolution was illegal, the storming of the Bastille was illegal, the abolition of the Monarchy was illegal. Do you want a Revolution without a Revolution ? ( Citoyens, vouliez-vous une revolution sans revolution ? ).
Robespierre was not by nature a violent man. In fact he had earlier been against the death penalty. He was wrongly identified with another leader of the French Revolution, Marat, who often said " My policy is the policy of cutting off heads ". In fact Robespierre was a moderate as compared to some of his bloodthirsty colleagues like Marat, Fouche and Tallien.
In this connection a passage from the Memoirs of his younger sister Charlotte is relevant :
" I have often heard my brother’s name attached to that of Marat, as if the way of thinking, the sympathies, the acts of those two men were the same, as if they had acted in concert. It is thus that the portraits and busts of Voltaire and Rousseau are placed side by side, as if those two great writers had been the best friends in the world when they were alive, while in truth they found each other insufferable. I do not claim to discount Marat’s merit, nor make an attempt on the purity of his devotion and of his intentions. Some have dared to say that he was in the pay of foreigners; but have they not said that of my brother? The field of the absurd is immense and limitless. Have they not said of Maximilien Robespierre that he had asked the young daughter of Louis XVI in marriage? After such an accusation nothing should be surprising anymore; more burlesque and impossible assertions must be expected; it is the nec plus ultra of inanity.
To return to Marat, I will dare to affirm that he was not an agent of foreigners, as it has pleased some to say; Marat had felt the infamies of the Ancien Régime and the poverty of the people strongly; his fiery imagination and his irascible temperament had made him an ardent, and too often even imprudent, revolutionary; but his intentions, I repeat, were good.
My brother disapproved of his exaggerations and his rages, and believed, as he said many times to me, that the course adopted by Marat was more detrimental than useful to the revolution. One day Marat came to see my brother. This visit surprised us, for, usually, Marat and Robespierre had no rapport. They spoke first of affairs in general, then of the turn the revolution was taking; finally, Marat opened the chapter on revolutionary rigors, and complained of the mildness and the excessive indulgence of the government. “You are the man whom I esteem perhaps the most in the world,” Marat said to my brother, “but I would esteem you more if you were less moderate in regard to the aristocrats.” – “I will reproach you with the contrary,” my brother replied; “you are compromising the revolution, you make it hated in ceaselessly calling for heads. The scaffold is a terrible means, and always a grievous one; it must be used soberly and only in the grave cases where the patrie is leaning toward its ruin.” – “I pity you,” said Marat then, “you are not at my level.” – “I would be quite grieved to be at your level,” replied Robespierre. “You misunderstand me,” returned Marat, “we will never be able to work together.” – “That’s possible,” said Robespierre, “and things will only go the better for it.” – “I regret that we could not come to an understanding,” added Marat, “for you are the purest man in the Convention.”
The unanimous Declaration of a Republic by the French Convention on 21st September 1792 left open the question of the fate of King Louis 16th. Robespierre argued that Louis should be put to death without a trial. He pointed out that Louis had denounced the French people as rebels, and had appealed to the ruling monarchs of other countries to invade France to restore him to his throne ( as his correspondence which had been discovered in a secret vault had revealed )., which established his guilt.
Hence to hold a trial, he argued, would be a retrograde step. It would be a resort to legality, when the matter was political. It would be a counter revolutionary step, as it would place the Revolution itself on trial, because if Louis was acquitted, the Revolution would stand condemned, along with its supporters.
" Citizens, take a warning " said Robespierre " You are being fooled by false notions. You confuse civil rights of citizens with the principles of the rights of mankind, you confuse the relationships of citizens among themselves, with the connection between our nation and the enemies who conspire against it, you confuse the situation of a people in revolution, with that of people whose government is affirmed "
He continued : " Ordinary misdemeanours have rarely threatened public safety because society can usually protect itself by other means, making those culpable powerless to harm it. But for a King dethroned in the bosom of a Revolution, which is yet to be cemented, a king whose name attracts the scourge of war upon a troubled nation, neither prison nor exile can suffice. With regret I pronounce this fatal truth : Louis must die, so that the nation may live "
Robespierre held no office till he became a member of the Committee of Public Safety in July, 1793. Till then he was only an ordinary member of the Third Estate in the Estates General ( which later declared itself the French National Assembly ) and then the National Convention. His power was derived from his hold over the Jacobin Club.
Robespierre has been vilified for the Terror which lasted in France from July 1793 to July 1794. While there is no doubt that excesses were committed during this period ( and in which Revolutions are excesses not committed ?), one must also remember the circumstances in which France was placed at that time. Many foreign powers were conspiring against it and actually waged wars against the French Republic, which was then isolated. There were also internal enemies of the Republic who wanted it destroyed. Hence harsh measures were certainly called for.
On 5.2.1794 Robespierre justified the use of harsh measures in his speech to the Convention " If virtue be the mainspring of a popular government in times of peace, virtue combined with terror is the mainspring of that government during a revolution. We have to lead the people by reason, and their enemies by terror. Without terror virtue is impotent. Terror is only justice, prompt, severe and inflexible. It is then an emanation of virtue. Terror is less a principle in itself than a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to the most pressing needs of the nation. "
Robespierre added " Slowness of judgments is grant of impunity. Uncertainty of punishment encourages all the guilty "
The tragedy of Robespierre was that he had no scientific understanding of the laws of social development, because those laws had not been discovered till then.
Having eliminated Hebert, Ronsin and others on the left who wanted to intensify the Terror in March, 1794, and ' Indulgents ' like Danton and Camile Desmoulins who wanted to end it ( Camile demanded a ' Committee of Clemency ' to release people imprisoned ). Robespierre just did not know what to do next.. So he decided that France needed a spiritual resurgence, and organized a Festival of the Supreme Being on 8.6.1794, over which he presided. This was, of course, nonsense.
Some members of the Convention thought he had gone too far., One oif them is said to have remarked " It is not enough for him to be a master, he wants to be a god "
By then Robespierre had created many enemies in the Convention. These included Tallien and Fouche, who had been earlier appointed representatives on mission to Bordeux and Lyons, but were recalled at Robespierre's instance for excesses they had committed.
On 26.7.1794 Robespierre appeared before the Convention, and defended himself of the charge of wanting to become a dictator, but warned of a conspiracy against the Republic. He implied that some members of the Convention were part of it, but when pressed refused to disclose any names. This alarmed many members who thought they too were being alluded to, and they then started fearing for their own lives. The next day they voted for his arrest and execution.
The French Revolution destroyed feudalism in France, and was thus a great step forward in history. It proclaimed the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity, which were revolutionary ideas for those times. But these ideas were later interpreted by the emergent bourgeosie, to mean freedom to do business, freedom of contract and freedom to trade, and not as social and economic equality for the people.
The great ideas of the French Revolution were thus corrupted by a rapacious cabal in the Convention. Robespierre, who represented,and had huge support among the poor people of Paris and France, and is still revered in Haiti, was destroyed by this cabal.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Whenever I have uttered the word ' Robespierre ' before French men or French women, they were horrified, as if they imagined a guillotine arising in front of them.
Maximilien Robespierre is one of the most vilified figures in history. Englishmen find him repellant, Frenchmen ( his own countrymen ) even more so.
I remember when I was on a visit to Paris I mentioned the name Marie Antoinette ( the same Queen of France who heartlessly remarked " If the people do not have bread let them eat cake ") to some French people gathered at the Hotel de Ville. They were full of sympathy for her But at Robespierre's name they recoiled, as if confronted with a man eating tiger. There are no memorials or monuments in his honour in France, only a shabby metro station in a poor suburb of Paris bears his name.
I have always been an admirer of the French Revolution ( 1789-1794 ), and Robespierre has always been one of my heroes. Like me, he was a disciple of the great French thinker Rousseau. Although belonging to the middle class in France, he identified himself with the poor people, the sans culottes and championed their cause.
After being elected to the Estates General in 1789 Robespierre consistently attacked the French monarchy and aristocracy, which had become unjust, tyrannical and outdated institutions, and championed democratic reforms. He supported the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, universal male suffrage ( the principle of womens' suffrage had not then been conceived of ), abolition of slavery and establishment of a Republic. He proclaimed : " The secret of freedom lies in educating the people, whereas the secret of tyranny lies in keeping them ignorant ".
Nobody ever questioned Robespierre's personal integrity, whereas the financial integrity of some of his colleagues in the Revolution like Danton was always suspect. Robespierre never benefited personally in any way by being one of the leaders of the French Revolution. When he died he left behind him hardly any assets.
His secretary, Pierre Villiers, has written in his Memoirs " Several times I have known him to refuse offers of money that required from him no return, not even thanks, and if sometimes I allowed myself to insist on his accepting, he abused me " .
Robespierre has been accused of being a demagogue, dictatorial, and a fanatic. The truth is that he was a spokesman for the poor and oppressed people of France and of the whole world, a fierce adversary of royalists, aristocrats, dishonest and corrupt politicians, and staunch guardian of the French Republic which was then in its infancy.
In 1792 when the French people and most members of the French Legislative Assembly were carried away by war hysteria, whipped up by Brissot and the Girondins, who wanted to declare war on Austria, Robespierre repeatedly warned people about its outcome.
Robespierre argued that whether the French armies were victorious or defeated , in either case it would be disastrous for France. If victorious, the French generals would come back and become dictators, if defeated, the victorious foreign armies would hang the revolutionaries, restore the monarchy, and enslave the people.
" In troubled periods of history," he said in a speech to the Assembly " Generals often become the arbiters of the fate of their countries. If they are Caesars or Cromwells, they seize power for themselves. If they are spineless courtiers, they are yet dangerous and harmful, for they lay their power at their master's feet and help him resume arbitrary power on condition that they become the chief servants ".
He added " The most extravagant idea that can arise in a politician's head is to believe that it is enough for a people to invade a foreign country to make it adopt the invader's laws and ideas. No one loves armed missionaries. The Declaration of the Rights of Man ( passed by the French National Assembly in August, 1789 ) is not a lightning bolt which strikes every throne at the same time. I am far from claiming that our Revolution will not eventually influence the fate of the world. But I say that it will not be today "
On 29th October, 1792, Louvet Couvrat attacked Robespierre viciously in the French Convention, accusing him of condoning acts by the people which were illegal.
Robespierre replied on 2nd November " I am accused of condoning acts which were illegal. But Citoyens ( Citizens ), the Revolution was illegal, the storming of the Bastille was illegal, the abolition of the Monarchy was illegal. Do you want a Revolution without a Revolution ? ( Citoyens, vouliez-vous une revolution sans revolution ? ).
Robespierre was not by nature a violent man. In fact he had earlier been against the death penalty. He was wrongly identified with another leader of the French Revolution, Marat, who often said " My policy is the policy of cutting off heads ". In fact Robespierre was a moderate as compared to some of his bloodthirsty colleagues like Marat, Fouche and Tallien.
In this connection a passage from the Memoirs of his younger sister Charlotte is relevant :
" I have often heard my brother’s name attached to that of Marat, as if the way of thinking, the sympathies, the acts of those two men were the same, as if they had acted in concert. It is thus that the portraits and busts of Voltaire and Rousseau are placed side by side, as if those two great writers had been the best friends in the world when they were alive, while in truth they found each other insufferable. I do not claim to discount Marat’s merit, nor make an attempt on the purity of his devotion and of his intentions. Some have dared to say that he was in the pay of foreigners; but have they not said that of my brother? The field of the absurd is immense and limitless. Have they not said of Maximilien Robespierre that he had asked the young daughter of Louis XVI in marriage? After such an accusation nothing should be surprising anymore; more burlesque and impossible assertions must be expected; it is the nec plus ultra of inanity.
To return to Marat, I will dare to affirm that he was not an agent of foreigners, as it has pleased some to say; Marat had felt the infamies of the Ancien Régime and the poverty of the people strongly; his fiery imagination and his irascible temperament had made him an ardent, and too often even imprudent, revolutionary; but his intentions, I repeat, were good.
My brother disapproved of his exaggerations and his rages, and believed, as he said many times to me, that the course adopted by Marat was more detrimental than useful to the revolution. One day Marat came to see my brother. This visit surprised us, for, usually, Marat and Robespierre had no rapport. They spoke first of affairs in general, then of the turn the revolution was taking; finally, Marat opened the chapter on revolutionary rigors, and complained of the mildness and the excessive indulgence of the government. “You are the man whom I esteem perhaps the most in the world,” Marat said to my brother, “but I would esteem you more if you were less moderate in regard to the aristocrats.” – “I will reproach you with the contrary,” my brother replied; “you are compromising the revolution, you make it hated in ceaselessly calling for heads. The scaffold is a terrible means, and always a grievous one; it must be used soberly and only in the grave cases where the patrie is leaning toward its ruin.” – “I pity you,” said Marat then, “you are not at my level.” – “I would be quite grieved to be at your level,” replied Robespierre. “You misunderstand me,” returned Marat, “we will never be able to work together.” – “That’s possible,” said Robespierre, “and things will only go the better for it.” – “I regret that we could not come to an understanding,” added Marat, “for you are the purest man in the Convention.”
The unanimous Declaration of a Republic by the French Convention on 21st September 1792 left open the question of the fate of King Louis 16th. Robespierre argued that Louis should be put to death without a trial. He pointed out that Louis had denounced the French people as rebels, and had appealed to the ruling monarchs of other countries to invade France to restore him to his throne ( as his correspondence which had been discovered in a secret vault had revealed )., which established his guilt.
Hence to hold a trial, he argued, would be a retrograde step. It would be a resort to legality, when the matter was political. It would be a counter revolutionary step, as it would place the Revolution itself on trial, because if Louis was acquitted, the Revolution would stand condemned, along with its supporters.
" Citizens, take a warning " said Robespierre " You are being fooled by false notions. You confuse civil rights of citizens with the principles of the rights of mankind, you confuse the relationships of citizens among themselves, with the connection between our nation and the enemies who conspire against it, you confuse the situation of a people in revolution, with that of people whose government is affirmed "
He continued : " Ordinary misdemeanours have rarely threatened public safety because society can usually protect itself by other means, making those culpable powerless to harm it. But for a King dethroned in the bosom of a Revolution, which is yet to be cemented, a king whose name attracts the scourge of war upon a troubled nation, neither prison nor exile can suffice. With regret I pronounce this fatal truth : Louis must die, so that the nation may live "
Robespierre held no office till he became a member of the Committee of Public Safety in July, 1793. Till then he was only an ordinary member of the Third Estate in the Estates General ( which later declared itself the French National Assembly ) and then the National Convention. His power was derived from his hold over the Jacobin Club.
Robespierre has been vilified for the Terror which lasted in France from July 1793 to July 1794. While there is no doubt that excesses were committed during this period ( and in which Revolutions are excesses not committed ?), one must also remember the circumstances in which France was placed at that time. Many foreign powers were conspiring against it and actually waged wars against the French Republic, which was then isolated. There were also internal enemies of the Republic who wanted it destroyed. Hence harsh measures were certainly called for.
On 5.2.1794 Robespierre justified the use of harsh measures in his speech to the Convention " If virtue be the mainspring of a popular government in times of peace, virtue combined with terror is the mainspring of that government during a revolution. We have to lead the people by reason, and their enemies by terror. Without terror virtue is impotent. Terror is only justice, prompt, severe and inflexible. It is then an emanation of virtue. Terror is less a principle in itself than a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to the most pressing needs of the nation. "
Robespierre added " Slowness of judgments is grant of impunity. Uncertainty of punishment encourages all the guilty "
The tragedy of Robespierre was that he had no scientific understanding of the laws of social development, because those laws had not been discovered till then.
Having eliminated Hebert, Ronsin and others on the left who wanted to intensify the Terror in March, 1794, and ' Indulgents ' like Danton and Camile Desmoulins who wanted to end it ( Camile demanded a ' Committee of Clemency ' to release people imprisoned ). Robespierre just did not know what to do next.. So he decided that France needed a spiritual resurgence, and organized a Festival of the Supreme Being on 8.6.1794, over which he presided. This was, of course, nonsense.
Some members of the Convention thought he had gone too far., One oif them is said to have remarked " It is not enough for him to be a master, he wants to be a god "
By then Robespierre had created many enemies in the Convention. These included Tallien and Fouche, who had been earlier appointed representatives on mission to Bordeux and Lyons, but were recalled at Robespierre's instance for excesses they had committed.
On 26.7.1794 Robespierre appeared before the Convention, and defended himself of the charge of wanting to become a dictator, but warned of a conspiracy against the Republic. He implied that some members of the Convention were part of it, but when pressed refused to disclose any names. This alarmed many members who thought they too were being alluded to, and they then started fearing for their own lives. The next day they voted for his arrest and execution.
The French Revolution destroyed feudalism in France, and was thus a great step forward in history. It proclaimed the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity, which were revolutionary ideas for those times. But these ideas were later interpreted by the emergent bourgeosie, to mean freedom to do business, freedom of contract and freedom to trade, and not as social and economic equality for the people.
The great ideas of the French Revolution were thus corrupted by a rapacious cabal in the Convention. Robespierre, who represented,and had huge support among the poor people of Paris and France, and is still revered in Haiti, was destroyed by this cabal.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
