Robespierre

by Peter McPhee, Süha Sertabiboğlu (Translator)

Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794), kimilerine göre dünyayı altüst eden ve etkilerini günümüzde bile hissettiren 1789 Fransız Devrimi'nin haşin ama haklı devrimcisi, kimilerine göre kana susamış bir katil ve diktatördür. Elinizdeki biyografiye göreyse sarsılmaz adalet duygusu, etkileyici hitabeti ve çelik iradesi sayesinde, şiddetle yıkan ve şiddetle kuran Fransız Devrimi içinde kendine yer bulmuş bir taşra avukatıdır.

1789'un devrimcileri, bütün o çalkantılı yıllar içinde halk egemenliği, anayasal devlet, yasal ve dini eşitlik, sınıf ayrıcalıklarına ve derebeyliğe son verilmesi gibi çok önemli vaatlerini korumayı başarmış, 1793 yılında dış düşmanlara karşı kazandıkları askeri zaferlerle devrimi ve yeni cumhuriyeti muzaffer kılmışlardır. Ancak birçok arkadaşının aksine, düzeni sağlamak için ilkelerinden ödün vermeye razı olmayan Robespierre açısından bu başarının insani maliyeti ağır olmuştur: hasta düşmüş, tükenmiş, mantığını yitirmiştir. Nitekim en çok alıntılanan konuşmasını, yoldaşlarını devrime tehdit olarak görmeye başladığı bu dönemde yapmıştır: "Barış zamanında halk yönetiminin ana kaynağı erdemse de, devrim sırasında bu hem erdem, hem terördür: Erdem olmadan terör öldürücüdür, terör olmadan erdem güçsüzdür. Terör hızlı, sert, katı bir adaletten başka bir şey değildir."

Genres: History, Biography, French Revolution, Nonfiction, France, European History, Historical

362 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2012

About the author

McPhee was educated at Caulfield Grammar School and Trinity College while studying at the University of Melbourne, where he earned his Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees, a Diploma in Education and a Doctor of Philosophy degree.

He later taught at LaTrobe University (1975–79) and the Victoria University of Wellington (1980–86) before teaching history at Melbourne. He specialises in research on French history and the French Revolution, having published numerous books on the subject. His academic management positions at Melbourne have included working as Deputy Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, head of the Department of History and President of the university's academic board. In 2003 he became the deputy vice-chancellor for academics and in 2007 was appointed as the inaugural provost. As part of this role he has been responsible for planning and introducing the university's controversial new Melbourne Model, which is designed to maintain consistency with the Bologna Accords' structure for European higher education.

In 2003 he was awarded the Centenary Medal for services to education.

McPhee retired from the University of Melbourne on 14 June 2009 but continues to serve as a professorial fellow.

In 2014 Peter McPhee, with the University of Melbourne and Coursera, developed a free online course on the French Revolution. The course follows the chapters in his eBook, The French Revolution.

Reviews

[Maziyar Yf · Rating 3 out of 5]

وطن قصیده ی ویرانی
ایران#


روبسپیر ، سرگذشت یک انقلابی ، کتابی ایست از پیتر مک فی ، نویسنده استرالیایی و استاد دانشگاه که در زمینه تاریخ فرانسه، به ویژه انقلاب فرانسه تخصص دارد . او در این کتاب کوشیده تا تصویری جامع و متعادل از روبسپیر نشان دهد که فراتر از کلیشه‌های رایج شهید انقلابی یا دیکتاتور ستمگر باشد.
مک فی همانند دیگر زندگی نامه ها از سال‌های اولیه و شکل‌گیری شخصیت روبسپیر شروع کرده . او نشان داده که تجربیات سخت دوران کودکی و نوجوانی ، چگونه شخصیت وکیل جوان کتاب را شکل دادند. نویسنده از علاقه شدید روبسپیر به مردم در دوران جوانی او گفته . زمانی که روبسپیر برای حقوق طبقه پایین و برای تحقق آرمان‌های برابری و عدالت اجتماعی تلاش می‌کرد و به دلیل تعهدش به اصول و زندگی ساده، محبوبیت زیادی در میان اقشار خاصی از مردم، به ویژه سان‌کولوت‌های ( پا برهنه ها ) پاریس، داشت. بنابراین برخلاف تصویر رایج از روبسپیر به عنوان فردی سرد و وسواسی، مک‌ فی او را مردی با شور و شوق و روابط دوستانه نزدیک (و البته افلاطونی) با زنان به تصویر می‌کشد.
روبسپیر و انقلاب فرانسه
اگر نقطه شروع انقلاب فرانسه را سقوط باستیل بدانیم ، روبسپیر بر خلاف کامی دمولن ، ژان پل مارا که در صف اول مبارزه بودند و حتی دانتون که در منطقه کوردولیه در پاریس مشغول بسیج و سازماندهی مردم بود ، روبسپیر هیچ نقشی در سقوط باستیل نداشت . در راهپیمایی زنان به ورسای برای اعتراض به کمبود نان و بازگرداندن خانواده سلطنتی به پاریس هم روبسپیر در آن شرکت نداشت . در حمله به کاخ تویلری که به سرنگونی سلطنت منجر شد هم ربسپیر نقشی در حمله نداشت . جالب است که روبسپیر به عنوان یک وکیل در آراس، به خاطر عقاید بشردوستانه و مخالفتش با مجازات اعدام شناخته شده بود. او مقالاتی می‌نوشت و سخنرانی می‌کرد که در آن‌ها به شدت با مجازات اعدام مخالف بود و آن را وحشیانه و غیر ضروری می‌دانست. او معتقد بود که جامعه باید با اصلاح، نه با خشونت، پیشرفت کند. او حتی در مجلس ملی مؤسسان علیه حکم اعدام سخن گفت.

معمای روبسپیر :
آن گونه که ِمک فی بیان کرده ، روبسپیر به تدریج خشن شد ، او دلایل نهادینه شدن این خشونت را افزایش تهدیدات داخلی و خارجی و در خطر افتادن انقلابی می داند که ربسپیر نقش چندانی در آن نداشت ، در حقیقت میرابو ، لافایت ، بریسو ، کامی دمولن ، مارا و دانتون بیشتر در انقلاب نقش داشتند تا روبسپیر . بنابراین در بهترین حالت می توان به این نتیجه رسید که روبسپیر عمیقاً عاشق انقلاب بود و به خاطر حفظ و پیشبرد آرمان‌های آن، دست به خشونت زد. روبسپیر این گونه از اصولی مانند آزادی رسانه ها و مخالفت با اعدام برگشت و حامی جدی بستن روزنامه ها و اعدام در مقیاس وسیع شد .

روبسپیر خشن می شود

به داوری نویسنده ، با سقوط ژیروندن ها و قدرت مطلق گرفتن ژاکوبن ها و سپس روی کار آمدن کمیته سه نفره به رهبری روبسپیر به همراه سن ژوست و کوتون به همراه پیش روی ارتش های متفقین و شورش در چندین ایالت و شهر کلیدی ، دوران وحشت شروع شد که خشونت آن حتی در فرانسه انقلاب زده ، بی سابقه بود . نتیجه خشونت روبسپیر فاجعه بود : تقریبا تمامی ژیروندن های سرشناس مانند دانتون ، دمولن و بریسو و هواداران آن گردن زده شدند . هر کس که متهم به ارتباط با ژیروندن ها بود زندانی می شد ، یا در زندان می مرد و یا به قول نویسنده بی سر می شد . اما قبل از آن باید به دادگاهی می رفت که دادستان آن فوکیه تنویل یا سردار گیوتین بود . دادگاهی که از وکیل مدافع خبری نبود و یک گزارش شفاهی می توانست سر متهم را بر باد دهد .این گونه نزدیک به بیست هزار نفر توسط گیوتین ،اعدام شدند .

صفات روبسپیر:
در میان تعجب ، مک فی شرح داده که روبسپیر حتی در اوج دوران وحشت هم چهره منفوری نبوده ، او به خاطر زندگی ساده، عدم تمایل به ثروت‌اندوزی و تعهد بی‌قید و شرطش به آرمان‌های انقلاب (به ویژه جمهوری‌خواهی، برابری و فضیلت) لقب فسادناپذیر را گرفته بود. این ویژگی در میان توده‌های مردم و انقلابیون واقعی بسیار مورد احترام بود، زیرا او را فردی می‌دیدند که برخلاف بسیاری دیگر، به دنبال منافع شخصی نیست و صرفاً برای خیر عمومی ، البته از نگاه خود ، تلاش می‌کند. هم چنین برای کسانی که به طور واقعی از فساد اشراف و روحانیون گذشته به تنگ آمده بودند، روبسپیر نمادی از پاکی و ایده‌آلیسم انقلابی بود.
روبسپیر خود را مدافع اصلی منافع سان‌کولوت‌ها می‌دانست. او از خواسته‌های آن‌ها برای کنترل قیمت‌ها (به ویژه نان)، اقدامات علیه احتکارکنندگان و مجازات شدید دشمنان مردم حمایت می‌کرد.
با وجود جنگ‌های خارجی در مرزها، شورش‌های داخلی گسترده و توطئه‌های متعدد علیه انقلاب. در چنین شرایطی، بسیاری از مردم و انقلابیون به دنبال یک رهبر قاطع و نیرومند بودند که بتواند کشور را از هرج و مرج و نابودی نجات دهد. فساد ناپذیر خود را مانند یک رهبر قاطع یا یک ناخدا در میان طوفان ، به ملت فرانسه نشان داد .
بنابراین، می‌توان نتیجه گرفت که خشونت روبسپیر نه از سر بی‌رحمی ذاتی، بلکه از یک عشق مطلق به انقلاب سر چشمه گرفته . او معتقد بود که برای نجات و تضمین پیروزی این آرمان بزرگ، باید هر مانعی، هرچند به قیمت جان انسان‌ها، از سر راه برداشته شود. این همان جنبه‌ای است که شخصیت او را تا این حد پیچیده و بحث‌برانگیز می‌کند: یک ایده‌آلیست که برای آرمان‌هایش، دست به اقدامات بی‌رحمانه‌ای زد.
پایان روبسپیر یا تا کی می توان کشت و بی سر کرد ؟
تقریبا 10 ماه ! در ماه‌های پایانی دوران وحشت ، تعداد اعدام‌ها به شدت افزایش یافت و ترس و وحشت را حتی در میان ژاکوبن ها و کمیته نجات عمومی فراگیر کرد. پایان کار او دراماتیک بود ، در همان مجلسی که خود حاکم و سلطانش بود ، سخنان او و سن ژوست ، قطع شد . به او دیگر اجازه صحبت کردن ندادند . فک ، دندان و آرواره هایش با شلیک گلوله خورد شد . ساعتها با درد شدید ، محروم از مداوا و بیماری بود و سرانجام با حالی زار و نزار به پای دستگاه گیوتینی فرستاده شد که هزاران نفر به فرمان او پیشتر آن جا رفته بودند .

و سرانجام کتاب :
انقلاب کبیر فرانسه را باید یکی ازعجیب ترین ، جالب ترین و شاید خشن ترین انقلاب های تمامی دوران دانست . با وجود آنکه تلفات انقلاب قابل مقایسه با انقلاب روسیه و خشونت آن نبود ، اما روش منحصر به فرد اعدام ، یعنی استفاده از گیوتین و سپس نشان دادن سر بریده به انبوه جمعیت ، در حالی که خون از گردن بریده شده فوران می کند خشونت این انقلاب را منحصر به فرد کرده . همچنین مناظری مانند حمله مردم با دستان خالی به دیوی مانند باستیل ، یا راه پیمایی زنان با قابلمه و ماهیتابه به سمت ورسای و مجبور کردن لویی و خانواده برای بازگشت به پاریس را هم باید با شکوه دانست و هم تاریخ ساز .
گرچه زندگی روبسپیر با انقلاب فرانسه و تک تک لحظات آن گره خورده ، اما شوربختانه شکوه و عظمت و تاریخ سازی لحظات انقلاب جایی در کتاب مک فی ندارد ، برای نمونه سقوط باستیل شاید در دو سطر شرح داده شده باشد ، یا رای گیری و نطقهای پر شور درباره اعدام لویی . مک فی به گونه ای شگفت آور هم به افراد سرشناس بی توجه بوده ، برای نمونه لافایت ، شاید پنج بار نامش در کتاب آمده باشد . به همین ترتیب از دانتون ، سن ژوست و بریسو و دیگر افرادی که در نگاه و طرز فکر روبسپیر سخت اثر گذار بوده اند هم بی تفاوت بوده .
شور و احساس مردم پاریس و رهبران آنها چه در هنگام انقلاب ، یا در جنگ داخلی یا جنگ با ارتش های اروپایی یا جشن پر شوری که به مناسبت تاسیس جمهوری گرفته می شود یا در موردهای بسیار دیگر هم جایی در کتاب ندارد . قلم مک فی ، جنسش از یخ است نه آتش .
ژیروندن ها و ژاکوبن ها ، تفاوت مکتب سیاسی ، چگونه از هم جدا شدند ؟ روبسپیر چگونه در جدالی پر تنش با دانتون پیروز شد ؟ اعدام دانتون و دوست قدیمی روبسپیر ، کامی دمولن چگونه انجام شد ؟ مک فی در چند جمله آن را هم خلاصه کرده .

اما کتاب همزمان با خشک و فرسایشی شدن ، اطلاعات مفیدی در باب شناخت روبسپیر هم می دهد . نویسنده نشان می‌دهد که روبسپیر کمتر مردی که انقلاب را نابود کرد بوده و بیشتر مردی که انقلاب او را نابود کرد بوده است. یعنی خشونت در ذات ماکسیمیلیان نبوده ، بلکه محافظت از انقلاب او را مجبور به خشونت بی سابقه کرده .
در پایان روبسپیر: یک زندگی انقلابی را باید یک بیوگرافی دقیق روبسپیر ، نه انقلاب فرانسه و نه رخدادها و حوادثی که بر او اثر داشته اند ،بلکه تنها و تنها بیوگرافی روبسپیر دانست .
روبسپیر: یک زندگی انقلابی ، تصویری نسبتا دقیق و عمیق از یکی از پیچیده‌ترین شخصیت‌های تاریخ نشان می‌دهد ، البته اگر خواننده بتواند لحن سرد و بی تفاوت و قلم خشک مک فی را تا انتها تحمل کند !

[Anastasia Fitzgerald-Beaumont · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Danton, the 1983 biopic based on the life the French revolutionary, the eponymous hero, standing on the threshold of execution, says that “Everything might go on fine if I could give my legs to that cripple Couthon and my balls to Robespierre.”

George Couthon, a member of the Committee of Public Safety, the dictatorial body that presided over the Reign of Terror, was indeed a cripple. Maximilian Robespierre, likewise a member of the Committee of Public Safety and Danton’s nemesis, was the Revolution’s virginal ascetic, the virtuous ‘sea-green incorruptible.’

Put another way: sans balls! He was not as other men; he was not as the sybaritic Danton, perfect in his imperfections. I wish I could be sure that Danton actually said those words, that they did not simply emerge as a piece of poetic licence; for they really do, in all their crudity, cut to the heart of the matter and the man; they cut to the heart of the high priest of the cult of virtue. Personally I can think of no better epitaph.

These thoughts were brought on by my reading over the weekend of Robespierre: A Revolutionary Life, a new treatment by Peter McPhee, professor of history at the University of Melbourne and a specialist on France. I think I must be the last person to be reviewing a book on Robespierre, for I have no sympathy whatsoever for the subject, the first of history’s modern fanatics. I’ll try my hardest to be fair but do treat my words with a modicum of caution!

I can certainly be fair to McPhee, whose work is balanced, lucid and scholarly. Any biography of Robespierre presents difficulties because he left little in the way of personal introspection, anything that would give a clue to his psychological makeup. But the author builds up a careful portrait, drawing on what contemporary evidence is available.

The chapters on his early life and schooling are good, showing the boy as the father of the man. Robespierre was one of the brightest pupils at Louis-le-Grand, the leading school in France at the time, where he immersed himself in the Roman classicists, particularly Cicero. He also read deeply into the work of Montesquieu and Rousseau.

Virtue and what it means to be virtuous was to emerge as the leading theme of Robespierre’s life. In 1789 he wrote the duty of rulers was “to lead men to happiness through virtue, and to virtue through legislation.” There is an echo here of the American Declaration of Independence, which, among other things, defines the pursuit of happiness to be an inherent right. But America was fortunate enough to escape real definitions of happiness and how the elusive creature was to be caught; France did not. The chimera was to be conjured up in the so-called Republic of Virtue, Robespierre’s legacy to history.

The paradox is that by any measure Robespierre began as a decent human being, genuinely concerned with the various abuses suffered by ordinary people under the old political order. Though of the left, he began his career as a moderate. He was opposed to the declaration of war against Austria in April, 1792, a step urged on by the Girondins, and he was initially opposed to the overthrow of the monarchy later that same year. He also argued against the expulsion of the Girondins from the Convention after the political mood had turned against them. But as the climate turned radical Robespierre turned more radical. A member of the Mountain in the Convention, he was, for a time, their Mohammad.

Georg Büchner’s play Danton’s Death, upon which the above named movie was based, has some fascination exchanges between Danton and Robespierre. Picture the scene: it’s the spring of 1794, the height of the Reign of Terror. Danton argues that enough is enough, that the Revolution is drowning in blood. In response Robespierre says that the social revolution isn’t over yet and he who makes half a revolution digs his own grave. For him Terror had become the emanation of virtue, the only certain way that France could attain revolutionary happiness.

McPhee does a superb job in sailing through these stormy waters. He shows a man who came to believe that the destiny of the Revolution ran through his own person. For him patriotism was a black and white issue, with good revolutionaries on one side and evil counter-revolutionaries on the other. In other words, by 1794, Robespierre was no longer capable of discriminating between dissent and treason. Not even friendship got in the way. This absence of subtlety was to consume Camille Desmoulins, once his most intimate associate, insofar as this priggish man could be close to any individual.

Blind fanaticism was the corruption at the heart of virtue. The decisive moment here, the moment that foretold Robespierre’s doom, was the French victory over the Austrians at the battle of Fleurus in June 1794. All at once the military crisis had passed; France was no longer in danger; the justification for the Terror was over.

There are deeper issues here, things the author does not touch, largely, I suspect, because they are beyond the provenance of history, more a mater of philosophical and psychological speculation. What, in the end, would a true Republic of Virtue look like? Could this political Garden of Eden exist beyond the pages of Rousseau and the mind of Robespierre? My own answer is simple enough; that the Terror was to disguise the impossibility of Virtue; it was compensation for frustrated dreams of purity. As I once wrote in a review of Danton’s Death, Robespierre was the monster of the idea, a prototype for others to come. He is the one historical figure for whom I have a particular loathing. McPhee did well to steer me calmly through a rocky life.

[Anna C · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Virtue, without which terror is fatal. Terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is nothing but prompt, severe, inflexible justice."

Robespierre and I have a difficult relationship. Although I think he was a tortured and brilliant man who has been maligned by history, I can never forgive him for purging the Dantonists. I once had a minor panic attack over the death of Desmoulins and accidentally quoted "Prisoner of Azkaban" ('He was your friend!!! And you betrayed him. He was your friend!').

Peter McPhee's biography of Robespierre is detailed and balanced, almost to a fault. The reader is expected to have a comfortable grasp of Revolutionary history. To his credit, McPhee avoids drama for academic precision- the Girondist and Dantonist purges, which even a talentless director could turn into compelling cinema, are given as much space as Robespierre's prize-winning essay on Rousseau.

Although it makes for dry reading, "Robespierre: A Revolutionary Life" is the best biography I have read of The Incorruptible. The only true misstep comes in the introduction, when McPhee appears to claim that Robespierre is the most difficult biography subject of all time. Aside from that bizarre note, he avoids generalizations or assumptions. These are the facts, laid out accurately and precisely, uncolored by emotion. Though I would not call him a Robespierre apologist, McPhee has divorced his subject from the slanders and outright lies.

In fact, I would call this the Robespierre myth-buster book. McPhee easily dismantles the pop culture portrayal of his subject. Robespierre was not a blood-thirsty monster- he struggled to reconcile his opposition to the death penalty with the political necessity of Louis XVI's death. Additionally, McPhee shows that the worst escalations of the Terror happened when Robespierre was indisposed or ill. He tepidly advances the thesis that Robespierre's enemies sent hundreds to the guillotine to turn public opinion against him, but neither McPhee nor his readers are expected to believe that idea.

I commend McPhee for debunking tenacious myths that appear in even modern scholarship. For example, I had always believed the old story about Robespierre decorating his room with busts and portraits of himself. McPhee produces compelling evidence that this was a slander (in retrospect, it seems odd for a timid ascetic to glorify himself so openly). Additionally, Ms. Mantel had convinced me that Robespierre had an affair with Eleonore Duplay, the daughter of his landlord. McPhee again cites convincing proof that this is a fabricated rumor.

So yes, I don't like Robespierre. I still can't forgive him for killing his best friends. However... he was not a blood-thirsty monster. Maximilien Robespierre was a studious, incorruptible ascetic. He loved the heroes of the classics more than his actual friends, and he idolized the Revolution enough to ignore its flaws. Personally, I don't see him as a cunning, manipulative Game of Thrones character. He may have survived the Revolution, if not for some cringe-worthy political moves and inept speeches before the Jacobin club.

[Konstans · Rating 5 out of 5]

♥Kitabı,merkezinde Maximillien Robespierre'in olduğu iç içe geçmiş halkalardan oluşan bir bütün olarak düşünmek mümkün. Aile durumundan, doğumuna, eğitiminden kısa süren siyasi yaşamına kadar ön planda ne kadar kendisi olsa da -ki biyografisi olduğu üzere- aslında 18.yy Fransasını tanıyoruz bu eserle.

♦ Bu iç içe geçmiş halkaların her birinin temsil ettiği üzere, Fransayı arka planda toplumsal,siyasi,ekonomik ve çok az da olsa askeri açılardan anlatıyor McPhee. Bu kitabı okuyarak Robespierre'i tanımakla birlikte dolaylı olarak Fransa kırsalını ve kentini, eğitim sistemini, Fransada siyaset yapma ve politika üretme geleneğini, 18.yy Fransasının ekonomik yaşantısını ve halkın içinde bulunduğu maddi koşulları da öğrenebilmek mümkün. Fransız ihtilaline giden süreci aktarırken Özellikle Bastille hapishanesinin basılmasından sonraki dönemi, Robespierre dönemin bizzat içinde yönlendirici bir figür olduğundan çok net görebilmek de mümkün.

♣Kitabın üslubunu nötr diye düşünmek istiyorum, Robespierre'e ne sempati ne de antipati beslemeye yol açan bir tavrı var. Kaynak olarak dönemin başat kaynakları ile beraber Robespierre'in mektupları, konuşmaları, notları, kızkardeşi Charlotte'un anıları gibi kişisel belgeler de kullanılmış.

♠Biyografinin tek zayıf noktası, Robespierre'e yönelik oluşan muhalefetin ona karşı hınç dolu bir nefrete dönüşmesini detaylarıyla aktaramaması.. kitap, hikayesi birden noktalanan romanlar gibi birden bitti.

♥Yine de Robespierre bana göre tarihin en önemli figürlerinden biridir. Popüler kültürde kendisine bir türlü yer bulamamasını,insanların kalplerini titreten romantik bir aşk hikayesi barındırmayan yaşam servenine bağlıyorum. Bunun dışında hakkında yazılanların okunması gerektiğini düşündüğüm, düşünceleri, tasarıları ve yaklaşımları ile ilham ya da ibret verici olabilecek birisidir Maximillien Robespierre. kib bye

[Alberto · Rating 4 out of 5]

No escondo que siento cierta simpatía por la figura de Maximilien Robespierre. Representado como epítome del terror asociado a la guillotina, que criticó y trató de evitar durante toda su vida, la vida y sobre todo la obra del jacobino se ha relegado a un segundo lugar. Sin embargo su radical defensa de la democracia, la igualdad y la virtud como valor supremo de lo público lo sitúa como alguien a destacar, y rescatar, del pasado para los inciertos días del presente. La biografía de McPhee restituye al personaje en todo su esplendor a través de un concienzudo estudio de los materiales primarios que nos legó el heredero más destacado de Rousseau. El autor elimina, como si de un barniz sucio y antiguo se tratase, las capas de prejuicios, odios y herencias de autores que asociaron al personaje todo lo negativo de la Revolución pasando por encima de los ideales que defendió con su vida. Muy buena.

[george ☽ · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars

[Aleksa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recommend Peter McPhee's Robespierre: A Revolutionary Life to anyone curious to learn more about Robespierre. McPhee's biography avoids the pitfalls that come with covering such a controversial human due to the fact that he actually achieves his goal of impartiality in presenting facts. Author neither idolize Robespierre nor does he paints all of his actions in evil like Scurr.



"Was Robespierre the first modern dictator, inhuman and fanatical, an obsessive who used his political power to try to impose his rigid ideal of a land of Spartan ‘virtue’? Or was he a principled, self-abnegating visionary, the great revolutionary martyr who succeeded in leading the French Revolution and the Republic to safety in the face of overwhelming military odds? Were the controls on individual liberties and the mass arrests and executions of ‘the Terror’ of the Year II (1793–94) the necessary price to pay to save the Revolution? Or was this year a time of horror, of unnecessary death, incarceration and privation? Robespierre has always been a polarizing figure, but the negative image is far stronger."

[Alexandra]

Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean, that really got out of hand fast

Notes:
- This book single-handedly ruined my run rate for my 2025 goodreads challenge
- I feel like I understand the French Revolution less
- Learned that I really did not know anything about the French Revolution
- Similar to the Cleopatra biography it is very cute when authors are like “everyone is biased when they write about them so I’m here to bring to real story!! Also I love them but I am not biased”
- He was not responsible for the Terror, he just wanted to terrorize people!!! It’s different!!!
- I feel like the author was intentionally de-sensationalizing the violence and I would prefer more drama
- Men will literally behead all real and perceived enemies before going to therapy

[Cibermonke · Rating 5 out of 5]

McPhee starts the biography with a sympathetic lens, which clears the fog of infamy that rapidly obscured this historical figure after his death. As his life progresses the lens turns more critical. The figure of an “incorruptible” idealist battling to exhaustion the circumstances of history emerges.

This Book requires you to have previous knowledge of the French revolution. Key moments and figures will be referred to with at most a sentence of context. Mcphee doesn't want to get bogged down in any of the endless rabbit holes of this historical period in order to provide a well-paced and cohesive vision of Maximilien's life.

My opinion on Robespierre has been greatly affected by this book. A man with both great vision and the will to execute it, born just at the right time to try his luck. It is fascinating to me just how malleable the fabric of society became within the highly pressured crucible of the French revolution. This allowed Maximillien and his compatriots to shape a new world. But in turn, this changing world would exert great forces on the character of Robespierre.

Maximillien starts off humbly but with great conviction in his ideals, which to this day remain outstandingly present in progressive movements. With the hindsight of more than two centuries, we could surely pinpoint shortcomings in his thinking (nationalism, representation as the interpretation of “the will of the people” instead of direct democracy and a focus on the promotion of virtues over the direct improvement of material conditions, among others). These would in the future devolve into systematic problems well known to be present in the new world order, that the French revolution played a big role in creating and that reigns to this day. But It is to me undeniable that this is a great man of history who by sheer strength of conviction bent the arc of history towards justice.

Mostly loved by the people and hated by the powers that were, while alive, Robespierre reached the maw of power. As head of the Jacobins, he managed great influence. An important role in the writing of the constitution of 1793 and a seat in the committee of Public Safety among other positions. As the revolution progressed into the republic, Robespierre became identified almost as its living personification. With time he would have to make difficult decisions to defend the values he had fought all his life to introduce into society and government.

Of special interest, by virtue of the image classically portrayed of Maximilien, is his relationship with capital punishment. At first, he is a strong opponent of capital punishment but, as time moves on he is compelled to use it against his perceived enemies of the republic. This book makes it clear that “The Terror”, usually associated with Robespierre, is more of a diffuse collection of policies and political actions carried out by the emergency revolutionary government during the war. Despite this, you can sense the uneasiness of Robespierre in justifying the guillotine executions coexisting, in a deepening cognitive dissonance, with his increasing rationalizations of why its use is necessary as an emergency measure for the revolution to have a chance of surviving.

As every action has its reaction, so did the arc of history snap back at the blows of Robespierre. Incredible pressures mounts on the young man, and gradually erodes his sharpness of mind while presenting him with greater contradictions. Finally, the volatile circumstances of the revolution crushed Robespierre without compassion. His corpse is left for his political enemies to paint over it the face of a tyrant.

I'm sure with time Robespierre's image will be restored by history. In the meantime, “We have no laurel trees, but oak lasts longer”.

[Chuck Stamina · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have always been been fascinated with Robespierre and being a former student under Peter, I have suspected that he was also a fan.

Peter does a great job with this biography in focusing a large portion of the book on Maximilien's childhood, one that was full of obstacles and hardship. These experiences helped form Robespierre into a man who embodied the ideals and notions of Enlightenment values that was at the heart of the French Revolution.

A hard working, virtuous man who dedicated his whole life to the transformation of France and the integrity of the Revolution. Robespierre was unwilling to compromise with the principles of 1789 in order to achieve stability and 'in that lay his greatness and his tragedy'.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Few individuals in the past have been written about so voluminously as Robespierre …” says the author on page 231. It seems difficult to write anything new about him. However, readers of a more frivolous nature might be interested, as I was, to see online evidence that the following claims made by the author on page 229 are true:

– There was, or maybe is, a Brooklyn, New York, -based “synth-punk” band named “Team Robespierre”. See their most-frequently viewed YouTube video here. I clicked around on the band's other products and found a disappointing lack of Robespierre-specific material.

– There was, or maybe is, a Berlin, Germany, -based enterprise named Robespierre Europe. This enterprise produced, or produces, bedsheets and bathrobes adorned with a soft-core erotic print pattern in a style reminiscent of the age of Robespierre, wisely printed small enough so that, if your grandma drops by unexpectedly and is not wearing her glasses, you might be able to change clothes or otherwise distract her before you need to deploy the defibrillator. Robespierre Europe's slogan: “The Bedtime Revolution: Naughty Sheets for Naughty Nights.” See an example of this product from Facebook here. (I will go out on a limb here and speculate that the man himself would not have approved of his name being connected with this product.)

On the basis of these two examples, I have concluded that the years 2007-2012 (the era in which both of these enterprises flourished) were kind of a golden age of Robespierre-trivializing frivolity, the likes of which we are unlikely to see again in our somewhat grimmer times.

An eye-roll and a wearily sardonic “Yes, Robespierre” has been the go-to response for the Long-Suffering Wife whenever I, with perfect reasonableness, condemn the mountain of ridiculous products and experiences on which people seem determined to fritter away funds that could better be deployed making the world a better place. (Examples of these include, but are not limited to: precious stones, space tourism, pure-breed pets, limited edition wristwatches, tattoos, Manhattan real estate, cosmetic surgery, large gasoline-powered automobiles, and artwork in the form of non-fungible tokens.) This has been happening for several decades, but I decided only recently to read up on the man himself to see whether I could, as the kids say now, “own it”.

I cannot own it. Although this book is relatively sympathetic towards Robespierre and makes a pretty good case that a lot of the opprobrium that has been heaped upon him is unmerited, it also makes clear that whatever redeeming qualities he possessed early on were completely submerged when a unhinged, conspiracy-mongering bloodlust engulfed him in this final years. (To be clear: I do not represent this as the author's opinion, it is my interpretation of the information contained in this book.)

I'm sure that R. and I could have had a friendly meeting of the minds on some topics, but he also had a lot of lunatic ideas about separating children from their parents and educating them in right thinking in state-run schools. To put it mildly, these ideas have aged poorly.

This book is a little difficult to read because the French Revolution was so damn complex. Politicians, aristocrats, and generals rush in and out of the main narrative, changing sides, making corrupt deals, or perhaps being accused of changing sides, etc., only sometimes falsely. It's been a long time since I had a European history course – occasionally I said, “Wait, who is that?”

The French Revolution eventually ate its own. The Long-Suffering Wife believes (with reason) that a period of extremists devouring their own (perhaps somewhat less bloodily) is taking place here in the US now, and wished me to pass any insights I gleaned about how that happens and what the results are. I really don't think I gained any profound insights in this respect. A non-profound insight follows: Being a political extremist is a little like being a social media influencer, because if you don't come out with new content every day, you are doomed to failure. Robespierre, fatally, took repeated time off to have a nice lie down because being a bloodthirsty lunatic tends to take a lot out of you. A couple of days away from the Jacobin Club 220+ years ago is like a few days away from TikTok today, except today the consequences are only social, not actual, death.

I read a general history of the French Revolution by the same author a few years ago, and enjoyed it a little more than I enjoyed this book. See a review here.

[E Owen · Rating 4 out of 5]

The worst elements of the French Revolution have long been attached to the actions of Maximilien Robespierre so I found this book interesting as a more nuanced appraisal which peels away subsequent assessments that transformed him into a pantomime villain.

We get a good impression of his overlooked pre-revolutionary life as an ambitious provincial gentry lawyer who through effort and circumstance became an eloquent popular figure at the centre of a tumultuous time. We also get a sense of his ambitious plans for a Deistic and patriotic society with a shared destiny against the reality of factionalism, sectarianism and counter-revolution. The France that Robespierre inherits was a patchwork of upheaval and only naturally a revolution would not occur in unison as he had hoped.

It is impossible to deny that Robespierre towards the end altered from someone once squeamish regarding the suffering of others to one who focused on consolidating command. Beginning to withdraw from public life due to illness and having formed numerous enemies on both flanks ensured that his legacy would prove disreputable (despite the fact the conduct of some of those doing the sullying were highly questionable themselves during the terror). I wouldn't say that Robespierre was a scapegoat for the Terror, but alluding to his most famous case he did become a "lightning conductor" for his enemies. In all the biography is a comprehensive and three dimensional work of an individual built from the surviving evidence we have.

[Rafferty · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m sorry but you would hope that Robespierre’s revolutionary life’ was more exciting to read about; definitely some interesting and important details concerning his role in the French Revolution, though.

[William West]

Historian Peter McPhee here offers a persuasive, and unusually sympathetic portrait of the often vilified leader of the French Revolution. Robespierre was not, as often portrayed, at the most extreme left wing of the Republican revolutionaries. Indeed, many of his most infamous deeds, such as the Festival of the Supreme Being, were, McPhee argues, attempts to satisfy the far-left without giving in to its most extreme demands. This book also does a good job of showing how so many historical figures and periods become characterized by future histories by one brief period in their existence. The image of the blood thirsty Robespierre that so many of us are familiar with was the result of only the last couple of months of his life, during which he was often bed-ridden from extreme exhaustion and confiding to those closest to him that he was concerned for his own mental health and wished to step down from power.


Contemporary historians, particularly those of the political right, love to characterize the Jacobins as the harbingers of the so called “totalitarian” movements of the twentieth century. The terror was, they tell us, organized violence perpetrated by the government against the people, a top-down barbarity. These historians will thus compare the Jacobins to the fascist and communist regimes that arose a century and a half after the Jacobins. But the Terror, as McPhee describes it, was in fact an acknowledgment by the revolutionary government of the violent impulses of the masses they were governing. When the people demanded violence, and committed it without the blessing of the state, the revolutionary state acquiesced and gave its approval to the people’s actions. The Jacobin Terror had less in common with the abuses of Hitler or Stalin than it did with the (equally misunderstood) Chinese Cultural Revolution.


Especially from our perspective of two hundred plus years of hindsight, Robespierre’s story seems largely like the story of his whole generation of upwardly mobile French bourgeois. Indeed, the society that reared them put into the minds of a generation the values that would inspire them to usurp that social order. The “great literature” of the day was that of the Roman Empire from roughly 80 BC to 120 AD. This was a time when the leading intellectuals of the Classical world were convinced that Rome’s best days were behind it. One can hear in Cicero’s famous quote, “Domestic war alone remains… the enemy is within,” the seeds of the Jacobin terror. For the Roman thinkers that Robespierre and his ilk were reared on, all societies, just as all individuals, were divided by high and base instincts. When decline befalls a person or a society, it is because the baser instincts were winning out. Corruption of mind, body and soul had to be held in check if humanity was to realize its full potential.


As a young student in Paris, Robespierre read a combination of the above mentioned canonical works and the still new-n-scandalous writings of Rousseau as well as quasi-surreptitious satirical magazines attacking the corruption and hypocrisy of the clergy. The young Robespierre would write a poem praising Rousseau. His first semi-political writings were dedicated to hoping that the Church would find a way back to its pure state of innocence, something from which its leaders had clearly strayed.


Upon earning his law degree, Robespierre returned to his home-town of Arras to practice. He quickly made a name for himself as a progressive lawyer, winning high-profile cases. This saw him admitted to salons, where he gave what was considered at the time a rather scandalous lecture arguing that children born out of wedlock should not face any legal or social discrimination. This was a cause near to Robespierre’s heart as his parents had divorced, a rarity in that era, and a cloud of scandal had hovered over his family in Arras as he was growing up. But this argument had more alarming political implications. If a person’s rights should not be determined by their birth lineage, then why should anyone become King or Queen because of the family from which they were born?


Other “outrageous” arguments from young Robespierre included that women had equal capacities to men and should be admitted to the same academies and societies and that corruption existed in the Church. The latter was not a new notion. As mentioned above, clerical corruption was the subject of much subterranean satire. But Robespierre took things one further. He actually dared to challenge the Church in a court of law, defending citizens against legal actions taken by the clergy.


Again taking inspiration from Rousseau, Robespierre began writing more and more about “virtue”, or the love of good men for law and country. Never any kind of anarchist, Robespierre was adamant throughout his life that order must be maintained, but, he became more and more forceful in preaching, it must apply to all of the nation’s citizens equally. While many were made uncomfortable by Robespierre’s politics, he did, even as a young man, find a sympathetic audience. Among the ever more numerous and influential bourgeoisie, there was a germinating discourse against not only the crown but the nobility as well. There was a rising sense that the common person was as capable as any of adhering to reason. The average citizen was not simply a subject of the Crown but was rather a participant in, as Rousseau called it, a “social contract.” This was, in part, a reaction to a sense by many layers of the French population that their country was in the process of losing it’s “national greatness”. Many of its colonies, such as those in Canada, had recently been lost. The revolution would be, from its inception, torn between a progressive impulse for greater individual freedom and equality between French citizens, and a nationalist, perhaps even reactionary tendency towards reestablishing France’s power in the world.



In 1788, France found itself in severe debt due to the expenses devoted to the country’s intervention in the American war for independence. The Crown wished to lift immunity from taxation from the nobility to pay off the country’s debts. In May, the King reorganized the judicial system, taking away the courts’ ability to restrict taxation. Predicting the furor this would cause, particularly amongst the nobility, the Crown announced on August 8 that the 3 Estates would meet in May of 1789 for the first time since 1614 in an effort to lessen tensions between the classes. However, in a disastrous turn, the King also declared that the representation of the Royal estate was to be doubled, making it twice that of the nobility, more than twice that of the Clergy, and more than three times that of the bourgeoisie.


Robespierre, who had continued writing provocative essays and taking on political cases such as representing trade guilds, was predictably outraged. He successfully campaigned first for direct election of representatives to the estate, and then for his own election as representative, relying on votes by the poor. Conservatives of all classes, and indeed, some moderates, were horrified by his political ascent.


Ritual had allowed the King to meet with each estate separately, but the third estate refused this request and started deliberations independently and informed the nobility and the clergy that if they did not join them in doing so that the Third Estate would declare itself the National Assembly and work alone. After the cowing of the nobles and the clergy, the Third Estate followed through on this threat on June 17, 1789. In response, the King brought 20 thousand soldiers and mercenaries to the capital.


Angered over a dramatic rise in the price of bread, the poor rose up to defend the National Assembly on July 14. This led, of course, to the storming and capture of the Bastille, and the killing of over 100 insurgents by the King’s soldiers. Incensed, the masses killed several city officials in retaliation.


Robespierre was one of the first representatives of the Third Estate to declare the actions of the masses as legitimate. Indeed, he threw his support behind a call to form people’s militias, and for the enfranchisement of those too poor to afford their own arms. He is quoted as declaring, in translation, of course, “Let the people know that law will hold to justice the ‘enemies of the people’ and that (those who hold them to justice) will not be treated as vigilantes.” It was, perhaps, the initial coining of the phrase, “enemies of the people.” That saying seems to have struck an immediate cord as the mayor of Paris was killed by a make-shift militia as he tried to flee the city. Subsequently, revolts quickly spread to the countryside.


On August 27, 1789 the National Assembly produced the “Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen.” In this document, it was declared that “liberty consists of the power to do whatever is not injurious to others…” It was and is generally interpreted that this meant a right to free speech, association, and religion. With the Declaration, the National Assembly declared itself an official body, as much a part of France’s government as the Crown. A revolution, it could be said, had already taken place. The Declaration did not, however, define what constitutes “injurious” activity, leaving that open to interpretation.


Robespierre was decidedly to the left of the majority of his colleagues in the National Assembly, and many of his proposals were deemed too radical by the majority. For instance, the Assembly voted to recompensate the Nobility for their losses since the start of the revolutionary process, over Robespierre’s fierce objections. To practice arguing his case before a more sympathetic audience, Robespierre joined the Paris branch of the radical Jacobin Club in November 1789, while his brother Augustine joined the Arras branch. Robespierre quickly asserted himself on the national body of the Club and was elected its president only four months after joining.


In 1790, the poor in the countryside had begun forcefully making use of “public land” that had, previously, been made available, in reality, only to the nobility. Robespierre proposed putting the land to use by the common people into law. The Assembly responded by doing so for only a small portion of such lands. Robespierre became the champion of the “revolting briggands.”


In May of the same year, there arose a debate within the National Assembly as to whether it was bound to act on the King’s proposals regarding foreign policy. Robespierre argued that revolutionary France should never invade another country unless that country’s people rose up in the name of self-determination to seize their rights as citizens and join France on its revolutionary path. The more conservative wing of the Assembly voted to follow the King in calling for imperialist adventures into neighboring countries.


There were also debates within the National Assembly concerning the institution of slavery in revolutionary France’s colonies. Robespierre issued the radical mantra: “Death to colonialism and slavery!” that would serve as an inspiration to those in southeast Asia fighting French colonialism in the twentieth century. Again, he had to settle for a compromise with the more conservative factions of the Assembly who granted citizenship to free Blacks in the colonies but refused to free the slaves. Robespierre objected vociferously, isolating him from even his comrades in the Jacobin Club.


In the opening months of 1791, Robespierre began communicating with his brother and closest friends that he felt profoundly over-worked and worried about his physical and even mental health. He would reiterate these concerns until the end of his days. However, on June 11 of that year he learned to his astonishment that he had been elected to be the public prosecutor for Paris. He had not even known that his name was on the ballot and never learned how it had become so. Yet, against his own concerns about himself, he accepted the post.


Perhaps out of fear that such a fiery radical as Robespierre had attained such a post, the King attempted to flee the country on June 20, 1791 but was quickly captured. To the most radical revolutionaries in the country the King’s attempt to escape to another absolute monarchy confirmed in their minds that there was an international conspiracy on the part of European Royalty to quash the French Revolution. The moderately radical Cordeliers Club, which counted amongst its most prominent members Danton, Marat and Desmoulins, organized a protest demanding that the King abdicate. Robespierre and the Jacobins called for a yet more radical action. Robespierre argued that “royal inviolability is an invention” and that Louis should be deposed. The majority of the National Assembly, however, voted to allow Louis to remain KIng.


Robespierre called for the right to vote for representation of all adult men and women regardless of income, nationality, religion and occupation. Initially, however, the Assembly granted this right only to males of a certain income, excluding Jews and actors. Robespierre fought tirelessly against such exclusion, and by September of 1791 he had successfully won voting rights for all groups except women.


The monarchies of Prussia and Austria warned France that Louis must not only remain safe, but in power. Louis, however, had few allies left in his own nation and approved a constitution officially making France a constitutional monarchy in September of 1791.


Robespierre resigned his position as prosecutor and seemed ready to live a more private existence, while still using the Jacobin Club as an outlet for his ideas. On certain topics he was surprisingly moderate. For instance, he was never as vociferously anti-religion as some of his fellow revolutionaries. Perhaps he would have gone on to live a relatively less dramatic and political life had war not erupted between France and Austria on April 20, 1792. Robespierre had long been known for his anti-war stance, and in the suddenly martial environment of the nation, he found himself politically marginalized but this did not stop him from loudly decrying the turn towards war. Indeed, it reinvigorated him politically.


Prussia sided with Austria against revolutionary France and the French army suffered defeat after defeat. France was facing invasion. Rumors swirled through the middle and lower classes that Louis was in cahoots with his fellow royals and that the war had been a ruse to defeat the revolution, not restore France’s place on the global stage. This suspicion extended to the nobility and the clergy. Revolutionary gangs killed many suspected enemies of the people and there were huge anti-monarchy demonstrations. The people had made clear that they were no longer willing to live, fight and die under the monarchy. Robespierre considered it the clear expression of the popular will that the monarchy be dissolved and this was done on August 10, 1792.


With the war taking a disastrous turn for France, Robespierre’s anti-war stance now seemed appealing. He was again politically popular and was elected to the National Convention, along with his brother. In his writings of the period, Robespierre expounded on his concept of “virtue,” a patriotism that inspired a nation’s citizens to subordinate their self-interest for the national good. Such virtue was to be inculcated in citizens by the state, through public festivals as had been done in classical Greece and Rome.


It was also in late 1792 that Robespierre began, for the first time, to publicly call for the execution of the King. To not execute Louis for his crimes when “common” people faced execution, Robespierre argued, would be to acknowledge the elitist notion that the King was inherently “above the people.” The National Convention seemed convinced by these arguments, as Louis was put to death on January 21, 1793, upon which the monarchies of England and Spain declared war on France.


The Convention, at Robespierre’s behest, put price controls on food so that the urban poor could afford necessities. This alienated many once revolutionary farmers, and some of their representatives in the Convention, especially those from the comparatively conservative Girondon Club, were similarly incensed. There were even counter-revolutionary uprisings in some rural regions. Robespierre, again during a time when he was expressing concerns about his physical and mental health to those closest to him, called, for the first time, for the execution of all “enemies of the revolution.” The revolting farmers were crushed and killed upon the Convention’s orders and “revolutionary censorship” was imposed. It was in this context that the notorious Committee for Public Safety was formed with Robespierre at its head. The membership was elected on a month to month basis, with Robespierre winning reelection, seemingly fairly, time after time.


In April of 1793, the National Convention released a revised version of the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen. The new document was decidedly more radical than the original. Where as the American-revolution influenced 1789 version had focused on the rights and freedoms of the individual, the new document focused on the “general well being” of society. It acknowledged the right of private property but also asserted an obligation on the part of all citizens to see to the necessities of all citizens, including those incapable of work. It also asserted the necessity of universal education. These were to be paid for by progressive taxation that would not allow the disparity in social wealth to become too great. The character of the revolution was changing rapidly.


The Cordellier Club, an association even more radical than the Jacobins, began calling for the redistribution of private property. Robespierre thought this was a step too far and rejected the notion, as did the vast majority of the revolutionary state. The left most Jacobins and Cordellier deputies began calling for the expulsion of the Girondon deputies. Robespierre was initially defensive of the conservative deputies, arguing that a deputy should only be recalled by popular election. As the Girondons began talking about open counter-revolution, however, Robespierre changed his mind. The Girondon deputies were expelled, arrested and executed in July of 1793.


Feeding the army that was trying to turn back the counter-revolutionary invaders was the government’s first priority. This led, however, to severe food shortages in the cities. Workers formed mobs to seize food. There was bloodletting every day. The revolutionary government felt the need to harness this violent energy on the part of the masses for its own ends. People’s armies were made official arms of the revolution and were charged by the state with sequestering food, ensuring the payment of taxes by the rich, hunting down and killing deserters and those engaged in “unpatriotic rhetoric” and the seizure of church treasures. What came to be known as “the Terror” had begun.

[Jake Zammit · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent, very human biography of the influential Robespierre. McPhee manages to coax the reader into thinking along Robespierre's lines and see things how he might have seen them during those momentous years, while not shying away from the sheer number and nature of the infamous revolutionary executions.

The author's aim to try and present the man behind this often (positively and negatively) mythologised figure is well-achieved, while repeatedly remaining cognizant of what we can never know - mainly stemming from the paucity of personal writings/reflections Robespierre left. Thus, care is taken not to leap to unfounded conclusions.

I found this to be a very engaging read, while clearly an academic's text, it still managed to be interesting and even gripping at times. The vivid descriptions of Artois, of tumultuous political events in Paris (violent and non-violent) etc, all greatly help in having the reader go through this journey with Robespierre.

From this, we end up with a picture of Robespierre as a principled, passionate man arguing for what is essentially a form of welfare state all the way back in 1789. He dearly believed in 'the will of the people' - of course, always nebulous to define - and in the building the common well-being of society. Robespierre seems to have believed himself, especially by the end, to be capable of interpreting the people's will - echoing his previous admiration of Rousseau. He threw himself into the project of building a new, more virtuous state. This massive project, along with the many betrayals/disappointments the revolution faced, seemingly drove him to mental exhaustion and physical illness. Perhaps it would have been better for him to resign before 1794, but then he wouldn't have been himself - this Robespierre would not rest while he could spare an ounce to strength to safeguard the (in his eyes) endangered revolution. Ultimately, he was a young man caught up in events and times of historic importance, with a varying degree of power to shape them, at times seemingly having an integral role, at others more being pulled along by occurrences out of his control.

I was also interested to see how pragmatic he could be (supporting the Republic only after the King's overthrow, ejecting the Girondins from the Convention only after sans-culottes force the issue etc), how fragmented and fractious the revolutionary faction(s) always was, how moderate he was with regards to religion (unlike other Jacobins), the extremely dire situation the French Republic found itself in, how Robespierre seems to not have been a naturally charismatic figure (making his adulation more remarkable), how often he did not get his way, and more.

At times, I found I had to do some supplementary reading on the side to fully understand the many events or Ancien Régime and revolutionary institutions mentioned. However, it's hard to fault this book on that - if it had to devote time to detail these things beyond their relevance to Robespierre it could easily end up five times as long. As befitting a biography, the focus remains always on its subject.

[James Dempsey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really well written. So great in fact that I refused its completion! so to preserve it for a later date; never eat all of your cake, I learned. I was particularly interested in the early years of this man, his education at the Lycee Louis Le Grand - that great institution across from the Sorbonne which has styled so many great minds - from Voltaire to Baudelaire, Moliere and de Sade to Victor Hugo. The jesuits have taught these men well, and Robespierre was no exception. I also enjoyed the great littering of pamphlet selection, contemporary snaps of revolutionary goings-ons. Robespierre fancied himself as the commandant of Frances destiny - sailing her fate away from despotism toward the uplands of Utopia. However in this mission he failed, and he took France from monarchal absolutism to anarchic absolutism, the latter being punctuated throughout with moments of horror, bloodshed, and psychopathy. His story is tragic, though one believes his motives to have been pure. Robespierre was corrupted by the ambiguity of Rousseau, he was swept away by quixotic notions of theory and belief - his foolishness and irregularity paved the way for the stern rigidity of a strongman, for Napoleon. Napoleons successes vindicated him, whereas Robespierres failures amounted to his ruin.

[Revanth Ukkalam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Robespierre remains the face of revolutionary terror and is considered a practical forefather of Stalin, Mao, Enver Hoxsha and the league. The book - through contemporary notes and eyewitness accounts - tries to reconstruct the journey that a passionate and romantic youth from Arras in Western France took to become a tyrant. The author is brilliantly skillful in making one feel for the idealist in Robespierre. A Robespierre who had utmost faith in law. A Robespierre who read Classical history and Plutarch with conviction that the present had much to learn from it. A Robespierre to whom Rousseau was nothing short of God. The book expects one to have studied French Revolutionary history - since it is racy in its narration. It does not even stop to let one chew the meaty bits - the execution of Danton for instance. The French Revolution as always becomes an inspirational moment in human history but one that one had much to mourn in. A great early morning read for me.

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was an excellent biography of Robespierre. Few historical figures spark such a diversity of opinion as Robespierre, with some branding him as the bloodthirsty architect of The Terror, and others portraying him as the incorruptible leader of revolution dedicated to democracy and human rights. However, this author, Peter McPhee, has produced a very fair-minded biography which sticks closely to the best evidence and filters out much of the propaganda from both sides regarding Robespierre. He shows that Robespierre's role in the Terror was complicated and he was hardly the number one force behind it. He definitely supported the Terror, but at times, he opposed its excesses. After he was executed, its remaining architects had a major incentive to blame all of the excesses on the late Robespierre. The book also effectively outlines Robespierre's remarkably modern policy positions in a variety of areas. I hadn't realized the extent of Robespierre's emotional breakdowns during the Revolution and how that played a role in his eventual demise. Overall, the book effectively shows both the good and bad sides of Robespierre and sheds a great deal of light on his crucial role in the French Revolution. I definitely recommend this biography.

[Thomas Wright · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really fascinating look into Robespierre that goes beyond the myth of "Robespierre the monster." This is a good book for looking at his life, personality and his grand political career. This makes the reader see Robespierre as a person rather than the cartoonish villain. Robespierre certainly liked to eat oranges.

[Miszor · Rating 5 out of 5]

doskonała biografia. zdecydowanie warta przeczytania. w jej perspektywie biografia prof. Baszkiewicza tylko zyskuje, bo niewiele się różni, mimo wieku

oczywiście konkluzja taka, że Robespierre baza i męczennik za sprawę dobra ludzkości i boskiego porządku

[Reb · Rating 1 out of 5]

tragico

[David Irving · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant biography conveying the tumult of revolutionary times - a pleasure to read

[Chloe Pope · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mans has been a bit fucked over by history me thinks

[Gabriel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! The most complete revision of the literature sorrounding the figure of Robespierre and a new analysis of Robespierre life as a young man and his passionate life for revolutionary change encompassing the struggle for liberty, equality and fraternal values, and his comitment for a free people of Europe from the chains of monarchical life and the privileged seigneurial landowners, nobles, clergy and aristocracy. Mcphee does justice to Robespierre and his aim for a French People's Republic, with the intention to foment civic virtues and a democratic culture that would prevent the rise of fascism, uncritical assumption of any kind of unreasonable authority as well as social injustice. In particular, he shows us an uncompromising fidelity of the militant and her will, and a turbulent event gathered together at this time, entailing notions of great courage in order to balance the civic duties of the French Revolution of 1789/the rights of man of 1792 and the war effort against national counter-revolution and the constant attacks received by repressive monarchical regimes of Europe. As the author states in innumerous reports and speeches given by the 'incorruptible' (first from the Assembly, National Convention and then the Commitee of Public Safety), Robespierre warned and was against the (start of the) war, violence and condemned the excesses of the military, ministers and delegates in the provinces, which is far from the largely pervasive literature that pinpoints the leader as a tyrant, dictator or a man drawn to the spilling of blood (or even more for those who exploit the figure of Robespierre, for those in the far right, who see him as the embodiment of the start of modern totalitarianism- that is basically those who condemn any social change and anyone who is committed enough to change this crucial system which they justify and give legitimation, that is, protecting certain elite interests)

An authoritative and academic historian's stab to the fraudulent, pseudo-psychological, interested accounts that encompass so many biographies on Robespierre.

[Alexandra · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a running joke in my Revolutions class that I have a little history-crush on Peter McPhee - one that I do all I can to play up, in all honesty. Robespierre has not, however, been my particular revolutionary crush; that's Danton. After reading this biography, I'm half tempted to switch my allegiances... but the larger than life Danton is still more alluring than the somewhat severe Robespierre.

Anyway, this biography is exactly what I was hoping for. It's clearly written and easy to read; I don't know accessible it would be for someone with zero knowledge of the revolution, but I'm no expert and I had no trouble following it. It follows Robespierre's life chronologically - indeed giving a bit of background on his family too - and provides what felt like an appropriate amount of background and contextual information on the realities of life throughout France, reasons for revolution, and attitudes among different groups for the duration of said revolution.

I've not read any of the other numerous biographies of "the Incorruptible," and McPhee gives an interesting overview of them in his final chapter. I know that some have tended towards utter condemnation, but I didn't realise that others turned into panegyrics. This one certainly comes down largely in favour of Robespierre as a man and a politician, demonstrating quite conclusively how consistent his ideals and desires were, even predating the revolution of 1789 that made at least some of those ideas acceptable. McPhee doesn't shy away from the fact that lots of people died in the Terror, but does point out that in no way can the majority be laid at Robespierre's feet - he was horrified by the actions of some deputies in rural France. He also doesn't shy away from the likelihood that Robespierre was in fact going too far, by mid-1794, and may even have been tending towards paranoia.

If you're at all interested in this period, or in how a leader can influence events, this is a really brilliant bio.

[John Weathers · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent biography of a much maligned and fascinating subject. The author sets himself the task in the introduction of answering the question: "How it could be that someone who articulated the highest principles of 1789 could come to be seen as the personification of the 'Reign of Terror' in 1793–94?" I think he does an admirable job at doing so while placing Robespierre in his context. While certainly coming across as sympathetic to Robespierre, McPhee strikes a nice balance in presenting the various conflicting opinions about Robespierre by his contemporaries and historians and showing these opinions in their context. He also does a great job of staying on his subject and not getting distracted too much by many of the other magnetic personalities that played pivotal roles in the events of the Revolution.

My only criticisms are that McPhee tends to leap about chronologically a bit much when trying to connect details which sometimes causes the reader to lose a proper sense of narrative; and that his great job of staying focused on Robespierre sometimes errs in narrowness and leaves out context that would be helpful in understanding the subject. For example, the relationship between Robespierre and Danton is hardly covered and when Danton is introduced, in many ways he is just a name. While it is one thing to go off giving a micro-biography of secondary subjects, it is another to not quite give them enough flesh to demonstrate their significance in the life of the primary subject.

I happily recommend this biography to those interested in Robespierre, The French Revolution, and the continuing struggle for some of the Revolution's highest ideals.

[Marduk · Rating 4 out of 5]

So this obstinate idealist, who always found himself in trouble over his views, ended up being catapulted from a skilled - yet of controversial status - provincial jurist into the absolute top of the French Revolution, for a time being treated as the very embodiment of the principles of 1789, earning the epithet "the Incorruptible." But balancing atop the wave of fervour is difficult, and surfing it is bound to tire one out. In the tumult, Robespierre had lost his sight, focus and balance and ended up swallowed. And boy let me tell you, adulation turns into scorn real quick, especially when there's interest in scapegoating.

I wish this book woulda been more narrative driven instead of this timetable feel, but McPhee did give very satisfying insight. Above all, which I value most highly, he kept to the facts, and refrained from psychologizing the subject matter - the interpretation of everything from the vantage point of hindsight, which inevitably includes an illusory determinism. In this he reminds me of Kotkin's Stalin's biography, in which Kotkin was also very aware of this danger, and in general had a similar style.

[Carl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maximilien Robespierre was one of the foremost figures of the French Revolution, a super-energetic and remarkable man who was an eloquent speaker, writer and leader. Unfortunately, he was also very polarizing: people either adored him or loathed him. For awhile he was on top of the deadly snake-pit of revolutionary politics, sending counter-revolutionaries to the guillotine by the score, but he scared too many people, and he ended up in the guillotine himself.

The book covers his whole life, from a troubled childhood through his excellent education, and his almost instantaneous rise from an obscure delegate to Paris to the top of the political pyramid.

A problem I had with the book was that it assumes the reader has a detailed knowledge of the French Revolution. The book gives very little background to the biography, which sometimes left me in a fog. Before you read the book you should first read a book about the Revolution.

[Max Schwering · Rating 1 out of 5]

Een goede biografie schrijven is altijd moeilijk, zeker als het een persoon betreft die in relatieve anonimiteit leefde tot het bepalende keerpunt in zijn leven; in dit geval de Franse revolutie. Dat maakt, zoals de schrijver zelf ook ruiterlijk erkent, dat de eerste hoofdstukken op beperkt bronmateriaal gebaseerd zijn en i.m.h.o. Niet heel interessant zijn. Had korter gekund als mooie scenesetter voor Robespierre en zijn optreden in de revolutie.
Vanaf het moment van de revolutie wordt het interessant en zien we de ontwikkeling van een strenge idealist die tot in de extreme geloofde in vrijheid voor het volk. De schrijver velt geen oordeel en dat maakt het interessant voor de lezer om zelf te bezien of Robespierre de visionaire revolutionair was of de brute leider die geweld niet schuwde. Interessant boek voor mensen die meer over de cruciale jaren rond de Franse revolutie willen weten.

[Noah · Rating 3 out of 5]

McPhee does a largely admirable job of documenting Robespierre's life, but the book is often lacking in context, leading any reader not thoroughly acquainted with the history of the French Revolution confused at times.