What do you think?
Rate this book
Robespierre
Maximilien Robespierre is one of the greatest figures of European history but is at the same time one of the most reviled and revered. The essays in this volume seek to explain these contradictory views of Robespierre. They provide a balanced and up-to-date account of Robespierre's life and work by looking in turn at his ideology and vision of the Revolution, his role in the political life of Revolutionary France, and finally at representations of Robespierre in the history, drama and fiction of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
- GenresFrench RevolutionHistory
304 pages, Hardcover
First published July 29, 1999
27 people want to read
About the author
William Doyle
155 books49 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
William Doyle is Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Bristol.
William Doyle is Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Bristol.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 19, 2022
A collection of articles from lectures delivered at the 1994 conference "Robespierre: History, Historiography, and Literature" at King Alfred's College. Consisting of 16 articles from historians across the spectrum (although with the "revisionist" school unfortunately dominating), the book is divided into five parts.
Part I, "Introduction," consists of an essay by William Doyle and Colin Haydon and one by David P. Jordan. The Doyle-Haydon article predominantly discusses the historiographical understanding of Robespierre as it has evolved over the years, alongside his portrayal in fictional literature. The Jordan article is dedicated to "The Robespierre Problem," outlining the contradictions of Robespierre himself that leave bourgeois historians generally stumped.
Part II focuses upon Robespierre's world-view itself, perhaps the most interesting part of the book. The first article by Marisa Linton focuses upon his "political principles," differentiating him from Saint-Just, and his evolution from political "libertarianism" to the Jacobin leader of 1793-94. The second article by Annie Jourdan focuses upon conceptions of "revolutionary heroism" and the cult of martyrdom that permeated Jacobin political ideology and social revolution, though I am suspicious of her conclusion that Robespierre's ultimate "hero" was himself. It seems more likely that his self-pity and constant worry of counter-revolution was less self-aggrandizing and more a realistic political outlook that his divine virtuous republic could never be attained under the bourgeois rule of the Republic. The third article is Geoffrey Cubitt's discussion of Robespierre and conspiracy theories, arguing that they permeated his entire political career rather than evolving as he gained prominence. However, Cubitt's argument is fatally weakened by the very fact that Robespierre often pointed out things that did come to pass. The fourth article by Frank Tallett is of the most interest to me, discussing Robespierre's religious identity and its effects upon his political stances. Tallett comes to the conclusion that Robespierre was a committed deist by 1789, was rather conciliatory towards progressive factions of Christians and the Catholic Church in opposition to the de-Christianisation movement, and that the Cult of Supreme Being was a melding of political inspiration to create the virtuous republic as well as Robespierre's genuine religious ideas.
Part III focuses upon "Robespierre's Politics." The first article by Hugh Gough on Robespierre and journalism details his roundabout from a champion of free press to censorship as the revolutionary government consolidated its control. The second by Allan Forrest details Robespierre's relation to the war effort and military organisation, his efforts at political military reform and the conversion of the army into schools of Jacobinism and political radicalism. The third article by Morris Slavin deals with Robespierre's relationship to the Parisian Insurrection of May-June 1793, and the taking of leadership of the insurrection from the Hebertists by the Jacobins in supplanting the Girondins. The fourth article by Norman Hampson focuses upon Robespierre and his relationship to the Terror, his supposedly "Rousseauist mind" (contested by more modern historians), the opening of hostilities by the Girondins by attacking radicals like Marat and himself, and his attempts to limit the Terror after 2 June by attempting to introduce a factional peace with Hebert and Desmoulins (which, of course, failed).
Part IV, "Robespierre in Retrospect," deals with historical perceptions of Robespierre from Carlyle to Soboul. The first article by Mark Cumming discusses Caryle's "picturesque history" and how it portrayed Robespierre. The second article, by Gwynne Lewis, discusses Chartist "Robespierrism" and its relation to democratic socialism in England through Bronterre O'Brien. The third article by James Friguglietti discusses Mathiez and Lefebvre as "defenders of the Incorruptible." While this article is a wonderful look at their careers and defense of Robespierre, Friguglietti sees their defenses as motivated by personal and political reasons rather than their historiographical contributions. No historian of this era would've leveled such a charge at Furet, despite the fact it was just as true. The third article by Malcolm Cook is an interesting look at perceptions and portrayals of Robespierre in French fiction from 1789 to around 1930, whilst the fourth article by William D. Howarth does the same in relation to European drama.
Part V, "Conclusion," is an article "dedicated to the memory of Francois Furet" by his revisionist disciple Francois Crouzet dealing with the subject of Robespierre and understandings of him by French historians since Thiers. Crouzet's article is a political hit-piece and hardly worthy of inclusion in this compilation, and without the political context and domination of French historiography by Furet's cronies at the time, it certainly wouldn't have been. Mathiez and the Marxists rehabilitate Robespierre in order to justify the "new terror" to occur after a hypothetical revolution. Soboul, much more a critic of the Jacobin government than his Jacobin predecessors, is absurdly dismissed as a "Stalinist" (a French "Stalinist" in the 70s?)! Ironically, he attacks Max Gallo for his "repulsive" "Open Letter to Maximilien Robespierre" for insulting several scholars! How strange that is so repulsive to attack bourgeois scholars, but it is free game when coming to Marxists, "Stalinists," "Jacobin-Marxists," or "Leninist-Populists"! That Crouzet's article closes an otherwise fine and even excellent collection of articles on Robespierre is both a disservice and a shame.
Part I, "Introduction," consists of an essay by William Doyle and Colin Haydon and one by David P. Jordan. The Doyle-Haydon article predominantly discusses the historiographical understanding of Robespierre as it has evolved over the years, alongside his portrayal in fictional literature. The Jordan article is dedicated to "The Robespierre Problem," outlining the contradictions of Robespierre himself that leave bourgeois historians generally stumped.
Part II focuses upon Robespierre's world-view itself, perhaps the most interesting part of the book. The first article by Marisa Linton focuses upon his "political principles," differentiating him from Saint-Just, and his evolution from political "libertarianism" to the Jacobin leader of 1793-94. The second article by Annie Jourdan focuses upon conceptions of "revolutionary heroism" and the cult of martyrdom that permeated Jacobin political ideology and social revolution, though I am suspicious of her conclusion that Robespierre's ultimate "hero" was himself. It seems more likely that his self-pity and constant worry of counter-revolution was less self-aggrandizing and more a realistic political outlook that his divine virtuous republic could never be attained under the bourgeois rule of the Republic. The third article is Geoffrey Cubitt's discussion of Robespierre and conspiracy theories, arguing that they permeated his entire political career rather than evolving as he gained prominence. However, Cubitt's argument is fatally weakened by the very fact that Robespierre often pointed out things that did come to pass. The fourth article by Frank Tallett is of the most interest to me, discussing Robespierre's religious identity and its effects upon his political stances. Tallett comes to the conclusion that Robespierre was a committed deist by 1789, was rather conciliatory towards progressive factions of Christians and the Catholic Church in opposition to the de-Christianisation movement, and that the Cult of Supreme Being was a melding of political inspiration to create the virtuous republic as well as Robespierre's genuine religious ideas.
Part III focuses upon "Robespierre's Politics." The first article by Hugh Gough on Robespierre and journalism details his roundabout from a champion of free press to censorship as the revolutionary government consolidated its control. The second by Allan Forrest details Robespierre's relation to the war effort and military organisation, his efforts at political military reform and the conversion of the army into schools of Jacobinism and political radicalism. The third article by Morris Slavin deals with Robespierre's relationship to the Parisian Insurrection of May-June 1793, and the taking of leadership of the insurrection from the Hebertists by the Jacobins in supplanting the Girondins. The fourth article by Norman Hampson focuses upon Robespierre and his relationship to the Terror, his supposedly "Rousseauist mind" (contested by more modern historians), the opening of hostilities by the Girondins by attacking radicals like Marat and himself, and his attempts to limit the Terror after 2 June by attempting to introduce a factional peace with Hebert and Desmoulins (which, of course, failed).
Part IV, "Robespierre in Retrospect," deals with historical perceptions of Robespierre from Carlyle to Soboul. The first article by Mark Cumming discusses Caryle's "picturesque history" and how it portrayed Robespierre. The second article, by Gwynne Lewis, discusses Chartist "Robespierrism" and its relation to democratic socialism in England through Bronterre O'Brien. The third article by James Friguglietti discusses Mathiez and Lefebvre as "defenders of the Incorruptible." While this article is a wonderful look at their careers and defense of Robespierre, Friguglietti sees their defenses as motivated by personal and political reasons rather than their historiographical contributions. No historian of this era would've leveled such a charge at Furet, despite the fact it was just as true. The third article by Malcolm Cook is an interesting look at perceptions and portrayals of Robespierre in French fiction from 1789 to around 1930, whilst the fourth article by William D. Howarth does the same in relation to European drama.
Part V, "Conclusion," is an article "dedicated to the memory of Francois Furet" by his revisionist disciple Francois Crouzet dealing with the subject of Robespierre and understandings of him by French historians since Thiers. Crouzet's article is a political hit-piece and hardly worthy of inclusion in this compilation, and without the political context and domination of French historiography by Furet's cronies at the time, it certainly wouldn't have been. Mathiez and the Marxists rehabilitate Robespierre in order to justify the "new terror" to occur after a hypothetical revolution. Soboul, much more a critic of the Jacobin government than his Jacobin predecessors, is absurdly dismissed as a "Stalinist" (a French "Stalinist" in the 70s?)! Ironically, he attacks Max Gallo for his "repulsive" "Open Letter to Maximilien Robespierre" for insulting several scholars! How strange that is so repulsive to attack bourgeois scholars, but it is free game when coming to Marxists, "Stalinists," "Jacobin-Marxists," or "Leninist-Populists"! That Crouzet's article closes an otherwise fine and even excellent collection of articles on Robespierre is both a disservice and a shame.
Displaying 1 of 1 review