What do you think?
Rate this book
Men and Their Times
Robespierre and the French Revolution
Unknown Binding
First published December 1, 1952
1 person is currently reading
47 people want to read
About the author
J.M. Thompson
41 books12 followersJames Matthew Thompson was a historian and theologian.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 10, 2022
This was a text I read in high school in 1966. It is a short work covering the broad sweep of the five years (1789-94) of Robespierre’s political career and demise. Reading it now is very different to doing so 56 years ago. Now, I can stop and google other players as their names appear, making this a much more discursive reading. I can also call up and watch films that add to the discussion – such as Wajda’s Danton (1983), with the title role very capably played by Gerard Depardieu.
I think this work has held its own over the several generations since it first appeared. Perhaps it is because it is such a basic text that it remains an excellent starting point, an impetus to study the French Revolution. Above all, it gives us a clear notion of why Robespierre was important and has held historians’ attention and the public imagination for so long.
I think this work has held its own over the several generations since it first appeared. Perhaps it is because it is such a basic text that it remains an excellent starting point, an impetus to study the French Revolution. Above all, it gives us a clear notion of why Robespierre was important and has held historians’ attention and the public imagination for so long.
May 15, 2022
"If the existence of God and the immortality of the soul were mere dreams, they would still be the finest creations of the spirit of man."
concise explanation of robespierre as a man beyond his time, a puritan who essentially believed the 'right' things regarding human equality but wrapped them in religious notions that others in the revolutionary circles found too disagreeable. Yes, he arguably went mad. Yes, killing people is wrong. What was Robespierre trying to achieve in all of that? A Republic of Virtue, where justice and the people's justice was built upon the fundamental rights of man. Robespierre believed that science had half-progressed the world, but man had not mastered the new passions of the world. Immorality formed despotism, immorality born from man's disconnection from his Truth [liberte, egalite, fraternite].
interesting to critique the lens on which we understand [in the anglosphere] the french revolution, as robespierre wasn't any more of an architect of the reign of terror than anyone else in the committee of public safety, but became to dickens and other observers the embodiment of the failure of the revolution by his pseudo-dictatorial power over the convention
one thing i was thinking throughout reading it was that it's interesting comparing an actual history book like this of the revolution to contemporary pop history, like Oversimplified (on Youtube)'s history of the french revolution 2-parter. content like Oversimplified really embodies the sort of schoolbook milktone neutral Anglosphere interpretation of history, which depicts Robespierre as a bloodthirsty proto-communist madman lunatic who wanted to make himself a god. While being also false, interpretations like this lose information that we can learn from on figures like Robespierre. Violence became to Robespierre a means to an end, the climate of fear and siege mentality (both the threat of royalists, Commune radicals in the working class, and the Girondins goading half of Europe into war) feeding into a necessity. Obviously the talk of virtue and sanctity of the Supreme People as moral agents is very prevalent, but what lies behind that (in Thompson's observation) is the fact that Robespierre and the others in the Jacobin cabinet legitimately felt like the revolution's good was going to be undone.
tl;dr the reign of terror really wasn't that bad, down with the thermidorians, long live robespierre
concise explanation of robespierre as a man beyond his time, a puritan who essentially believed the 'right' things regarding human equality but wrapped them in religious notions that others in the revolutionary circles found too disagreeable. Yes, he arguably went mad. Yes, killing people is wrong. What was Robespierre trying to achieve in all of that? A Republic of Virtue, where justice and the people's justice was built upon the fundamental rights of man. Robespierre believed that science had half-progressed the world, but man had not mastered the new passions of the world. Immorality formed despotism, immorality born from man's disconnection from his Truth [liberte, egalite, fraternite].
interesting to critique the lens on which we understand [in the anglosphere] the french revolution, as robespierre wasn't any more of an architect of the reign of terror than anyone else in the committee of public safety, but became to dickens and other observers the embodiment of the failure of the revolution by his pseudo-dictatorial power over the convention
one thing i was thinking throughout reading it was that it's interesting comparing an actual history book like this of the revolution to contemporary pop history, like Oversimplified (on Youtube)'s history of the french revolution 2-parter. content like Oversimplified really embodies the sort of schoolbook milktone neutral Anglosphere interpretation of history, which depicts Robespierre as a bloodthirsty proto-communist madman lunatic who wanted to make himself a god. While being also false, interpretations like this lose information that we can learn from on figures like Robespierre. Violence became to Robespierre a means to an end, the climate of fear and siege mentality (both the threat of royalists, Commune radicals in the working class, and the Girondins goading half of Europe into war) feeding into a necessity. Obviously the talk of virtue and sanctity of the Supreme People as moral agents is very prevalent, but what lies behind that (in Thompson's observation) is the fact that Robespierre and the others in the Jacobin cabinet legitimately felt like the revolution's good was going to be undone.
tl;dr the reign of terror really wasn't that bad, down with the thermidorians, long live robespierre
December 24, 2015
As promised, a short-form hybrid of biography with pocket history.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews