Customer Reviews

The Revolutionary Career of Maximilien Robespierre

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I came to this book knowing nothing, I walked away an erudite robespierriste. Jordan has written a clear, acessable history without being condescending. Although most of his interest is with Robespierre's politics and beliefs (plus an excellent chapter on his oratory), Jordan has a gift for including just enough personal information abou the Seagreen to make him seem at least somewhat human (for example: his obsessive love of oranges). I thoughroughly recomend it.

One of the finest and most penetrating studies done on the French revolution as a whole and of Robespierre in particular. Too often readers only gleam their impressions of the period from Dickens and Thomas Carlyle. Then there are pseudo-historians like Stanley Loomis and Otto Scott, who instead of trying to interpret history simply make it up instead. It is so refreshing to read a thoughful, unprejudiced book rooted in facts. I can also highly recommend THE KING'S TRIAL by Jordan, one of the single best history books ever penned.

With so much misinformation written about Robespierre, this scholarly volume is essentail for anyone who truly wishes to understand the most important figue of the French revolution. Highly recommended.

<strong>BOOK REVIEW

ROBESPIERRE,David Warden, Harper Books, New York 2003 </strong>

One of the enduring historical legends of the French Revolution is the tendency of historians and others to call the period of the reign of Robespierre, as the presiding genius of the Committee of Public Safety in 1793-94, the 'Reign of Terror'. That the domestic situation in France, and more especially its position in the bewildering status of European politics at the time, and the person of Robespierre himself were far more complex than that simple designation has only fairly recently become a decisive factor in historical studies of the revolution. The biography under review here is one example of the more reasoned approaches to the life and times of Robespierre. Although the author is clearly no admirer of Robespierre he is at least willing to give the devil his due, if only by comparison to the disastrous effects that later modern `dictators' have had on history. For those, like this reviewer, who see the work of Robespierre, Saint Just and the other workaholic members of the Committee of Public Safety as critical to the lasting effects of the French Revolution, that is, as an embryonic attempt at a 'Republic of Virtue', this is all that one can ask for.

The author organizes his book around several themes and does a more than adequate job of presenting the social, economic, philosophical, literary and legal positions that influenced Robespierre over his career. Especially interesting and previously unknown to me were the possible influences of freemasonry, illuminism and rosicrucianism on the thought and actions of Robespierre in the course of his struggle for power. At this histroical distance it is, however, hard to judge the true effect of such beliefs on his judgements. Let us just leave it that in revolutionary times the odd and eccentric get a hearing that they would not get in more stable times. Including by leaders who would ordinarily dismiss such ideas and persons.

Professor Warden also traces Robespierre's career into the law as one of the routes that the self-made revolutionaries of the period saw as a stepping stone to power;his early literary and philosophical proclivities, particularly his devotion to Rousseau; his rise into the revolutionary leadership as the revolution moved left; his reputation as the `incorruptible' man of personal virtue; his desire to create a reign of virtue; his personal mental and physical problems and their effect on his thoughts and actions; and, the inevitable controversy over the use of the death penalty and other repression laws to settle scores with real undying enemies and mere political opponents. This more well-rounded approach toward his life may not win Robespierre, an admittedly hard character to warm up to, more admiration. However, the approach has the virtue of at least changing the debate from one of the `axis of evil' to one of a mainly rational approach to the problems confronting French in the early 1790's not the least of which was how to deal with real internal and foreign counterrevolutionary plots and military actions. Other, lesser, men of the times broke their teeth trying to solve those problems as well.

One of the major points that I have tried to emphasize in my study of the French Revolution is the formation of the initial `popular front' nature of the uprising and the subsequent breakup into its basic class components that has lessons for the situation in France and Western society today. For those who are unfamilar with the term- 'popular front', it is a poltical strategy that assumes the bulk of society have the same social and class interests. It is counterposed to the Marxian notion that the working class, independently, must lead society out of the morass that capitalism has put it in. In the France of 2007 that 'popular front' strategy is the favored one of the Socilist Party as it seeks the presidency of the Republic.

The French Revolution as it moved left, a phenomena witnessed in all great revolutions, became less and less of a 'popular front', as we know it. Robespierre, it is clear, consciously made a decision to find support for his politics in the sans culottes masses of Paris. Others like Marat, the Hebertists and Babeuf also worked that same political vein. What makes Robespierre different from latter day revolutionaries like Marx, Lenin and Trotsky who like Robespierre were also not from the working classes was that he was driven by the revolution itself into his position in defense of the lower classes whereas the later mentioned revolutionaries were won to working class politics well before hand. That, among other things, may help explain why when Robespierre and his supporters were overthrown his support literally evaporated and the denigration of his reputation as a `terrorist' began.
Read this book for more insights on this question.

This is perhaps the most really interesting biography of Robespierre yet written. It is a very fair treatment of a historical figure often misunderstood. Approaching Robespierre as a person who very consciously constructed himself is this book's strenth. Very smart and very readable.

This is an excellent book about the life and career of Maximilien Robespierre. Still portrayed by some historians simply as a cruel and heartless tyrant, Robespierre is possibly one of the most misinterpreted figures in history. "The Revolutionary Career of Maximilien Robespierre" is an wonderfully intellectual biography, which finally sheds some light on this enigmatic Incorruptible's virtuous ideals and complex personality. Many of his speeches and letters are analyzed to help the reader understand his sincere and utter devotion to the cause of the Revolution. The author brilliantly portrays Robespierre as a man who fought for a virtuous cause with his powerfully thought-provoking words.

I've seen the stereotypical Robespierre: cold, feminine, and calculating. This book sheds light on what his career was really like, while at the same time mentioning interesting parts of his personality. You don,t have to be a brain surgeon to read it (I was only 12!) but its not for babies. If you like history you,ll love this man, his life, and the book. Call me a Robespierriste!

Even if this biography of Robespierre is more nuanced than many, it is still written in the critical tradition of studies on the man. While Jordan writes in a manner that does rely on facts (unlike many other, especially past, historians), he tends to put the worst construction on any actions of Robespierre's, and doesn't give him a chance. As I have found to be the case with most English-language biographies of Robespierre, his view of Robespierre and the other revolutionaries can only properly be described as condescending; refusing to seriously consider the circumstances of the times, he judges the actions of the revolutionaries not in context, but with the hindsight of the 20th century.

Jordan clearly brings his prejudices with him in the writing of the book; despite having looked at the facts he still remains mired in the close-minded Anglo-American mindset in which works like the Scarlet Pimpernel have long thrived. Perhaps his views may best be described by the first paragraph of his essay from the collection of essays, Robespierre, edited by Colin Haydon and William Doyle, in which he describes Robespierre as "unworldly, resentful, vain, egotistical, susceptible to flattery, contemptuous of or indifferent to all the social pleasures except conversation, guarded and suspicious... inflexible, unforgiving, ill at ease in public, secretive, stiff and pedantic as a speaker (with an unpleasing and not very powerful voice), lacking the common touch, preoccupied... annoyingly fastidious, adroit and closely focused rather than original, prone to substitute Jacobin rhetorical formulae for logical steps, obsessively self-regarding... etc." He refuses to give credit where credit is due (but for a passage in which he grudgingly admits that Robespierre was not bloodthirsty, but takes every possible opportunity to snipe at the historical figure's character.

That said, The Revolutionary Career of Maximilien Robespierre is well-written and an interesting and informative read. Just don't mistake it for a neutral account.

This book is the best political biography book I have ever read. When you read this book you feel that you listen and talk to Robesspirre the incorruptable. For any one interested in this great man and the French Revolution this book is the way to start.

This would have been one amongst the booksMaximilien Robespierre would have chosen as an acceptable biography ofhimself, according him his rightful place in history. It is disturbingthat so many readers of this book expressing their views in ... praisethis idealized biography, once again reinterpreting the career of thisauthoritarian despot, who systematically guillotined those who did notshare his sterile, cold-as-steel view of the world. Jordan's versionof Robespierre's biography is a slanted, utopian vision of the world,according to L'Incorruptible, Robespierre, judging him by his writingsrather than by his well known treacherous and sanguinary deeds and thetoll they took on France from 1789-1794, particularly1793-1794.

This is accomplished because Robespierre has been judgedby the author by his lofty-sounding words and "noble" idealsexpressed in his writings and his expressed intention to transform theancien régime into the Republic of Virtue. The fact that Robespierre,the Incorruptible, the "Representative of the People,"helped demolish the ancien régime, through unspeakable violence onlyto bring misery and suffering and the blood and horror of the Reign ofTerror, is not directly addressed.

Jordan writes: "I have nothere attempted a biography of Robespierre but have written perhaps aspecies of biography, intellectual biography. I have laid heavy stresson his words" [Emphasis added; p. 10].

By this appraisal,Jordan admits he relies on Robespierre written words, rather than thetyrant's personal influence or his overt or covert actions in theFrench Revolution. In doing so, he has written about an idealizedFrench Revolution, which, like Plato's Republic, is depicted the wayit should have been, and not, like Aristotle observed, the world as itreally was.

Jordan thus admits, "I have, as one must whendealing with evidence of a literary kind, taken Robespierre at hisword." So in effect, the Voice of Virtue of Robespierre'scollective works, Oeuvres complètes, speaks through the author to thereader --- just the way Robespierre wanted to be heard down the agesof history, as opposed to what he actually did (i.e., commissions aswell as omissions), intrigued, and plotted, as the center figure ofthe French Revolution. What Robespierre actually did or did not do isimportant because even though he presided over the Reign of Terror,Robespierre also contributed significantly in driving the Revolutiondown the path of radicalism and violence, in the preceding years(1789-1793).

Jordan, like many present day academicians with apenchant for collectivism and egalitarianism (with the concomitant andnecessary authoritarianism that is necessary to achieve the"lofty" goals of a forced equality), is enamored ofRobespierre, his regimented vision of the world and the leveling ofsociety at any cost. This requires the adoption of Robespierre's ownintellectual views and the author's revised vision of the FrenchRevolution.

Jordan explains, "What we forget is thatRobespierre was a man transformed, purified in the heat of theRevolution, which melted away the old flesh to expose the newspirit. His was a destiny rather than a life" (pg.8). Alas, itseems the author is trying to achieve the apotheosis of a tyrant!

Thus, Jordan's book is a literary interpretation that disguises andfails to explain what actually took place; the author, intentionallyor not, ends up attempting to ameliorate the excesses and justifyRobespierre and his legacy of authoritarianism and terror.

AlthoughJordan hints at conceding a certain amount of hypocrisy on the part ofRobespierre, he quickly dismisses it, as the narrative unfolds,usually quoting Robespierre's own explanation for theseshortcomings. Thus, he mentions that during the so-called"Reactionary" period - i.e., from the autumn of 1791 tothe summer of 1792 - Robespierre was plagued by vacillations,"sophistry," and "contradictions." For example,late during this period, Robespierre called himself the Defender ofthe Constitution and so named his newspaper La Défenseur de laConstitution; this, in itself, could not be more hypocritical. Theconstitution that Robespierre was purportedly defending was theConstitution of 1791 that had established a Constitutional Monarchyfor France in which the king possessed a powerful veto over thelegislature (the Legislative Assembly). This constitution, whichRobespierre purported to defend, he truly despised, only that he usedit to wrap himself with it, seeking legalisms and protection. The factis Robespierre, the "Representative of the People," wascowed and trembling during the "Reactionary"period...

With the fall of Robespierre, it was the end of theTerror. Robespierre and his henchmen, his brother Augustin, St. Just,Couthon and Hanriot went to the guillotine. Le Bas shot himself todeath at the Hôtel de Ville. The story is much better told by OttoScot in Robespierre: The Voice of Reason (1974; the newer edition isRobespierre: The Fool as Revolutionary [1995]) and by Stanley Loomis,Paris in the Terror (1964; 1989). (See my reviews ... and orderyourself copies.)

Jordan, to his credit, has written a literarybiography in which he has obviously done a great deal of work. It isremarkable that he admitted, "I have asked the reader to view theFrench Revolution through the consciousness of Robespierre. I havepresented Robespierre's Revolution which is not identical with that asseen by others who lived it, nor with the Revolution now seen byhistorians" (p. 238).

Unfortunately, Jordan's caveat is likelyto be lost within the content of his book and his concerted defense ofL'Incorruptible. There are much better books. Nevertheless, this bookwill add to the vast amount of knowledge helping us understand themindset of those would-be leaders of men who, not content with runningtheir own affairs, wish to impose their own warped, nightmarish visionof failed utopias, upon the rest of us. Thankfully, they don't alwayssucceed, at least for long!

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.,Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel of the Association of AmericanPhysicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and author of Medical Warrior: FightingCorporate Socialized Medicine.