Robespierre: derniers temps (2ed.)

[ephaistion85.livejournal.com]

I am sorry if someone already posted about this book, I did not find anything in the tag.
A couple of months ago I finished to read the new edition of Robespierre, derniers temps by J.Ph. Domecq, as I was curious to read about an alternative approach to historical narration. I am not an historian myself, but I am interested in history and as a writer (to-be?), historical fiction is my preferred genre.
The book is an interesting experiment, although, in my opinion, the author sets to himself a too high task; for those of you who might have not read it, it is an attempt to explain the behaviour of Robespierre in the nigh of Thermidor through what the author calls `intuition de la littérature'. The book is not completely fiction and it is constructed around quotation of various sources (primarily Robespierre's speeches), fragmented by an attempt of narrative and various thought of Domecq himself.
The experiment was at first curious, but it soon become really annoying and personally I do not think it achieved anything new; moreover the fictive portions were not enjoyable.
Furthermore at the end of the book is attached a shorter essay (La littérature comme acupuncture) about the role and the theory of historical fiction and the eventual contribution that a writer can give to a historian. It starts from a very sharp critic of another novel, Littell's Les Bienfaisants (that I personally enjoyed as a reading), to debate about the reception both in Literature and in History of Robespierre's figure.
Now, some questions for you. I was curious to know your opinion if you have read the book. Secondly, what is for you `good historical fiction'? I have read mostly discontent with fiction settled during the French Revolution, so it will be interesting to have some debate about what would be a good fiction (if it is actually possible to have one). Moreover what is the relation between (good) historical fiction and History itself, taking to account the fact that we are speaking of two really different genres with very different rules?

Comments

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Yes, I recall that - Louis-le-Grand was one of the few schools that still taught Greek by the late 18th century, as over the course of the 17th and 18th centuries Greek had been phased out as the vernacular was phased in. Latin was still standard (at varying levels of sophistication), but not for girls in the vast majority of cases. But as you point out, there were a great many classical texts available in bilingual editions or simply in translation.

If you're looking for an online copy of Manon Roland's memoirs, Google books has one. I'm not sure for her letters and other writings, however.

At the moment I compiled a scene where Éléonore indirectly quotes from Rollin's Histoire Romaine, I think this can be likely.
You're right, that seems like a work she would probably have been familiar with. In fact, it was one of the books found among Robespierre's things at the Duplays: http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/ahrf_0003-4436_1992_num_287_1_1479?luceneQuery=%28%2B%28content%3Arobespierre+title%3Arobespierre%5E2.0+fullContent%3Arobespierre%5E100.0+fullTitle%3Arobespierre%5E140.0+summary%3Arobespierre+authors%3Arobespierre%5E5.0+illustrations%3Arobespierre%5E4.0+bibrefs%3Arobespierre%5E4.0+toctitles%3Arobespierre%5E4.0+toctitles1%3Arobespierre%5E3.0+toctitles2%3Arobespierre%5E2.0+toctitles3%3Arobespierre%29+%2B%28content%3Aduplay+title%3Aduplay%5E2.0+fullContent%3Aduplay%5E100.0+fullTitle%3Aduplay%5E140.0+summary%3Aduplay+authors%3Aduplay%5E5.0+illustrations%3Aduplay%5E4.0+bibrefs%3Aduplay%5E4.0+toctitles%3Aduplay%5E4.0+toctitles1%3Aduplay%5E3.0+toctitles2%3Aduplay%5E2.0+toctitles3%3Aduplay%29+%2B%28content%3Alivres+title%3Alivres%5E2.0+fullContent%3Alivres%5E100.0+fullTitle%3Alivres%5E140.0+summary%3Alivres+authors%3Alivres%5E5.0+illustrations%3Alivres%5E4.0+bibrefs%3Alivres%5E4.0+toctitles%3Alivres%5E4.0+toctitles1%3Alivres%5E3.0+toctitles2%3Alivres%5E2.0+toctitles3%3Alivres%29%29+AND+%28+%2Baccess_right%3A%28free%29+%29&words=robespierre&words=100&words=140&words=duplay&words=livres&words=free (That's a ridiculously long link, I apologize.) If she didn't have her own copy, she could have borrowed his (assuming it actually belonged to him).

I suppose it is true that the lack of any extensive mention of politics in Élisabeth's memoirs doesn't necessarily make her apolitical, especially considering her audience. If we were to assume that, we would also have to assume that because she barely mentions her sisters, she never interacted with them, which I think even Yalom would surely find ridiculous. There is however some positive evidence, if not for Élisabeth's lack of interest in politics, at least for her naïveté: when she writes that her family considers her "étourdie" and her comment regarding the harvests. It is of course never safe to assume anything, but these qualities, along with what seems to be the focus of her memoirs and correspondence certainly at least suggest that she was likely not engaging in sophisticated political analysis, at least not at the age of 20. Though I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to disagree with anyone putting forward a coherent argument to the contrary.