It seems strange and I often ponder why it is as such. Why 200 years later, it could still be such a passionate fight for him or against him. In fact, I think that he, like Robespierre, provoked it himself. It's unconscious (or not; it depends). They have personalities you cannot possibly forget, they don't want want you to forget them and, in a way or another, History fobids it. Even if you do try, you realise that you cannot tell the story of the French Revolution without mentionning them -- at the very least, you cannot tell the story of the French Revolution without mentionning Thermidor. For this, you cannot forget them -- and even if you tried, you couldn't, because they're on the path of History. I think you can't avoid being attracted to read about them, to know them and thus you hate or you love. Most importantly, there are the ideals or "horrors" they represent or seem to represent. But it's deeper than just that: in most cases, the hatred, or love (and I plead guilty to the love), is too irrational, completely outside from the scientifical debate, overtly partial, to be only superficial. I think it is true that they awake something: hatred for the political opponents, for the cynical ones who have been deceived and disappointed with idealism and "utopia"; love for those who feel close to their political idealism, those who see hope through them. I think you can't ignore Saint-Just and Robespierre, because they awake political engagement -- not to remind, again, how much historiography is intertwined with contemporary politics, from the right to the left, from neoliberalism to social-democracy, from fascism to communism, and for the survival of our democracies.
I've read Vinot's biography (but not Curtis') and he said: "And if [Saint-Just], when he lived and after his death, provoked judgements so divided and different, it's that the reasons to hate him (but not to scorn him) are as strong as those to love him (but not to admire him)." It summarises, I guess.
I don't have what Thuillier wrote -- I didn't know he had... I know Gateau wrote something in the preface of the Fragments des Institutions républicaines which were published in 1800, but I don't have the whole thing completely, since it's quoted in Vinot.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-08-09 03:05 pm (UTC)I've read Vinot's biography (but not Curtis') and he said: "And if [Saint-Just], when he lived and after his death, provoked judgements so divided and different, it's that the reasons to hate him (but not to scorn him) are as strong as those to love him (but not to admire him)." It summarises, I guess.
I don't have what Thuillier wrote -- I didn't know he had... I know Gateau wrote something in the preface of the Fragments des Institutions républicaines which were published in 1800, but I don't have the whole thing completely, since it's quoted in Vinot.