Accounts of Committee meeting on March 30, '94 (when Danton's arrest was ordered)??

[wolfshadow713.livejournal.com]

I know that there aren't any official minutes of the March 30 joint meeting of the Committees (or any meeting, really), but there are at least partial accounts of what transpired. Does anyone know of a relatively complete account, either from some primary source document (ie. someone's memoirs) or something pieced together by historians)?

Comments

[wolfshadow713.livejournal.com]

And I must say I find the revisionist assumption that only Communists could possibly support the Revolution insulting--though I know it's part of their larger agenda to discredit the Revolution entirely.

I agree with you that this is a trend, but I don't think it is necessarily the result of intentional vindictiveness so much as the apparently dominant societal outlook on politics and history. Essentially, there seems a trend to view a focus on political abstractions or idealism with a certain degree of contempt, as though too great an interest in them is foolish, immature, or dangerous. Therefore, I think there is a tendency to right of the revolutionaries from the start as silly dreamers or dangerous radicals for what they believed and wanted to achieve rather than for what they actually ended up doing.

That said, if you want to see a true example of academic vindictiveness (and, in my opinion, dishonesty), look up a NY Times book review of Andress' The Terror and Scurr's Fatal Purity. He takes a line that in context is rather benign and quotes it out of context to imply that the whole premise of Fatal Purity is to defend and justify Robespierre--it's one thing to criticize Scurr's work by finding actual examples of her apologizing for Robespierre (and there are some), but to essentially create one's own examples implies one has an agenda beyond what should be acceptable in the study of history.

Sorry. I've digressed. I don't like seeing the honest understanding of a subject is made second to the politics of its study.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Doubtless the majority of the revisionists are not in bad faith, but many have no qualms about falsification and distortion to support their claims and seem unable to resist the tossing-around of epithets. As to their contempt of idealism on the grounds of its danger and immaturity, I continue to fail to see how complacency, corruption, and compromising of principles is at all mature or safe.

Concerning Scurr's biography, I don't think anyone short of those responsible for putting a fanged Robespierre on the cover of the National Review for the bicentennial could find it an apology for Robespierre. Scurr claims in the beginning that she tries to be Robespierre's "friend," but by the time I finished reading it, I must say my thoughts were along the lines of "with friends like that, who needs enemies?"
(The reason I object to this is of course that people will, like that reviewer, be inclined to take her book as a defense, and then think: "See even his defenders don't see him in a particularly good light"--which shifts the center of the debate far into reactionary territory.)

[wolfshadow713.livejournal.com]

The quote that you mention--the one about being a "friend"--is actually the one to which I was alluding. I needn't elaborate very much to give you an idea of how the NY Times twisted that. But the NY Times book review is notoriously biased, so what can one expect?

What the more moderate revolutionaries found out is proving true for the more reasonable historians: being the voice of reason in the middle of a controversy is often the most dangerous position to take.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Yes, I can see how easily that might have been twisted. And then, it's really a pity the NY Times in general is so biased on such subjects, especially as it's so widely trusted.

I would agree with that, but with one caveat, which is that the position of the voice of reason needn't necessarily--as many wrongly assume--be that which is squarely in the middle of the opposing sides.

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

On your first comment above, the likes of John Gray? http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/jul/07/philosophy.politics . Horrible, keeps turning up in newspapers and political weeklies slagging off Jacobinism and Utopian idealists in general, and never lets small matters like 'facts' get in the way of his pontificating.