revolution_fr | Some recommendations

Entry tags:

Some recommendations

I'm just stopping by to highly recommend the works of the historian Olivier Blanc, whose book Les hommes de Londres: Histoire secrète de la Terreur I'm in the process of reading. In this particular book, which has unfortunately not been translated into English (nor is it available for sale anywhere on the internet that I could find, despite its having come out in 1989!) Blanc makes a rather convincing argument for Barère's having been an agent paid by Pitt to undermine the Republic. I know that may sound on the paranoid side, but he has truckloads of documentation to prove it.

In any case, I believe the only books of Blanc's that have been translated into English are a book on 18th century architecture, which of course is not strictly related to the Revolution, and one called La dernière lettre: Prisons et condamnés de la Révolution, 1793-1793 and translated somewhat loosely as Last Letters: Prisons and Prisoners of the French Revolution, 1793-1794. I've only read excerpts from it, but from what I've read it seems worth recommending, especially as it's prefaced by Michel Vovelle.

From that particular book, I even have a picture for you, which you may not have seen before. (I know I hadn't.)

In case you can't read the caption - admittedly, it is a bit fuzzy - it says "Lucille Duplessis Epouse de Camille Desmoulins" or "Lucille Duplessis, wife of Camille Desmoulins."

My translation of Blanc's caption is, "'Good evening, my dear maman, a tear escapes from my eyes; it is for you. I am about to go to sleep in the calm of innocence.' Last note of Lucile Desmoulins, 13 April 1794. Writing and drawing (by Brune, the future marshal) conserved in the Historical Library of the City of Paris."

Also, on a completely unrelated note, read Timothy Tackett's Becoming a Revolutionary: The Deputies of the National Assembly and the Origins of the French Revolution. It is made of win.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Taking money is one thing; actually doing the thing you were paid for, is quite another. Norman Hampson, who cannot be called a radical, once described Barère as the lowest of all the revolutionaries. But Barère worked tirelessly for the Republic in the year II just like the other members of the CPS. For that he surely deserves praise. During the Reaction, he nearly went to Cayenne with Billaud and Collot, to whom he had stayed loyal (though perhaps he had no choice and it is true that he escaped deportation in the last minute). This was followed by a difficult exile in the Restoration, during which he never renounced his republicanism. In regard to corruption, still in 1794 Barère was forced to borrow money of family friends to sustain himself (one can interpret this as one may!) and he notably died in near poverty, selling of his possessions one by one in the last years of his life. Perhaps Barère accepted money, as many others, and perhaps he led too luxurious a life at various points - it is highly doubtful, however, that he actively tried to undermine the Revolution; if this had been so, for what did he work so hard during all those years?

The reasons Blanc gives are much more complicated than a simple question of, was he taking money or not - in fact, it is precisely Barère's actions, as well as his connections with a network of English secret agents, that are called into question here. I'm afraid I can't summarize them here, because, to be fair, it's not a question that can be summed up in a sentence or two. You don't have to agree with Blanc's argument, but I would suggest reading it before dismissing it.

Thank you! I have read this book, actually, but it is a while ago. I remember it also dealing with Brissot and a number of other 'suspicious' people. As far as I remember - but this is a while ago, so please excuse my ignorance - that I did not find his argument about Barère particularly convincing, nor his evidence, but your entry made me want to read this book again and I certainly will. I think what I meant to say here was that Barère always seems to be singled out for particular criticism and that I find this puzzling, given his year-long engagement for the Revolution. Why is this man so despised today - especially since he seems so well-liked by many of his contemporaries? But this is probably a question that Leo Gershoy in 'A Reluctant Terrorist' addresses much better than I - and this had made me want to read that one again, too, so thank you very much for this interesting post on Blanc. : )

Actually - so sorry - I just realised that I have in fact NOT read the book you talked about! I have read 'La corruption sous la terreur instead'. Does this mean that the one you have has more (better?) details on Barère? Is 'La corruption' a different version or a completely new argument? As I said, it has been ages since I read 'La corruption' and I just remember that it had a section headed 'circle around Barère' or something like that, which I, personally, found rather vague. But I would be very interested in 'Les hommes de Londres' and of course willing to change my opinion - thank you so much for mentioning all this on here and please excuse my stupidity - I am much too easily tempted to jump to Barère's defence! : )

There's a whole chapter in Les hommes de Londres devoted entirely to Barère and he's an important figure in the rest of the book as well. I've not yet read La corruption sous la Terreur, although I intend to. Les hommes de Londres doesn't deal as much with corruption per se, as it does with espionage. At any rate, it's just Blanc's interpretation--I found it convincing, but he could be wrong.

I more than understand the impulse to jump the defense of Revolutionaries in general, but I think it's important to take note of when something is a foundationless slander and when it's a reasoned argument based on available evidence and act accordingly. (I've been guilty of not doing so myself however, so perhaps I'm not the best one to talk...)

Thank you so much for this - I will try to get hold of this book and see for myself, as you suggest! : ) I absolutely agree with you on the need to think first before jumping to the defense of revolutionaries. And I am, without doubt, very guilty of not doing so enough. But perhaps it is always when somebody seems to gets bad press all the time, or very frequently, (such as Barère, or Saint-Just for that matter) that one is more easily led to defending them without evaluating the arguments against them. I certainly have done so, in both their cases. Also, I often think that they all - or many of them - deserve better treatment, simply because of the difficulties they were facing, which we cannot possibly relive or fully comprehend. Thank you so much for bringing this book to my attention - I am hoping that there will be a better argument/evidence than in the one that I read, and who knows, perhaps it will really change how I see Barère!

You're absolutely right. I'm so glad I could be of help.

He always reminds me of Jack Straw (doesn't stick his neck out, stays out of the faction fighting, survives...)

Hehe, yes. He was a bit like that. But younger and better looking. LOL.

Since I can read French I will certainly keep an eye out for this book.

I suppose it is only fair to say that any history of espionage can cause problems unless you are sure of having all the information...that at the end of the game everyone shows all their cards! I'm reminded of all the unsolved enigmas of the Cold War they are trying to resolve now that they have more access to Soviet sources.

If Barère was taking money from the English he could have only pretended to be cooperating to gather intelligence from them or feed them disinformation. Does Blanc discuss that possiblity?

There is a great deal of evidence that has been discovered only recently. Much more time has passed since the Revolution than since the Cold War and all the protagonists of the former are dead, which is very helpful.

The focus in really not so much on the money Barère was taking from the English as his actions. Blanc is arguing in a manner completely opposite to what you suggest; instead of saying, "Barère was taking money, therefore he must have been doing Pitt's bidding," he starts by observing that some of Barère's actions are suspicious or difficult to explain if one supposes him a sincere republican doing what he thinks is best for France and then from there investigates Barère's connections and possible motives.

I suppose we still are left with the problem that a good double or triple agent has to appear to be acting in the interests of the side he or she wants to fool. And any researcher should at least consider that possiblity even if ultimately they don't agree with it.

But I might be fooling myself until I read the book!

Oh, he considers the possibility; whether he does so adequately or not is for you to decide--once you've read it.

Oddly enough, Amazon.fr wouldn't even admit that the book existed at first. It only showed up when I used the author and part of the title. It wouldn't give it to me with the author or with the author and the full title.

So it must be top-secret!

I was at least hoping for some reviews...but no luck!

No, it's very hard to find. I couldn't buy it anywhere on the internet - I finally had to get it on interlibrary loan. If I were only very slightly more paranoid I would say it must be some kind of conspiracy...

Ha! Perhaps the Masons are responsible!

If we're going that route, I can think of more likely candidates.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Some recommendations

Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!

Re: Poor Barère!