The whole Fabre thing, it just reminds me of how hard it is to prove a negative, particularly if you are not especially well versed on a subject. I couldn't have said with any certainty three months ago that there wasn't some source somewhere saying one of the chaps in the galleries was meant to be Fabre because he was for some reason in David's front room when he was sketching it and needed to borrow a face. Six months ago I couldn't have said with any certainty he wasn't a deputy.I think Wadja is being deliberately obscure here.
After all, there is apparently a source for the Saint-Just hat-meet-fire episode after all, although I have no idea if it's a decent one as the book I found it in doesn't cite sources. (That's not much of a recommendation.)
It's also really hard to find objective sources if you aren't a student or a professional historian. (One thing that really kills me, my Auntie is doing an Open University history degree, they use Citizens as their teaching text. I know it's not Oxford or anything but if someone is willing to pay money and give their free time to learn about history out of genuine interest surely they deserve better than this? I know they want the courses to be accessible but...but...just no. Also, patronizing as hell, come to think of it.) A lot of what I learnt at school seems to have disappeared in the whole the Revolution was a disaster waiting to happen from the word go school of thought, which seems to have won the bookshelves and most of the internet.
Besides, the Revolutionaries weren't exactly fond of corporal punishment - the Commune had just passed a decree against it.
I know, I loved that. It's just one of those things in history that just seem to zap through the years and reach into today. I remember when studying it there was a big debate about corporal punishment and all the right wing press up in arms about the "right" to discipline your child. (Possibly the same right wingers who would love Danton and it's title character. Irony huh)
And, of course, I could go on about, say, Saint-Just, as well...
Do you know the odd thing about Saint-Just? He's almost completely vanished from recent English language histories. I've not read all of Fatal Purity because it's in a bookshop across from where I work and I'm loath to spend money on it, but I have been shabby and given it a good flick through and he seems barely in it other than a perfunctory mention when the narrative can't do without him, which is odd treatment of one of Robespierre's closest allies. It's pretty much the same story in the other five or so books there on the French Revolution. They'll mention he wrote a fanboy letter, made his first speech against the kings trial, failed to finish a speech on 9th Thermidor and rather stoically died on the 10th. This makes it rather difficult to form an informed opinion on him.
The major thing that Robespierre was "pure" of, being, of course, corruption, I find it more than a little disturbing that this seems to be the aspect of Robespierre that bothers people the most.
Giving the bothered the benefit of the doubt, I'd say for "corrupt" they might read "compromise", and I think as most people do make compromises, and perhaps feel guilty about them, Robespierre will always look like this impossible, inflexible ideal that makes people feel awkward and guilty and like they are being held up to an impossibly high standard. I also am not sure this is a wholly accurate picture of Robespierre, but if you are trying to learn about him at present it's the most commonly occurring image one is going to come across.
Jordan fears to have the same labels ascribed to him, as they so often are to academics, unfortunately.
I think there is something in that, definately. And I think that it's often said that the only way to remain ideologically pure is to stay in the academies. So I can see why Robespierre is a rather tempting target to attack if one wishes to defend oneself against the charge of being an out-of-touch theorist who has no concept about what goes on in the real world.
![[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: 2010-03-11 12:30 am (UTC)The whole Fabre thing, it just reminds me of how hard it is to prove a negative, particularly if you are not especially well versed on a subject. I couldn't have said with any certainty three months ago that there wasn't some source somewhere saying one of the chaps in the galleries was meant to be Fabre because he was for some reason in David's front room when he was sketching it and needed to borrow a face. Six months ago I couldn't have said with any certainty he wasn't a deputy.I think Wadja is being deliberately obscure here.
After all, there is apparently a source for the Saint-Just hat-meet-fire episode after all, although I have no idea if it's a decent one as the book I found it in doesn't cite sources. (That's not much of a recommendation.)
It's also really hard to find objective sources if you aren't a student or a professional historian. (One thing that really kills me, my Auntie is doing an Open University history degree, they use Citizens as their teaching text. I know it's not Oxford or anything but if someone is willing to pay money and give their free time to learn about history out of genuine interest surely they deserve better than this? I know they want the courses to be accessible but...but...just no. Also, patronizing as hell, come to think of it.) A lot of what I learnt at school seems to have disappeared in the whole the Revolution was a disaster waiting to happen from the word go school of thought, which seems to have won the bookshelves and most of the internet.
Besides, the Revolutionaries weren't exactly fond of corporal punishment - the Commune had just passed a decree against it.
I know, I loved that. It's just one of those things in history that just seem to zap through the years and reach into today. I remember when studying it there was a big debate about corporal punishment and all the right wing press up in arms about the "right" to discipline your child. (Possibly the same right wingers who would love Danton and it's title character. Irony huh)
And, of course, I could go on about, say, Saint-Just, as well...
Do you know the odd thing about Saint-Just? He's almost completely vanished from recent English language histories. I've not read all of Fatal Purity because it's in a bookshop across from where I work and I'm loath to spend money on it, but I have been shabby and given it a good flick through and he seems barely in it other than a perfunctory mention when the narrative can't do without him, which is odd treatment of one of Robespierre's closest allies. It's pretty much the same story in the other five or so books there on the French Revolution. They'll mention he wrote a fanboy letter, made his first speech against the kings trial, failed to finish a speech on 9th Thermidor and rather stoically died on the 10th. This makes it rather difficult to form an informed opinion on him.
The major thing that Robespierre was "pure" of, being, of course, corruption, I find it more than a little disturbing that this seems to be the aspect of Robespierre that bothers people the most.
Giving the bothered the benefit of the doubt, I'd say for "corrupt" they might read "compromise", and I think as most people do make compromises, and perhaps feel guilty about them, Robespierre will always look like this impossible, inflexible ideal that makes people feel awkward and guilty and like they are being held up to an impossibly high standard. I also am not sure this is a wholly accurate picture of Robespierre, but if you are trying to learn about him at present it's the most commonly occurring image one is going to come across.
Jordan fears to have the same labels ascribed to him, as they so often are to academics, unfortunately.
I think there is something in that, definately. And I think that it's often said that the only way to remain ideologically pure is to stay in the academies. So I can see why Robespierre is a rather tempting target to attack if one wishes to defend oneself against the charge of being an out-of-touch theorist who has no concept about what goes on in the real world.