Welcome to 1789...

Because, honestly, what is falsification of history if not, for example, pretending that David had to erase Fabre from his painting of the "Tennis Court Oath" when not only was Fabre never in the original picture, he was also not present at the event portrayed?

I've been thinking about this because that was rather a WTF moment for me as well. I mean why not use Mirabeau? He was there and in the drawing and he's mentioned in the film as a political undesirable and I think there's a crack theory that the smashing of his statues etc was the start of Soviet "improved" history. Maybe I'm being a bit over suspicious, but I think they might have used Fabre because he is such a minor character most people with a high school education but without a specialist interest would only have a very vague idea of who Fabre was and couldn't confidently tell you whether he was in the Tennis Court Oath or not whereas more people might know Mirabeau is.

I thought it odd that Lucile wasn't arrested in Danton too, surely it would make things look a whole lot more totalitarian if they showed the families of political suspects being menaced? I'm not sure if Wadja might have thought that was going too far politically to get the film shown in Eastern Bloc Poland, although he would have had the excuse it was historical truth.

If I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt it looks like he altered history to allow him to get in some idealising of a non-political woman, beautiful, devoted to her family, ~~not about to slap Danton with a sexual harassment suit when he gropes up her arse~~ who becomes assertive only when those she loves are threatened. Compare and contrast with the evil politicised "maid Duplay."

The two works actually have a lot in common, come to think of it.

They both serve up huge portions of misogyny with a side dish of homophobia. It's quite amusing as Mantel claims to hate Wadja's Robespierre but has in effect written him as an almost identical character except straighter and with nicer waistcoats.

like in PoGS, this is mostly at the expense of his friends, family, and colleagues.

But Robespierre didn't have friends family and colleagues. He was alone, the sole voice of the people in direct communion with Jean-Jacques and the supreme being . . . blah blah sodding blah. That's ideology for you, it'll always leave you with no mates.

It's still amazing how many people who think they know about history still write that Robespierre lived alone: There's a very bad example here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3652168/Sea-green-Robespierre-mad-as-a-fish.html , and while I'm at it doesn't Fatal Purity sound more like an anorexia memoir than a book about a politician? Also, is there any evidence at all that Robespierre was mad? There's a big difference between very stressed and out and out psychotic.

From:

You make an interesting point there. Why not use a figure that people have actually heard of? On the other hand, it's possible that they used Fabre simply because he was a Dantoniste, to keep the focus on Danton and his friends. Mirabeau really belongs to an earlier period of the Revolution too (by necessity, since he died in 1791, but also, his statues were long since smashed by spring of 1794). Also, anyone who's seen the various drafts of David's painting - and it's pretty, famous, I think - would notice that Mirabeau is still in it. They could, I suppose, if they had cared about accuracy, tried to go into the (largely political) reasons that such paintings weren't finished, but I suppose it looks a lot worse to erase someone from a commemorative painting than to simply leave it unfinished.

I really don't know why he didn't depict Lucile's arrest. I mean, maybe the ribbon-thing she did at the end was supposed to be symbolic of her own death, but if it was, it wasn't very effective. I mean, I have a feeling the reaction he was looking for was not "WTF," but that was my reaction, and the reaction of everyone I've talked to whose seen the film about that incident. I agree that Wajda is trying to keep Lucile unpoliticized. And if cared more about historical accuracy than he does, I would say that maybe he ends the film before Lucile's arrest because he didn't want to get into the whole question of prison conspiracies, which were certainly political, and with which Lucile was almost certainly involved (though probably ineffectually). However, if he didn't feel comfortable using that as a pretext for Lucile's arrest, I can' think that he would have had much scruple about making something up. So I really don't know.

As for Éléonore in "Danton," the falsification there is as blatant as it could possibly be. Her brother was 15 or 16 at the point the film takes place, so she obviously would not be giving him a bath, or lessons, or discipline of any kind. (But especially not the bath. D:) In fact, he wasn't even at home. He was either away at school or with Le Bas (I don't remember which off the top of my head, but he definitely wasn't at home). Besides, the Revolutionaries weren't exactly fond of corporal punishment - the Commune had just passed a decree against it, and Saint-Just wrote in his Institutions républicaines that whoever strikes a woman or a child would be banished from his ideal republic. There is also no possible way she could strike a servant, unless she was someone else's servant (which would be bizarre), because the Duplays didn't have any.

And where are the rest of the Duplays in "Danton"? They're missing because the Dantonistes are the only ones who are allowed to have real families, because of the symbolism Wajda is trying to achieve. As you say, "That's ideology for you, it'll always leave you with no mates." And, of course, I could go on about, say, Saint-Just, as well...

It's quite amusing as Mantel claims to hate Wadja's Robespierre but has in effect written him as an almost identical character except straighter and with nicer waistcoats.
How very true. Oh the irony.

From:

I would disagree in a small point: Wajda's Lucille is not unpoliticized. In fact, it's the most political Lucille I have seen in films. She writes Desmoulins' articles, even her looks are not stereotypically feminine. Just compare her to the Lucille of RF or LTeLV. I am puzzled by Wajda not taking avantage of Lucille's end.

From:

You're probably right. It's been a long time since I've seen "Danton," thankfully.

From:

She writes Desmoulins' articles, even her looks are not stereotypically feminine.

I can't remember that bit - was I looking away? I'm obviously hanging off the subtitles, so I do miss rather a lot. She becomes activist, certainly but from what I remember, it was mainly in defence of her family.

From:

She appears as writing Desmoulins' paper. When I'll have some time, I will look for the part of the movie in youtube and link you to it.

From:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxI4Bj9UfO8&feature=related

Here, I have found it.

From:

Thanks! I completely missed that part.

And she's looking after baby Horace too. Dantoniste multi-tasking!

From:

Modern superwoman (Central European style), she cannot bother Desmoulins with actual work of any kind, can she? ;-)

From:

(Continued from above >.>) I've seen that article you link to before, unfortunately for my own sanity. There's certainly some evidence that Robespierre, *felt* alone, especially towards the end, but that's not the same thing as being alone. People must be (more or less deliberately?) conflating the two.

doesn't Fatal Purity sound more like an anorexia memoir than a book about a politician?
Now that I think of it, yes, it does. I've always hated that title - I hated the book too, but that's another story. 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. I mean, I understand that corrpt politicians might feel threatened by it - thus explaining the mad rush during the bicentennial for them to declare themselves for Danton over Robespierre, as well as, going further back, the popularity of Danton during the 3rd Republic - but historians? Unless there's a lot more corruption going on in academic circles than even I would have supposed, I really can't understand why historians would feel that way as well.

Also, is there any evidence at all that Robespierre was mad?
I've never seen this argument made in any serious work of history. Actually, I've never seen it made in any non-serious work of history either (though, admittedly, I don't read many of those). I've only ever seen anyone say Robespierre was mad on the internet, which leads me to conclude that it is nothing but an internet meme.

Okay, sure, I've seen (incredibly annoying) psychoanalytic biographies that claim that everything Robespierre did in his life was because of his early loss of his parents (as if this were actually uncommon in the 18th century), but that's not really the same thing as claiming that he was insane. Hell, even that infamous article by David P. Jordan which opens with, "[Robespierre] was unworldly, resentful, vain, egotistical, susceptible to flattery, contemptuous of or indifferent to all the social pleasures except conversation, guarded and suspicious, his innermost self carefully shielded by ancien régime manners. As a politician he was equally compromised, being inflexible, unforgiving, ill at ease in public, secretive, stiff and pedantic as a speaker (with an unpleasing and not very powerful voice), lacking the common touch, preoccupied. As a political and social thinker, he was annoyingly fastidious, adroit and closely focused rather than original, prone to substitute Jacobin rhetorical formulae for logical steps, obsessively self-regarding, too tied to circumstances to formulate general principles (or disentangle those he held from the personalities and issues of the moment), enthralled by abstractions" doesn't mention insanity in this litany of supposed faults (none of which I have noticed in my study of him, but then, this list does seem fueled by a rather unprofessional level of vitriol, which I can only make sense of by supposing that Jordan fears to have the same labels ascribed to him, as they so often are to academics, unfortunately).

...Oh dear, now who's ranting? I do apologize for going on so long.

From:

Rant away - I'm fascinated.

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.

From:

I had a very long comment that brilliantly said everything it was I was trying to say, and then the internet ate the whole damn thing, even after I copied it. This is why I hate the internet. I'll summarize as best I can.

I think Wadja is being deliberately obscure here.
Yes. The whole film was doing this. Wajda traded on his audience's ignorance in order to manipulate public opinion. If everyone in the audience had been well informed about the events of Spring 1794, his film would not have worked, at least not in the way he wanted. Cf, good films like "La Terreur et la Vertu" which offers an interpretation which could be disputed, but not immediately proven wrong on a factual level by anyone who wanted to do the research or "Les mariés de l'an deux," which though intended more for entertainment than anything else, was conscientious about its use of history - any fudging was to further the plot or the comedy, not to manipulate the audience.

there is apparently a source for the Saint-Just hat-meet-fire episode after all
Probably comes from a memoir, although I don't recall of the top of my head.

maelicia would know. Anyway, for obvious reasons, even though memoirs are technically primary sources, you have to be careful with them. Memoirists have agendas just like everyone else, of course.

It's also really hard to find objective sources if you aren't a student or a professional historian.
Less difficult in France, but still, very true and very tragic. This is a large part of the reason I translate.

One thing that really kills me, my Auntie is doing an Open University history degree, they use Citizens as their teaching text.
Absolutely heinous. Back when I was applying to college, a rather prestigious liberal arts college was using PoGS as a starting point for its French Revolution course. Of course, I suppose there might be non-horrible ways to do this--such as pointing out all the book's flaws from a historical standpoint--but the course description made me rather wary. I didn't end up applying there.

It's just one of those things in history that just seem to zap through the years and reach into today.
There are a lot of those, aren't there?

He's almost completely vanished from recent English language histories.
I had a lot more to say about this originally, but basically it all boils down to: for once, I don't have a theory about this. It's also not entirely new. I've seen histories from all different eras which only mention Saint-Just to say that he died with Robespierre.

Giving the bothered the benefit of the doubt, I'd say for "corrupt" they might read "compromise"
I think that is probably how they think about it. Which raises a lot of interesting questions: whether Robespierre was really incapable of all kinds of compromise, what do we mean by compromise, to what extent is compromise viewed as positive or negative now and in the 18th century, and what do we as individuals think?

The obvious answer as far as Robespierre is concerned is that he didn't compromise on principle. (I think it's quite likely that he did a great deal of compromising on details that didn't concern principles, just based on the knowledge I have right now, but I haven't made a study of it.) For example, his position relative to the debate on slavery went something like this: Robespierre, "Slavery is wrong and should be abolished, see Article 1 of the Declaration of Rights"; colonial lobby, "Not only must slavery be maintained, but free blacks must also be denied access to citizenship"; compromise view: "Let's maintain slavery but give free blacks civil rights"; Robespierre: "I denounce your compromise. Again, see Article 1 of the Declaration of Rights." Personally, I think this kind of refusal to compromise is laudable. Some people would say, "laudable, yes, but not practical," to which I would reply, "bullshit." But that's just me. Robespierre would be more refined about it. (Which, btw, is another thing people seem to have a problem with. They don't like Robespierre's personality type, so they take it out on his politics.)

From:

sibylla_oo
2010-03-16 07:08 pm UTC (link)
Comment Posted Successfully
"He's almost completely vanished from recent English language histories."

My little theory is that this disappearance of other CPS members has to do with today's historiography's 1) love for strong king-like figures (therefore reduction of the Year Two to the struggle between Titans: Danton and Robespierre, Liberal Democracy vs. Totalitarianism...bleahghhhh) 2)the claim that Robespierre was a Mao-like dictator who decided everything - this makes the others quite irrelevant ("Robespierre's henchmen"), if not directly dangerous for the historian in question, as their very existence shows how nonsensical this interpretation is.

From:

That makes a great deal of sense, especially the second point. The first, while also, I think, accurate, begs the question: Why aren't there more biographies of Danton then?

From:

Because anton was still a radical revolutionary and leader of the masses. He is only comfortable figure IN CONTRAST to Robespierre, not on his own, as he still has a subversive potential.

From:

However, the question becomes murkier when we talk about what some might consider a kind of internal compromise. When is a change in position an evolution of ideas, and at what point is it a compromise? Take, for example, Robespierre's views on the monarchy. When he became a republican, was he compromising with the current political climate and possibilities? Or, on the other hand, was he compromising before when he supported a constitutional monarchy? Or both? Or did his thoughts on the matter merely change with more reflection? Or was it a combination of all three? However you slice, it there is almost certainly some kind of compromise involved.

To look at it from yet another perspective, there are probably those who say "Robespierre was incapable of compromise" and mean "Robespierre was self-absorbed and didn't care about the opinions of others." Which I don't think is true. You can't expect anyone with principles to do anything but combat the ideas of those whose principles are diametrically opposed. I mean, what do people want Robespierre to have done, said (to continue by example from above) to the colonial lobby, "you know, you have a point about the British potentially getting control of our colonies if we abolish slavery"? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. And situations where it is likely that he listened attentively to someone else's views and adopted him are likely to be invisible. Take Lepeletier's education bill, for example. We only ever see him proposing it to the Convention after Lepeletier's assassination, on the latter's behalf. We don't know what his views on education were before he read it. Quite possibly they were different but Lepeletier managed to convince him. We shouldn't assume that everything Robespierre ended up supporting was something he supported from the beginning, and still less that he came up with all his ideas in isolation from his colleagues.

I think as most people do make compromises, and perhaps feel guilty about them
If people are making the kind of compromises they feel guilty about, they need to realize that that's their own issue and deal with it accordingly instead of taking out on historical figures. Beating up on Robespierre because you can't beat up on your conscience speaks much better of him than it does of you. I think I saw a biography of Robespierre once that called him "the conscience of the Revolution." It's very apt here.

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.
Very true. Though I always wonder what individual academics feel targeted by this as individuals when I've always seen it as a generalized attack the concept of academia. You would think they would know better than to buy into those kinds of stereotypes to the extent that they feel it's necessary to put up the kind of defense that says, "Yes, academia is like that, and this historical figure I'm studying was like that, but I'm the exception. See how relevant I can make myself, see how I can jump through all your hoops and fit myself into the mold you're really trying to prescribe for me. Not like them." Bizarre, really.

And look, my post(s) is/are long anyway! XD;

Edited Date: 2010-03-11 05:38 am (UTC)

(deleted comment)

From:

Sorry - a tangent just waylaid me. I think what I meant to say is that my French just isn't up to coming to a reasonable conclusion about La Terreur et La Vertu. There you go, you do me a long reasoned post on Robespierre and compromise and I come up with twitchy Robespierre is hot.

From:

Sorry, this is the third time I'm posting this. Tonight, I trully suck at HTML

I had a very long comment that brilliantly said everything it was I was trying to say, and then the internet ate the whole damn thing, even after I copied it

Bad internet! Eating posts is wrong. Easting posts after you've copied them is just plain evil.

Back when I was applying to college, a rather prestigious liberal arts college was using PoGS as a starting point for its French Revolution course.

Whaaaaaaaaaat??? My first thoughts, and perhaps it shows how desensitised I am to misogyny was -they can't be hoping to get many men on that course. Because I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable on a course built around a novel which glories so much in reducing its character into some sort of objectified suffering sexpot.

I'm always amazed at the number of people who do seem to rec PoGS as "a good starting point" or "an excellent account" to people wanting to know more about the revolution when to me it just seemed like a thoroughly generic book with historical detail thrown in as interesting backdrop. I think what they might mean is that the book presents Robespierre, Camille and Danton as recognisable 21st century tropes (geek boy, fey-boi, big hearted wideboy) who don't alienate the reader by doing anything too obviously eighteenth century and aren't unduly obsessed with anything as weird as a revolution.

As you say, there are probably non-vile ways of teaching that course, but it does make you wonder why they bother giving such a privilege to such a trite book.

Perhaps the whole Citizens thing made everyone forget that there is supposed to be a difference between history books and historical fiction. At least PoGs gets Camille's age right.

Robespierre, "Slavery is wrong and should be abolished, see Article 1 of the Declaration of Rights"; colonial lobby, "Not only must slavery be maintained, but free blacks must also be denied access to citizenship"; compromise view: "Let's maintain slavery but give free blacks civil rights"; Robespierre: "I denounce your compromise. Again, see Article 1 of the Declaration of Rights."

See also his "Can someone please explain to me why sovereignty only resides in the people that pay more than three working days tax? No? And what's all this silver mark rubbish?" Constituent Assembly: "Okay, the sliver mark is rubbish, I grant you, we'll get rid of it but we'll put up the initial voting qualification to five days tax, deal?" Robespierre: "Which part of you cannot be half-free do you not get?"

This is a large part of the reason I translate.

Its appreciated. Very much so.

They don't like Robespierre's personality type, so they take it out on his politics.
I've been thinking about this whole Danton and Robespierre thing and maybe its a really superficial reading, but sometimes I think its as simple as this: I have a friend who doesn't drink. When she comes out with me she really bothers people, even though she's very sociable and friendly, there are some people who cannot help getting shifty or seeing it as a judgment, almost to the point of intolerance, when it is just a personal preference. I think Robespierre affects people like that.

Cf, good films like "La Terreur et la Vertu" which offers an interpretation which could be disputed, but not immediately proven wrong.

La Terreur et La Vertu really stumped me as it's extremely wordy without many visual cues and while I can just about follow it by putting faces to events my understanding of it is still extremely superfical. Fouché looks like Fouché. Robspierre is cat-eyed and blinky. Very blinky. With some jerky hand clenching thrown in. ~~Am I a real oddment or is this slightly hot?~~

I find the plant watering scene almost indescribably cute. (Oh and look Wadja, two men engaged in an intense relationship that's positive and nurturing not creepy and weird like you seem to find it.) I find Lebas' breeches inexplicably tight. And the end is just heartrending, and I wish I knew what Saint-Just and Robespierre were saying to each other at that window. ~~And he never got the chance to speak to Eléeonore.~~

From:

celine-carol.livejournal.com

"Am I a real oddment or is this slightly hot?"

I'm really glad someone else finds blinky-Robespierre (for lack of a better idea of what to call him) adorable. I wish I could find that entire movie online somewhere!

From:

Bad me. I have a secret and shameful vice for men with black ribbons in their hair that has no relation to the revolution.

The whole Robespierre one is here:

http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/xvxvg_frenchlittlelemon_la-terreur-et-la-vertu

I can't find a complete Danton one, although as Danton looks like a suckling pig enough to give me nightmares, it might be for the best.

(no subject)

From:

celine-carol.livejournal.com - Date: 2010-03-14 06:21 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

As you say, there are probably non-vile ways of teaching that course, but it does make you wonder why they bother giving such a privilege to such a trite book.
Probably an attempt to be "edgy" and "relevant." A lot of profs seem to be getting unfortunately desperate on that score, imho. Though how the Revolution could ever cease to be relevant on its own is beyond me.

Perhaps the whole Citizens thing made everyone forget that there is supposed to be a difference between history books and historical fiction.
Perhaps. Though that difference has only been very recently demarcated even without the existence of Simon Schama. And it's only gotten worse with post-modernism. Because, after all, since we can't "know" what really happened, a novel is just a good as a serious work of scholarship, right?

See also his "Can someone please explain to me why sovereignty only resides in the people that pay more than three working days tax? No? And what's all this silver mark rubbish?" Constituent Assembly: "Okay, the sliver mark is rubbish, I grant you, we'll get rid of it but we'll put up the initial voting qualification to five days tax, deal?" Robespierre: "Which part of you cannot be half-free do you not get?"
Exactly.

I have a friend who doesn't drink. When she comes out with me she really bothers people, even though she's very sociable and friendly, there are some people who cannot help getting shifty or seeing it as a judgment, almost to the point of intolerance, when it is just a personal preference. I think Robespierre affects people like that.
I think you're right about that. Sad, really.

Robspierre is cat-eyed and blinky. Very blinky. With some jerky hand clenching thrown in. Am I a real oddment or is this slightly hot?
No, it's definitely hot. XD; I also think Jean Negroni, out of all the actors who have played Robespierre in movies I've seen, looks the most like him. Or at least the most like the bust in my icon, which for some reason I've always seen as more or less what he "really" looked like. Probably because it's 3D.

True and true for the plant watering scene and Le Bas's culottes. What Saint-Just and Robespierre are saying to each other at the end is incredibly depressing. However, I think

maelicia may have transcribed it somewhere, if you want to be incredibly depressed. And it's even more depressing that he never even got to say whatever it was he needed to say to Éléonore. (Though, of course, historically, he very well could have, so that's some comfort.)

I really love those movies to death though. Especially the casting. It's the only film centred on the Revolution that actually manages to find actors who look and act like the personages they're portraying. Take Danton, for example. He's not pretty to look at, but neither was the historical Danton, and he looks much more like portraits of Danton than the Dantons I've seen in other movies. And he has a wig. I know it's part of the whole "Danton = natural and therefore good/Robespierre = unnatural and therefore monstrous" trope that Danton doesn't have a wig in other movies, or that he's constantly taking his wig off, but if you look at his portraits, he's wearing a wig in all of them. Which would kind of tend to suggest that, I don't know, HE WORE A WIG. *sighs* (Although, at the other extreme, the filmmakers of LTeLV seem to have forgotten that wigs can come off. Thus we're treated to the unintentionally hilarious spectacle of Robespierre wearing his wig while sick in bed.)

From:

Great discussion. Just a remark. Now many historians seem to attribute to totalitarian or "proto-totalitarian" regimes the invention of things that despotic monarchies and aristocratic republics practiced for millenia. The statue-smashing is historically proven to have existed in Ancient Egypt and many other places. Nihil novum....

From: