Talk:Maximilien Robespierre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France Portal

Maximilien Robespierre is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maximilien Robespierre article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] POV

The "summation" as it stands seems to be unalloyed POV. We need to find sources to quote on these matters (preferably representing diverse views on this controversial figure). -- Jmabel 05:46, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the stuff I have moved to the Summation section appears to be the only remotely objective part of the original 1911 EB text. Frankly you're right, but in the absence of anything else we have to live with it pro tem until I or someone else can articulate a coherent NPOV appraisal of Robespierre's role. He was certainly indecisive at key times, a political opprtunist par excellence, who failed at critical moments and who through fanatical motivations of his own drove much of the worst excesses of the Terror. But that is hardly NPOV either, clinically accurate thought it may be. I think the problem with history itself is that it is very difficult to be NPOV about it for all the obvious and well-worn reasons. But we have been there and done that as a topic of conversation more times than I care to recall. Sjc 12:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've now reworked this part (and renamed it to indicate that it is historians' views, rather than a "summation"). I'd like to see this expanded to be clear about multiple historians' views, but it's not my priority at the moment. I've been explicit about him being controversial. I hope eventually to expand on the remarks of Soboul or someone similar; I'd also like to get a good summary of what Schama or someone else on the right actually says about him.

Meanwhile, I've restored more of the 1911 EB text and made it clear that's what it is: the POV of a (public domain) source, quoted accurately and explicitly. The way to keep the POV neutral is not to put remarks like this in the narrative voice of the article. It's to quote them accurately and (at least eventually) try to find a balanced set of representative views and do the same with them. -- Jmabel 18:18, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that works very nicely. Still complete crap nevertheless :) Sjc 05:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] who shot M.R.?

An anon recently changed "...Robespierre was shot in the lower jaw by a young gendarme named Meda while signing an appeal to one of the sections of Paris to take up arms for him, though the wound was afterwards believed to have been inflicted by himself; and all the released deputies were once again arrested," to "The national guards under the command of Barras had little difficulty in making their way to the Hotel de Ville; In response Robespierre shot himself in the lower jaw and was later killed under the Guillotine. All the released deputies were once again arrested." A change like this, without comment, by an anonymous user is highly suspect. The old version follows the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, so I will restore it. If someone can provide an authoritative and more recent source contradicting the Britannica article, fine, but I can't think of a reason to accept this change without citiation. -- Jmabel 04:56, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think this one will be forever lost in the mists of history and confusion; there are any number of conflicting reports as to how Robespierre came by the injury to his jaw; probably the sensible thing is to flag this up as such. Sjc 06:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that covers the angles nicely, JMabel. Good work! Sjc 10:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reference: Stanley Loomis

I deleted the Stanley Loomis book from the reference because I feel that it's too sensational and not well-researched. It's certainly not a well-respected book among the academic circle. Although it's an entertaining read, I don't feel that it helps us to understand the complex situation at the time of th Terror. I don't think it offers much fresh ideas, and rather colorful descriptions such as "by [Maras'] compulsive, brusque and jerky walk, one recognised him as an assassin" makes me extremely uncomfortable. I might be biased against him because of my pro-Revolution bias. On the other hand, I don't agree with Simon Schama either, but I have much more respect for his carefully-researched work and indeed had learned a lot from him.

BTW, I'd also like to replace Thomas Carlyle's picturesque and less-than-accurate account with more recent academic books on the French Revolution, such as William Doyle's "The Oxford History of the French Revolution," or Peter McPhee's short but useful 2002 book "The French Revolution, 1789-1799." But neither of them focuses that much on Robespierre....--Middaythought 08:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Carlyle is not the most historically accurate source, but still, he's such a great read. I'd hate to drop him. (Loomis, I'm perfectly OK with losing.) -- Jmabel | Talk 05:15, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I prefer Michelet to Carlyle, but since Carlyle is available online I guess we should keep him. I've deleted the Loomis book since you have no objection, and added some intro about the books.--Middaythought 10:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A bit tough to follow

Reading the article without much knowledge of the specific time frame, I had the feeling it was difficult to follow because a lot of People are introduced in a short order and only few are described as to what they did, etc. For someone who know King Louis XVI. and Napoleon and wants to fill in the holes, I find this article a bit difficult. Also there is absolutely no mention of Napoleon to give a person a sort of relation between that what was before and that what was after. One thing that also struck me as odd was the fact that the French Revolution wasn't mentioned in at least a small sentence and all the institutions weren't put into perspective as to which sort of function they had at the time they were created. --Ebralph 15:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] nobleman

hey everyone, since Robespierre here is named 'de robespierre' logically wouldn't he be a noble? same to 'de saint just' thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.99.50 (talk • contribs) 12 Sept 2005.

'Logic' and things pertaining to France are not always comfortable bedfellows :) Sjc 05:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article shows a clear bias and a clear Pro-Robbespierre overtone to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.186.70 (talk • contribs) 17 Nov 2005.

Then I suggest you read the original EB 1911 article on which this is based for the full and unexpurgated hagiography :). Having edited out a great deal of the pro-Robespierre bias, I would be grateful if you could clearly identify those areas which I have obviously overlooked or which do not meet your criteria, or, better yet, address them yourself. Sjc 05:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Anti-Robespierrean and Antiquated Biases

I found this article for the most part to be based on outmoded and biased information. In the case of so politically charged a figure as Robespierre, opinions ought not to be cited as facts. Thus, since the style of writing history was much more based on unqualified speculation than fact in 1911, the year when the encyclopedia article which this article is based on was published, I would recommend finding more recent articles to use in the writing of this article.

I would also recommend looking at the difference between the French wikipedia article on Robespierre (much more balanced and factual) and the English one, to see how Anglo-American biases have so infiltrated our culture that we no longer recognize them.

(Note: if anyone would like to read the French article but cannot read French, I would be happy to translate it.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montagnarde1794 (talk • contribs) 12 Jan 2006.

I am french, I have read the french article and it is a very poor article. Nothing about his career of lawyer, nothing about the 31 may and 2 june 1793 events, ...Claudeh5 le 24 juin 2006

Y'know, the funny thing is that not long ago it was pretty slanted in Robespierre's favor. Certainly the 1911 EB article is not overwhelmingly hostile to Robespierre, although they do use him as an object lesson in, to use their own words, "the fatal mistake of allowing a theorist to have power." (There is no really good copy online, but here's an un-proofread scan.)

I think someone trying to NPOV this may have gone a bit overboard. In any event, on such a controversial figure, besides bare biographical facts, we should be giving historians' differing assessments. I haven't worked much on this one, and I'm sure it could use a lot of careful work. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the article link. You're right; we need to cite historians more. The main problem still remaining is that the article attempts to give reasons for Robespierre and his compatriots' actions, relying on opinions without citing their sources (e.g. that Robespierre seldom appeared in the Committee of Public Safety during the last few weeks of his life is a fact; possible reasons for this are something historians disagree on; but in the article only one viewpoint is taken and no historians are cited). -- Montagnarde1794 23:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the Neutrality is under dispute

From what I just read I can see why the Neutrality is under despute, that has to be the nicest summary of Robespierre's life I have ever seen. It definatly plays down the fact that he sent thousands to the GUillotine, I think you should concentrait on merely presenting facts rsther than displaying facts and then imediatly saying they are misleading and he was actually a great guy, that way readers can make their own assumptions and oppinions regarding Maxemillien.

sorry no! It's historically simplistic to claim the guy "sent thousands to the guillotine". The committee he was part of did that. His personal involvement is both less and more, if you see what I mean. In some ways he was less of a 'Terrorist' than many of his colleagues and a balanced article needs to say that. But towards the end of his life (the last threeor four months) he seem to have been going more than a little crazy and certainly was willing to murder many people, for the 'republic of virtue'. Both things need to be stated.

--Dee-Dee 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope this helped :) - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.172.139.121 (talk • contribs) 16 Jan 2006.

In short, Montagnarde1794 feels this article is too hostile to Robespierre and this anon things it is too friendly. -- Jmabel | Talk 14:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That indicates to me that the article is likely about right in terms of tone. The article does not engage in harsh condemnation of R's activites on the Committee of Public Safety or elsewhere, but seems to me to simply state them, state traditional critiques of Robespierre based on these actions, then comment on other, more friendly perspectives (i.e. other Jacobins were responsible and used R as a willing lightning rod, etc.) The historical book on Robsepierre is far from closed on such issues, and since the article mentions with equal respect all concerned viewpoints, and also presents undisputed facts that can't really be construed as biased against one side or the other (hard to downplay political mass murder of thousands), I find the article to be pretty solid in terms of NPOV. I think we ought to remove the neutrality tag, but perhaps we should talk about it more first. KrazyCaley 08:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article is unduly harsh any longer, but I still don't feel it to be neutral according to the mandates of this site. Whether positive or negative, statements that are clearly opinions must be cited and it would be preferable if several different opinions were represented in the main body of the article, not merely in the form of a brief section at the end, because this makes bias in the rest more likely. --Montagnarde1794 00:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Entirely legitimate. Perhaps we should formulate some sort of list of ideas considered to be opinionated in some way, then find ways to rework them into the article, or to cite or eliminate them. KrazyCaley 01:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source Citation

I'm trying to add a significant discussion of R's role in Louis XVI's Trial. Basically I want to talk about his (and other Jacobins, Saint-Just etc.) conflict with the Girondins in more detail. I made a minor addition of this sort yesterday but am hesitant to go into more detail without properly citing.

I apologize a thousand times for asking this of the kind keepers of this article rather than the more appropriate sources that likely exist, but I am an extremely new editor and am still a bit confused on how to cite in WP despite my re-review of the procedure in WP help. My source is:

The Old Regime and the French Revolution, Baker, Keith M. (Ed.) 1987, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Let's say I want to cite page 302 specifically, if that's necessary, after a paragraph with the above-mentioned content. Can someone help me out with how to perform such a citation? KrazyCaley 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

KC: I just glanced at this page on my way out a door. In this article, while you are learning, if you just get your information written down (even just in an HTML comment) I'll come in behind you and clean up. If you want to learn more, Wikipedia:Citing sources is probably the best place to start. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php is a recent innovation that I like. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

THAT'S what I was trying to figure out, the footnote-style stuff. Thanks! KrazyCaley 02:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff that could potentially be POV

Just on a quick read-through, here's stuff that I consider possible targets for reference/debate over POV/etc. This is an important article, it would be nice to remove that neutrality tag:

Early politics: "He completed his law studies with distinction and was admitted as a lawyer in 1781. He returned to Arras to seek practice and to struggle against poverty. His reputation had preceded him."

Where did this come from? Can someone give me a specific citation?

Opposition to Austrian War: "The strong men of the Commune were glad to have Robespierre's assistance, not because they cared for him or believed in him, but because of his popularity, his reputation for virtue (which had won for him the surname of "The Incorruptible"), and his influence over the Jacobin Club and its branches ubiquitous throughout France."

This might be interpreted as implying that Robespierre was swept away by/a tool of the Paris Commune. I would have no problem with eliminating this paragraph altogether. The first sentence belongs more in an article on the Paris Commune. His popularity, virtuous reputation, and influence over the Jacobin movement are discussed elsewhere.

Opposition to Austrian War: "On the meeting of the Convention the Girondins immediately attacked Robespierre; they were jealous of his influence in Paris, and knew that his single-hearted fanaticism would never forgive their intrigues with the king at the end of July. As early as September 26 the Girondists Marc-David Lasource accused him of aiming at the dictatorship; afterwards he was informed that Marat, Danton and himself were plotting to become triumvirs; and eventually on October 29 Louvet de Couvrai attacked him in a studied and declamatory harangue, abounding in ridiculous falsehoods and obviously concocted in Madame Roland's boudoir." This whole section, in addition to being messy, engages in some pretty questionable verbiage: "intrigues," "ridiculous" "obviously," and then there's the reference to the Boudoir. We should keep it, but maybe tone down the language a bit.

The whole section "Destruction of the Girondins" seems overly critical of the Girondins, and gives me the sense that the article believes the Girondins got what they had coming to them. It could also be expanded a great deal. I think the section needs to be seriously reworked to both get rid of the harsh language and to be more informative.

Creation of the CPS: "the Convention elected Robespierre to the Committee, a position he had not sought."

Questionable. Perhaps he didn't do it PUBLICLY. I think we ought to strike the dependent clause and stick with what we know for sure on this one.

Creation of the CPS: "As time progressed, Robespierre was to systematically weaken and remove his opponents within the Committee, thus enhancing both his position and his powers."

This might be debatable. I think that this view, though, is fair, and supported by significant historical evidence.

The Terror: This is the most debatable section of them all, obviously.

1st pg: The paragraph presents apologetic viewpoints as outside comments, then presents the traditionally critical view as the "article's perspective." Maybe we ought to cite critical historians, or at least have the neutral "article perspective" state that while the true extent is uncertain, Robespierre certainly had at least SOME influence.

2nd pg: This pg seems ok, but some explanation would be useful on WHY he though the Terror was necessary, and HOW he had a hand in putting it together, specifically. We should look at the Reign of Terror page, the neutrality of which is not disputed.

3rd pg: Seems to me to be a fair treatment of his dealings with the Hebertists.

Section on Dantonists: Mostly fair, but the following problems exist-

"Danton, he knew, was essentially a politician willing to negotiate for a premature peace with traitors, and that he laughed at his ideas and especially his politico-religious projects. He must have considered too that the result of his siding with Danton would probably have been fatal to himself."

Overly supportive of Robespierre's position. "premature peace with traitors" is pretty POV, in my opinion. The last sentence is highly debatable. A Jacobin-Danton coalition would have been formidable indeed, especially if Robespierre agreed to end the Terror.

"The extensive charge sheet against Danton was, 'even by the standards of the Revolutionary Tribunal, an incredibly feeble document.'"

Not only does this need a citation, it's extremely POV in even bringing it up in the absence of balancing evidence, and seems unfair to Robespierre.

pg starting "In Paris": "Through the increased efficiency of the revolutionary tribunal Paris should tremble before him as the chief member of the Committee. The Convention should pass whatever measures he might dictate."

Seems to be a pretty ambitious attempt to reach into Robespierre's mind. It implies a wish for dictatorial power at a rather early stage.

This pg: "To secure his aims, Couthon, his other ally in the Committee, proposed and carried on 10 June the drastic Law of 22 Prairial, by which even the appearance of justice was taken from the tribunal, which, as no witnesses were allowed, became a simple court of condemnation. The result of this law was that between 12 June and the 28 July, the day of Robespierre's death, no fewer than 1,285 victims perished by the guillotine in Paris. It was the bloodiest and the least justifiable period of the Terror. But before this there had taken place in Robespierre's life an episode of supreme importance, as illustrating his character and his political aims:"

This is probably the most POV pg in the article. "even the appearence of justice" is subjective- Robespierre probably thought it was just, though of course such belief is dubious. Perhaps we should substitute in "due process" for "justice." "Least-justifiable" is EXTREMELY POV and should be eliminated entirely, I think. "bloodiest" will lead people to draw their own conclusions.

Supreme Being: I think generally Robespierre's religious beliefs aren't sufficiently discussed. Little is said about the festival, or Robespierre's many speeches on the subject. That's more for expansion than anything else, though.

This section of the paragraph starting "On May 7": "he may well have believed that his position was secured and that he was at last within reach of a supreme power which should enable him to impose his belief on all France, and so ensure its happiness. The majority of the Committee found his popularity—or rather his ascendancy, for as that increased his personal popularity diminished—useful to them, since by increasing the stringency of the Terror he strengthened the position of the Committee, whilst attracting to himself, as occupying the most prominent position in it, any latent feeling of dissatisfaction at such stringency."

The beginning speculates on Robespierre's thoughts and motives, and should be changed to state the overconfidence apparently implied in his public actions.

Fall of R: "Robespierre tried in vain to get a hearing"

This needs SERIOUS expansion. Plenty of sources explain exactly how this went down, and it's an interesting story that speaks much of Robespierre's real character.

1911: The Britannica's last sentence: "In his habits and manner of life he was simple and laborious; he was not a man gifted with flashes of genius, but one who had to think much before he could come to a decision, and he worked hard all his life.""

I think this is highly questionable in light of modern evidence that suggests that Robespierre has a much greater degree of intelligence and skill at politics that might well be called genius. His long retreats before major policy pushes seem to be the only justification for the "long thought" assertion, but his detailed planning on EXTREMELY complicated matters hardly represents slowness, and Robespierre could come to good snap judgments and quick decisiveness when he needed to.

Anyway, that's all I see. I hope for comment on these thoughts soon, as I plan to change the discussed language in several points based on what we talk about here. KrazyCaley 10:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I might add a few things to that, although it does touch on many of the article's faults. Some of these might seem minor, but I think they are worth mentioning.

Firstly, paragraph two: most historians would agree that Robespierre did not really speak for the bourgeoisie, but for the petite-bourgeoisie. Also in the paragraph, the term "rabble-rousing" is somewhat biased and could be changed to less charged language. And again in that paragraph "often described as a rather impractical man" could be changed to reflect the views of both historians who agree with that statement and those who do not.

Secondly, in the first paragraph of "Family and early life": this doesn't have much to do with bias, but it would be nice to have more specific information on these genealogists.

Thirdly, again not having to do much with bias, in the third paragraph of "Early politics": I just noticed the terms Estates-General and States-General are used in the same paragraph; I think we should pick one translation and stick with it to avoid confusion. Also, in paragraph four of that section, the quote attributed to Mirabeau is not a very accurate translation of "il ira loin; il croit tous qu'il dit" ("he will go far; he believes all that he says"), although I suppose it gets the point across well enough. And as far as the assertion in paragraph six that "his voice is noted as being 'high-pitched [and] metallic,' I had read that the main problem people had had with his voice was his Artesian accent (although those factors played a part as well).

Fourthly, the sentence "The fanatical leader had found followers." in paragraph seven of "Early politic" seems biased to me, as his fanaticism would seem to be a matter opinion. Similarly, in the eighth paragraph of that section only one possible reason for Robespierre's motion that no deputies from the Constituent could sit in the Legislative Assembly is given; more historians' opinions ought to be reflected there.

Fifth: in the first paragraph of "Robespierre's opposition to war with Austria," it might be worth noting that Collot d'Herbois, future member of the Committee of Public Safety, also ranked among the opposition.

Sixth: in paragraph four of "...opposition to war..." the statement "stronger men with practical instincts of statesmanship, like Georges Danton and Billaud Varenne, were the men who made the insurrection of 10 August and took the Tuileries" seems biased, especially since Danton is not himself a wholy uncontroversial figure; Albert Mathiez, for example, argues that he can no more be called the "man of 10 August" than Robespierre himself, for various reasons, which he expounds upon in his various Revolutionary studies. Also, the first sentence of the following paragraph is biased, saying that the "strong men of the Commune were glad to have Robespierre's assistance, not because they cared for him or believed in him, but because of his popularity..." While the reasons listed are probably partial reason's for the Commune's support, there is no evidence that the men of the Commune did not care for him or believe him; this is clearly bias and as such should have to be cited or removed. Additionally, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the establishment of a revolutionary tribunal was Danton's idea (although Robespierre did support it)... but it might be useful to incorporate their reasoning here.

Seventh: I agree that the last paragraph of the "...opposition to war..." section is biased against the Girondins and needs to be re-worded. Personally I think the part about Louvet's speech attacking him could be improved by a "show don't tell" sort of method; if some of these "ridiculous falsehoods" were quoted it would allow readers to make their own decisions (not that historians tend to deny the nature of this speech; I just think it would be a better way to format this section). Additionally, I must repeat that the phrase "single-hearted fanaticism" is biased and ought, especially in this context, to be removed. The same goes for "the fanatical Robespierre" in paragraph one of "Destruction of the Girondins."

Eighth: as to paragraph three of "Foudation of the Committee of Public Safety"; I had read that Jean-Bon Saint-Andre and one of the Prieurs (I think de la Cote d'Or) were also allies of Robespierre to some degree--although not as close, obviously, as Couthon and Saint-Just. Also, I agree that the last sentence of that paragraph is pure bias, and given with no evidence, no countering opinion, and not even a citing, it seems without merit.

Ninth: as far as second paragraph in "The Terror" goes, it is true Robespierre is often regarded as the Committee's dominant spirit from the time he joined it, but only the uninformed would regard him as its creator.

Tenth: the section on the trials and executions of the Hebertists and Dantonists ought to be expanded. Aside from that, I agree that the line "'even by the standards of the Revolutionary Tribunal, an incredibly feeble document,'" must be cited or removed.

Eleventh: in paragraph seven of "The Terror," the last sentence is biased. The reasoning given for Saint-Just's mission to the army is just one opinion, and not one that I've noticed has been particularly popular among historians either; other opinions must be added for balance. Similarly, the logic of the following paragraph is faulty; he was accused of moderatism by the enrages, the remaining Hebertists, and one portion of the original Thermidorians. The rest of this paragraph is also suspect, considering that in proportion to the other members of the Committee of Public Safety, Robespierre's signature is found infrequently on documents sent to the Convention; those drafted by him are even more rare. (I can provide statistics if anyone is interested.)

Twelfth: I agree with the aforementioned critiques of paragraph nine of "The Terror."

Thirteenth: as to the Festival of the Supreme Being in paragraph ten of "The Terror," referring to Robespierre's speech as a "harangue" seems to me biased wording. Also the speculation into Robespierre's thoughts at the time does not seem to add much to the article and should probably be replaced with some other comment(s) on the Fete. And as far as popularity is difficult to measure (and not all historians are in agreement on this point) the phrase "...Committee found his popularity--or rather his ascendancy, for as that increased his personal popularity diminished" ought to be reworded. Furthermore, 9 Thermidor in embryo was a close-knit conspiracy, hardly certain of success and most historians would not agree that they "had little fear" of a "struggle between themselves and Robespierre."

Fourteenth: the last paragraph of "The Terror" only presents one view of Robespierre's absence from the Committee; there are many theories on this point. Furthermore, the calling him "not sufficiently audacious" is a bias and should not be included without showing the other side.

Fifteeth: again with the word harangue (first paragraph "Robespierre's downfall")? "Speech," or "discourse" would be more objective. Also, the cause given for 9 Thermidor is the traditional Anglo-American one, but is not the only opinion; the question for historians being whether they can trust accounts written in the immediate aftermath or by those who otherthrew Robespierre (often they find that these sources are quite unreliable, since they were written for the purpose of imputing all manner of crimes to Robespierre in order to absolve some of the more radical terrorists of all guilt--the latter goal did not work, as moderates gained control, but the habit of scapegoating Robespierre stuck).

Sixteenth: it would be preferable if someone could cite that Robespierre was guillotined "face up"; from what I've heard that was just a myth, but I could, of course, be wrong. It also might be useful to note that after the July Revolution of 1830, some Robespierristes tried to find his body and it was not there in the Errancis cemetary.

Seventeenth: "Historians' views of Robespierre" ought to be expanded.

That's all I can think of at present.

--Montagnarde1794 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything else? Is that anon who thought it was soft on R still around to give some views? KrazyCaley 23:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that at least some of the opinions can be cited to the 1911 Britannica. As it says above, "The 1911 Britannica article is a deeply flawed apology for Robespierre and should be handled with tongs", but that doesn't mean that it is uncitable for its opinions. Online copy, has some typos but generally readable. Mignet's History of the French Revolution is also online and hence searchable, and may be another citable source for some relevant opinions. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Almost ready with a reaaaaally big change. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 08:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] to pity or not to pity

I pity the fool --User page:Albino Ibis 11:47, 9 May 2006 (AEST)

[edit] Mrs. Marr's History class is the coolest

What's up Mrs. Marr.) I would dispute the assertion that Robespierre was simply a mouthpiece for the "left-wing bourgeoisie." He may have been left-wing in that he favored the revolution, but many indications point to a deep-seated sense of responsibility towards France as a unified nation. In reality, I believed Danton to be the one who claimed concern for the people, bourgeoisie or otherwise, while Robespierre worried over France. For that matter, it could be argued that Maximilien's mania for revolution resulted in isolating sociopathic behavior, such as his advocacy for The Terror. It would seem that Robespierre cared for neither his aristocratic peers nor the lower classes. But then again, I'm not an historian. 03:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC) willrams

I don't know where you would get that idea from... what histories have you been reading to come to such a conclusion? FYI: Danton supported the Terror to begin with, even before Robespierre did; also, Robespierre was not an aristocrat. --Montagnarde1794 06:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Early Politics"

Umm... does anyone know why the Early Politics section was removed? If there's no objection I don't see why it shouldn't be there. --Montagnarde1794 06:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's back. It was vandalism. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're a vandal! - User: Albino Ibis 09:25, 11 May 2006 (AEST)

[edit] Possibility of Homosexuality

I believe that the article failed to mention the possibility of Robespierre's homosexuality. If you observe the picture http://www.loyno.edu/~seduffy/tennis_court_oath.jpg you will see that Robespierre is located to the right of the man in the red suit. Need I say more? -- Albino Ibis 11:37, 9 May 2006 (AEST)

[edit] Physical Description

I would really appreciate it if someone could add a "physical descrption" to the article.

i.e. height, distictive facial features, ect....

If you can...

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.151.75.79 (talk • contribs) 10 June 2006.

[edit] Initiation of the Terror

"The Terror was initially based on Danton's idea that it was necessary to resort to extreme measures to keep France united and strong at home in order to successfully meet her enemies upon the frontier." There is certainly more than a little truth to this, but something important is missing. The institutionalization of the Terror — distinct from the Parisian sans coulottes or the certain peasants taking matters into their own hands — was, arguably, in some ways, a restoration of moderation. I wish I could cite where I've seen the argument made: I can't, offhand, and would appreciate if someone could, otherwise eventually I'll go looking. Essentially, the case is that Danton, Robespierre, et. al. recaptured control of a situation that threatened to turn into simple mob rule, retaining some degree of both bourgeois hegemony and some semblance of legality. In this view of things, it also becomes problematic whether to take Robespierre's praise of Terror at face value, or to see it as demagogy. - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] portrait - vandalism?

See Top of page - anonymous portrait of MR

That is a *Pokemon*??!!! I doubt the kind of art as depicted in that picture of green monster with a garlic clove on his back was en vogue in France in 1793.

If it is really a portrait, Pokemon is a derivative of that art-form...heh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.39.48.2 (talk • contribs) 28 July 2006.

Vandalism, of course. Long since reverted. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question

I just read this article and found it readable and interesting. There is one odd note though, and that is the two sentences starting "More recently, feminist ..." which seem to have little to do with anything else in the article and which look mostly like rumor ("there was circumstantial evidence") intended to cast a slur on Robespierre that cannot be refuted. I would suggest that that bit either be removed, or that someone really justify its inclusion. (I know, I can do it myself, but I'm insufficiently familiar with the etiquette of editing to feel entirely comfy doing that.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.118.90.22 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.

~~I will mark it as needing citation; if it doesn't get one soon, it should probably be removed.~~ - Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been removed (anonymously, without comment). - Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Perhaps missed by many in this much-vandalised article (the edit summary said almost nothing, and there was no discussion on the talk page) Skysmith did a pretty substantial rewrite on several portions of the article. Some of it was doubtless good; some of it, in my opinion, was not. I've made a considerable number of small edits downstream of Skysmith's relating to the period prior to the start of the French Revolutionary Wars. I don't have the time or focus right now to go comparably through the rest of the article, but would urge others to get out their fine-tooth combs.

Speaking of the start of the French Revolutionary Wars: the 1911 EB's handling of Robespierre's initial opposition to "exporting the Revolution" is a bit abrreviated; ours, especially with Skysmith's edits, is now even more abbreviated. I don't have good sources at hand: unfortunately, a few years back, before Wikipedia came along, I had given away most of my books on the French Revolution. But there is quite a story here, and it should be (sourced and) told. This was Robespierre's big break with the Girondists, and it took them by surprise, and it should be explained.

Robespierre's speech(es?) against the war policy contained some rather perspicacious remarks. He had three major points:

He had a general suspicion of the idea that one country could bring liberty to another by making war on it.
He believed that war would distract from consolidating the gains of the revolution and that, in fact, it would put them all at risk, given the possibility of a defeat that would restore the Old Regime (certainly the same logic that had placed much of the royal court in the war party).
He believed that victory had perils almost as great as defeat: that a victory achieved by a general might well bring that general to power as a dictator.

Again, I don't have sources handy from which to cite, but I presume someone should. If no one follows through on this, I imagine I'll eventually hit a library with this in mind, but it could be months. - Jmabel | Talk 08:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide?

Can I please have a reference for those historians who consider the campaign in the Vendee as genocide? How can a war of Frenchman against Frenchman be viewed in racial terms? White Guard 00:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling anything that happened in the French Revolution "genocide" is far beyond an exaggeration. (Note also that "mass killing" is not synonymous with "genocidal".) If any scholars have made such assertions, I don't think they're very credible and there would still be a strong argument for not including them in this article; but without even a citation, that phrase has to go. I've therefore removed the reference. --Todeswalzer 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right: it's absurd. I was waiting to see what kind of reference, if any, could be produced. Clearly there are none.White Guard 23:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallo

Do we have references to this book in the article?

Gallo, Max. Maximilien Robespierre, histoire d'une sollitude. Paris: Perrin, 1999 (paperback, ISBN 2262014094).

If not, should it be here? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against French books in general, or this one in particular. ... Also, there's a more recent and available edition.--Barbatus 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His Reputation Preceded Him?

The section "Early Politics" has, as its first paragraph, the following: Robespierre completed his law studies with distinction and was admitted to the bar in 1781, returning to Arras to practice law. His reputation preceded him. What exactly does this mean? What was his reputation at the time? That he "admire(d) the idealized Roman Republic and the rhetoric of Cicero, Cato, and other classic figures"? What actual effect did it have on subsequent developments? Could somone clarify this? Hi There 10:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

An unfortunate introduction of a sentence and paragraph break made this incoherent. The reputation at this point was simply that of being a very bright young man. The original of the sentence was "His reputation had already preceded him, and the bishop of Arras, M. de Conzie, appointed him criminal judge in the diocese of Arras in March 1782." I'll restore it to something more like that. - Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/x/Talk%7EMaximilien_Robespierre_057a.html"

Categories: Unassessed-Class France articles | Unknown-importance France articles | Biography collaboration candidates | Unassessed biography articles

Talk:Maximilien Robespierre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] POV

[edit] who shot M.R.?

[edit] Reference: Stanley Loomis

[edit] A bit tough to follow

[edit] nobleman

[edit] POV

[edit] Strong Anti-Robespierrean and Antiquated Biases

[edit] Why the Neutrality is under dispute

[edit] Source Citation

[edit] Stuff that could potentially be POV

[edit] to pity or not to pity

[edit] Mrs. Marr's History class is the coolest

[edit] "Early Politics"

[edit] Possibility of Homosexuality

[edit] Physical Description

[edit] Initiation of the Terror

[edit] portrait - vandalism?

[edit] A question

[edit] Recent edits

[edit] Genocide?

[edit] Gallo

[edit] His Reputation Preceded Him?

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search