What was I talking about again?
Ah, yes, needless to say, I learned a lot from this book.
Queen Victoria is an interesting figure--as much for the age she lived in as for herself. After all, 19th Century England saw the rise of the British Empire and such colorful figures as David Livingston, Cecil Rhodes, and Chinese Gordon (who are all mentioned in this book). It set the age of imperialism, the ramifications of which we are still living through in this day and age.
And the era of the steam engine, which brought exotic lands much closer together fired up the imagination of people like Rudyard Kipling and Edgar Burroughs. So when reading about this age of colonial empires, the 12 year old boy inside me can help help but remember fondly all the jungle adventure movies I saw as a child, even though the adult in me knows most of them are politically incorrect.
It was also the age of the industrial revolution, horrible conditions for the working class, and the rise of Socialism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were both living and writing in Victorian England (and both are mentioned briefly in this little book as well).
What I didn't know about before, and what was interesting to learn about, was Queen Victoria's personal life.
For example, I learned that at first her accession to the throne was far from certain, and the plotting her mother did to ensure her ascendancy. I also learned about the Keningston System her mother devised to try and keep Victoria under control and regulate who had access to her, and how this would later backfire on her mother and cause the adult Victoria to distance herself from her.
I learned how a young Queen Victoria caused a political crisis and accidentally toppled a Tory government when she refused to remove her chambermaids.
And Victoria's marriage to Prince Albert, from Saxe-Coburg, and her devastation when he died.
And how Prince Albert helped keep England out of the US civil war, and avoided a crisis when the Union captured the British ship Trent.
How Victoria loved Disraeli, the leader of the conservatives, and hated Gladstone, the leader of the liberals. And how she asked for, and was given, the title of "Empress of India".
All in all, it was a very informative little book.
Lenin is to say the least, a very controversial figure. He’s also the arguably the most influential person in the 20th Century.
…In fact, we did argue about. Shortly before the turn of the century, Time magazine announced that they were going to choose the man of the 20th century, and, just for fun, the question was put out on the history students’ listserve at Calvin. Our musings didn't have any effect on the editorial process at Time magazine, but just for fun we debated it back and forth. Many of us, myself included, argued that if you had to pick one person who had the greatest influence on the events of the 20th Century, it would have to be Lenin. The revolution he engineered in Russia inspired communist Revolutions in China, Cuba, etcetera, until it went on to include half the world. And Lenin was also responsible for creating the Cold War which dominated most of the 20th Century. Plus, if you include the rise of fascism as partly a reaction against the communist revolutions, than you've got to throw in World War II, and all the baggage from that conflict.
The Calvin conservatives on the listserve were appalled by our choice, and enraged that a “thug” like Lenin who merely “inspired other groups of thugs” around the world could be considered person of the Century. They in turn nominated the standard conservative heroes like Winston Churchill, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, etcetera. Those of us who had chosen Lenin tried to explain to them that the “man of the Century” was supposed to be the most influential person, not necessarily the best person. They showed a remarkable inability to understand this concept, and the debate on the listserve went on for weeks.
Proof that Lenin still has the ability to inspire controversy even today.
I’m far from an expert, but I have read a bit about Lenin over the years, and I’m always amazed at how I come away with a completely different picture of him each time. Sometimes he emerges as a brutal godless communist. Sometimes he comes across as a good guy whose ideas were all corrupted by Stalin. Even within the left, perspectives of Lenin seem to vary depending on whether the author is orthodox communist, Trotskyist, democratic socialist, or anarchist. When reading different analysis about Lenin, sometimes I’m not even sure if I’m reading about the same person.
Bork who, as far as I remember used to share my ambivalence about Lenin’s legacy, read up on it a bit when he was in his internship in Russia and came back fiercely anti Bolshevik and anti-Lenin. But you’d have to talk to him to get his perspective.
This book, while not extremely detailed, makes an effort to try and balance the facts out. I found it surprisingly fair considering it was written during the Reagan administration and is a young adult book that is clearly designed to adorn the shelves of school libraries.
The book very clearly explains who Lenin was and what his goals were. And it shows the many faults of both the Tsarist regime or the Kerensky government that preceded Lenin. However the book also portrays Lenin as a bit of a bully and autocrat even in the years before the Revolution. Lenin would engage in all sorts of questionable politicking and undemocratic practices to get his way within the party.
The book even quotes a section from historian Betram D. Wolfe who: ‘gives an account of a conversation between Akselrod and a member of the International Socialist Bureau—the Second International’s coordinating body—that captures the essence of the gulf that separated Lenin from all Social Democrats, excepting his own followers. The official asked: “Do you mean to say that all these splits and quarrels are the work of one man? But how can one man be so effective and so dangerous?” Akselrod replied: “Because there is not another man who for twenty-four hours of the day is taken up with the revolution, who has no other thoughts but thoughts of the revolution, and who, even in his sleep, dreams of nothing but revolution. Just try and handle such a fellow.”’
The book does not gloss over the political violence that Lenin and the Bolsheviks committed once they were in power. And yet at the same time it does try and put things in perspective. For example when writing about the Red Terror, the author states:
“It is estimated that by October 1922, when it was replaced by the State Political Administration (GPU), the Cheka had killed approximately 140,000 people by execution, and another 140,000 while putting down uprisings. “Many historians have analyzed the Red Terror in great detail while failing to deal with is corollary—the “White Terror”. Some perspective on this troubled issue may, perhaps, be gained from the following single fact: In Finland, which proclaimed independence from Russia in July 1917, White forces under Carl Gustaf Von Mannerheim, a former lieutenant-general in the Imperial Army, killed almost 100,000 workers, or roughly 25 percent of the entire Finnish Proletariat, in just two months—April and May—in 1918.”
At the end of the book I think the author does a good job of summing up the ambivalence surrounding Lenin’s legacy:
“Many historians have claimed that Leninism and Stalinism were essentially the same or, at least, that Stalinism can be viewed as a logical development of Leninism. Whereas others, including many non-leftists, have rejected the idea. Lenin was undoubtedly one of the greatest leaders, most effective revolutionaries, and most powerful minds of his time. His ultimate aim was always the realization of a true producers’ democracy, an egalitarian socioeconomic order promising real social harmony. As he himself stressed repeatedly, the worldwide realization of the kind of society that was at the heart of his vision would mean an end to war and an end to the exploitation of man by man. Men have seized power for worse ends than this.”
Georges Clemenceau is a name that pops up in the various books I've read about the Paris Commune. He was one of the mayor of Montmartre, one of the Paris arrondissements, during the siege of Paris by the Prussian army. He was largely in sympathy with the leftist leaders during this time, and supported the (unsuccessful) October 30th uprising.
When the Paris Commune did break out, it happened in Montmartre, and Georges Clemenceau tried to mediate a compromise between both sides. Ultimately, although Clemenceau was sympathetic to the politics of the Paris Communes leaders, he did not join with them because he didn't believe they had legitimate authority to revolt against the Republican assembly. He continued to try and mediate between Paris and Versailles, and then resigned from the Versailles assembly once he saw the Versailles forces were decided on civil war.
For a long time, this was, because of the narrow focus of my reading list, my only knowledge of Clemenceau. It was only until rather recently that I discovered he was actually much more famous as the Premier of France during World War I, some 40 years later.
Although this book was very brief (as all the books in the series are) I learned a lot about French politics in the last quarter of the 19th Century, which is another one of my blind spots. For example, I learned how nearly the monarchy was re-established following the collapse of the 2nd Empire. I learned about Boulanger, who almost succeeded in establishing a military dictatorship in the 1890s. I learned about the scandals surrounding the French attempt at building the Panama Canal.
(This book covers the Dreyfus affair, although Dreyfus was covered in my Calvin history classes, so that at least was something that wasn't completely new to me).
In Edith Thomas’s biography of the anarchist Louise Michel, Clemenceau is frequently mentioned as a friend, and sometimes (when she was hard up for money) financial supporter of Michel. Clemenceau himself, however, was neither an anarchist nor a socialist. The author, Ted Gottfried, repeatedly emphasizes that despite Clemenceau’s liberal positions and his support of worker’s rights, he belonged to the party of radical republicanism, and was opposed to socialism.
(There is a quote in the side margins in which Clemenceau says, “I am sorry for anyone who has not been an anarchist at twenty.” However as this is not elaborated on, it’s impossible to tell from this book whether that quote represents an abandoned youthful radicalism, or a rhetorical exaggeration).
Like many liberals and radicals before him, however, Clemenceau suddenly turned more conservative once he was in a position of power. Once he became minister of the interior, Clemenceau used his power to crush striking workers on May 1st, 1906.
As premier during World War I, Clemenceau waged a merciless war against pacifists and socialists, jailing them, banning their newspapers, and exiling them.
I knew enough to know that this conservative turn was coming, but it was still interesting to read through the life of Clemenceau straight through. I was really cheering him on almost all the way until he became minister of the interior, and then his story just got very depressing after that.
(Although in “The Fall of Paris”, Alistair Horne argues that the young Clemenceau who opposed a peace with Germany in 1870 was much the same as the older Clemenceau who opposed a peace with Germany in 1917).
It was interesting for me to read how much anti-war opposition there was in Europe even during the middle of World War I. It’s something we don’t talk about much. Although the main branch of the French Socialist party abandoned it’s international solidarity platform in favor of the war (thus causing the collapse of the 2nd Communist International) the most radical socialists opposed the war throughout, and even attended international socialist conferences at Zimmerland, Switzerland, in 1915 where they agreed that the War must stop immediately, and peace must be based on the principles of “no annexations, no indemnities.”
This book also talked about widespread mutinies in the French army during the war (in 1917, mutinies broke out in 16 corps of the French army).
Clemenceau of course quelled the mutinies, jailed the socialist and pacifists, and convinced allied nations to deny passports to their socialist citizens so that future international socialist conferences could not take place. And so he overcame anti-war sentiment, and pushed France on to victory.
It’s a pity, really, because I think with the benefit of hindsight we can see that World War I was a colossal waste of lives that didn't solve anything, and just laid the ground for World War II. One wonders how much better history might have turned out if Clemenceau hadn't crushed the anti-war sentiment, and the pacifists had been successful.
Clemenceau was also responsible for rejecting Wilson’s more moderate peace plan, and enforcing the harsh terms on Germany which would lead to further European wars. “Privately the president [Wilson] pleaded with Clemenceau to soften his position. The American Congress and the American people, he assured him, would be appalled at having sent troops to fight so that France might have revenge against Germany for her inglorious defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. “You are not going to send me back to my country without something having been done.” (Wilson’s “something” meant showing that the war had been fought as he promised, “to make the world safe for democracy,” and not to enrich France and enlarge her territories.) The Tiger’s [Clemenceau] response was both ironic and stubborn. “I should be heartbroken,” he answered President Wilson, “but I can’t do anything more than escort you back to your boat.” Describing the conversation later, he added, “And that’s how I got Saar.”
Whatever else one wishes to say about Clemenceau, he certainly sounds like someone who lived life to the fullest. The descriptions in this book of romances, duels, journalism, travel, and politicking certainly describe a man born with an enormous amount of energy. In his student days, he organized protests against Napoleon III, wrote newspapers, had many romances, lived a bohemian lifestyle and still managed to finish 10th in his medical exams out of 330 students.
In his 80s, he was still active, traveling the US and campaigning for the League of Nations.
Whenever one reads about a great man like this, I feel (1), like I've wasted half my life and (2) that perhaps the amount of energy humans have is not doled out in equal proportions to everyone.
It was, however, interesting to read that Clemenceau traveled to the US after graduating from medical school in his 20s with the intention of only staying six months, but enjoyed himself so much he ended up staying much longer than he planned, and 6 months turned into 4 years, during which he supported himself in part by teaching his native language. That was at least one part of his life I could identify with.
This is a song by Minami Kosetsu, who I had the privalege of seeing live when he performed at Beppu University.
This song is part of the folk rock boom in the 1970s, but someone has added images on the youtube video to go along with the various lyrics. The random images may be a bit confusing if you don't speak Japanese, but I think they help to visually bring out the anti-war themes of the song.
Thomas Paine is a fascinating figure, and someone I've always wanted to know more about. (In a past post, I put him on my top 10 list of biopics I would like to see Hollywood do). Ever since my 7th grade history teacher mentioned that Thomas Paine was the penman of the American Revolution, and then went on to become the penman of the French Revolution, I’ve always been intrigued by that one man link between both revolutions.
At Gifu library, they used to have the complete works of Thomas Paine on their shelves. It ran several volumes, as I remember, so I never read the whole thing through, but being a geek I would pick it up and leaf through it whenever I was in the library. I remember randomly coming across Thomas Paine’s speech at the debate over whether or not to guillotine King Louis XVI, and I remember being impressed by the simple elegance of his arguments.
“If on my return to America, I should employ myself in a history of the French Revolution, I had rather record a thousand errors dictated by humanity than one inspired by a justice too severe.”
(That quote, by the way, is also reproduced in this book by John Vail on page 82).
For example, I did not know Paine was not an American citizen, but grew up in Britain and only moved to America when he was 37 years old. It was also interesting to learn that after the American Revolution he returned to England for a period to continue his republican agitation there, and only barely escaped from the British government. He was warned by none other than William Blake that he “must not go home, or you’re a dead man.” Paine instead left for France, narrowly escaping arrest.
I also was surprised to learn that he spent most of his life impoverished, and for all his fame he hardly made any money off of his writings. And how after the revolution he complained to the founding fathers about his lack of compensation.
“For all his fame and prestige, Paine enjoyed little in the way of material fortune from his eight-year stay in America. After the American victory at Yorktown, Paine wrote a long letter to Washington complaining of his impoverished condition. ‘While it was everybody’s fate to suffer,’ he said, ‘I cheerfully suffered with them.’ But now that the financial crisis had passed and the country was moving into prosperity, he thought it only fair that something should be done on his behalf.” (P. 47)
It’s hard not to admire Paine after reading this book. He comes through as an honest person who sacrificed so much for the cause of liberty.
Paine’s devotion to honest government got him in trouble with the Silas Deane affair. Silas Deane was an American diplomat who used his position to line his own pockets in 1778. (It’s sad how soon a brand new government already begins to be filled with corrupt politicians). Paine used his position as secretary of the Committee of Foreign Affairs to expose Deane, but as a result made a lot of enemies among Deane’s supporters. It caused Paine to lose his job at the time, and many years later, during the Terror phase of the French Revolution this resulted in Paine languishing in a French prison with no help from the American government. The American minister to France, Gouverneur Morris, had refused to help Paine because Morris had been a supporter of Silas Deane.
In fact, Paine only escaped the guillotine by the most miraculous twist of fate.
“Paine escaped the guillotine purely by chance. Each evening, the guards chalked a cross on the doors of the prisoners who were scheduled to be executed. One night, Paine left his cell door opened outwards and the guards mistakenly placed the chalk mark on the inside of his door. When Paine and his roommates returned to their cell, they shut their door for the night, so the mark went unobserved. When the guards made their midnight rounds, they fortuitously passed by Paine’s cell.” (P. 95).
I think Thomas Paine can safely be called one of America’s founding fathers. It’s always interesting to read about the founding fathers, because their views have become sort of like the bible of American government. Whether it’s right or not to constantly refer back to the views of the founding fathers is another question, but anyone familiar with American political discourse knows you can add a lot of weight to your argument by having a founding father on your side.
(Although the founding fathers are often cited by people who have little idea what they actually said. Just like the Bible. Back in my Calvin days, I can’t tell you the number of times a conservative Christian would try and justify the death penalty to me by quoting from the Bible “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” It used to drive me crazy because (as anyone whose actually read the bible knows) Jesus specifically repudiates this in Matthew 6:43 “You have heard that it was said ‘Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. But I tell you, Don not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also….”
I’m digressing here I know, but this is one of my pet peeves. )
I don’t think Thomas Paine, and his friend Thomas Jefferson, would have approved of future generations constantly referring back to the founding fathers. Paine is quoted in this book as writing, “No generation has the right to impose its choices upon posterity; whatever government or form of society was right for one generation might be totally unsuited to the differing needs of another.” (p. 36).
However if one is going to constantly refer back to the founding fathers, the impression I got from this book was that Paine would be very comfortable on the liberal wing of Democrat party.
“Paine not only asserted the superiority of republican government but also offered a breathtaking vision of how a republican government could begin to ameliorate poverty within England. He proposed a series of public policies—progressive income taxes, government grants to the poor for education and housing, unemployment relief and public jobs, maternity grants and child allowances and old age pensions. He insisted that his program was not a utopian pipe dream but could be accomplished if the government simply stopped fighting foreign wars and ended its financial support of the aristocracy. The needs of the many, Paine argued, could be satisfied if the selfishness of the few was restrained.” (p. 71)
…No doubt, Thomas Paine would be turning over in his grave if he knew how much the US government is currently spending fighting foreign wars.
Speaking of which, Thomas Paine is also quoted in this book as writing, “If there is a sin superior to every other, it’s that of willful and offensive war.” (p. 20)
That ought to be framed and put on the wall of the oval office. Our Presidents have a habit of forgetting that one.
Paine’s reaction to the Conspiracy of Equals phase of the French Revolution is also interesting:
“Paine wrote Agrarian Justice in the winter of 1795-96. The essay was written in the wake of the suppression of the Conspiracy of Equals led by Gracchus Babeuf, a failed radical coup d’etat that became known as the first communist movement of the modern era. While Paine wholeheartedly condemned Babeuf’s uprising, it nevertheless provoked him to reconsider his own political views. Paine argued that political equality could not be eradicated so long as economic inequality persisted: He maintained that the first rule of civilization should be “that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period.”
“Paine retreated from Babeuf’s radical solution to economic inequality, namely the abolition of private property, for he doubted that an equal distribution of property was either possible or desirable. Yet his denunciation of poverty and human misery was never more passionate or forceful. “The present state of civilization is as odious as it is unjust,” he wrote. “It is absolutely the opposite of what it should be, and it is necessary that a revolution should be made in it. The contrast of affluence and wretchedness continually meeting and offending the eye is like dead and living bodies chained together.” (p. 103).
In short, this was an absolutely fascinating little book. I'm not 100 % Thomas Paine qualifies as a “World Leader” but I’m glad they gave him the benefit of the doubt and included him in this series because I really enjoyed reading about him. I hope to someday find a more in-depth biography of this fascinating individual.
Bonus Link: More Japanese Music on Youtube
This is perhaps my favorite Japanese song ever (in so much as it is possible to have a favorite song, since it always depends on your mood at the time.) Yoyake o tsugeni by Off Course.
I have this song on one of my mixed tapes, and it's one of those songs where when I'm driving, I'm constantly stopping the tape and rewinding so I can hear it just one more time.
It's not a very famous song. The group Off Course was moderately famous in the mid 70s, but this song was from their early days before they took off. In fact you can see someone wrote a comment in Japanese which reads (loosely translated) "What? Why would anyone upload this obscure song? What kind of person are you?" (Everyone on the Internet is a critic).
Another book in the “World Leaders: Past and Present” series which I picked up from Oita Prefectural Library on my last trip down to Oita City.
This was a very brief summary of Napoleon’s life aimed at the young adult audience, but the gaps in my historical knowledge are such that I still learned tons from it. And I found it fascinating reading. I hope to someday find a full length biography of Napoleon, but for now this will have to do the trick.
I think everyone who ever reads a biography of Napoleon comes away astounded by what he was able to accomplish, and perhaps slightly appalled by the tremendous amount of death and bloodshed that was necessary to satisfy his ambition.
Considering Napoleon started out as nothing but the son of a petty Corsican noble who couldn't even speak correct French, and then later his military career was almost finished before it even started because of his association with Robespierre, what he managed to accomplish was truly amazing. He inherited a situation with France in disarray and under attack by all of Europe, and he was able to beat all of Europe back 3 out of 4 times.
The Napoleonic wars are something I still don’t know about, and this book does a good job of summarizing it. It’s a bit confusing though, since in a relatively short period of time there were 4 coalitions of European powers united against Napoleon.
The scope of the Napoleonic Wars is somewhat astounding as well raging, as it did, back and forth across Europe several times.
To the extent that European wars are sometimes called “World Wars” (World War I at least can be thought of as primarily a European War in which the colonies also took part), the Napoleonic Wars can almost be thought of as 4 World Wars in a 20 year period of time.
One of the things I remember from my Calvin history classes was the paradox of how Napoleon both ended the French Revolution by establishing autocratic rule, but at the same time also cemented the advances of the French Revolution by spreading an enlightened (non-feudal) code of laws and administration throughout Europe.
In some of her last few paragraphs, Leslie McGuire attempts to sum up Napoleon’s mixed legacy:
“Some consider him the enlightened bearer of revolutionary ideals; others regard him as a forerunner of 20th-century dictators. It is hard to asses his role. He redrew the map of Europe several times. He brought lasting reforms to the legal, administrative, judicial, and educational systems of an entire continent. He revolutionized warfare. But the political and social upheavals such as the French Revolution, that shook France and the rest of Europe would have happened without him. Many of his actions brought unintended results. He paved the way for the unification of Italy and Germany. He helped make the United States a world power by selling the Louisiana Territory. His war with Spain gave the countries of Latin America an opportunity to fight for their independence. He strengthened the pope and the Catholic church despite his attempts to do the opposite. Napoleon left behind a powerful legend that grew to enormous proportions after his death. His son, Napoleon II, never ruled France. But in 1852 his nephew, Louis Napoleon, traded on the popularity of his name to proclaim the Second Empire, and took the title Napoleon III. Bonapartism-the belief in a strong, authoritarian ruler appointed by the will of the people-continued to cast its spell over French politics for years and remains a tangible force even today.” (P.106)
A few notes:
* Leslie McGuire claims that: “As head of [the committee of public safety] Robespierre was responsible for the deaths of some 50,000 people during the Reign of Terror”. (P. 24)
This differs slightly from the other books I've been reading recently. Other books in this same series put the figure much lower. In the book on Robespierre, S.L. Carson gives a figure of 2,596 (p.20). Frank Dwyer in his book on Danton says, “during the period known as the “Reign of Terror”, more than 2,300 people were guillotined” (p.16). Guy Endore in “The Werewolf of Paris” which (although not really a serious history) also quotes 2,596.
I’m no expert myself, but I’d be curious to know where McGuire gets her figures from, and why it’s different than the other figures. Is she adding in the deaths caused by the September massacres and the civil war? If so, is it fair to lay all of those deaths at the feat of Robespierre?
* As these are young adult books, they are filled with illustrations, as well as various captions, quotes, and other information filling up the margins of each page.
This adds a lot to the enjoyment of these books, especially for those of us with short attention spans. Although I wish the editors had done a better job of lining the illustrations and quotes up with the main text. Often a picture caption will give away information that won’t be revealed in the main text for a couple more pages.
* And speaking of which, one of the quotations in the margins of the page gives a very graphic portrait of Napoleon’s view of the German Empire. “The Empire is an old serving woman who is used to being raped by everyone.”-Napoleon Bonaparte speaking with reference to the German Empire.
Although that does provoke a very vivid image of the political situation of the time, I’m a bit surprised that the quote made it into a young adult book. Especially since it was just used as one of the superfluous quotes on the side margins.
Like the book on Robespierre, this is another book that seeks to navigate all the complexities of the French Revolution for a young adult audience. This book does a slightly better job, perhaps because it’s written by literature professor. This is evident already from the first paragraph, which provides an enticing introduction to the biography but at the same time avoids overloading the reader with information.
“An ingenious and fatal machine casts its long shadow over the pages of this story. It has a tall, strong wooden frame that is grooved along the inside edges to permit the raising and lowering of a heavy blade. The blade is raised by a system of lead weights and pulleys, and is designed to come down quickly, hurled to the base of the frame by its own weight. A movable wooden plank, large enough to lie on, is fitted into the frame close to the base, where two semicircle pieces of wood (the lunette) can open and shut to admit a medium-sized object and hold it in place in the path of a blade. It is a machine for cutting off heads.”
Although brief, there is a lot of interesting biographical information about Danton here, as well as his shifting alliances.
He is portrayed in this book as an opportunist. He began his legal career with a speech, “Woe to those who provoke revolutions, woe to those who make them.” But when he perceived the power of Louis XVI court was finished, he cast his lot in with the revolution.
The author often contrasts Danton, who entered the revolution out of slightly opportunistic reasons, with Robespierre, who entered it for idealistic reasons.
“Danton and Robespierre were both brilliant and courageous revolutionary leaders, but their personalities were very different. Robespierre, known as “the incorruptible” for his famed virtuousness and purity, was cold, hard, distant—a man of ideals and intellect. Danton was warm, easygoing, sociable—a man of passions and heart. For now, these natural rivals were uneasy allies in the Revolution.” (p 49)
And on Danton’s taking bribes:
“The reality of this bribe taking may not be quite as bad as it sounds to the law abiding citizens of a stable government. Robespierre was called “the Incorruptible” because his integrity was so unique. No one would ever have called Danton “the Incorruptible” and he probably would not have appreciated it if they had.”
Although there is no proof that Danton ever took bribes, the author provides lots of interesting circumstantial evidence that indicates he probably did.
There is also the very interesting allegation that Danton bought his famous military victory against the Prussian duke of Brunswick with a bribe of “The Blue Diamond of the Golden Fleece.” Also the interesting connection that Danton, the duke of Brunswick, and many of the other leading men involved in the battle belonged to the secret society of the Masons.
….Again, no hard proof, but a lot of interesting circumstantial evidence.
When Danton became a rival to Robespierre, he was executed by the Revolutionary Tribunal as part of The Reign of Terror. Danton was responsible for helping to create both the Tribunal and the Terror, and then ironically enough became their most famous victim.
“The deputies were forced to create their own Frankenstein, a monster that would eventually murder many of them. Danton’s repentance came too late. “God and my fellow men forgive me,” he said after his fall. “I never meant [the tribunal] to become the scourge of humanity it has. All I wanted was to prevent any recurrence of the September massacres.” He hoped that the Revolutionary Tribunal would replace the unpredictable mob as the protector of the nation from domestic enemies, and believed the tribunal would help to restore order and calm in Paris. Instead, he learned that he and his fellow deputies had given the party—or the individual—in power a swift and efficient mechanism for sending opponents to the guillotine.” (p84-85)
I’ll be honest, I don’t think I would be reading these books if I had more reading material to choose from around here. But in the Japanese countryside, beggars can’t be choosers, and the books in this series were the only European history books I could find.
This series of books was published back in 1987-88, which was a few years ago now, but then the Oita Prefectural Library was never famous for its collection of new books. It is a series of 157 biographies of world leaders from all time periods and all places.
(Hmmm. Bit of an odd cut off point there, 157. Why not 294, or 129? Perhaps there were other books in this series that came out later. Oita library only has through 1988).
Each book contains a 5 page introductory essay on leadership by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. And it’s always the same introductory essay in every book, which can feel like a bit of a waste of paper when you have several books from this series in your library. The essay argues against the idea of historical determinism, and instead argues that:
1). Individual actions, not historical determinism, shapes the course of history and
2). Leaders are necessary for society.
(The first point I agree with, the second point I disagree, but I won’t get into that now).
The 157 profiles of leaders chosen for this series are chosen in part to demonstrate this thesis. And I have to admit that whoever was in charge of this project did a great job of choosing some of the most fascinating people from history for this 157 list. It’s not just the usual suspects either, there are some really interesting names chosen. It makes me wish the Oita Library actually had the whole set, because I’d love to read more about a number of these people such as Sun Yat-sen, Robert Mugabe, Che Guevera, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Leon Blum, Willy Brandt, Oliver Cromwell, Lech Walesa, Leon Trotsky, Pericles, Daniel Ortega, Emiliano Zapata, Zhou Enlai, Layfayette, Anwar Sadat, Golda Meir, Yasir Arafat, et cetera.
The books are all just slightly over 100 pages, which prevents you from getting in depth, but on the other hand it is just long enough to give you a few interesting facts you didn't know, and yet short enough that you can get through several of them in a short period of time.
They’re classified as Juvenile Literature in the publication data, and Young Adult literature on the back cover. And indeed the picture book proportions (about 25 cm by 20 cm) of the book and large illustrations ensure that no self respecting businessman is going to be caught dead reading this in a coffee shop. However the short length and large pictures in this book aside, I didn't find it a particularly easy read. There’s a lot of information packed densely into a small amount of space, and you have to read very slowly and carefully so as not to miss anything. Consider for example the passage on the beginning of “The Reign of Terror.”
“Believing he had been ill treated by the Jacobins, Herbert presented himself to Paris as the new guardian against corruption. His sweeping program called for cracking down on suspects, trying the queen, and ridding the military of aristocrats. Followers of both Herbet and Danton wanted the Committee of Public Safety to take on more tasks and responsibilities. Under this pressure, the committee extended its control over the state. Danton resisted having anything more to do with the committee, although he urged it to expand its work. Couthon, Sechelles and Saint-Just were frequently away from Paris on various assignments and their absence left Robespierre to become the vital link between the National Convention and the busy committee. In September, the committee was joined by the more extremist supporters of the left: Jean-Nicolas Billaud-Varenne and Jean-Marie Collot d’Herbois. The only moderate on the committee was the engineer Lazare Carnot, who quarreled bitterly with Saint-Just.” (p 103)
…Now is it just me, or is that a lot of information for your average “Young Adult” (which is what? 10-12?) to absorb in one paragraph? I’m not saying the brighter ones couldn't do it, but those kind of kids could probably go right into the regular length popular histories anyway.
And as you can see from the quoted paragraph above, there’s also a lot of name dropping in this book—another side effect of cramming a lot of information in a small amount of space. Sometimes a name will be introduced briefly on one page, and then won’t pop up again until 50 pages later, at which time you've completely forgotten who they are. Fortunately, there’s a good index to help you keep track of the names, but it still meant a lot of flipping back and forth for me.
Interestingly enough, not one of the books I checked out in this series was written by a trained historian. This book on Robespierre was written by a Presidential speech writer. The book on Lenin was written by someone with a honors degree in classics who plays in a musical ensemble. The book on Queen Victoria is written by someone described simply as a “mother of three”.
…Well, this series may not be ideal, but it will at least allow me to get a broad understanding of these historical figures. At this point there are so many gaps in my historical knowledge, that I’m sure I can learn a lot from even these brief biographic overviews.
…Now, onto this book itself:
Robespierre
Robespierre is one of the most fascinating historical figures, and if I ever get the chance I’d love to sink my teeth into an actual full length biography instead of the Young Adult summary version. For now, however, this will have to do.
What makes Robespierre so fascinating is the difference between the young Robespierre and the old Robespierre. (Well, since Robespierre died at 36, maybe it would be better to make the comparison between the reformer Robespierre and the tyrant Robespierre.)
The reformer Robespierre was an opponent of the death penalty, who “once spent two sleepless nights struggling with his responsibility as a magistrate to impose the death penalty on a convicted murderer”. (p 34).
The tyrant Robespierre was the master of terror, who “caused 60 to 80 people to die on the guillotine each day during the dreadful summer of 1794.” (p. 106)
I am not, of course, the first person to point out these contradictions, and when talking about Robespierre one is always in danger of slipping into clichés. When people say, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” they are usually thinking about Robespierre.
Robespierre was one of the first revolutionaries who exposed views on freedom and equality, and then became an absolute tyrant when in power. Unfortunately he was not the last. Lenin, Castro, Mao, Daniel Ortega, Robert Mugabe, and many others later followed his example. (Many conservatives claim that Lenin, Mao, Castro, et cetera, became brutal dictators because they were communists, but Robespierre’s example shows that even republicans are not safe from the temptations of power.)
Had these revolutionaries been wolves in sheep clothing all along, desiring nothing but power from the beginning and managing to fool everyone around them? Or is there something about the nature of power that manages to corrupt even “the incorruptible”.
The answer to these questions can not be found in this brief biography, but I was able to learn several interesting biographical tidbits.
For example, I learned about the cases that Robespierre argued as a young lawyer. (“Accustomed to living modestly, Robespierre took on cases that allowed him to display his high regard for social virtue and justice.” (p.33))
I also learned that Robespierre started out as a poor public speaker, and at first was constantly overshadowed by Mirabeau. “When Mirabeau entered the chamber, other deputies drew away in disgust, but he nevertheless commanded their attention whenever he spoke. As for Robespierre, however, it was reported that on one occasion he was so flustered that he was forced to leave the rostrum in tears. Mirabeau gave more than 100 speeches from 1789 to 1790. Robespierre managed to give fewer than 30.” (P.62).
The French Revolution, with all its various stages and with all its competing factions, is a lot of information to cram into a small book like this. As a consequence, the book focuses mostly on the stages of the Revolution, and doesn't go into detail on Robespierre’s life at this time. However the book does note his position on a number of issues.
* Robespierre argued in the assembly that all citizens, not just property owning citizens, should have the right to vote (and he eventually won on this point).
*He argued that the French slave trade should be abolished, but lost out to strong deputies in favor of the slave trade.
*He was unequivocally for freedom of the press.
*In an effort to prevent power from being established, Robespierre argued that the new Legislative Assembly should consist of entirely newly elected members, and none of the members of the old Constituent Assembly should be allowed to stand for election.
*Robespierre opposed the war with Austria, correctly cautioning that Revolutionary zeal was no substitute for military strength (although he lost out to Brissot on this point).
In short, Robespierre appears to be a reasonable man of pure democratic principles. He was considered radical at the time, but by the standards of today he stands as a moderate classical liberal. And then, he begins to lose his mind with power.
Unfortunately, because of the brevity of this book, there isn't space to do much more than list Robespierre’s positions, with little insight into why he began to harden into a dictator, and almost no information about his personal life.
Hopefully someday I’ll be able to find a more in-depth biography. In the meantime, this was a very interesting short book for the amount of time it took to read.
(book review)
