Maximilien Robespierre, Master of the Terror

by Scott McLetchie

The paper was selected by the History Department as the Outstanding

Paper for the 1983-1984 Academic Year

Maximilien Robespierre, known to his contemporaries as "the

Incorruptible," is one of the most controversial and perhaps
misunderstood figures of the French Revolution. His name has become
symbolic for that period of the Revolution known as the Reign of
Terror; certainly he was a man who wielded great influence and power
over the course of events of the French Republic between 1792 and
1794; yet different people in different eras had differing opinions of the
man and his power. Some, especially his English and Austrian
contemporaries, saw him as the Devil incarnate, while others have
hailed him as the champion of liberty and the protector of democracy.
Some see in him the origins of twentieth century dictatorship along the
lines of Stalin or Hitler. Most agree that, for a time, he was the most
important man in the Revolution, and it is clear that the reaction of 9th
Thermidor (July 27, 1794), which brought about his downfall and
execution, also caused the end of the Terror and brought about a new
course for the Revolution itself.
Before his appointment on July 27, 1793, to the Committee of Public
Safety, Robespierre had held no other official position, despite his
activity in the National Assembly (1789 to 1791) and his prominence in
the Parisian Jacobin Club. Physically he was unimposing; Stanley Loomis
describes his face as catlike: green slanting eyes, a small nose and a
pallid complexion. Due to his nearsightedness, he wore spectacles,
often keeping them pushed up on his forehead. His dress was fastidious
and fashionable, and even after the Revolution, Robespierre continued
to sport the powdered hair and styled clothing of the Old Regime <1> --
a curious habit for one of the most important men in the Revolution.
The picture one gets from reading various descriptions of the man is
not one of a typical wild-eyed radical revolutionary leader, inflaming
the crowds with impassioned rhetoric -- quite the opposite. James
Michael Eagan describes him more as more of a "talker" than a "doer,"
and not even, it would seem, extraordinary in his rhetorical skills. "His
talk was apt to be muddy, even incoherent, and as often in
denunciation of persons who differed with him as in praise of principles
or in support of specific measures and policies." <2> One contemporary
observer, a man by the name of Fievee, describes one of Robespierre's
speeches, before the Jacobin Club in 1793:

Robespierre came slowly forward. . . . His delivery was slow and

measured. His phrases were so long that every time he stopped to raise
his spectacles one thought that he had nothing more to say, but after
looking slowly and searchingly over the audience in every quarter of the
room he would readjust his glasses and then add some more phrases to
his sentences, which were already of inordinate length. <3>
Moreover, his voice itself was weak and did not carry well outside or in
large halls. How did such an unimposing, often nervous and confusing
speaker rise to such prominence first in the Jacobin Club and later come
to unofficially head the dreaded Committee of Public Safety,
responsible for the deaths of thousands during the Terror?

While part of the answer may lie in Robespierre's personality and

character, this aspect of the man is somewhat difficult to piece
together accurately, due in no small part to the very bad press he
received from the Thermidorean reactionaries and most of his
European contemporaries (especially the English royalists and authors
like Carlyle and Dickens). While it is certainly tempting to dismiss him as
a bloodthirsty tyrant who was interested solely in personal power and
glory, such an account is too simple and too shallow.

James Eagan identifies a few problems in examining Robespierre's

character. <4> It must be recognized that Robespierre was, first and
foremost, a nationalist. Like most of his compatriots, his views and
policies were colored and shaped by the intense French nationalism
sweeping the country. As Eagan puts it, "His sole explanation for every
move was that France demanded it." <5> With this fixed firmly in mind,
many of Robespierre's actions make perfect sense.
Another problem is Robespierre's continual protestations of completely
altruistic motives. Eagan reconciles this with his obvious egotism by
suggesting that his "nationalism may well have been a personal egotism
imperfectly sublimated into a national egotism. Perhaps he utilized
patriotism to satisfy his personal ambition, unconsciously, but none the
less actually." <6> Unfortunately, having made such a remarkable and
insightful statement, Eagen dismisses it as irrelevant to his study,
whereas it is necessarily important to this one.

A final problem is found in Robespierre's epithet, "the Incorruptible."

He was smug, self-righteous, honest, and, by all accounts,
contemporary and modern, completely and incorruptibly moral; the
kind of man others almost love to hate. His own personal integrity was
instrumental in formulating much of his policy. Robespierre desired to
found the French Republic on his own high moral standards of integrity
and virtue. <7> R. R. Palmer ascribes to him the virtues and faults of an
inquisition: he allowed no room in himself for the possibility of error,
and those disagreeing with him were seen as purely wrong; he was
generally quick to denounce his opponents by calling their motives into
question and charging them with self-serving motivations, of which he
himself was, of course, entirely free. <8>

Mirabeau once said of him, "He will go far. He believes everything he

says." <9> While his incorruptibility may have proved useful in aiding
his rise to power, it also contributed to his shortsightedness and
narrow-mindedness, helping to bring about his eventual downfall.
Robespierre's childhood sheds some interesting light on his character
development and later political thought. <10> Maximilien Barthelemy
Isidore deRobespierre (he dropped the noble prefix "de" after the
National Assembly abolished nobility) was born under somewhat
inauspicious circumstances on May 6, 1758. His parents, Francois
deRobespierre and Jacqueline Carrault, had been married only four
months before. The deRobespierres considered the match something
of a disgrace as they were a well-respected urban family with
somewhat justified claims of nobility, whereas the Carraults were a
family of suburban brewers, and this stigma was to have an impression
upon the young Maximilien. Francois deRobespierre was a generally
respected, if often hot-headed and impetuous lawyer of the town of
Arras, some one hundred and fifty miles north of Paris near the
Channel; legal tradition ran in the deRobespierre family. Francois and
Jacqueline had three more children: Charlotte in 1760, Henriette in
1761, and Augustin in 1763. Jacqueline died giving birth to a fourth
child in July of 1764. This child died a few days later.

Jacqueline's death threw Robespierre's father into a deep fit of

depression. His behavior became wildly erratic, he took to drinking, and
he gave up his law practice. He would often vanish for long periods of
time, finally disappearing for good in 1771. His ultimate fate is
unknown. Francois' sisters undertook to raise Charlotte and Henriette,
while Robespierre's Grandfather Carrault brought up Maximilien and
Augustin, although all four remained very close throughout
Maximilien's childhood.
The memoirs of Charlotte Robespierre are invaluable in understanding
young Robespierre's character, and the effects upon him of his
suddenly turbulent home life. She writes:

Whenever we spoke about our mother in our private conversation I

heard his voice falter and saw his eyes fill with tears. A complete
change came over him. Previously he had been like all boys,
scatterbrained, wild, and carefree. But when he realized that he was, as
it were, head of the family by virtue of the fact that he was the oldest,
he became sober, serious, and hardworking. He spoke to us with a kind
of gravity which we respected. When he took part in our games, it was
so as to direct them. He loved us tenderly, and he lavished care and
caresses on us. <11>

Robespierre was six when his mother died and eight when his father
began disappearing; this disruption of a heretofore very happy family
life left deep impressions on young Robespierre, forcing him to mature
quickly. Perhaps Eagan's earlier remark of Robespierre's imperfectly
sublimated egotism finds some justification here. At a very early age he
was thrust into, or perhaps importantly, he perceived that he was
thrust into a role of responsibility and leadership for his family. It is
possible that later, during the Revolution, with the cries of "Liberty,
Equality, Fraternity," ringing in the air, he transferred consciously or
unconsciously, the notion of his family onto his notion of the state.
Naturally, the role he had assumed for his personal family he should
also assume for his "national" family, thus providing motivation for his
ambitions.

Robespierre was serious and introspective as a child, and had few

friends. Recurrent ill-health and his slight build impelled him to more
solitary and intellectual, less social or physical pursuits. These traits
carried over into his adult life, and although some have concluded that
he was by nature cold (and even inhuman), his sister Charlotte
maintains that, while he seldom laughed outright, he often smiled, and
was very sensitive, capable of much warmth and affection, despite his
serious demeanor. He was also a very bright boy, studious and
hardworking, determined, and in October of 1769, at the age of eleven,
he left Arras on a scholarship for the College Louis-le-Grand in Paris,
France's most respected university.

It was at Louis-le-Grand that Robespierre became exposed to those two

factors which were to profoundly influence him for the rest of his life.
Both of these factors were products of the Enlightenment: his love of
classical tradition, especially Roman jurisprudence, and his passion for
the philosophy of the Enlightenment, particularly that of Rousseau.

A friend of Robespierre's, Camille Desmoulins, describes the

tremendous impact of the university professors and their classical
republican teachings not just upon Robespierre himself, but upon many
young men at the college:
The republicans were for the most part young men who, nourished by
reading Cicero in the colleges, conceived a passion for freedom there.
We were brought up in the schools of Rome and Athens, and in the
pride of the Republic, only to live in the abjection of the monarchy and
under the reign of a Claudius and a Vitellius. It was foolish to imagine
that we would be inspired by the fathers of the fatherland of the
Capitol, without feeling horror at the maneaters of Versailles, and that
we would admire the past without condemning the present. <12>

It is not difficult to see the embryonic ideas of the Revolution forming

here. From the Roman Republican ideals of virtue, especially the
example of Brutus, Robespierre began to extract his belief that
government was for the good of la Patrie, the nation. From Cicero he
derived the rhetorical device at which he was perhaps most adept:
denunciation. <13>

The teachings and philosophy of the eighteenth -century enlightened

philosophers, especially Rousseau and to a lesser extent Montesquieu,
were to play an even larger role in shaping Robespierre's philosophical
outlook. Palmer asserts that Robespierre and his compatriots on the
Committee of Public Safety (Barere, Billaud-Varenne, Carnot, Collet
d'Herbois, Couthon, Herault, Lindet, Prieur of the Cote-d'Or, Prieur of
the Marne, Saint-Andre and Saint-Just) were not only similar in middle-
class background, legal tradition (eight were lawyers; all had university
education), never having suffered from want or political oppression,
and age, but all were also intellectuals, "steeped in the philosophy of
the eighteenth-century, a body of ideas so pervasive that even a
Protestant minister [Saint-Andre] and an actor-playwright [Collot
d'Herbois) could hardly escape it." <14>

The importance of Rousseau and his teachings to Robespierre cannot

be overemphasized. Perhaps it can best be seen in Robespierre's own
writing about the philosopher, from his diary during the Estates-
General:

Divine man! It was you who taught me to know myself. When I was
young you brought me to appreciate the true dignity of my nature and
to reflect on the great principles which govern the social order . . . . I
saw you in your last days and for me the recollection of the time will
always be a source of proud joy. I contemplated your august features
and saw there the imprint of those dark griefs which the injustice of
man inflicted on you. <15>

From Rousseau, Robespierre adopted the Social Contract theory of

government, which was later to be accepted by the Jacobins. Man is by
nature good, but becomes corrupt through unjust institutions and laws;
he is born free, but becomes a slave to injustice. <16> Government is
literally a contract entered into by people; each individual brings into
the larger group a share of its power and authority. Moreover, the
contract can be changed at any time the "general will" desires. <17>
Sovereignty rests in the general community and any executive power is
merely subservient to the sovereign -- the people. The nation's will is
expressed in law. <18> But the individual is not to be placed above the
state. In such cases where an opponent consistently resists or rejects
the general will as expressed in law, Rousseau recommends death:
"When the entire nation is in danger . . . a thing which is a crime at
other times becomes a praiseworthy action. Lenience toward
conspirators is treason against the people." <19> The state can, at
times, exercise tremendous power over the individual members: "The
state, in regard to its members, is master of all their goods. The
sovereign -- that it to say the people -- may legitimately take away the
goods of everyone, as was done at Sparta in the time of Lycurgus."
<20>

One of Rousseau's dictims that Robespierre took to heart in particular is

the following: "The spirit of the people may reside in an enlightened
minority, who consequently have the right to act for the political
advantage." <21> It is easy to see how this belief enticed Robespierre,
who already knew that he was not wrong, whose care for la Patrie was
his chief concern, who saw himself as the inheritor of Rousseau and, by
extension, the general will. It became the basis for all his actions while
in power; it is virtually the same as asserting that he did what he did
"because France demanded it."

Welded firmly in Robespierre's mind with Rousseau's political and

ethical philosophy was Montesquieu's concept of republican virtue:
Virtue in a republic is a most simple thing; it is love of the republic; it is
a sensation, and not a consequence of acquired knowledge, a sensation
that may be felt by the meanest as well as by the highest person in the
state. When the common people adopt good maxims, they adhere to
them more steadily than those whom we call gentlemen . . . The love of
our country is favorable to a purity of morals, and the latter is again
conducive to the former. <22>

Robespierre and his compatriots, especially Louis-Antoine Saint-Just

and George Couthon, envisioned a French Republic based on virtue,
wherein economic class distinctions would cease, wherein it would be
criminal to own an excess of wealth, wherein the highest and noblest
goal of any citizen would be service to the state. <23> Reason would
predominate, but not prevail; for Robespierre believed, as did
Rousseau, in a sort of deism, faith in a Supreme Being who guided the
course of the nation. Faith in the divine was necessary for the health of
the nation, both spiritually and politically. Atheism they considered
immoral and punishable by death; it was a form of treason and as such
in opposition and potentially harmful to the general will. <24> Will
Durant demonstrates that this belief would lead ultimately to
Robespierre's clash with the Dechristianizing Herbertists in 1793, a
conflict which Durant identifies as between the philosophies of
Rousseau (Robespierre) and the philosophes, especially Voltaire
(Herbert)." <25>

Of course, these ideas did not take hold of Robespierre's intellect all at
once; many came about as responses to prevailing political or
intellectual trends. Some of his ideas crystallized during his period of
law practice in Arras. Robespierre received his bachelor of law degree
on July 31, 1780 and his license on May 15, 1781; he was admitted to
the Paris bar three months later. <26> Like his father and grandfather
before him, he set up a moderately successful law practice in Arras, and
it seems he was well respected in the community. His practice of law
increased his growing concern for humanity. As he told Charlotte,

The duty of pleading the case of the weak against the strong is that of
every heart not so poisoned by egoism and corruption. My life's task
will be to aid those who suffer and to pursue with vengeful words those
who, without pity for humanity, enjoy the suffering of others. <27>

It was during his practice that he first began to seriously consider ways
in which he might better the lot of his fellow human beings. There is
evidence from this period that the sense of absolute conviction that so
colored his later years was not yet fixed with rigidity. Charlotte reports
one incident that occurred while Robespierre was serving a term as
Episcopal Judge in 1782. "My elder brother," she writes, "came home
with despair in his heart and ate nothing for two days. He kept
repeating, 'I know he is to blame. He is a rascal . . . but to kill a man . . .'
" If we are to believe Charlotte, Robespierre's dismay at having to
condemn a man to death caused him to tender his resignation as judge.
<28> It seems he was not yet far along enough in his political thought
and career to where he identified himself as the protector of the State,
which must be defended at all costs.
After his resignation as Episcopal judge, Robespierre enjoyed
immediate success in his practice and earned a reputation as a
protector of the poor and downtrodden, a reputation which he
carefully cultivated. <29> Both Belloc and Eagan point out that he most
often went behind the letter of the law to the spirit, often making
sweeping statements which, at first glance, seemed to have little or no
bearing on the case at hand. Nonetheless, he usually won his cases, and
his success (and the example of Rousseau) inspired him to publish many
of them. These pamphlets served to further increase his notoriety and
reputation. <30>

It is not surprising that, when news came in August of 1788 of the

imminent meetings of the Estates-General, Robespierre decided to
somehow get elected as a delegate from his province of Artois. He took
to active campaigning, especially through his personal manifesto, "An
appeal to the Artesian People." The election process itself was
extraordinarily complicated, beginning on April 20, 1789; suffice to say
that Robespierre was eventually chosen as one of the eight delegates of
the Third Estate from Artois. He accomplished this through skillful
political maneuvering and popular oratory, appealing to the prevailing
opinions and spirit of change in the air. <31> On May 1, 1789, the
delegation left for Versailles. As Robespierre remarked at the time,
"Everything in France is going to change now." <32>
At the Estates-General, Robespierre involved himself in much but
accomplished little at first. <33> As an anonymous barrister from a
provincial town he caused little excitement. He was also somewhat
disillusioned by many of the prominent and popular leaders Mounier,
Target, Malouse -- who did not seem to him revolutionary at all.
Robespierre played almost no part in the events leading up to the
Tennis Court Oath of June 20 (after which the Estates-General came to
be called the National Constituent Assembly) or the storming of the
Bastille on July 14. His speeches shortly after this, though, began to
express his belief that the guilty must be executed as traitors, so the
people would not lose faith in the laws. His patriotic speeches began to
win him the support of the common people who flocked each day to
the proceedings.

By autumn the Assembly had split into four definite camps. On the
extreme right were the monarchist, totally opposed to any reform.
They soon realized their impotence, however, and eventually ceased
attending. The second group was made up of those monarchists who
had begun the Revolution but who now felt it had gone too far and
should be stopped. The third group, and the majority, were
constitutional monarchists, who advocated more reforms and a system
of government balanced between the king and the assembly (the
feudal class structure had been abolished in early August). These
included Mirabeau, Lafayette, Thouret, Target and Camus. The fourth
group consisted of the extreme leftists, unknown radicals who had
gained the ear of the public: Abbe Gregoire, Petion, Euzot, Dubois-
Crance, Prieur of the Marne and Robespierre.
A settlement might have been forthcoming, which would have resulted
in a victory for the moderates, had not Louis XVI been so obstinately
opposed to compromise. At last, with high prices and rumors of famine
circulating throughout Paris, a mob of angry Parisian women five or six
thousand strong marched on Versailles, at the instigation of Marat, and
"escorted" the royal family to Paris where they could be watched.
Needless to say, Louis was now more open to suggestion. A few days
later, the Assembly also transferred to Paris in order to be closer to the
king for debate and negotiation.

In Paris, Robespierre began his rise to prominence in the Jacobin Club.

He turned to the Jacobins because he was neglected and frustrated by
the Assembly. <34> Many political clubs had surfaced throughout
France; the great boost to Robespierre's career came in the Jacobins.
The Jacobins owe much of their success to Robespierre; it was he who
effected the organization of provincial branches of the club through
personal visits, letters and his published speeches. (Part of the reason
lies in the fact that the Jacobins were more willing to use force and
terror than their opponents such as the Girondists and the Dantonists).
Robespierre encouraged the provincial club members to make their
voices heard as much as possible in the Assembly; by shouting the
loudest, they appeared to be the majority. <35>

Robespierre's rise in the Jacobins also increased his visibility and

popularity with the general public, with whom he constantly identified
himself. The Jacobins became the molders of public opinion -- there is
much truth to the saying that whoever controlled the mob in Paris
controlled the Revolution. The Jacobins provided Robespierre with a
power base more than anything else. <36> Robespierre's single-minded
devotion to his principles and his fervent quasi-religious belief in
himself aided his rise in the Jacobin Club greatly. He provided for them
a sense of stability, a rallying-point, as it were, in a chaotic, confused
time. <37>

The subsequent general course of events of the Revolution is well

known. In September of 1791 the Constitution of 1791 was adopted;
the National Assembly was replaced by the Legislative Assembly. This
lasted for a year. In September of 1792, the Legislative Assembly was
replaced by the National Convention and the monarchy was officially
abolished. At this time, the insurrectionary Paris Commune gained
control of the convention and established the Revolutionary Tribunal
(the forerunner of the Committee of Public Safety) to deliver summary
justice to enemies of the Revolution. On January 21, 1793, Louis XVI
was beheaded as a traitor to the French people. On July 27, 1793,
Maximilien Robespierre was appointed to the Committee of Public
Safety. <38>

Throughout November and December of 1792, Robespierre suffered

attacks from the Girondists, a group he had previously driven out of
Paris. They reappeared after the elections to the Convention.
Robespierre appealed to the Jacobins and the people, who, as usual,
rallied around him. The following months were marked by hot disputes
between Robespierre's radical revolutionaries and the moderate
Girondists. A key question of debate was the fate of the king.
Robespierre and his faction scored a major victory when Louis was
found guilty of treason and beheaded despite attempts by the
Girondists to save him by delaying his trial. Up until Louis' execution,
the Girondists had still been pushing for a constitutional monarchy
(even though monarchy in France had already been abolished), but now
all hope of that was gone. Part of the reason for Robespierre's success
was the war that France was fighting with most of Europe; the
European allies had announced their intentions of restoring the
Bourbon monarchy, but the French Republican army had been winning
victories of late and so popular sentiment was very anti-royalist. <39>

Robespierre emerged from this struggle the unquestioned leader of the

Mountain faction in the Convention (so named because they always sat
in the highest seats in the hall). In attacking the Mountain faction, the
Girondists had also specifically attacked Robespierre as their leader.
Where Robespierre and the Mountain had merely cooperated before,
Robespierre now assumed leadership as the two factions joined against
the common enemy. By attempting to overthrow Robespierre and
weaken the Mountain, the Girondists had accomplished the exact
opposite -- Robespierre was stronger than before. <40>

Robespierre's appointment to the Committee of Public Safety afforded

him even greater power. However, it must be emphasized that
Robespierre did not hold supreme power in the Committee. In theory,
the power was divided more or less equally among its twelve members,
each with his own area of specialization; in practice, some tended to
wield more power than others. The Committee possessed a collective
responsibility in that any one member might sign for all the others as
well; consequently R. R. Palmer asserts that it is not easy to discover
who exactly did what. Moreover, not everyone on the Committee liked
or even approved of Robespierre; several times he met with strong
opposition. However, Palmer also asserts that despite all this,
Robespierre was the most valuable member because "as political
expert he protected the others from hostile party onslaught." <41>
Robespierre simply ran interference for the others.

Opposition was usually dealt with through systematic purges, both of

the Convention and the Jacobin Club. <42> Before assuming his
position on the Committee, purging rarely involved executions for what
I see as two reasons: first, it was not really necessary; all Robespierre
had to do was have the opposite expelled from either the Convention
or the Club, sufficing to render them powerless, at least temporarily;
and second, Robespierre did not really have the authority to order
executions until he was on the Committee. Once on the Committee,
however, authority was given and Robespierre often took advantage of
the expedience of having opposition permanently disposed of. Of
course, he always maintained that he was acting in the best interest of
the state and according to the general will, and again, he probably
believed he was. But while his motives may have been pure, his
methods were bloody. Before Danton's death in April of 1794, the
Terror had only one hundred and sixteen victims; between late April
and early June five hundred more were added; and between June 10
(22nd Prairial) and July 27 (9th Thermidor) another one thousand three
hundred and sixty-six were executed. There is every indication that had
Robespierre lived, the numbers would have risen ever higher. <43>

The attack on Danton and the Hebertists marks a high point in

Robespierre's power. Previously, the Dantonist faction had aligned
itself with the Robespierrist in order to purge the Convention of
Girondists. On February 26, 1794, the attack began. Saint-Just delivered
a speech before the Convention (Robespierre and Couthon were ill, and
Saint-Just was the most ardent disciple of Robespierre) in which he
advocated implementation of Hebertists Terrorist plans. He directed
the assault against Danton, claiming that the Dantonists wanted to slow
down the Terror and the Revolution. Such a course, argued Saint-Just,
would only lead to reactionism. The Republic must be strong, and
Terror was the strength of the Republic (see the appendix for
Robespierre's speech of February 5, 1794 for his view of the goals of
the Revolution and the use of Terror). Saint-Just then turned his
invective against the Hebertists, denouncing them as self-serving
parasites, a crowd of "profitmongers," revolutionaries only so far as it
benefited them." <44>

Eagan maintains that Robespierre attacked the Hebertists primarily

because of their anti-Christian atheistic ideology. While perhaps not a
Christian himself, Robespierre certainly had faith in the Supreme Being,
and anyone who did not was a subversive. Robespierre also charged
the Hebertists and the Dantonists with complicity in a plot with William
Pitt to undermine the French Republic. Whether or not this accusation
is true is not known for certain; Eagan believes it is merely something of
a formality -- all the accused during the Terror were charged with
foreign conspiracy, among other things. However, Eagan sees no
"fundamental" reason for the attack on the Dantonists, claiming they
were as patriotic and nationalistic as Robespierre. (Belloc asserts,
however, that by this time Danton was intent on halting the Terror.
<45>) Eagan demonstrates that by now Robespierre had fallen into true
tyranny, proscribing anyone who disagreed with him on false charges to
hide the real reason: difference of opinion. <46> Even so, it is almost
certain that Robespierre actually saw Danton as a threat to France,
simply because he saw his former friend as a threat to his own power. It
is quite clear that by this point in time, Robespierre identified his beliefs
as the expression of the general will; naturally any attack on him
personally would be viewed as an attack on France. Nonetheless, after
Danton's trial and execution, Robespierre had ceased to be a leader and
had become instead a tyrant, a wielder of brute force.

Thus it was that Robespierre doomed himself to fall. His own

shortsightedness and narrow-mindedness, once so essential to his rise,
took away his objectivity and blinded him to the inevitable end of the
course he had chosen. Of course, the mere fact that the number of
executions increased so dramatically after Danton's fall may indicate
that subconsciously Robespierre realized the tenuousness of his hold
and that he was trying to hold on in the only way he knew how: more
Terror. While it is unquestionable that many admired Robespierre, it is
equally unquestionable that he had also made a great number of
enemies. The famous law of 22nd Prairial (June 10, 1794) gave him a
virtual carte blanche to indict anyone on the flimsiest of charges:
The enemies of the Revolution are those who by any means whatever
and under no matter what pretext have tried to hamper the progress of
the Revolution and prevent the establishment of the Republic. The due
penalty for this crime is death; the proofs requisite for condemnation
are all information, of no matter what kind, which may convince a
reasonable man and a friend of liberty. The guide for passing sentence
lies in the conscience of the judge, enlightened by love of justice and of
his country, their aim being the public welfare and the destruction of
the enemies of the fatherland. <47>

Fear was one of the key elements in Robespierre's Terror, but as Matrat
points out, it was this very fear that drove his enemies, giving them
courage; after all, they had nothing to lose. The opposition to
Robespierre was "disparate and disunited;" it basically included
"everyone who felt threatened by him," including some of his
compatriots on the Committee, old friends of Danton, and members of
the Assembly whom Robespierre had hinted might soon be up before
the Tribunal. In addition, it included those members of the Assembly
who had originally understood that the Terror was necessary so long as
France was at war, but no longer necessary now that she was winning.
<48>

Robespierre's opponents attempted a conciliation with the

Incorruptible, even winning Saint-Just to their side. Robespierre
apparently agreed on 4th Thermidor (July 22), but on 8th Thermidor
(July 26) denounced his opponents before the Convention to
thunderous applause. It seemed the Incorruptible would soon add "the
Invincible" to his name. That evening at the Jacobin Club he had Billaud-
Varenne and Collot d'Herbois expelled and apparently intended for
them to go before the Tribunal. With the Jacobins on his side he
refused to listen to the advice of some friends asking that he use
soldiers to purge his opposition, confident that he would be victorious
in the conflict that everyone knew would come the following day.

Saint-Just opened the Convention on 9th Thermidor by denouncing

Billaud-Varenne, Carnot and Collot. But he was interrupted by Tallien
who was supported by the Convention and Saint-Just spoke no more
that day. Billaud-Varenne then began his indictment of Robespierre,
revealing past actions of his contrary to the pride of the Convention.
Robespierre tried to speak but was shouted down. While others spoke
against him, he continually tried to speak, but was continually shouted
down. His arrest, along with that of Saint-Just and Couthon, was
decreed. The three were guillotined the following day along with
Robespierre's brother Augustin, to cries from the crowds of "Down with
the tyrant!" The Terror was broken. <49>

Robespierre's failure can be viewed as that of a man so narrow-minded

in his views that eventually he cannot conceive of anything outside of
them, a man so firmly convinced of his own absolute rightness that he
cannot see the glaring errors he makes. It had grown inconceivable to
him that anyone should oppose him successfully, and when someone
did, the blow numbed him into inaction for a while. Although he started
out with the best of motives, it came to the point where protection of
the ideals for which he stood was everything to him, whereas
protection of the people whom the ideals were originally to protect
meant nothing.

Before the Terror it seems that Robespierre's leadership was of the

type James MacGregor Burns describes as transforming. <50> Certainly
the leader and his followers engaged in such a way that France became
inspired by Robespierre's notion of morality. It also followed the
process of Burns' concept of revolutionary leadership. <51> Both
France and Robespierre engaged in the raising of the nation's social and
political consciousness. The fault of his leadership was that after a point
it was no longer adaptable to his followers' political and social
development. It stagnated, and along with it, so did his rule.

Appendix

Excerpts of Robespierre's speech of February 5, 1794

It is time to mark clearly the aim of the Revolution and the end toward
which we wish to move; it is time to take stock of ourselves, of the
obstacles which we still face, and of the means which we ought to
adopt to attain our objective . . . .
What is the goal for which we strive? A peaceful enjoyment of liberty
and equality, the rule of that eternal justice whose laws are engraved,
not upon marble or stone, but in the hearts of all men.

We wish an order of things where all low and cruel passions are
enchained by the laws, all beneficent and generous feelings aroused;
where ambition is the desire to merit glory and to serve one's
fatherland; where distinctions are born only of equality itself; where'
the citizen is subject to the magistrate, the magistrate to the people,
the people to justice; where the nation safeguards the welfare of each
individual, and each individual proudly enjoys the prosperity and glory
of the fatherland; where all spirits are enlarged by constant exchange
of republican sentiments and by the need of earning the respect of a
great people; where the arts are the adornment of liberty, which
ennobles them; and where commerce is the source of public wealth,
not simply of monstrous opulence for a few families.

In our country we wish to substitute morality for egotism, probity for

honor, principles for conventions, duties for etiquette, the empire of
reason for the tyranny of customs, contempt for vice for contempt for
misfortune, pride for insolence, the love of honor for the love of money
. . . that is to say, all the virtues and miracles of the Republic for all the
vices and snobbishness of the monarchy.

We wish in a word to fulfill the requirements of nature, to accomplish

the destiny of mankind, to make good the promises of philosophy . . .
that France, hitherto illustrious among slave states, may eclipse the
glory of all free peoples that have enlisted, become the model for all
nations . . . . That is our ambition; that is our aim.

What kind of government can realize these marvels? Only a democratic

government . . . . But to found and to consolidate among us this
democracy, to realize the peaceable rule of constitutional laws, it is
necessary to conclude the war of liberty against tyranny and to pass
successfully through the storms of revolution. Such is the aim of the
revolutionary system which you have set up . . . .

Now what is the fundamental principle of democratic, or popular

government -- that is to say, the essential mainspring upon which it
depends and which makes it function? It is virtue: I mean public virtue .
. . that virtues which is nothing else but a love of fatherland and its law .
...

The splendor of the goal of the French Revolution is simultaneously the

source of our strength and of our weakness: our strength, because it
gives us an ascendancy of truth over falsehood, and of public rights
over private interests; our weakness, because it rallies against us all
vicious men, all those who in their hearts seek to despoil the people . . .
. . It is necessary to stifle the domestic and foreign enemies of the
Republic or perish with them. Now in these circumstances, the first
maxim of our politics ought to be to lead the people by means of
reason and the enemies of the people by terror.
If the basis of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the basis
of popular government in time of revolution is both virtue and terror:
virtue without which terror is murderous, terror without which virtue is
powerless. Terror is nothing else than swift, severe, indomitable justice;
it flows, then, from virtue.

Taken from Pageant of Europe: Sources and Selections from the

Renaissance to the Present Day, by Raymond Phineas Stearns (New
York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1947).

Notes

1 Stanley Loomis, Paris in the Terror: June 1793-July 1794 (Philadelphia

and New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1964), p. 276.

2 James Michael Eagan, Maximilien Robespierre: Nationalist Dictator

(New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1978), p. 12.

3 Fievee, quoted in Loomis, p. 276.

4 The material following is taken from Eagan, pp. 11-13.

5 Eagan, p. 11.

6 Eagan, p. 12.

7 Eagan, p. 13.

8 R. R. Palmer, Twelve Who Ruled: The Year of Terror in the French

Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941), pp. 6-7.

9 Mirabeau, quoted in Jean Matrat, Robespierre, or the Tyranny of the

Majority, trans. Alan Kendall (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971),
p. 51.

10 The following information on Robespierre's childhood is drawn from

Matrat, pp. 11-16; Hilaire Belloc, Robespierre: A Study (New York:
Caxton Press, 1901), pp. 39-46; Loomis, pp. 264-66.

11 Charlotte Robespierre, quoted in Matrat, p. 14.

12 Camille Desmoulins, quoted in Matrat, p. 17.

13 Eagan, p. 15.

14 Palmer, pp. 17-18.

15 Robespierre, quoted in Loomis, p. 266.

16 Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Napoleon (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1975), p. 7.

17 Eagan, p. 17.

18 Belloc, p. 26.

19 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, quoted in Matrat, p. 63.

20 Rousseau, quoted in Matrat, p. 17.

21 Rousseau, quoted in Matrat, p. 69.

22 Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, B. V., c. ii, quoted in Eagan, p. 25-
26.

23 Leo Gershoy, The French Revolution and Napoleon (New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1933), p. 284.

24 Eagan, p. 31.

25 Will and Ariel Durant, Rousseau and Revolution (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1967), p. 890.

26 Matrat, p. 19.

27 Robespierre, quoted in Eagan, p. 17.

28 Charlotte Robespierre, quoted in Eagan, p. 18.

29 Belloc, p. 63.

30 Eagan, p. 17-19; Belloc, p. 63-64.

31 Belloc, pp. 66-67; Matrat, pp. 50-5 1.

32 Robespierre, quoted in Matrat, p. 50.

33 The following information on Robespierre at the Estates-General is

drawn from Matrat, pp. 51-75.

34 Loomis, p. 277.

35 Eagan, pp. 52-55.

36 Belloc, p. 96.

37 Belloc, p. 107.

38 These events are covered more fully in almost every book on the
French Revolution. This summary was gathered from Walbank,
Civilization Past and Present, 8th ed. (Glenview: Scott, Forseman, 1981),
pp. 80-84.

39 Matrat, pp. 177-189; Belloc, pp. 222-227.

40 Kropotkin, p. 337.

41 Palmer, p. 109.

42 Matrat, p. 181.

43 Loomis, p. 328.

44 Kropotkin, p. 543.

45 Belloc, p. 227-78.

46 Eagan, pp. 129-131.

47 Kropotkin, p. 537 n.

48 Matrat, pp. 267, 269.

49 Matrat, pp. 270-288; Belloc, pp. 331-367; Loomis, pp. 382-403.

50 James MacGregor Burns, Leadership (New York: Harper & Row,
1979), p. 20.

51 Burns, p. 203.

Return to 1983-4 Table of Contents