6 – Maximilien Robespierre
If King Charles and King Louis XVI are to be considered as analogous, then we must also draw the same comparison between Oliver Cromwell and Maximilien de Robespierre. It is always possible to find similarities between the two men who provided the face of the two great European revolutions of the Enlightenment period: they were both of wealthy, but not particularly aristocratic backgrounds, they were both provincial rather than metropolitan, they were both steadfast in their beliefs. though Cromwell’s were concerned with religion, while Robespierre’s were more ethical and philosophical.
Born in the north-eastern town of Arras, Robespierre was from a family of lawyers and drenched in legal tradition at school, he learned to love the traditions of the Roman Republics and the works of contemporary philosophers, particularly Rousseau, who prioritized the concept of virtue in men. He qualified as a lawyer and began practicing, regularly combining his legal campaigns for impoverished people with his growing political beliefs in favor of fundamental rights, equality before the law, and (ironically given what would follow) opposition to the death penalty.
He was elected to the Estates-General as a member of the Third Estate and joined the National Assembly when it split in 1789. He defended the rights of Jewish and Black French citizens, campaigning for religious tolerance and slave emancipation, which saw him drift gradually to the left of the National Assembly. He is even credited with inventing the “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” slogan that is still the bedrock of the French state to this day. As he grew in prominence, Robespierre became associated with the Jacobin Club and known as “the incorruptible” because of his virtuousness.
When war came with Austria, Robespierre spoke against it, fearing that the liberal principles of the revolution would be lost in a wave of militarism – he spoke of the French generals and referenced two of our previous tyrants, saying: “If they are Caesars or Cromwells, they seize power for themselves.” His confidence was in the power of the ideals to spread the revolution, rather than the power of the French army to do so. As the Jacobins split into two camps, Robespierre became the de facto leader of the leftist section, the Montagnards, and began to campaign for the end of the monarchy. As we have heard, he got his wish.
The Girondins were in charge of the National Convention, as the parliament was known, but were struggling. The war was not going well, the country was even more broke and the Parisian population was starving. They rose up and deposed many of the Girondins. The power vacuum was filled by the Committee of Public Safety, to which Robespierre was elected. They began the purge of all “counter-revolutionary” elements from French society, beginning a period known as the Reign of Terror. In this, Robespierre presided over the deaths of more than 16,000 perceived enemies of the state, the majority via guillotine.
Robespierre, a previous opponent of the death penalty, felt that terror was completely necessary to make the revolution possible. For him, the virtuous must be willing to use terror in pursuit of higher social goals, enforcing equality before the law. As he put it:
“Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the country”
Thousands of priests and nobles were sent to the guillotines, as well as many nobles and, eventually, even revolutionaries who had made been members of the Jacobin Club and the Mountain. The revolution had devoured everyone in a leftward direction, turning the most radical into conservatives and then counter-revolutionaries. Inevitably, Robespierre would suffer the same fate. After a year and a half of terror, he got his comeuppance. There was a reaction within the National Convention, which declared him a tyrant and called for his arrest. He was taken in, but freed when the mobs of Paris demanded his release.
Robespierre, along with his brother and two others, holed themselves up in the Hotel de Ville. He tried to commit suicide, but only managed in shooting his own jaw off. He was left to die by those sent to arrest him, but instead lived in agonizing pain for over 12 hours until it was decided that, like so many that he had himself sentenced, he would face the guillotine.
Maximilien Robespierre was virtuous to the last, though his belief in the Revolution and its goal lead him to become an unspeakable tyrant. He was still deified by the common people of Paris and, as the years have gone by, his reputation has been much debated. For some, he was the defender of the goals of the Revolution from the counter-revolutionaries, the man who stood up and continued pushing when others called for reaction. To others, he was the man who pushed the envelope too far and enacted greater terror than the King himself ever managed.
His concept of terror would pass onto into other revolutions, of course. Just over a century later, in Russia, the Terror would be writ large again, and our next subject – perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly – would feel the sharp end of it. He was Nicholas II, the last Tsar.