Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution

As much as any other single political eruption, the French revolution dramatically altered the course of history, in France as well as all of Europe and elsewhere. Its legacy can be found today in the ancient divisions and entanglements which continue to roil French politics. I have heard much, but actually knew little, about the revolution’s intricacies and details, a shortcoming in which I expect I was not alone. Ruth Scurr’s book has done a great deal to alleviate the problem. The revolution arose not from a single definable source or clique of individuals but from a vortex of economic anxieties, food shortages, social and cultural grievances, jealousies, disputes and resentments. All were further accentuated by generalized political unrest and ideological turmoil. It entailed a convergence of conditions not easily untangled, but Ms. Scurr has succeeded in sorting through and bringing order to the maze. Her prose is precise, fluent, and readable, and only rarely does she seem to stray from the strand of her narrative. The method she employs is biographic. Her story is built around the life of Maximilien Robespierre, his talents, his ambition, his maneuvering, his shifting loyalties and evolving ideology. The technique provides continuity and works well in delineating the the convoluted manner in which the revolution unfolded over five stormy years. But it also has shortcomings, sometimes bypassing crucial events or minimizing the role of other crucial figures. There is little question that Robespierre was a pivotal figure in the ongoing drama. An obscure provincial lawyer from the Northern city of Arras, he had been scarred in his youth by scandals involving his father which left him with an enduring set of ingrained grievances. But he was imbued with a high, if radical, set of ideals, which he continued to pursue, even as they eroded into savagery as the revolution progressed. Having moved to Paris, his oratorical and political skills won him converts, and he maneuvered adeptly among the constantly reshaping set of revolutionary committees, communes, and commissions, many of which he came to dominate. But as his views turned more fanatical and his activities more manipulative and peremptory, he was involved in constant infighting. Always suspicious, he grew increasingly paranoid and distrusting. He turned against and betrayed former colleagues and associates whom he suspected of traitorous activity, effectively sending them to the guillotine. Jean Cocteau once suggested that "Victor Hugo was a madman who thought he was Victor Hugo". A similar thing could be said about Robespierre in the later stages of the revolution. Ms. Scurr works hard at maintaining a balanced score card. She gives credit to Robespierre for his incorruptibility and is sympathetic to his sticking to what he saw as his ideals, twisted and reckless though they became. Overall, she seems more defensive of his personality and activities than appears justifiable considering where they finally led. Starting as a man of principle he descended step by step into a bloodthirsty tyranny that cost the lives of thousands, including many of his friends. Ironically, he was finally brought down not by the political conservatives or moderates he had fought so zealously but by atheists and anti-clericals who despised a type of state religion he had invented and sought to impose. Fatal Purity ends with Robespierre’s death on the same guillotine where he had sent so many others. Although Ms. Scurr presented an account of his family history and early life she ends her work rather abruptly at this point. But the revolutionary story was not yet over, so a reader curious about its demise and transition to the Directoire, and later to the Napoleon-dominated Consulat, must look elsewhere. In the meanwhile, I commend this book to anyone seeking a better understanding of one of history’s most astonishing dramas, as well as one of its most notorious fanatics.

I found this book to be one of the most interesting books I have read on the French Revolution and Robespierre. However, I think Scurr's effort to present all sides of Robespierre wound up being an exercise in futility. I walked away from this book with the impression that there was only one side to Robespierre and that was of a selfish, self righteous, arrogant tyrant. No matter what facts are presented about his childhood or private relationships with the Duplays or his siblings these facts cannot excuse or explain his supercilious nature. This is a man who condemned his friend Camille Desmoulins (who also may be considered to have blood on his hands) because he had the temerity to suggest that the Terror had gone too far and must be brought to an end. An opinion that Robespierre considered traitorous and anti revolutionary. An opinion that must be punished by death. But worse still, he felt it necessary to also condemn Desmoulins 23 year old wife to death. She followed her husband to the guillotine one week later leaving their 18 month old son, Robespierre's own godchild, an orphan. This was done in the name of revolutionary purity. This was done despite him receiving an impassioned letter (only a snippet of it is quoted in the book) from Lucille's (Desmoulins) mother reminding him of how he had bounced their son on his knee and questioning how he could justify his actions. It is interesting to note that his career followed a similar trajectory as other tyrants such as Lenin and Mao. Yet no one today would try to defend or explain their bloody purges. He too rid himself of political enemies by condemning them to death. He too suggested antirevolutionary thoughts must be ferreted out and punished. He too compiled lists of people who should be considered enemies of the state. Lists which held all those around him in a state of abject fear. His level of narcissism knew no bounds. He preached against the ancien regime's policy of condemning criminals' families along with the criminal. Yet he conveniently condemned not only Desmoulins wife but the family of his would be assassin to the guillotine. He believed in freedom of the press until the press began to turn against the revolution. While Scurr tries to give a balanced portrait, even she admits that there is no explanation for some of his cruelty and that certainly no one can deny his murderous tendencies. She emphasizes his incorruptibility and postulates that if his intention was to create a fair, just and equal society, could his actions be condemned outright. However, at the conclusion of the book I felt that no civilized society could or should excuse what he did even if in his mind it was for a greater France. I think even Machiavelli would agree.There is also another fascinating facet to Robespierre not mentioned in the book. Robespierre was of the steadfast opinion that Marie Antoinette must be executed for the good of the revolution. After his execution his room was searched and underneath his bed in a box they found the meager belongings she left behind at the Conciergerie prison. Included in these belongings was a final poignant letter that was to be sent to her sister-in-law asking her to look after her children. Studies show that serial killers often keep trinkets from their victims. Interesting!?

A book for my wife, she writes:I found this a fascinating account of the French Revolution and of Robespierre, the development of his character from someone opposed to the death penalty through to the implementation ‘The Terror’. What I found interesting was how someone with a real social conscience, concern for the people and passionate advocate of democracy and followers of the ideas of Rousseau, could turn on his friends and erstwhile supporters, Desmoulins and Danton and send them to the guillotine. The contradiction between love of and belief in ‘the people’ in the abstract and the utterly ruthless suppression of not only his enemies but close friends and co-revolutionaries was chilling and I’m my mind verging on psychopathy and yet he appears to have had genuine empathy for the poor and oppressed, empathy being an emotion lacking in psychopaths. I did not know that at the beginning of the revolution in 1789, the intention was not to overthrow the monarchy but to establish a constitutional monarchy, or thatApart from overthrowing the monarchy, or that Robespierre tried to establish a new, non-Christian religion, worshiping a Supreme Being and a new calendar and ten day week was introduced, reminding me of the Khmer Rouge’s Year Zero. The concept of thought crime and the phrase and concept of the ‘Enemy of the People’ was also born. Ruth Scurr’s book is dense with detail but very readable if you are interested in history and the history of ideas.

This is a fascinating insight into the French Revolution and the mind of Robespierre. It covers the key points of his life and the politics of the period. In it's way this is an account of how the high ideals of the Revolution came to descend into the the Terror and a bloodbath and how a man who fought for the rights of man became a monster. The book evokes a sense of the inevitability of it all, the revolution spirilling out of control with Robespierre either bring swept along with it all or seeking to make himself a dictator, the logic of denunciation leading to execution leading to further denunciation as the guilty and innocent alike went to the guillotine with no right to answer any charge against them until finally Robespierre ends up on the block himself.A valuable overview of the period.

A great biography of great, but deeply flawed, man and should be on the list of all the books that should be read by anyone interested in the French revolution. It might have been improved by greater use of the thoughts of the poor Parisians who only occasionally intrude usually to throw an insult or a barb at a doomed aristo or revolutionary on their way to guillotine . So, I suppose, I will have to read Eric Hazan's recent book with its "history from below" perspective and re-read Rude's books on the revolution and the crowd, strangely George Rude is not even referenced in this admirable biography, a sad omission in my humble view.

good hardback, in great condition. oddly written, considering Ruth Scurr's wonderful book about John Aubrey, as though trying to simplify for the general reader. very clear narrative, of these horrible events...

I read this in the wake of reading Hilary Mantel's "A Place of Greater Security" to compare the fictional to the factual account of this weird but important character. It makes for almost as lively a read as Mantel's novel. What impressed me most was that the author was totally even-handed, rather than condemning Robespierre utterly as most commentators seem to or (as some have done) painting him as a misunderstood hero. What depressed me more and more, however, was the realisation that there are still people such as Robespierre doing similar things (updated for the passage of a couple of centuries, of course) for similar reasons with similar reactions of either adulation or horror. Do we never learn?