Aww, Maxime is ambiguous about Romans too!

[montagnarde1793]

Actually, here he's pretty unequivocal, as E. Hamel reports (Tome III, p. 16 of his Histoire de Robespierre, if anyone's curious):

            "Dans cette même séance eut lieu une scène vraiment digne de la grande Assemblée où la démocratie affirmait si fièrement son avènement. On venait de décréter les trois premiers articles du chapitre concernant les rapports de la République française avec les nations étrangères, et l'on mettait aux voix l'article IV, ainsi conçu: « Le peuple français ne fait point la paix avec un ennemi qui occupe son territoire », quand le Girondin Mercier demanda si l'on se flattait d'être toujours victorieux, et si l'on avait fait un pacte avec la victoire. « Nous en avons fait un avec la mort! » s'écria une voix partie de la Montagne.
            "Sans s'inquiéter des applaudissements dont fut couverte cette noble protestation, Mercier reprit: « A peine avez-vous des idées justes sur la liberté, et déjà vous osez vous placer au niveau des Romains. Je demande la radiation de cet article, parce que la génération présente n'est point encore à la hauteur où elle devrait être. » – A ces froides paroles, contrastant si violemment avec l'enthousiasme général, à ce doute injurieux pour la nation, une sorte de frisson d'indignation parcourut toute la salle. Robespierre s'élança à la tribune, et, laissant déborder son cœur : « Je n’aurais jamais cru qu’un représentant du peuple français osât proférer ici une maxime d’esclavage et de lâcheté. Je n’aurais jamais cru qu’il osât contester la vertu républicaine du peuple qu’il représente. Où a-t-il vu, cet homme, que nous fussions inférieurs aux Romains ? Où a-t-il vu que la Constitution que nous allons terminer fût au-dessous de ce sénat despotique qui ne connut jamais la Déclaration des droits de l’homme ? Où a-t-il vu que ce peuple qui verse son sang pour la liberté universelle fût au-dessous des Romains, qui furent non les héros de la liberté, mais les oppresseurs de tous les peuples ? Mais il n’y a rien à répondre à un tel homme. Nous décréterons cet article que nous sommes dignes de soutenir, en dépit de lui et de ses pareils. Qu’ils sachent, tous ceux qui ne savent pas deviner l’énergie d’un peuple libre, qu’ils sachent que cet article est l’expression de sa volonté. Un peuple qui traite sur son territoire avec les ennemis est un peuple déjà vaincu et qui a renoncé à son indépendance. » Ce fut, électrisée par de telles paroles, que la France accomplit les prodiges qui signalèrent les années 1793 et 1794 ! La Convention tout entière battit des mains, et l’article IV fut adopté au milieu des acclamations."

In translation: 
 

"In this same session took place a scene truly worthy of the great Assembly where democracy so proudly affirmed its advent. The first three articles of the chapter concerning the relations of the French Republic with foreign nations had just been decreed, and article IV, thus conceived: ‘The French people do not make peace with an enemy who occupies their territory,’ was being put to a vote, when the Girondin Mercier asked if they were flattering themselves that they would always be victorious, and if they had made a pact with victory. ‘We have made one with death!’ cried a voice coming from the Mountain.

"Without concerning himself with the applause with which this noble protestation was covered, Mercier reprised: ‘You barely have accurate ideas about liberty and already you dare to place yourselves on the level of the Romans. I ask that this article be stricken, because the present generation is not yet at the height it should be.’ – At these cold words, contrasting so violently with the general enthusiasm, at this doubt, insulting to the nation, a sort of shudder of indignation ran the length of the hall. Robespierre dashed to the tribune, and, letting his heart overflow: ‘I would never have believed that a representative of the French people would dare to proffer a maxim of slavery and cowardice here. I would have never believed that he would dare to contest the republican virtue of the people he represents. In what way has this man seen that we are inferior to the Romans? In what way has he seen that the Constitution we are about to complete is beneath that despotic senate which never knew the Declaration of the Rights of Man? In what way has he seen that this people who spill their blood for universal liberty are beneath the Romans, who were not heroes of liberty, but the oppressors of all peoples? But there is nothing to reply to such a man. We will decree this article that we are worthy of supporting, despite him and those like him. May they know, all those who cannot guess the energy of a free people, may they know that this article is their expression of their will. A people who treat on their territory with enemies is a people already vanquished and who have already renounced their independence.’ It was electrified by such words that France accomplished the prodigies by which were distinguished the years 1793 and 1794! The whole Convention clapped its hands, and article IV was adopted amid acclamations."

But elsewhere, of course, he singles out individual Romans for praise, Cato above all. And what was Cato other than a very principled and honest supporter of that same "despotic senate" decried here? I suppose he probably likes him for much the same reason that I do: more for what he was against than for what he was for. And then, it's hard not to esteem him for his probity and his decision to kill himself rather than go plead with Caesar to "pardon" him. And I suppose too that it's consistent both with his admiration for Spartan virtue and his simultaneous condemnation of turning a population into helots and with his admiration of a few individual Englishmen from the previous century (Sidney, Hampden) and his condemnation of present English government and by extension of the English people for supporting it...

Maybe the contradiction really isn't as profound as it seems, after all. Hm. I'll have to think about that a bit more.
 

Oh, and I'm home now, by the way. My Greek History final was, as I expected, pretty brutal. The Hellenistic period is so dull and confusing. How was I supposed to remember that Antigonus the One-Eyed was one of the five or ten different people who invaded Greece on the pretext of "freeing" the Greek poleis? >.>

But that's all over now, thankfully. For those of you whom I promised to let read my paper, I'll post it as soon as I've gotten it back (I have a thing about showing ungraded papers to people for purposes other than editing. Blame my paranoia. -_-;) In the meantime, I can post a translation of Maxime's defense of Jewish civil rights (qualified by literally every source I read that mentioned it, both French and English, as "eloquent" XD) if anyone would be interested...

Oh, and I voted for the first time this morning. Pity it was such an uninspiring election. Oh well, I did my duty as a citizen, at least. XD

Comments

[nirejseki.livejournal.com]

Heh, Maxime. *shakes head* And yes, I'd like to see a his comments on Jewish civil rights. (And I'm not sharing mine until slow-teacher-from-hell gets it back either, alas. ^^)

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's quite amusing. I'll have get translating then. Though they're fairly brief. I might just post the entire speech, which is in itself rather brief, though he also discusses actors and Protestants. (Fair enough.)

[citoyenneclark.livejournal.com]

Cato inspired a lot of people during the American Rev also. I believe Nathan Hale's last words were paraphrased from him also.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

It's quite true; Washington even had a play about Cato read to the troops at Valley Forge to boost morale.

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

This quote itself is quite the proof that they were not "following blindly" the model of Antiquity as the "liberal interpretation", following Constant and co., simplistically put it.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Which is why I'm abundantly glad I decided to read through Hamel's whole biography of Maxime; I had never seen the quote before (it does seem to be a rather inconvenient piece of evidence for certain people) and short of reading all his speeches, I probably wouldn't have found it. It could certainly prove useful.

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

Speaking of which, I'm working on the minutes of the Comité d'instruction publique, as I already spoke of. I'm now on the Convention. It's very interesting to note how idiots like Mona Ozouf say that Saint-Just's "education project" (or the very rought outline scripted in the so-called "Institutions Républicaines) was "totalitarian" because it was trying to control what children were eating, how they dressed, how they would sleep. And I found this:

PROJET DE LOI SUR L’ÉDUCATION COMMUNE, PAR CH. DELACROIX, DÉPUTÉ DE LA MARNE À LA CONVENTION NATIONALE, 1793, dans le Comité d'instruction publique de la Convention nationale, Annexe de la Centième Séance, tome 2, p. 72.

ART. 11. L’eau-de-vie, les liqueurs, les vins, le sucre, le café seront sévèrement exclus de la nourriture des enfants.

ART. 12. L’habillement des enfants sera, pour l’hiver, une chemise de toile commune, veste et pantalon d’étoffe de laine grossière, bas de laine rattachés à la veste par des cordons, une paire de gros souliers pour la course et autres exercices, des sabots pour le travail intérieur ; pour l’été, la veste et le pantalon seront de toile rayée en bleu, de chanvre ou de lin écru, un bonnet de police d’étoffe ou de toile pareille à l’habit, la tête rasée ou les cheveux coupés très court. Il sera fourni à chaque enfant un sac pour serrer ses effets d’habillement.

ART. 13. Le coucher sera, pour tous les enfants, une paillasse, un traversin, une couverture en tissu de laine ou de peau de mouton, un large sac de toile. La première fourniture sera aux frais de la République, l’entretien aux frais du canton.




Next to this, Saint-Just's thoughts on children education appear much less special. I'm sure if you search around in the context, you'll find plenty of projects which sound the same. Then they would say it's because "OMG BUT TEH CONVENTION WAS SOOO TOTALITARIAN", but I'm sure the projects of the Directoire were pretty much the same.

But then, ideologues never check sources.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

but I'm sure the projects of the Directoire were pretty much the same.
Doubtless. They maintained quite a bit of what the revisionists seem to hate most about the projects of the Year II. How do they explain away the festivals, I wonder?

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

I think Ozouf does in her stupid book on the Fête Révolutionnaire. The point is to say that everything is State Propaganda to Brainwash the Masses, because in her analysis, she seems to think of the people as sheep who just get influenced and don't really participate -- whatever. But then her whole point is stupid, because all festivals naturally involve propaganda! What else is Mother's and Father's Day? And all the other stupid days like that in our calendar, that celebrate capitalist consumerism! It's so stupid. It all comes to say: when the Revolution/the French/those we don't like and don't agree with do it, it's bad, but when it's Capitalism/the Americans/those we like and agree weith do it, it's good.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

What I mean, is how do they explain the festivals under the Directoire? Including the one in honor of Rousseau? It doesn't seem to fit well with their schema, does it? Any more than our modern capitalist holidays...

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

I think they're just cynically not trying to break the mood, so that the people doesn't think they've gone counter-revolutionary. Even though, technically, that's exactly what happened. And the admiration for Rousseau is pretty weird as well, considering even Constant is conflicted about it. I think they never made up their mind about him. >.> Even some royalists liked him. Strangely.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Well, that's what we might well think of it, but the revisionists certainly can't use that, at least not openly. That would be tantamount to saying that it's all right to "brainwash" people, so long as one does it cynically...

[trf-chan.livejournal.com]

Ohhhhh, that is very awesome. *_* Maxime never disappoints.

I suppose he probably likes him for much the same reason that I do: more for what he was against than for what he was for. And then, it's hard not to esteem him for his probity and his decision to kill himself rather than go plead with Caesar to "pardon" him.

That's what I admire about Cato, too.

Yay, voting! =D Don't worry, even "inspiring" elections aren't that much more interesting to actually vote in...the only special thing that happened was that I got a sticker and the the brilliant, shiny knowledge that I voted against four more years of Republican stupidity.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Isn't it though? Too true.

So that one particular mystery seems to be cleared up then.

I'm sure not, but I didn't even have that experience--just the experience of voting against a lot of stupid propositions that would not have changed California's budget situation. (The only thing that can do that is allowing the state assembly to raise taxes with a simple majority--because right now it has to be two-thirds and the exactly one third Republicans are holding the rest of the assembly hostage in the matter. >.>)