The Rhetoric of Revolution in France Author(s): Lynn Hunt Source: History Workshop, No. 15 (Spring, 1983), pp.

78-94 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4288460 . Accessed: 08/03/2011 08:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History Workshop.

http://www.jstor.org

41)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

The Rhetoric of Revolution in France by Lynn Hunt

'Les mots, commes les choses, ont et6 des monstruosites'[Words, like things, were monstrosities].After the fall of Robespieree, the noted literarycritic and author Jean-Fran,ois La Harpe published a long reflection On Fanaticismin Revolutionary Language.'Most of La Harpe'sargumentsare not themselvessurof prising:he tracedthe perversities the Revolutionback to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy,and he attributed frenzyof 'thisabominable the revolutionary spirit' to philosophie run riot. But what is instructivein La Harpe's account is his convictionthat the key to the Revolution'saberrations its language,or what was I will call here its rhetoric.La Harpe,in fact, offeredlittle analysisof revolutionary languageitself, for he was more interestedin denouncingits consequencesthan in examiningits causes or functioning.Yet his vitriolicpamphletis nonetheless significantbecause it shows that the revolutionariesthemselves recognizedthe importanceof languagein the Revolution. The crumbling the Frenchstate after 1786let loose a deluge of words- in of and print,in conversations, in thatnovel formfor most Frenchpeople, the political meeting. There had been a few dozen periodicals- hardlyany of which carried what we call news - circulating Parisduringthe 1780s;more than 500 appeared in between 14 July 1789 and 10 August 1792.2 Somethingsimilarhappenedto the theatre: in contrast to the handful of new plays produced annuallybefore the Revolution, at least 1,500 new plays, many of them topical, were producedbetween 1789 and 1799, and more than 750 were staged just in the years 1792-94.3 Politicalclubsproliferated every level, and electoralassembliesseemed to meet at almost continuouslyduring the Revolution'sfirst heady years. Added to these

Rhetoricof Revolution

79

occasionswere the countlessfestivalsorganizedall over the countryfor the purposes of commemorationand celebration.4Everywhere,in short, talk was the order of the day. Wordscame in torrents,but even more importantwas their unique, magical quality. From the beginningof the Revolution, words were invested with great passion. By the fall of 1789, 'Etes-vousde la Nation?' ['Are you of the Nation?'] Wordstook on more and had become the watchword NationalGuardpatrols.5 of more talismanicqualities as the king lost his. Words associated with the Old Regime, names tainted with royalism, aristocracyor privilege, became taboo. Procureurs avocats[Old Regime legal types] became hommesde loi [men of and the law] if they wanted to continue legal practice;impots [taxes] were replaced withcontributions whichsoundedmorevoluntary: wherevernameswere identified with Old Regime values, they were supplanted new revolutionary by (often Greek Nation incantations. or Roman) appellations.Otherwordsservedas revolutionary was perhapsthe most universallysacred, but there were also patrie [fatherland], Constitution,Law, and more specific to the radicals,regeneration,virtue, and vigilance. Uttered in a certaintone, or includedin a soon familiarcontext, such wordsbespoke nothingless than adherenceto the revolutionary community. Revolutionarylanguage was 'fanatical'in La Harpe's term because it was charismatic.It did not simply reflect the reality of revolutionarychanges, but rather was itself transformedin the process of making a revolution. When the deputiesof the ThirdEstate resolvedto call themselves,and whoeverwould join them, the 'NationalAssembly',they were at once challenging traditional the basis of monarchical authorityand openingthe way to new questionsaboutthe location of authorityin general. The deputies claimed sovereigntyfor the Natio'n,yet in the years that followed, the question of who spoke for the Nation was never definitivelysettled in France. The charismaof the king, the traditionalsacred centre of society, steadily eroded, but no one person, institution,or document succeeded in taking his place. Before Napoleon's rise to power, there were no individually charismatic leaders;Francehad no equivalentto George Washington, though there were candidatesaplenty aspiringto the'role, and the new Nation recognizedno FoundingFathers. These conditionswere both cause and consequenceof the role of rhetoricin the French Revolution, and they had as their corollarythe remarkablefact that charismawas most concretelylocated in words, or more precisely, in a certain mannerof speaking.La Harpeinadvertently drew attentionto this state of affairs when he announcedhis intention to characterize Revolution 'by the examithe nation of its language,whichwas its foremostinstrumentand the most surprising of all, and to demonstratehow the establishment,the legal consecrationof this of language,was a uniqueevent, an unheard scandalin the universe,andabsolutely inexplicable otherthanby divinevengeance'.6 Onlydivinevengeancecouldexplain for him the usurpationof sacred authorityby a new politicaldiscourse.It is the purpose of this essay to provide an alternativeaccountof the role of rhetoricin the FrenchRevolution.

80

HistoryWorkshop Journal I

Despite growinginterestin the historicalanalysisof language,there is little agreement about the propermethodsor proceduresfor undertaking such an analysis.7 Recent work on the languageof the French Revolution does rest, however, on the common assumptionthat the revolutionaries' words cannot be taken at face value. The 'real' significance that languageis presumedto be hidden in some of fashion. This governing assumptioncan be found in each of the three major positions taken on revolutionarylanguage, which I will call, for the sake of schematic argument, the Marxist, the Tocquevillian, and the Durkheimian positions. In Marxistanalysis, the notion of camouflageis central. Marx himself emphasizedthe false consciousnessof the Frenchrevolutionaries: . . in the classi'. cally austere traditionsof the Roman republicits gladiators[those of bourgeois society] found the ideals and the arts forms, the self-deceptionsthat they needed in order to conceal from themselvesthe bourgeoislimitationsof the content of their struggles. . .'8 Nicos Poulantzasmaintainedthis general position when he arguedthat 'the bourgeoispoliticalaspect' of Jacobinideology 'is maskedby the fact that its languageis an ethical and not a politicallanguage'.9 a similarvein, In Jacques Guilhaumoucharacterized radicalrhetoricof the Pere Duchesneas the 'a camouflaging bourgeoisconceptionof democracy'behind 'a form which wants to be sans-culotte'.In all these views, bourgeoisdiscoursecan only pretendto be somethingother than what it is - an instrumentof bourgeoispoliticaland social hegemony."0 The Tocquevillian positiondoes not make languagean ideologicalinstrument of class conflict,yet it too emphasizesthe element of self-deception.In Tocqueville's view, the revolutionaries imaginedthat they were buildinga new orderwhen in fact they were reproducing absolutepower, centralization, the and bureaucratizationof the old .'Revolutionaries a hithertounknownbreed'were able to act of on their 'imaginary ideal society' because they filled the politicalvoid left by the absolute monarchy."1 Penser la Revolutionfranqaise,FrancoisFuret revives In the Tocquevillianposition and gives it a semiologicaltwist.'2For Furet, 'The Revolutionis a language',whichhe reads as revealinga 'democratic imaginary of power'. This 'deliriumon power' only breaks the continuity, in Tocquevillian fashion, 'in orderto better assume, at anotherlevel, the absolutisttradition'.The veil of languagehides the realityof politicalcontinuityand at the same time stands in for the realities of political competition:'speech substitutesitself for power', and thus, 'the semioticcircuitis the absolutemasterof politics'.13 The Durkheimian positionhas been most forcefullypresentedby MonaOzouf in her analysisof revolutionary festivals.'4Ratherthan unmasking social conthe tent or the politicaldeceptionsof the festivals,she examinestheir ritualfunctions. In her view, the many apparently conflicting festivalsreveal a profound'identical conceptualization','an identical collective need'. The festivals accomplished'a of transference sacrality'to the new revolutionary community.Throughthe institutionof the festival, 'the discourseof the Revolutionaboutitself' revealsan effort to collectivelyform a new people on the basis of a new consensus.15 A more specifically circumscribed functionalist analysisof revolutionary rhetoric can be found in the study by the German literary theorist Hans Ulrich 6 Gumbrecht. He uses 'receptiontheory'and its emphasison the interplaybetween

Rhetoricof Revolution

81

speaker and audience to illustratethree functionsof revolutionaryrhetoric:the formation of political consensus (in Mirabeau'sspeech to the king on 16 July 1789);the developmentof groupidentities(in the debatebetwen Robespierreand unVergniaudduringthe trial of the king); and the defence of institutionalized animity(as seen in the eulogies of Marat). Gumbrechtdoes not treat languageas a simple reflectionof social reality, but he does show how the rhetoricalaims of speakersrespondedto the demandsof theiraudienceandto theirgeneralhistorical and social situation.As his title implies, he uncoversthe Funktionen parlamentarRevolution. ischerRhetorikin der Franzosischen procedure, Any historicalanalysisof languageentailssome kind of unmasking since the analystis alwaysinterestedin makingsense of languagein termsof one or other story line. But it is possible to choose between underlyingassumptions: of for example,that languageis an instrument socialconflict(the Marxist position), that language fosters political deception (the Tocquevillianposition), or that language serves culturalfunctions (the Durkeimianposition). Although each of I these views has its merits, and they are not even irreconcilable, want to propose a somewhatdifferentpointof departure, whichis the rhetoricof the revolutionaries themselves.By treatingrevolutionary languageas a text in the mannerof literary criticism, it is possible to uncover the principlesthat structuredthat language. Rather than looking behind or outside the words, as it were, for the meaningof the language,I will seek firstto elucidatetheir rhetoricalcontext:what made the talk of revolution into one text, that is, what gave it rhetoricalunity from the inside? It shouldbe clear that such an endeavouris not any more 'objective'than the positions outlined above; in fact, it proceeds from its own assumptionthat textualunitycan be establishedand that politicalrhetoriccan be analyzedin ways similar to those used for literature.This essay is not the place for a full-scale theoreticaljustification that view."7 of Instead, the assumptionmust be judgedby its fruits. II There was no revolutionary Bible which could serve as a source of confirmation and sanctification revolutionary of practice.The Frenchrhetoricof revolutionhad to provideits own hermeneutics: embeddedin the practiceof politicsand political discourse were the principles or canon against which that practice could be measured.Yet the new rhetoricwas not createdall at once, nor were its principles ever definitelyfixed. To compoundthe difficulty,those rhetoricalprincipleswere for the most part unexamined,despite, or because of, their self-proclaimed novrhetoriccannot be reduced, as Furet reducesit, to 'the elty. Thus, revolutionary fashionedtheir rhetoricin fits and ideology of pure democracy'.18 Revolutionaries startsafter 1789, and it w.asonly in the heat of politicalstrugglethat they clarified their principles.'Pure democracy'was only one of the outcomesof that struggle. Revolutionaryrhetoricchallengedthe customsof privilegeand the language of deferencein the name of a new community.The new communityof American radicalswas a living tradition;they had always inhabiteda new world far from what they saw as the corruptionof Englishpolitics. The Englishradicalsreferred to the purercommunityof their Saxon and dissentingpasts. Frenchrevolutionary rhetoric had no such reference points: the French did not have behind them a

82

Journal HistoryWorkshop

long-standing traditionof popularliteracymotivatedby religiousdissent,andthere of Frenchman sustainandanimate to were no recognizedbirthrights the 'free-born' rhetoric.9Instead,the Frenchhearkenedto whatI will call a 'mythic revolutionary present', the instant of creationof the new community,the moment of the new consensus. The Genesis of the new communitywas not dated precisely. Bastille Day (July 14) was alwaysa strongcandidatebecause it was priorto all the others, yet as the Revolutionprogressed,otherdates assumedequal, and sometimessuperior, significance: overthrowof the monarchyon August 10 (1792), the execution the of the kingon January (1793), and the fall of Robespierreon 9 Thermidor 21 (year II). The constantchangesin revolutionary festivalstestify to this temporalambiguity; each regime, and each faction, expressedits interpretation the Revoluof tion's historicallogic by choosing differentdates to celebrate.20 for all their But differences,the festivals had in common the purpose of recreatingby commemorating the moment of the new consensus. Almost every festival culminatedin what La Harpedenouncedas 'cette incurablemanie des serments'['thisincurable mania for oaths'].21 The ceremonialoath was so pervasivebecause it made the mythicpresent come alive; by swearingen masse the participants renewed their individualand collectivecommitmentto the Revolution. Althoughit was enunicatedwith religiousfervour,revolutionary languagewas resolutelysecularin content. As the battlelineswith the churchbecame clearer, as they did almostimmediately,revolutionaries eliminatedmostpositivereferences to Christianityfrom their vocabulary.This rejection of Christianor Catholic referenceswas yet anotherway of announcingthe revolutionary break with the Frenchand Europeanpast. The new social contractneeded no analogyto Biblical covenants;it was groundedin reason and the naturalrightsof man. Revolutionariesleapedover the Frenchnationalpast and turnedto Romanand Greekmodels for inspiration.All of the educatedmen of the eighteenthcenturyknew something of the classics, but the radicalrevolutionaries, men such as CamilleDesmoulins, St. Just, and Robespierre,found in them lessons for institutinga new order, they 'utopianized' classicalhistoryinto the model of a new, innocentsociety, an ideal Republic.22 In the revolutionary view of history,the republicans Greece and Rome had of invented liberty, and the mission of France was to bring that good news to all men. The conservativeeditor of the Gazettede Paris recognizedthe implications of this view as early as July 1790. Commentingon the Festivalof Federation,he declared:'[The Festival]is being comparedto those given in Greece and Rome. People forgetthat one is alwayscitingRepublicsas models . . . We are a monarchy . . . Be neither Romans, nor Greeks; be French.' And the next day he laid out the conservativeview of history: Ah! Let us not change our ancientformulas[Vivele Roi, vive la Reine were givingway to Vive la Nation]. Heirs of the Franks,who measuredtheir own greatnessagainstthe even greatergrandeurof their Chiefs, let us fight, love, live and die like them, faithfulto the principlesof our Fathers . . . we were one great family assembledtogether under the eyes of its Head .... Since we have all swornto be brothers,we have a commonfather.23 The conservativepositionlinked monarchy,tradition,and paternalauthority with

Rhetoricof Revolution

83

the historical model of the Franks, long a favourite reference point for those defendingnoble prerogativesagainstabsolutistencroachment.And the conservative explicitly insisted on maintainingthe traditionalrhetoric - 'our ancient formulas'. The radicals,on the other hand, linked liberty, breakingwith the past, and the model of the Ancients, whichrepresentednot so muchthe past as a model of a future society. As one radicaldocumentof 1793proclaimed: . . . to be truly Republican,each citizen must experienceand bringabout in himself a revolutionequal to the one which had changed France. There is nothing, absolutelynothingin commonbetween the slave of a tyrantand the inhabitantof a free state; the customsof the latter, his principles,his sentiments, his action, all must be new.24 By implication,the radicalsalso rejected paternalauthority.On the officialseal, in the engravingsand prints representingthe new republic, and in the tableaux vivantsof the festivals, feminine allegorizationsof classical derivationreplaced representationsof the king. [See Figure] These female figures, whether living women or statues, alwayssat or stood alone, surrounded most often by abstract emblemsof authorityand power. The Republicmighthave her childrenand even her masculinedefendersbut there was never a Fatherpresent.25 The conservativeson the defensive recognizedfirst that historicalmodels, familymetaphors,and the natureof authoritywere intimatelyconnectedin political rhetoric. It took longer to develop, much less weld together the disparate elements of radicalrhetoric.Yet, from the beginning,radicalsfound themselves overturningthe traditionalfamilial analogiesto power. They seemed to be rhetoricallykilling the king, their father, long before the Conventionactuallyvoted the death sentence. The radicalswere brothersdefendingthe virtue of la Nation and la Liberte,but there were no French'Sons of Liberty'.The radicalshad cut themselves adriftfrom the mooringsof traditionalconceptions,and they had to make their own way in the new politicalworld. III A mythicpresent and charismatic languagewere fragileunderpinnings a new for communitywhose boundarieswere ill-defined.The Puritansof early seventeenth centuryEnglandhad been convincedof their callingand their special, elect status long before they had an opportunity act in the nationalpoliticalarena.26 to Radical Americans of the late eighteenth century enjoyed at least a decade of intense political education and practice before they actually attemptedto separate the coloniesfromEngland,and as they embarked thatpaththey spoke the language on the English Whigs and radicalshad developed before them.27 Frenchradicals,in contrast, found themselves in the midst of revolution before they had much occasionto reflectupon their precariousposition. The novelty of French revolutionaryrhetoric did not stem from its formal properties- that is, from its rhetoricalstructurein the narrow,classicalsense of the term. The clerical colleges of the Old Regime had provided revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries alike with a store of classicaland neoclassicalcommon-

84

Journal HistoryWorkshop

Almost all of the speeches given at the tribunein the various national places.28 assemblieswere writtenout ahead of time, and they usuallyfollowedthe orderor dispositioset out by Quintilian:first the exordiumor general introduction;then the statementof the case, customarily taking the form of a narrationof events; followed by the argumentsin favourof the speaker'sposition and a refutationof the points made by opponents;and finally,the peroration,in which the speaker summedup his case and tried to sway the audiencein his favourby appealingto Not this theiremotions.29 surprisingly, classicalorderderivedfromjudicialoratory, preciselythe kind of trainingmost useful to the lawyerswho dominatednational politicsduringthe Revolution.It wouldbe possible, but ultimatelyunilluminating, to trace the order of speeches, their use of tropes and paradigms,and much of their content back to schoolboyrhetoricalexercises.30 The politicalideas expressedin this classicalrhetoricalform were decisively shaped by seventeenthand eighteenthcenturyintellectualand politicaldevelopments. As KingsleyMartinexplainedover fifty years ago, 'the new creed, which had been shapingitself piecemealin the minds of scientistsand men of letters in the seventeenth century, had become religion to the deputies who met in the States-General'.31 Locke, Newton, Bayle, Fenelon, and the philosopheshad prein pared the way. Even the parlementshad used the languageof Enlightenment their efforts to oppose the crown;beginningin the 1770sand then more dramaton ically in the 1780s, the parlementof Parisremonstrated behalf of the rightsof 'citizens'and 'the Nation'.32 Nor were the issues of republicanism democracy, and or the languageof virtuevs. corruption inventedby the French;they were part of what J. G. A. Pocock calls 'the Atlantic RepublicanTradition',which he traces back to RenaissanceFlorence.33 Even the French revolutionaryobsession with conspiracywas not unique in itself. Americancolonials of the 1760s and 1770s acted upon the conviction that corrupt ministers in England were plotting to deprivethem of their naturaland traditionalrights.34 Yet, though the rhetoricof conspiracywas not peculiarto the FrenchRevolution, it continuedto dominate political discourse in France even after the break with the Old Regime had occurred.In Americaconspiracy presumably pitted the colonialsagainsta distant mother country, and after the break had been made, Americanrevolutionaries became much more concernedwith the problemsof representing interestsof the differentregions and social groupsin the new order.3 In France,conspiracywas fraternaland hence fratricidal,and preoccupation with it only grew more intense after 1789. In fact, the obsession with conspiracybecame the central organizing principleof Frenchrevolutionary rhetoric,and an understanding its workings of as a rhetoricalprinciple is essential to comprehendingthe specific novelty of Frenchrevolutionary discourse. If the mythicpresentof the regeneratednationalcommunity was the Garden of Eden of the revolutionaries, then conspiracy its Evil Spirit.Sincethey were was haunted by the lurkingspectre of conspiracy,revolutionaries talked incessantly about unmasking.Radicaljournalists such as Maratand Hebert specializedin this rhetoricof denunciation,but people talked a similarlanguageat every political level from the beginning of the Revolution. Already in July 1789 there was a newspaperentitled Le Denonciateurnational. By 1793 the phraseologyof conspiracyhad become a regular,requiredpart of revolutionary discourse.A semiliterate, anonymousplacardcapturesthe vagariesof the notion:

Rhetoric of Revolution Sans-culotte it is time to sound the alarm.

. .

85

. Beware, it is time, civil war is

making ready you are the toy of all the scoundrelswho supposedlygovern the Republic. They are all conspiratorsand all of the merchantsof Paris I denounce them. Several of those who are going to read my two words described, which is the pure truth, are going to say that I am a conspirator because I tell the truth.36 The revolutionarytribunalsgave the phraseologylegal form, but they did not invent the usage. obsession with conspiracyhad two distinctsocial sources, The revolutionary counter-revoone in popularculture, the other in 'patriot'fears of 'aristocratic' lution in 1789. Conspiracyin France was an age-old popular fixation that was fostered by the rigidities of a subsistence economy and easily sustained by a communitydependent on oral transmissionof news. Popular belief in hidden caches of arms, secret correspondence,or treasuresinspiredtales of aristocratic Dearth was grain.37 But behind most popular conspiracyfears was hunger.38 nothing new, and the popularresponse of outrage at presumedspeculationand had spontaneousprice-fixing a long history.In the last decadeof the Old Regime, however, talk of hoardingand speculationbecame increasinglybound up with national political issues. In the 1760s and 1770s the crown alternatelytried to liberalizethe graintrade and shore it up with unpublicized governmentintervention. Criticsof the government accusedleadingministersand even the kinghimself of fomenting artificial famines for profit, and in retaliation the government to launchedits own propaganda as campaigns portrayrecalcitrant magistrates the authorsof crisis.39 crossfireof allegationsat the highest level of government The fannedthe flamesof popularmistrust,and even highly-placed people believedthat the vital supplyof grainwas subjectto politicalmanipulation. In 1789, popularsuspicionabout risinggrainpriceswas arousedin the midst of a constitutionalcrisis. As the deputies of the new National Assembly saw thousandsof troopsmove into Parisand Versailles,they too becameconvincedof the existence of an aristocratic conspiracy,this one of a political rather than a social nature. One deputy wrote home on June 24 describingwhat he saw as an attempt to 'tighten the chains of our slavery'.0 On July 10 the same deputy (a merchant from Troyesand a politicalmoderate)wrote that 'everyoneis convinced that the advance of troops covers some violent design'. And he attributedthat design to the 'infernalintrigue'of 'the Aristocracy,which rules us with an iron rod'.4" dismissalof Necker broughtpopularand bourgeoisfears of conspiracy The togetherinto a new, potent combination. The rhetoricof conspiracy discourseat everypolitical permeated revolutionary level, but it was above all the watchwordof the radicals. In the conservative but analysisof events, the authorsof evil were not conspirators ratherthe monsters, scoundrels,barbarians,and even cannibalsunleashedby the breakdownof traditionalsocial bonds. In January1792 the editor of the Gazettede Paris concluded that it was 'our vile Innovators'who were leading the people astray:
'Propaganda has risen up in the midst of all the Peoples of the Earth . . . her

flankshave opened up and thousandsof serpentshave been transformed men. into This new family brings with it the morals, the character,and the genius of the monsterwhich conceivedthem.'42 It was not long, however, before conspiracyrhetoricinvadedall varietiesof

86

Journal HistoryWorkshop

politicaldiscoursein France.By 1791right-wing were publishing newspapers their own exposes of Protestantand Freemasonplots, intriguesimputed to the Duc d'Orleans, and insidiousefforts to dupe the people.43 The most influentialconservativeconspiracy accountswere writtenafterthe fall of Robespierre,however, and they were offered as explanationsof the whole revolutionary process rather than as day-to-daycommentariesin the mannerof radicalcommentators.44 The indictmentsof the revolutionarytribunals, speeches on the Convention floor, articles in radical newspapers,and brochureswritten for popular consumption were all packedwith lengthy,minuteexaminations the politicalacts and words of of those under fire.45 particular No was too incidentalfor notice. When St. Just itemized the charges against Danton and his friends in the spring of 1794, for example, he followed a now familiarpracticeof establishing guilt by association: the traitorousgeneralDumouriezpraisedFabre-Fond,brotherof Fabred'Eglantine, friendof Danton; hence, 'can one doubt your criminalconcertto overthrow the Republic?'" The rhetoricof conspiracydid not so much precipitatethe Revolution,as it did in America, as accompanyit. The revolutionary mobilizationof 14 July 1789 was in the firstinstancea reactionto fears of conspiracy.Afterwards,the French revolutionaries confronteda dichotomous,highly chargedset of feelings: at the one pole the exhilaration a new era, andat the other, a darksense of foreboding of about an uncertainfuture. The reverse side of the mythic present of national regenerationwas an enormous,collective anxietyfostered by the fragilityof the new consensus. That this anxiety should have been deeper and ultimatelymore divisive in France than in America is hardlysurprising.The sparselypopulated colonies across the ocean were declaringtheir independence;the most populous nation in westernEurope was self-consciously makingsomethingradicallynew in the world, a revolution,a word whichbefore 1789- even in America- stood for a returnback to a previousstate ratherthan for a leap into the future.47 Thus, althoughthe revolutionaries learnedthe languageof reformand oppositionfrom the philosophesand the parlementaires, they had to invent the languageof revolution for themselves. And though their inventivenessreshapedthe boundaries and expectationsof politicalthoughtand practicethereafter,they were never able to overcome a persistentobstacle in their politicalvision, which was created by their ambivalencetowardsorganizedpolitics.

IV To a great extent, this ambivalence was sharedby educatedmen on both sides of the Atlantic in the eighteenthcentury.Everyoneseemed to fear back-roompoliticking,secret machinations, factionalism.But in France,there was no 'Whig and science of politics',no familiarity with the ins and outs of ministerial turnovers,no practicewith patronagesystems and interest group formations.48 Moreover, the Americanswere convincedof the purityof their new community long before they broke with England,while the Frenchonly discoveredthe new Nation in the act of creating it. As a consequence, the transitionfrom a strictly delimited and constrictedpolity underthe Old Regimeto one in whichthe claimfor democratic participation was taken very seriouslywas particularly sharpand disjointed.The Frenchhad more to explainto themselvesthan a changein policyby ministersfar

Rhetoricof Revolution

87

away or even ministersright at home. They had more to fear than a change in court allegiancesor a slightrise or dip in 'country'controlof nationalpolicy. The struggle between the regeneratedFrench nation and her enemies was new and divisivethanks to the combinationof the novelty of politicalmobiliparticularly zation with the intensity of social antagonism(as exemplifiedin talk of famine plots). If Americansand Englishmenfound it difficultto acceptthe emergenceof partypolitics and factionalcompetition,then the Frenchrefusalto sanctionsuch developmentswas all the more determined. And the consequencesof such a refusalwere all the more disastrous. While American republicanswere working their way, however fitfully, toof wardsparty politics and the representation interests, the Frenchfound themselves denyingthe possibilityof 'liberal'politicsin spite of their best intentions.49 The social or even politicaldifferencesbetween a Jeffersonor a Madisonand a Robespierreor a St. Just were minimal.The salientdifferencebetween them was the context in which they spoke. They grew up learningthe same rhetoricalskills and readingmanyof the same books. But when Robespierreor St. Just or one of the manyothers like them came to the bar of the Convention,wordsand rhetoric had a differentsignificance.As MarcBlanchardremarks,'they did not only have a taste for Antiquity,they becameroman'.50 Oratorswere speakingin two registers at once: one political and the other sacred. In the absence of a common law tradition,or any acceptablesacredtext of reference, the voice of the nation had to be heardconstantly.Speakingand namingtook on enormoussignificance; they In became the source of significance.51 America, as J. R. Pole concludes, the writteninstrument the Constitution of acquiredsupremacy, politicaldiscourse and thereafter revolved around issues of interests, property, rights, representation, and checks and balances.52 France,the spoken word retainedits supremacy In (at least until 1794, perhaps until 1799), and political discourse was consequently structured notions of transparency, by publicity,vigilanceand terror. In a world where factionalpolitics was synonymouswith conspiracy,where interestswas a code word for betrayalof a nation united and its generalwill, the only politicalremedieswere publicityand vigilance.Behindthese notionswas the revolutionarybelief in the possibilityand desirabilityof 'transparency' between citizen and citizen, between the citizens and their government,between the individualand the generalwill.53Accordingly,there shouldbe no artificial mannersor conventions separatingmen from each other and no institutionsblocking free communication between citizensand their delegates. Transparency, this sense, in gave meaning to the civic oath and to the revolutionary festival, both of which dependedon enthusiastic adherence,i.e., on the abolitionof the distancebetween citizenand citizenand betweenindividual community. and Community, essence, in was this transparency between citizens, anotherword for the manifestation the of mythicpresent. Politically,transparency meant that there was no need for politicians,and no place for the professionalmanipulation sentimentsor symbols;each citizenwas of to deliberate in the stillness of his heart, free from the nefariousinfluencesof connections, patronage, or party. Hebert's Pere Duchesne was the rough-andreadysans-culotteversionof the model patriot,pure of heart and free of artifice. He expressedonly the most simpleand definiteemotions,usuallyeither'greatjoy' or 'wrath'.On 1 September1791 Pere Duchesne gave his advice on the coming elections: 'Citizens,if you don't want to be betrayed,bewareof appearances. Put

88

HistoryWorkshop Journal

no faith in golden tongues. . . Don't let yourselfbe dazzledby beautifulpromises . . . If you know a citizenwho is obscureand withoutambition,that'sthe one you should choose'.54 Radical deputies spoke a more refinedlanguage,but they too placed a premium on authentic emotion. They linked oratoricaleloquence with purity and virtueof the heart. Among the virtueshe thoughtnecessaryto a representative of the people, Robespierregave high priorityto 'the eloquenceof the heartwithout which one cannot succeed in persuading'.55 the oratoryof the Convention,in In particular,the verb fremir (tremble, quiver, shake) appearedagain and again; orators spoke directly to the hearts of the auditors (though rarely extemporaneously!), and they expected to produce in them immediate emotion.56 This expectation was the translationinto political practice of Rousseau's notion of to authenticity,the conditionin which citizensare transparent each other.57 Heart-to-heartpolitics implied publicity;each citizen and all of his elected representatives were expected to performtheir deliberations public, in front of in the other citizens. The true patriot could have nothing to hide. The meetingsof the humblestneighbourhood militantsand those of the country's chosenlegislators sharedthe qualityof compulsivepublicity.Neighbourhood clubs elected 'censors' to patrolthe meeting hall and prevent'privateconversations'.58The sans-culottes carriedpublicity,'the safeguardof the people', furthest:contraryto law, several Parisian sections insisted on voice voting in elections and even on voting by acclamation. that They maintained thiswas the way free men, republicans, voted.59 The publicity of politics made vigilance possible, and vigilance was necessary becauseit was hardto believe that men so recentlyand incompletelyregenerated could sustainpoliticaltransparence; recurrent showedthis to be true. conspiracies The infalliblesignof vigilanceat workwas denunciation. Therehadbeen informers and denunciations the police underthe Old Regime, of course, but duringthe to Revolution, denunciation was elevated to a virtuousact, a civic duty. Public vigilance and denunciationwere institutionalized the Terror. As in Robespierreexplained, . . . in this situationthe firstmaximof yourpolicymustbe to guidethe people with reasonand the people'senemieswith terror.... Terroris nothingother than justice, prompt, severe, and inflexible;it is therefore an emanationof virtue. . . . Breakthe enemies of libertywith terror,and you will be justified as foundersof the Republic.The governmentof the revolutionis the despotism of libertyagainsttyranny.60 The Terror, then, followed logically from the presuppositions revolutionary of language.61 Terror was an emanation of virtue for Robespierreand the other radicalsbecause it was requiredfor and justifiedby the security,hence the very foundingof the new republic.Robespierre's'governmentof the revolution'was not the arbiterof conflictinginterests(agriculture commerce,for example);it vs. was rather the enforcer of communitarian discipline- 'the despotismof liberty against tyranny'. Yet, this government of the revolution was not so much a totalitarian, party-state it was a communitarian one as state withoutparty.For the principlesof revolutionary rhetoricpreventedthe Jacobinsthemselvesfrom becoming a behind-the-scenes agent of rule. The Jacobinclub did not take over the

Rhetoricof Revolution

89

revolutionary state; the Parisianclub was itself more or less absorbedby the state and reducedto servingas a soundingboardfor governmentpolicy.62 Although the Terror followed logically from the principles enunciated in revolutionary rhetoric,it was not the only possibledeductionfromthose principles. The historyof the Revolution between 1795 and 1799 and even after the rise of Napoleon shows this to be true. Under the 'liberal' republic of the Directory was replaced by cynicism,publicityby bourgeoisintrigue, regime, transparency and vigilance by laissez-fairein every realm. Under Napoleon, the ambivalence towardsorganizedpoliticstook the form of repressingall politicalactivityworthy of the name. Yet both of these subsequent'solutions'to the antinomiesof revolutionary rhetoric merely reflect the power of that rhetoric in the first place. Transparency, publicity,and vigilancedid not give way to a principledrepresentation of interests(thoughsome Directorialpoliticianshoped that would be possible); the original revolutionaryprincipleswere rejected as unworkablebut no other rhetoricwas convincingenough to take their place. Instead,the subsequent governments tried to rule withoutprinciples; underthe Directory,for government instance,aimed to be neitherroyalistnor anarchic,but it was never able to go far beyond an enunciationof what it did not want to be. Napoleon, in contrast, revived the principlesof revolutionary rhetoric,but announcedhimself to be the voice of the people.

rhetoricwas in some sense defeated by its inherentcontradictions. Revolutionary While being political,it refusedto sanctionfactionalpoliticking.While representing the new community,it desired the effacingof representation the name of (in transparency between citizens). While referring a mythicpresent,revolutionary to rhetoricalso had to explainthe failuresof the present whichit could only lay at the door of conspiracy-politics. Yet, at the same time, the FrenchRevolutionset the foundationsfor much of modernpolitics, for our notions of politicalpractice, and for many different, conflictingpolitical ideologies. This paradox has been almost entirely overlooked by the three main schools of interpretation sketched out earlier.The Tocquevillian positionignoresthe paradoxbecauseit is so preoccupiedwith the delusionary of character revolutionary rhetoric;how can a delusion - Furet's 'deliriumon power' - be responsiblefor the critical breakthrough in modernpolitics?The Durkheimian functionalist or position neglects the paradox because it is primarilyconcernedwith the integrativepurposesof revolutionary rhetoric, and the Marxistposition generally overlooks the paradox because it focuses first on the social content and context of revolutionary rhetoric.Nevertheless, what I have been arguinghere representsa synthesisof these last two positions. French revolutionary rhetoricbroke throughthe confinesof past politics by positing the existence of a new community(rather than the revival of a purer, formerone) and by insistingthat it could be realizedthroughpolitics (ratherthan through the true religion, a return to past tradition, or an adherence to some previouslymade social contract). It could be argued that revolutionarypolitics were restrictivelydefined in terms of communitarian discipline,since the Revolution did not directlyfosterthe developmentof liberalpolitics.Yet those 'narrow

90

Journal HistoryWorkshop

terms'were in anothersense remarkably broad;politics hereafterconcernednot just ministers,parliaments, constitutions,interests,or government,but ratherthe very nature of social relations.While rejectingthe possibilityof liberalpoliticsthatis, politicsas the representation conflicting of interests- revolutionary rhetoric nonethelessopened up the field of politics to its broadestpossible limits.63 Thus, even though the integrativefunctions of revolutionaryrhetoricwere ultimately stymied,the belief in the possibilityof a radicallynew communityprovedfruitful beyond all imagining.The failuresof 1794and 1799did not preventthe establishment of an alternativeegalitarianand republicantraditionthat subsequentlyreshaped the contours of French politics and social life ever after. And for this reason, the Durkheimian position containsan importantinsightinto the working of revolutionary rhetoric.The travailsand setbacksconfrontedby the new nation did not make the notion itself a delusion. Until recently, most Marxist accounts of language have tended to reduce rhetoricalprinciplesto strategiesof social conflict.' Such reductionism not a is necessaryconsequenceof Marxistanalysis,however,and Marxism,moreover,has the advantageover the other positionsdiscussedhere of its sensitivityto contradiction and confrontation. That is, a 'bourgeois'ideologicalpositioncan be beset by apparent contradiction yet marka step forward and into the future.It is obvious that I have not analyzedrevolutionary rhetoricin the usualMarxistterms;capital, profit, labour, class do not appear here because they did not appear as the in structuring rhetoric.Nor was the discourseof revolution principles revolutionary fashionedby a class in the Marxistsense. Yet, it might neverthelessbe termeda 'languageof class struggle without class'. Revolutionaryrhetoric was distinctly and anti-aristocratic, it was developedin the firstplace as an instrument attack of on the old society. Indeed, one of the initial accomplishments the new rhetoric of was its invention of the ancien regime. Once French society was rhetorically dividedinto a new nation and an old or formerregime, the revolutionhad been put in motion.65 purposeof revolutionwas to make the cleavagebetweenthe The two absolute. Thus, revolutionary rhetoricwas 'bourgeois'in its will to be new, to break withthe pastof aristocratic domination.It did not do thisin the nameof capitalism, obviously, and in fact, the radicalscontinued to be troubledby the corruption associatedwith commerce.' Revolutionary rhetoricneverthelessgave innovation a new and positive meaning; revolutionizemeant to innovate, and self-styled revolutionaries were not afraidof beingcalled'vileinnovators'. Thispreoccupation with makingthingsanew may have preventedthe revolutionaries fromseeing how they fostereda silent aggrandizement state powerin France,as Furetmaintains, of but the rhetoricof innovationwas not for that reason hallucinatory. Just as the emphasison the communitarian side of the new communityopened the way for a traditionof egalitarianand republicpolitics in France, so too the emphasison the newnessof the revolutionary community madepossiblean alternative tradition of revolutionarypolitics. After all, Marx got his own faith in the possibilityof remaking societythroughrevolutionfromthe Frenchexperience.Yet Marxhimself failed to appreciatethe irony and significanceof the source of this belief; the rhetoricof political innovationand revolutionwas not the productof the most advancedindustrialsociety, England. Americanrevolutionary rhetoricdid not foster the developmentof a revolutionarytradition;instead, it fed into constitutionalism liberal politics. The and

Rhetoricof Revolution

91

differencein France was the emphasison rejectingall models from the national past. Imagine the difficultiesof teaching history in republicanschools. One elementary text capturedthe problem in these words: 'when leafing throughthe of book of History,or ratherthe registersof the unhappiness humanity,the young man will continuallyencounterkings,greatnobles and everywherethe oppressed, on each page the people counted like a herd of animals . . .'67 To counter that the could only offer the exampleof republican historyof unhappiness, republicans Rome, Athens, and Sparta and closer to their own present, the Swiss and the Americans.Rousseau, the prophetof revolution,appearedas a kind of miracle, the lone voice of reasonand naturein a centuryof frivolityand cynicism.But that previous history of oppression only served to mark off the magnitudeof the revolutionary achievement. It is not possible within the confinesof this essay to explainwhat Marxin a sense took for granted:that the languageof revolution was French. Any such explanationwould entail an accountof the causesof the Revolutionitself. Neverrhetoriccan change our notion of 'the theless, an examinationof revolutionary Revolutionitself', and thus of what requiresexplanation.For, as La Harpe in his crankyfashion recognizedat the time, languagewas the Revolution's'foremost instrumentand the most surprisingof all'. The rhetoric of political innovation made the Revolution 'an unheard of scandal in the universe'; the rhetoric of revolutionmade the Revolutionrevolutionary. Withoutthe convictionand ability to act on their will to be new, the revolutionaries would not have been able to found modernpolitics.

1 Du Fanatismedans la lanque revolutionnaire de la persecutionsusciteepar les ou Barbaresdu dix-huitieme Siecle, contrela Religion Chretienne ses Ministres,Paris 1797. et 2 Claude Bellanger,et al., Histoiregeneralede la pressefranqaise.L:Des originesa 1814, Paris 1969, p. 434. 3 For a suggestiveanalysisof the theatreduringthe Terror,see BeatriceF. Hyslop, 'The Theatreduringa Crisis:the Parisian Theatreduringthe Reign of the Terror',Journal of ModernHistory17, 1945,pp. 332-355. EmmetKennedyis workingon a revisionof many of Hyslop'sviews on this question. 4 Mona Ozouf, La Fete revolutionnaire, 1789-1799,Paris 1976. 5 The essentialstartingplace is Ferdinand Brunot,Histoirede la languefrancaisedes originesa 1900, IX [La Revolutionet l'Empire,in two parts],Paris1937. 6 Du Fanatisme, 13-14. Translations, pp. unless otherwisenoted, are mine. 7 See the discussionin the editorialon 'Languageand History', History Workshop Journal10, 1980, pp. 1-5. 8 TheEighteenth Brumaire Louis Bonaparte,1963, p. 16. of 9 Pouvoirpolitiqueet classessociales, Paris1971, I, p. 191. 10 'L'Ideologiedu Pere Duchesne: les forces adjuvantes(14 juillet - 6 September 1793).' Le Mouvement social 85, 1973, p. 115. Some Marxisthistoriansof the Revolution had begun to move away from this mechanistic view of language.Guilhaumou himselfhas writtenthat Jacobindiscoursecannotbe reducedto maskingand mystification. Both he and Regine Robin grantthat languageis somethingmore than a reflectionof social realityor a mechanism its reproduction, they still use a relativelyinflexibleAlthusserian for but framework. They grounddiscoursein a particular 'conjuncture', whichis definedas 'the unity of the contradictions a social formationat a given moment, a unity overdetermined the of at politicallevel'. In 'Surla Revolutionfranqaise', Bulletindu Centre d'Analysedu Discoursde l'Universite Lille III, Villeneuved'Ascq 1975, pp. 1-14. de 11 Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the French Revolution,tr. Stuart Gilbert,New York 1955, pp. 157 and 146.

92

History Workshop Journal

12 Paris 1978. I have reviewedthis book at some length in Historyand Theory20, 1981, pp. 313-323. 13 Furet, Penser,pp. 229, 79, 108, 71-72. 14 La Fete revolutionnaire. Durkheimhimself cited the work of Mathiez on revolused examplesfromthe FrenchRevolutionto illustratehis utionarycults, and he frequently on arguments religion:for example, 'Thisaptitudeof society for settingitself up as a god or for creatinggods was never more apparentthan duringthe firstyears of the FrenchRevoFormsof theReligiousLife, tr. JosephWard lution.'FromEmile Durkheim,TheElementary Swain,New York 1915, pp. 244-245. 15 La Fete revolutionnaire, 35, 339; and by the same author, 'De ThermidorA pp. le Brumaire: discoursde la Revolutionsur elle-meme',Revuehistorique 243, 1970, pp. 3166. 16 Munich1978. 17 A useful place to start is KennethBurke, A Rhetoricof Motives,Berkeley 1969. Recent critical essays with interestingimplicationsfor history can be found in W. J. T. Mitchell,On Narrative, Chicago1981andSusanR. SuleimanandInge Crosman,TheReader in the Text:Essayson Audienceand Interpretation, Princeton1980. 18 Furet, Penser,p. 98. 19 E. P. Thompson,The Makingof the EnglishWorking Class, 1963, especiallypart 1. 20 Ozouf, La Fete revolutionnaire. 21 La Harpe, Du Fanatisme, 71. p. 22 Ozouf, La Fete revolutionnaire, 330-331. On the educational pp. see background, HaroldTalbotParker,The Cultof Antiquity the FrenchRevolutionaries, and Chicago,1937. 23 Gazettede Paris, issues of 15 and 16 July 1790. 24 'Instruction adresseeaux autoritesconstitutdes departements Rh6ne et de des de Loire, par la CommissionTemporaire'of Lyon [16 November 1793] reprintedin Walter Markovand Albert Soboul, eds., Die Sansculotten Paris:Dokumente Geschichte von zur der Volksbewgung. 1793-1794,Berlin 1957, pp. 218-236, quote from p. 224. 25 I base this observation my studyof revolutionary on printsin the collectionsof the BibliothequeNationale and the Musee Carnavaletin Paris. See also MauriceAgulhon, au Marianne combat:l'imagerie la symboliquerepublicaines 1789 a 1800, Paris 1979, et de pp. 7-53; HannahMitchell, 'Art and the FrenchRevolution:An Exhibitionat the Mus6e Carnavalet', HistoryWorkshop Journal5, 1978, pp. 123-145;and Lynn Hunt, 'Engraving the Republic:Printsand Propaganda the FrenchRevolution',History Today30, 1980, in pp. 11-17. 26 MichaelWalzer, The Revolutionof the Saints:A Studyin the Originsof Radical Politics,Cambridge, Mass. 1965. 27 J. R. Pole, PoliticalRepresentation Englandand the Originsof the American in Republic,Berkeley, Ca. 1966;Gordon S. Wood, The Creationof the AmericanRepublic, 1776-1787,New York 1969,especiallychapter1; andJ. G. A. Pocock,'1776:The Revolution againstParliament', J. G. A. Pocock, ThreeBritishRevolutions: in 1641, 1688, 1776, Princeton 1980, pp. 265-288. 28 Marc-EliBlanchard,Saint-Just Cie: La Revolutionet les mots, Paris, 1980, pp. & 42-51. 29 Peter France,Rhetoric and Truth France:Descartes Diderot, 1972,pp. 10-11. in to Francedescribeshere the rhetoricaltraininggiven in Old Regime Frenchschools. Anyone who has read a numberof revolutionary parliamentary speecheswill recognizethe common structure. 30 Some usefulobservations this issue are providedin Blanchard, on Saint-Just Cie, & pp. 25-68. 31 The Rise of French Liberal Thought:A Study of Political Ideas from Bayle to 2nd Condorcet, ed., New York 1954, p. 2. 32 Bailey Stone, The Parlement Paris, 1774-1789,ChapelHill, No. Carolina1981, of especiallychs. 3 and 6. 33 TheMachiavellian Moment: Florentine PoliticalThought theAtlantic and Republican Tradition, Princeton1975. 34 BernardBailyn, The IdeologicalOriginsof the AmericanRevolution,Cambridge, Mass. 1967.

Rhetoricof Revolution

93

35 Wood, The Creation the AmericanRepublic,and Pole, PoliticalRepresentation. of 36 From an 'Hebertist'placardreportedto the police on 9 March1794, reprintedin Markovand Soboul, Die Sansculotten, 203. p. 37 RichardCobb, 'Quelquesaspectsde la mentaliterevolutionnaire (avril 1793-thermidoran II),' in Terreur subsistances, et 1793-1795,Paris 1965, pp. 20-21. 38 Georges Lefebvre,'Foulesrevolutionnaires', in reprinted Etudessur la Revolution franqaise,2nd ed., Paris 1963, pp. 371-392. 39 The comprehensiveaccount in Steven L. Kaplan, Bread, Politics and Political Economyin the Reignof Louis XV (2 vols), The Hague 1976. 40 Letter of 24 June 1789 writtenby Camusatde Belombre, deputy from the Third Estate of the bailliage of Troyes. Archives Nationales, W 306, 'Dossier de l'abbe de Champagne.' 41 Ibid. 42 Gazettede Paris, issues of 4, 6 Januaryand 15 April 1792. 43 W. J. Murray, 'TheRight-Wing Pressin the FrenchRevolution(1782-1792)',Ph.D. Diss. AustralianNationalUniversity1971. Murraydoes not trace this theme in particular, but he gives manyinstructive examples. 44 On the Protestantplan, see Les Veritables auteursde la Revolutionde Francede 1789, attributedto Sourdatof Troyes, Neufchatel1797;and on the Freemasonplot. Abbe Barruel,Memoires pour servird l'histoiredu jacobinisme(5 vols). Hamburg1789. For an overview,see JacquesGodechot, The Counter-Revolution, Doctrineand Action 1789-1894, tr. SalvatorAttansio, New York 1971. 45 I have benefitedfrom many illuminating observationson the differencesin style between radical, moderate,and conservativeor counter-revolutionary in newspapers Suzanne Desan, ' "Avec des plumes":ParisianJournalism 1792-1792',unpublished in senior thesis, PrincetonUniversityApril 1979, loaned to me by the author.See also Jack Richard Censer, Preludeto Power: The ParisianRadicalPress, 1789-1791,Baltimore1976. 46 'Rapportsur la conjurationourdie pour obtenir un changementde dynastie;et contre Fabre d'Eglantine,Danton, Philippeaux,Lacroixet CamilleDesmoulins',Oeuvres completes Saint-Just, de intro. and notes by CharlesVellay (2 vols), Paris1908, II, pp. 305332, quote p. 319. 47 See the entry under 'revolution'in The CompactEdition of the Oxford English Dictionary(2 vols), 1971. 48 Wood, The Creation the AmericanRepublic. of 49 On the Americanside, see Pole, PoliticalRepresentation. is worth noting that It similarstudiesof ideologicaland politicaldevelopmentduringthe FirstRepublicin France have not been attempted. 50 Saint-Just Cie, p. 30. & 51 Thisemphasison the powerof the spokenwordcan be foundin both Furet,Penser, and in Blanchard,ibid. 52 PoliticalRepresentation, 511. p. 53 I have taken the notion of transparency fromJean Starobinski, Jean-Jacques Rousseau: La transparence l'obstacle.Paris 1957. Furet uses the notion when discussingthe et relationsbetween the people and power (or representations power), but he does not of extend it to the relationship citizensto each other. See for example,Penser,pp. 86, 103. of See also Marc Richir, 'Revolutionet transparence sociale', introduction J. G. Fichte, to Considerations destineesa rectifierles jugementsdu public sur la Revolutionfrancaise, Paris1974. 54 F. Braesch, ed., Le Pere Duchesned'Hebert,vol. 1, Les Origines- La Constituante,Paris, 1938, quote from no. 72, p. 751. 55 PierreTrahard,La Sensibilite revolutionnaire (1789-1794),Paris 1936,p. 189. 56 Ibid., p. 186. See also F. A. Aulard, Les Orateurs la Revolution:l'Assemblee de Constituante, Paris 1905. 57 Starobinski, Rousseau. Jean-Jacques 58 See for example, 'Reglementpour la Societe populairede la Sectionde la Republique', reprintedin Markovand Soboul, Die Sansculotten, 258-267. pp. 59 Albert Soboul, Les Sans-culottes parisiensen l'an HI.2nd ed., Paris 1962,pp. 549561. 60 From his 'Rapport sur les principesde morale politique qui doivent guider la

94

History Workshop Journal

Conventionnationaledans l'administration interieurede la Republique[5 February1794]' vol. in Oeuvresde Maximilien Robespierre, 10 (27 juillet 1793- 27 juillet 1794), Paris1967, pp. 356-357. discourseand its 61 For Furet, the Terroris the logicalconsequenceof revolutionary 'illusionof the political',Penser,especiallypp. 229 and259. PatriceHigonnettakesa position similar to Furet's but without the Tocquevillianaffiliation;he emphasizesthe inherent and side between 'bourgeoisindividualism' the communitarian of 'bourgeois contradiction universalism'. Class,Ideology,and the Rightsof Noblesduringthe FrenchRevolution,1981. on remarks this issue in CraneBrinton,TheJacobins: 62 There are manyilluminating An Essay in the New History, New York 1930. For example, 'The JacobinsClubs, then, when they cease to be in oppositionto the governmentand a bureaucracy wholly manned by theirown members,cease to practicethe tacticsassociatedwith their name . . . one may administrative bodies'. say that in generalthe finalrole of the clubsas suchis thatof auxiliary (p. 129). 63 Some suggestivepassages are to be found in Claude Lefort's review of Furet, 'Penserla revolutiondans la Revolutionfranqaise', Annales:Economies,Societ9s,Civilisations35, 1980, pp. 334-352. 64 Marxisthistoriansof revolutionary discourseare the most active. I have not been able to do justice here to the varietyof methodsand views now being developedwithina broadMarxistcontext. For a good startingplace, see the referencesin n. 10 above as well as BernardConein, 'La position du porte-parolesous la Revolutionfranqaise',in Michel Glatignyand JacquesGuilhaumou, Peupleet pouvoir:Etudesde 1exicologie politique,Lille 1981, pp. 153-164; and Claude Mazauric,'Bordier et Jourdain:Le Fete jacobine et le discourspolitique a Rouen en l'an II', in F. Joukovsky,et al., Histoireet litterature: Les Ecrivains la politique,Paris 1977,pp. 69-103. et 65 PierreGoubert, TheAncienRegime:FrenchSociety1600-1750,tr. Steve Cox, New York 1974, especiallych. 1, pp. 1-10. 66 It would be fruitfulto develop Pocock's 'Machiavellian Moment' in the French context. 67 As quoted in Louis Trenard,'Manuelsscolairesau XVIIIe siecle et sous la Revolution', Revue du Nord 1973, pp. 99-111, p. 107. See also Jean-Franqois Chassaing,'Les Manuelsde l'enseignement de primaire la Revolutionet des id6es revolutionnaires', Jean in Morangeand Jean-Franqoise Chassaing,Le Mouvementde reformede l'enseignement en France,1760-1798,Paris 1974, especiallypp. 142-143.