Manon Roland clashes with everyone
Disclaimer: Of course, I do not share Manon Roland’s opinion on all the characters; the truth is more nuanced. (For example, Robespierre was not bloodthirsty, nor was Marat; Condorcet was not truly cowardly, and this applies to all the other historical figures mentioned.) I am not saying that Manon Roland was bitter. I am simply sharing a few excerpts from her writings without claiming them to be absolute truth. Obviously, they should be read in full to understand the context and not taken at face value—just like any historical figure’s words.
On Lazowski: "I met Lazowski in the offices, then elegant, well-groomed, carefully dressed, slightly rounding his shoulders, walking on his heels, wearing a jabot, finally giving himself that little air of importance which the fools of that time took for marks of consideration, and which sensible people mocked."
On her former ally Robespierre: "This Robespierre, whom for a time I believed to be an honest man, is a truly atrocious being! How he lies to his conscience and how he loves blood!" "I will not deal here with the question of war; it was the time of the great division among the patriots: Robespierre, ardent, jealous, greedy for popularity, envious of others’ successes, domineering by character and self-prejudice, became the leader of the opposition party against the declaration of war."
Another on Robespierre and Chabot: "That an ignorant man like Robespierre, and an extravagant one such as Chabot, declaim against such a man (Genest) by calling him a friend of Brissot; that their clamor leads to the recall of one and the trial of the other, only adds to the proof of their own villainy and ineptitude, without damaging the glory of those whom they would have destroyed."
On Danton: "I looked at that repulsive and atrocious face; and although I told myself that one should not judge anyone by word alone, that I had no certainty against him, that even the most honest man must have two reputations in times of factions, and finally that appearances must be distrusted, I could not apply the idea of a good man to that face. (…) This imagination often pictured Danton, dagger in hand, urging with voice and gesture a troupe of assassins less timid or less ferocious than himself; or, content with his crimes, indicating by the gesture that characterizes Sardanapalus his habits and tendencies." "Oh Danton! This is how you sharpen the knives against your victims. Strike! One more will little increase your crimes; but their multiplicity cannot cover your villainy, nor save you from infamy. As cruel as Marius, more dreadful than Catiline, you surpass their crimes without having their great qualities, and history will vomit your name with horror in the account of the September massacres and the dissolution of the social body following the events of June 2."
On Michel Le Peletier and Hérault de Séchelles: "It is also very true that the Mountain made a sort of saint of Lepelletier, who surely did not expect such an honor: a weak and rich man who had given himself to it out of fear, like Hérault de Séchelles and a few others of that ilk; he only became very useful to it by dying in that way."
On Marat: "I said that Marat was beginning to tear us apart. It must be known that from the moment the Assembly put funds at the disposal of the Minister of the Interior for the printing of useful writings, Marat, who the day after the 10th had four presses removed from the royal printing house by his people to compensate for those the justice had previously made him withdraw, wrote to Roland to ask for fifteen thousand livres, in order to enable him to publish excellent things; Roland replied that the sum was too considerable to be granted without knowing the purpose for which it was to be used; that if Marat wanted to send his manuscripts, he would not claim the right to judge them but would submit them to the council to see if it was appropriate to publish them at the nation's expense. Marat replied rather badly, as he knows how, and sent a jumble of manuscripts whose mere sight was frightening; there was a treatise on the Chains of Slavery, and I don’t know what else, marked in the corner; that is enough to judge him. I had sometimes doubted that Marat was a subsisting being; I was then convinced that he was not imaginary: I spoke about it to Danton, expressed a desire to see him, and told him to bring him to me (for one must know monsters, and I was curious to know if it was a disorganized mind or a well-inflated mannequin)."
On her former friend Monge (Louis de Launay states they were friends before their political break): "He is a kind of bear who would perform antics like the bears I have seen playing in the moats of the city of Bern: one is not more heavily Pasquin and less made to be amusing. (…) A good man overall, or knowing how to acquire the reputation in a small circle whose clever ones would not have bothered to show that he was only thick and narrow-minded. But finally, he passed for an honest man, friend of the revolution, and people were so tired of traitors, so embarrassed to find capable people, that they began to make do with those who were reliable. I need say nothing about his ministry; the sad state of our navy today proves only too well his ineptitude and nullity."
On her former friend and political ally turned enemy, Pache: "When Pache became minister, he was Monge’s regulator, admirer, and friend, who had no opinion but his own and received it as divine inspiration; that is how he became ‘maratized’, and how this man, who should have had his kind of goodness, became a promoter of the most bloody and atrocious doctrine." "Pache, whom he had not warned of his intention and who had refused shortly before the stewardship of the furniture for which he offered Restout, whom Roland appointed on his testimony, Pache seemed very happy to remain free; yet he accepted from Monge a mission to Toulon where he went and did foolish things, as I learned later."
On Condorcet: "But since I have spoken of an academician, a few words on Mr. de Condorcet, whose mind will always be at the level of the greatest truths, but whose character will never be above that of fear. One can say of his intelligence in relation to his person that it is a fine liquor soaked in cotton. I have never known anything so cowardly. One cannot say that he shows great courage in a weak body; he is as weak of heart as of health; the timidity that characterizes him and that he even carries in society, on his face and in his attitude, is not only a vice of temperament, it seems inherent to his soul, and his lights provide him with no means to overcome it: thus after having well deduced such a principle, demonstrated such a truth, he voted in the Assembly in the opposite sense when it came to standing up in front of the fulminating tribunes, armed with insults and prodigal with threats. He was in his place at the Academy’s secretariat. Such men should be left to write and never employed."
On Vergniaud: "Vergniaux(sic) was perhaps the most eloquent speaker of the Assembly; he does not improvise like Guadet; but his prepared speeches, strong in logic, burning with heat, full of content, sparkling with beauties, supported by a very noble delivery, were still read with great pleasure. Yet I do not like Vergniaux; I find in him the selfishness of philosophy; certainly despising men because he knows them well, he does not hold back with them: but then one must remain a private idler; otherwise laziness is a crime, and Vergniaux is greatly guilty of that. What a shame that such a talent as his was not employed with the ardor of a soul devoured by love of the public good and the tenacity of a hardworking man!"
