Before beginning this critique, as I have not finished reading the books, I would like to thank aedesluminis for the references she recommended. Without them, I wouldn't even have been able to place Madame de Stael. This is a personal opinion about her, so I allow myself some deviations that should not be present in a historical analysis. At the moment, my initial impression of her has proven to be justified. First of all, the two million livres that Necker advanced as collateral on his personal fortune. Personally, I wouldn't blame the Treasury for not repaying it because we must remember two things:
Necker amused himself with others in obstructing Turgot, who was much more competent than him. If Turgot had not proposed his austerity plan and had not played the "villain", Necker wouldn't have been able to borrow at all (I acknowledge the limitations of Turgot's economy, but I prefer the austerity plans advocated by Lindet and others at the time of 1793; however, Turgot was much more competent than Necker). Necker wanted this position at any cost, and now he must bear the consequences.
By constantly borrowing, playing the image of the false friend of the people denounced by Marat, and especially hiding the realities of the deficit, Necker would have done better to donate 2 million livres to try to redeem himself (even without these 2 million livres, his situation is much better than that of the vast majority of French people at that time). But let's get back to the subject of Germaine de Stael. As the daughter, she is a privileged witness of 1789. She becomes friends with people like Talleyrand and especially Lameth. She is attached to a moderate revolution of 1791 and does not like that the power of the King (executive) is diminished when he still has significant powers such as the right of veto. She suffers insults from the ultra-royalists, but she doesn't like the republicans much either. Contrary to some legends, Manon Roland is quite different from Madame de Stael. Moreover, the grinding of teeth that I would have against Stael is the fact that she approves of the shooting on the Champ de Mars while citizens were signing a petition for the deposition of the king following the flight to Varennes (thus a justified opinion) in the face of the lie of the National Assembly. With this phrase in 1793, "The Terror, he writes, was nothing but arbitrary pushed to the extreme." In her moral double standard, she will later approve of the repression of April 1, 1795, led by the army, the Muscadins. Not to mention the execution of the last Montagnards. Without any consideration for the economic context, namely the abolition of the maximum and the poor harvests of 1794 which pushed the last sans-culottes to rebel (even if I totally disapprove of the macabre assassination of Féraud), Madame de Stael approves once again. In conclusion, if it is republicans from the extreme left wing of 1791 - who were Girondins and some Montagnards -, Jacobins, Cordeliers or sans-culottes demanding repressive measures, they are awful arbitrary actions, but if it is the opposite camp, it can allow killings according to Germaine de Stael. These double standards should never be tolerated. I am exaggerating, but this is how I feel. The guillotine cannot be used against Madame Stael's friends but can be used against people like Charles Gilbert Romme according to her (I am exaggerating again, but you see where I am going with this).
Moreover, she quickly forgot Barras' role, which was one of the bloodiest of the revolution, to curry favor with him (hypocrisy or political calculation, I will be kind and grant her the second option). Furthermore, she who disapproved of the demonstration of April 1, 1795, by the sans-culottes or the petition demanded by the Cordeliers among others following the King's flight, will approve of a coup d'état which is an even more serious and unconstitutional act (because it comes from the army) on the part of Napoleon. Is she aware of her history? In the absence of following the predictions of a Marat, other Cordeliers, Jacobins, and others who believed that the army should never meddle in the affairs of the country, did she follow the excesses of the Janissaries in the Ottoman Empire? Or simply of Roman history? Quality education doesn't guarantee everything... And yes, Madame de Stael was initially a fervent admirer of Napoleon but later became his opponent due to authoritarian abuses. However, I am against in her biographies the fact of exonerating her from her mistake by saying that many people at the time admired Napoleon and supported the coup d'état. It's untrue; Kleber made a report against Napoleon (although he died before the 18th Brumaire), Prieur de la Marne was against Napoleon, Prieur de la Côte d'Or never accepted anything from Napoleon... So no, this excuse doesn't hold. Let's not forget that Germaine Stael made a dubious comparison between Robespierre and Napoleon; Robespierre surely had flaws but not that of being a dictator, and wouldn't sending armed force against the Convention unlike Napoleon. I acknowledge Madame de Stael for being anti-slavery and for having a good opinion of the consequences of the Hundred Days regarding Napoleon, but I must note that she did not suffer (at least not much) unlike other opponents of Napoleon, namely the Belair couple (Charles and Sanité Belair) who were executed, Jean-Baptiste Antoine le Franc (we must not forget that deportation could be worse than death), and even Simone Evrard who was interrogated (I think Napoleon and his governement wouldn't have arrested her too much time and even less deported her because even he would have realized that it would have been hell to pay if he did that against someone considered the widow of Marat) or even Marie Anne Babeuf watched by Napoleon's police and denounced, etc... But I will continue to read the books; I hope that thanks to these books, my opinion of her will evolve.
Source thank you again aedesluminis
Jean Denis Bredin Une singulière famille
Michel Winock Madame de Stael
Gislaine de Diesbach Madame de Stael
