Book review: Jean-Paul Marat: Tribune of the French Revolution, by Clifford D. Conner

Abstract

Clifford D. Conner Jean-Paul Marat: Tribune of the French Revolution, Pluto Press: London, 2012; Xiii + 178 pp.: 9780745331935, 12.99 [pounds sterling] Clifford Conner's highly readable study of Jean-Paul Marat is part of an ongoing series on 'Revolutionary Lives', covering subjects ranging from Gerrard Winstanley to Hugo Chavez. Aimed at the general reader, the series attempts to show the relevance of revolutionary figures by 'putting their actions and achievements in context'. Conner is right to emphasise Marat's political acumen as a journalist and politician, and to highlight his social agenda, promoting basic rights and welfare, at a time when these were mostly ignored by fellow radicals in favour of political reform. His central theme--that Marat was not simply a radical icon, but also one of the French Revolutions leading figures, whose interventions were critical to advancing its interests--is most welcome, and convincingly argued. However, whilst Conners work plugs a long-standing lacuna, it marks a missed opportunity for a fresh re-evaluation of the life of one of history's least understood radicals. First, and perhaps most disappointingly, given the paucity of English-language accounts of Marat's life--two in the last 100 years, one by the same author--this short book (178 pp.) appears to be a heavily abridged and revised version of an earlier work (1988: 285), with the first (pre-revolutionary) half, and many of the quotes that allowed us to hear Marat's voice, removed. Some of these cuts, such as Conner's astute observation that Marat was principally motivated by his 'amour de gloire--a notion closely modeled on the classical idea of a drive for recognition through public service (1998: 45)--significantly weaken our understanding. For those who wish to know more, Conner has generously uploaded the excised material on the web at . This recycled approach, alas, comes at the expense of engagement with important scholarship published during the last 15 years, and leaves Conner's book stuck in an ideological groove from which revolutionary studies have largely moved on. Besides opening new windows on aspects of Marat's political thought, recent historiography has widely influenced discussions on the impact of revolutionary journalism on public opinion, the transformation of the public sphere, the formation of political identities, and the creation of a range of political discourses, including representation, republicanism, conspiracy and human rights. Most surprisingly, while Conner tips his hat to previous French biographers, he fails to acknowledge the achievement of Jacques de Cock and Charlotte Goetz, whose heavily annotated 10-volume edition, Oeuvres Politiques de Jean-Paul Marat (Pole Nord, 1989-95), provides the benchmark for any investigation of his revolutionary career. Second, given the opportunity to reassess his material, it is a shame that many inaccuracies remain. For example, Conner confuses Marat's pamphlets with his placards (wall posters). Marat's poster campaign, telling Parisians who to vote for, amongst other things, did not come about until after the fall of the monarchy in the summer of 1792. He also suggests that Marat was 'thrilled' by Diderot's criticisms of his first work (De l'Homme), when in fact they were only published posthumously in Elements de Physiologie, in 1830. While Marat certainly revelled in publicising Voltaire's stinging criticism of this work long after the event, it seems strange to assert that he enjoyed it at the time, as an ambitious newcomer hoping to be taken seriously by the Parisian establishment. Some sweeping generalisations, too, tend to undermine Conner's wider argument regarding Marat's contribution. His insistence that 'without Marat, the French Revolution may well not have resulted in the social transformation of France, Europe and the world' seems a bit much, as does his assertion that under the influence of 1980s revisionism, historians ceased to see any value in the Revolution's most radical phase, and thus stopped paying much attention to Marat's role. …