In his latest book, entitled We needed myths. The Revolution and its imaginaries. From 1789 to the present day (Tallandier, 448 pages, 24.60 euros), historian Emmanuel de Waresquiel, a specialist in the modern era, examines the memories and legacies of the French Revolution. The professor at the École Pratique des Hautes Etudes (EPHE) notes, in particular, that its memory has been distorted and reformulated in the light of the political and social evolution of the country.
Why focus on the myths of the French Revolution rather than the events themselves?
The Revolution counts as much for its dreams as for what it was. Revolutionary memories have shaped entire generations. We are, in a way, the last descendants. If the black episode of Vichy [1940-1944] It pushed most of the right to break with its counter-revolutionary traditions, but it did not remove the division that has structured the country, like a glass partition, for almost two centuries. Of course, all parties today claim to belong to the Republic, but the revolutionary past is still lived with enthusiasm by some and distrust by others.
My entire book is based on an analysis of the relationship between history and memory. The moments considered foundational, the places, the symbols of the Revolution, its sanctification or rejection by successive regimes have, most of the time, little to do with the perception that the revolutionaries of the time had of them.
How do these memory constructions arise?
Memories of the Revolution were largely carried by institutions and governments. It is a state-based, voluntary, even authoritarian construction. But memories always end up escaping their creators: individuals reappropriate them, becoming increasingly personal and subjective.
The Revolutionaries not only gave rise to dreams, but also helped legitimize the new republican regime. It needed myths. We needed myths. What interested me was not only the construction of these myths, but also their progressive distortions according to the political and social development of the country, up to the present day.
Do you think that revolutionary legacies partly explain the current political difficulties?
Yes, in many ways. The overthrow of sovereignty in 1789, from the king to the nation, took place in sudden, unilateral and brutal conditions, leaving us with a political culture of confrontation rather than a culture of compromise. To which we must add that one of the great revolutionary principles is that of the one and indivisible nation. The deputies gathered at the Jeu de Paume on June 20, 1789, swore not to secede before having given France a Constitution – with the exception of one sole opponent, Joseph Martin-Dauch, the first “dissident” of the Revolution, who miraculously escaped the guillotine, due to a spelling mistake of his name. Indivisibility and unanimity prevent us from thinking of the opponent as anything other than a traitor. This leads us directly to the Terror. We neither liked nor understood the assembly minorities during the Revolution. The current conflict in the parliamentary game has its roots in this past.
You have 69.28% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
