Germaine de Staël

Anne Louise Germaine de Staël-Holstein was born in 1766 in Paris.  Her father was Jacques Necker a Swiss banker who became the Director of Finance to Louis XVI.  Her mother was also famed in French society for hosting a salon which was well attended by many enlightenment thinkers.  Due to various political misfortunes Necker and his family were forced into exile in Switzerland although they did return to Paris in 1785.  By this stage Germaine was writing numerous plays.  She married Baron Erik Magnus Staël von Holstein, who was first an attaché of the Swedish legation who was promised the role of ambassador in future years.

With the coming of the Revolution her father fled once again after unsuccessful attempts to halt France’s slide towards bankruptcy.  She carried on the tradition of her mother by being a successful hostess and counted luminaries such as Gouverneur Morris and Talleyrand as guests.  She began to feel however that Paris was no longer safe and the day before the September massacres in 1792 she fled Paris to the family home in Coppet Castle in Switzerland.

She would condemn the Revolution’s treatment of the Queen but would return to Paris in the aftermath of Robespierre’s execution.  Once again her salon door would be reopened as France entered the time of the Directory.  However when Napoleon rose to the First Consulship she could not hide her disappointment at this rejection of constitutionalism.  Her increasing criticism of Napoleon would find her more and more in Coppet with occasional attempts to resettle in Paris.  She would eventually live to see the end of Napoleon in France but would die shortly after in 1817.

Germaine De Staël  gives her thoughts on Louis XV.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis (2008) p42

The weak character of Louis XV, and the endless errors resulting from that character, naturally strengthened the spirit of resistance.  People saw on the one hand Lord Chatham at the head of England, surrounded by parliamentary speakers of talent, all ready to acknowledge his pre-eminence, while in France, the meanest of the royal mistresses obtained the appointment and removal of ministers.  Public spirit was the ruling principle in England; accident and miserable intrigues decided the fate of France. Yet Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Buffon, profound thinkers and superior writers, belong to the country that was thus governed; and how could the French avoid envying England, when they might say with truth, that it was to her political institutions that she owed her superiority.  For they saw among themselves as many men of talent as their neighbours, although the nature of their government prevented them from turning these talents to so much account.

Germaine De Staël  offers more thoughts on Louis XV.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p45

There is extant a letter of Louis XV to the Duchess of Choiseul, in which he says: “I have had a great deal of trouble with the parlements during my reign; but let my grandson be cautious of them, for they may put his crown in danger.”  In fact, in following the course of events during the eighteenth century, we easily perceive that it was the aristocratic bodies in France that first attacked the royal power; not from any intention of overturning the throne, but from being pressed forward by public opinion, which acts on men without their knowing it, and often leads them on in contradiction to their interest.  Louis XV bequeathed to his successor a general spirit of discontent among his subjects, the necessary consequence of his endless errors.  The finances had been kept up only by bankrupt expedients: the quarrels of the Jesuits and Jansenists had brought the clergy into disrepute.  Banishments and imprisonments, incessantly repeated, had failed in subduing the opposition of the parlement.

Germaine De Staël  discusses Louis XVI and his wife.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p46-47

The Queen, Marie Antoinette, was one of the most amiable and gracious persons who ever occupied a throne: there was no reason why she should not preserve the love of the French, for she had nothing to forfeit it.  As far, therefore, as personal qualities went, the King and Queen might claim the hearts of their subjects; but the arbitrary form of the government, as successive ages had moulded it, accorded so ill with the spirit of the times, that even the virtues of the sovereigns were overlooked the amid the accumulation of abuses.  When a nation feels the want of political reform, the personal character of the monarch is but a feeble barrier against the impulse.  A sad fatality placed the reign of Louis XVI in an era in which great talents and profound knowledge were necessary to contend with the prevailing spirit, or, what would have been better, to make a fair compromise with it.

Germaine De Staël on Necker the Finance Minister.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p59

M. Necker was the first and only minister in France who succeeded in obtaining credit without the benefit of any institution.  His name inspired so much confidence that capitalists in various parts of Europe came forward, even to a degree of imprudence, with their funds, reckoning on him as on a government, and forgetting that he could lose his place at any moment.  It was customary in England, as in France, to quote him before the Revolution as the best financial head in Europe: and it was considered as a miracle, that war should have been carried on during five years without increasing the taxes, or using other means than providing for the interests of the loans by progressing retrenchments.

Germaine De Staël discusses the impact of the American Revolution.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis (2008) p72

In judging of the past from our knowledge of the events that have ensued, most people will be of the opinion that Louis XVI did wrong in interfering between England and America.  Although the independence of the United States was desired by all liberal minds, the principles of the French monarchy did not permit of encouraging what, according to these principles, must be pronounced a revolt.  Besides, France had at the time no cause of complaint against England; and, to enter on a war solely on the ground of the habitual rivalship of the two countries, is bad policy in itself,  and more detrimental to France than to England; for France, possessing greater natural resources, but being inferior in naval power, is sure of acquiring additional strength in peace, and as sure of being weakened by a maritime war.

The cause of America and the parliamentary debates on that such subject in England, excited the greatest interest in France.  All the French officers sent to serve under Washington came home with an enthusiasm for liberty, which made it no easy task for them to resume their attendance at Versailles without wishing for something beyond the honour of being presented at court.  Must we then accede to the opinion of those who attribute the Revolution to the political fault of the French government in taking part in the American war?  The Revolution must be attributed to everything, and to nothing: every year of the century led toward it by every path; it was a matter of great difficulty to remain deaf to the call of Paris in favour of American independence.

Germaine De Staël on the make-up of the Three Estates .  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p118

The Estates of General of France were, as I have just mentioned, divided into three orders- the clergy, the nobility, and the Third Estate- and accustomed to deliberate separately, like three great nations: each presented its grievances to the King, and each confined itself to its particular interests, which had, according to circumstances, more or less connection with the interests of the public at large.  In point of numbers, the Third Estate comprised almost the whole nation, the two whole other orders forming scarcely a hundredth part of it.  Having gained greatly in relative importance in the course of the last two centuries, the Third Estate demanded, in 1789, that the mercantile body, or the towns, without reference to the country, should have enough deputies to render the number of the representatives of their body equal to that of the two other orders together; and this demand was supported by motives and circumstances of the greatest weight.

Germaine De Staël on Mirabeau .  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p130

Some of the nobles had got themselves elected deputies of the Third Estate, and of those the most conspicuous was the Comte de Mirabeau.  The opinion entertained of his talents was remarkably increased by the dread excited by his immortality; yet it was that very immorality that lessened the influence which his surprising abilities ought to have obtained for him.  The eye that was once fixed on his countenance was not likely to be soon withdrawn: his immense head of hair distinguished him from amongst the rest, and suggested the idea that, like Samson, his strength depended on it; his countenance derived expression even from its ugliness: and his whole person conveyed the idea of irregular power, but still much power as we should expect to find in a tribune of the people.

Germaine De Staël on the opening of the Estates General.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p132

On the rising of the Assembly, the popular party, that is, the majority of the Third Estate, a minority of the nobility, and several members of the clergy, complained that M. Necker had treated the Estates General like a provincial administration, in speaking to them only of measures for securing the public debt and improving the system of taxation.  The grand object of their assembling was, doubtless, to form a constitution; but could they expect that the King’s minister should be the first to enter on questions which it belonged to the representatives of the nation to introduce?

Germaine De Staël on Necker.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p161

Two days after his departure, and as soon as his removal from office was known, the theatres were shut as for a public calamity.  All Paris took up arms; the first cockade worn was green, because that was the colour of M. Necker’s livery: medals were struck with his effigy; and had he thought proper to repair to Paris instead of quitting France by the nearest frontier, that of Flanders, it would be diificult to assign a limit to the influence that he might have acquired.

Germaine De Staël on the Storming of the Bastille.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p163-164

The 14th of July, although marked by bloody assassinations on the part of the populace, was yet a day of grandeur: the movement was national; no faction, either foreign or domestic, would have been able to excite such enthusiasm.  All France participated in it, and the emotion of a whole people is always connected with true and natural feeling.  The most honourable names Bailly, La Fayette, Lally, were proclaimed by the public opinion; the silence of a country governed by a court was exchanged for the sound of the spontaneous acclamations of all the citizens.  The minds of the people were exalted; but as yet there was nothing but goodness in their souls; and the conquerors had not had time to contract those haughty passions from which the strongest party in France is scarcely ever able to preserve itself.

Germaine De Staël on Mirabeau.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p173

One would almost say that in every era of history there are personages who should be considered as the representatives of the good and of the wicked principle.  Such, in Rome were Cicero and Catiline; such, in France, were M. Necker and Mirabeau.  Mirabeau gifted with the most comprehensive and energetic mind, though himself sufficiently strong to overthrow the government, and to erect on its ruins a system, of some kind or other, that would have been the work of his own hands.  This gigantic project was the ruin of France, and the ruin of himself; for he acted at first in the spirit of faction, although his real manner of judging was that of the most reflecting statesman.  He was then of the age of forty, and had passed his whole life in lawsuits, abduction of women, and in prisons; he was excluded from good society, and his first wish was to regain his station in it.  But he thought it necessary to set on fire the whole social edifice, that the doors of the Paris saloons might be opened to him.  Like other immoral men, Mirabeau looked first to his personal interest in public affairs, and his foresight was limited by his egoism.

Germaine De Staël on La Fayette.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p182

M. de la Fayette, having fought from his early youth for the cause of America, had early become imbued with the principles of liberty which form the basis of that government.  If he made mistakes in regard to the French Revolution, we are to ascribe them all to his admiration of the American institutions, and of Washington, the hero citizen who guided the first steps of that nation in the career of independence.  La Fayette, young, affluent, of noble family, and beloved at home, relinquished all these advantages at the age of nineteen to serve beyond the ocean in the cause of that liberty, the love of which has decided every action of his life.  Had he had the happiness to be a native of the United States, his conduct would have been that of Washington: the same disinterestedness, the same enthusiasm, the same perseverance in their opinions, distinguished each of these generous friends of humanity.  Had General Washington been, like the Marquis de Lafayette, commander of the national guard of Paris, he also might have found it impossible to control the course of circumstances; he also might have seen his efforts baffled by the difficulty of being at once faithful to his engagements to the King, and of establishing at the same time the liberty of his country.

M. de la Fayette, I must say, has a right to be considered a true republican; none of the vanities of his rank ever entered his head; power, the effect of which is so great in France, had no ascendency over him; the desire of pleasing in drawing-room conversation did not with him influence a single phrase; he sacrificed all his fortune to his opinions with the most generous indifference.

Germaine De Staël on La Fayette and the Declaration of Rights.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, (2008) p184

On the 11th of July, before the Third Estate had obtained their triumph, M. de la Fayette addressed the Constituent Assembly and proposed a declaration of rights, nearly similar to that which the Americans placed at the head of their constitution, after conquering their independence….

The French declaration of rights in 1789 contained the best part of those of England and America; but it would have perhaps been better to have confined it, on the one hand to what was disputable and on the other to what would not have admitted of any dangerous interpretation.

Germaine De Staël on Abbé Sieyès.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p203-204

In the first rank on the popular side was seen the Abbé Sieyès, insulated by his peculiar temper, although surrounded by admirers of his mind.  Till the age of forty he had led a solitary life, reflecting on political questions and carrying great powers of abstraction into that study; but he was ill qualified to hold communication with other men, so easily was he hurt by their caprices, and so ready was he to irritate them in his turn.  But as he possessed a superior mind, with a keen and laconic manner of expressing himself, it was the fashion in the Assembly to show him an almost superstitious respect.  Mirabeau had no objection to hear the silence of the Abbé Sieyès extolled above his own eloquence, for rivalship of such a kind is not to be dreaded.  People imagined that Sieyès, that mysterious man, possessed secrets in government, from which surprising effects were expected whenever he should reveal them.  Some young men, and even some minds of great compass, professed the highest admiration for him; and there was a general disposition to praise him at the expense of everybody because he on no occasion allowed the world to form a complete estimate of him.

One thing, however, was known with certainty-he detested the distinctions of nobility; and yet he retained, from his professional habits, an attachment to the clerical order, which he showed in the clearest way possible at the time of the suppression of the tithes.  “They wish to be free and do not know to be just,” was his remark on that occasion; and all the faults of the Assembly were comprised in these words.  But they ought to have been equally applied to those various classes of the community who had a right to pecuniary indemnities.  The attachment of the Abbé Sieyès to the clergy would have ruined any other man in the opinion of the popular party; but, in consideration of his hatred of the nobles, the party of the Mountain forgave him his partiality to the priests.

Germaine De Staël on the Constituent Assembly.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p208

At a time when France had both famine and bankruptcy to dread, the deputies used to make speeches in which they asserted that “every man has from nature a right and a wish to enjoy happiness; that society began by the father and the son,” with other philosophical truths much fitter for discussions in books than in the midst of an assembly.  But if the people stood in need of bread, the speakers stood in need of applause, and a scarcity in that respect would have seemed to them very hard to bear.

Germaine De Staël on the Constituent Assembly.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p208

At a time when France had both famine and bankruptcy to dread, the deputies used to make speeches in which they asserted that “every man has from nature a right and a wish to enjoy happiness; that society began by the father and the son,” with other philosophical truths much fitter for discussions in books than in the midst of an assembly.  But if the people stood in need of bread, the speakers stood in need of applause, and a scarcity in that respect would have seemed to them very hard to bear.

Germaine De Staël on events of the 5th to the 6th October 1789.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p228-229

The people demanded with great clamour that the King and royal family should remove to Paris; an answer in assent had been given on their part, and the cries, and the firing which we heard, were signs of rejoicing from the Parisian troops.  The Queen then appeared in the hall; her hair dishevelled, her countenance pale, but dignified; everything in her person was striking to the imagination.  The people required that she should appear on the balcony, and, as the whole court, which is called the marble court, was full of men with firearms in their hands, the Queen’s countenance discovered her apprehensions.  Yet she advanced without hesitation along with her two children, who served as her safeguard.

The multitude seemed affected on seeing the Queen as a mother, and political rage became appeased at the sight: those who that very night had perhaps wished to assassinate her, extolled her name to the skies.

The populace, in a state of insurrection, are in general, inaccessible to reasoning, and are to be acted on only by sensations rapid as electricity, and communicated in a similar manner.  Mobs are, according to circumstances, better or worse than the individuals which compose them; but whatever be their temper, they are to be prompted to crime as to virtue, only by having recourse to a natural impulsion.

Germaine De Staël on Constituent Assembly and their creation of the Civic Oath for clergy.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p239

A great error, and one which it seemed easier for the Constituent Assembly to avoid, was the unfortunate invention of a constitutional clergy.  To exact from the ecclesiasticals an oath at variance with their conscience, and, on their refusing it, to persecute them by the loss of a pension, and afterward even by transportation, was to degrade those who took the oath, to which temporal advantages were attached.

The Constituent Assembly ought not to have thought of forming a clerical body devoted to it, and thus affording the means, which were afterwards embraced, of distressing the ecclesiastics attached to their ancient creed.  This was putting political in the place of religious intolerance.  A single resolution, firm and just, ought to have been taken by statesmen under those circumstances; they ought to have imposed on each communion the duty of supporting their own clergy.  The Constituent Assembly thought that it acted with greater political depth by dividing the clergy, by establishing a schism, and by thus detaching from the court of Rome those who would enrol themselves under the banners of the Revolution.  But of what use were such priests?  The Catholics would not listen to them, and philosophers did not want them: they were a kind of militia, who had lost their character beforehand, and who could do not do otherwise than injure the government who they supported.  The establishment of a constitutional clergy was so revolting to the public mind that it was necessary to employ force to give it effect.

Germaine De Staël considers the Night of the 4th of August 1789 and the removal of feudal titles.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis (2008) p243

One of the most singular propositions of this day was that of renouncing the names of the estates, which many families had borne for ages, and obliging them to resume their patronymic appellations.  In this way the Montmorencies would have been called Bouchard; La Fayette, Mottie, Mirabeau, Riquetti.  This would have been stripping France of her history; and no man, however democratic, either would or ought to renounce in this manner the memory of his ancestors.

Germaine De Staël considers the Night of the 4th of August 1789 and the removal of feudal titles.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p282

The ill-fated constitution, so good in its foundation and so bad in its superstructure, was presented to the acceptance of the King.  He certainly could not refuse it, as it put an end to his captivity; but the public flattered itself that his consent was voluntary.  Fetes were held as if for a season of happiness; rejoicings were ordered that people might persuade themselves that the danger was over; the words “King,” “Representative Assembly,” “Constitutional Monarchy” corresponded to the real wishes of all the French.   They thought they had attained realities when they had acquired only names.

Germaine De Staël on emigres.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p287-289

The nobles of France unfortunately consider themselves rather as the countrymen of the nobles of all countries than as the fellow citizens of Frenchmen.  According to their manner of judging, the race of the ancient conquerors of Europe owes itself mutual aid from one empire to another; but a people, on the other hand, conscious of forming a uniform whole naturally wish to be the disposers of their own fate; and from the times of antiquity down to our days, no free, or even merely spirited, people has ever borne without horror the interference of a foreign government in its domestic quarrels…

Emigration, far from keeping up the respectability of the nobility, was the greatest blow to it.  A new generation has risen up in the absence of the nobles, and as this generation has lived, prospered, and triumphed without the privileged classes, it still thinks itself capable of maintaining itself alone.  The emigrants, on the other hand, living always in the same circle, are persuaded that whatever is different from their ancient habits is rebellion: they have thus acquired by degrees the same kind of inflexibility which marks the clergy…

The emigrants must have convinced themselves by their own feelings, in different circumstances, that the step they had taken was reprehensible.  When they found themselves in the midst of foreign uniforms, when they heard those German dialects, no sound of which recalled to them the recollections of their past life, is it possible that they could still think themselves devoid of blame?  Did they not see the whole of France arrayed to defend herself on the opposite bank?  Did they not experience unspeakable distress on recognising the national music, on hearing the ascents of their native province, in that camp which they were obliged to call hostile?  How many of them must have returned with sorrow among the English, among so many other nations whom they were ordered to consider as their allies!

Germaine De Staël on the events of the 20th June 1792.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p314

These twenty thousand men made their way into the palace; their faces bore marks of that coarseness, moral and physical, of which the disgusting effect is not to be supported by the great philanthropist.  Had they been animated by any true feeling, they had come to complain against injustice, against the dearness of corn, against the increases of taxes, against compulsory service in the army, in short, against any suffering which power and wealth can inflict on poverty, the rags which they wore, their hands blackened by labour, the premature old age of the women, the brutishness of the children, would all have excited pity.  But their frightful oaths mingled with cries, their threatening gestures, their deadly instruments, exhibited a frightful spectre, and one calculated to alter forever the respect that ought to be felt for our fellow creatures.

Germaine De Staël on the Duke of Brunswick’s Manifesto.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p319

It has been strongly asserted that the terms in which the manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick was expressed were one of the principal causes of the rising of the French nation against the allies in 1792.  I do not believe this: the first articles of that manifesto contained what most papers of the kind since the Revolution have expressed; that is, that the foreign powers would make no conquest from France, and that they were not inclined to interfere with the interior government of the country.  To these two promises, which are seldom observed, was added, it is true, the threat of treating as rebels such of the national guards as should be found with arms in their hands; as if, in any case, a nation could be culpable in defending its territory! But had the manifesto even been more moderately couched, it would not, at that time, have at all weakened the public spirit of the French.  It is well known that every armed power desires victory, and has nothing more at heart than to weaken the obstacles which it must encounter to obtain it.  Accordingly, the proclamations of invaders addressed to the nations whom they attack all consist in saying: “Do not resist us”; and the answer of a spirited people should be: “We will resist you.”

Germaine De Staël on the events of the 10th August 1792 .  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p322

Several battalions of the National Guards, and amongst others that of Les Filles St. Thomas, were full of zeal and ardour; but the King, on quitting the Tuileries, could no longer rely on that enthusiasm which constitutes the strength of armed citizens.

Many republicans believe that if Louis XVI had triumphed on the 10th of August, the foreign troops would have arrived in Paris and have re-established the ancient despotism, rendered still more odious by the means from which it would have been derived its force.  It is possible that things might have come to his extremity; but what would have led them to it? In civil commotions a crime may always be rendered politically useful; but it is by preceding crimes that this infernal necessity is caused.

Germaine De Staël on Louis XVI’s trial .  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p337-338

The want of respect shown to Louis XVI during his trial is more striking than even his condemnation.  When the President of the Convention said to him who was his King: “Louis you may sit down!” we feel more indignation even than when he is accused of crimes which he had never committed.  One must have sprung from the very dust not to respect past obligations, particularly when misfortune has rendered them sacred; and vulgarity joined to crime inspires us with as much contempt as horror.  No man of real superiority has been remarked amongst those who incited the convention to condemn the King; the popular tide rose and fell at certain words and certain phrases, while the talent of so eloquent an orator as Vergniaud could not influence the public mind.  It is true that the greater part of the deputies who defended the King took a detestable ground.  They began by declaring that he was guilty; and one among them said at the tribune that Louis XVI was a traitor, but the nation ought to pardon him; and this they called the tactics of the Assembly!  They pretended that it was necessary to humour the reigning opinion, that they might moderate it at a proper time.  With such cautious prudence as this, how could they resist their enemies, who sprang with all their force upon the victim?  In France, they always capitulate with the majority, even when they wish to oppose it; and this miserable finesse assuredly diminishes the means instead of increasing them.  The power of the minority can consist only in the energy of the conviction.  What are the weak in numbers if they are also weak in sentiment?

Germaine De Staël on the Girondin’s and their fate .  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p359

The last men who at this time are still worthy to occupy a place in history are the Girondists.  They felt without doubt at the bottom of their hearts a keen remorse for the means which they had employed to overturn the throne; and when these very means were directed against themselves, when they recognised their own weapons in the wounds which they received, they must have reflected without doubt on that rapid justice of revolutions which concentrates in a few instants the events of several ages.

The Girondists contended every day and every hour, with an undaunted eloquence, against discourses sharpened like poignards, which carried death in every phrase.  The murderous nets, with which the proscribed were enveloped on all sides, in no respect took away from them that presence of mind which alone can give effect to all the talents of the orator.

Germaine De Staël on the war in the Vendée .  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p364-365

It was about this time, also, that the war of La Vendee began, and nothing does more honour to the royalist party than the attempts at civil war which were then made.  The people of these departments were able to resist the Convention and its successors for nearly six years, being headed by some gentlemen who drew their principal resources from their own minds.

The republicans, as well as the royalists, felt a profound respect for these warrior citizens.  Lescure, La Roche Jacquelin, Charette, etc., whatever their opinion might be, fulfilled a duty to which all the French at the time might have thought themselves equally bound.  The country which was the theatre of the Vendean war was intersected by hedges intended to enclose the different estates.  These peaceful hedges served for bulwarks to the peasants become soldiers, who sustained one by one the most dangerous and daring struggle. The inhabitants of these parts of the country had much veneration for the priests, whose influence at that time did good.  But in a state where liberty had long subsisted, the public mind would not need to be excited except by public institutions.  The Vendeans, it is true, demanded in their distress some succours from England; but it was only auxiliaries, not masters, whom they accepted; for their own forces were much superior to those whom they borrowed from abroad.  They did not therefore compromise the independence of their country.  Accordingly the chiefs of la Vendee were held in consideration even by the opposite party, and they expressed themselves upon the revolution with more moderation than the emigrants beyond the Rhine.  The Vendeans having fought, so to say, man to man with the French, were not easily persuaded that their adversaries were but a handful of rebels, whom a single battalion could have brought back to their duty; and as they themselves had recourse to the power of opinions, they knew what they were, and acknowledged the necessity of compromising with them.

Germaine De Staël on the fall of Robespierre.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p371

Had a division not taken place among the deputies of the Convention themselves, it is impossible to say how long the atrocious government of the Committee of Public Safety would have lasted.

This Committee was not composed of men of superior talent; the machine of terror, the springs of which had been prepared for action by events, exercised alone unbounded power. The government resembled the hideous instrument employed on the scaffold; the axe was seen rather than the hand which put it in motion.  A single question was sufficient to overturn the power of these men; it was – how many are they? But their force was measured by the atrocity of their crimes, and nobody dared attack them.  These twelve members of the Committee of Public Safety distrusted one another, as the Convention distrusted them, and they distrusted it; as the army, the people, and the partisans of the revolution were all mutually filled with alarm.  No name of this epoch will remain, except Robespierre.

Yet he was neither more able nor more eloquent than the rest; but his political fanaticism had a character of calmness and austerity which made him feared by all his colleagues…

Danton was factious, Robespierre was hypocritical: Danton was fond of pleasure, Robespierre only of power; he sent to the scaffold some as counter-revolutionists, others as ultra-revolutionists.  There was something mysterious in his manner which caused an unknown terror to hover about in the midst of the ostensible terror which the government proclaimed.  He never adopted the means of popularity then generally in use; he was not ill dressed, on the contrary, he was the only person who wore powder in his hair; his clothes were neat, and his countenance had nothing familiar.  The desire of ruling carried him, without doubt, to distinguish himself from others at the very moment when equality in everything was desired.  Traces of a secret design are also perceived in the confusing discourses which he made in the Convention, and which, in some respects, recall to our recollection those of Cromwell.  It is rarely, indeed, that anyone who is not a military chief can become dictator.  But the civil power had then much more influence than the military: the republican spirit led to a distrust of all the victorious generals; the soldiers themselves delivered up their leaders as soon as the least alarm with respect to their fidelity arose. Political dogmas, if the name can be applied to such wanderings of intellect, reigned at the time, and not men.  Something abstract was wanted in authority, that everybody might be thought to have a share in it.  Robespierre had acquired the reputation of high democratical virtue, and was believed incapable of personal views: as soon as he was suspected, his power was at an end.

Germaine De Staël on the Cult of the Supreme Being.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p373

The most indecent irreligion served as a lever for the subversion of the social order.  There was a kind of consistency in founding crime upon impiety: it is homage paid to the intimate union of religious opinions with morality.  Robespierre conceived the idea of celebrating a festival in honour of the Supreme Being, flattered himself, doubtless, with being able to rest his political ascendency on a religion arranged according to his own notions; as those have frequently done who have wished to seize the supreme power.  But in the procession of this impious festival he decided to walk at the head of the procession in order to claim pre-eminence over his colleagues; and from that time he was lost.  

Germaine De Staël on the Directory.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p384

They entered the palace of Luxembourg, which was allotted to them, without finding a table to write upon, and the state was not in better order than the palace.  The paper money was reduced to almost the thousandth part of its nominal value; there were not in the public treasury a hundred thousand francs in specie; provisions were still so scacre that the dissatisfaction of the people on this point could with difficulty be restrained; the insurrection of La Vendée was still going on; the civil disturbance had given rise to bands of robbers, known by the name of chauffeurs, who committed horrible excesses throughout the country; and lastly , almost all the French armies were disorganised.

In six months the Directory raised France from this deplorable situation.  Money replaced the paper currency without any shock; the old landholders lived peacefully by the side of those who had recently acquired national domains; the roads, and the country, were again rendered completely safe, the armies were but too victorious; the freedom of the press reappeared; the elections followed their legal course, and France might have been said to be free.

Germaine De Staël on Bonaparte after his early Italian successes.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p394

Bonaparte was already much talked of in Paris; the superiority of his capacity in business, joined to the splendour of his talents as a General, gave to his name an importance which no individual had ever acquired from the commencement of the Revolution.  But although in his proclamations he spoke incessantly of the republic, attentive men perceived that it was in his eyes a mean, and not an end.  It was in this same light that he viewed all things and all men.  A rumour prevailed that he meant to make himself King of Lombardy. One day I met General Augereau, who had just returned from Italy, and who was cited, I believed then with reason, as a zealous republican.  I asked him whether it was true that General Bonaparte was thinking of becoming a king. “No assuredly,” replied he; “he is young man of too good principles for that.”  This singular answer was in exact conformity with the ideas of the moment.  The sincere republicans would have regarded it as a degradation for a man, however distinguished he might be, to wish to turn the Revolution to his personal advantage.  Why had not this sentiment more force and longer duration among Frenchmen.

Germaine De Staël on the Directory.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p397

The Directory, as preserver of its own political existence, had strong reasons for putting itself in a state of defence; but how could it?  The defects in the constitution which M. Necker had so well pointed out rendered it very difficult for the government to make a legal resistance to the attacks of the councils.  The Council of Ancients was inclined to defend the Directors, only because it occupied, though very imperfectly, the place of a chamber of peers; but as the deputies of this council were not named for life, they were afraid of rendering themselves unpopular by supporting magistrates whom the public opinion rejected.  If the government had possessed the right of dissolving the Five Hundred, the mere threat of exerting this prerogative would have restrained them within bounds.  In short, if the executive power had been able to oppose even a suspending veto to the decrees of the councils, it would have been satisfied with the means with which the law had armed it for protection.  But these very magistrates, whose authority was so limited, had great powers as a revolutionary faction; and they were not scrupulous enough to confine themselves to the rules of constitutional warfare when, to get rid of their opponents, they needed only to have recourse to force.  The personal interest of some individuals was seen on this occasion, as it always will be, to overturn the barriers of the law, if these barriers are not constructed in such a way as to maintain themselves.

Germaine De Staël on Napoleon.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p408

Bonaparte made himself remarkable by his character and capacity as much as by his victories, and the imagination of the French were beginning to attach itself warmly to him.  His proclamations to the Cisalpine and Ligurian Republic were quoted.  In the one this phrase was remarked: You were divided, and bent down by tyranny; you were not in a situation to conquer liberty. In the other, True conquests, the only conquests which cost no regret, are those which we make from ignorance.  In his style there reigned a spirit of moderation and dignity, which formed a contrast with the revolutionary bitterness of the civil leaders of France.  The warrior then spoke like a magistrate, while magistrates expressed themselves with military violence.  In his army, General Bonaparte did not enforce the laws against emigrants.  He was said to be much attached to his wife, whose character was full of gentleness; it was asserted that he was feeling alive to the beauties of Ossian; people took delight in ascribing to him all the generous qualities which place his extraordinary talents in a beautiful light.  Besides, the nation was weary of oppressors who borrowed the name of liberty, and of oppressed persons who regretted the loss of arbitrary power, that admiration did not know what to attach itself to, and Bonaparte seemed to unite all that could seduce it.

Germaine De Staël on Napoleon’s character.  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p409

Far from recovering my confidence in seeing Bonaparte more frequently, he constantly intimidated me more and more.  I had a confused feeling that no emotion of the heart could act upon him.  He regards a human being as an action or a thing, not as a fellow-creature.  He does not hate more than he loves; for him nothing exists but himself; all other creatures are ciphers.  The force of his will consists in the impossibility of disturbing the calculations of his egoism; he is an able chess-player, and the human race is the opponent to whom he proposes to give checkmate.  His successes depend as much on the qualities in which he is deficient as on the talents which he possesses.  Neither pity, nor allurement, nor religion, nor attachment to any idea whatsoever could turn him aside from his principal direction.  He is for his self-interest what the just man should be for virtue; if the end were good, his perseverance would be noble.

Germaine De Staël on the reason for Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt .  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p414

Bonaparte has always sought to lay hold of the imagination of men, and in this respect he knows well how they ought to be governed by one who is not borne to the throne.  An invasion of Africa, war carried into Egypt, a country almost fabulous, could not fail to make an impression on every mind.  The French might easily be persuaded that they could derive great advantage from such a colony in the Mediterranean, and that it might one day furnish them with the means of attacking the English establishments in India.  These schemes possessed grandeur and were fitted to augment the brilliant reputation of Bonaparte.  Had he remained in France, the Directory, through all the journals which were at its nod, would have launched forth numberless calumnies and tarnished his exploits in the imagination of the idle:  Bonaparte would have been reduced to dust before the thunderbolt struck him.

Germaine De Staël on the Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt .  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p427

A reproach of a much graver nature is the total want of humanity which Bonaparte manifested in his Egyptian campaign.  Whenever he found any advantage in cruelty, he indulged in it, and yet his despotism was not sanguinary.  He had no more desire to shed blood than a reasonable man has to spend money without need.  But what he called necessity was in fact his ambition; and when this ambition was concerned, he did not for a moment allow himself to hesitate to sacrifice others to himself.  What we call conscience was in his eyes only the poetical name of deception.

Germaine De Staël on the planning of Brumaire .  Taken from Considerations on the Principle events of the French Revolution, Germaine De Staël, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis  (2008) p430

I learned that during the five weeks which Bonaparte had spent at Paris since his return, he had been preparing the public mind for the Revolution which had just taken place.  Every faction had presented itself to him, and he had given hopes to all.  He had told the Jacobins that he would save them from the return of the old dynasty; he had, on the contrary, suffered the royalists to flatter themselves that he would re-establish the Bourbons; he had insinuated to Sieyes that he would give him an opportunity of bringing forth into light the constitution which he had been keeping in darkness for ten years; he had above all, captivated the public, which belongs to no faction, by general proclamations of love of order and tranquillity.  Mention was made to him of a woman whose papers the Directory had caused to be seized; he exclaimed on the absurd atrocity of tormenting women, he who, according to his caprice, has condemned so many of them to unlimited exile; he spoke only of peace, he who has introduced eternal war into the world.  Finally, there was in his manner an affectation of gentleness, which formed an odious contrast with what was known of his violence.  But, after ten years of suffering, enthusiastic attachment to ideas had given way in revolutionary characters to personal hopes and fears.