Testimony that cannot be waved away
Who has to say a thing before it will be believed? Not Burke, on his own account: an English opponent's report of the Revolution can be dismissed as spite, so the case is left to a republican who helped make the thing.
Everything published on France since 1790 carried the same disqualification — a foreigner, an enemy, a man who had never crossed the Channel. Brissot carried none of it. A founder of the French society against the slave trade, a republican, a leader of the party that had governed, he wrote his defence under sentence and went to the guillotine with the other Girondins on 31 October 1793. Burke supplies a preface, declines to gloat, and steps out of the way. Choosing the witness is the whole of the argument; the introducer is deliberately the smaller figure on the page.
- historical evidence
- political rhetoric
- rhetoric
- propaganda
- republicanism
- revolutionary politics
- political legitimacy
Enter a dialogue
- Standing aside for a republican's own pages leaves the introducer the smaller figure on it. What does an advocate lose by taking that place?
- A warning is dismissed because of who gives it rather than what it says. What is left for that person to do?
- Choosing a witness whose testimony cannot be dismissed looks less like argument than tactics. Does the case rest on Brissot's evidence or on his sentence?
- When does presenting an enemy's own testimony stop being evidence and start being propaganda, given the preface prints a condemned man's defence for English readers?