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
- You call a republican leader, Brissot, a witness 'beyond all exception', yet say ambition made him describe his own faction's crimes. Can such testimony be trusted?
- Evidence that escapes a writer against his own cause carries the greatest weight. Why should what a witness lets slip count more than what he argues?
- Brissot's public address sounded decent, but a private letter of his called for setting fire to the four corners of Europe. What does that gap show?
- Those who do not dread Jacobinism, the Revolution's creed, love it: there is no neutrality. Is that an argument, or only a demand that readers pick a side?