ダントン研究史の問題 : フランス革命史学史の一章

Abstract

“We have two Dantons.” What Mathiez, an eminent historian of the French Revolution, meant in this passage is that the interpretation of Danton has been absolutely polarized among the historians. On one side we have a patriot Danton eager to achieve the works of the Bourbon monarchy, militant enough to challenge the European despots, a dauntless tribune and popular leader who is making a powerful regiment out of the volunteers. This has been a Danton in the text-book----a respectable Danton familialized with the republicans in sculpture and wood-cut ever since the year of 1870. On the other side, however, comes another Danton, an old fox always suspectful about the success of the Revolution, unscrupulous and inconsistent in his actions, a conspirator and lavisher and none the less a defeatist who is endeavouring to patch up a shameful peace from his mean ambitions, which is only to be crushed by the Revolution Tribunal. Whether or not one is a true Danton and the other in legend we can not hasten to decide in spite of Mathiez's description, but the fact is not to be denied that there has been so many interpretations and evaluations of Danton that we are now confronted with a many-faced mystical figure. It is no exaggeration to say that Danton, together with Robespierre, has invited the hottest discussions among the historians with the result that the historiography of the French Revolution since the middle of the nineteenth century has almost been divided in halves with relation to the studies of this eminent revolutionist. Historiens dantonistes and historiens robespierristes are the titles which they ultimately took to themselves, though they both asserted their own scientific and objective methods. From one camp of historians comes a eulogy of Danton and from the other an indignant attack on him and plaudits on to Robespierre. Needless to point out that this controversy on Danton has had its inseparable connection with the outlook of historians as is always the case in the historical descriptions of the revolutionary period. Their outlook is political as well as economic and in this sense to trace it is to ask the important problems which the Revolution suggests to ourselves. The object of the present article is, therefore, not to meddle with these problems passing judgement now on one side and now on the other nor to mould a third figure of Danton. Discretion rather compels me to chose a humbler task to give an account of the process of how the opinion diverged itself on the studies of this figure. I do so, however, with the consciousness that at least by this method the historiography of the French Revolution will be better understood than otherwise has been. Broadly speaking, the development of Danton studies is divided into three periods. The first period is down to 1850, during which Danton is not so highly estimated that he often incurrs attacks and indignations. As a matter of fact he is not a first-rate revolutionary leader. The second period which covers from 1850 to the end of the century was the most fortunate. His evaluation is gradually bettered and with the coming of the Centennial of the Revolution (1889) he sits on the high alter as a great and patriotic politician as well as a hero of the country. In politics and administration Danton is much abler than Robespierre. He is, so to speak, an incarnation of the revolutionary ideas. Meanwhile since 1910s which is the third period of Danton studies has begun to appear the devaluation of his character and actions, and has made the Danton worship of the second period almost untenable. He was pulled down from the altar as an anti-revolutionary conspirator and was trod down as an avaricious knave. More recently, especially after 1930, a new Danton study has begun to emerge attempting to fill the gap of these contradictory theories but not yet been fully ascertained. Among the studies of Danton, a mention must be made of that well-known controversy between Aulard and Mathiez. In a foregoing work I have already discussed how the statements of both historians were diametrically opposed and this episode ended for both in an unfortunate result. My main object here is, therefore, to trace the divergent opinions as far as possible to understand the true perspective of the story. But apart from this, the Mathiez's studies are, viewed from the standpoint of historiography, a new turn of Danton debates which is well worth while to be mentioned here. Not the least important is the question, though I referred it en passant, of the philosophy underlying in the studies of history. The question of whether one can claim objective understanding and evaluation has long haunted the professional historian. The Danton debates will provide a fine example on this point, and I hope to have thrown a light, though wavering in a limited space and confinement, through this study.