Provincial Patriot of the French Revolution: Francois Buzot, 1760–94

Until now, François Buzot, provincial lawyer, revolutionary politician and one of the leading members of the moderate republican Girondin grouping, has never been the subject of an English-language biography. This life draws heavily on two earlier biographies by Hérissay and Bariller (the former inexplicably missing from the bibliography). It shows how Buzot’s early Norman life—full of ‘solitary wanderings and strong emotions’—and legal training influenced many of his actions during the French Revolution when he championed judicial reform and individual rights, such as supporting freedom of the press and opposing the active/passive citizen distinction. As a proud and idealistic provincial deputy, Buzot also worked tirelessly to defend the interests of his constituency, ensuring, for example, that Évreux became capital of the newly created department of Eure.

Oliver describes the path that took Buzot to national prominence in both the Constituent Assembly (1789–91), where he gained a reputation, alongside Maximilien Robespierre and Jérome Pétion, for his radical opinions, and then later in the National Convention (1792–93), where he joined the Girondin grouping under the influence of Madame Roland. This influence also had a strong bearing on his subsequent political actions. Indeed, Madame Roland’s surviving letters to Buzot, with whom she enjoyed a passionate, if platonic, relationship—and which remained secret for nearly 100 years—reveal a far more sentimental view of the man valued by his friends for his ‘high ideals, morality and loyalty’.

During his time in the Convention, Buzot actively participated in the factional disputes dividing the assembly, emerging as a fierce opponent of Robespierre, centralized government and the people of Paris. Following the journées of 31 May–2 June, Buzot and twenty-nine Girondin deputies were expelled from the Convention and placed under house arrest. Many fled to Caen, and after failing to raise an armed force, were made outlaws. Buzot and Pétion fled south to Saint-Émilion, hiding out in homes and a stone quarry until their joint suicide in June 1794.

While Oliver throws much new light on Buzot’s life, drawing extensively in the final chapter from the unedited version of Buzot’s memoirs, written on the run, her account of the revolutionary context in which he operated is less sure-footed. For example, it seems surprising, given the author’s intent to rehabilitate Buzot as an ‘important revolutionary figure’, that she missed the opportunity to expand a little on the background to the twin causes of Buzot’s revolutionary reputation, namely his obsessions with legalism and federalism. Federalism meaning, in this case, a decentralization of power away from Paris inspired by the American example.

Nor does the author provide a clear answer to the obvious question of why this ‘sensitive, somewhat austere… bourgeois gentilhomme [who seemed] better suited for a life in letters rather than politics’, wanted to become a revolutionary in the first place. She argues for Buzot’s importance as ‘a man of integrity who played an integral role in the great revolution of 1789’ yet repeatedly describes him as ‘melancholic’, ‘severe’ and unsuited for leadership. While his unyielding principles might have been admirable in a legal setting, they made him appear pompous and priggish in a political one. ‘At Versailles’, he wrote in his Memoirs , ‘I was considered, sought after, everywhere I was esteemed’. And Oliver barely comments on Buzot’s evolution from a self-described ‘friend of the people [and] intrepid defender of the rights of humanity’ in 1789 to someone who despised the mass of ‘imbeciles’ that made it up, at least in Paris.

Oliver’s penchant for allowing her sources to speak for themselves, out of the context of their production, rather than using them critically to support her narrative, deprives the general reader, at whom this book is surely aimed, of helpful guidance in navigating the complexity of events. However, while the main text can sometimes appear partisan and undercooked, Oliver’s conclusion is altogether more nuanced, as if written by a wiser scholar. For example, citing Marisa Linton’s most recent work, Choosing Terror , she concedes that the Girondins may have started the whole factional, finger-pointing game in the first place.

While the author’s methodology may prove disappointing to historians hoping for something crunchier, this readable biography provides a welcome account of Buzot’s life, even if it fails to convince of his lasting importance. In 1791, Buzot was welcomed home as a local hero and appointed president of Évreux’s criminal tribunal. Just two years later, the authorities had declared him a traitor, ordered his home demolished and erected a column on its ruins to ‘the villain Buzot’. Honoured once again during the centennial celebrations, he had become virtually forgotten by the bicentennial. Not so much a ‘personage extraordinaire’ then, but rather a somewhat contradictory ‘révolutionnaire’.