Jean-Clément Martin | |
---|---|
Born | Thouars, France | 31 January 1948
Alma mater | Paris-Sorbonne University |
Occupations |
|
Known for | Historian of the French Revolution |
Era | French history |
Jean-Clement Martin (French pronunciation: [ʒɑ̃ kləmɑ̃ maʁtɛ̃]), born on 31 January 1948, is a French historian, a specialist in the French Revolution, Counter-revolution and the War in the Vendée.
Jean-Clement Martin was a pupil of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie. From 2000 to 2008 he was the director of the Institute for the history of the French Revolution, a center of academic research and teaching, connected to Pantheon-Sorbonne University. Since then he is professor emeritus.
He studied the Vendée as a " memory space". [1] For some years his research has focused on understanding violence, the contribution of gender history and the role of religion and religiosity in the revolutionary process.
He is opposed to considering the operations ordered in Vendée by the convention (whether the infernal columns, or the drownings of Nantes) as genocide. In his opinion, "there were war crimes and abominable battles, it is clear, but in no case a genocide". [2]
In 2016, he categorically denies (calling it "sacrificial"), the interpretation of the Marseillaise that "qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons!" (Let an impure blood water our furrows!) means in truth that the Fédérés of 1792 were proud to pour their own blood for their homeland. [3][ further explanation needed]
In particular, he studies the Vendée as a lieu de mémoire. In recent years, his research has focused on understanding violence, the contribution of gender history and the role of religion and religiosity in the revolutionary process.
He refuses to consider the operations ordered in Vendée by the National Convention, whether the infernal columns or the drownings at Nantes, as genocide. [4] For him, "there were war crimes and abominable battles, that's clear, but in no way genocide" during the Vendée wars, the French Revolution having been an episode of civil war with all that that means in terms of a vacuum of State, competition for power and an explosion of violence2. A purely political reading of the episode cannot therefore account for this dimension, which is linked not to a particular ideology but to an institutional, political and social mechanism that is encountered in other circumstances.
Jean-Clément Martin | |
---|---|
Born | Thouars, France | 31 January 1948
Alma mater | Paris-Sorbonne University |
Occupations |
|
Known for | Historian of the French Revolution |
Era | French history |
Jean-Clement Martin (French pronunciation: [ʒɑ̃ kləmɑ̃ maʁtɛ̃]), born on 31 January 1948, is a French historian, a specialist in the French Revolution, Counter-revolution and the War in the Vendée.
Jean-Clement Martin was a pupil of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie. From 2000 to 2008 he was the director of the Institute for the history of the French Revolution, a center of academic research and teaching, connected to Pantheon-Sorbonne University. Since then he is professor emeritus.
He studied the Vendée as a " memory space". [1] For some years his research has focused on understanding violence, the contribution of gender history and the role of religion and religiosity in the revolutionary process.
He is opposed to considering the operations ordered in Vendée by the convention (whether the infernal columns, or the drownings of Nantes) as genocide. In his opinion, "there were war crimes and abominable battles, it is clear, but in no case a genocide". [2]
In 2016, he categorically denies (calling it "sacrificial"), the interpretation of the Marseillaise that "qu'un sang impur abreuve nos sillons!" (Let an impure blood water our furrows!) means in truth that the Fédérés of 1792 were proud to pour their own blood for their homeland. [3][ further explanation needed]
In particular, he studies the Vendée as a lieu de mémoire. In recent years, his research has focused on understanding violence, the contribution of gender history and the role of religion and religiosity in the revolutionary process.
He refuses to consider the operations ordered in Vendée by the National Convention, whether the infernal columns or the drownings at Nantes, as genocide. [4] For him, "there were war crimes and abominable battles, that's clear, but in no way genocide" during the Vendée wars, the French Revolution having been an episode of civil war with all that that means in terms of a vacuum of State, competition for power and an explosion of violence2. A purely political reading of the episode cannot therefore account for this dimension, which is linked not to a particular ideology but to an institutional, political and social mechanism that is encountered in other circumstances.