A Place of Greater Safety

“‘A living? It’s not a living, it’s pillage, it’s loot, and you know it. Really, Maître d’Anton, you make yourself ridiculous by this venal posturing. You must know that there is going to be a revolution, and you will have to make up your mind which side you are going to be on.’

‘This revolution—will it be a living?’

‘We must hope so.’”

This initial dialogue between Camille and Danton highlights the key differences between these friends and their approach to revolutionary action. For Camille, it is a matter of principle. He insists that the revolution is inevitable. For the more “venal” Danton, his interest lies in whether he will be able to make money off of the overthrow of the Ancien Regime. These differences in opinion and perspective persist throughout the work, contributing to the theme of The Strains of Political Ambitions on Relationships.

“In court he was now making what people called ‘political speeches’. How not? Everything’s politics. The system is corrupt. Justice is for sale.”

Robespierre is the most strident and idealistic of the trio of protagonists. This passage illustrates how he begins to propagate his beliefs that the existing Ancien Regime is “corrupt” and must be reformed while still working as a lawyer in Arras. His eagerness to give “political speeches” foreshadows the overt political role he will one day play in the Revolution, while also introducing Rhetoric and Persuasion as Instruments of Power.

“The weight of the old world is stifling, and trying to shovel its weight off your life is tiring just to think about. The constant shuttling of opinions is tiring, and the shuffling of papers across desks, the chopping of logic and the trimming of attitudes. There must, somewhere, be a simpler, more violent world.”

Mantel uses third-person limited perspective to create a fictional illustration of the inner psychology of the characters, as she does here with Danton’s reflections on his motivation for participating in the revolution. Her depiction suggests that Danton takes up revolutionary attitudes to make money but also out of a sense of boredom with the old regime and a desire to assert his dominance through violence in a “simpler, more violent world.”

“Nothing changes. Nothing new. The same old dreary crisis atmosphere. The feeling that it can’t get much worse without something giving way. But nothing does. Ruin, collapse, the sinking ship of state: the point of no return, the shifting balance, the crumbling edifice and the sands of time. Only the cliché flourishes.”

This quote provides insight into Robespierre’s state of mind in 1788 when he finds himself increasingly at odds with the local elite in the midst of state collapse due to mounting national debt. The opening line, “Nothing changes. Nothing new,” alludes to the common French cliché, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” the more things change, the more they stay the same. He seems weary with this deluge of clichés, implying he seeks to break out of this repetition of banalities with a new set of vocabulary and language in a new, republican order.

“They are called, after all, to attend on the demise of the old order, not to be guests at a costume ball. Above the plain cravats a certain pride shows in their starched faces. We are the men of purpose: goodbye to frippery.”

Mantel compares and contrasts the Third Estate, the representatives of the people, with the First and Second Estates in the Estates-General. Where the nobility and the clergy are in formal attire like “guests at a costume ball,” the Third Estate is dressed in “plain cravats.” This sartorial aspect foreshadows how the revolution will usher in a whole new idea of republican dress, notably the sans-culottes’ practice of wearing trousers instead of knee-breeches.

“The price of bread has just risen. Foreign troops are camped outside the city. Order is a memory, law has a tenuous hold.”

Periodically, Mantel uses a wider third-person perspective to describe events that have occurred outside the narrow focus of the three protagonists and their circle. The language of these passages give the impression of a news bulletin. They are written in short, succinct sentences which convey the key events and atmosphere economically and provide necessary context for events unfolding in Paris.

“Where do they come from, these people? They’re virgins. They’ve never been to war. They’ve never been on the hunting field. They’ve never killed an animal, let alone a man. But they’re such enthusiasts for murder.”

In this excerpt of dialogue, General Lafayette comments on The Dangerous Normalization of Revolutionary Violence. This passage highlights an important element of the characterization of the protagonists. Unlike General Lafayette, who has seen the brutality of war up close, Camille, Robespierre, and Danton are lawyers for whom violence is only theoretical until they become emmeshed in the revolution. This suggests that they initially do not entirely understand the mortal stakes of what they are undertaking, unlike Lafayette.

“Our spirits, you see, are high. We roll through our days in a sort of unwholesome glee. It’s either this, or a permanent welter of sniffles and tears, forebodings and fears—and we prefer to be hilarious. We prefer to make blood-curdling jokes.”

Following the fall of the Bastille and the creation of the National Assembly, tensions and instability in Paris remain high. In this passage, which provides insight into her psychological state at this time, Lucile recognizes the mortal danger Camille is in, but she chooses to embrace it through “blood-curdling jokes.” This illustrates her strong, passionate character, making her an ideal match for Camille, who likewise takes the danger in stride.

“Never mind this ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ rot. Do you know our manifesto? ‘Liberty, Gaiety, Royal Democracy.’ When it comes down to it, we both want the same—we want people to be happy. What’s the use of your Revolution if it breeds long faces? What’s the use of a revolution run by miserable little men in miserable little rooms?”

This passage neatly illustrates how Mantel combines real historical facts with a fictionalized depiction of the psychology and dialogue of the primary characters. In this piece of dialogue from Louis Suleau, he describes his motto as “Liberty, Gaiety, Royal Democracy.” This was indeed the motto of Suleau and his associates at his royalist publication, and it is emblematic of the counter-revolutionary ideal of the aristocracy, which sought to hold onto the privileges of his class while making only minor concessions (“royal democracy” or constitutional monarchy) to public demands for equality.

“‘When we were children,’ he said, ‘life wasn’t particularly easy for either of us, was it? But we kept each other going, didn’t we? The years in Arras were the worst, the years in between. I’m not so lonely, now.’

‘Mm.’ Camille was looking for a formula, a formula to contain what his instinct rejected. ‘The Revolution is your bride,’ he said. ‘As the Church is the Bride of Christ.’”

Camille closely associates Robespierre’s celibacy and zealotry for the revolution with a religious fervor. The fact that his “instinct reject[s]” this framing suggests that Camille does not relate to Robespierre’s zealous attachment to revolutionary values. This foreshadows the later rift in their relationship and The Strains of Political Ambitions on Relationships more generally, as Robespierre accuses Camille of not being zealous enough in his belief.

“He had thought, lawyer’s tactics can win this; violence maybe but only as a last resort. He’d played by the rules—mostly. He’d kept within the law, just. He’d expected Lafayette and Bailly to play by the rules; to contain the crowds, let them be. But we are moving, now, into a world where the rules are being redefined; it is as well to expect the worst.”

This insight into Danton’s psychological state upon learning of the Champs-de-Mars massacre illustrates The Dangerous Normalization of Revolutionary Violence. Danton begins to grow paranoid about Lafayette’s role in fomenting violence against the revolution. This in turn leads him to consider turning away from using the legal process to secure and ascend to power, instead using violence in “a world where the rules are being redefined.” This shows how paranoia and violence compounds, leading to chaos.

“With France as she is, poor and unarmed, war means defeat. Defeat means either a military dictator who will salvage what he can and set up a new tyranny, or it means a total collapse and the return of absolute monarchy. It could mean both, one after the other. After ten years not a single one of our achievements will remain, and to your son liberty will be an old man’s daydream.”

This passage is illustrative of how Mantel foreshadows historical events through the perspective of the characters. Here, Robespierre argues that war with other European states will lead to “a military dictator” or “the return of absolute monarchy.” This is indeed what happens in 1799 when Napoleon conducts a coup and eventually crowns himself Emperor of France, bringing an end to the republic and ushering in a new era of military dictatorship.

“‘But if we are not under Providence, what is everything for?’ Robespierre now looked wildly alarmed. ‘What is the Revolution for?’

For Georges-Jacques to make money out of, Camille thought. Robespierre answered himself. ‘Surely it is to bring us to the kind of society that God intends? To bring us to justice and equality, to full humanity?’”

Throughout the work, Robespierre is incredibly sensitive, growing defensive and even angry when his own sense of moral superiority and righteousness is questioned. This character flaw is well illustrated here where Robespierre asserts the utopian, even religious, values of the revolution with a tone a “wil[d] alarm” that Camille would even question what Robespierre sees as self-evident. Camille is portrayed as more of a pragmatist here who is aware that some, like Danton, have more self-serving goals in their pursuit of the revolution.

“‘Ask Robespierre,’ Louis said wearily. ‘Ask the man with the conscience which is more important, your friend or your country ask him how he weighs an individual in the scheme of things. Ask him which comes first, his old pals or his new principles.’”

This quote from Louis Suleau summarizes the tension at the heart of Camille’s friendship with Robespierre and The Strains of Political Ambitions on Relationships: Will Robespierre choose “his old pals or his new principles”? This framing foreshadows the terrible choice Robespierre will ultimately make. For the majority of the work, Robespierre defends Camille. However, in the end, he will betray his friend, condemning him to death, in order to preserve the republic as he understands it.

“We shall be moving to the Place Vendôme! We shall be living in a palace!’

‘Dear Father, don’t take it so badly,’ Lucile begs.

‘No, you don’t understand,’ Claude tells her. ‘He has arrived now, he is the Establishment. Anyone who wants to make a revolution has to make it against him.’”

Claude Duplessis, an older civil servant who has weathered many crises, is the only character who actively recognizes The Dangerous Normalization of Revolutionary Violence. While Lucile and Camille celebrate their newfound wealth and power, he warns that Danton and Camille are now the “Establishment” that counter-revolutionaries or more extreme revolutionaries will seek to dethrone.

“What do you think we did in ‘89? Murder made you. Murder took you out of the back streets and put you where you sit now. Murder! What is it? It’s a word.”

In this fictionalized dialogue, Marat articulates the centrality of violence to the revolution, reflecting The Dangerous Normalization of Revolutionary Violence. When Camille balks at “murder,” Marat reminds him that death is necessary to overturn the Ancien Regime and concentrate power. He attempts to minimize the intensity and moral ambiguity of killing one’s political enemies by stating that murder is only “a word,” when of course it is much more than that.

“The second train of thought: actions are being manufactured out of speech. How can words save a country? Words make myths, it seems, and for their myths people fight to win.”

This insight from Danton explicates the role of Rhetoric and Persuasion as Instruments of Power. Speech acts are an essential tool for getting the public to support his political ambitions. Indeed, they are Danton’s only tool by this point in the narrative, as he has lost control of his militia, the Cordeliers.

“To question Danton’s patriotism was to cast in doubt the whole Revolution. A tree is known by its fruits, and Danton made 10 August. First he made the republic of the Cordeliers, then he made the Republic of France. If Danton is not a patriot, then we have been criminally negligent in the nation’s affairs. If Danton is not a patriot, we are not patriots either. If Danton is not a patriot, then the whole thing—from May ’89—must be done again.

It was a thought to make even Robespierre tired.”

There are two registers at work in this passage. First, it illustrates how the revolution has spiraled so wildly out of control that Robespierre is forced to question everything when Danton is accused of counter-revolutionary activity. Second, it serves as foreshadowing for historical events that take place after the book, namely the idea that “the whole thing […] must be done again,” which is indeed what occurs in the July Revolution (1830), the February Revolution (1848), and the Paris Commune (1871).

“There are periods in revolution when to live is a crime, and people must know how to yield their heads if they are demanded. Perhaps mine will be. If that time comes, I won’t dispute it.”

Robespierre seems almost eager to serve as a martyr for the revolution, nearly boasting that he “won’t dispute it” if he is sentenced to death. However, his hypocrisy is soon laid bare when he chooses to condemn his friends rather than risk his own life.

“‘In a way,’ Robespierre said patiently, ‘if we want to rise above being like Suleau, and the girl, we have to avoid the snares of what we personally believe, hope for—and see ourselves just as instruments of a destiny that has been worked out already. You know, there would have been a Revolution, even if we had never been born.’

‘I don’t think I believe that,’ Camille said. ‘I think it injures my place in the universe to believe that.’”

This dialogue between Camille and Robespierre parallels real debates historians have about the role of individual actors in historical events. Mantel’s own historiographical perspective is closer to that of Robespierre: She writes about history as an accretion of choices made by people within a given set of circumstances and in complex contexts that contribute to their choices. In contrast, “great man” historiographical accounts are closer to Camille’s perspective. This form of historical narrative posits that special people—great men—are uniquely capable of shaping historical events.

“It hardly seems much, really, to be the summit of our ambitions. Cutting some dreary woman’s head off.”

In this dialogue, Camille appears to begin to have regrets about the course of the revolution and The Dangerous Normalization of Revolutionary Violence. At the time of her execution, Marie Antoinette is very sick and completely powerless. Camille, like his wife, gets no sense of satisfaction from killing her.

“With all the desperate passions in our heads and bodies, one day these walls will split, one day this house will fall down. There will be soil and bones and grass, and they will read our diaries to find out what we were.”

This highly figurative passage stands out from the otherwise largely realist portrayal of events in A Place of Greater Safety. It is evocative of how the passage of time will eventually wear down everything surrounding the characters: They will die, their bodies will turn into grass, their houses will crumble, and it will be up to historians to understand the significance of their actions in posterity. This memento mori is timely at a moment in the novel when the characters are reckoning with their imminent deaths.

“DANTON: Saint Maximilien?

CAMILLE: He never talks about God any more, he talks about the Supreme Being. I think I know who that is.

DANTON: Maximilien?

CAMILLE: Right.

DANTON: You’ll get into trouble for laughing at people. Saint-Just says that people who laugh at the heads of governments are suspect.

CAMILLE: What fate is reserved for those who laugh at Saint-Just? The guillotine is too good for them.”

Occasionally, dialogue in the novel is written in script form. These are often moments of ironic levity and humor, such as here, where Camille jokes that the “Supreme Being” to whom Robespierre often refers as a source of authority and moral righteousness is in fact Robespierre himself.