LOUISE MICHEL. By Edith Thomas. 444 pp. Montreal: Black Rose Books. 1980. $19.95 (Hardcover) $9.95 (Paper)

During the revolutionary spring of the Paris Commune in 1871, there arose a woman of great personal strength who was to become one of the major radical figures of her time. This woman was convinced that political change could not be brought about through the action of words alone. She was described, by one eyewitness of the time, as an "energetic woman fighting in the ranks of the Sixty first Battalion.. .she had killed several constables and police officers ..." George Clemenceau reported, with regard to this Communard, that "In order not to be killed herself, she killed others. .. I have never seen her to be more calm. How she escaped being killed a hundred times over before my very eyes, I'll never know." This woman, who was to go into exile for her actions, but who was to return as a popular writer and agitator years later, was Louise Michel. Louise Michel, however, is not as well known in this country as other revolutionary women, such as Rosa Luxemburg and Emma Goldman. One can puzzle over this, since Louise certainly had a tremendous following during her lifetime. For example, upon her return from exile in New Caledonia, she embarked on a speaking tour of several large Western European cities. Turnout was always large at these gatherings, with crowds oftentimes numbering in the tens of thousands. One cannot dismiss Louise's influence, furthermore, due to a lack of insufficient publications. Louise was a prolific writer, whose works ranged from plays (Le Coq Rouge) to expository political and historical commentary (La Commune). If it is given, then, that Louise was undoubtedly an important person in the history of revolutionary movements, we must return to the question-why isn't she better known in this country? The reasons for this neglect are undoubtedly complex, but this reviewer offers three speculations. The first of these speculations should be made concerning the sensibilities and interests of the scholarly community as a whole in this country. Of paramount importance in evaluating the impact of women's histories and biographies is the fact that, until recently, most historians have not seen fit to write about and analyse the actions of the female half of the human species. Louise, then, becomes a victim of a form of scholarly chauvinism and sexism present in the historical profession.

A second possible reason for the neglect of Louise is ideological; although she has been claimed by the Left as one of their own, she identified herself with the anarchist movement. It is clearly the case that among radical historians in the United States, those who place themselves under the rubric of Marxism far outnumber those who follow the banner of the Black Flag. Hence, simply in terms of scholarly and literary output, works which deal with female radicals, such as Rosa Luxemburg, will outnumber and thus overshadow, those whose subjects are anarchist figures.

The notable exception to this second speculation is Emma Goldman. One must remember, however, that she published articles in English and spent most of her life in this country. Emma Goldman, then, is linguistically and historically accessible to Americans, which leads to a third possible reason for Louise's relative obscurity here. Most of the work on Louise has been done in her native country, France. These studies, of course, have been written in French, and Americans, who are for the most part linguistically adept only in their native tongue, cannot have access to them. This linguistic isolation with respect to Louise Michel is truly regretable, since several of the French works, such as Paule Lejeune's Louise Michel L'indomptable, are fine efforts.

There is good news from Black Rose Books, however, which will begin to break down the linguistic barrier that exists between interested American readers and French scholarship which has been done on Louise. Perhaps the best book which has been written on the "Red Virgin" is Edith Thomas's Louise Michel. The prose text of this work (which also contains generous samples of Louise's poetry which were left in their original French) has now been translated into English by Penelope Williams. One of the main virtues of Thomas's biography, which was published posthumously in 1971, is that it draws extensively upon archival material which was not available to previous scholars. These sources were put to good use by Thomas, since such rich information gives us a glimpse into the world of Louise. The reader is brought into the Parisian graveyards on the night of the Commune's fall, into the prisons of New Caledonia, and the crowded lecture halls of fin-de-siecle Europe.

Like many other radicals of her time, Louise's movement through life was arduous (yet exciting) and Thomas did not shirk from the task of giving us details of her struggle. Louise, born in 1830, was one of those unfortunate persons in France who happened to be an issue out of wedlock. This did not prevent her, as Thomas points out, from having a relatively happy childhood. She received a good education, and was trained to be a schoolteacher. It is with the feelings of charity that are in part associated with the life of a schoolteacher in mid-nineteenth century France that Thomas identifies as a primary revolutionary impulse in Louise. This radical wrote, in 1853, that "We must set up an office of charitable endeavors, create job sites and public workshops wherever employment is scarce. Without work people lack bread, and when they lack bread, they often find gunpowder and bullets".

It is with an analysis of this charitable inclination that Louise's life can become a starting point for various reflections on anarchism. A first brief note concerns the affinities that Louise's personality has with other radicals. It is indeed interesting how the feelings of charity acted as an impetus not only for Louise, but for other anarchists as well. One immediately thinks of Peter Kropotkin, who describes similar emotions throughout the early sections of his Memoirs of a Revolutionist. But what is more salient here for our discussion of Louise is her apparent transition from a devotional and charitable creature, who seems to decry the use of "gunpowder and bullets", to one who advocated the use of violence during the uprising of the Commune.

Thomas attempts to understand this change, and does not provide us with an easy explanation. One perspective which arises out of a consideration of Thomas's biography focuses on Louise's psychological makeup. To Thomas, Louise seems to be a sort of revolutionary androgyne, who embodies what traditionally are thought of as male and female characteristics. On the battle lines of the Commune, for example, both the "male" and "female" sides could be manifested-Louise could be the soldier who fought against the forces of reaction, but at the same time be a compassionate nurse for the wounded. In a sense, then, "Black Louise" transcends many of the sexual categories of her time. It is regretable that although Thomas is aware of the "double aspect" of Louise's character, she fails to fully appreciate its importance for this radical's political development. This reviewer maintains that the labels "male" (which is associated in much of the "public mind" with action and violence) and "female" (usually linked with passivity and devotion) do not make sense when applied to Louise. The question of how the transition occurred for Louise then becomes a pseudo-problem: the elements of both revolutionary action and nonviolence were present from the early stages of her life. This is, in fact, something which Louise asserted, since she held that she was an activist from childhood. Thomas tends to dismiss this statement, though Louise's childhood feelings for change can be explained through a closer consideration of her personality.

A second force in Louise's political evolution, which is perhaps more obvious, was her frustration with the social situation of Second Empire France. Her attempts for political improvement, which sought to change this situation, took various avenues. Educational enterprises were always at the heart of her activities, and she managed several schools during the pre-Commune period of her life. She also became secretary of the "Democratic Society for Moralization", which sought to ameliorate the working condition of women. She once announced "If the men hang back when the time comes (for revolution), women will lead the way. And I'll be there."

She was indeed present in the Commune, and as a reward for her valour she was sent, by the "new" French government, halfway across the world to her exile in New Caledonia. Thomas's account of Louise's life on New Caledonia is one of the better sections of the book. Here we witness the struggles of an individual who was central to the events which occurred during 1871 in the "Capital of the Nineteenth Century" forced to live on the edge of civilization. Her interests in nature, particularly biology and botany, were to sustain her during this period. She was influenced by the writings of both Charles Darwin and the eminent French physiologist, Claude Bernard, and she also carried out experiments for various French geographical and meteorological organizations. (Once again, one thinks of Peter Kropotkin, who was a distinguished geographer.) Politics, however, remained her primary passion, an emotion which was to be expressed, once again, upon her release in 1880.

When Louise returned to Europe, she was greeted by throngs everywhere. She became an important political speaker, particularly for the anarchist cause, until her death in 1905. Some of the incidents which occurred during this period are quite vivid, and Thomas's prose can be quite riveting when she describes these events, such as a large demonstration in which Louise participated.

Somebody passed her (Louise) a black flag fastened to the end of a stick, and, with her improvised banner, she moved to the head of the crowd. They set off. Passing a bakery on Rue des Canettes, a cry went up: "Bread or work!" Louise was torn by the hard realities of the dilemma, but she shouted "If you are hungry, take some. But don't hurt the bakers." Demonstrators poured into the bakery, and terrified bakers began handing out bread.

Although many of the situations in this part of Louise's life are interesting, it is at this point that Thomas's narrative loses its stride. Of the 400 pages of text in this biography, 235 are devoted to the political harangues and intrigues which characterised this part of her life. These cabals are obviously interesting to the historian of this period who is thoroughly familiar with all the persons involved, or to the committed anarchist who wishes to learn more about his or her heritage. The general reader, on the other hand, may find some of these situations inspiring, but may consider others boring. On the whole, however, this section is valuable and contributes to the reader's understanding and appreciation of Louise's life and the times in which she lived. To this reviewer's mind, however, the chief value of this work, aside from providing illumination into the world of this revolutionary woman, is that Thomas, although critical at times of Louise, clearly takes a moral stand along with Louise on the desirability of political change. By taking this stand, she has much to teach both biographers and historians. Thomas, perhaps inadvertently, thus raises a classic historiographic question-should the writing of history have a didactic dimension, or should the practice of this discipline be more akin to socio-scientific methods? Although this question can only be answered through the individual reader's background and sensibilities, it is clear, after reading this oftentimes stirring account of the "Red Virgin" that those who appeal to both fact and values in history deserve our attention.

-Lucien Klein