콩도르세 대 산악파 －1793년 헌법 논쟁과 공포정치의 기원－

certificate of “the Terror”? To answer this question, this article examines Condorcet’s constitutional project and the Constitution of 1793 and compares their essential features. This article also investigates political discourses of the Montagnards that appeared in the course of constitutional disputes in April and May 1793 and their relation with “the Terror”. Condorcet’s constitutional project was based on unprecedented democratic principles. It specifies that the people elect by direct vote not only deputies of the National Assembly but also administration officials; and that they are allowed to start the procedure of referendum and dissolution of the National Assembly by “the censorship of the people.” This constitutional project intensifies the power of the administration and local authorities to countervail the political influences of the National Assembly and Paris. The Montagnard Constitution or the Constitution of 1793 passed after the fall of the Girondins recognized only the deputies as the representatives of the people, limited the power of the central and local administrations, and modified the censorship of the people into the legislative referendum. It blocked Condorcet’s intention by the articles specifying these measures. In the constitutional disputes in April and May 1793 the Montagnards had to reveal the political purpose, unreality and anti-popular intent of Condorcet’s constitutional project, and at the same time develop the defensive discourse against offensive democracy of the Girondins. The Montagnard political perspective in this period,which justifies the superiority of the Parliament over the people,expulsion of the factions from the Parliament and the sovereignty of the Parliament in place of the people heralds the main aspects of “the Terror”. However it is not proper to find the necessity of “the Terror” in the Montagnard discourse in the constitutional disputes or maintain that “the Terror” originates from this discourse. Above all the Constitution of 1793 was not the product of the coherent political doctrine of a unified political party but that of compromise among different elements of the Montagnards as well as their compromise with their surroundings. We just can say that the Montagnard discourse in the constitutional disputes included the logic justifying “the Terror” and that this discourse, escaping the political context of the fight of the Montagnards against the Girondins, could develop into the discourse of “the Terror” itself.