aedislumen

[aedislumen]

The revolutionary journey of Bazin, Saint-Simon, and Sagnier, and their Republican opposition to Bonaparte during Malet's first conspiracy

The first conspiracy of General Malet in 1808 clearly shows that opposition to Bonaparte still existed under the Empire, even though it would ultimately be dismantled. I came across a fascinating excerpt from an interrogation that illustrates not only how women who opposed the Empire could still face denigration, but also how certain conspirators, though all republicans, were able to come together despite ideological differences regarding the Republic.

To better understand the interrogation excerpt, it's helpful to briefly introduce the three main figures involved in the Malet conspiracy who are referenced in the interrogation.

Claude-Henri de Rouvroy, Count of Saint-Simon

The first is Claude-Henri de Rouvroy, known as Saint-Simon, a former nobleman who had embraced the French Revolution. He is described as a speculator on national properties, a writer of political and philosophical texts (notably Letters from an Inhabitant of Geneva), and a central figure in republican circles under the Empire. He associated with figures like Antonelle, Buonarroti, and Sambat, who were connected to the Babouvist movement. Saint-Simon believed in property rights (especially industrial), economic prosperity, and the scientific organization of society. He viewed the attacks on property during the Revolution (such as extreme taxation) as mistakes of the sans-culottes—a view somewhat shared by even the Babouvists, who mostly targeted agrarian land and not industrial property.

To conceal his noble background, he adopted the pseudonym Bonhommet, calling himself "Citizen Bonhommet" to appear more common. He was even imprisoned under this name.

By 1809, still using this pseudonym, he was living as a tenant with Rigomer Bazin as part of their shared opposition to Bonaparte. When Bazin was arrested, the police began actively searching for the mysterious "M. Bonhommet." In fact, in 1807, Bazin and Saint-Simon had co-authored a work on Philosophical Letters. Historian Jean Dautry states that while Bazin may have penned the text, the ideas were Saint-Simon’s. The work is believed to have been linked to the secret society known as Les Philadelphes.

Rigomer Bazin

Rigomer Bazin was a democratic journalist and constitutional writer from Le Mans, the son and grandson of grocers. He represents a generation of “democratic republicans” who survived all phases of the French Revolution and subsequent regimes (the Directory, the Consulate, the Empire, and the Restoration).

During the Revolution: He joined the National Guard and was later brought before the Revolutionary Tribunal for opposing a représentant en mission. In 1793, as a member of the Republican Defense Committee against the Vendéens, he found himself accused for resisting Garnier de Saintes, a government envoy. Though acquitted, he was imprisoned and released after the fall of Robespierre (Thermidor).

Under the Directory: Bazin became an influential political journalist, editor of La Chronique de la Sarthe and the driving force behind Le Démocrate in Paris, where he was active in the Club du Manège. He represented the radical left and interacted with revolutionary figures like Sylvain Maréchal and Antonelle.

Under the Consulate and Empire: Despite heavy censorship, Bazin continued his opposition and was directly involved in the Malet conspiracy of 1808.

Bazin believed that no political reform could succeed without an educated populace. Two key beliefs defined his political philosophy:

Literacy and Education: He strongly advocated for peasant education, not only to improve their condition and property management but also for political empowerment—an educated citizen could understand and defend his rights.

The Role of Enlightenment Thinkers: He argued that Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire and Rousseau did not cause the Revolution but rather articulated changes already in motion. They helped form a public opinion and became its spokesmen.

Marie-Joseph Sagnier

Marie-Joseph Sagnier, according to historian Jean Dautry, was Bazin’s mistress. Divorced and 29 years old, she worked as an embroiderer. On the morning of June 23, 1809, upon learning of Bazin’s arrest, she went at 5 a.m. to his apartment to warn his roommate, "M. Bonhommet" (Saint-Simon), and help him escape with Bazin’s documents, which he gathered into a briefcase.

Her action allowed Saint-Simon to evade certain arrest and destroy crucial evidence. Below is an excerpt from" her interrogation by Veyrat, one of Fouché’s agents (quoted by historian Jean Dautry):

"Veyrat, Fouché’s most reviled henchman, questions the young woman about her relationship with Bazin, which she claims had begun two months earlier:

Q: So you had occasion to visit his home frequently?

A: I only went there three or four times.

Q: What was the name of the person living with Mr. Bazin?

A: Mr. Bonhommet.

Q: What were his relations with Mr. Bazin, and what were they doing together?

A: I do not know.

Q: Then why did you go to his home at five o'clock this morning to inform him of Mr. Bazin's arrest and urge him to flee with Mr. Bazin's papers and his own?

A: It is true that I went there at five this morning to tell Mr. Bonhommet about Mr. Bazin’s arrest. He immediately began gathering all of Bazin’s papers, which he placed in a briefcase and took with him. He did not want us to leave together, saying he feared we might be watched by the police. He asked me to let him go first, which he did, taking the papers with him. I remained on the staircase a moment before leaving the house myself.

Q: Which direction did Mr. Bonhommet take?

A: He went to the right, and I to the left.

Q: You have committed an inexcusable fault that you can only make up for by telling us where you believe the papers and this Mr. Bonhommet might now be.

A: I admit I made a grave mistake, but I cannot answer your question. I do not know the people Mr. Bonhommet is connected with, and thus I have no idea where he might be. When we parted, I asked where I could meet him again in case I had news of Mr. Bazin. He refused to tell me, saying only, “Perhaps I’ll have some news.” Then he left.

This intelligent young woman—who, as Dautry notes, signed with elegance, suggesting a solid education—was sent to the Madelonnettes prison. Her lover Bazin was sent to Bicêtre, then to other prisons until his release in April 1814.

It is worth noting that to discredit her in the eyes of the public, authorities tried to portray her as a prostitute.

What became of the three?

Marie-Joseph Sagnier: I have found no further trace of her, despite her clear intelligence, political commitment, and bravery during her interrogation. If you come across any additional information, I’d be eager to know.

Saint-Simon: According to Dautry, “Nothing unfortunate happened to him.” He appears to have entirely evaded the police and the judicial system despite his clear complicity. After Bazin's release in 1814, Saint-Simon made no effort to reconnect with him. He focused instead on his writing and, by the autumn of 1814, had published a major pamphlet, On the Reorganization of European Society, co-written with his new collaborator Augustin Thierry. While he did not attempt to see Bazin again, he did send him the brochure, which Bazin reviewed in his newspaper Le Lynx. This polite exchange revealed their ideological divergence: Bazin criticized Saint-Simon’s lack of "patriotism"—a sign that their political paths had parted. Bazin remained a nationalist republican, while Saint-Simon moved toward a more European, scientific vision of society.

Saint-Simon later wrote of this period "I did everything I could to understand the morals and opinions of the various classes of society; I sought and seized every opportunity to connect with men of all temperaments and moral codes. These efforts harmed my reputation, but I do not regret them"

He died at 65 without ever writing his memoirs.

Rigomer Bazin: After his release, he supported the Charter of Louis XVIII in 1814, but only with guarantees to preserve revolutionary gains. He articulated several key principles:

Political Parties:

Bazin was among those who theorized the necessity of strong political parties and a constitutional opposition as essential counterweights to the government. For him, legitimate opposition was not a sign of disorder, but rather evidence of a free government.

Public Opinion:

He defined public opinion as the “counterbalance to public authority,” a “torch” that enlightens rulers. It expressed popular sovereignty, even beyond the narrow confines of the limited electorate.

The Role of Elections:

He believed elections should be held frequently, allowing for popular oversight of representatives and ensuring political alternation.

When commenting on Saint-Simon’s proposals for a European federation, Bazin expressed skepticism about the feasibility of such a confederation. He pointed to several obstacles:

the strength of national identities,

the difficulty of forming a true “European public opinion,”

and especially British foreign policy, which he saw as fundamentally hostile to a strong France.

Instead, he envisioned a progressive Europe built upon:

industry,

representative government,

and the abolition of war, arbitrary rule, and monopolies.

This was a vision of a federation of republican nations, even if he could not state it openly at the time.

P.S.: I wonder why Jean Dautry described Veyrat as “the most reviled of Fouché’s henchmen.” If you have any information about it, share it please.

Sources: Jean Dautry, Saint-Simon et les Babouvistes

Pierre Serna, Rigomer Bazin et la Restauration : penser la république dans la monarchie

Archives de la préfecture de police, cote A a 313, 2e dossier, pièce 21 ( Excerpt from the Interrogation of Marie-Joseph Sagnier).

[aedislumen]

Napoléon And A Chambermaid

By Oskar rex

[aedislumen]

Burning of Regimental Flags before Napoleon by Wojciech Kossak

Burning of Standards in 1812, fragment of 'The Berezina Panorama'

[aedislumen]

I had a horrible nightmare!

I dreamed that Ridley Scott made a spinoff of the rubbish "Napoleon" (2023).

I'm still shaking.

◆◈◆

[aedislumen]

Two letters from Fouché to his sister (and proof that he never enriched himself during his missions?)

Letter 1

Paris, 27 Floréal [probably in Year III, as the death of Julien, Fouché's brother, is briefly mentioned] I thank you, my dear sister, for the details you have provided me regarding our shared matters. I will send my power of attorney to Croizet so that he may sign, review, calculate, and act on my behalf as I would myself if I could be by your side. That moment is still far from us, my dear sister. I am saddened to see that our Convention session is not yet complete, that we will still have many storms to face and many factions to combat in order to consolidate the Republic on solid and compliant foundations that will bring happiness to all. Whatever happens, nothing can weaken the bonds of sincere friendship and tender affection that will bind me to you until my last breath. They are strengthened by the losses we suffer, by the need we feel to draw closer together to repair some of our misfortunes, to console ourselves by mourning together. Take care of your health, my dear sister, for your husband, for your children, and for the only brother you have left. I embrace you all on behalf of my wife and child. P.S.: As we are faced with the risk of demonetization of assignats, I believe it would be wise to keep only what is absolutely necessary for everyday use. Please send those that belong to me to the office of Citizen Duchesne, merchant at Fosse No. 13. Once you have counted them, please mark them for me. I will have Duchesne pay me back here. Those who are in a position to acquire national property have nothing to fear; the Republic will never fail in its loyalty. However, those who have only the bare necessities must carefully take the most prompt measures in these circumstances. Best regards to our relatives and friends, especially Croizet.

Letter 2

Saint-Leu, 13 Nivôse, Year V I have just received your letter, my dear sister, and I thank you for it on behalf of myself and my wife. I received a letter from your husband some time ago, and it is the one you mentioned. […] I have just learned of allegations that I have beautiful castles in Nantes. They are undoubtedly in Spain*. The wretched individuals! If I were anything like them, I would indeed have a great deal of wealth. In my position, they would have amassed an immense fortune. How could they conceive that I have sacrificed everything for my country, and that all I have left is my work and my talents? Those scoundrels no longer have the right to believe in virtue. Blessed are those who can shelter themselves from their persecutions! It was not up to them to cover the Republic in blood, and it is a miracle that you, my dear Broband, and I escaped their fury. [* remark : "castles in Spain" (des châteaux en Espagne) is a French expression referring to an unrealistic project] Tell all those who believe the tales they deliberately spread that I am giving away all the castles and everything I have bought since the Revolution to anyone who wants them; I am bequeathing everything without reservation. I confess that it is not without pride that I contemplate my situation; I would blush to be rich, but I will be rich enough from my work and all my savings. Farewell. I await your reply as soon as possible on all the items I have asked you for. I embrace you.

Source for the letters : Dominique Caillé, Joseph Fouché d’après une correspondance inédite

My analysis :

Fouché indeed sent the fruits of his plundering to the National Convention, as shown in the reports of the sessions of 11 Brumaire (“17 trunks filled with gold, silver, and silverware of all kinds taken from churches, castles, and also donations from the sans-culottes”) and 17 Brumaire (“I am sending you a fourth convoy of gold and silver worth several million”). According to his biographer Louis Madelin, he did not take advantage of his position as a représentant en mission to enrich himself personally:

“Fouché, who lived soberly, does not seem to have tried to speculate from his position. […] He showed disinterestedness: what did not go to the unfortunate should go to the nation.”

And I agree with this statement for several reasons:

Fouché's quality of life did not improve significantly after his recall to Paris in 1794. If he owned hidden money, he would not have lived in such poverty after 9 Thermidor, to the point of being forced to spin flax and fatten pigs to support his family, and he certainly would not have let his daughters Nièvre and Evelina die of illness and lack of proper medical care. Maybe he could pretend if he only had himself to take care of. But there is no shortage of evidence to show that he loved his wife and children more than anything else, and if he had the resources to do something for their health or comfort, he would have done so. His letters to Barras announcing the death of his children show his grief but also his powerlessness (“I have just lost the only child I had left to console me for the injustices and wickedness of men”)

In the first letter to his sister, he warns her that assignats will lose value and that they should only keep what is necessary to sustain themselves, and therefore dispose of the rest. However, he adds that those who can afford to buy national property have nothing to fear for the future (especially because private property is an inalienable right under the Republic). So he hasn't bought any property and does not intend to do so, precisely because he cannot afford it (In another letter, again to his sister, he expresses concern about the condition of his childhood home in Le Pellerin, which he believes has been ravaged by the Vendée wars and which he has conceded to his nieces)

In his second letter to his sister, he is genuinely outraged at being accused of owning castles. You're going to tell me that maybe he is lying or exaggerating but at the time of his writing, he is hiding in Saint-Leu with his family, forced to endure the humiliation of asking Barras for help, and the latter does not hesitate to mock him for it (“I have given him some assistance, as to an unfortunate revolutionary. To earn his money, he acts as a police officer for me, calling it devotion”) (Mémoires de Barras, vol. 3, p. 273). I don't think he would have agreed to endure all this if he had had the means to avoid it, especially since I am convinced that he always hated Barras and only approached him when it was a vital necessity.

We know that from November 1797, a year after this letter was written, Fouché began investing in military supply companies through one of his friends, an easy way to make money quickly at the time, and began to amass the fortune that was known to him during the Empire. More specifically, he was a shareholder in the Ouin company, which had “exclusive rights for one year to supply, transport, and handle food, bread, meat, and fodder for ten military divisions, including those of the brand-new army intended for the invasion of England, whose provisional command had just been entrusted to Bonaparte.” (Waresquiel)

We know that he also enriched himself with lottery money, and of course with the income from his ministry and his future titles of nobility, which he effectively bought properties with, particularly in Provence, etc.

But it was later. I still believe he never enriched himself from his pillaging in 1793 and 1794.

[aedislumen]

‘Napoleon was a woman’s man as far as anyone can be, but he was man enough to sense all possible aspects of masculinity and to allow their existence. He had known the passionate love of Junot, duc d’Abrantes, with whom he had lived, and it will never be known how he responded to him.’

source

[aedislumen]

Boom clap the sound of my heart the beat goes onandonandonondon

Ok also brown

[aedislumen]

Art trade for @aedislumen !!

[aedislumen]

Happy birthday, Louis!

@generaldesaix - don't eat too much cake!!

[aedislumen]

Anicet Charles Gabriel Lemonnier - Portrait of Antoine Francois de Fourcroy -

Antoine François Fourcroy (15 June 1755 – 16 December 1809)[1] was a French chemist and a contemporary of Antoine Lavoisier. Fourcroy collaborated with Lavoisier, Guyton de Morveau, and Claude Berthollet on the Méthode de nomenclature chimique, a work that helped standardize chemical nomenclature.

Anicet Charles Gabriel Lemonnier (male; 6 June 1743 – 17 August 1824) was a well-known French painter of historical subjects who was active before, during and after the French Revolution.

Lemonnier's works include An Evening with Madame Geoffrin, executed in 1812 for the Empress Josephine. This painting exhibited at the Musée des Châteaux de Malmaison et Bois-Préau is an imaginary reconstruction of the salon of Marie Thérèse Geoffrin depicting, among others, the ministers Choiseul, Fontenelle, Montesquieu, Diderot and Marmontel, their hostess and a bust of Voltaire in a scene where the actor Lekain is reading Voltaire's play L'Orphelin de la Chine (The Orphan of China).

[aedislumen]

Imagine your favorite historical figure as a clown

[aedislumen]

Frev friendships — Carnot and the Robespierre brothers

tldr; if you thought Robespierre’s every other relationship was toxic…

My father has told me about when he saw Robespierre for the first time: the two Carnot brothers lived together in Calais, an old servant took care of the house. Carnot-Feulins, having read in a public paper that one lady Duhamel had just died in Arras without any direct inheritors, asked this servant, whose name was also Duhamel, if she wasn’t from the same family, and thus had a right to a portion of the inheritance. ”I know nothing,” she responded, ”here you have all my papers.” Having examined them, Carnot-Feulins judged that a relationship could be established, and he encouraged the poor woman to assert her titles before a tribunal, even though the adversaries that she was going to face there belonged to an influencial house of the land. M. de Robespierre, lawyer in Arras, was charged with the affair. As he made his case, Carnot-Feulins, who was in the audience, thought the speaker expressed himself very poorly and compromised his case. Heated up to the point he forgot he was just a spectator, he rose, interrupted Robespierre and began to speak with vivacity, despite repeated signs from the president, who invited him to keep silent. The servant nevertheless won the case, getting her the help needed for the rest of her days. Carnot the older had also been present at the hearing, he conserved the memory, and got rather surprised over the reputation acquired by Madame Duhamel’s lawyer in the political assemblies. In 1786 [sic], Robespierre, who was then director at the Academy at Arras, got charged with complimenting Carnot, who had been elected member to this academy. These are the only relations they had with one another, they barely knew each other when they met at the Convention. Mémoires sur Carnot par son fils (1861), volume 1, p. 96-97. In volume 1 of his Histoire de Robespierre (1865) historian Ernest Hamel questions the authenticity of both these stories, pointing out that, back when the Carnot brothers lived in Calais, Robespierre was still a law student and thus couldn’t have been charged with their domestic’s case. Hamel also points out that Robespierre was not the one who according to the conserved minutes complimented Carnot when the latter entered the Academy of Arras on May 25 1787.

Friends of this shabby speech Let’s conclude that we must toast; With the good friend Ruzé Who wouldn’t like to toast? To the friend Carnot? To the amiable Cot? I want to toast right now To you, dear Fosseux, To the happy group, I want to toast again. Poem written by Robespierre during his time as a member of the Rosati, cited in Histoire de Robespierre (1865), volume 1, page 30 by Ernest Hamel. Hamel uses this poem to dismiss Hyppolite Carnot’s above claim that his father and Robespierre barely knew each other pre-revolution. Hamel also points out Carnot was friends with Antoine Buissart (citing a letter from the former to the latter dated 1795), lawyer in Arras and a close friend to all three of the Robespierre siblings. Carnot seems to have entered the Rosati in 1786, same year as Robespierre.

In the beginning of floréal (somewhere between April 20 and 30 1794) during an evening session (at the Committee of Public Safety), a brusque fight erupted between Saint-Just and Carnot, on the subject of the administration of portable weapons, of which it wasn’t Carnot, but Prieur de la Côte-d’Or, who was in charge. […] In the midst of the most vague indictments and the most atrocious expressions uttered by Saint-Just, Carnot was obliged to repel them by treating him and his friends as aspiring to dictatorship and successively attacking all patriots to remain alone and gain supreme power with his supporters. It was then that Saint-Just showed an excessive fury; he cried out that the Republic was lost if the men in charge of defending it were treated like dictators; that yesterday he saw the project to attack him but that he defended himself.  ”It’s you,” he added, ”who is allied with the enemies of the patriots. And understand that I only need a few lines to write for an act of accusation and have you guillotined in two days.”    ”I invite you, said Carnot with the firmness that only appartient to virtue: I provoke all your severity against me, I do not fear you, you are ridiculous dictators.” The other members of the Committee insisted in vain several times to extinguish this ferment of disorder in the committee, to remind Saint-Just of the fairer ideas of his colleague and of more decency in the committee; they wanted to call people back to public affairs, but everything was useless: Saint-Just went out as if enraged, flying into a rage and threatening his colleagues. Saint-Just probably had nothing more urgent than to go and warn Robespierre the next day of the scene that had just happened, because we saw them return together the next day to the committee, around one o'clock: barely had they entered when Saint-Just, taking Robespierre by the hand, addressed Carnot saying:  ”Well, here you have my friends, here are the ones you attacked yesterday!”  Robespierre tried to speak of the respective wrongs with a very hypocritical tone: Saint-Just wanted to speak again and excite his colleagues to take his side. Réponse des membres des deux anciens Comités de salut public et de sûreté générale (Barère, Collot, Billaud, Vadier), aux imputations renouvellées contre eux, par Laurent Lecointre et declarées calomnieuses par décret du 13 fructidor dernier; à la Convention Nationale (1795), page 103-105.

The first fight that took place at the Committee [of Public Safety] was between Saint-Just and Carnot: the latter said to the former that he saw well that he and Robespierre were seeking a dictatorship. Nion was witness to this quarrel. Prieur de la Côté d’Or at the Convention, March 23 1795. This sounds like the same fight described above.

Lindet has recounted that Collot d'Herbois had thrown himself on Robespierre and that he, helped by Carnot and Prieur de la Côte-d'Or, had to separate them. Councilor Carnot affirms that one day his brother threw a writing case at Robespierre’s head.  Le Grand Carnot (1952) by Marcel Reinhard, volume 2, page 145. Reinhard cites ”family archives” as the source for this anecdote.

It is perhaps also unknown that Carnot was Robespierre's bête noire, that the latter hardly dared to look at him (I do not say in the face, since Robespierre never looked anyone in the face), that Robespierre very often absented himself from the Committee, expressly so as not to meet Carnot; that he had sworn his destruction long ago, as one might believe, but that he only respected his life because he was needed for the war; and that he was only waiting for a favorable opportunity to let him join the numerous victims he again intended to sacrifice. Often Carnot had threatened him point-blank, putting his fist under his nose; one evening Robespierre, a little too sharply attacked by Carnot, felt ill or pretended to feel ill. Dictionnaire néologique des hommes et des choses, ou Notice alphabétique des personnes des deux sexes, des événemens... (1799) by Beffroy de Reigny, volume 3, p. 11.

I obtained from Barère the following fact: During a session of the Committee of Public Safety, Saint-Just and Robespierre reproached Carnot for being an aristocrat (the latter was frightened and shed tears, Barère said) and threatened to denounce him as such at the Convention. Then Barère said: In that case I will make public that you are angry with the man who organized the victory.  Testimony of Filippo Buonarroti, cited in Études robespierristes; La corruption parlementaire sous la Terreur (1917) by Albert Mathiez.

Something worth to consider is that Carnot was a designated victim and that Robespierre (I am sure and very sure of it) was only awaiting the end of the war, a time when he hoped to rule alone, to sacrifice Carnot and some of his co-workers from the same committee. But how many times didn’t the latter, openly in front of the committee, tell Robespierre: ”You are a tyrant, your methods are disastrous, your revolutionary government has no common sense…” But Carnot’s talents were needed, so one had to be patient and let him speak. Testament d'un électeur de Paris (1795) by Louis-Abel Beffroy de Reigny, p. 140.

Levasseur de la Sarthe — I was at the Committee [of Public Safety] one day when Carnot was having a very heated argument with Robespierre, about the arrest of two clerks in his office, which had been ordered by the latter. Carnot said to Robespierre: Only arbitrary acts are committed in your general police office. Carnot added, addressing Robespierre: You are a dictator. Robespierre, furious, called the accused (Billaud, Collot, Barère) to testify in regards to what Carnot had just told him. They looked at him with contempt..…Carnot — I had the greatest confidence in the clerks that Robespierre had arrested, and to prove to you how the signatures were given to the Committee of Public Safety, I will say that I myself had signed their arrest without knowing it. It was impossible to sign otherwise than by trust, because it was necessary to write five to six hundred signatures every day. We found this custom established, and it is still observed in the committees. Robespierre directed the general police office so much that I could obtain neither the release of my clerks, nor their transfer to a nursing home, even though they were ill. I devoted myself so much to my work that I did not give myself time to go and eat with my wife; although I lived on the rue Florentin, I went to dine every day on the terrace of the Feuillans, at a caterer named Gervais. Robespierre learned of this and issued a warrant for his arrest, although he did not know his name; he ordered that the first caterer, entering the Tuileries through the riding school door on the right, would be arrested. I signed this arrest warrant myself, as did Collot, without knowing it; and when we dined there, our signature was shown to us; we immediately ran to the committee, and we had this warrant brought back. Levasseur de la Sarthe and Carnot at the Convention, March 26 1795

Delmas is a former noble, mad intriguer. […] As a member of the military committee, he often communicates with Carnot. […] Bourdon (de l'Oise) is covered with the crimes in the Vendée, where he devoted himself to the pleasure, in his orgies with the traitor Tunk, to kill voluntaries with his hand. He added perfidy to fury. Since some time, he gained entry in the Committee of Public Safety, under various pretexts. He presented a clerk to it which Carnot placed in his offices and who has been dismissed from it upon the repeated proposal of Robespierre. Carnot getting semi-implicated in notes on Dubois-Crancé, Delmas, Thuriot, Bourdon de l’Oise and Léonard Bourdon (designated as ”leaders of the coalition [that] are all scoundrels [and] already marked by traits of immorality and incivisme”) written by Robespierre somewhere after the passing of the law of 22 prairial on June 10 1794.

Having come to the Committee of General Security three or four days before 9 Thermidor, I was told that the two Committees of Public Safety and General Security would meet between noon and one o'clock in the place where the first held its sessions, and that I had to go there. Having asked what the reason for this meeting was, I was further told that it was to mutually explain the division which, according to what Robespierre had claimed on different occasions to the Jacobins, existed between the government committees. As I did not have the slightest knowledge of this alleged division, and as I was completely ignorant of what Robespierre had said to the Jacobins, I went to the Committee of Public Safety where I found several of my colleagues who had preceded me, and above all Robespierre, walking with long strides, glasses on his nose and throwing at everyone, from the height of his grandeur, looks which marked the deepest contempt. After a few minutes of silence, Saint-Just spoke and said in his exordium that although the youngest among us, he spoke first since we had often seen young people open opinions which enlightened those who were older; he then spoke on the necessity of organizing a constitution and ended up making a pompous eulogy of Robespierre, calling him the martyr of the liberty of his country and assuring him of all his esteem. This praise having been applauded and confirmed by Le Bas, Robespierre believed that it was time to burst out and first complained in general about his numerous enemies, whom he said were too cowardly to ever allow themselves to persecute him; he then indicted Amar, Vadier, Jagot, Carnot, Collot and Billaud, reproaching them for the fierceness with which they tore each other apart, which, having given rise to explanations, was the cause of Carnot telling him to his face that he did not like him, and Billaud and Collot repulsed his attacks with so much vehemence, energy and noise, that I more than once invited Collot to speak more quietly. Philippe Rühl in a speech held March 23 1795

Three or four days before the fall of Robespierre, the Committee of Public Safety had liberated the four patriots from Arras of whom I have spoken. Robespierre the younger brought two of them home to his older brother, he had a big discussion with these patriots. Robespierre the younger said to Leblond: ”you who have well observed the armies and the deputies who have been there, must tell my brother what it is you know about Carnot, against whom Duquesnoy has said he holds papers and facts on fifteen facts capable of guillotining Carnot fifteen times.” Leblond told Robespierre the older, who was very attentive and taciturn, what he knew, and in his account animated by republican frankness; he said everything he knew about the brutality of the ignorance and despotism of the two Duquesnoy brothers. He painted the deputy as the societies of Maubeuge, Avesne and Réunion-sur-Oise had drawn him; he recounted what he had learned of the general's brutalities in the Vendée. Robespierre the older walked around biting his nails and lips, suddenly he said: ”let’s get out of here.” He went out, his brother followed him, and while climbing down the stairs, said to Leblond: ”Damn beast, we should only talk about Carnot, why talk about the Duquesnoy brothers? My brother and the Committee of Public Safety have the biggest confidence in them… You’re lucky to be free… Duquesnoy!” Les secrets de Joseph Lebon et de ses complices, deuxième censure républicaine (1795) by Armand Joseph Guffroy, p. 336-337.

Proceeding to learning of the causes of the accident, the patient told us his name was [Augustin] Robespierre; that he voluntarily threw himself from one of the windows of Hôtel de Ville, to escape from the hands of the conspirators, because, having been put under a decree of accusation, he believed his death inevitable; that he never stopped doing his duty well at the Convention, like his brother; that no one can reproach him for anything; that he regards Panis as a conspirator, because he once came over to him and declared that Collot d’Herbois does not desire the good of his country in order to deceive him; Carnot appears to him to be one of the conspirators, who wants to surrender his country... Medical report on Augustin, written on July 28 1794, two o’clock in the morning, at the civil committee of the city hall section

…Infamous tyrants who had usurped the name of patriots wanted to disrupt the victory that has been the order of the day on all our borders since the beginning of the campaign. The traitors have received the price of their crimes. The national representation has delivered France from its modern Catilinas. Robespierre and his accomplices are no more. Oppression has disappeared. All hearts are opening to the sweetest effusions and joy has taken the place of dismay in Paris. Letter from Carnot to representatives on mission close to the armies, July 28 1794

I was Robespierre’s most declared enemy, and people made me pass for his accomplice. I stepped into the breach to prevent reactions, and people made me pass for someone who favored them. ”The account of Carnot’s political conduct”, published by Carnot in 1814. Cited in Mémoires sur Carnot par son fils (1863), volume 3, page 557.

[aedislumen]

Today, 90 years ago, we lost Stanisława.

The plays I've read — The Danton Case & Thermidor — display a compassionate, careful mind, both rigorous with regard to historical detail and creative in crafting stories that people would read for decades.

Her letters betray the difficulties & despair of having to work under conditions of intense deprivation and the devastation of addiction.

Hilary Mantel called her "The woman who died of Robespierre", but I don't think we should forget that she actually died after years of the assaults of poverty and untreated illness. Plenty of people have lived long, healthy lives while also being obsessed with the thing they love. (Tolkien lived in his own imaginary world for decades and lived a comfortable life filled with family and scholarship until his eighties.)

I don't agree with Stanisława on everything — for example, she believed very much in a Great Men interpretation of history, and believed Robespierre was a genius who was too far above everyone else intellectually*. I don't know how to measure "genius", I don't know that there is a single, independent definition that isn't culturally- or contextually-defined, and I think the momentum of history is far more complex than the actions of a few great men. Nevertheless, I respect her dedication to her subject and the work she put into research — long before easy access via the internet and during periods when she even had quite a bit of trouble accessing books (both for financial reasons and because of being limited by the local book store)*. And even though she loved Robespierre (she did use that word herself!*), as a character in her plays, he is not sugarcoated or blindly defended. She deftly crafted complex characters, neither fully villains not victims, giving the reader/viewer a complex look at these real, multi-faceted human beings.

I wish we hadn't lost such a great and creative mind so soon.

Note

*I wish I had my book with me to give specific quotes, but I'm travelling 😞 These points are from A Life of Solitude by Jadwiga Kosicka & Daniel Gerould. I will try to remember to re-share with quotes when I get home in ~a couple weeks, but I didn't want the day to pass unmarked.

[aedislumen]

Reading every non-Robespierre French revolutionary biography is such a funny experience because there they are gallivanting around in their early years and then inevitably 1789 hits and soon after, Maximilien Robespierre will show up in their life to stir up drama and be annoying (affectionate). No one else was doing it like him.

[aedislumen]

Victor Hugo's description of Fouché in his novel "Quatrevingt treize" (Ninety-Three) :

"Fouché, soul of a demon, face of a corpse".

Damn.

[aedislumen]

[aedislumen]

Today I learned Rousseau composed music and even heard one of his work on the clavecin !!!!

In a music + theater adaptation of Diderot's Le neveu de Rameau with Nicolas Vaude (who played Robespierre in Les Visiteurs: la révolution) as said neveu

It was delightful, Vaude as such charming charisma and energy Les Visiteurs wasted his talent !!