#Antonelle | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

nesiacha · 2 months ago

Text

In honor of Gracchus Babeuf's recent anniversary, here are some informations from his life:

He was apparently born poor. His original first name was François-Noël. He was the eldest of 13 children, most of whom died at a young age. His father gave him a very harsh education: "Education cost my shoulders dearly," he writes, "for to teach me what they did not know, they did so very roughly, and I clearly remember the soldier-like tone and the terribly blunt gestures with which they— I will not say brutalized and repelled, but atrociously tortured my childhood." . It is interesting to note that in the letters Gracchus later sent to his children, whom he loved dearly, he always recommended tenderness and gentleness. I believe he clearly took the opposite approach to his father's upbringing. Gracchus had to work very hard as a laborer from the age of 12 and later became an apprentice to a notary at 17. In 1782, he met his wife, who would be his political right-hand, Marie-Anne Victoire Langlet, a chambermaid working in a castle (a militant in her own right, known for her strong character, and later arrested twice by the Napoleonic police, once in 1801 during the repression of the neo-Jacobins and again in 1808 when they seized all her papers; this couple deserves more recognition—they are just as interesting as other lesser-known revolutionary couples). They had a love marriage. While working, he also continued his education with ancient authors and sought to raise his children according to the principles of Rousseau, a philosopher he admired. He reflected on social inequalities, the misery of peasants, and the abuses of feudalism. He became estranged from the lords and called for the abolition of fiefs during the preparation of the Estates-General. “What a terrible conflagration, if the masses one day came to ask why some have everything and others nothing!”

He was a distinguished correspondent for the Academy of Arras. Gracchus Babeuf became politically involved from the early stages of the French Revolution, particularly by participating in drafting the cahiers de doléances for the convocation of the Estates-General. He proposed additions to the cahier of the Third Estate of the bailiwick of Roye, but his suggestions were rejected. After the storming of the Bastille, he went to Paris, became a correspondent for a newspaper, and publicly criticized revolutionary figures like Mirabeau in his pamphlet La Nouvelle Distinction des Ordres. Before his political career, Babeuf worked as a land surveyor, a role that involved managing legal documents relating to land ownership, earning him the ironic label of "archivist-terrorist." These early experiences and his militant engagement would later lead him to defend radical ideas, especially through the Conspiration des Égaux, advocating for an egalitarian republic.

In July 1789, Gracchus Babeuf was in Paris to oversee the publication of his work Cadastre Perpétuel, which he had developed with the surveyor Audiffred. This book, published in October, proposed an innovative method for measuring land using trigonometry, aiming to rationalize property tax. However, it went further by advocating for a tax reform based on proportionality of properties and, more radically, a redistribution of land—a sort of “agrarian law.” Babeuf defended this idea in response to those who respected private property too much, arguing that the needs of the millions of destitute people must be addressed before they were driven to despair.

Back in Roye, he led a campaign for the abolition of indirect taxes and redeemable rights, organizing a petition in 800 communes and starting a journal, Le Correspondant Picard. Due to his actions, he was imprisoned in Paris in May 1790 but was freed under popular pressure. After a second imprisonment in April 1791 in Roye, he sparked new mobilizations for his release. It is important to note that Babeuf was never really interested in science. In fact, he considered limiting scientific education, arguing that its complexity might create inequalities among students (one of his bizarre and even false ideas). However, on the other hand, he was one of the revolutionaries who truly envisioned property rights in a more egalitarian way, particularly in terms of agrarian laws.

In 1790, he renounced Catholicism and first took the name Camille, after one of the heroes of the Roman Republic. Then, in 1794, he changed it to Gracchus, in homage to the Gracchi brothers, who led a popular party in Rome. He was so fervent about names that he renamed his eldest son Émile in honor of Rousseau, his second son Camille, and his third son Caius. He was unfortunate to survive his two daughters: the first, Sophie, died in 1787 at the age of 4 from an accident that severely scalded her hips, plunging Gracchus into deep despair. His second daughter, also named Sophie, died of malnutrition at 7 years old in 1795. He wrote, "I had a seven-year-old daughter; I soon received the heartbreaking news that she had died from the murderous reduction of two ounces of bread." It was a terrible period because Gracchus was in prison again, and Marie-Anne had been arrested for two days for handling her husband’s journal subscriptions (and for one of Gracchus' escapes, although he was caught again). She was released, and her arrest was criticized by her friend René Vatar and René Lebois.

This must have been the hardest time for him (and for Marie-Anne, the worst was yet to come). Throughout his life during the revolution, he repeatedly went in and out of prison until his execution, continuing his struggle. Contrary to what Zweig or other works might claim, portraying him as simple-minded or mediocre, he was, in fact, intelligent (even though he sometimes made foolish decisions). His ideas on taxes, his views on the assassination of Foulon during the storming of the Bastille, his humanism, and his ultra-revolutionary stance on economic issues (on property rights and taxes) show his sharpness. He protested against unnecessary and arbitrary violence, such as during the repression in the Vendée, and also criticized the violence from the other side. He, along with others, predicted the rise of Bonaparte, reading newspapers in his prison. Yes, at one point, he was manipulated by Fouché (and that doesn’t mean Fouché only manipulated fools), but Babeuf showed him the door once he realized who Fouché truly was. Babeuf was deeply committed to equality and social justice, but he was not naive about the realities of implementing these principles in an agricultural society. He had a clear vision of the injustice inherent in economic inequalities and believed that the social revolution had to occur not only through wealth redistribution but also through a radical reorganization of labor.

The equality Babeuf defended was not limited to formal or legal equality but extended to material and economic equality, which required a complete transformation of society. He believed that equality could only be maintained if working conditions were fair and suited to the realities on the ground, which meant reorganizing production, especially in agriculture. Thus, he proposed the creation of collective farms where labor would be shared among peasants (from an agrarian point of view only). Of course, Gracchus made foolish moves, such as leaving a list of people associated with him, directly or indirectly, in his room, which Pierre Serna suggests was child's play for the police to find. According to Laura Mason, the police found hundreds of documents in an apartment near the center of Paris, including copies of underground pamphlets circulating in the capital, decrees for insurrection, and instructions to the confederates to incite the people to rebellion. Gracchus was irresponsible in this regard, which greatly exasperated his more sensible comrade Antonelle. Antonelle distanced himself from him, particularly in terms of how to achieve the revolution. I simplify, but for this noble revolutionary, the revolution should be saved through the ballot box and by fighting the system from within, even though history would show he was wrong on this point. Here’s what Antonelle wrote: “The act of insurrection is the dream of a sick man… The more I think about this too frivolous subject, the more I remain convinced that this great conspiracy was reduced to the petty annoyances of a few disgruntled minds, the pastimes of some idle people who shared their thoughts.” The problem was also that Gracchus didn't take the necessary measures for a clandestine operation, inadvertently putting many involved—whether directly or indirectly—in danger.

Gracchus Babeuf was often overwhelmed by enthusiasm throughout his life, to the point where, according to some historians, he was even said to have suffered from fevers. He first had an admiration for Robespierre, hated him, then adored him again as a Robespierrist. He formed connections with the Duplay family, though he befriended people from all political backgrounds. Some of his most important "lieutenants" in the Conspiracy, like the Hébertist Joseph Bodson, were anti-Robespierrists. He was very close to the family of Marat, particularly Albertine (who admired Danton), and he formed ties with Lindet, even though he was not part of the conspiracy. It seems that he had a certain talent for allying with others who did not necessarily share the same political views.

For Gracchus Babeuf, friendship did not exclude violent criticism, although this did not prevent him from continuing to hold the same people in high esteem with whom he had formed friendships. One example of this is his relationship with Jean-Paul Marat, as well as the vehement debates he had with Joseph Bodson about Robespierre (Gracchus Babeuf had become a Robespierrist again at that time). He was popular in Picardy.

After the failure of the Conspiracy of Equals, more than 200 warrants were issued. The repression was carried out, among others, by Lazare Carnot. However, there were armed attempts to try to save them, which ultimately failed. A High Court was established to investigate the matter. The conspirators were transported in simple cages on carts. Marie-Anne Babeuf, Gracchus' political right hand, followed the journey on foot, pregnant with their last child, Caius, and accompanied by their eldest son, Emile. It is worth noting that Gracchus was even more concerned about their second son, Camille, and wrote, "What have you done with my Camille? The poor, dear child! Is he the only one who couldn’t follow his dear father... no doubt he will cry for it, he must have cried. His young soul, full of the most delicate sensitivity, has long known the nature of the most touching affections. Why is he so young, so weak, he would have accompanied me with you in these terrible circumstances, and then Gracchus Babeuf would have been too happy." I wonder if madness had seized Camille, or if he never recovered from the trauma of seeing his father arrested, only to eventually be executed.

Marie-Anne Babeuf took the journey to see if she could free her husband, with the help of Pierre Hésine, whom she had settled with her family, to organize solidarity with the accused. She was not the only woman to make this arduous journey; Philippe Buonarroti's partner, Teresa Poggi, was also with her.

Even in prison, Babeuf kept himself informed about the situation. He even wrote to the Directoire: "Look beneath you, citizens Directors, to treat with me from power to power! You have seen the great confidence with which I am the center. You have seen that my party can well counterbalance yours! You have seen the vast ramifications it holds. I am more than convinced, this glimpse must have made you tremble!"

At his trial before the High Court, Babeuf showed remarkable courage, assuming all responsibility for the "society of democrats" while acknowledging all attacks against the Directoire, stating, "The decision of the jurors will solve this problem...: will France remain a Republic, or will it return to a monarchy?" He was sentenced to death with Darthé. Despite being injured by a suicide attempt, he reportedly showed great strength during his execution.

Six men, sentenced to deportation, were imprisoned and chained in caged enclosures. Among them were Blondeau (who escaped from Oléron and later Cayenne), Buonarroti, Cazin, Germain, Moroy, and Vadier. They were initially sent to the fort on Île Pelée, then to the national fort at Cherbourg, a prison of security. In Year VIII, they were transferred to the island of Oléron, before being subjected, for some, to house arrest. At least a significant number of them were acquitted.

Here is Germain's reaction: "The prisoners sentenced to deportation were intoxicated with joy at having escaped the torture that twenty of them knew they were threatened with. Germain, cheerful and full of wit, mocked the jurors. 'They are fools,' he said to Vieillard, 'not to see a conspiracy when there is one of the best-planned ever, and is there anything crazier than acquitting the women who were enraged (sic) and encouraged us all? Now that my life is saved, I will tell them everything I know. Besides, I conspired, I will always conspire. If they send me to Cayenne or Senegal, I will conspire, and if not with men, I will with parrots.'" (Charles Germain, Archives Nationales, F 16/582. C)

Dozens of Babouvists were released, but the last supporters of Babeuf attempted a final uprising by inciting soldiers at the Grenelle camp to revolt. After allowing the insurrection to grow, Carnot, a member of the Directoire, ordered the cavalry's intervention, commanded by Cochon de Lapparent. On October 9, 1796, about thirty insurgents, including several important figures of the Babouvist conspiracy, were executed by firing squad.

Jean-François Baby, an old friend of Vadier, had already been imprisoned in 1795 and denounced by Lakanal before being arrested again. Claude Javogues, a deputy from Rhône-et-Loire, had suppressed the federalist insurrection during the Terror of Foréz, humiliating the local populations by renaming cities. Marc-Antoine Huguet, a deputy from Creuse and notary, had participated in the invasion of the Convention by the sans-culottes on 12 Germinal, Year III. Finally, Joseph-Marie Cusset, a merchant and deputy from Rhône-et-Loire, had denounced the atrocities committed by the Austrian armies in 1792. (These are details I'm uncertain about for these four individuals, so I call for further information).

Interestingly, while Babeuf resented Grisel and Cochon, the police minister, he reserved only mild criticism for Carnot, one of the leading figures behind the Babouvist repression. While Babeuf had harshly criticized other directors of the Directoire, he directed only reproaches at Carnot, but not as harshly as at others. After the affair at the Grenelle camp and the condemnation of the Babouvists (especially since Babeuf endured particularly grueling imprisonment, being transferred in cages on carts while his pregnant wife walked alongside him to offer support and attempt to free him), public opinion was stirred. According to Mazauric, Carnot, despite his conservative stance on many issues, slowed down the repressive zeal of Merlin.

My theory: Babeuf spared Carnot in his final speech, even though Carnot had been a key figure in his execution and contributed to his arrest, which ultimately led to his death. Despite knowing what Carnot had done against him, Babeuf often criticized figures like Fréron, Tallien, Fouché, and Barras. However, he recognized that, for all his flaws, Carnot was more sincere than they were in safeguarding the Republic.

Felix Le Peletier, a close associate of Babeuf, would later become their protector. Marie-Anne Babeuf continued her activism. (I really like the friendship between Marie-Anne Babeuf, a woman of strong character, and Felix Le Peletier, described as a bon vivant). What’s interesting is that in 1808, when the Napoleonic police confiscate her papers, along with Antonelle (coincidence?), did they continue to associate despite Antonelle having distanced himself from Gracchus, though he remained close to Felix Le Peletier? There is a more plausible hypothesis: during the first conspiracy of Malet, the Napoleonic police, especially Fouché, seemed to let the plot develop to suppress any opposition.

Marie-Anne Babeuf was illiterate, likely due to a lack of formal education. However, it appears that she was proficient with numbers, likely from her experience as a servant, as she managed the subscriptions for her husband's newspaper, Tribun du Peuple. This led to her first arrest and imprisonment. She also worked as a seller of toiletries, among other things, to provide for her children. She was considered important enough to be arrested twice and mentioned in newspapers. Despite lacking access to education, she played a major role during the revolution.

Her son Camille went mad and committed suicide ( some said that he was "only" depressed as he could work even if he had to go to Charenton for a moment and kill himself out of sorrow at seeing the Allies enter Paris in 1815 ) . Her other son, Caius, died at the age of 17 during the foreign invasion of France in Vendôme. It’s possible that she outlived her last son, Emile, as despite her strong character and her arrests under the Directoire and Bonaparte, her date of death is unknown. Some say she was still alive when Emile died. She also witnessed many of her friends die under the mockery of justice, including Topino-Lebrun, executed under Bonaparte, or René Vatar, who died in deportation.

Sources: Jean Marc Schiappa Eric Walter Claude Mazaric Pascal Bajou Victor Daline

Sorry if there is any confusion I am a little exhausted at the moment

Here are also some links I've made about Gracchus Babeuf, his followers, and the opinions of certain revolutionaries he encountered:

Gracchus Babeuf’s opinion on the storming of the Bastille and the assassination of Foulon: link

Babeuf’s last letter to his family: link

Excerpts from letters and chapters of historians on the break between Babeuf and Fouché: link

Gracchus Babeuf's opinion on Napoleon Bonaparte: link

Relations between Gracchus Babeuf and Jean-Paul Marat: link

Gracchus Babeuf’s position on women’s rights: link

Babeuf’s thoughts on Danton according to Victor Daline: link

Marie-Anne Babeuf’s revolutionary journey: link

The last letter of Babeuf to his friend Felix Le Peletier and his final moments during his execution: link

Mini post on Babeuf’s opinion of Lazare Carnot at the time of his final arrest, which led to his execution: link

Opinion on Babeuf about Robespierre: link

(In addition to this post, which also touches on the Hébertist Babouvists who were Babeuf’s friends, but they didn’t like Robespierre).

Emile Babeuf and the letter he sent to Lazare Carnot during the Hundred Days: link

On the allies of Gracchus Babeuf:

The life of Antonelle: link

The life of Topino-Lebrun according to Claude Mazaric: link

This post is mostly a request for information on a letter from Felix Le Peletier, but you’ll find a link (unfortunately in French, sorry for those who don’t speak the language) to a study on Felix Le Peletier's life: link

The Affair of the Grenelle Camp: link

#frev #french revolution #babeuf #antonelle #Felix Le Peletier #Marie-Anne Babeuf #napoleon bonaparte #jean paul marat #lazare carnot #georges danton #robespierre #joseph fouché #women's rights #women in history #women in revolution

14 notes · View notes

nesiacha · 10 days ago

Text

The last break between Fouché and Babeuf

Once again, feel free to correct me if I am saying anything wrong, I am not infallible. The flow and structure leave much to be desired due to my significant fatigue, so I would fully understand any critique. It's just that with my computer acting up and no USB key at the moment, I’ll publish it to avoid losing important information.

I have already shown some excerpts from historians or speeches about the rupture between Fouché and Babeuf here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/767448240197140480/excerpts-from-letters-and-chapters-of-historians?source=share

Historical context: Initially allies, as is well known in history (to the point that Fouché may have funded Gracchus Babeuf’s newspaper), they gradually drift apart. An interesting fact: they were almost the same age, and it is possible they knew each other before the Revolution in Arras, when Gracchus was a feudalist, though this is uncertain. They also had a common experience: losing several of their brothers and sisters during childhood (plus both are very caring husbands to their wives, adoring fathers to their offspring and have been devastated by the loss of some of their children ). However, Jean-Marc Schiappa explains that, while the possibility they met before the Revolution is conceivable, there are reservations about this idea. Why, then, did Babeuf not contact him in 1793?

Shortly before this break, Gracchus Babeuf had already realized Fouché’s true nature, not to mention the reproaches he had against him, especially for what he had done to his family, accusing him of reducing them to begging. Waresquiel claims they were close before the break, due to the use of the informal "tu," which suggests familiarity. Jean-Marc Schiappa rejects this hypothesis, noting that revolutionaries used "tu" as a sign of republican equality. On the other hand, Babeuf had thought about entrusting Fouché with the guardianship of his children in case of misfortune. Jean-Marc Schiappa quotes an anonymous historian who explained that Fouché supported Gracchus Babeuf’s children while he was in prison. However, Schiappa qualifies this by pointing out that Babeuf’s children (probably Émile and Camille) went to see him, and he only gave them 10 livres, saying he was not wealthy. When Émile wrote to his father, Gracchus, saying that it was not the generosity of his friends that allowed them to survive, it seems he was referring to Fouché, according to Schiappa. This must have been the first significant grievance Gracchus had against Fouché (though perhaps their initial break had occurred earlier).

Gracchus Babeuf’s return in 1795: Babeuf was released from prison on the 26th of Vendémiaire Year IV (October 18, 1795) thanks to an amnesty on 4 Brumaire. During his time in prison, he surrounded himself with or formed alliances with Darthé, Buonarroti, Antonelle, Charles Germain, Bodson, and many others. It is possible that the widow of Lebon was part of this group, as she mentioned during their time in prison that “Here, all the friends are in constant meetings with Babeuf.” Gracchus, who was in contact with Jullien de Paris, left the capital for some time, though he returned. Topino-Lebrun had offered him a position in Switzerland months earlier. Gracchus found his children and wife in a dreadful state, the result of Boissy d’Anglas’ laws and others. He had lost his daughter, who died of malnutrition, which deeply saddened him when he learned of her death in prison.

Gracchus continued his meetings and his journal. But here’s an excerpt from Jean-Marc Schiappa on how Fouché tried to corrupt Babeuf (possibly under the orders or with the support of Barras):

“On 14 Brumaire, shortly after the meeting at Bouin’s, Babeuf was received in the presence of Antonelle, a democratic journalist, and former member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, by Fouché at the latter’s request. Fouché had read the manuscript of the first issue of Tribun du Peuple. How? More would need to be known about the discussions at Bouin’s, given the later trajectories of Féru and Rousillon, who later became close to Barras, and their possible connections with Fouché. For two hours, Fouché insisted that Babeuf soften his text and remove certain passages. Acting probably as an emissary of Barras, a member of the Directory and considered the most republican of the Directors, he offered to obtain ‘six thousand subscriptions from the Directory.’ This was nothing other than the purchase of the newspaper and the journalist.” Apparently, Fouché was surprised by Babeuf’s refusal. A few days later, Babeuf publicly denounced Fouché in his newspaper article, detailing the deal Fouché had offered to him and to the tribune. Later, Gracchus would claim that he was innocent of the venality some offered him, as he lived in poverty and refused to be corrupted by Fouché (or even Barras). Gracchus no longer wanted anything to do with Fouché and reproached him for his compromises.

Waresquiel agrees with Schiappa on Fouché’s attempt to corrupt Gracchus Babeuf.

First question: So, when did the break begin? I think it’s easy to say that it started in prison in 1795. Indeed, we can say that on April 8, 1795, he wrote to Fouché as follows: “The catastrophe of 12 Germinal makes great changes likely. This does not at all mean that I renounce or quit the cause. The ideas that occupy me, along with the conclusion I want to establish in this letter, will lead me, my friend, to discuss with you the great battle we have just lost... but should we let ourselves be defeated? No. It is in great dangers that genius and courage unfold.” However, on August 9, 1795, Charles Germain (one of the most important conspirators) wrote to Babeuf about Fouché: “Well! Here’s Fouché arrested. Good! Good! Morbleu! That’s how we learn to live with that scoundrel. What an example for traitors!” Moreover, Fouché was apparently disliked by several important conspirators (we don’t even need to explain why for the Duplay family, Charles Germain, Babeuf later). Let’s not forget that there were tensions with some like Amar and Vadier, who were reproached by their babouvist “colleagues” for their participation in the 9 Thermidor (even though Amar and Vadier were ambiguous, though not traitors in this conspiracy babouvist), even though some important, trusted babouvists like Bodson were staunchly anti-Robespierre (Bodson reproached Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety for the death of his friend Chaumette and Hébert). What I mean is that Babeuf was already surrounded by people who resented Fouché, and soon he would have his own grievances against him.

What was Fouché's responsibility in the repression suffered by Gracchus Babeuf afterward?

After all, Fouché is known for showing no mercy to those who become his deepest enemies. And Babeuf swore, through his words of rupture and speeches, to always stand against him (and people like him) for the good of the revolution. Babeuf also brought founded accusations against him, such as his dubious dealings. Waresquiel says that the first service Fouché rendered to Barras was regarding the Babeuf faction. Waresquiel also mentions that Fouché did not directly participate in Babeuf's final arrest, which would lead to his death, but that he did inform Barras about the conspirators. Both Fouché and Barras mention this in their memoirs (which are highly debatable). Nevertheless, Buonarroti, who is much more reliable, is sure of Barras’s involvement in the repression of the Babouvists, as is Tissot, who agrees with Buonarroti on this hypothesis (particularly regarding the repression at the Grenelle camp). Jean-Marc Schiappa himself does not exclude it, even though Claude Mazauric claims that Barras had reservations about arresting the Babouvists, and that Lazare Carnot was the driving force behind the repression of the Babouvists, as seen in the posts here: link 1, link 2, link 3.

(Do not mistake any comparison between Carnot and Barras, by the way; even though they may share some responsibility for the Grenelle camp and the crushing of the Babouvists. The former, known as the Organizer of Victory, carried out an atrocious and unforgivable repression in the Equal's conspiracy, but with the sincere belief that he was saving the Republic, whereas the latter, Barras, saw the revolution primarily as a means to wealth and lived well within corruption. Their mindsets at the time of the Babouvist repression were thus entirely different. In fact, their mindsets were completely different on most subjects.)

Here is what Fouché would later say (he, who would have the Rue du Bac club, where neo-Jacobins gathered, shut down two years later) about the last nostalgic supporters of Babeuf and equality, according to Waresquiel:

"Deep down, Fouché likes the Jacobins no more than they like him. This is what he told Jacques de Norvins, the future director of the police of the Roman States, when he was once discussing with him his former friends from the Terror period, the last nostalgic supporters of Babeuf and equality, who certainly do not want to change: 'They're still stuck on the Incorruptible Robespierre. Well, I hunt them down to stop them from shooting themselves. I give them bread, I mock them, and within six months, they’ll come to besiege me for positions.' 'And will you give them some?' asked Norvins. - 'Why not?' replied Fouché."

The ex-conventionnel is almost always the man for the situation because he knows it better than anyone else. He remains unshaken in the face of threats. He’s seen worse. One last day in August, one of his former acquaintances from the Jacobin club, sensing the tide turning, came to insult him right in the courtyard of his ministry, on behalf of his "brothers and friends." "We’ll parade your head through the streets of Paris," he threw at him, and Fouché, colder and more mocking than ever, replied: "Let me look at myself in a mirror, so I can get an idea of the effect my head will have when you place it on the point of a pike."

It’s clear that Fouché had already broken with the Jacobins.

Although, Fouché lied in his statement: "I give them bread, I mock them, and within six months, they’ll come to besiege me for positions." Has he forgotten that just a few years ago, he made this offer to Gracchus, who not only refused but also openly denounced him (and I believe there were others who did the same as Gracchus)? I don’t think so. After all, Fouché is a master of deceit. On the other hand, Waresquiel, with convincing evidence, claims that four years later, Fouché saved Vadier from deportation, despite Vadier having some responsibility in the Babouvist conspiracy, although ambiguous (but once again, for everything he was blamed for, Vadier, a major political ambiguous figure who has a lot to reproach himself for , was not a traitor in the Babouvist conspiracy, unlike Grisel). In his memoirs, Fouché says:

"It was during the early troubles of the Directory, when it was facing the Babœuf faction. I communicated my ideas to Barras; he invited me to write them down in a report, which I submitted to him. The position of the Directory was politically analyzed, and its dangers listed precisely. I characterized the Babœuf faction, which had revealed itself to me, and showed that, while dreaming of the agrarian law, they secretly aimed to seize the Directory and power by surprise, which would have brought us back to demagoguery through terror and blood. My report made an impression, and the problem was cut off at its root. Barras then offered me a secondary position, which I refused, not wanting to accept posts except by the main route; he assured me he lacked enough influence to elevate me, his efforts to overcome his colleagues’ prejudice against me having failed. The coldness between us grew, and everything was postponed."

Although it’s ironic that Fouché speaks of demagoguery through terror and blood, because while Babeuf condemned certain excesses of the representatives on mission like Carrier, Fouché himself is known for his cannon executions in Lyon.

However, while it is difficult to assess the extent of Fouché’s responsibility in the repression of the Babouvists, it is undeniable when it comes to what he later did to their widow during the repression of the Jacobins, as well as to Gracchus's son, Émile Babeuf, later during the first Malet conspiracy a few years later.

I have already discussed the three theories that led Fouché to target Marie-Anne Babeuf (arrested once when he was Minister of Police, shortly after the Saint-Nicaise street attack) twice and her son once (during the Malet conspiracy) here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/771601754872856576/the-mysteries-of-marie-anne-babeuf-wife-of?source=share.

I recently learned two important pieces of information. The first, unsurprisingly, concerns Félix Le Peletier, who opposed Bonaparte as soon as he became First Consul. In 1800, Félix, accompanied by his longtime friend Antonelle, clashed with Bonaparte's justice for printing pamphlets against him and participating in clandestine movements. This forced them to flee Paris that same year. Later, Félix Le Peletier was saved from deportation with the help of his friend Saint-Jean d’Angely.

Now, Félix Le Peletier was also the protector of the Babeuf family, and Marie-Anne Babeuf, in particular, had a great talent for political clandestinity. Fouché must have met her at this time, as she was in Paris and played an important role in her husband Gracchus's political life. She always supported him loyally, demonstrating great cunning. In addition to participating in her husband's printing activities, she was a kind of political right-hand woman to him. During her arrest, the police held her for three weeks trying to figure out where her husband was hiding, but she refused to cooperate, to the point that the police became desperate.

It is also known that Gracchus Babeuf sent his letters secretly via his close associates, including Marie-Anne and their son Emile. In his correspondence, notably in a letter addressed to Fouché on April 8, 1795, he mentioned that his messages were sent securely, often through his wife and his son Émile, who handled the delivery while evading the police. While there is no direct evidence, given Marie-Anne's determined character in adversity, it is possible that she continued her clandestine activities, as she was close to opposition figures. However, there is no certainty about this, and her life remains a mystery. Her arrest in 1801 therefore seems inevitable.

The second piece of information particularly caught my attention. According to historian Pierre Serna, there is evidence from 1808 showing that Émile Babeuf had contact with Antonelle through a document written in his hand. This contact might also be linked to the republican opposition movement against Bonaparte, namely the Philadelphes (a group of neo-Jacobins opposed to Bonaparte), as well as with Buonarroti. Although Buonarroti had limited trust in Émile, with whom he had worked closely when Émile’s father Gracchus was alive, this information suggests intriguing connections. In 1807, an arrest warrant was issued for Émile Babeuf, which seemed justified, although the only evidence against him was a document in his own handwriting, mentioning Antonelle's name and visits to Buonarroti. What is surprising is that the charges were quickly dropped. The police seemed to be unaware that he was abroad for work during the Malet Conspiracy, and yet they seized his mother’s papers, interrogated her (though harshly), and returned her belongings after two days. This remains rather strange.

But what is truly frightening is knowing that Fouché knew Émile as a child, to the point that Gracchus may have considered entrusting his son to him. Years later, Fouché sought to have him arrested, even though he had known him when Émile was a child.

So, once again, here are the three theories for which Fouché targeted Marie-Anne Babeuf and Émile, updated with the new knowledge I’ve learned recently:

Theory 1: Opportunistically, Fouché wanted to show Bonaparte that he had no mercy for the Jacobins (after all, Fouché was in a delicate position), especially after the Saint-Nicaise street attack, which I briefly discussed here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/756533326215528448/the-jacobins-executed-by-bonaparte?source=share and here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/767626191447392256/the-journey-of-the-forgotten-french-revolutionary?source=share . Bonaparte had not forgotten the Babouvistes, so widow Babeuf was a logical target. But why attack her and her son again in 1808, even though this episode of the Malet Conspiracy exposes Fouché’s limitations as Minister of Police, according to Jean Tulard? I don’t know. I think after that, it was because Émile had contacted Buonarroti, so maybe for verification. Especially since Émile had a note mentioning Antonelle. Honestly, I think the first hypothesis is the most plausible.

Theory 2: Gracchus Babeuf and Fouché worked together at one point (more precisely, Fouché manipulated Gracchus before Gracchus realized his true nature and showed him the door, as you can see here). It is very likely, if not almost certain, that Fouché met Gracchus’s wife and saw her political talents, her activism, her combative nature in the underground, and her ability to escape the police, as she was always by Gracchus’s side. As a close ally to her husband, she had been involved in underground activities, and Fouché may have suspected that she continued anti-Napoleonic actions. Furthermore, her associations with neo-Jacobins and opponents like René Vatar and Félix Le Peletier may have fueled Fouché's suspicions. Perhaps these suspicions were justified, given the strong character of widow Babeuf. In 1808, he may have wanted to verify this. Fouché was simply acting as a "good" Minister of Police to fight against the Empire’s opponents, especially since his son Émile was in contact with Buonarroti and Antonelle (and probably with her too, even if she stayed in Paris).

Theory 3: The third theory is the one I believe the least, but after discussions with friends, I’ve decided to include it. We know that Fouché liked to keep all documents related to him, including sensitive documents about others, and he liked to destroy traces of himself (including information about his own mother, for which there is no record). In fact, in his later years, he burned papers containing important correspondence, notably with Condorcet, Robespierre, Collot d'Herbois, and others. We know that Gracchus Babeuf had to produce documents about him, corresponded with him, especially when Gracchus considered him an ally but also had messages mentioning him. It is possible that Fouché sought to recover these documents, either directly or indirectly. We also know that in Gracchus’s last letter before his execution, he left his defense papers to his wife, advising they be passed on to their friends. Here is an excerpt from this letter: “Lebois announced he would print our defenses separately. We must give my defense as much publicity as possible. I recommend to my wife, my dear friend, that she not give any copy of my defense to Baudouin, to Lebois, or to others, without keeping another exact copy with her to ensure that this defense is never lost,” as you can see here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/765954409563897856/last-letter-of-babeuf-before-his-execution?source=share.

What’s the connection? Gracchus Babeuf may have entrusted his wife with other important papers, and Joseph Fouché might have wanted to recover them, either indirectly, or he wanted to verify their contents to see if they concerned him directly. So, what could he do if Marie-Anne Babeuf surely didn’t want anything to do with him anymore? He could commit burglary (Fouché clearly demonstrated that he often acted outside the law in ways that are difficult to understand. I am currently examining the Clément de Ris case more closely through the papers of Clément de Ris to see if the hypothesis of historian Alain Decaux aligns with that of Waresquiel, which highlights the extent to which Fouché could be unscrupulous at times as you all know which is an understatement). However, Marie-Anne Babeuf would have quickly deduced who it was or would have her suspicions. It is important to note that the Babeufs had important links with François Réal, who had a significant role in Bonaparte’s government (François Réal, along with Admiral Truguet, was one of the few to openly protest against Bonaparte when Napoleon ordered the repression of the Jacobins in 1801 during a council). So, she might have informed Réal, who would tell Bonaparte, which would have been problematic. So burglary is out of the question. On the other hand, when someone is arrested or interrogated, their house can be searched legally. This is partly why he included Marie-Anne Babeuf’s name in the list of Jacobins to be arrested in 1801—to thoroughly search her home and the homes of her friends to try to recover her papers. Perhaps Fouché was not satisfied with what he found in 1801 and took the opportunity to try again and search her home in 1808. Proof is that her papers were confiscated, even though they were returned to her two days later. So, Fouché targeted Marie-Anne Babeuf to verify that she didn’t have any compromising documents about him, or to try to get his hands on any papers Gracchus might have left, which could be important for him.

On the other hand, my friends are the ones who, before I discovered the proposal Fouché made to Gracchus, theorized that if Babeuf had gone along with the tide, like Fouché, and hadn’t denounced, maybe Fouché would have granted him a pension or at least a good sum of money. And they were right, so this third theory could work, even though, again, it’s the least plausible one I think.

P.S.: Interesting fact, according to Jean Dautry, Fouché refused to arrest Antonelle during the Malet Conspiracy, even though his opposition to Bonaparte was much better known. Yet, the two men had little in common. Why? It’s important to specify that Antonelle knew Fouché from when Gracchus was alive, as he witnessed the attempt at corruption that Fouché tried on Gracchus. Did Antonelle have something compromising on Fouché? I don’t think so, otherwise, he would have made sure that these proofs came to light, or he would have used them to benefit the freedom of many of his comrades, knowing this noble revolutionary. Or, as Jean Tulard showed, this Malet Conspiracy of 1808 revealed the limits of Fouché’s effectiveness as Minister of Police. He would have had every interest in making it seem that this conspiracy wasn’t dangerous, and as a result, Antonelle’s name, which was well-known, was erased.

On the other hand, why did Antonelle (Gracchus's ally) attend the final meeting that would lead to the break between Gracchus and Fouché? Because frankly, if Barras hoped to corrupt Antonelle, that's really foolish. I mean, Gracchus was in a state of great poverty, had just lost his daughter to malnutrition, and his wife and sons were in horrible health. Even though he refused to be corrupted by Barras, I can understand why, seeing his advanced state of misery, Barras hoped he would accept his offer. But Antonelle? I mean, yes, he had been loyal to the revolution his whole life but he's immensely wealthy ( Antonelle's wealth comes honestly), so offering him more money to corrupt him would be pointless.

#frev #french revolution #napoleonic era #joseph fouché #babeuf #lazare carnot #Barras #Antonelle #history #france

8 notes · View notes