#Georges Jacques danton

[transrevolutions]

happy 2nd anniversary to one of the weirdest online experiences I've ever had

do you love the color of the christmas eve fat danton? dec. 24 2021 - dec. 24 2023

[enlitment]

Some Julius Caesar x The Danton Case Parallels to Celebrate the Ides of March, Frev Style 🔪🥳

Firstly, both Przybyszewska’s Danton Case and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar are obviously (excellent!) tragedies that are set in a dying republic on the brink of collapse.

Here are some other interesting parallels I was able to trace:

1. Brutus and Robespierre:

Both of them are driven to execute an important figure even though they initially do not want to do it. They are both conflicted but feel like they have no other choice and have to commit the violent act for the good of the republic.

They are also arguably quite alike in terms of character: you have the „noble Brutus“ and then Robespierre, who is consistently referred to as „the Incorruptible“. Both are seen by others as selfless and committed to the good of the state (the people in the crowd very much emphasise this fact in both of the plays, I do have the receipts)

There is even the scene in which Brutus chastises Cassius for taking bribes, which plays into the idea of him as being (literally) “incorruptible” as well. And vice versa, traces of Brutus’ famed stoicism can then certainly be found in Maximilien.

2. Cassius and Saint-Just:

Both are characters who convince the protagonists (Brutus/Robespierre) to go along the violent act while not necessarily being portrayed as antagonists (at least Saint-Just definitely can't be seen as one in Przybyszewska’s play).

There are also parallels in the close relationship between Brutus and Cassius and Robespierre and Saint-Just, where they are very much portrayed as each other’s closest confidants. Of course, this idea can easily be pushed even further if one wishes to read between the lines. (There is no Camille Desmoulins in Shakespeare though)

3. Manipulating the Crowd:

I'm perhaps the most fascinated by how both Brutus and Mark Antony as well as Robespierre and Danton have the necessary rhetorical skills to manipulate the crowd of commoners (Robespierre being able to “play the crowd like an organ” very much came to my mind when I was reading Act 3 Scene 2 of the Shakespeare’s play).

Both Shakespeare and Przybyszewska portray “the court of public opinion” and how it can easily be manipulated - how opinions can be changed in the matter of minutes - in a way that is genuinely fascinating.

Specifically, the similarity between A3S2 in which people first listen to Brutus only to be immediately swayed by Mark Antony’s speech shortly after and the scene in the court in which Danton manipulates the crowd were in fact so similar in some respects that it was borderline uncanny.

The problem arises when looking for a mirror to Danton’s character in Shakespeare’s play.

4. The Case for Danton x Caesar:

It is Caesar who gets killed for being perceived as a danger to the republic

Both Caesar and Danton are portrayed as being very much beloved by the common people

Also, the idea of Danton being immortal is expressed at the end of Przybyszewka’s play, and while he does not come back literally as a ghost like Ceasar does, Robespierre nonetheless explains to Saint-Just that Danton’s spirit never truly dies.

5. The Case for Danton x Mark Antony:

If we see Danton and Robespierre as foils, Mark Antony makes more sense as a parallel to Danton (even though he does not die), since both Robespierre and Brutus as the classic ascetic/stoic archetype while Danton and Mark Antony’s are well-known for their appetite for drinking, women (or, you know, people, in the case of Mark Antony) , and the pleasures of life overall.

Both are also severely underestimated by their enemies at first, yet they prove to be quite cunning and are able to use their words skilfully to win over the public

Overall, reading both of the plays – especially the parts about manipulating the Roman public and the citizens of Paris just with the power of words – really makes me wonder if Przybyszewska read Shakespeare’s play and used it as a source of inspiration. It would make sense, especially given how the parallel between the French Republic and the Roman Republic was well-established long before her time (even, somewhat tragically, by the revolutionaries themselves).

I promise I think about Przybyszewska's and Shakespeare’s play and the Roman Republic along with the French Revolution a totally normal amount of time & that it definitely does not consume my every waking thought that should be very much going towards the exam preparation.

[leverontdemain]

1. A quoi tu danses

2. Ça ira mon amour

3. Au palais royal

[reggiespoon]

Saint-Just

Danton

Bonus: Robespierre (with Brount)

I LOVE HORSES

duality

[aedesluminis]

Marat, Danton and Robespierre in a fragment of "Panorama de l'Histoire du siècle 1788-1889" (1889) by Alfred Stevens and Henri Gervex, Town Hall of Saint-Gilles, Belgium.

The woman on the stairs is Charlotte Corday, this particular fragment is indeed titled "Fragment du Panorama du Siècle (années 1790-1793)". Charlotte Corday et Jean-Paul Marat.

The two people behind the trio are François Barthélémy (left) and Jacques-Nicolas Billaud-Varenne (right).

References for the characters' names from Stevens, Gervex, Reinach "L'Histoire du Siècle", p. 36-37.

[leverontdemain]

[enlitment]

also side note but there may or may not be something in Rousseau's Confessions that almost went down in Venice that would unfortunately make Danton marrying a 16-year-old feel super mild in comparison

yeah, not a great time for (especially lower class) women

It has been haunting me for a while now so just getting it out there I guess

[labrador44]

we can get rather silly at times

[reggiespoon]

This is incredibly accurate.

[nesiacha]

The Life of the Hébertist Charles Philippe Ronsin: From Playwright to Chief General of the Revolutionary Army

Charles Philippe Ronsin was born on December 1, 1751, to a master cooper in Soissons. According to Maurice Chartier, who draws on the work of General Herlaut, Ronsin may have been born into an affluent family and received an education. However, it is unclear whether he was a brilliant student, as Jacob Louis suggests, since various successive wars led to the loss of archives.

He enlisted in the army at the age of 17, in the Aunis regiment, but after four years, he left. Why? Maurice Chartier speculates that Ronsin realized the future of a commoner in the army of the Old Regime did not meet his youthful expectations. He instead sought success as a playwright. Unlike other future revolutionaries such as Collot d’Herbois or Fabre d’Eglantine, Ronsin did not achieve the success he hoped for. His works, including Hecuba and Polyxena, were staged by the Committee of Actors, but his next play, Sédécias, was rejected in December 1783. He is believed to have married before the Revolution, but the identity of his first wife, as well as what happened to her—whether they divorced or she became a widow—remains a mystery. Ronsin's past is, in many ways, shrouded in uncertainty.

He mingled in artistic and literary circles and became friends with the painter David. Ironically, his greatest successes would come in the army during the French Revolution, even though he had initially left the military for a career in theater.

Like many revolutionaries, Ronsin's involvement in the Revolution began in 1789 when he was elected captain of the National Guard of the Saint-Roch district. He quickly joined the Jacobin and Cordelier clubs and began forging friendships with figures such as Danton and Marat. Georges Lefebvre describes him as a diligent figure.

From 1792, following the fall of the monarchy, Ronsin played an increasingly significant role. He had joined the Théâtre-Français section, which played an important role during the storming of the Tuileries in 1792. He co-wrote a pamphlet with Murville in honor of the citizens killed on August 10, 1792. He was appointed commissioner of the Executive Council. Under the orders of Minister of War Pache (affiliated with the Hébertists), Ronsin was sent to Belgium to oversee the dubious Dumouriez (whose treachery would later be confirmed). He denounced the corruption of Dumouriez’s suppliers. Gaspard Monge then entrusted him with a mission in the North. When Bouchotte took over as Minister of War, Ronsin's career soared. This was the period when the Exagérés faction gained popularity and became a political force in the National Assembly (where the Enragés were more influential in the sections, especially in the Gravilliers section, but struggled to gain representation).

On February 14, 1793, Pache was elected mayor of Paris with 11,881 votes out of 15,191 voters. Bouchotte, seen as close to the Hébertists (even if he later distanced himself from them), reorganized the patriots' strongholds. As Renaud Faget points out, "The result of this policy was a significant increase in the number of employees: they were 453 in April 1793 and 1800 when Bouchotte was ousted." Pierre Gaspard Chaumette, the prosecutor of the Commune of Paris, and Hébert, his deputy, along with Vincent as the Secretary General of the Ministry of War in April 1793, filled the Ministry with Cordeliers members and sent people like Momoro to Vendée. They were the "stars" of the Cordeliers club, one of the most powerful at the time, and enjoyed a certain level of popularity.

Ronsin was appointed as deputy to the Minister alongside Xavier Audouin (an important Hébertist who later became a neo-Jacobin under the Directory) and Prosper Sijeas. His most important rise came in Vendée, where he quickly ascended from captain and logistics officer for the army to brigadier general, eventually becoming the chief general of the Revolutionary Army of Paris by the end of his life. Ronsin played a key role in the rise of General Rossignol. His rapid ascent was met with hostility from some, particularly the Indulgents, one of whom, Philippeaux, became one of his principal adversaries. Ronsin broke with Danton (possibly since the Dumouriez affair—this hypothesis requires further study). In any case, in Vendée, he reunited with his friend Momoro, who had been sent on a mission, likely with Vincent’s involvement.

The tactics used in the Vendée, particularly in the battle for Rigué, have been widely criticized (to put it mildly). The report by Momoro and Ronsin states: "We don’t doubt that a large number of complaints were addressed to the National Convention…[regarding this tactic]; the malevolent men only condemn these measures, which, as rigorous as they are, may alone create disorder in the brigands' army and finish a cruel war." It is evident that Ronsin and Momoro committed unforgivable mistakes in Vendée as I said here about Momoro https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/759184374456549376/momoros-serious-fault?source=share

Another major failure associated with Ronsin was in Lyon. He spent less than a month there and was politically aligned with Collot d'Herbois. It remains unclear to what extent Ronsin can be held responsible for the massacre in Lyon (the execution of Lyonnais citizens by cannon and disproportionate executions). However, it is known that he approved of it, as he wrote: "The guillotine and the firing squad have brought justice to over 400 rebels, but a new revolutionary commission has just been established, composed of true sans-culottes; my colleague Parein is its president, and in a few days, the artillery fire from our gunners will have rid us, in one instant, of over 4000 conspirators. It is time to shorten the process." Upon his arrival in Lyon, Ronsin wrote: "The revolutionary army entered the city on the 5th of Frimaire... Terror was painted on every face, and the deep silence I had recommended to our brave soldiers made their march even more threatening, more terrifying."

It is still difficult to know whether Ronsin directly participated in the violence in Lyon, but like many other revolutionary actors, he can be held responsible for not disapproving of it, especially since he witnessed it. That others like Turreau, Barras, Fréron, and Fouché were more corrupt than Ronsin does not absolve him of responsibility.

Despite this, Ronsin suffered from a notorious black legend, like many Hébertists, and was even demonized more than Robespierre himself. In truth, his rise was deserved because he was a competent and honest administrator who did not profit from his position. He was defamed by figures like Desmoulins, yet according to Lefebvre, Ronsin lived and died poor. He was a courageous and diligent soldier. While he was one of the leaders of the Hébertist faction (although, in reality, it was primarily Ronsin and Momoro who led the Exagérés, as Hébert backed down during critical moments, while Ronsin and Momoro went all the way), it is important to note that unlike Momoro, who primarily defended social rights and even advocated for shared agrarian property rights, Ronsin championed a radical revolution—though his views were underdeveloped—that aligned him more with the Cordeliers at that time, who were close to the Hébertists.

Lefebvre acknowledges Ronsin's flaws, noting that he could be arrogant and violent in his language. However, it was the danger facing the Republic that pushed him to adopt such an attitude, rather than any shameless ambition or opportunism (like his "friend" Turreau). I wonder if Ronsin’s break with Danton, particularly after the Dumouriez affair, did not make him more radical, along with the infernal situation of the time. Although Ronsin may not have had the military genius of Kleber or Jourdan, he was certainly competent for his rank.

Upon his return to Paris, Ronsin became one of the leaders of the Exagérés faction. In December 1793, he and his friend Vincent were arrested, notably on the proposal of Fabre and Philippeaux. They were released under pressure from the Cordeliers. This episode is detailed here. This certainly did not help with any reconciliation with the CPS (Committee of Public Safety), especially since the CSG (Committee of General Security) pointed out that there was no evidence against them. Additionally, other Hébertists had been arrested and then released. However, aside from the episode concerning the abolition of slavery, where most set aside their grudges, it seems that reconciliation was impossible. Personally, I think the faults are shared between the Indulgents, the Committee of Public Safety, the Convention, and the Hébertists.

The poverty of the Parisian working class during the winter must not have helped ease tensions, particularly for people like Momoro, who prioritized the fight (with the black market and some speculators, things probably worsened). As I’ve mentioned before, the tension was so high that the Cordeliers were preparing an insurrection attempt. Momoro presided over it and draped the Declaration of the Rights of Man in black. Ronsin supported and demanded it. Vincent followed this line of action. Hébert did as well, until he tried to backtrack when he realized that the attempt might fail. Chaumette, Pache, and Hanriot refused.

They took Carrier as an ally for this insurrection attempt, who had been recalled from Nantes for his drownings. Collot d'Herbois, pragmatically, tried to reconcile, as he was close to some points of Ronsin’s politics. Here is an excerpt from Michel Biard’s book on Collot d'Herbois:

"The Jacobin session of the 16th of Ventôse was almost entirely devoted to these declarations. In the absence of Robespierre and Couthon, who were ill, as well as Billaud-Varenne and Jeanbon Saint-André, who were on missions, Collot d'Herbois was the only member of the Committee who regularly attended the Society. It was he who went up to the tribune to denounce the behavior of the Cordelier leaders, using much firmer language than that reserved earlier for Desmoulins and those like him who were merely 'lost.' Here, if the Cordeliers were in the same situation, the leaders were nevertheless labeled as plotters, and Collot mentions the fate of Jacques Roux, who had also 'seduced' the Cordeliers and whom the Committee had had imprisoned.”

"And, in a final attempt at reconciliation, the Jacobins decided to send a delegation, led by Collot d'Herbois, to preach unity to the Cordeliers. Hébert, Ronsin, and other leaders took the walk of Canossa and, in front of the Jacobin delegation, claimed that their words had been misrepresented and that the fraternity between the two societies was not in question. Did Collot d'Herbois sincerely believe in this rather clumsy reconciliation? If there was any real illusion, it was quickly dispelled. New threatening speeches from Vincent, the discovery of anonymous posters calling for insurrection, the return of Robespierre, Billaud, and Couthon to the Committee... all of these factors led to the final decision. The Committee opted for a preventive strike. On the night of the 22nd to the 23rd of Ventôse, Hébert, Vincent, Ronsin, and other 'suspects' were arrested."

Carrier escaped this arrest because he retracted, likely sensing the change in the political wind (and I wonder if his initial support for the insurrection was opportunistic). Contrary to what the black legend of the Hébertists suggests, they did not intend to massacre the Convention but rather to recreate a day like June 2, 1793, probably by eliminating political figures such as Barère (though, of course, that would still have been illegal). During this tumultuous period, there were even “anthropophagist” inscriptions with Robespierre’s name. Elsewhere, there were posters from the Cordeliers’ Club declaring that Fabre d'Églantine, Camille Desmoulins, and a few others had lost their trust. Another was a clear call for insurrection: "Sans-culottes, it is time. Strike the general call and ring the tocsin, arm yourself and let it not be long, for you see that they are pushing you to your last breath." Other messages had a clearly royalist tone, such as one found on a public building: "Death to the Republic! Long live Louis XVII."

Those who sought to eliminate the Hébertists would mix the judgment of the faction with dubious characters. There were false rumors of plundering involving Momoro (I’ve learned, as I study law, that nowadays, sometimes, in order to discredit those being judged, some accusation files violate legal procedures and leak false information to the press to ensure the suspect loses sympathy; I wonder if they used the same method then). They were accused of "plotting with foreigners." The wives of Hébert and Momoro were arrested, and later, Ronsin's wife, according to the memoirs of Jean-Balthazar de Bonardi du Ménil. The Hébertists were condemned on false accusations, such as posting seditious posters, sabotaging food supplies, and massacring prisoners in jails. There was little evidence against them, yet the president of the Tribunal said, "Infamous, you will all perish!"

Except for Hébert, all were executed with great courage. Ronsin said to his colleagues, "You will be condemned. When you should have acted, you talked. Know how to die. For my part, I swear that you shall not see me flinch. Strive to do the same." And when someone said that it was the end of the Republic, he responded, "The Republic is immortal."

The revolutionary army would be dissolved.

From what I’ve deduced, Ronsin was definitely not a saint. He did things that were totally condemnable, which, even in times of war, are inexcusable. However, that Turreau behaved as a greater "scoundrel" with the infernal columns does not exonerate Ronsin. But Ronsin was also a man victimized by a black legend even more tenacious than others— he was a competent and honest administrator, far from being a stupid man that some aid. His violent words can be placed in the context that he, too, was at his wits' end, like Marat or other revolutionaries who were exhausted from the struggle. He more than deserved his rank, even though he was not a military genius like Kléber or Jourdan. I don’t get the impression that he acted out of shameless ambition, but rather from a genuine frustration that the Republic was in danger, compounded by the behavior of certain people (primarily Danton and the Dumouriez affair). My point is that the Hébertists were demonized even more than other revolutionary factions, when in reality, they were wrongly seen as bloodthirsty incompetents. However, they have very interesting stories and have had their share of both glory and a darker side, like all revolutionary groups.

The Fate of His Wife Marie-Angélique Lequesne, Widow Ronsin

There is an important hypothesis about Marie-Angélique Lequesne ( my theory). She is said to have met Ronsin in Belgium when he was supervising Dumouriez, or she was working as a canteen keeper, according to Geneanet. At that time, since Ronsin was not yet a general, he could not marry her, and it was only in 1793, when she came from a wealthier family than Ronsin’s, that they married. Here is the revolutionary period of Marie-Angélique Lequesne:

“Marie-Angélique Lequesne was caught up in the measures taken against the Hébertists and imprisoned on the 1st of Germinal at the Maison d'Arrêt des Anglaises, frequently engaging with ultra-revolutionary circles both before and after Ronsin’s death, even dressing as an Amazon to congratulate the Directory on a victory.”

According to the correspondence of Jorris, when she remarried Turreau, this is what was said about them. A.-J. de Rivaz dedicated an entire chapter to them in his Mémoires historiques sur le Valais. He expresses his hostility toward anyone who adhered to the principles of the French Revolution: Turreau "commits the blunder of not publicly performing any act of the Roman religion"; his wife, Marie-Angélique, "has the audacity to speak of it with contempt," and she does not blush "to say that she had never been happier since she had shaken off the yoke of the Christian superstition in which she had been raised."

Unfortunately, this marriage would become horrific for her. Turreau treated her with unimaginable cruelty, even having her flogged (a horrifying detail—I recently learned that it is very likely she was pregnant with their last child when he had her flogged). She followed her husband when he became an ambassador for Napoleon. She charmed the political class of Washington, unlike her husband. She became a very good friend of Dolley Madison, one of the most important future First Ladies of the United States, and played an essential role in her political development. Dolley described her as "good-natured, intelligent, generous, plain, and curious." They got along very well.

But Turreau continued to treat his wife terribly, and no one dared confront him about it until one day a judge confronted him. In retaliation, Turreau ordered Marie-Angélique to leave the United States, forced her to live in poverty for three years, and once again, it was the judge who arranged her departure to France. She eventually divorced him. Later, Turreau forced their daughter Alexandrine into a convent, and Marie-Angélique had to fight once more to free Alexandrine, which she succeeded in doing, according to this site: https://rembarre.fr/g_tur_ec.htm. Unfortunately, Alexandrine died in poverty years later.

An even more horrifying detail: Turreau, who called Charles-Philippe a friend from the time when Ronsin was still alive, stabbed him in the back by giving him a defeat, claiming that Ronsin was the one responsible, not him (while Turreau was the one truly responsible). You can see this in this post and here.

I wonder if Ronsin introduced Marie-Angélique to Turreau when they were still friends. After Ronsin was guillotined, Marie-Angélique Lequesne Ronsin went on to endure a terrible marriage with Turreau, who treated her with awful cruelty (as you can see in one of my posts here). In this way, Turreau betrayed the Ronsin couple a second time.

Sources:

Grace Phelan

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41929594?read-now=1&seq=4

Antoine Resche

(After studying it I disagree with Jacob Louis who says that Ronsin is incompetent but it remains an interesting analysis.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41929592

[historicconfessions]

[nigrit]

Anon [Louis de Champcenetz?], The War of the Districts, or the Flight of Marat, Heroi-comical poem in three cantos (Paris: n.p., July? 1790)

Part 4 (of 5)

Last Canto:

“When the sun that lights our way,

Near SAINT-MANDÉ

Had flooded all of PARIS,

With its quicksilver light:

Five to six large battalions

Followed by two squadrons,

Silently advanced

Into OBSERVANCE.

BAILLY knowing the moment

When the troops would be assembling,

Is chatting with his wife,

Who fancies herself a fine lady,

While pouring out the tea,

With a fair degree of glee.

‘MARAT’, she says, ‘will be captured,

How my heart is enraptured!

He sought out of his own vanity

To tarnish your immortality;

But the die is cast.’

‘Oh! my loyal spouse!’

He says to her so tenderly

Promptly back to Mr Mayor;

‘Your speech is quite delightful,

I want to have a child with you.

I find you quite an eyeful,

How I long for you anew.'

‘Moderate your friendship’,

His chaste half says to he;

‘I'm not some flirting girouette,

Just wait until la FAYETTE

Has the rascal under lock and key;’

BAILLY says, ‘I want it desperately.’

NECKER who shines with virtue,

Between his daughter & his wife,

Tasted at that moment

The best day of his life.

‘We will let the joker rot

In the corner of some cell.

He attacks my writings,

He covers me with spleen;

Me! whose noble role

Shines so brightlyeverywhere:

Me! Minister Supreme,

Getting vexed by MARAT.’

STAËL (1) the proud ambassadress,

Felt a noble wrath,

Which made her jaundice blush,

‘My father, console yourself;

I wish to make a satire [1]

Against all the insolent wretches

Which your great talents censor

And dare to slander you.

My dear NARBONNE LARA (2)

Shall help me with this work.

GUIBERT (3) could have done it,

His pen is quite light,

But he no longer knows how to please me;

And in my daring pamphlets

I shall crush CHAMPCENETZ (4),[2]

This caustic character

Whose teasing I detest.’

Her mother, reacting to her zeal,

Addresses both, ‘My children,

For that is what you are;

And when I look at you;

My heart is like my eyes;

I confuse you with each other.

Reflect well upon our glory;

And use the écritoire; [3]

Because it is by this weapon,

That this great Minister is here.

The patriotic horde

Of the MERCIERS & GUDINS, (5)

Avenge us every morning,

From the famished horde

Who crawl under DESMOULINS (a):

Their pension is not enough;

But to defeat the MARATS,

We have the proud escort

Of the SUARDS & GARATS (6).

And if we need more ducats

For this miserly cohort;

Pay them, it’s no big deal,

Since we are not short.

But let’s consider something else,

Without any mystery.

MARAT is almost in the clink;

So let’s restore ourselves with a dose

Of this frothy cocoa drink.”

However in the meantime.

The Cordeliers District,

Had armed its warriors.

With very many carts,

And those carriages one hails,

The passages are blocked,

And the guns are loaded.

But lest anyone break through

The passage du Commerce,

Two cannons are placed there

With two or three platoons.

By the door, no carriage arch,

To MARAT’S humble dwelling,

Are placed thirty grenadiers,

With fifty riflemen.

Supported fromthe riverside,

The SAINT SEVERIN District

Has prepared its terrain. [4]

When arriving from behind,

The SAINT MARCEL District,

Came to unfurl its banner

In the Place SAINT MICHEL.

NAUDET the great Captain,

Fearing a flanking move

Protected Luxembourg.

D’ANTON, this other TURENNE, [5]

Followed by some warriors,

Visited all the neighbourhoods;

Putting himself out of breath;

Encouraging the soldiery

To defend MARAT well.

Such glory & such fame

Are not acquired without pain!

Father GOD, Cordelier,

Would show no mercy.

But hidden in his attic

Monsieur FABRE D’EGLANTINE

Seeing the civil war

Quivered from head to toe;

More than if he saw the faces

Of the Bailiffs & recorders

Coming to sing his morning prayers.[6]

WASHINGTON’S monkey,

Surrounded by a battalion

And all these subalterns,

Went off prancing,

And nearly grazed in passing

The lampposts & the ropes,

Where he let a treacherous mob

String up poor FOULON. [7]

He sees that canons have been placed

On every avenue;

And that the end of every street

Armed like a bastion,

Contains a large battalion:

This troubles his genius,

And his soul is less bold

BARNAVE is quite astonished;

He was determined

To act like he’d done at Versailles;

But to risk battle and die!

D'AIGUILLON, gasping for air

From his fishwife attire

Flees at the double,

Escorted by the rabble. [8]

Brave like RODOMONT,[9]

Suddenly without any warning,

Henri SALM & Jacques AUMONT (7)

Go off to explore;

Everywhere are large platoons:

So Henri says to Jacques;

‘My dear friend, let’s decamp;

Let's not start the attack;

Don’t you see those big canons?’

‘Well said, let’s retreat’;

Jacques immediately replies;

‘Soldiers! Half turn to the right.

The obedient troops

In such pressing danger,

Turn round to find LA FAYETTE;

Whose stunned expression,

Dismayed the proud AUMONT,

And his brave companion.

Bold like NICOMEDES (b)

VILLETTE (8), finding himself there, [10]

Suggests a remedy for the ill.

‘This is really no big deal;

Trickery is as useful in war,

As in love, thank God!

We must outflank the enemy,

And attack it from behind.

On more than one occasion

FREDERIC (c) did the same.

But the assembled Troops

Keep watch and fall silent:

When at this moment,

The mistress of MARAT,

A sturdy chambermaid

And formerconventgatekeeper(9) [11]

Whose eye sparkles bright,

Addresses this prayer,

To the most unfortunate Lover,

Who is causing all her grief.

‘Do you want to be murdered?

Or even in a prison cell,

Without your JAVOTTE, starving [12]

On a shabby straw mat,

Do you want to be confined?

Take my headscarf, my petticoat,

And my cotton kerchief;

I will wear your breeches,

And followed by your JAVOTTE,

Whom they will mistake for a boy,

We will go far from the city

And find another home.

Do you wish to see Paris burn

For a few worthless lines?’

MARAT did not wish to know

But the clever maid

Crying and sobbing,

Knew how to soften up her beau.

‘I'm not worth that much blood,’

Says MARAT, in sensitive mood;

‘Let’s leave the city calm;

And swop our clothes at once;

We can do anything with love.”

This noble disguise

Was done in a trice.

Descending from their attic, [13]

They pass through the Soldiers

Without any hesitation,

And make their way outside.

Arm in arm, the couple

Lengthened their stride;[14]

When on a street corner

They find brother GRUE (10),

A subaltern, but strongwilled  [15]

Who recognizes them at once…

He did not cry out in wonder,

But whispers in their ear:

‘You’re doing well,

Go now, have no fear,

Once you're in the clear

I’ll do what needs to be done.’

MARAT responds at once,

‘It’s to spare the blood

Of a District I revere,

That I’m wearing a white petticoat,

Farewell, my reverend frère.

The subaltern Cordelier,

Fearing some grapeshot

Might start the fight;

Cried out across the neighbourhood

In a loud, booming voice:

‘MARAT has chosen his story,

He fled a long time ago.’

They did not want to believe it;

D’ANTON, wanting all the glory

Sends a detachment,

To thoroughly search

His whole apartment,

And assure their escape.

He knew everything in a flash. [16]

Once peace was resolved.

Brother GRUE was dispatched

Towards the great General,

Who welcomed his Ambassador

In a most friendly manner,

And gave him a warm hug.

Immediately, from both sides

The retreat was rung;

And the delighted Bourgeois,

All cried out, PEACE IS DONE.

But dark CRUELTY,

Indignant & furious

At such a treaty,

Quickly takes flight;

And in her fearsome rage

Hastens to the Châtelet

To ponder some misdeed.

STUPIDITY, now more tranquil

Lingered within the Hotel de Ville.

Thus ended, without a melée,

But not without a dumb display,

The adventure of Marat. [17]

Notes to the Last Canto:

(1) Baroness DE STAËL is not unworthy of her father & her mother, she has as much intelligence as beauty; everyone knows that.

(2) Comte Louis DE NARBONNE had left Mademoiselle CONTAT for Madame de STAËL, but, like ANTHONY, he kept returning to CLEOPATRA & the Actress prevailed over the Ambassadress.[18]

(3) Comte DE GUIBERT had been dumped by Madame de STAËL; such a loss consoled him for all his disgrace. [19]

(4) The Marquis de CHAMPCENETZ is the Ambassadress’s nemesis because of this famous epigram which has been falsely attributed to him, & which he has the candour to disavow: [20]

ARMANDE holds in her mind everything she’s read,

ARMANDE has acquired a scorn for charms;

She fears the mocker whom she constantly inspires,

She avoids the lover who does not seek her.

Since she lacks the art of concealing her face,

And she is eager to display her intellect;

One must challenge her to cease being wise,

And to understand what she says. [21]

(5) Bribed writers.

(6) Ditto. [22]

(7) The Prince of SALM & the DUC D'AUMONT sign their names democratically, just as they are written in the poem, which is quite ridiculous.[23] The poor devils are taking revenge for the contempt they have always inspired in honest people & have mingled effortlessly with the rabble.

(8) All Paris knows about VILLETTE, a retroactive citizen. VOLTAIRE died inconsolable for having praised him. [24]

(9) Indeed, MARAT's mistress was a novice in a convent from where she was taken by our hero. [25]

(10) Brother GRUE, the heavyweight of the adventure, is a jolly good fellow who does not lack common sense, & to whom the Cordeliers district owes a statue; but the multitude is ungrateful.[26]

(a) Antagonist of Mr. Necker

(b) The King of Bithynia

(c) The late King of Prussia.

[1] ‘Satyre’ usually refers to the part human, part goat creature, known for revelry and bad behaviour. Possibly a pun, referring to both ‘satire’ and Mme de Stael’s ‘ugliness’, whose masculine looks were frequently commented on by contemporaries.

[2] Champcenetz often inserted himself in the third person into his own compositions.

[3] “Monsieur de Saint-Ecritoire” was Necker’s nickname for his beloved daughter, Herold (1958), p.66. Ecritoire was a portable, hinged desk set.

[4] Actually, it was the militant Saint-Antoine district that Danton threatened to summons into action as backup. Saint-Severin provided a contingent of National Guards for Lafayette’s expedition. See Babut, pp.284-85.

[5] Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne, vicomte de Turenne was a Marshal General of France from the 17th century, renowned for retaking Paris from the Prince de Condé during the civil wars of the Fronde.

[6] Fabre d’Eglantine had been a target for earlier lampoons by Rivarol & Champcenetz in their Le Petit Almanach de nos grands hommes pour l’année 1788 (1788) and Petit Dictionnaire des grands hommes de la Révolution (Aug 1790). Fabre d’Eglantine, who lived four doors away from Marat on 12 rue de l’Ancienne-Comedie, was Danton’s right-hand man and vice-president of the Cordeliers district assembly at this time. While Paré was president (Danton having served from October to December), the district was still effectively under Danton’s control, and Danton was re-elected president on 31 March.

[7] Joseph Foullon de Doué, who replaced Jacques Necker as Controller-General of finances, was deeply unpopular with the Parisians. He was lynched “à la lanterne” on 22 July 1789, and his head stuck on a pike with his mouth stuffed with straw, following a widespread rumour that he had said, “let them eat hay!”.

[8] Armand de Vignerot du Plessis, duc d’Aiguillon had been the wealthiest man in France after the king before sacrificing his title to all his feudal properties on 4 August 1789 and losing over 100,000 livres in rents. Despite having planned to launch the initiative during the debate on renunciation of noble privileges, the considerably less wealthy vicomte de Noailles beat him to the punch in a bid for popularity! Nevertheless, d’Aiguillon’s gesture had a massive impact, and his gesture became the signal for similar sacrifices, escalating events much further along than anticipated. As a result, disgusted royalists, especially from the Actes des apôtres and Gautier’s Journal general de la Cour et de la Ville, depicted him dressed as a poissarde (fisherwoman) leading a battalion of tough dames from Les Halles during the October Days march. Barnave was depicted in similar fashion. In fact, transvestism was frequently deployed in royalist lampoons, as we shall see in the later description of Marat’s escape.

[9] Rodomonte was a major character, renowned for his bravery and arrogance, in Ludovico Ariosto’s 16th-century romantic, epic poems, Orlando innamorato & Orlando furioso.

[10] While the marquis de Villette was the commandant of the Cordeliers district battalion, he opposed Danton’s wish to defend Marat, and had suggested arresting him themselves. Because of the Cordeliers’ own arreté from 19 January insisting on district autonomy, he explained to Lafyette’s commander, Gonsault de Plainville, that he must remain neutral but later thanked him for ridding the district of a “mauvais sujet”. The other battalion commander present was Carle from the Henri IV district. See Babut, p.285

[11] See later note for likely explanation of the convent reference. At this time Marat had a young assistant, Victoire Nayait, who liaised with local printers. This might also explain the erroneous reference to chambermaid.

[12] Javotte is a fictional archetype who often appears as a maidservant, or, sometimes, a prostitute.

[13] Marat had been staying nearby with Boucher de Saint Saveur as a precautionary measure since 14 January. His rooms were in the hotel Fautrière, 39 rue de l’Ancienne-Comédie, which also housed the permanent barracks (30 men) for the Cordeliers district militia. See Mémoire de Madame Boucher Saint-Sauveur contre Marat (late 1790).

[14] According to Marat’s own account of his escape in the Ami du Peuple #170 (23 July 1790), which was also published some six months later, he donned a disguise and left in the arms of a young lady (“marchant à pas comptés”). This detail that might suggest that the poem was published after this account.

[15] The word ‘Coupechou’, a variant of ‘Coupe-choux’, literally means ‘Cabbage cutter’. It was often used in conjunction with ‘frère’ to mean a novice monk (usually put in charge of the vegetables), and, by extension, a person of no importance, Dictionnaire de la langue française (1873), in Dictionnaires d’autrefois (online). In the slang of Père Duchene, ‘grue’ means a fool, or someone easily tricked, Michel Biard, Parlez-vous sans-culotte? (2009), pp.179-80.

[16] When the National Guard were finally allowed to enter Marat’s rooms, they confiscated all his papers, both presses and his type, effectively ending the newspaper and bankrupting him. Many of the papers, including valuable information on Marat’s subscribers, remain in the Archives Nationales (Pierrefitte). The most important of these were rescued by friends, most notably his detailed evidence against Necker, which he published from London in a follow-up to his original pamphlet, as Nouvelle dénoncation contre Necker (April?). Danton’s relationship with Marat would later be lampooned in a scurrilous libelle that described them having homosexual relations, Bordel patriotique etc. (1791).

[17] It is worth nothing here that as a result of Marat’s escapades, his resulting notoriety led to a considerable increase in his revolutionary profile with other journalists and politicians now paying much closer attention to his writing, especially when he began publishing fiercely hostile pamphlets from London. It also led to his inclusion in David’s sketch for his unfinished paining, Serment du Jeu de Paume (1790/91), where Marat can be seen top-right in the public gallery, wearing a broad-rimmed hat, writing with his back to the viewer. The other inclusion, not there at the time, was the deputy Bertrand Barère, editor of the Point du Jour.

[18] In fact, she appears to have had her first two children by the comte de Narbonne-Lara, born in 1790 (Auguste) and 1792 (Albert), see Herold, p.95.

[19] Guibert was a handsome salon gallant and habitué of the salons run by Madame Necker, Mme de Stael’s mother.

[20] Quite why Madame de Stael merits four uncomplimentary notes remains unclear. If Rivarol and/or the marquis de Champcenetz are the anonymous authors, it is worth noting that they also prefaced their anonymous Petit Dictionnaire des grands hommes de la Révolution (Aug 1790) with a biting (and salacious) dedication to “her excellency Madame la Baronne de Stael”, which mocked, amongst other things, the weight of her “prodige” [genius]. Champcenetz also had a fondness for using the six/seven syllable lines found in this poem.

[21] These lines first appeared in a pamphlet erroneously attributed to Rivarol, Réponse à la réponse de M. de Champcenetz; Au sujet de l'Ouvrage de Madame la B. de S***. sur Rousseau (1789), p.7. It is most likely by Champcenetz, who also wrote the original Réponse aux Lettres sur le caractère et les ouvrages de J.J. Rousseau. Bagatelle que vingt libraires ont refusé de faire imprimer (1789). He had also used the alter ego ‘Armande’ to describe Mme de Stael in the anonymous Petit traité de l’amour des femmes pour les sots (1788). The reference to the mother-worshiping Armande comes from Molière’s play, Les Femmes Savantes. The satire is piquant since Mme de Stael was presented by her adoring family as a child prodigy under the tutelage of her doting mother, described by William Beckford as a “précieuse-ridicule”. Moreover, and it is hard to see how the author knew this unless a salon regular, or informed by one, Mme de Stael had privately acted in Les Femmes Savantes. See Helen Borowitz, ‘The unconfessed Précieuse etc.’, in 19th Century French Studies (1982), p.39.

[22] These names suggest someone with intimate knowledge of Necker’s propaganda ‘factory’. Marat had also accused Mercier, Suard and Gudin of being on Necker’s payroll (check). Paul-Philippe Gudin de la Brenellerie, Beaumarchais’s friend and publisher, would later publish a Supplément au Contrat Social (1792, Maradan), which came with an appendix on the need to breed to keep breeding to secure a steady increase in the population! Garat’s Journal de Paris was openly subsidized by Necker. Amongst the more patriotic writers, Cerutti, later editor of La Feuille Villageoise, was also the only one writer to openly defend him in his Lettre sur Necker (1790).

[23] Probably a reference to Charles Albert Henry (b.1761), ninth son of Philip Joseph, Prince of Salm-Kyrburg.

[24] Charles (the former marquis) de Villette was a noted homosexual frequently attacked in scurrilous pamphlets during this time, including, Vie privée et public du ci-derrière marquis de Villette, citoyen rétroactif (1791) and Les Enfants de Sodome à l’Assemblée Nationale etc. (1790, ‘Chez le Marquis de Villette’). ‘Rétroactif’ here appears to be both a pun on being an ‘active’ citizen (referring to the law passed in Oct 1789, discriminating between active and passive citizens for the purpose of voting and standing for office, and a possible synonym for homosexuality (viz its synonym, ‘posterior’).

[25] This reference to an imaginary, ex-novice lover probably alludes to a recent article in Marat’s paper, describing how his services were regularly sought by readers seeking redress. In this particular issue (Ami du peuple #88, from 5 Jan 1790), he gave the singular example (“aussi piquante par sa singularité qu’elle est intéressante par sa nature”) of a nun called “sister Catherine” (Anne Barbier) who had escaped from Pantémon Abbey after suffering countless abuses due to her patriotic views. She had come to see Marat in the company of her landlady (Mme Lavoire), she had sought his help in securing her liberty and reclaiming her possessions.

[26] While I can find no trace of a ‘brother Grue’ in any of the surviving accounts, the most likely candidate would appear to be the powerfully built butcher, Louis Legendre, co-founder of the Cordeliers Club in April 1790 with Danton. In this context, ‘Lourdis’ probably derives from the figurative use of ‘lourd’ to suggest heavyweight, possibly by association with the other meaning of ‘grue’ as ‘crane’ (both bird and a lifting mechanism for heavy loads). Legendre hid Marat several times in his cellar on the rue de Beaune; see speech to the Jacobins on 24 Jan 1794, in Aulard, op.cit.

Alternatively, a letter from 9 May 1790 describes the arrest of Louis Gruet, a fusilier in the Cordeliers battalion. See Alexandre Tuetey, Répertoire général des sources manuscrites de l’histoire de Paris pendant la Révolution française, Tome 2 (1890), p.420 (3982).

Finally, ‘Grue’ might be a nickname for François Heron (viz ‘crane’), who later acquired notoriety as the main police agent for the Committee of General Security. While I can find no record of his playing any role in these events, he also hid Marat in his home, on 275 rue St Honoré, during 1790, and probably knew him from their time working for the king’s youngest brother, the comte d’Artois.

[quercusfloreal]

Oh I remember this drawing !

The Most Popular by ~sazuoche

And the “angel of death” Saint- Just becomes a loyal follower of Robespierre ..

XD!

[incorrectlooneytunesquotes]

Audacity, more audacity and always audacity.

Bugs to Buster Bunny

[leverontdemain]

[sansterreurnivertu]

I found several stills from the movie Danton (1932), which I couldn't find anyone who had seen. Although the photos may make us laugh, here are a few that are relatively charming.

Gabrielle (she looks nice, but I can't judge her based on that alone, played by Andrée Ducret) and Georges (Jacques Grétillat):

and Camille (André Fouché):

I've seen some magazine articles from the time about the movie, and to be honest, it doesn't look all that interesting. Except that it is one of the few movies in which Gabrielle appears and I am studying French literature of the early 20th century, it might not be worth seeing. Did the actor who played Danton caricature him?

By the way, Stam & Raengo have stated in A Companion to Literature and Film that the movie may be partially based on Przybyszewska's The Danton Case, but I think this is unlikely. The play was apparently little known in France at the time, and I could find no mention of it in movie magazines. Besides, it doesn't seem to have any Stasia-like elements from any point of view. According to François Huzar, Robespierre appears to have very little in the film (the author does not seem to have seen the film itself).