#Les Brigandes

[derring-do]

Marcel Beekman (and friends) in Les Brigands (Paris Opera, 2024) Photo: Agathe Poupeney

[lesmisscraper]

The End of the Brigand. Volume 3, Book 3, Chapter 4.

Clips from <Il cuore di Cosette>.

[jaimelire-france]

Le Brigand Hongre est un roman de l'écrivain et poétesse française Renée Dunan.

[fluentisonus]

something I've been sort of contemplating wrt jvj not being willing to tell cosette about his identity & his past, in addition to the more obvious reasons that get covered more explicitly, is this scene:

[Javert] stared intently at Fantine, and added, once more taking into his grasp Jean Valjean’s cravat, shirt and collar:— “I tell you that there is no Monsieur Madeleine and that there is no Monsieur le Maire. There is a thief, a brigand, a convict named Jean Valjean! And I have him in my grasp! That’s what there is!” Fantine raised herself in bed with a bound, supporting herself on her stiffened arms and on both hands: she gazed at Jean Valjean, she gazed at Javert, she gazed at the nun, she opened her mouth as though to speak; a rattle proceeded from the depths of her throat, her teeth chattered; she stretched out her arms in her agony, opening her hands convulsively, and fumbling about her like a drowning person; then suddenly fell back on her pillow. Her head struck the head-board of the bed and fell forwards on her breast, with gaping mouth and staring, sightless eyes. She was dead. Jean Valjean laid his hand upon the detaining hand of Javert, and opened it as he would have opened the hand of a baby; then he said to Javert:— “You have murdered that woman.”

he does (correctly) identify that it's javert who's done this & lay the blame on him, but I think there's something really awful about Javert having done this at least partially by revealing valjean's identity, like this idea that the sudden reveal of his real identity & past was horrible & shocking enough to help kill fantine I think must have left a strong impression. and probably only reinforced this idea of his 'true' self being something fearful & repulsive & in and of itself almost dangerous

& then this taken with cosette's response to seeing the chain gang:

But when Cosette was leaving him in the evening, to betake herself to bed, he heard her say in a low voice, and as though talking to herself: “It seems to me, that if I were to find one of those men in my pathway, oh, my God, I should die merely from the sight of him close at hand.”

which obviously I don't think he would have taken this literally at all but like. do you think he thought of fantine here. and we know the whole chain gang situation is one that stuck with him enough for him to cite it to marius as a reason he can never tell cosette:

“... But she, she does not know what it is, it would terrify her. What, a convict! we should be obliged to explain matters to her, to say to her: ‘He is a man who has been in the galleys.’ She saw the chain-gang pass by one day. Oh! My God!” . . . He dropped into an armchair and hid his face in his hands.

idk. a lot of this is his perspective of himself & obviously not some objective 'truth' but the way this to his view just seemingly gets reinforced & reconfirmed over and over over the years is so.

[beatricecenci]

Louis Léopold Robert (Swiss, 1794-1835)

Femme de brigand veillant sur le sommeil de son mari

[amateurvoltaire]

I went to Puy du Fou (1) and watched  'Le Dernier Panache' (2), and needless to say, I've got a few things on my mind. But before I gather my thoughts into something coherent, there’s one pressing issue I need to address: there was NO “extermination” policy in the Vendée.

Is it clear enough for everyone? I sincerely hope so because yesterday, I was among an audience of about 5000 who were shown a scene depicting Robespierre (in yellow), Saint-Just (in turquoise), and Barère (in purple) arguing for the complete destruction of the Vendée… for reasons…

In plain terms, were they advocating for genocide (3)  in the Vendée.

This didn’t happen. In 1793, the idea of a distinct Vendéen identity wasn’t a real thing. The Vendéens were not recognized as a specific regional or ethnic group, not by themselves or anyone else.

Do you know what was real? Brigands rebelling against the first French Republic. What were the policies of extermination targeted towards? Those Brigands. What do you call that? Civil War.

On 1st August 1793, Barère delivered an inflamatory speech (4) that many use to argue the Committee of Public Safety's alleged genocidal intent. His words were indeed unhinged, typical of the era’s rhetoric.

Barère did say, "No more Vendée, no more royalty; no more Vendée, no more aristocracy; no more Vendée, and the enemies of the republic have disappeared," but this infamous line follows a crucial preamble: "We will have peace the day the interior is peaceful, that the rebels are subdued, that the brigands are exterminated. (5)" It’s disingenuous to interpret this as a call to wipe out an entire region (6).

Moreover, this speech was followed by the "Décret relatif aux mesures à prendre contre les rebelles de Vendée", which includes an article (the 8th) stating: "Women, children, and the elderly will be taken inland. Provisions will be made for their subsistence and safety, with all the consideration due to humanity" This directive was actually enforced as evidenced by the 20,000 to 40,000 refugees who the government supported in cities like Poitiers, Orléans, and La Rochelle.

The conservative right in France has been peddling this genocide narrative since the mid-1980s, but no amount of dramatic cursive text with melancholic violin strains will convert fiction into fact.

What happened in the Vendée was horrific. Were there war crimes? Numerous. Was the region scarred by the violence? Undoubtedly. Should we acknowledge that? Of course!  But pushing a theory that is not true detracts from recognising the violence, learning from it and ensuring it will never happen again.

It also cheapens the heroic acts and sacrifices of those who fought not for the narrow political agendas of the 21st century but for causes they truly believed in. The counter-revolutionaries in the Vendée and throughout France were driven by a deep commitment to protect their communities, faith, and way of life. They were not merely victims of a systematic extermination effort but active participants in a struggle to defend their political and religious beliefs (7). Admittedly, I'm not an expert on Charette, but I suspect he would be disturbed to see his legacy so grossly misrepresented…

Notes

(1) Puy du Fou is a historical theme park in the Vendée known for its elaborate live shows that recreate historical events. It has faced criticism for potentially exploiting history and is managed by the Puy du Fou Foundation, linked to its founder, Philippe de Villiers, a French politician noted for his conservative and nationalist views.

(2) This particular show focuses on François Athanase Charette de La Contrie, a Vendean general.

(3) Genocide is defined by the United Nations in the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", adopted on December 9, 1948, as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.

(4) The conflict in the Vendée began in March 1793, prior to Robespierre's association with the Committee of Public Safety. Danton was the one who was instrumental in shaping the initial response to the uprising and was the president of the Convention during Barère’s speech. Weirdly enough, Danton is nowhere on that stage…

(5) The full qoute is "Nous aurons la paix le jour que l'intérieur sera paisible, que les rebelles seront soumis, que les brigands seront exterminés. Les conquêtes et les perfidies des puissances étrangères seront nulles le jour que le département de la Vendée aura perdu son infâme dénomination et sa population parricide et coupable. Plus de Vendée, plus de royauté ; plus de Vendée, plus d'aristocratie ; plus de Vendée, et les ennemis de la république ont disparu. "

(6) This type of rhetoric was not unique to the Vendée but was also directed at other counter-revolutionary hotspots across France like Brittany, Lyon, Marseille, Avignon, etc.

(7) I'm not a particular fan of those beliefs but I can respect the courage to stand up in defence of a lost cause.

[chansondefortunio]

LOL i loved reading this omg! The 1951 review made me laugh out loud.

You are truly the lord of Les Contes d'Hoffmann, i bow down to our immense knowledge

(and sacrifice after going through the Brussels 2019, the Madrid 2014, and ESPECIALLY the Genève 2008 [those are my personal bottom-tier ones, the Genève 2008 holds a very special and personal place of hatred in my heart])

I request a detailed tier list of all the Hoffmann productions you've ever seen 🥺

okay BUCKLE UP

from Best to Worst my absolutely objective ranking of all 48 productions of this opera I've seen. and I am only just now realizing what an insane number of productions I have seen of this opera.

the best

#1. 2009/2015 Metropolitan Opera production (designed & directed by Bartlet Sher my beloved) Hands-down the best. Great vibe, great atmosphere, great casts in both productions, great amounts of gay, and costumes/sets that evoke such a fantastical feel it's like we've actually fallen into some kind of creepy fantasy from ETA Hoffmann's universe! A must see for anyone who loves this opera and a great first production.

#2. 1995 La Scala. The cast is to die for, the costumes and pleasingly straightforward, the sets go smoothly from wacky to eerie at the appropriate times. But most importantly it contains hands-down the absolutely bonkers fantastic amazing GAYEST Hoffmann/Nicklausse team EVER--Neil Shicoff and Susanne Menzter. I lost my fucking mind the first time I watched this one and continue to do so every time I rewatch.

 #3. Munich 2013. Fun and wacky all over with a great cast and excellent amounts of gay. Delightful all the way. Diana Damrau positively slays as the ladies. Rest of the cast is excellent too, no complaints.

#4. Brussels 1985. Surprisingly gay for being so old. A lovely production overall and, as far as I know, the first recorded production of this opera containing the Violin Aria (so possibly the first recorded Oeser edit?) which makes it extra special.

#5. Orange 2000. Two words: Angelika Kirchschlager (okay, four words: The Hair). Production's a bit odd and it is the cursed short edit but it is quite gay and, well, Angelika Kirchschlager. Outdoor stage lends a great atmosphere to the creepy parts. Natalie Dessay reigns supreme as Olympia again.

#6. Hamburg 2021. Very fun (though fairly, and somewhat distractingly, odd at times) production with another to-die-for cast. Very gay. Brower and Bernheim quickly made it to my top 10 (possibly top 5) Hoffmann/Nicklausse pairs. Olga Peretyatko gives fantastic, wonderfully multi-faceted portrayals of all the ladies and Luca Pisaroni is iconic as the villains.

#7. Paris 2002. Not as much a fan of the production, but it makes my top 10 simply because we get Shicoff and Mentzer in these roles again, and you simply cannot beat them. you just can't.

#8. 1970 German film. The costumes and sets for this are very detailed and evocative of the story and the special effects are amazing. There’s a decent amount of added dialogue, especially at the end with the Muse’s speech, so a few story-related liberties taken, though some of them draw from the original play which is interesting. All-around good cast with another dynamic Hoffmann/Nicklausse duo (the way Hoffmann runs offstage calling Nicklausse’s name over and over at the end of the Giulietta act…oh. my. god.)

#9 Zurich 2021. A bit too dark lighting-wise at times (could give Vienna a run for its money) but another fun and eccentric production. No big names but a good cast overall and another wonderfully gay lead pair but the ending has MUCH to be desired. They straight-ified it. Makes no sense. (does not compel me.)

#10. Royal Opera House 1981/2016. A classic. Very gay despite being the abbreviated version. Luscious sets and costumes. Some unfortunate casting in the tenor role but beyond that quite good, and my first production so it’s got a special place in my heart.

the good stuff

#11. Metropolitan Opera 1988. Featuring Adorable Baby Shicoff in yet another delightfully gay performance with an extra sassy (and impeccably dressed) Nicklausse. Olympia’s phenomenal. Some odd bits but a mostly great cast and fun staging make up for it.

#12. Barcelona 2013. Phenomenal cast somewhat dampened by a strange production—does a good job emphasizing the darker parts of the opera, which is a relatively rare (so interesting) take, but a few directorial choices don’t vibe with me at all. Quite gay though and great acting/singing overall.

#13. Vienna 2000. Unfortunately this exists as a highlights-only reel with absolutely terrible image/sound quality but we get Shicoff yet again paired with an equally adorable Kirchschlager in one of the gayest performances on the planet (making their 2005 performance all the more bizarre, but more on that later).

#14. Toronto City Opera 2019. Hoffmann and Nicklausse are such a dynamic duo in this one in the most adorable way. It’s abbreviated even by Choudens standards which is obnoxious but it’s such a cute and fun production it still makes my top 20.

#15. Paris 2016. Same production as the 2002 one so that in and of itself is not my cup of tea but we get a good cast which carries it pretty well.

#16. Las Palmas (?date?) This one is about as close to full-on Oeser as anyone’s tried (except maybe the Genève 2008 one) so it’s remarkable for that. The production is equal parts campy and cool and the cast overall is very good, especially the villains and especially Dapertutto. Chemistry between Hoffmann and the ladies is pretty great. Decently gay. I need Nicklausse’s Act 1 costume immediately.

#17. Macerata 2005. A low-key production with an even mixture of fun and strange. Nicklausse is adorable and off-the-charts gay. Relatively unremarkable besides that.

#18. Orlando 2015. Why, oh why do we not have a full recording of this production?? It currently exists only as a youtube playlist with videos of some of the most important parts and it just looks SO GOOD it makes my top 20 without even having seen the entire thing.

#19. Regina Opera (NYC) 2011. Straightforward and fun and lots of ingenuity for a tiny space. Olympia and Antonia are particularly good. Hoffmann winds up in Nicklausse’s lap at the end. Nuff said.

#20. St. Petersburg (Florida) 2017. Another highlights-only reel but it looks really good and I’m mad we don’t get the rest of it. Refreshingly straightforward sets/costumes and engaging performance.

#21. 1951 film. This movie is so extra. There’s really no other way to describe it. Everyone is gay. The sets are gay. The room is gay. The air is gay. Ironically though Hoffmann and Nicklausse don’t get much gay time together. A lot of Nicklausse’s stuff is cut and I don’t like how they do the ending. The final trio in the Antonia act is fire though (pun intended—watch it and you’ll see).

#22 Miami 2017. Another highlight playlist on youtube. I like the “pour conjurer le danger” in particular. Nothing else terribly exciting though.

#23. Las Palmas 2022: WHY, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2022, ARE WE STILL USING THE CHOUDENS EDIT FOR THIS OPERA?? At least Nicklausse is adorable and Hoffmann has good chemistry with him and the ladies (especially Antonia), but this fun and quirky production is absolutely wasted on the abbreviated edit. Come onnnnnnnn. (Especially after already attempting the Oeser one a few years back???)

decent

#24.  Skanderbeg 2005. Production doesn’t do much for me—looks like it came out of a bad sci-fi movie—and most of the acting isn’t great but it’s got a really cute Hoffmann/Nicklausse dynamic that made it worth the watch. Antonia was pretty good too.

#25.  Parma 1988. Unremarkable but pretty cute and gay.

#26. Avignon 2009. Only the Olympia act is available sadly but from little there is you can tell it’s a really fun and adorable production with good acting and signing all around.

#27. Paris 2000. Same production as the 2003/2016 one but the acting is less compelling except poor Kirchschlager who really does her best but it’s hard to sing to a wall and this Hoffmann is pretty much a wall. Nicklausse does get to slap Hoffmann though which is excellent.

#28. Royal Opera House 2000. Same production as the 1981/2016 one but the acting is overall less captivating.

#29. Beijing 2013. Unremarkable production with okay cast and annoying edit but the chemistry between Hoffmann and Nicklausse?? The Violin Aria blows it out of the park. They practically kiss at the end. It’s glorious.

#30. Buenos Aires 2019. I have a visceral reaction to this one and severe love-hate relationship with it. The edit sucks (no Violin Aria) but the cast is great. The sets are cool but the production/staging is questionable. Individual performances are good but there’s not much chemistry between anyone. And finally, despite the fact that we get next to no chemistry between Hoffmann and Nicklausse (and may I remind you NO VIOLIN ARIA) they decide to have Nicklausse and Hoffmann kiss at the end. I ranted about this for a full day once so I won’t go into any more here. But seriously. Come on.

#31. Met 1973. Super old, terrible sound/picture quality, but iconic thanks to the one, the only Dame Joan Sutherland singing all three heroines (not four, no Giulietta act in this one. It’s a really terrible edit).

questionable

#32. Genève 2008. Weird and downright unpleasant at times. Phenomenally gay but Hoffmann is a total jerk. Villains are quite good but the production takes away from pretty much everything. I’d like the heroines a lot better if it wasn’t for that awful bob cut (and Olympia’s costume…or rather lack thereof…). Giulietta somehow makes the hair work. My favorite edit so far—just wish it had a better production to go with it.

#33 Mexico City 2020. They tried, they really did, to do a Kaye edit but they tripped at the finish line. Also the production is kinda “?” Actors are pretty decent but I can’t get over Dapertutto and Giulietta kidnapping Nicklausse while Hoffmann does nothing. Matching outfits are a win but there’s not much else.

#34 Seoul 2019. Interesting production with good acting. Some really odd directorial choices. Edit is awful.

#35 Monte-Carlo 2018. I hate this one for making Juan Diego Flórez one of my favorite Hoffmanns but giving him a terrible production to work with. We get a nicely devious set of villains and Olga Peretyatko is great as the ladies (thank goodness she gets another shot in the Hamburg one four years later) but I don’t even want to talk about what they do with Nicklausse here.

#36 Lyon 1993. I was hyped for this one, I really was. Reviews kept praising it for the cast (which is great) and the fact it’s the first recording to use the Kaye edit, but…it doesn’t really? The edit is practically unrecognizable; aside from some parts of the orchestration I really couldn’t tell you which edit it was using. The production itself is…wild. Disturbing almost. I have no idea what’s going on, it’s almost like some kind of fever dream.

meh

#37. Moscow 2019. Unremarkable to the point of being forgettable. Odd and not compelling. Stop using Choudens people.

#38. Nagoya 2010. Okay production. Odd at points but Hoffmann is really cute and I do like the Antonia quite a bit.

#39. Hagan 2020. I don’t even know what this is supposed to be. I don’t think the director did either.

awful

#40. Berlin 2015. Edit is atrocious and production is equally bad. Nicklausse is pretty good and some of the Hoffmanns are decent (because, yes, there are multiple performers playing Hoffmann) but it’s just…I don’t even know.

#41. Dutch National Opera 2018. Do you know how much I’d give to see (most of) this cast in a Hoffmann production? One that’s not this one because it’s awful? They try to modernize it but it just doesn’t work at all and they make Nicklausse a girl for the entire show and just. Wow. No thank you. John Osborne and Erwin Schrott deserve so much better.

#42. Madrid 2014. I couldn’t begin to tell you what they are trying to do in this one. Another terrible interpretation of Nicklausse and the rest of the characters don’t seem to know what they are doing. I don’t think anyone working on the show did.

#43. Brussels 2019. You could barely even call this Les contes d’Hoffmann because of all the ridiculous stuff they add to make it something it really is not. The production is just plain confusing. Is it the opera? Is it a movie? Is it them trying to film the movie? There’s no consistent reality. They throw the gay out the window here too with another girl Nicklausse. And Hoffmann is quite a piece of work himself.

#44. Salzburg 2005. Another monstrosity that attempts to un-gay the opera and totally demolishes the Hoffmann/Nicklausse dynamic. I can’t believe this is actually McVicar. Why would a gay opera director decide to direct one of the gayest operas ever only to mutilate it to this extent.

#45. Antwerp 2000. Same production as above so same level of terribleness.

#46. Klostenberg 2019. What. Just what. I can’t even.

#47. Bregenzer Festspiele 2015. I’m convinced everyone working on this was high on shrooms while they made it because I can’t think of any other explanation for how bizarre it is.

#48. Mexico City 1987. Didn’t even watch this one because Nicklausse is a tenor which is an unforgiveable sin.

and there you have it! Now I just need to watch two more to make it an even 50!

thank you for letting me rant about this opera yet again:) I never get tired of it!

[ripstefano]

Le Prince Des Brigands (The Robber Prince) (17th Century)

French School (French, 16th-20th Century)

I haven’t a clue what this blog is becoming, I’ll get back to posting scans of uniforms in a bit, I even remembered I have my own book of weapons and armour I can pull from. For now, enjoy this art work I’ve been ripping.

[lawisnotmocked]

Catching up on Les Mis letters for this year so I thought I’d share all my thoughts on the canine imagery from volume 1 book 1 in the same post.

The first instance of canine imagery in book 1 shows up in chapter 1.1.7 when Myriel wishes to cross the mountains to visit a small community of shepherds. The mayor warns him not to leave without an escort because of the threat of bandits but Myriel refuses the escort and tells the mayor he has no reason to fear them.

“But the brigands, Monseigneur?” “Hold,” said the Bishop, “I must think of that. You are right. I may meet them. They, too, need to be told of the good God.” “But, Monseigneur, there is a band of them! A flock of wolves!” “Monsieur le maire, it may be that it is of this very flock of wolves that Jesus has constituted me the shepherd. Who knows the ways of Providence?”

Wolves in Les Mis often represent two things - their position as powerful apex predators is often used to represent that a person has dangerous, malicious or violent intentions, but they’re also contrasted with dogs, a domestic canine with close proximity to human society, to show the ways certain people are prohibited from being part of society, usually because they’re in extreme poverty or are a criminal. Wolves are canines who are not allowed to participate in human society, and dogs are canines who are. Lots of people who are both violent and criminals get assigned wolf imagery, including Thenardier and Montparnasse.

In this case Cravatte and his bandits are wolves because they’re a dangerous group of highway robbers, but Myriel is also the shepherd for a flock of wolves because he’s the kind of bishop who goes out of his way to try and offer help to people who have otherwise been abandoned or cast out by the rest of society, including people like Valjean and Cravatte who had a reputation for being dangerous.

I love the way the imagery of Myriel being the shepherd for a flock of wolves ties in to the Christian symbolism of Jesus as a shepherd too it creates such a perfect mental image for me that represents this part of Myriel’s character so well 👌

Wolf imagery also shows up in the next chapter, 1.1.8, during Myriel’s conversation with the senator.

I am not enthusiastic over your Jesus, who preaches renunciation and sacrifice to the last extremity. ’Tis the counsel of an avaricious man to beggars. Renunciation; why? Sacrifice; to what end? I do not see one wolf immolating himself for the happiness of another wolf.

The reader is supposed to dislike the senator so him specifically comparing his personal philosophy to the behaviour of wolves might just be another way for Hugo to emphasise that he’s The Wrong One in this conversation. It could also be Hugo trying to make a point that a good society requires people to act with compassion and make sacrifices for each other or we may as well just be wolves instead of men? (violent and dangerous metaphorical wolves at least, not real wolves lol) I feel like parts of this chapter are definitely going over my head because it contains so much of Hugo’s Opinion on contemporary discussions so there might be something I’m missing here too.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Were any French Revolution figures involved in duels and what was the general attitude towards dueling by the revolutionaries? (I know plenty of French historical figures who participated in duels before and after the French Revolution but it seemed less popular during the republic?)

According to the article Duelling in eighteenth-century France: Archaeology, Rationale, Implications(1980) by George Armstrong Kelly,  ”the great majority of ”patriots” abominated this feudal survival, but they found it less than simple to legislate manners.” On February 3 1791, the deputy Chevalier introduced a new law against duels, which carried, despite opposition from the right. One year later, September 17 1792, the Legisaltive Assembly did however pass an act of indulgence agaisnt all cases of duelling that had transpired since July 1789, giving as its reason that ”political and patriotic considerations might have legitimately provoked such combats.” But two years after that, July 17 1794, the National Convention, after determining that no existint legislation had dealt with duelling, instead decreed that a committee ”examine and propose means of preventing duels and the penalties to assign those guilty of duelling of provoking it.” According to Armstrong Kelly, under the ”Jacobin regime,” renewed attemps were also made to eradicate duelling in the armies.

When it comes to individual revolutionaries attitudes towards dueling, Armstrong Kelly notes two known duels between actual deputies of the National Assembly:

In the first case, it was Cazalès, the spokesman for the ultramonarchists, who delivered the injure to Barnave, then the spellbinding young speaker of the Left, having called him a "tramp" and a "brigand." The duel was fought, à l'anglaise, with pistols in the Bois de Boulogne on the morning of 11 August 1790. Despite the courteous disposition of the two men toward each other personally, they fought lethally. Eventually Barnave managed to wound Cazalès on the forehead. Surprisingly, the duel cemented a friendship across political barriers, and the two antagonists were mutually hailed with applause when they greeted each other next in the Assembly. Barnave's victory won him much popularity, especially in his native Grenoble. In the second case, the well-known friend of Barnave and future Feuillant Charles de Lameth, though avoiding the consequences of one injure by a young officer named Chauvigny de Plot, could not ignore the ensuing insults of a deputy of the Right, the due de Castries, son of the marshal. Their combat took place with swords on the Champ de Mars on the afternoon of 12 November 1790; Lameth was painfully wounded on the left hand. Though a literary descendant of the due describes the encounter as "a simple explanation between gentlemen,” more serious political implications were attached to the act, for Lameth, though a noble, was at the time a popular spokesman for the Left. Word was passed that Castries's sword had been poisoned, and on the following afternoon a large, angry mob sacked the Hôtel de Castries on the rue de Varenne. The following evening Castries left Paris for exile. Important political repercussions attended this episode, gravely damaging Mirabeau’s rapprochement with the Court.

He furthermore notes that both Brissot and Louis Sébastien Mercier wrote  about duels in the 1780s, both celebrating the fact that the amount of the them had been waning during the reign of Louis XVI and contributing this to ”philosophy” or ”the spirit of the century.” Nicolas Guénot, future agent of the Committee of General Security, "was in and out of prison throughout his [military] service [1775-1783]; and in one of the brawls in which he was involved and in which sabres were drawn, he was severely wounded in the left arm, the use of which he never fully recovered." Finally, in July 1790, Barère inserted some remarks about dueling in the journal Le Moniteur, complaining that ”the egislators are witnessing how a feudal practice is surviving the destruction of feudalism,” and calling the duelist ”a wild animal who should be handed over to the discretion of the constituted authorities of protection” and ought to even be declared an outlaw. Armstrong Kelly uses Barère’s demand as ”unquestionable evidence” that during the revolution, ”the French were continuing to draw their swords against one another”

[mswyrr]

This edition rewrites the entire narrative of Carmilla while keeping the vast majority of the text exactly the same. Originally, Le Fanu published the chapters serially in a magazine, then later bound them together with an introduction which claimed that the story came from Doctor Hesselius’s notes. Machado adds another layer. She claims that Le Fanu pulled this story from stolen letters, disguising and censoring the women’s story. Machado claims that the real letters from Veronika (“Laura”) were explicit about her and Carmilla’s romantic and sexual relationship.

In this version, it isn’t queer women who are trying to alter the author’s intention in order to claim Carmilla. Instead, it’s Le Fanu whose heteronormativity has obscured the real story, which can now be unearthed in its true form. This edition also adds a few footnotes and illustrations, though I desperately wanted there to be more of both. The meta-narrative that Machado creates is one in which vampires do exist—and that’s not all. In one footnote, Laura lingers outside of the woods, and the footnote laments, “Lonely as she was, if only Laura knew the potential friends who resided in those woods! Peddlers, mountebanks, roguish-but-decent thieves and brigands, fairies, wolpertingers…” (Another footnote, after a lengthy description, succinctly states, “If this isn’t an orgasm, nothing is.”) And Robert Kraiza’s illustrations are beautiful and compelling.

[lesmisscraper]

The End of the Brigand.

Clips from <Il cuore di Cosette>.

[blocksventure]

Lego Oxventure - Plunder Siege

It's brigands galore in the episode that brought us All Crim's Night.

The Journey To Redcastle

Just like the folk ballad "Vindaloo" by famous minstrel Fat Les.

Merilwen has a close encounter of the turd kind

Courtesy of a botched throw from Dob, she ends up spiked directly into a freshly-manured flowerbed.

"Watch this"

While the rest of the guild are content to climb the wall, Egbert uses a bomb's explosion to sail over the outer wall atop his shield.

Corazon about to face the consequences of Egbert's actions

Inside Redcastle, Egbert sets of a series of cascading bookshelves directly on top of Corazon and one of the Duke's guards.

"He has no idea what you're planning, and frankly neither do I"

Dob turns a brigand into a goblin by way of making him eat soup from a pot that he put Prudence's grimoire into.

The Last Stand of M. Chanail

The last known picture of the rubbish gnome druid known for turning people into animals before his timely incineration at the hands(?) of Egbert's breath weapon.

With the guild's first nemesis vanquished, it's time for A Fishmas Carol, which I could have coincided with our Christmas had I planned things out slightly better. Oh well.

[lesmisletters-daily]

Cravatte

Les Mis Letters reading club explores one chapter of Les Misérables every day. Join us on Discord, Substack - or share your thoughts right here on tumblr - today's tag is #lm 1.1.7

It is here that a fact falls naturally into place, which we must not omit, because it is one of the sort which show us best what sort of a man the Bishop of D—— was.

After the destruction of the band of Gaspard Bès, who had infested the gorges of Ollioules, one of his lieutenants, Cravatte, took refuge in the mountains. He concealed himself for some time with his bandits, the remnant of Gaspard Bès’s troop, in the county of Nice; then he made his way to Piédmont, and suddenly reappeared in France, in the vicinity of Barcelonette. He was first seen at Jauziers, then at Tuiles. He hid himself in the caverns of the Joug-de-l’Aigle, and thence he descended towards the hamlets and villages through the ravines of Ubaye and Ubayette.

He even pushed as far as Embrun, entered the cathedral one night, and despoiled the sacristy. His highway robberies laid waste the country-side. The gendarmes were set on his track, but in vain. He always escaped; sometimes he resisted by main force. He was a bold wretch. In the midst of all this terror the Bishop arrived. He was making his circuit to Chastelar. The mayor came to meet him, and urged him to retrace his steps. Cravatte was in possession of the mountains as far as Arche, and beyond; there was danger even with an escort; it merely exposed three or four unfortunate gendarmes to no purpose.

“Therefore,” said the Bishop, “I intend to go without escort.”

“You do not really mean that, Monseigneur!” exclaimed the mayor.

“I do mean it so thoroughly that I absolutely refuse any gendarmes, and shall set out in an hour.”

“Set out?”

“Set out.”

“Alone?”

“Alone.”

“Monseigneur, you will not do that!”

“There exists yonder in the mountains,” said the Bishop, “a tiny community no bigger than that, which I have not seen for three years. They are my good friends, those gentle and honest shepherds. They own one goat out of every thirty that they tend. They make very pretty woollen cords of various colors, and they play the mountain airs on little flutes with six holes. They need to be told of the good God now and then. What would they say to a bishop who was afraid? What would they say if I did not go?”

“But the brigands, Monseigneur?”

“Hold,” said the Bishop, “I must think of that. You are right. I may meet them. They, too, need to be told of the good God.”

“But, Monseigneur, there is a band of them! A flock of wolves!”

“Monsieur le maire, it may be that it is of this very flock of wolves that Jesus has constituted me the shepherd. Who knows the ways of Providence?”

“They will rob you, Monseigneur.”

“I have nothing.”

“They will kill you.”

“An old goodman of a priest, who passes along mumbling his prayers? Bah! To what purpose?”

“Oh, mon Dieu! what if you should meet them!”

“I should beg alms of them for my poor.”

“Do not go, Monseigneur. In the name of Heaven! You are risking your life!”

“Monsieur le maire,” said the Bishop, “is that really all? I am not in the world to guard my own life, but to guard souls.”

They had to allow him to do as he pleased. He set out, accompanied only by a child who offered to serve as a guide. His obstinacy was bruited about the country-side, and caused great consternation.

He would take neither his sister nor Madame Magloire. He traversed the mountain on mule-back, encountered no one, and arrived safe and sound at the residence of his “good friends,” the shepherds. He remained there for a fortnight, preaching, administering the sacrament, teaching, exhorting. When the time of his departure approached, he resolved to chant a <i>Te Deum</i> pontifically. He mentioned it to the curé. But what was to be done? There were no episcopal ornaments. They could only place at his disposal a wretched village sacristy, with a few ancient chasubles of threadbare damask adorned with imitation lace.

“Bah!” said the Bishop. “Let us announce our <i>Te Deum</i> from the pulpit, nevertheless, Monsieur le Curé. Things will arrange themselves.”

They instituted a search in the churches of the neighborhood. All the magnificence of these humble parishes combined would not have sufficed to clothe the chorister of a cathedral properly.

While they were thus embarrassed, a large chest was brought and deposited in the presbytery for the Bishop, by two unknown horsemen, who departed on the instant. The chest was opened; it contained a cope of cloth of gold, a mitre ornamented with diamonds, an archbishop’s cross, a magnificent crosier,—all the pontifical vestments which had been stolen a month previously from the treasury of Notre Dame d’Embrun. In the chest was a paper, on which these words were written, <i>“From Cravatte to Monseigneur Bienvenu.”</i>

“Did not I say that things would come right of themselves?” said the Bishop. Then he added, with a smile, “To him who contents himself with the surplice of a curate, God sends the cope of an archbishop.”

“Monseigneur,” murmured the curé, throwing back his head with a smile. “God—or the Devil.”

The Bishop looked steadily at the curé, and repeated with authority, “God!”

When he returned to Chastelar, the people came out to stare at him as at a curiosity, all along the road. At the priest’s house in Chastelar he rejoined Mademoiselle Baptistine and Madame Magloire, who were waiting for him, and he said to his sister: “Well! was I in the right? The poor priest went to his poor mountaineers with empty hands, and he returns from them with his hands full. I set out bearing only my faith in God; I have brought back the treasure of a cathedral.”

That evening, before he went to bed, he said again: “Let us never fear robbers nor murderers. Those are dangers from without, petty dangers. Let us fear ourselves. Prejudices are the real robbers; vices are the real murderers. The great dangers lie within ourselves. What matters it what threatens our head or our purse! Let us think only of that which threatens our soul.”

Then, turning to his sister: “Sister, never a precaution on the part of the priest, against his fellow-man. That which his fellow does, God permits. Let us confine ourselves to prayer, when we think that a danger is approaching us. Let us pray, not for ourselves, but that our brother may not fall into sin on our account.”

However, such incidents were rare in his life. We relate those of which we know; but generally he passed his life in doing the same things at the same moment. One month of his year resembled one hour of his day.

As to what became of “the treasure” of the cathedral of Embrun, we should be embarrassed by any inquiry in that direction. It consisted of very handsome things, very tempting things, and things which were very well adapted to be stolen for the benefit of the unfortunate. Stolen they had already been elsewhere. Half of the adventure was completed; it only remained to impart a new direction to the theft, and to cause it to take a short trip in the direction of the poor. However, we make no assertions on this point. Only, a rather obscure note was found among the Bishop’s papers, which may bear some relation to this matter, and which is couched in these terms, <i>“The question is, to decide whether this should be turned over to the cathedral or to the hospital.”</i>

[iranondeaira]

🎶 je me souviens de ces jours où nous étions heureux ... 🎶

🎶 Quand Les Amants entendront cette chanson

C'est sûr, ma belle, c'est sûr qu'ils pleureront...🎶

"Quand on peut se dire sur un simple regard, sans toi je suis sans vie, alors on sait que quelque chose est train d'arriver qui au mieux va nous illuminer, au pire nous changer. Etre à ce point enchanté, c'est à la fois merveilleux et terrible."

Frédérique Deghelt

- La Nonne et le Brigand

[beatricecenci]

Louis Léopold Robert (Swiss, 1794-1835)

Le brigand en prière avec sa femme