#actions française

[stackslip]

every day i go out and find posters and stickers for new white supremacist and fascist groups. they multiply like flies around here

[etudegenerale]

✍️Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), est un essayiste, philosophe et poète américain, chef de file du mouvement transcendantaliste américain du début du xixe siècle.

etude-generale.com

[lecturedesam]

L'ombre des innocents

Auteur : René Manzor Titre : L’ombre des innocents Date de parution : 3 Janvier 2024 EAN : 9782702188620 – 365 pages         4eme de couverture  : C’EST DANS L’OMBRE DES INNOCENTS QUE SE CACHE LE MAL Paris, bureau d’un éditeur bien connu. Alors que Marion Scriba, romancière, parle de son prochain polar, des policiers surgissent et l’interpellent, l’accusant du meurtre qui occupe la France entière…

[empiredesimparte]

⚜ Le Sacre de Napoléon V | N°23 | Francesim, Paris, 1 Fructidor An 230

At the Tuileries Palace, Ernest informs Emperor Napoleon V of a plot involving anti-monarchist extremists financed by public figures. The Minister of Justice, Jeanne Chautemps, with prudent wisdom, advises rigor and caution in the investigation, while Napoleon V insists on the need not to provide their enemies with ammunition.

Meanwhile, the Emperor's grandfather Louis sought legal advice. His lawyer reassures him of his right to take legal action, promising to handle the matter discreetly. With this procedure, Louis could gain access to secret defense documents.

Beginning ��� Previous ▬ Next

⚜ Traduction française

Au palais des Tuileries, Paris, 1er arrondissement.

(Ernest) Le témoignage de Madame Mère n’a pas beaucoup aidé à l’enquête

(Ernest) Manifestement, ces extrémistes font partie de groupes anti-monarchistes financés par des personnalités publiques

(Ernest) L’assassinat de feu votre père n’est donc pas totalement dû à l’évolution d’un groupe de manifestants enhardis

(Napoléon V) Intéressant (Jeanne) L’empereur Napoléon IV a déjà échappé à plusieurs attentats durant son règne

(Ernest) L’enquête nous révèlera des noms et des adresses. Nous pourrons alors dissoudre légalement ces groupes dangereux

(Jeanne) Le ministre de l’Intérieur s’en fera une joie, M. de Tour

(Jeanne) D’ici là, poursuivez consciencieusement l’enquête. Nous ne devons faire aucun faux pas et être irréprochables

(Napoléon V) Ne donnons pas raison à nos opposants.

À Paris, 7e arrondissement.

(Louis) Merci, Maître.

(Louis) Je crains que mon petit-fils, le nouvel empereur, ne soit pas d'accord avec cette démarche. Que puis-je faire ?

(Jean) En tant que père de la victime, vous avez tout à fait le droit de vous constituer partie civile.

(Louis) Oui, mais mon petit-fils détient maintenant le pouvoir. S'il s'y oppose... Je ne souhaite pas d'affrontement, mais je veux que justice soit rendue pour mon fils.

(Jean) Je comprends vos réticences. Cependant, la justice doit suivre son cours, indépendamment des dynamiques familiales. Nous nous en assurerons ensemble.

(Jean) Avec votre accord, je m'occuperai personnellement de la rédaction et du dépôt de cette plainte.

(Louis) Et que se passera-t-il ensuite ?

(Jean) En tant que partie civile, vous aurez accès au dossier et pourrez demander des actes d'instruction supplémentaires. De plus, vous pourrez assister aux auditions et aux confrontations, et demander réparation pour le préjudice moral et matériel subi.

(Louis) Très bien, Maître. C'est parfait.

[nesiacha]

do we have good sources on the life and work of claire lacombe? /gen

Portrait probable de Claire Lacombe. Miniaturiste, Ducare. 1765-1798.

I am not the best person to answer this question, as I am currently delving deeper into my research on the group of the Enragés, particularly from a legal perspective, here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/762409217481179136/jacques-rouxs-criticism-of-the-constitution-of?source=share (and also because I don't have much time). Perhaps @saintjustitude or @anotherhumaninthisworld, as well as other Tumblr users more specialized than I am on the subject, could provide better insights.

Nevertheless, I will offer my modest contribution on Claire Lacombe. The academic historian Antoine Resche has written a good biography of her, and historian Mathilde Larrère has also discussed her in depth. Unfortunately, I lost my notes from Jean Clément Martin’s excellent book La Révolte brisée: Femmes dans la Révolution française et l’Empire , as well as one of the most important references on revolutionary women, Dominique Godineau.

We know that Claire Lacombe was born in 1765 and was an actress who worked in Marseille,Lyon, Toulon then living in Paris. She was one of those women, like Théroigne de Méricourt, who proposed to take up arms to fight the tyrants. What I don’t understand is whether Lacombe was referring specifically to Louis XVI and La Fayette, or to other European monarchs as well (which is not impossible, as Théroigne de Méricourt, despite advocating reconciliation between the Montagnards and the Girondins, supported the idea of war). According to Mathilde Larrère, these two women, alongside Pauline Léon, are considered among the most well-known.

Claire Lacombe participated in the storming of the Tuileries in 1792 and received a civic crown like Louise Reine Audu and Théroigne de Méricourt. She was interested in the Jacobin Club before becoming secretary, then president, of the Société des Citoyennes Républicaines Révolutionnaires (Society of Revolutionary Republican Women). Along with other revolutionary women, she demanded the right to bear arms, something Olympe de Gouges, who wrote the Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne , did not dare to ask for in the article addressing men’s right to bear arms.

Claire Lacombe grew closer to Leclerc and became a member of the political group known as the Enragés. She made several demands: the trial of Marie Antoinette, greater rigor in arresting suspects, the prosecution of the Girondins by the Revolutionary Tribunal, and the application of the Constitution. She also advocated for more social rights, as outlined in the petition of the Enragés (which would later be taken up by the Exagérés, who, unlike the Enragés, were less suspicious of delegated power and believed in wielding influence beyond the revolutionary sections).

Lacombe was first arrested in September 1793 but released the following day.The majority of the Convention, including La Montagne and what are called the exaggerated or the Hébertists, fought the enragés ( especially Roux and Leclerc) during this period . Her second arrest in April 1794, alongside Leclerc and Pauline Léon, lasted longer. Unlike the latter two, who were released after Thermidor—possibly due to their connections with Tallien (one of the few good actions of Tallien, it should be noted)—Lacombe was not released until August 1795, which is rather strange. Could it be that she didn’t have the right connections to secure her release? Or perhaps, out of disgust for certain Thermidorians, she refused help? Or was she simply forgotten?

In any case, there is no further trace of her political activism. She went to Nantes to resume acting before returning to Paris, where she fell into debt. We don’t even know the date of her death (something she shares with the revolutionary Marie Anne Babeuf). It seems she is among those revolutionaries who have been too forgotten, as we do not know what became of her.

Sources: Antoine Resche Mathilde Larrère

Feel free to check out, as I mentioned, Dominique Godineau’s book Citoyennes tricoteuses, which is very interesting, as well as Jean Clément Martin’s book that I’ve mentioned.

[aedesluminis]

🤚 ^^

🤚Book recs

This is hard because I had stopped reading for many years and I've been trying to get on track in the last year. Overall, I have read many books, but the only ones I feel like recommending are all historical essays about the French Revolution and despite some being in Italian and French I will mention them anyway, given that some of my followers are also from Italy and France ^^

1. P. McPhee's Liberty or Death.

This book is very dear to me, because it was my first ever frev book! I recommend it because it's heavily sourced, explains very clearly the causes and consequences of the Revolution and the history is told, through the quoting of primary sources and accounts, from the people's pov, something quite unique in frev historiography. Unfortunately, this last point can also be a downside, especially for those who know absolutely nothing of the French Revolution: some of the key events sometimes get discussed in a few lines to give much more space to how they were perceived by the population. Not only this may lead to an oversimplification of said events, but also to confusion regarding their chronological order. At the end of the book there's a timeline though, which I suggest to consult in case you feel lost while reading.

I would say it's accessible to everyone interested in the topic and who has an adequate level of English to understand it. Of course, the read will be much more fluid if one already knows a bit about the French Revolution.

2. M. Vovelle, La Révolution Française 1789-1799.

This book exists only in French and Italian sadly. I say sadly, because despite not having read it in full, it's an excellent and concise summary of the French Revolution. It's perfect for literally everyone: students who have to prepare an exam, historians who have to quickly revise it and amateurs who want to be introduced to the French Revolution through something that's not too big or overwhelming. What I like about it, it's the fact it's short, but it manages to perfectly highlight the main events and key figures, showing how important the Revolution was and its consequences in our present era.

I believe an English equivalent would be Soboul's The French Revolution 1789-1799.

3. M. Reinhard, Le Grand Carnot vol. I & II.

Yes, a specific biography, I mean it seriously. Lazare Carnot's life is truly fascinating, but in case you are not interested in him at all, I would still recommend it since it's a nice example of how it's perfectly possible to make an amazing, detailed, well sourced, as impartial as possible work on a beloved historical figure. Because Reinhard likes Carnot, but he cleverly manages to conceal it, by exposing his merits, epic fails and controversial actions; even when he enters the realm of speculation, he does it relying on sources, primary most of the time. Moreover, he is rather knowledgeable about the historical period Carnot lived through, thus the latter's words and decisions get explained in their relative historical context, making it easier to decipher Carnot's motives.

Lastly, it's godly and elegantly written. I genuinely can't wait to fully devote my reading sessions to it, because until now I have only read separate chapters and excerpts.

4. Anything about Nikola Tesla.

Seriously guys, I can't even find the right words to explain how important that genius was, and how unfairly poorly he was treated. Each of us would have something to learn from such a brilliant, devoted and altruistic mind.

[tanadrin]

Further complications came when a section of the French Army rebelled and openly backed the Algérie française movement to defeat separation. Revolts and riots broke out in 1958 against the French government in Algiers, but there were no adequate and competent political initiatives by the French government in support of military efforts to end the rebellion owing to party politics. The feeling was widespread that another debacle like that of Indochina in 1954 was in the offing and that the government would order another precipitous pullout and sacrifice French honour to political expediency. This prompted General Jacques Massu to create a French settlers' committee[20] to demand the formation of a new national government under General De Gaulle, who was a national hero and had advocated a strong military policy, nationalism and the retention of French control over Algeria. General Massu, who had gained prominence and authority when he ruthlessly suppressed Algerian militants, famously declared that unless General De Gaulle was returned to power, the French Army would openly revolt; General Massu and other senior generals covertly planned the takeover of Paris with 1,500 paratroopers preparing to take over airports with the support of French Air Force units.[20] Armoured units from Rambouillet prepared to roll into Paris.[21] On 24 May, French paratroopers from the Algerian corps landed on Corsica, taking the French island in a bloodless action called Opération Corse.[20][21] Operation Resurrection would be implemented if De Gaulle was not approved as leader by the French Parliament, if De Gaulle asked for military assistance to take power, or to thwart any organized attempt by the French Communist Party to seize power or stall De Gaulle's return. De Gaulle, who had announced his retirement from politics a decade before, placed himself in the midst of the crisis, calling on the nation to suspend the government and create a new constitutional system. On 29 May 1958, French politicians agreed upon calling on De Gaulle to take over the government as prime minister. The French Army's willingness to support an overthrow of the constitutional government was a significant development in French politics. With Army support, De Gaulle's government terminated the Fourth Republic (the last parliament of the Fourth Republic voted for its dissolution) and drew up a new constitution proclaiming the French Fifth Republic in 1958.

The Fourth Republic is said to have "collapsed," which isn't untrue per se, but omits the fact that it collapsed under pressure of an imminent right-wing coup to prevent the loss of colonial possessions. The army was preparing to occupy Paris and declare de Gaulle President by force. Compare the coup in Spain that launched the Spanish Civil War, except there the government wasn't willing to capitulate (and the coup did not immediately succeed).

[carbone14]

Après son entrée dans Paris avec les troupes de la 2e Division blindée, Simone Segouin, résistante française dans les Francs-tireurs et partisans (FTP), et deux de ses camarades participent à l'élimination des dernières poches de résistance – Libération de Paris – Opération Overlord – Août 1944

Photos Robert Capa

©Magnum photos

Simone Segouin rejoint les Francs-Tireurs et Partisans en 1944 à l'âge de 18 ans sous le pseudonyme de Nicole Minet. Après de nombreuses missions en tant qu'agent de liaison entre Dreux, Chartres et Châteaudun, les FTP lui propose de prendre les armes et devient l'une des rares femmes à prendre part aux combats. Attaques de convois, de trains, de détachements ennemis et opérations de sabotage lui valent le respect au sein de la résistance.

Elle participe activement à la libération de Chartres et s'illustre le 20 août 1944 en prenant part à la capture de 25 allemands à Thivars, à 7 km au sud de Chartres. A cette occasion elle récupère un pistolet mitrailleur MP40 avec lequel elle pose fièrement lors de la venue du Général de Gaulle à Chartres le 23 août pendant sa tournée d'inspection des régions libérées.

A la suite de cette cérémonie, les différents groupes de résistants du département prennent la direction de Paris pour participer aux combats insurrectionnels. La plupart regagnent Paris et font la jonction avec la 2e Division blindée de Leclerc le 25 août à six heures du matin.

C'est la raison pour laquelle, un cliché de Robert Capa présente Simone Segouin aux côtés de deux de ses camarades face aux dernières poches de résistance allemande.

Sa conduite valeureuse dans la clandestinité et son action dans les combats de la Libération lui valurent le grade de sous-lieutenant.

Elle fût décorée de la croix de guerre par Charles Tillon, ministre de l'Armement et ancien chef des FTP le 24 mars 1946 à Chartres.

[lamarseillasie]

What did Marat think of the CPS members?

Hi, anon! 👋

First of all, I'd like to apologize for taking so long to answer your question. I was very busy with various things involving my end-of-year studies and could only reply now. I hope you weren't upset or disinterested!

Secondly, I didn't quite understand whether your question meant to ask what Marat thought of the CSP in general or what he thought of each of the members individually. So I decided to answer both questions!

It is important to note that, in my research, I have not been able to find much information about Marat's concrete views on the committee itself, nor have I been able to find his views on all the members. This is probably due to the fact that the CSP was created in April 1793, an extremely turbulent year for the Revolution in general and somewhat turbulent in Marat's political life, who, although he never stopped publishing his newspaper, didn't have much time to write. But it's possible that I'll find something more on this subject in the future, so I'll update this post whenever possible.

It can be said that, initially, Marat was committed to the creation of the CSP and was, in a way, in favor of it. Despite this, he never stopped criticizing and imposing his opinions on the organization of its functions and members. In issue no. 163 of his newspaper, Le Publiciste de La Republique Française, published the day after the official creation of the Committee of Public Safety, he points out some "ridiculous defects" in the draft of the Committee of General Defense presented by Isnard for the creation of the CSP. It's a rather poor quality document, which made my translation difficult, so bear in mind that it is subject to errors.

"This was the plan Isnard presented to the General Defense Committee. In vain did I search this plan for the men responsible for providing the means to repel enemies from without and within. I saw in it nothing more than a simple surveillance of the operations of the Minister of War and the Navy and an unlimited search for suspicious citizens, under the pretext of pursuing the schemers. This omission of the most important care and this accumulation of the very different functions of two committees into just one revolted me: I showed that this obviously tended to undermine tyranny, without fulfilling the main objective, which is the defense of the state. My reasons were heard, and the Committee of Public Safety was able to restrict itself to putting ministerial agents into action, in charge of carrying out means of general defense, with the simple power to request the assistance of the Committee of Security for the arrest of evildoers or suspicious persons."

In addition to this excerpt, there are a few other issues of Le Publiciste de La Republique Française in which Marat criticizes the poor functioning of the Committee of General Security. You can find his complaints mainly in the issues from April to July 1793. Despite these harsh criticisms, Marat seemed to believe that the creation of the CSP could bring benefits, or at least he defended the creation of a committee made up of "capable and politically enlightened patriots to put the state on the defensive". This thinking, however, changed dramatically just a few months later. This could be seen in the last issue of the LPRF, which was published the day after Marat's death, on July 14.

"What should we think of the Committee of Public Safety, or rather its leaders, given that most of its members are so careless that they attend committee meetings for only two hours out of twenty-four, ignore almost everything that is done there and perhaps have no knowledge of this room. They are very guilty, no doubt, for taking on a task they don't want to do: but the leaders are very criminal for carrying out their duties in such an unworthy manner."

It is possible to conjecture, especially from this excerpt, that Marat was very dissatisfied with the CSP - which, at the time, still didn't have very consolidated power - and one of the main reasons for this was its members, the vast majority of whom Marat despised. In the following excerpt, he talks about Bertrand Barère, calling him the "most dangerous enemy of the fatherland".

"Among them is one whom the mountain has just renamed in a very reckless manner and whom I consider to be the country's most dangerous enemy. This was Barére, who Sainte-Foi pointed out to the monarch as one of the constitutionalists with whom he could work best. As for me, I am convinced that he is swimming between two waters to see which party will win the day; it is he who has paralyzed all the measures of force and who is tying us up like this to let them cut our throats. I invite him to give me a reminder by finally making a statement so that he is no longer seen as a monarchist in disguise."

Barère is also mentioned by Marat in an interesting pamphlet he made in 1792, when the elections for deputies to the National Convention were taking place. The pamphlet is called Marat, l'Ami du Peuple, aux amis de la patrie and is available to read here (p. 310). In it, Marat comments on some of the candidates for deputies and shares his opinions about them with his readers, making a list of his nominations and also of those who, according to him, should be avoided at all costs. Barère was on the list "of unworthy people proposed by the author of La Sentinelle, with the aim of serving the faction of the enemies of liberty".

"Barère de Vieuzac, a useless man, without virtue or character".

Following the same pamphlet, Marat mentions other future members of the CSP: Billaud-Varenne, Tallien and Robespierre. They are included in the "list of men who have most deserved the patriciate".

Robespierre & Billaud: "All you have to do is name them, they are the true apostles of freedom; woe betide you if they are not the first objects of your vows."

Tallien: "Excellent patriots, who'll always be narrating with the intrepid defenders of the fatherland."

To say the least, we can consider that this list has aged a little badly. I haven't found any further mention or statements by Marat about those mentioned above (with the exception of Robespierre and Barère), so it's possible that his opinion changed from 1792 to 1793, although we don't have any proof of this in principle.

With regard to other members, such as Hérault, Carnot and Couthon: their names only appeared a few times in L'Ami du Peuple, and it's not very easy to identify exactly what Marat thought of each of them. In issue no. 614, Marat refers to Couthon as a "patriot", which I think is a good thing. Hérault, however, doesn't seem to be held in Marat's esteem, especially according to this excerpt from issue no. 510, in which he puts him on the same level as people like Bouillé and Necker, whom, to say the least, Marat didn't like very much.

As for Robespierre, Marat always supported him. In a way, they both always supported each other; Marat did so until his death. The two were never friends as such - in fact, little is known about the personal aspect of their relationship. Throughout the Revolution, they often shared very similar opinions about various situations, such as the case of the Nancy garrison, Simmoneau's death and especially the opposition to the revolutionary war, when both were politically isolated. Because of this, they were able to count on each other's support. Although it's not quite true to say that they were friends or that they had any affection for each other that wasn't entirely political. I plan to write a more complete post about these two in the future!

Apparently, Marat also had a positive opinion of Saint-Just. He appreciates his conduct in a discussion in issue no. 240 of LPRF, and there is also the fact that Saint-Just seemed to be favorable to Marat, which can be seen in some of his writings and speeches at the Convention. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any writings by Marat about other CSP members such as Lindet, Prieur and the others.

From all this, it can be concluded that Marat's opinion of the CSP members is somewhat fragmented, since he has different thoughts about each of them. In any case, it is certain that, at least before his death, Marat was against the committee and had a strong distrust of it. Let me know if you have any questions or corrections about any of the information I've included in this post, anon, and I hope I've helped you. :)

[rebeccalouisaferguson]

"I should have been French”: Rebecca Ferguson, the secrets of the heroine of Dune

MEETING - After taming Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible, the flamboyant Swede is starring in the second part of the adaptation of Dune, the famous book by Frank Herbert, by Denis Villeneuve.

A great director knows how to give depth to a secondary character in just a few shots; a great actress, she knows how to restore this substantial marrow by exploiting these moments - even the briefest - which are granted to her on the screen. A feat that Rebecca Ferguson accomplishes several times in the second part of Dune, piloted by Denis Villeneuve. A necessary know-how since she takes on by far the most complex and mysterious role in this cinematographic fresco adapted from the inexhaustible original work of Franck Herbert: Lady Jessica, a woman capable of controlling the actions of others through simple intonation of her voice, being able to decide the sex of the child she is carrying while being able to communicate with him.

However, she is surrounded by a cast that would make anyone's head spin (Timothée Chalamet, Christopher Walken, Léa Seydoux, Javier Bardem, Stellan Skarsgard, Josh Brolin, Charlotte Rampling...), but this 40-year-old Swede manages to make her memorable performance. Nothing suprising. Ferguson went to a good school. The best, perhaps, for learning to flourish without being stifled by such a team assembled in the middle of one of the biggest productions of the year.

In 2015, then unknown to the general public, she was cast alongside the biggest Hollywood star in one of the most famous franchises on the planet: Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible. A complete unknown, she must replace Jessica Chastain who refused the role of Ilsa Faust - a spy supposed to rival Ethan Hunt, played by Cruise, in muscle and charisma. Where the “James Bond Girls” left their mark in just one film, Ferguson established herself as the equal of her imposing partner in three episodes of Mission: Impossible and won the hearts of the public.

“It’s romantic, it’s sexy”

As we have understood, the Nordic woman is not afraid of taking on hot-blooded roles. “Please don't ask me how it feels to play powerful women,” she begs, taking off her heels before sitting down on the sofa at the Bristol in Paris, where we meet her. Teasingly, we ask her this question. She counters with a knowing and amused “Oh, fuck off”.

Then stops to order food. A green salad with the dressing on the side and “some protein, like fish or whatever.” Sad menu. Necessary, no doubt? She has to catch a train just after the promotion of Dune to join the filming of the second season of Silo, an excellent series produced and broadcast by Apple TV - but shunned by the audiences (like all the Apple brand's productions). And a bowl of fries,” adds the actress. Phew

So as not to completely forget powerful women, we ask her questions about the continuation of this career which is taking off like a rocket. “I would love to play in smaller, more intimate projects, where we have a little more say in the development of the story or the characters,” admits the actress. "The kind of project that many studios no longer want to support.”

Like those in which his costar from Dune, Thimothée Chalamet, debuted? “Yeah!”, replies the one who doesn’t speak French, but naturally places words from our language in the conversation. “I should have been French, anyway.” For the fries? “No, for the language, its movement, its sensation… there is an attitude. It’s romantic, it’s sexy.” It's never too late, Rebecca.

translated from french for @rebeccalouisaferguson

[thebusylilbee]

"L’absence de réaction de l’Occident face aux actions israéliennes et aux dizaines de milliers de civils tués se situe au-delà du double standard dénoncé depuis des mois. Il s’agit bien de complicité active de crimes de guerre et de crimes contre l’humanité commis par un État voyou.

La rapidité et la violence des bombardements sur Beyrouth créent une forme de sidération, au Liban comme ici. Et la litanie des morts sans nom et sans sépulture, souvent civils, qui s’amoncèlent sous les frappes prétendument ciblées de l’armée israélienne, possède désormais un effet anesthésiant.

Comme le notait l’historien Vincent Lemire le 4 septembre au micro de France Inter, quelques jours avant l’offensive sur le Sud-Liban et Beyrouth : « On ne connaît pas les histoires et les visages des morts à Gaza. Au moins 40 000 morts, dont au moins 30 000 femmes et enfants à Gaza, innocents par définition… Ces chiffres ont pratiquement une capacité anesthésiante sur nous. Il y a quelques mois, on programmait des émissions parce qu’on parlait de 30 000 morts et non plus de 20 000. Mais aujourd’hui ces chiffres ne nous disent plus rien. On est obligé de les rapporter à une réalité française pour qu’ils continuent de nous frapper. »

Un mois après les massacres du 7 octobre, nous écrivions que « rapportés à la population israélienne, il a été dit que les massacres du 7 octobre ayant fait plus de 1 300 victimes équivalaient, en France, à un Bataclan qui aurait coûté la vie à 9 500 personnes. Si l’on prolonge ces calculs sordides, et qu’on rapporte les 9 000 morts de Gaza à une population totale d’environ 2,3 millions d’habitant·es, c’est comme si, en quatre semaines, la France avait perdu 264 000 habitants, dont plus de 100 000 enfants ».

Si l’on poursuit encore l’extrapolation macabre et que l’on se base sur un chiffre de désormais 41 000 morts à Gaza, la population palestinienne gazaouie engloutie depuis un an équivaut donc à 1,2 million de tués rapportés à la population française, soit à peine moins que le nombre de Français tués pendant la boucherie de la Première Guerre mondiale.

Guerre de vengeance

Mais puisqu’il n’est pas certain que même cette comparaison suffise à frapper les esprits, sans doute faut-il oser un autre parallèle. Si on se base sur les chiffres donnés par les ministères de la santé à Gaza et au Liban et qu’on ajoute une estimation basse des victimes sans nom ni sépulture qui se trouvent encore sous les décombres, on atteint au moins 60 000 morts directes dans les frappes de l’artillerie et de l’aviation israélienne.

Ce qui revient à dire qu’Israël a commis, depuis un an, l’équivalent d’un massacre du 7 octobre chaque semaine. Pourtant, aucun dirigeant occidental ne s’est précipité à Ramallah ou à Beyrouth pour exprimer son horreur devant le carnage. Aucun chef d’État ou de gouvernement n’a assuré les peuples palestinien et libanais de son soutien total face aux agressions. [...]

Cette guerre menée par Israël – guerre de représailles et de dissuasion mais aussi de vengeance – fait couler des rivières de sang dont les mains des dirigeants occidentaux – et avant tout étatsunien, c’est-à-dire Joe Biden mais aussi Kamala Harris en tête – sont entachées, tant ils partagent de responsabilités avec les criminels qui gouvernent Israël.

L’effacement des civils

Dans le monde post-7 octobre, bien préparé par le monde post-11 septembre et les centaines de milliers de morts d’Irak ou d’Afghanistan, c’est ainsi la notion même de population civile qui s’efface, en tout cas si ces civils ont le malheur d’être arabes ou musulmans.

Ce n’est pas seulement que les morts et les prisonniers israéliens ont des noms, des visages et des histoires, contrairement aux corps pourrissant dans les fosses communes de Gaza, enfouis dans les décombres de la banlieue sud de Beyrouth ou retenus dans les geôles inaccessibles du Néguev.

C’est qu’un corps palestinien ou chiite ne vaut plus rien aux yeux des Israéliens en particulier, et des Occidentaux en général, comme le manifeste la démesure des chiffres que l’on peut aujourd’hui mettre en regard.

Si l’on mesure non seulement les morts provoquées directement par les bombardements israéliens à Gaza, mais aussi toutes les victimes indirectes, notamment du fait des maladies et du manque d’accès aux soins, on peut sans doute facilement doubler le chiffre de 60 000 victimes, sans aller jusqu’aux 186 000 victimes comptabilisées par une publication récente du Lancet.

Ce qui signifierait qu’avec une estimation plausible de 120 000 morts à Gaza, on aurait déjà une centaine de morts palestiniens, pour un mort israélien le 7 octobre. Des chiffres effarants, à comparer avec un rapport de 7 à 1 pendant la première Intifada et de 3 à 1 pendant la seconde.

Autre exemple du décalage profond entre l’importance des corps et des vies d’un côté à l’autre de la barrière de Gaza ou du fleuve Litani : l’offensive israélienne au Liban a été justifiée par son gouvernement par la nécessité de permettre aux 60 000 déplacés du nord d’Israël de retourner dans leurs maisons.

Sans sous-estimer la vie devenue invivable de ses populations, que nous avions d’ailleurs documentée dans un reportage récent, comment est-il possible d’accepter une telle justification alors qu’elle se paye de l’exil forcé de déjà plus d’un million de Libanais ?

Les complicités occidentales

De cet effacement des civils libanais et palestiniens, l’Occident est comptable à plus d’un titre. D’abord en fournissant les armes et les devises nécessaires à ce carnage. Au moment même où il frappait Beyrouth et où les États-Unis affirmaient n’avoir pas été mis au courant, le gouvernement israélien se faisait un malin plaisir d’annoncer une nouvelle aide de 8,7 milliards de dollars en provenance de l’allié américain.

Dans quel monde peut-on trouver logique, comme ce fut le cas en avril dernier avec la levée du véto républicain au Congrès, de débloquer une « aide » comparable pour l’Ukraine attaquée par le régime de Poutine ; pour Taïwan sous la pression du régime chinois et pour Israël capable de détruire en quelques jours la menace du Hezbollah libanais après avoir réduit en miettes les infrastructures du Hamas ?

Ensuite, en refusant de reconnaître un État palestinien, à quelques rares exceptions près, telles la Norvège, l’Irlande et l’Espagne. Le Moyen-Orient est de fait bouleversé par la décapitation du Hezbollah – une action en passe de prouver que la menace iranienne sur Israël demeure circonscrite, tant le régime des mollahs est contesté en interne et incapable de rivaliser militairement avec un État hébreu soutenu par les États-Unis.

Dans ce moment majeur de redistribution des cartes, l’urgence est pourtant à une action diplomatique imposant la création d’un État palestinien sans lequel les logiques meurtrières et génocidaires à l’œuvre ne pourront que difficilement connaître de répit. [...]"

[qui-rault]

Aulard on Herault de Sechelles

Okay here we go, another author who is absolutely in love with Herault. I’m not even joking, Aulard is completely head over heels for this man. So here is his chapter on Herault de Sechelles in his book Les orateurs de la Législative et de la Convention: l'éloquence parlementaire pendant la Révolution française (Tome 2). Link here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5441755r  

A few notes: 

When I make a translation, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything an author says. It's important to keep in mind that every author has their own agenda and writes about historical events and historical figures within the context of their own viewpoint. Aulard , as you will see, is a keen supporter of Danton, and he labels Herault as a Dantoniste throughout the entire chapter. Whether Herault should be considered as a strict Dantoniste is, in my non-professional opinion, up for debate. A lot of people are still not aware, for example, that he and Fabre d'Eglantine were arrested separately to, and before Danton and Camille were arrested, and it was only afterwards that it was decided that they should be tried together.

Aulard neglects to give sources for several of the statements that he makes and is very condescending towards Robespierre and Saint-Just. He also seems to try to justify Herault’s actions during the revolution by saying that he was mostly acting to keep Robespierre off his back. I personally think this is incredibly injurious to Herault, who was an active participant in the Revolution – we have no reason to believe, as many would like to, that he was only pretending to support the Revolution to survive, rather than because he genuinely believed in its principles.   

Also, apparently Herault bought a lottery office for one of his mistresses and I just … cannot deal with this man.  

Anything with an asterisk is my personal note/observation. I will take the time to remind every one again that my French is dismal and that is why I always link the original. Huge thank you again to @ans-treasurebox for helping me with translating parts of this and also to @orpheusmori who had to sit there and put up with me losing my mind over Herault on the Discord for several nights in a row.

 

Chapter VIII – Herault de Sechelles  

I 

Herault de Sechelles was the ornament of the Dantonist party. A man of the court and of noble family (1), a classical and lucid spirit, an orator enamored with academic elegance, he forms a perfect contrast with the rusticity of Legendre. When he was very young, he was introduced to Marie Antoinette by her cousin Madame de Polignac, pleased her, and obtained from her a position as a lawyer at the Chatelet. He won great success there through his talent for speaking and by the choice of his causes, calculated to interest the sensitivity of his protectors. "There is applause on all sides, says one of his biographers, at his eloquent indignation against the ingratitude of a pupil towards his tutor and against the odious behavior of an opulent girl who had abandoned her mother in need." 

(1) His grandfather had been lieutenant general; his father, colonel of the Rouergue regiment, had perished gloriously at the Battle of Minden (Jules Claretie, Les Dantonistes, p. 317). He was also a nephew of the Marshal de Contades (Souvenirs de Berryer, I, 1) 

In 1779, at the age of 19, he published Eloge de Suger. Serious and charming, he was soon called, by the favor of the Queen (1), to the post of Advocate General in the Parliament of Paris. The parliamentarians, he would say, hated him, either because of the rapidity of his fortune (2), or for his philosophism. 

(1) She sent him, it is said, a scarf embroidered with her own hand. - His last speech as a lawyer was a triumph: the magistrates and the audience accompanied him, applauding, to his carriage. Journal de Paris of August 7, 1785, quoted by J. Claretie, ibid. 

(2) La pere de Berryer's (ibid.) says that he had been appointed after a hard fight and he adds "He had justified this sudden elevation by the marvelous ease of speaking, which he had shown in various causes of brilliance." 

He did not believe himself out of place among the combatants of July 14, and he broke with the court party at the beginning of the revolution. At the end of 1790, he was elected judge in Paris, then he became commissioner of the king at the tribunal de cassation. A member of Parliament for Paris in the Legislative Assembly, he hesitated at first between the royalists and the Jacobins. On the 6th of October, he protested against the revolutionary decree issued the day before on the ceremonial of the royal session. Interrupted as an aristocrat, he was silent and observed in silence until the end of 1791. 

On the 29th of December, he delivered a speech on war, in which, in the manner of Brissot, but more briefly, he drew a picture of the state of Europe: according to him, each power was too poor to desire war. All the more reason to demand a lot, to summon the King of Prussia, to intimidate the counterrevolutionaries from within. Is he for war or for peace? Does he support Brissot or Robespierre? We don't know; but we can see in his somewhat equivocal words the Dantoniste policy: let's make war, but let’s be sure about making it, after having defeated the court. 

This speech pleased and, although ambiguous, rang true. From then on, Herault followed a democratic line. On the 14th of January, in response to the declaration of Pilnitz, he proposed to the Assembly an address to the people, in which the perfidy of the court was clearly indicated. As for the threats of Europe, France only had to rise to confound them. "Certainly, the French, after having taken such a high rank, will not resolve to descend to the last place; yes, the last, for there is on earth something more vile than a slave people, it is a people who become so again after having known how to cease to be so." 

On the 24th of January, he attacked the draft decree presented by the diplomatic committee in response to the Emperor's office: "I regret, he said, that the committee did not announce or rather reiterate the known resolution of France, which, as a consequence of her renunciation of any conquest, having also renounced to meddle in any way with the form of government of other powers, must doubtlessly, in the face of all mankind, expect the most perfect reciprocity; and when one will see a wise people regulating within its homes the form in which it suits it to live, leaving peace to its neighbors and seeking order for itself; if ambitions, vengeance, dare to arm themselves against the happiness of such a people, the world, posterity, history, by pitying them, will avenge them, and will mark with eternal opprobrium their vanquished enemies and even their conquerors, if there could be any.” 

This elevated and diplomatic language made an impression and the Assembly voted the draft decree of Herault, by which the king was invited to declare to the emperor that he could henceforth treat with him only in the name of the French nation, to ask him if he wanted to remain the friend of the French nation and to give until the 15th of February to respond. 

He was twice rapporteur for the legislation committee: on the 22nd of February, on ministerial responsibility, the conditions of which he discussed pleasantly; on the 7th of April on the acceleration of judgments in cassation. 

At the beginning of July 1792, the gravity of the circumstances had led the Assembly to add an extraordinary commission to the diplomatic and military committees. The diplomatic qualities of his words led Herault, on the choice of his colleagues, to be designated for the drafting of the report relating to the declaration of the homeland in danger, a report which would be read with passionate attention by all of Europe (July 11). "Our most important business, he said, is to go to war soon, and not to wait for a chance or a set back which, however slight, might make some of the powers who are now mute observers, but whose diplomatic correspondence shows us, perhaps in the distance, secret hopes and a prudence subordinated to fortune, determine to be against us. Let us therefore produce a great movement, let us deploy a formidable apparatus, let us interest each citizen in his fate: let’s call, it is time, all over the fatherland, all the French, all those who, having sworn to defend the Constitution until death, have the happiness of finally being able to carry out their oath. The fatherland is in danger, and this single word, like the electric spark, hardly left within the national representation, will resound the same day in the 83 departments, will rumble on the heads of the despots and their slaves; and this single word will repel their attacks, or will victoriously support the negotiations, if, however, these are negotiations that we can hear and which in no way alter the immutable sanctity of our rights.”  

In a more critical than enthusiastic spirit, Herault examines the objections that could be made to this declaration; he exposes them with a gift of objectivity very rare in this time of passion. He ends with a sufficiently warm oratory: "When, under Louis XIV, despotism, seconded by the genius of Turenne, held in check four armies at the same time, let us believe with confidence in the cause of the human race and in the miracles of freedom. Ah, gentlemen, a prophetic voice rises in my heart: we have sworn to be free; it is to have sworn to conquer! Called, in the face of the universe, to stipulate the rights of humanity, let us avenge these sacred and imperishable rights: I swear by these phalanxes which will gather from all parts of France, and by you, intrepid Gouvion, by you, brave Cazotte; and by all of you whom a death so beautiful and so desirable has reaped before the victory, under the walls of Philippeville; virtuous citizens, whose memory will henceforth preside over our destinies, and whose souls, quivering with joy in the depths of the tombs, will share in all our triumphs!”  

In matters of revolutionary enthusiasm, that is all that the noble and pure rhetoric of Herault de Sechelles can give. He understands, he interprets with truth the spirit of 1792; he is not under its influence. His reason approves of patriotic folly; his heart does not share it. There is in this beautiful spirit an inability to be moved, to vibrate with the same passions as the people. He admires Danton and would like, I believe, to possess his sympathetic verve; but, whatever he does, he mingles with the passions of the time only as a dilettante, with the reserve of a delicate observer, with a good will that is immediately cooled by a innate decency. His friend Paganel said that he distinguished himself from the men of his party by "his liberal education, his gentle affections, the tastes and the urbanity which reveal the beautiful forms of his body and the noble and brilliant features of his face". (1)  

(1) Paganel, II, 247. Cf. Souvenirs du pere du Berryer, I, 176 “Herault de Sechelles was not forty years old in Year II. He was one of the most handsome men in France, tall, dark-faced, very noble; he had the manners of the court." 

Indolent, selfish, he pleased everyone, even the fiercest sans-culottes, who forgave him his status as a ci-devant because of his modesty, his affability, and the pleasant turn he gave to the most revolutionary measures. Paganel, believing to praise him, judges him severely "He spared, he says, all opinions, and appropriately took, but only for his defense, the colors of each party." No, Herault was not a hypocrite (1), but an epicurean who tasted the flower of each opinion in turn, an eclectic to whom it seemed that all sides were right, but that there was more common sense and good faith in that of Danton. He loved life; but he did nothing ugly to avoid the guillotine. His laziness explains what is undulating in his politics, and Paganel was truer and shrewder when he wrote "laziness dominated over all his tastes, and the love of women over all his other passions. His speeches to the tribune, his work on the committees, were many victories he won over himself, were so many thefts from his pleasures. Herault lavished a life which promised him only brief pleasures. He was always ready to lose it. He felt that the genius of the Revolution would prevail over his precautions and his prudence; and each event warned him of his destiny. He spared himself the terrors of it, by filling with much existence the few days which were counted to him..." 

(1) This reputation came to him from the contrast which was noticed between his political gravity and his private playfulness. Saint-Just would say hatefully in his report: "Herault was serious in the Convention, a buffoon elsewhere, and laughed incessantly to excuse himself for not saying anything". And Sieyes wrote in his intimate notes: "Brilliant with his success, H. de S., in his distraction, looked like a very happy funny fellow, who smiled at the irascibility of his thoughts" (Sainte-Beave, Causories du Lundi, t. V).” 

Mais c’est la Herault tel que le fit la crise meme de la Terreur.* In 1792, he is still smiling and optimistic. It does not seem that the fall of the throne moved him. On the 17th of August, he traced with a rather bold hand the first draft of the revolutionary tribunal. His educated voice mingled with the great voice of Danton in the work of national excitement which marked, in August 1792, the dictatorship of the Cordeliers and Girondin patriots. His proclamation on the capture of Longwy (August 26) is not lacking in emphasis, any more than the noble letter he wrote on September 10, in his capacity as president, to the widow of the heroic Beaurepaire. 

*This sentence has eluded my ability to translate.  

In the first six months of the Convention where he represented the department of Seine-et-Oise, his speeches were rare. Elected president on the 2nd of November, he was sent with Simon, Gregoire and Jagot, to Mont Blanc. He was still there during the trial of the king, whom he condemned, it is said, by letter, but without saying to what penalty. The Convention liked to be presided over by this man of noble face and conciliatory manners. They put him at their head on two important occasions. It was he who presided temporarily, in place of Isnard, on the night of May 27 to 28, when the commission of the Twelve was broken up for the first time. On the 2nd of June, he replaced the tired Mallarme in the chair, and had the sad honor of guiding the Convention in the walk it took in the Tuileries Gardens and the Carousel, to make people believe that it was free and to save its dignity. It was therefore to the beautiful Herault that Hanriot made his crude reply "The people did not rise to listen to phrases, but to give orders." 

He was made a deputy to the Committee of Public Safety on the 30th of May "to present constitutional basics". On the 10th of June he tabled the famous draft Constitution, improvised with so much haste. Circumstances alone made the short and dull report he read on this subject famous. There is only one original idea: the establishment of a national grand jury, to which each department would appoint a member, and whose function would be “to protect the citizens from the oppression of the Legislative Body and the Executive Council.” This article was rejected on the 16th of June at the request of Herault himself, who declared that he had always considered the institution of the a national jury to be very dangerous. This is the first time that a reporter has admitted to having an opinion other than expressed in their report. And yet, on the 24th of June, he proposed in his name an additional article: of the censorship of the people against its deputies and of its guarantee against the oppression of the legislative body. This system contained the single Chamber, counterbalanced it as a second Chamber, and tended to the same end as the "national jury". This bicameriste insistence of Herault served as a theme for the Robespierrist Jacobins to slander him. "We remember, Saint-Just would say in his report, that Herault was with disgust the mute witness of the work of those who drew up the plan of the Constitution, of which he skillfully made himself the shameless reporter." (1) 

(1) Yet Couthon praised Herault’s attitude on the committee to the tribunal (26 brumaire an II). 

Yet nothing would alter the favor he enjoyed at the Convention. Re-elected to the Committee of Public Safety, on the 17th of July he made this chimerical and Jacobin proposal, inspired by the beautiful dreams of Jean-Jacques, at which his skepticism must have made him smile to himself, "Citizens, you decreed this morning that the house of the traitor Buzot, in Evreux, would be razed. The Committee of Public Safety thought that it was necessary to celebrate the return of freedom in this city by a civic festival, in which six young virtuous republicans will be married to six young republicans chosen by an assembly of old men. The dowry of these young girls will be provided by the nation". The Convention adopted the proposal. 

As we can see, his talented pen didn't hesitate to align with the ideas of others. There was even one instance where he acted as a rapporteur to interpret the underlying opposition of the Robespierrists to Danton's inclinations. On August 1st, 1793, Danton had proposed the establishment of the Committee of Public Safety as a provisional government, seeing in this unity of dictatorship the most effective means to defend the nation and the revolution. Hérault had too much political acumen and was too much a friend of Danton to hesitate in opposing the anarchic and disorganizing spirit alongside him. Nevertheless, he allowed himself to be influenced and presented a report against his master's proposal, contributing to its rejection on August 2. 

On the 9th of August, by a singular favor, the Convention called him once more to the chair. They wanted her noblest and finest speaker to appear and speak in their name at the national holiday, which was held the next day in honor of the acceptance of the Constitution by the people. It was a new federation. Mixed with an immense retinue in which there were delegates from all the primary assemblies of the Republic, the Convention went slowly to the Champ de Mars, according to the program created by David, and stopped at six solemn stations, in front of the fountain of regeneration, in front of the triumphal arch erected in honor of the women of October 6, at the Place de la Revolution, at the Invalides, at the altar of the fatherland, and finally in front of the monument for the warriors who died for the fatherland, at the Champ de Mars. 

Herault thus delivered six speeches which shone more by the high decency of the expressions than by the internal feeling. He moved the people, however, when he addressed the dead soldiers: "Ah! how happy you were! You died for your country, for a land dear to nature, loved by heaven; for a generous nation, which vowed a dedication to all feelings, to all virtues; for a Republic where places and rewards are no longer reserved for favor, as in other states, but assigned by esteem and by trust, you have therefore fulfilled your function as men and French men; you entered the tomb after having fulfilled the most glorious and desirable destiny that there is on earth; we will not outrage you with tears.” 

The spirit of this festival, as reflected in the speeches of Herault de Sechelles, was entirely philosophical and naturalistic: "Oh Nature! exclaimed the friend of Danton, receive the expression of the eternal attachment of the French for your laws, and that these fertiles waters that spring from your breasts , that this pure drink that watered the first humans consecrate in this cup of fraternity and equality, the oaths that France makes to you on this day, the most beautiful that the sun has lit since it was suspended in the vastness of space.” 

The inspiration of the six speeches of the president of the Convention had no deist, spiritualist character: it is the indirect negation of the ideas of Rousseau, the glorification of the positivist tendencies of Diderot. One can imagine what sadness, sincere and respectable, Robespierre must have experienced at this demonstration which already foresaw the Feast of Reason. I admit that he, who was born to preach, was envious of the role of great philosophical pontiff that the Dantonist Herault played that day. But it was a deeper feeling, a believer's pain that kindled in him that hatred, of which the harmless and amiable haranguer was to be the victim. 

II 

From then on, [Herault] felt himself watched by the symbolic and frightening eye which figured on the banners of the Jacobins, and he saw that Robespierre was watching him. He immediately darkened the color of his presidential speeches, but without carmagnole. Soon he had himself sent on a mission to Alsace, and he wrote, from Plotzheim, on 7 Frimaire Year II, in Jacobin style: "I have taken all possible measures to raise the department of Haut-Rhin to the level of the Republic. The public spirit was entirely corrupted there. Intelligence with the enemy, aristocracy, fanaticism, contempt for assignats, speculation and non-execution of the laws everywhere: I fought all these scourges, I suspended the department, created a departmental commission; I forced the popular Society to regenerate itself; I broke up the surveillance committees, the least of which were feuillants, and I replaced them with sans-culottes; I organized here the movement of terror which alone could consolidate the Republic: I have created a central committee of revolutionary activity, which requires the rapid action of all the authorities; a revolutionary force detached from the army and which covers the whole department; a revolutionary tribunal, finally, which will bring the country to its senses. " 

Thus declaimed this delicate,* for reason as much as for personal prudence: we know, moreover, that he was not rigorous to the aristocrats of Alsace and that he did not shed a drop of blood (1). 

*Aulard uses delicate here as a noun and I’m genuinely not sure what to translate it as. Possibly he means fop, or dandy, possibly someone who is tricky or someone who is tactful, as in a “delicate situation”. However, these are only my suggestions and possibly inaccurate.  

(1) Cf. Hist. De la Revol. Fr. Dans le departement du Haut-Rhin, par Veron-Reville, 1865, in-8.  

But, since the feast of August 10, Robespierre had been weaving a skillful plot against him and was trying to undermine the Dantonist party through him. His plan, indicated in his intimate notes (2), was to make Herault pass for a spy for foreign powers in the Committee of Public Safety.  

(2) Le proces des dantonistes, par le docteur Robinet, pass. 

The care which this serious spirit took to learn about all foreign affairs, his continual handling of diplomatic papers, might give some pretext to the accusation of communicating to the enemy the plans of the revolutionary government.  

As it happened, like everyone else, he had had relations with Proly, bastard of the Prince of Kaunitz. On 26 Brumaire, Bourdon (de l'Oise) echoed these rumors, and dared to say to the Convention: "I denounce to you the ci-devant attorney general, the ci-devant noble Herault Sechelles, member of the Committee of Public Safety, and now commissioner in the Army of the Rhine, for his liaisons with Pereyra, Dubuisson and Proly." But the mine burst too soon: there was a general protest, and Couthon himself had the honesty to pay homage to the patriotism of Herault. 

However, an incident had occurred in Alsace, which gave pretext to enormous calumnies. In Brumaire, a letter was intercepted at the outposts of General Michaud's army, who sent it to Saint-Just and Lebas, in Strasbourg. Signed: the Marquis de Saint-Hilaire, this letter tended to lead people to believe in intelligence between the people of Strasbourg and the enemy. The trick was crude. But how to make Saint-Just listen to reason? He immediately imprisoned part of the authorities of Strasbourg, and left in his post only the mayor Monet, and a deputy. A second letter arrived immediately, same signature, dated Colmar, 7 Frimaire Year II. The mayor was reproached for not having yet delivered the city, despite the money received: and the "marquis de Saint-Hilaire" added: "I have only been here (in Colmar) to talk to our friend Herault, who promised me everything." 

On the spot, the representative Lemane, who had replaced Saint-Just and Lebas in Strasbourg, had the mayor arrested and, insultingly, sent the letter to Herault. [Herault] brought together the authorites and the popular Society of Colmar and, in a long speech, warns them against the machinations of the royalists, adding that he asks for his recall. It was, among the patriots of Alsace, a cry of pain, for Herault had made himself loved during his mission. But he was exasperated by Lemane's suspicion (1). 

(1) Veron.Reville, pass.  

Back at the Convention, he was all the more anxious to justify himself because his colleagues on the Committee displayed an insulting distrust of him. Young Robespierre claimed to have brought back from Toulon a document which proved the betrayal of his college: "Ah! how could I be vile enough, cried Herault, to abandon myself to criminal liaisons, I've only had one intimate friend since the age of six. Here he is! (pointing to Lepelletier's painting) Michel Lepelletier (2) O you, from whom I will never part, whose virtue is my model; you who were, like me, the butt of parliamentary hatred, happy martyr, I envy your glory. I would rush like you, for my country, to meet the daggers of freedom; but were it necessary that I were assassinated by the dagger of a Republican? - Here is my profession of faith. If having been thrown by the chance of birth into this caste that Lepelletier and I have not ceased to fight and despise is a crime which I must atone for: if I must, I still have the freedom to make new sacrifices; if a single member of this assembly sees me with suspicion at the Committee of Public Safety: if my prorogation, a source of continually recurring hassles, can harm the public thing before which I must disappear, then I pray the National Convention to accept my resignation from this Committee." 

Not one of the accusers answered a word; the Convention not only passed on the agenda on the resignation of Herault, it ordered the printing of his speech (9 Nivose). 

(2) assassinated Lepelletier, like Marat, had only admirers. In reality, Herault could not bear his vanity, and mocked him. This president, after 89, refused one day to sit at the same table as a simple prosecutor. We find the comic account of this incident as it took place at Herault’s house, in Oeuvres completes de Bellart, VI, 128. 

This triumph did not stop the calumny. On 11 Nivose, Robespierre wrote in his own hand and had Collot, Billaud, Carnot and Barère sign this letter to Herault, "Citizen colleague, you had been denounced to the National Convention, which sent this denunciation back to us. We need to know if you persist in the resignation which you have, it is said, offered yesterday to the National Convention. We ask you to choose between perseverance in your resignation and a report of the Committee on the denunciation of which you have been the object: because we have here an indispensable duty to fulfill. We await your written repudiation today or tomorrow at the latest." These hypocritical threats did not intimidate Herault: he did not resign, and the Committee made no report. 

The documents of young Robespierre, we have them: they are in the Archives. These are Spanish papers seized by one of the cruises on an enemy ship: the name of Herault is not even stated there. It is to be believed that the famous threatening letter had no other purpose than to force Herault to reveal himself, in the event that, as was hoped, he would be guilty of high treason. We can guess Robespierre's rage, his confusion, in the presence of this disappointment. His audacity knew no bounds: on 26 Ventose, Herault was arrested with Simond for complicity with the enemies of the Republic and relations with a citizen charged with emigration. The next day, on a summary report from Saint-Just, the Convention ratified this arrest, but did not decree it until 11 Germinal with the Dantonists. 

In the meantime, the innocence of the defendant had come to light: the emigre whom he had been accused of hiding in his home was none other than his own secretary, Catus, appointed by the Committee of Public Safety and who, if he had crossed the border, had only been able to do so for a diplomatic mission. They were careful not to confront Herault with this. Moreover, Saint-Just's report of 11 Germinal did not make the slightest allusion to this grievance, which had been the official cause of the Dantonist's [Herault’s] arrest. It was not even brought up at the revolutionary tribunal. (1) 

(1) Cf Robinet, 349-352.  

In order to ruin Herault, it was necessary to resuscitate the old grievance formerly disavowed by Couthon, and to accuse him of complicity with the foreigner. Saint-Just dared to say: "Herault, who had placed himself at the head of diplomatic affairs, did everything possible to avert the projects of the government. Through him, the most secret deliberations of the Foreign Affairs Committee were communicated to the foreign governments. He had Dubuisson make several trips to Switzerland, to conspire there under the very seal of the Republic.” 

It was not easy for the men of the revolutionary tribunal to color the condemnation of Herault who had exclaimed proudly, in the style of Danton: "I challenge you to present the slightest clue, the slightest adminicle possible, to make me only suspect of these communications." (2)  

(2) Asked about his name and where he lives: "My name is Marie-Jean, a name not very prominent even among the saints. I sat in this room where I was hated by parliamentarians." Accused of complicity with Chabot and others, he confined himself to denying that he had knowledge of the affair. The court did not insist. But it must be recognized that Herault's notorious intimate relationship with the Abbe d'Espagnac made an unfavorable impression. 

They then read to him the famous papers seized on a Spanish ship, two letters from Las Casas and Clemente de Campos, Ambassador of Spain, in which Herault was mentioned by name as an agent of the foreign country. The unfortunate replied: "The tenor of these letters, the perfidious style in which they are written, sufficiently indicates that they were fabricated abroad only to make patriots into suspect and to ruin them. And certainly, the trap is too grossly overstretched to let myself get caught up in it!" Now, and this is not the least infamy of the Robespierreists, the prosecution had not hesitated, in order to ruin Herault, to insert his name in the two Spanish letters, to fabricate all the passage where his accomplices were supposed to reveal his name. We have said it: these papers are in the Archives, M. Robinet published them, and there is no question of Herault’s involvement. 

Asked about his mission in Alsace and about his negotiations in Switzerland, he replied, according to Topino-Lebrun, that he had worked, with Barthelemy, for the neutrality of Switzerland, and protected France from an army of 60,000 men. . -And Dubuisson's mission? It was Minister Defeorgues who gave it to him. -And Proly? - "I never communicated to Proly anything in politics, there was none (sic). Moreover, I had to confront myself with Proly. I was deceived, like Jay Sainte-Foix, like the Convention, like Jean-Bon, who wanted to take him on as a secretary, like Collot d'Herbois." And he added: "Like Marat, Proly was carried in triumph. The Convention, by a solemn decree, received my explanations."  

Then came the insignificant accusation of having corresponded with a refractory priest. To which Herault replied that this priest, being a simple canon, could not be submitted to the oath and therefore could not be refractory. Finally, in a sort of peroration, he recalled what he had done and suffered for the Revolution. "It is here," he said, "the moment to invoke my services, to remind my judges of this Constitution which has cost me so much sweat, this Constitution accepted by all good French citizens as making them happy:  It is by this Constitution that I saved the fatherland, and I can tell the French what a Roman general said: At this time, in which I have saved you, let us go to the Capitol to give thanks to the gods. These were not the only services I rendered to the fatherland: I was seen on the memorable day of July 14, 1789." Here, either foolishly or by malice, the Bulletin defers these six lines that conclude Herault’s defence to the next issue: "On July 14, 1789, I had two men killed beside me: I have not ceased to be pursued by the royalists, and especially in my mission in Sardinia. I was appointed judge, to the great regret of all the counter-revolutionaries who shuddered with rage; and when I accepted this post, it was necessary to have had courage to fill it." 

All accounts agree that Herault was imperturbable in the midst of these dreadful debates. Condemned, he said coldly: "I expected that!" And later, approaching Camille, who was choked up and foamed with rage: "My friend, let's show that we know how to die." On the cart, according to Desessarts, "he was placed alone on the last seat; he carried his head high, but without any affectation; the most beautiful color shone on his face. Nothing announced the slightest agitation in his soul: his eyes were gentle and modest, he cast them around him without seeking to fix attention or to inspire interest. One would have said, seeing him, that cheerful ideas were occupying his imagination." 

III 

Such was the political career of Herault, much inferior to the personal merit of this distinguished man, one of the finest natures that appeared at the end of the eighteenth century. His philosophical opinions were those of Diderot, for who, a little denigrating, he wrote an unreserved eulogy (1). 

(1) Voyage a Montbar, etc., au IX, in-8, p. 107-108.  

They were also those that Buffon expressed to him in 1785: "I have always named the creator, said the great writer to him in an intimate outpouring; but you only have to remove this word, and naturally replace it with the power of nature, to give rise to two great laws: attraction and impulse (2).” 

(2) Ibid., pg. 36.  

The same philosophical freedom appeared in Herault's conversation. Shortly after 89, the lawyer Bellart, invited to the house in Epone, was scandalized by the remarks which he heard there. "The master of the house rested from the impieties with the obscenities. Finally, in two or three days, I discovered that he was materialistic to the highest degree." Bellart took it into his head to convert him and delivered to him a tirade as orthodox as Sganarella's remonstrance to Don Juan: "Don't be afraid," replied the other; although materialistic I will still take care of you, if necessary (3)." 

(3) Oeuvres de Bellart, tom. VI, p. 125-129. 

In frimaire Year II, Vilate attended a conversation between Herault and Barere on the supreme goal of the Revolution. Herault placed himself above all from a philosophical point of view. He already saw "the reveries of paganism and the follies of the Church replaced by reason and truth." "Nature, he said, will be the god of the French, as the universe is its temple." He therefore expressed his intimate feelings when, on the feast of August 10, surrounded by all his colleagues, he addressed an official prayer to Nature. On his mission at Colmar, he had made a proclamation "to replace, he said, false religions by the study of nature", and issued a decree which made the decadi obligatory, and instituted a festival of Reason in each canton capital (4). 

(4) Sciout, Hist. De la Constitution civile, III, 741.  

To the Robespierrist animosity aroused by such opinions, it would have been necessary to oppose pure and rigid mores. But this delicate* (perhaps entirely disgusted) lived in an elegant orgy. He was the titular lover of the beautiful and famous Sainte-Amaranthe. He knew the art of living together in peace, around him, several young women whom his beauty had fascinated. He made them wear his colors, yellow and purple, and the ultra-Jacobin Vinent denounced in his journal the impudence of this debauched young patriot. He himself confesses all this in gallant letters published by La Morency, the authenticity of which is indisputable. 

*Same issue with the use of the word delicate.  

Even if her style did not reveal the truth of Herault in every line, what interest would Morency have had, in 1799, in forging the documents with which she decorated her autobiographical novel of Illyrine? (1)  

(1) Illyrine ou l’ecueil de l’inexperience, an VII, 3 vol., in-8. 

Certainly, neither the mores nor the style of this cheerful woman are recommendable. It was she who wrote, with her French and her heart: "We are only happy by doing: it's my morality." But there is an air of truth in the confidences which is further accentuated by the author's thoughtlessness. Yes, the mistress of the conventionnel Quinette was too silly to imagine the details, so probable, so vivid, of her affair with Herault, she who could only support Illyrine's reputation by gross plagiarism (2). 

(2) When she saw the handsome Dantonist, she thought she saw, she said naively, the god of love, the graces of Apollo. Invited to dinner with Quinette, in the luxurious apartment of Hérault, she admired the large library, the elegant living room, the outfit of the young conventionnel "his redingote de levite of bazin anglais, lined with blue taffeta."* 

*Redingote de levite is a type of jacket/coat, while bazin anglais is a type of fabric.  

The story of the visit she made to him at the Convention on the day when he was named president (November 2, 1792) is a piquant tableau of the mores of the time. She handed him, shortly afterwards, a petition in favor of divorce, which Herault read to the Convention and, he said, caused applause. But, a few days later (November 29, 1792), the gallant president was sent to the mission. "It is from the Committee of Public Safety, with the horses at the carriages, that I am writing to you, dear and beautiful; I am leaving at this moment for Mont-Blanc with a secret and important mission...". And, after having spoken to her of his mistresses and of the perfidy of Sainte-Amaranthe, he ended thus: "Adieu, Suzanne. Go sometimes to the Assembly in memory of me. Adieu. The horses rage, and one believes me nationally occupied, while I am only in love with my very dear Suzanne." 

When Herault returned, everything was his, and he bought a lottery office for his mistress, for which the security of 30,000 francs was lent, she affirms, by the Abbe d'Espagnac. It hurts to see Danton's friend take pleasure in such base intimacy which bordered on cynicism. La Morency has innocuously traced the picture, quite Pompeian, of the erotic distractions of his orgy comrades. No less naively, she explains this shamelessness: "It is rather to kill himself, she says, that he takes pleasure to excess, than to be happy." Herault said to her, probably in the first weeks of 1794 "Sinister omens threaten me, I want to hasten to live; and when they tear me from life, they will think they are killing a man of thirty-two: well! I will have eighty years, because I want to live for ten years in one day!". 

It must be admitted: this epicureanism, so indecent in such circumstances, gave color and force to the Robespierrist accusations and compromised Danton's party. But should we see in Herault, as in such a friend of Hebert, a wallowing brute? "Elegant writer, says Paganel, he devoted to letters all the time he stole from the tastes that dominated in him." I have not been able to read Eloge de Suger, which he published at the age of twenty-nine; but his Voyage a Montbar (1785) is an exquisite piece in every respect, in which Buffon lives whole again, man and author. In there, Herault does not show himself, as Sainte-Beuve said, "a light, unfaithful and mocking spy" (1), but an observer and a painter. By the fine truth of his insights, he is ahead of Stendhal, whose dryness and precision he has. A laborious writer, he constantly pursues brevity and simplicity, and he achieves the strength of Chamfort, with more breadth of intelligence and a concern for general insights that he perhaps owes to his association with Buffon (2). 

(1) Causeries de Lundi, IV, 354.  

(2) In 1788, he published (or rather had printed) le Codicile politique et pratique d’un jeune habitant d’Epone. Revised in prison, this work was not widely distributed to the public until 1801 under the title Theorie de l'ambition. These moral reflections, influenced by a philosophy that is a little too positive and dry, offer a pessimism that is tempered by a good-toned irony. M. Claretie has already pointed out the most remarkable of these maxims as well as a chapter on conversation, where Herault characterizes the most ingenious conversationalists of the end of the eighteenth century and the ideal orator as the one who would summarize the different kinds of spirit of Thomas, de Delille, de Garat, de Cerutti, d'Alembert, de Buffon, de Gerbier and a few others, lawyers or actors. This is the school where he trained and learned to please. 

This very modern spirit, turned towards the future, à la Diderot, does not drag scholarly chains after him; he does not have the superstition of Latin, the adoration of Greco-Latin legend. But he knows how to enjoy the past, and tastes true erudition, for example in the Abbe Auger, the translator of Demosthene, for who he pronounced an elegant funeral oration, at the Societe des Neuf-Souers, in 1792. At a time when the University no longer taught Greek, and perhaps for that very reason, Herault says true things about Demosthene, whom he judges as a politician as much as an artist. "The Revolution, he says, by developing our political ideas, made us appreciate the works of some ancients and enjoy all their genius, a measure which we lacked." 

He admires in the Greek orator "this proud and sensitive soul, which carries within it all the dignity and all the pains of the fatherland: this general movement, without which there is no popular eloquence, where the accessory relations, tightly packed, roll on high in periods which compensate for the extent of the ideas by the precision of the style.” But here, it is of himself that he thinks and it is his own talent that he designates when he says: "Never, above all, he never ceased to equal, by his efforts, this beauty, this continuous perfection of language, that happy mechanism, so familiar to the orator that he could not even cease to be elegant in the most impetuous apostrophes, in the most vehement outbursts: a rarer merit than one might think, because it is due to a particular kind of spirit, and mainly to the address which is the gift of multiplying the force by distributing it. Here we recognize Buffon's ideas on oratorical style. 

He himself had made up, for his own use, a kind of rhetoric which was found in his papers and which the Magasin encyclopedique published in 1795. These are practical precepts, recipes distributed without order, but which bear the mark of experience and whose interest is all the greater since Herault is the only orator of the Revolution to whom we owe a technique of his art. There is a question that first fascinated those who inaugurated the political forum in France: Should we read the speeches or say them? Both methods had supporters: some used them alternately depending on the circumstances. As for improvisation, even those who abandoned themselves to it seemed to excuse themselves for it as if it were negligence: so Herault, who by the way hardly improvised, only poses the alternative, read or say? - “It is only by speaking, he remarks, and not by reading, that one can make what one says truly perceptible, this is the custom of the lawyers of the Parliament of Bordeaux; otherwise, one flounders; the ideas relax, weaken and soon die out. This is what happens to M. de Saint-Fargeau: hence the easy word of most lawyers who are so fond of talking about business. To reconcile the need for a full and concise style with the other, I think you have to learn by heart. It is true that it is costly, but glory is at the end, and that is the way to surpass both those who speak and those who write." 

Memory is therefore the first part of public speaking. But how should one learn a speech? 

"I meditate on it, says Herault, the main idea, the accessory ideas, their number, their order, their connection, the plan of each part, the divisions, the subdivisions of each object. I dare to affirm that it is then impossible to make a mistake. If one forgot the speech, one would be in a condition to repeat it on the spot; and how much moreover the rhythmic sentences, a little ornamented, a little brilliant, in a word all that strikes the self-esteem of the one who must speak, are they not engraved in the memory with extreme ease!” 

"A very useful and very convenient procedure, to which you must get used to, to make up your mind quickly and to remember a multitude of ideas at the same time, is, when you have these ideas, to retain from each only the word that carries, and whose mere memory reproduces the entire phrase. Voltaire said somewhere: "The best words are the couriers of thoughts". Applying this adage here in another sense, I would say that you have to get your brain used to needing only head words [mot tetes] throughout the whole range of longer discussion." 

"To learn by heart, this word pleases me. There is, in fact, only the heart which retains well and which retains quickly. The slightest thing which strikes you in place makes you retain it. Therefore, the art would be to hit each other as much as possible."* 

*The French here reads: L’art serait donc de se frapper le plus qu’il serait possible. I genuinely have no idea if he means that we should be hitting each other with the force of our words … or actually physically hitting each other. Either could be possible with this man.  

"To write. The memory remembers better what it has seen in writing. Make it like a painting where one reads in the way that one speaks." 

"Memory is also aided by figures: thus count the number of things you have to learn, in a speech, for example." 

"I have also experienced that it was very useful for me to speak to remember a speech; I often tried to speak in public for an hour, and sometimes two, without any kind of preparation. I came out of this exercise with a singular aptitude, and it seemed to me in those moments that if I had had to give a speech, which I would have only read, I would have come out of it with a great advantage.” 

After memory, action seemed to him the most important part of eloquence. When he first started out as a lawyer, he had taken lessons from Mademoiselle Clairon. "Do you have a voice?" she asked me, the first time I saw her. A little surprised at the question, and moreover, not really knowing what to say, I answered: "I have one like everyone else mademoiselle. - Well! you must make one for yourself." Here are some of the precepts of the actress, which Herault tried to follow: "There is an eloquence in sounds: study above all to give roundness to your voice; so that there is roundness in the sounds, you have to feel them reflecting against the palate. Above all, go slowly, simple, simple!" She said to him: "What do you want to be? An orator? You must be one everywhere, in your room, in the street." She also gave this advice, purely scenic and bad for a speaker: "To dye the words with the feeling that they give birth to." 

Herault says that he constantly thought of Mlle Clairon's voice, and he characterizes his own manner by recalling that of his teacher: "She takes her voice from the middle sometimes softly, sometimes forcefully, and always in such a way as to direct it as she pleases. Above all, she often moderates it, which gives it the slightest brilliance that makes it shine. She goes very slowly, which contributes at the same time to furnishing the mind with ideas, grace, purity and nobility of style. I maintain that there is, in speech, as in music, a sort of measure of tones which helps the mind, at least mine. I have felt that going quickly offends and prevents the exercise of my ideas..." "... Do not believe that this is a real slowness. One disguises it, sometimes by force, sometimes by warmth that we give to certain words, to certain phrases. The result is a pleasing variety, but the bottom line is always serious and posed." 

Such was his concern to speak well that for a long time he compelled himself to declaim in the morning the fury of Orestes and the whole role of Mahomet, to the point of scratching his voice: in the evening he felt a strong diction, easy and varied. He neglected no means of training. 

He carefully studied the gesture itself. Clairon said to him: "Your type is nobility and dignity in the supreme degree. Very few gestures, but place them appropriately, and observe the oppositions which bring out the changes in gestures." He himself said: "The multiplied gesture is small, is meager. The broad and simple gesture is that of true feeling. It is on this gesture that you will be able to convey a great movement." These notes contain even more practical remarks on action: "It is important to be firm on the feet which are like the base of the body, and from which all the assurance of the gesture proceeds. One cannot practice too much in one's room to walk firm and well under oneself, legs on feet, thighs on legs, body on thighs, back straight, shoulders low, neck straight, head well placed. I noticed that in general, gestures become easier when the body is tilted. When it is straight, if the arms are long, there is a risk of lack of grace. The mid-length gesture is infinitely noble and full of grace. Don't wiggle your wrists, even in the biggest movements. Before expressing a feeling, make the gesture (1)." 

(1) The most technical remarks follow: "The soul of the arm is in the elbow ... It is in the elbow that the movement necessarily begins. - When you want to raise your arm, raise your elbows: let it be in general level with the hand. - Also open your arms. These open gestures open beside the body are better than those made in front of you. - By raising your elbow you round your arm. - Also lower your head to make it easier to raise the arms. The gesture is in the combination of the head and the arm. Raise the arm all at once, that is to say, the arm and the hand together. Make the gesture often before speaking: that there often remains an end which can still rise when you have spoken. Open and spread fingers announce astonishment, admiration, surprise; add to it also the elevation of the chest which expands to receive the idea that strikes it.”  

Finally, here is a piece of advice which reveals the secret of the disdainful grace with which he appears on the platform: "You must always seem to create what you say. You must command in words. The idea that one speaks to those inferior in power, in credit and above all in spirit, gives freedom, assurance, even grace. I once saw d'Alembert in a conversation at his house, or rather in a hovel, for his room deserved no other name. He was surrounded by cordons bleus,* ministers, ambassadors, etc. What contempt he had for all these people! I was struck by the feeling that the superiority of the spirit produced in the soul." 

*Cordon bleus are blue ribbons, i.e. members of an order of knighthood known as L’Ordre des Chevaliers du Saint-Esprit. 

This rhetoric of Herault, so ingenious, explains the pleasure of his eloquence; it also explains its weakness. This orator, so preoccupied with training himself, with raising his head, with rising to the height of the subject, does not have in him the sources of oratorical inspiration, always ready and from which a Danton, a Vergniaud, and even lesser haranguers, rise up. I don't believe that he lacks conviction, nor that we should believe in the words that Bellart attributes to him: "When we asked him what party he was from, he answered that he was from the one who doesn't give a fuck about the others." No, there was sincerity in him about his philosophical and political preferences. But he did not have that revolutionary faith which transfigured even the most miserable in times of crisis.  

In his Traite sur l’ambition, he distinguishes between male brains and female brains; I believe that he should be placed, whatever has been said of it, in the second of these two categories. 

[lepartidelamort]

La télévision belge stoppe la diffusion de l’Eurovision lors du passage de la chanteuse d’Israël

La télévision publique flamande a agi en urgence contre l’opération de propagande juive à l’Eurovision.

Ces juifs chantent pendant qu’ils exterminent des civils innocents.

Ces juifs sont des démons.

En démocratie, la liberté des uns s’arrêtent là où commence la suprématie juive.

Les Européens ne sont pas autorisés à arborer des drapeaux palestiniens à l’Eurovision. C’est là que leur liberté prend fin. Tout le monde apporte un grand drapeau pour la finale.

La juive qui représente le régime génocidaire de Tel Aviv en Belgique est folle de rage.

#VRT Honte à vous

Ne serait-ce que pour contrer ces gens méprisables qui ont pris l’espace télévisuel pour diffuser des mensonges anti-Israël aux téléspectateurs du concours de l’#Eurovision.

Votez #14 pour Eden.

Les juifs s’assurent que les plus belles juives les représentent à l’étranger.

On imagine pas la télévision française s’aventurer à une telle action.

La formidable Greta Thunberg a dit les mots justes.

Pourquoi les juifs peuvent-ils participer à l’Eurovision tandis que la Russie en est exclue, alors qu’ils sont en train de perpétrer un génocide ?

Poser la question, c’est y répondre : les juifs contrôlent le système occidental.

Avec la nouvelle phase du génocide qui a débuté à Rafah, les démocraties vont se retrouver dans une situation intenable. Leurs discours sur le « droit international » n’aura plus aucune crédibilité.

Démocratie Participative