#breaks anciens

[inmate-24601-911]

Broken on the wheel.

[nesiacha]

In your post on 10 August you correctly pointed out how often the violence under the Ancien Régime gets always overlooked and you mentioned the Beast of Gévaudan, the deliberate repressions by Louis XIV or Louis XVI, the repression of the Flour War. What happened during these events?

Warning: Regarding the case of the Beast of Gévaudan, there are some shocking elements related to the criminal investigation. So, please refrain from reading if you feel uncomfortable with this. Sensitive souls should refrain from reading this part of text. I want to mention that I am not very knowledgeable about the Ancien Régime, so feel free to correct or add to what I say (especially regarding the Flour War).

Dragonnades under the reign of Louis XIV to force Protestants to convert to Catholicism ( The engraving dates from 1686 and is by Engelmann, Les nouveaux missionnaires)

Ah, here we are again, discussing the Ancien Régime. There are many things to say (some of which are positive; we should also fight against the demonization, but I will limit myself to starting with the period under Louis XIV rather than Henri IV).

Louis XIV, what can be said? Well, ironically, if we want to better study the issues that led to the Revolution, it starts with him (in my eyes). I will quickly touch upon his reign and the reasons why he wanted an absolute regime (due to the trauma he experienced as a child during the trials he endured during the Fronde, under the regency of his mother and Cardinal Mazarin). One day, I came across a phrase on a forum that I found revealing about the reigns of Louis XIV, Louis XV, and Louis XVI. It said something like, "Louis XIV creates the debt, Louis XV manages it and passes it on to his successor (Louis XVI), who, due to his character and actions, causes the Revolution to break out." Although reality is more complex, I think this phrase aptly describes the origin of the massive debt of the Kingdom of France.

His wars financially drained the kingdom of France, showing that, in reality, wars of conquest can be more harmful than beneficial due to their expenses, especially if the territories do not bring in revenue (at least when Tsar Peter the Great waged war against the Turks, it was to gain access to the Sea of Azov for long-term commercial purposes). By the end of his reign, the state was financially ruined, all due to excessive conquests and wars that could have been avoided. Let's not even talk about horrific episodes like the Sack of the Palatinate in 1689 and how he alienated foreign powers. Here’s what Voltaire had to say on the subject: "This beautiful country was ravaged under Louis XIV for the second time; but the flames with which Turenne had burned two towns and twenty villages in the Palatinate were mere sparks compared to this final conflagration. Europe was horrified. The officers who carried it out were ashamed to be the instruments of such cruelties" (excerpt from The Age of Louis XIV).

This led to several revolts due to the increasing tax burden, the most notable of which was in Brittany. It is important to note something about Brittany and taxes. In 1491, Duchess Anne of Brittany married Charles VIII. France then annexed the Duchy of Brittany, but in return, Brittany retained a fiscal system specific to the former duchy, and no additional levies could be imposed without the agreement of this former duchy.

Louis XIV violated this fiscal exception and increased taxes as part of his war against Holland. This led to what would be called the Revolt of the Red Bonnets in Brittany, and across France (as there were other zones of insurrection like Grenoble, Bordeaux, Pau, Besançon), it would be known as the Stamp Paper Revolt in 1675, triggered by the ever-growing misery of the population. The revolt in Brittany was the most significant, with castles being attacked and uprisings against their lords. On July 2, the rebels demanded the abolition of seigneurial abuses, among other things, and proclaimed a Peasant Code, which included a series of texts, some of which apparently echoed aspects of the grievance lists of 1789.

The repression in Brittany was brutal. Six thousand men were sent to crush the rebellion. There were hangings, and some were sent to the galleys. The body of one of the leaders, Le Balp, was exhumed to be desecrated. Other leaders were tortured before being executed. The suburb of Saint-Malo was deemed too rebellious.

In October 1675, the city experienced violence, apparently at the hands of Louis XIV’s troops. Residents of certain streets were expelled to the point where the Marquise de Sévigné wrote, "Do you want to know the news from Rennes? An entire large street was driven out and banished, with the threat of death if they were taken in, so that one could see all these miserable people—old men, women who had just given birth, children—wandering in tears as they left the city." On February 5, 1796,

In his absolute control, Louis XIV sought to annihilate any rebellion. Under Louis XIV, there were 40,000 deserters, Protestants, counterfeiters, and salt smugglers condemned to the galleys, which was a horrific ordeal.

For criticizing absolutism, the theologian and tutor of the king’s grandson, Fénelon, fell out of favor. To better eliminate any opposition, a new position of Lieutenant General of Police was created in Paris, tasked with not only surveillance but also reforming justice to extend cases that could be judged directly by the King’s judges. During the inquisitorial process, the investigation was secret (which, as a law student, I admit can have both positive and negative aspects) and confessions were extracted, including through the use of torture (terrifying and horrible).

The Code Noir of 1685 authorized and even justified slavery with the goal of increasing the production of mineral and agricultural wealth.

The Edict of Nantes, which had allowed Protestants to live in peace, was revoked by Louis XIV. This led to the "dragonnades," a method in which "dragons," or royal soldiers, were forcibly quartered in the homes of Protestants considered heretics, using all possible means to force them to convert. I can hardly imagine the brutalities committed in the homes of these victims to obtain so many abjurations from the Protestants so that these soldiers would leave.

When Louis XIV died, he was deeply unpopular. Misery was widespread, and the peasant class could barely survive. In the event of climatic accidents, famine and mortality rates were extremely high, particularly in 1694 and 1709.

It is easy to see that the seeds of the Revolution were already being sown under Louis XIV. In 1694, there was the Red Bonnets uprising, and barely a century later, the Revolution and the overthrow of the monarchy, and the uprising of the slaves. We can clearly see where the first seeds of the Revolution began to germinate.

The fight of Marie-Jeanne Vallet, known as the “Maid of Gévaudan”, against the beast. Sculpture by Philippe Kaeppelin.

Now we come to the case of Louis XV, and one example that struck me the most about the dysfunction of the country is the affair of the Beast of Gévaudan (though there are many others, and more important ones). This remains one of the most mysterious criminal cases that has never been solved. However, this example highlights another dysfunction of the Ancien Régime beyond slavery, famine, religious intolerance, and repression. It is simply the issue of security in the face of the crime that the lower class suffers in certain areas.

France had just come out of the Seven Years’ War (an extremely deadly conflict), relatively defeated by England and financially ruined. The incident took place in the county of Gévaudan (which is in the province of Languedoc). The area included the Margeride, a difficult-to-access region with mountain ranges and marshes. In Gévaudan, life was harsh, predominantly populated by peasants; life was very tough, life expectancy was very short, children started working very early, and the peasant class primarily sought to survive.

But it’s the problem of crime that will be highlighted here (so I won’t go into too much detail about the affair of the Beast of Gévaudan). However, it’s necessary to explain this criminal case to better understand what follows. This case is complex, and the aim is not to explain it fully but rather to show the attitude of King Louis XV’s government, which tends to indicate what could be called willful criminal negligence. Therefore, the mystery of the Beast of Gévaudan is quickly summarized, and if you’re interested in understanding the case from an "investigative" perspective, you won’t find it here (it would take at least two to three pages), especially for suspects and theories explaining this mystery.

It all began in June 1764. A shepherdess living in Langogne was attacked by a beast. She owed her life to the cows that charged to protect their calves. The most striking thing is that the beast completely ignored the cows to focus solely on her. She survived, but it was the beginning of a long series of attacks. The beast was described as a wolf with a black stripe down its back (even today, it’s unclear whether it was a dog or a wolf). This was surprising because the inhabitants were always close to wolves, and no attacks had been recorded.

The beast went on to claim several victims, some of whom were horrifically devoured alive in front of helpless witnesses. Some survivors were scarred for life, and several children died.

Initially, King Louis XV took the matter very seriously: he sent one of his close associates, François Antoine, and enormous resources were employed. However, when the beast was not conspicuously absent, bullets seemed to bounce off it, or it got back up (one of the reasons for speculating that the beast had been trained by a human, as the black stripe could have come from a boar’s hide used as a protective cuirass against pistol bullets). Very questionable means (to put it mildly) will be used such as poisoning the corpses so that the Beast of Gévaudan eats it and poisons itself. But it doesn't work. Then, on September 20, 1765, François Antoine (or one of his aides) killed the beast. Witnesses and survivors of the attacks confirmed it was the Beast of Gévaudan (about twenty of them). However, it had killed on the other side of the river, where it had not been very active. Despite this, Louis XV declared that the affair was over and that the Beast of Gévaudan had been killed. And yet, after a period of calm due to the winter (when herds were less exposed), the attacks resumed with even greater intensity in the spring, with more and more victims. The attacks were concentrated mainly in the Margeride.

This is where we see the indifferent side of the Ancien Régime. For the monarchy, which had been ridiculed by the Beast of Gévaudan, the matter was closed. Officially, the Beast of Gévaudan had been killed, and with censorship in place, there was no mention of other attacks by the beast after 1765. On gravestones, it was now forbidden to say that a victim had been killed by the Beast of Gévaudan. There would be no more assistance, and the inhabitants were left to fend for themselves. One must be cautious, but we can speak of willful criminal negligence: to save face, the monarchy pretended to ignore the deadly attacks and even censored news about the affair. Fortunately, the Marquis d’Apcher continued to organize hunts to kill the beast at his own expense. But his resources were not those of a state and therefore very limited. The attacks officially ended in June 1767. A man named Jean Chastel ended the Beast’s life under strange circumstances (I don’t want to accuse deceased people with little evidence; it’s just that some facts make him seem suspicious, while others exonerate him, especially since in those superstitious times, he was looked down upon for reasons we’d find foolish today. For example, he apparently didn’t attend church much, although when Marie Danty, a 12-year-old girl with whom he was friendly, was devoured alive, he began attending church and had his bullets blessed. He could read and write, which was rare for someone of the lower class, and he was allegedly the son of a healer, whom some called a witch. On the other hand, when Marie Danty died, he swore he would be the one to kill the Beast of Gévaudan, and according to some witnesses, when the beast saw him, it simply sat down, whereas when it was present, it wouldn’t let itself be caught. Moreover, its black stripe had disappeared, although survivors had said it had one. However, I ask that we avoid making accusations against Jean Chastel out of respect for his descendants,while there is a high probability that he is innocent , we cannot make accusations without evidence).

Another frightening aspect of France in this affair is that not all the crimes were committed by the Beast of Gévaudan. It’s clear that at least several murderers committed acts that were blamed on the Beast, especially considering how some victims were killed. In fact, Margeride was notorious for its lack of security, its criminality, and the maréchaussée (mounted police) had only just been established, with many brigands or worse. The last crime attributed to the Beast of Gévaudan was actually committed by a human who killed a woman, Marianne Thomas, in 1777. The woman, in her agony, said it was the Beast. But in reality, it was a man disguised as the Beast, wearing fur, who had committed the crime. So, in addition to famine, it seems that the Ancien Régime either did not want to or failed to ensure that the maréchaussée was effective in protecting the lower class.

Another negative aspect of Louis XV’s regime was the continued religious fanaticism. During the attacks of the Beast of Gévaudan, some believed the beast was the result of divine punishment for the inhabitants’ sins (another theory said that the beast of Gévaudan was suckling a werewolf and that silver bullets were needed to kill it) . There was the infamous case of Calas, where a father was tortured to death because he was Protestant, accused on very doubtful, if not nonexistent, evidence. Then there was the affair of the Chevalier de la Barre, in which a young nobleman was tortured and executed for the crime of blasphemy (desecration of a crucifix) and it seems that it was not sure if it was him who did that, not to mention the sect of the White Penitents in Toulouse, who were a model of intolerance at that time. Additionally, the Church owned at one point 6% of the land in the Kingdom of France and profited from it, while the state coffers did not benefit. Not to mention other legitimate criticisms that could be made against the Church.

Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (French school, Palace of Versailles) (1727-1781)

Finally, here is the Flour War under Louis XVI. Ironically, the minister at the heart of these events was the most competent of Louis XVI’s ministers. Turgot is considered, in a way, a reformer (in fact, part of the nobility hated him for this), but also a liberal. There was much speculation because the monarchy was stockpiling grain. Turgot instead decided to impose the free circulation of grain. However, the poor harvests of 1773 and 1774 led to a significant increase in prices. This further deepened the misery of the peasants, as bread was their staple food. Consequently, riots broke out, with bakeries being looted and grain stocks seized. In response, 25,000 soldiers were deployed, leading to 548 arrests and the execution by hanging of two rioters: a 28-year-old wigmaker and a 16-year-old boy guilty of kicking a bakery door. The execution of these two scapegoats shocked the crowd.

So, my opinion on Turgot is that he was one of Louis XVI’s most competent ministers and the one who, among all his successors, had the people’s best interests at heart. But he was neither a political genius nor an engaged man like the revolutionaries who would take over after the Ancien Régime (at least many of them). I’m going to deliberately provoke by saying that if he was in the most committed political class concerning the Absolute Monarchy, he would likely have been on the far right during the French Revolution (though less conservative than Necker, for sure). But I’m probably being unfair because he died before we could know what he would have done, knowing that he didn’t play a false role as a friend of the people like Necker did, but rather acted more in favor of reforms, unlike the latter.

However, I must point out, in defense of Louis XV and Louis XVI, that absolutism had its limits in the form of the Parliaments, and they had to delegate certain powers to the Parliament. Yet, the Parliament opposed some necessary reforms for the people to ensure that the nobility could maintain its privileges while pretending to be friends of the poor people (we can clearly see where Necker learned this attitude).

P.S: I didn't mention the repression following the Reveillon affair, due to the events of April 26 to April 28, 1789 as it wasn't ask.

Sources: Antoine Resche For the Beast of Gévaudan: YouTuber Lionel Camy, who is very knowledgeable about criminal cases he explains. His video on the Beast of Gévaudan was excellent.But that does not prevent us from seeing historians given that Lionel Camy is more specialized in the analysis and theories of crime. Thierry Aprile

[racefortheironthrone]

Would you put Louis XIV as overrated?

Oof, that's a tough one.

It's particularly hard to answer because the reign of the Sun King also saw the tenure of some of the most influential chief ministers in French history: Mazarin, and Colbert.

While perhaps not quite as famous as a certain cardinal whose schemes kept getting foiled by the Three Musketeers, these guys were world-historically important.

Mazarin was Richelieu's political heir, and brought his predecessor's policy of using the Thirty Years War as a way to break the back of Hapsburg dominance to a successful conclusion. The Peace of Westphalia not only served as the foundation for modern international relations, but also expanded France's position in Alsace and the Rhineland - especially when Mazarin pulled off an anti-Hapsburg alliance with the new League of the Rhine.

At the same time that France was winning the Franco-Spanish War, which won them a big chunk of territory in the Low Countries around Artois, Luxembourg, and parts of Flanders, and all of the territory north of the Pyrenees Mountains including French Catalonia. It also got Louis XIV the hand of Maria Teresa, which would eventually create the catalyst for the War of Spanish Succession and the War of Austrian Succession...

And while Mazarin was doing all of this, he was also busy crushing the Fronde uprising led by le Grand Condé, which he eventually accomplished in 1653, and creating a formidble system of centralized royal government through the intendants that ended the power of the feudal nobility.

As for Colbert, he was the guy who figured out how to pay for all of this. The single biggest reason why economists need to shut the fuck up when they talk about mercantilism, Colbert was the financial and economic genius of his age. Remember all those canals I'm so crazy about? Colbert built them. Specifically, he was responsible for the Canal des Deux Mers, transforming France's economy by linking the Mediterranean to the Atlantic.

He also turbo-charged France's economic development by restructing public debt to reduce interest payments and cracking down on tax farmers, reforming (although not ultimately solving) the taxation system of the Ancien Régime by using indirect taxes to get around tax evasion by the First and Second Estate, equalizing (but not ending) internal customs duties, and putting the power of the state into supporting French commerce and manufacturing. This included significant tariffs to support domestic producers, direct public investments into lace and silk manufacturing, and the creation of joint-stock corporations like the French East India Company. (This also meant Colbert's direct promotion of the slave trade and the Code Noir in order to generate hugely profitable investments in Haitian sugar and tobacco plantations for import into France and the rest of Europe.)

This makes it a little difficult to separate out what credit belongs to these guys versus the guy who hired them. What I can say is that Louis was directly responsible for Versailles, but also for the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

[tanadrin]

that last post was getting long as it was, and this wasn’t central to my point, but:

i don’t think the existence of a center of power alternative to the aristocracy is, on its own, going to set the conditions for what we think of as modern liberal democracy. it was part of the winding journey between the ancien regimes of europe and the liberal democratic present, but much of europe managed to be pretty dang illiberal even while the new middle class and the aristocracy were duking it out in the 19th century! that was bismarck and metternich’s whole deal, to try to find a way to put to use the merchants and industrialists of their respective countries without actually having to break up the aristocratic order, and they managed to thread that needle for a surprisingly long time

and i don’t think the fear that redistributive functions of the state will turn suddenly to authoritarianism is really very sensical. there are plenty examples of right-wing authoritarianism that aren’t strongly ideologically in favor of redistribution. the fear that expanding medicaid or whatever will lead to the state kicking down your door and dragging you off to a FEMA concentration camp is something you see on the hardcore libertarian right in american politics, but among historical examples of authoritarian regimes, robust social safety nets are neither a necessary prerequisite, nor exclusively a left-wing phenomenon (von bismarck was instrumental in establishing modern germany’s system of universal healthcare!)

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Ney, éperdu, grand de toute la hauteur de la mort acceptée, s'offrait à tous les coups dans cette tourmente. Il eut son cinquième cheval tué sous lui. En sueur, la flamme aux yeux, l'écume aux lèvres, l'uniforme déboutonné, une de ses épaulettes à demi coupée par le coup de sabre d'un horse-guard, sa plaque de grand-aigle bosselée par une balle, sanglant, fangeux, magnifique, une épée cassée à la main, il disait : « Venez voir comment meurt un maréchal de France sur un champ de bataille ! » Mais en vain ; il ne mourut pas.**

Victor Hugo

I've always had a soft spot for Marshal Ney. Napoleon had said: "He is as weak as he is brave and his excessive ambition gives him a hold. Ney is the bravest of men." And so he was.

It was at the battle of Waterloo, roughly at 4pm, Marshal Ney noticed quite the sight. Ahead of him, Wellington's centre appeared to be folding and looked like the beginning of an organised retreat. Aware that the British were not decisively defeated, he rallied a cavalry force of roughly 9,000 and prepared a charge to cut down the fleeing British.

Why cavalry alone? After all, this was a Marshal who served under an Emperor who heavily advocated for cavalry to be used alongside infantry and artillery, and never alone. Wanting to take advantage of an opportunity, Ney needed to act quickly. The reality of the situation was most of Napoleon's infantry was already committed in other areas of the battle, and so Ney hoped to break Wellington's centre with cavalry alone.

British infantry were made quickly aware of the masses of cavalry forming along the French lines and retired behind the crest of the hill where they formed into square formations. So as not to repeat the failures of the French gunners, British gunners were ordered to take shelter in the squares and take their positions again once the charge faded away.

The square formation was deadly, though not impenetrable. A concentrated cavalry attack had the potential to break through the 'walls' of the square, but as one would expect such a feat is difficult. The British squares were thus arranged in such a fashion that neighboring squares could support one another, creating 'corridors of death' by forcing French cavalry down and around the sides of the square so as to retain their momentum.

Captain Rees Gronow of the British Foot Guards commented on the charge that it was 'n overwhelming, long moving line, which, ever advancing, glittered like a stormy wave of the sea when it catches the sunlight … one might suppose that nothing could have resisted the shock of this terrible moving mass.'

Without support, Ney's initial charges were unsuccessful. His attacks were repeatedly repelled both by the steadfastness of the British squares and the successful counter charges by British and Dutch cavalry, and what remained of the Household Cavalry.

Napoleon, witnessing the disaster, commented that the charge happened an hour too early.

Among the generals who covered themselves in glory during the Revolution and the First Empire, there is none whose male and heroic figure inspires more sympathy than that of Marshal Ney. But he didn’t achieve the glory he wanted that day at Waterloo. For that he did pay the ultimate price.

For Marshal Ney's life was intimately linked to the political and military events of France, from the end of the Ancien Régime to the Restoration. It was he the king sent to stop Napoleon when he escaped Elba and landed back on French soil. Loyal though he was to France itself he was was unable to cope with the political upheavals of the Hundred Days. Faced with the difficult choice between two loyalties, to the King and to the Emperor, he chose Napoleon.

At Waterloo where Marshal Ney charged five times at the head of his cavalry, vainly seeking death on the battlefield. Instead he died by firing squad by the restored Bourbon monarchy at the age of 46, judged by his peers in a hasty manner, even though he was destined for a glorious death on the battlefield, in the heat of the action, as he had always wanted.

Ney, distraught, tall with all the height of accepted death, offered himself to all the blows in this turmoil. His fifth horse was killed beneath him. Sweating, flame in his eyes, foam on his lips, his uniform unbuttoned, one of his epaulettes half-cut by a horse-guard's sabre stroke, his grand-aigle plate dented by a bullet, bloody, muddy, magnificent, with a broken sword in his hand, he said: "Come and see how a Marshal of France dies on a battlefield! But in vain; he did not die.**

[josefavomjaaga]

Bakerman Soult

Recently, somebody wondered about Soult’s brief but much talked-about attempt at becoming a baker. I believe the one source we have for this is the book "Histoire anecdotique de Jean-de-dieu Soult" by Anacharsis Combes, a friend of the family and local historian from the Tarn region. It was written only after Soult’s death, and presumably with lots of input from Soult’s friends and relatives. So, the story is probably family lore.

Young Jean-de-dieu had joined the military at the age of sixteen (barely) already in 1785 (either February or April), i.e., under the Ancien Régime. Before the Revolution, however, as a mere commoner he had no chance of ever rising very high in rank, and so after two years, he had a change of heart.

Jean-de-Dieu Soult, a sergeant in the Royal Infantry, however, did not find the benefits of a military career that he had hoped for. At that time, the prospects were very limited. The lower classes did provide non-commissioned officers, but the higher ranks were the almost exclusive preserve of the nobility or of a few bourgeois who bought them at a premium. It is not surprising, therefore, to see the children of the people, after a few years of service, return to their families and remain there for good. Such was the intention of Jean-de-Dieu Soult in 1787. Having come to Saint-Amans to see his mother, he expressed his desire not to leave her again, and told her of his plan to establish himself with her as a baker.

Because where do children go, when they are at a loss? To mum, of course. As a matter of fact, after the battle of Waterloo, with ultra-royalists on the lookout for him, where did Soult try to go? Home to mum! (Yes, his mother Brigitte was still alive in 1815.)

All his arrangements had already been made; he had just dealt with the construction of an oven; all that remained was for him to get clear with the captain who was responsible for his person. For this purpose he went back to the castle of Larembergue. There the difficulties began. The officer who, like all the others sent on half-yearly duty, was obliged, on returning to the corps, to bring back two enlisted men or to pay one hundred francs for each one, refused to break the engagement; but he promised to speak to the mother of the young sergeant, in order to prove to her that the military state was suitable for her son. Some friends intervened; one of them said to him: "But, you wretch, you want to stay here, we are all starving!" Another told him about the precarious state of his family, which he was alleviating by moving away. A third finally spoke to him in the name of his personal qualities, of his very incomplete education undoubtedly, but suitable to make of him something other than a lousy village labourer; he reminded him above all of his beginnings, which he had already made with a certain distinction. Soult made up his mind; the treaty was maintained and he left for the army, retaining for the rest of his life a perfect gratitude for the interest shown to him by his enlisting captain, Monsieur Gazel de Larembergue.

And that was that. Seems Soult’s promising career at the oven was already over before it had even begun.

[redsolon]

Real Democracy

Despite liberal claims, Athens wasn't the source of our modern bourgeois states. Even the most democratic of the liberal democracies is only a "democratic republic", a marketing gimmick if there ever was one. Athenians did not recognize republics as democratic, but as what they are: oligarchies. Republics have always emerged out of the desire of elites to divide political power fairly among themselves. Key to this project has always been the maintenance of the ruling class as a ruling class, and the prevention of any one faction within it from siding with an outside class force to overthrow them. Greek Tyrannies, despite the inevitable dysfunction of hereditary rule, usually came to power on the back of popular discontent, as a way to discipline the aristocrats and force through reforms.

Election is a filter process that privileges the most eloquent, the most well-connected, the most acceptable and personally appealing, and those with the most time and resources (which in a settler-colonial context, means able-bodied cis-het white men). Unless re-election is forbidden, once in office an official can use their position to enhance their wealth, influence, and notoriety, and thus increase their odds of getting re-elected. Thus the "democratic" office becomes a kind of property, even hereditary property. The ideal of election says that the people own the office, but the reality shows that the incumbent political class do.

While direct voting is a possibility, in reality asking everyone to vote on everything translates quickly into asking everyone to be a professional politician, or to spend all their free time obsessing over politics. This is unrealistic. Some claim that only having a motivated minority vote on any given issue is ideal, because the uninterested are usually both uninformed and unaffected; that the non-voting public implicitly consents to their concession of power. Anyone who's dealt with voter turnout has had to confront the material, social, and psychological barriers to voting, even for people who can be identified as having a material political interest in the issue--and yes, this also applies to ballot initiatives. Not everyone can be perfectly informed about every upcoming vote that affects them--and is that even how people want to live?

To concede to the limitations of voting-based systems is to accept that the most structurally disadvantaged people don't deserve a say, and that if people miss an opportunity to intervene in an issue that it turns out affects them after all, then they are out of luck. Statistical, demographic representation is the only system which guarantees everyone an equal chance to have a say at every level, regardless of background. It also possesses many of the benefits of electoral systems--a dedicated body of people who are employed full time to investigate an issue before voting on it--and some benefits beyond pure election--breaking the incentives for corruption and vote-buying. Both bourgeois and proletarian republics have shown the severe limitations of a purely electoral system. Even if we include election and direct voting in our systems, sortition needs to lie at the core.

During crisis, if delegates are killed, then every republic relies on unelected officials to be interim officials, breaking the system's legitimacy claims. Systems of mass voting require secure, wide spread vote collection and tabulation at all times. If the voting system is every disrupted, the entire system ceases to be democratic according to its own standards. Sortative bodies, however, can be reassembled at any time with no delay, and only require that the few individuals selected by lot are able to be escorted to wherever they'll meet (or that they have access to secure communications). No other system possesses such a high level of speed, efficiency, and robustness.

Remember: every ancient republic, and most modern, fell to reaction and tyranny. The Greek democratic model never fell to internal enemies, only to external invasion. In fact, while Rome fell to tyranny forever, Athens was the system which rectified itself after a brief period of tyranny. And from a communist perspective, sortition is the system which most embodies the Mass Line at large scales.

[eternalfarnham]

Standing before her original self's Popsicle-stick grave, Annette thinks, okay, I'm the real one. This prospect causing her no special distress or dissonance to contemplate, she realizes: man, this Theseus shit is easy.

Honestly, she hadn't expected to work through it so quickly, and likely wouldn't have if her amnesia hadn't been such a maturity upgrade. But it made sense, didn't it? The other girl had arrived an objective shit-ass, then after requisite formative experiences became a decent, likable person and darling of her hometown. Annette (who felt very satisfied with her new name, even if it was just for private use) had lucked out – had been a stroke of luck for everyone, she figured – because she had just the requisite formative experiences, minus the baggage of pre-Amphibia memories, skipping all the codependency and toxicity and pointless extra human content. She was a reformed kid making good without having ever been a bad one.

Hence the grave. She'd made it out of Popsicle sticks and stuck it in the abandoned playground where they'd left for Amphibia – in the sandbox, specifically, where it might be mistaken for an arts and crafts project by a morbid kindergarten kid. Annette regarded it, boundary-mark for the last unique and unclaimed moment of the other girl's life, and trusted that Marcy wouldn't ask too many questions when she got back. Maybe she'd assume Annette had lost a Wartwooder and was mourning in this way, which she of course hadn't, because if she had she would have killed every human in California and then herself. Some prospects just weren't worth considering. But the other girl deserved something.

Of course, Annette remembered remembering – remembered remembering often, for example, the heady adolescent cocktail that was the other girl's longstanding Waybright animus. Even prior to their escape there had evidently been some tension, judging by things Sasha said in the group therapy that Annette wasn't attending.

The Plantar basement had put a kibosh on that, mostly, but there were several homoerotic sword fights to compensate. And then of course Sasha'd seen her other codependent girlbestie die, reformed herself, started an entirely separate paramilitary organization from her first one like she was fucking Big Boss, and made good for all those ugly years of manipuatlion with an act of love sufficient to break the ancien regime of paradise, except, well –

The redemption had kind of fallen flat for Annette. She'd only caught the tail end of the movie. She could appreciate a worshipful and surprisingly obedient blonde girl with muscles like, Jesus, on account of all the paramilitaries, but Anne's Sasha minus context was just Annette's Cmdr. Waybright, a comrade in the magic frog war from a battlefield she'd never visit again.

[haggishlyhagging]

In important ways, a woman's behavior is less regulated now than it was in the past. She has more mobility and is less confined to domestic space. She enjoys what to previous generations would have been an unimaginable sexual liberty. Divorce, access to paid work outside the home, and the increasing secularization of modern life have loosened the hold over her of the traditional family and, in spite of the current fundamentalist revival, of the church. Power in these institutions was wielded by individuals known to her. Husbands and fathers enforced patriarchal authority in the family. As in the ancien régime, a woman's body was subject to sanctions if she disobeyed. Not Foucault's royal individual but the Divine Individual decreed that her desire be always "unto her husband," while the person of the priest made known to her God's more specific intentions concerning her place and duties. In the days when civil and ecclesiastical authority were still conjoined, individuals formally invested with power were charged with the correction of recalcitrant women whom the family had somehow failed to constrain.

By contrast, the disciplinary power that is increasingly charged with the production of a properly embodied femininity is dispersed and anonymous, there are no individuals formally empowered to wield it; it is, as we have seen, invested in everyone and in no one in particular. This disciplinary power is peculiarly modern: It does not rely upon violent or public sanctions, nor does it seek to restrain the freedom of the female body to move from place to place. For all that, the invasion of the body is well-nigh total: The female body enters “a machinery of power that explores it, breaks it down and rearranges it.” The disciplinary requirements through which the "docile bodies" of women are constructed aim at a regulation which is perpetual and exhaustive—a regulation of the body's size and contours, its appetite, posture, gestures, and general comportment in space and the appearance of each of its visible parts.

As modern industrial societies change and as women themselves offer resistance to patriarchy, older forms of domination are eroded. But new forms arise, spread, and become consolidated. Women are no longer required to be chaste or modest, to restrict their sphere of activity to the home, or even to realize their properly feminine destiny in maternity: Normative femininity is coming more and more to be centered on woman's body—not its duties and obligations or even its capacity to bear children, but its sexuality, more precisely, is presumed heterosexuality and its appearance. There is, of course, nothing new in women's preoccupation with youth and beauty. What is new is the growing power of the image in a society increasingly oriented toward the visual media. Images of normative femininity, it might be ventured, have replaced the religiously oriented tracts of the past. New too is the spread of this discipline to all classes of women and its deployment throughout the life-cycle. What was formerly the speciality of the aristocrat or courtesan is now the routine obligation of every woman, be she a grandmother or a barely pubescent girl.

-Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression

[jloisse]

🚨BREAKING : L'un des terroristes qui ont tué plus de 130 innocents lors de l'attentat contre la salle de concert de Moscou, Rustam Azhiyev, a été identifié comme étant un citoyen ukrainien et un "ancien" soldat. ⚠️

Poutine a également accusé l'Ukraine de préparer une "fenêtre" pour aider les suspects à s'échapper.

[vaia-uni]

Bon alors on fait ça comment déjà?

Ah oui…!

Je me présente, je suis Vaïa! (Enfin pas vraiment mais on va dire que c’est mon vrai nom pour le besoin de la cause 🤫)

Anciennement connu sous le nom de @vaiathemultiversequeen , compte que j’ai perdu d’ailleurs puisque il était sur mon ordi, ordi qui est malheureusement décédé, et que je peux pu me rappeler de l’email que j’avais utilisé et du mot de passe 😢. Bon…

Qu’est-ce qui a d’autre à dire? …Ah! J’ai pris un (très long) break de Tumblr à cause de ma santé mentale qui -disons le- n’allait pas très bien. Je suis revenue aujourd’hui, et peut-être pour un petit moment, parce que j’ai introduis un ami irl à Kaamelott et que bah- voila quoi! Y’a pas 36 façons de l’expliquer.

J’ai lu pendant des heures des fanfics Kaamelott, notamment celle de @superiorkenshi ou @kaantt , et pleins d’autres. Et ça m’a donné le goût de revenir sur Tumblr!

Bon, même si le timing est pas super puisque je pars en camps de vacances pour 3 semaines demain. Mais c’est pas grave, je reviendrais! (Enfin je l’espère)

Alors voila, ça résume à peu près ma situation. Du coup, je suis vraiment contente d’être revenu (même si on peut pas vraiment dire que j’étais complètement parti) et y’a pas vraiment d’autre chose à dire.

À part que je viens de regarder mes anciens post…et que j’étais vraiment cringe a l’époque 😖. Non mais “the multiverse queen”! C’était quoi l’idée?? 🧐

Dans tous les cas, hâte de pouvoir discuter avec tout le monde. Et de lire plus de fanfic sur Kaamelott!

~Vaïa

[ivaalo]

I have mixed feelings about TotK.

As a game itself, it was so great, it was an experience, it's one of my favorite video game ever.

But as a sequel, I think they could have done so much more.

The reason why I love this game is mostly because it takes the best of BotW and has one of the best story a Zelda game has written.

But when I started to play the game, I noticed a lot of stuff that made me worried. The fast weapon-select-screen is very slow to load, same for the hand powers.

You still have the shrines. Okay I prefer this aesthetic, but it's still a redesign from the previous game. Same for Koroks. There's gotta be a way to upgrade your inventory / hearts / stamina without coping-pasting BotW. The problem with shrines is that you know the result of your efforts before finishing it. And when you know you can cheat the puzzles, it makes it not rewarding at all, no matter if you do it the "intended way" or not.

The dungeons are lazy (level design speaking). It's always like "you have to activate 4 or 5 mechanisms and that's it". In other Zelda games, this would have been the final room, not the whole dungeon. Most of puzzles are skippable, so low satisfaction.

Narration is lazy too. You collect memories. Every cutscene after a boss is the same.

The depths. Why??? Why making a whole new map... with nothing in it??? At first I thought this was gonna be a scary underworld. Like you have all this gloom stuff, and you actually make the scariest shit ever, and you don't. It's just boreland. The only good things to do there is farming, collecting roots of shrines to see their emplacement and that's it. No, I'm not considering the fanservice tunics as a good thing. It's breaking the 4th wall as hell. Nothing rewarding here. Like yeah, I just beat that gloom Gleeok! What do I get? Something an Amiibo could have given me.

The sky is empty too. Maybe there should have been only the land and the sky, without the depths, and this would have been better, since more effort would have been put in the sky islands.

The lore is weird. As much as I love exploring the lore of Zelda games, in this one, I feel like the creators didn't have any idea of how to implement the Zonai here. Like if the Ancien Hero is a Zonai, why are Rauru and Mineru considered the last Zonai? Where is the Sheikah tech? Like even the walls of the Shrine of Resurrection disappears?? We can only theorize that everything Sheikah rose from the earth when needed and went back to the ground once BotW is over, but a simple random line of explanation would be great. Also time span between events??? 100 years from the Calamity is something, 10,000 from the Sheikah gold-age is insanely huge, and it wasn't the first time Ganon woke up. So Zelda travelled like what? 300,000 years ago?? You wouldn't understand the language of someone 300 years ago in your own country, this is just absurd. The ancient Hyrulean text cannot be read, but Zelda can understand Sonia perfectly.

Balancing. The upgrading stuff for your cloths are a copy-paste from the previous game, without balancing in consequence. Lizalfos's tails are rare as hell, and I need 36 of them. In BotW, this wasn't an issue, due to the abundance of Lizalfos and drop rate. This is an issue, in TotK.

Ambiance. This is supposed to be the Cataclysm. Except Yiga or Stal monsters (like BotW), no monster attack you if you don't approach them first. No attack in villages or forts. (Lurelin was already destroyed, and the Bazar was only a mission) Except Gloom hands, no enemy feels threatening. In BotW, the world was dominated by monsters and nothing changed until Link woke up. In this game, monsters are supposed to attack places and make their return, not just lay in Hyrule field waiting to get destroyed.

Other stuff, like if you gotta spend a lot of time in the air, why not having a boost module in your paraglider that you can upgrade, instead of Tulin's power?

Despite all of this rant, I loved this game. I just think they could have done so much more for a sequel, instead of copy-pasting stuffs from BotW. Reminder that this game took 6 years to develop. 7 years for BotW. Except BotW was all original. So yeah, kinda disappointed.

However, I want to say that I love this game with all my heart. The music, the cutscenes, the story, the bosses. It's pure blessing!

It's also bold of Nintendo to not care about the timeline anymore and make the BotW-TotK games separated from the established timeline.

It's hard to rank this game. I enjoyed it more than BotW, but deceptions (and the depth, which was a huge time-consuming chore) makes it so I don't want to replay it soon.

Wind Waker remains unbeatable.

[ggadtomarry]

I'm reading awesome Tom fics and my heart is breaking for my blorbo.

Baby needs a Harry to love him ASAP

Maybe he won't get that in those fics, but he will in many others AUs 🥰

Sincerely, what a tragic pain ridden life.

Also wizard class system is so crazy. They didn't have a French Revolution and it fucking shows. Fucking outdated crazy ancien régime with insane magic...

[annoying-shits-i-think-of]

Hey ! It's Gra- I mean Solomon's birthday🥳 Happy Birthday to Gra- I mean the most powerful Sorcerer 🥳🎊🎉🎊🎉🥳

In the Purgatory Hall's kitchen

Byleth : "So it's where you went, birthday boy."

Solomon : *groans* "You really need to stop talking like that. It's weird."

Byleth : "Tell that to my subordinate who introduced me to manga and otome games."

Solomon : *sighs* "Anyway, you still haven't told me about what you want me to create for you."

Byleth : "You're still on it ? I told you I don't need anything from you."

Solomon : "Are you sure ? Nothing ?"

Byleth : "If you insist again, I won't give you my birthday present."

Solomon : *smiles* "Alright. So what did you get me ?"

Byleth : "Asmodeus."

Solomon : "... I now understand Diavolo and Mephistopheles when you tease them about their love life."

Byleth : *shrugs* "What can I do about it ? You're all funny when you all get blushy."

Solomon : "I'm not blushing."

Byleth : "Sure. Anyway, here's my real gift." *hands him his gift*

Solomon : *eyes widden in his surprise* "Isn't it a rare book of old medicinal knowledge of the Devildom ? I heard there are only three copies that exist."

Byleth : "I got one as a reward. I want to give it to you earlier but the curse on it was so complex that I was only able to break it last week."

Solomon : *chuckles* "I always forgot you're good at breaking curses. But is it alright for me to have this ? Don't you fear I may use this knowledge against you or the Devildom ?"

Byleth : "Solomon, you may be the worst cook the three realms ever have,"

Solomon : *glares*

Byleth : "but you're a kind person. I know you'll only use this knowledge for good."

Solomon : *smiles* "Thank you, Byleth. For the book... and for trusting me."

Byleth : "You're welcome. Anyway, you need to go before Asmodeus and Alex come and whine about you not being at your birthday party."

Solomon : "What about you ?"

Byleth : "I need to take the juice I made for Luke."

Solomon : "Oh ! Can I have some too ? I love the juice you make."

Byleth : "... You remember that, for humans, it's like alcohol, right ?"

Solomon : "Of course."

Byleth : *sighs* "Alright. It's your birthday after all. Just promise me to not drink a lot of it. I don't want to be the one to knock you out when you'll try to summon an ancien god."

Solomon : *crosses his fingers behind his back* "Promise."

[josefavomjaaga]

Caroline intervenes on Hortense’s behalf

In her memoirs, Hortense often portrays Caroline Murat as her arch nemesis, a rival that did not cease to torment her due to her jealousy of Hortense. I’ve for a long time suspected that this may actually be projection on Hortense’s part. In appearance at least, Caroline and Hortense were close friends, calling each other »tu« in their letters, and after Hortense’s oldest son died, Caroline dropped whatever she was doing, jumped into a carriage and went to see and console Hortense.

This is another incident when she came to her aid. The birth of Hortense’s third son, (Charles-)Louis-Napoléon, future Napoleon III, had put the final nail into the coffin of her marriage, as Louis was convinced he was not the father of this baby. (As a matter of fact, he could not be, assuming a normal pregnancy of nine months.) He had returned to Holland alone and demanded Hortense send their second child, Napoléon-Louis (I really wish they had been a little more resourceful in the naming of their children) to Amsterdam asap. Which Hortense did not want to do.

At this point, it was Caroline who went to the chateau Marrac close to Bayonne (all of this happened during the coup that put Joseph on the throne of Spain) in order to talk to Napoleon about it and to help both her friend and her brother. As Napoleon writes:

Bayonne 17 July 1808

Princess Caroline has made me aware of how unhappy you are.

He then reassures Hortense that, according to law, the mothers take care of the children up to the age of seven, that he does not want to see his nephew go to Holland (because of the famously fatal Dutch climate), and suggests, regarding finances, she should demand from Louis what basically comes down to two separate households. Regarding private matters, he continues:

[…] Essentially, the King loves you, and maybe a firm and frank exchange with him would make him return »aux procédés«. However, you have the right to be happy and the King is too reasonable not to feel that there comes an age and a rank when everyone must be given their due. If all the details given to me by Princess Caroline are correct, there is a lack of a clear understanding in all this.

I have left the expression »aux procédés« in French because I am very unsure how to translate it in this context. It can mean »to normal behaviour«. It can also mean »to standard procedure«, which could hint at some form of pretense or arrangement about this marriage even before the open break-up between Louis and Hortense. I just don’t know, for some reason it feels like a curious expression to me.

However, the interesting sentence comes next: everyone (in this state of the marriage) must be given their due, i.e., must have the right to find happiness. I think what Napoleon refers here is an agreement like they were common in political marriages of the Ancien Régime: both spouses will still work together as far as family and business matters are concerned, but privately, they can go separate ways, including sexual relations.

Most interesting that it is, once again, Caroline who acts as a mediator, this time between her brother and her friend and who talks to Napoleon on Hortense’s behalf. It shows that she was both more influential and a much better friend than Hortense would admit in her memoirs.

[jpbjazz]

LÉGENDES DU JAZZ

RUSSELL PROCOPE, LE CLARINETTISTE OUBLIÉ

‘’Pendant plus d’un demi-siècle, il a fait chanter sa clarinette et son saxophone avec allégresse, reprenant chez Duke Ellington l’héritage de Barney Bigard dont il retrouve le swing léger, l’élégance naturelle et la tradition néo-orléanaise. Au saxophone alto, il s’exprime avec la même grâce, dans un style qui pourrait être un compromis entre la manière de Benny Carter et celle de Johnny Hodges.’’

- André Clergeat

Né le 11 août 1908 à New York, Russell Keith Procope a grandi à San Juan Hill, près de New York, où il avait étudié aux côtés de Benny Carter. Après avoir d’abord étudié le violon, Procope était passé à la clarinette et au saxophone alto.

DÉBUTS DE CARRIÈRE

Procope avait amorcé sa carrière professionnelle en 1926 avec l’orchestre de Billy Freeman. En décembre 1928, à l’âge de vingt ans, Procope avait fait ses débuts sur disque avec les Red Hot Peppers de Jelly Roll Morton, qui se produisaient alors au Rose Dance Land, une école de danse située à l’intersection de la 125e rue et de la 7e Avenue. Évoquant sa collaboration avec Morton, Procope avait précisé: “Jelly was the first’ man who ever fired me. I was a fresh kid, always arguing. Jelly. said, ‘I'm going to run this band or break it up.’ Well,’ I said, ‘looks like you're going to have to break it up.’ ‘O.K., ‘ said Jelly, ‘you're fired.’ That’ taught me you can rub people but you can't rub ‘em too far.”

Par la suite, Procope avait joué avec les légendaires McKinney's Cotton Pickers à Detroit, puis avec les groupes de Benny Carter, Chick Webb (1929–1930), Fletcher Henderson (de 1931 à 1934), Tiny Bradshaw, Teddy Hill (1935-1937), King Oliver et Willie Bryant. Décrivant sa collaboration avec Webb, Procope avait précisé: “Chick had the damnest jazz band you ever heard, as opposed to the commercial band he had when he got Ella Fitzgerald. In those days we didn't have money to buy music so we made head arrangements [that is, arrangements that were extemporized, not written]. It was better for jazz.”

On ignore souvent qu’un peu comme un joueur de baseball, Procope s’était joint à l’orchestre d’Henderson dans le cadre d’un échange avec le groupe de Webb. Dans le cadre de cet échange, Webb avait cédé Procope et le tromboniste Benny Morton à Henderson en retour du saxophoniste Benny Carter et du tromboniste Jimmy Harrison. Commentant la transaction, Procope avait déclaré avec humour: “It was great for me. It doubled my salary.”

Après la dissolution de l’orchestre d’Henderson en 1934, Procope s’était joint au groupe de Benny Carter avec d’autres anciens membres de l’orchestre. Par la suite, Procope avait travaillé durant un certain avec les groupes de Tiny Bradshaw et Willie Bryant avant de se joindre à l’orchestre de Teddy Hill en 1935. À l’époque, la section de trompettes du groupe de Hill avait été composée successivement de Roy Eldridge, Bill Coleman, Frankie Newton et Dizzy Gillespie. Les autres solistes du groupe étaient le tromboniste Dickie Wells et le saxophoniste ténor Chu Berry. C’est dans le cadre de sa collaboration avec le groupe que Procope s’était rendu pour la première fois en Europe en 1937. À l’époque, l’orchestre de Hill était très populaire faisait partie intégrante de la Cotton Club Revue, un spectacle entièrement composé de musiciens de couleur qui avait été présenté notamment au Palladium de Londres.

Après avoir quitté le groupe de Hill en 1938, Procope avait remplacé Pete Brown dans le sextet de John Kirby, avec qui il avait joué exclusivement du saxophone alto jusqu’en 1945 mis à part une brève période durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. C’est d’ailleurs avec le groupe de Kirby que Procope avait commencé à se faire connaître. Le groupe comprenait de grands noms du jazz de l’époque comme Charlie Shavers à la trompette, Buster Bailey à la clarinette, Billy Kyle au piano et O'Neil Spencer à la batterie. Surnommé "The Biggest Little Band In The World", le groupe combinait la précision à un son plutôt doux et était caractérisé par la qualité de ses solos. Décrivant sa collaboration avec le groupe, Procope avait commenté:

“Rehearsals were the making of the Kirby band. {Le violoniste} Stuff Smith was a big hit at the Onyx Club, but he was going on the road. The Kirby band was hired to fill in until then. By the time Stuff Smith came back, the Kirby Band had gotten so good that Joe Helbock, who owned the Onyx, wanted to keep it together but he didn't know what to with it. He told us; ‘Hang around a couple of months. I'll put you on half salary. Just come in in the afternoons and rehearse; get it all together.’ So for two months we did nothing but sit around and work up arrangements. Then when Stuff Smith left again, we were ready.”

Mobilisé en septembre 1943, Procope avait fait son service militaire dans le 372nd Infantry Regiment band.

En 1946, Procope s’était joint à l’orchestre de Duke Ellington en remplacement de d’Otto Hardick puis de Barney Biggard. Initialement prévu pour un seul soir lors d’un engagement à Worcester au Massachusetts, l’engagement de Procope s’était poursuivi jusqu’à la mort d’Ellington en 1974. Procope explique comment il s’était joint à l’orchestre:  

“Duke called me to take Toby Hardwick's place on alto saxophone for one night for a broadcast in Wooster, Mass. I played with Duke once before — in 1927 in a pickup band Duke had put together for .a one‐nighter in Baltimore. In Wooster, Duke said, ‘Since you're here, you might as well go to Providence with us and play a dance.’ Then there was another gig in New England and I played that. I was having a ball after those years in the Army, but after a week, I said, ‘Duke, who's supposed to give me some money?’ I never dreamed he really wanted me in his band. But 10 days later, in Hartford, Duke said, ‘I don't know what Toby Hardwick's going to do. I'd like you to stay.' and he finally hired me.''

Procope s’était de nouveau rendu en Europe avec l’orchestre à l’été 1950. À l’instar des autres membres de la section de saxophones du groupe à l’exception de Johnny Hodges et de Paul Gonsalves, Procope alternerait entre le saxophone et la clarinette. C’est d’ailleurs principalement comme clarinettiste que Procope s’était fait connaître du grand public. En effet, même si Procope excellait au saxophone alto et au saxophone ténor, il était surtout réputé pour la sensualité et la chaleur de ses solos à la clarinette, qui contrastait avec le style beaucoup plus froid et classique de Jimmy Hamilton. Sur la suite en trois parties "Idiom '59", Ellington avait d’ailleurs confié le premier solo à Procope et le second à Hamilton. Dans son autobiographie intitulée Music is My Mistress publiée en 1973, Ellington avait décrit Procope comme ‘’an utterly sober and reliable musician, always to be depended upon." Dans d’autres extraits de ses mémoires, Ellington avait ajouté:

‘’Russell Procope était une sorte d’enfant prodige. Il a commencé par étudier le violon, mais quand il a entendu l’orchestre de Fletcher Anderson, il a été emballé par le jazz ; cet engouement a grandi quand son copain d’école Benny Carter s’est mis au saxophone alto. Également attiré par la clarinette il a été séduit d’abord parle jeu de Buster Bailey au sein de l’orchestre de Fletcher, puis par celui d’Omer Siméon, enfin par celui de Barney Bigard quand il l’a entendu chez King Oliver et chez nous. On comprend pourquoi Procope est un maitre du style Nouvelle Orléans à la clarinette système Albert ! J’ai eu la grande chance d’employer des musiciens qui aimaient tellement leurs prédécesseurs qu’ils les ont imité. Quand Paul Gonsalves est entré dans l’orchestre, il n’a pas même eu besoin de répéter. Il adorait Ben Webster et connaissait par cœur notre répertoire. Idem avec Russell Procope et le jeu de clarinette de Barney Bigard.’’

Avec l’orchestre d’Ellington, Procope s’était particulièrement illustré dans des pièces comme ''Mood Indigo'', une composition de son prédécesseur Barney Biggard. Selon Procope, Ellington avait été impressionné par son solo. Il expliquait: ''After I finished my solo, Duke looked at me and applauded quietly. I never saw Duke applaud men in his own band.''

Comme il l’avait fait pour plusieurs membres de son groupe comme Johnny Hodges et Cootie Williams, Ellington avait composé plusieurs pièces expressément pour Procope, dont ‘'4:30 Blues'', ''Blues to Be There'', ''Second Line'' et ''Swamp Goo.''

En 1956, Procope avait enregistré son premier et seul album comme leader intitulé The Persuasive Sax of Russ Procope. Se produisant exclusivement au saxophone alto sur l’album, Procope était accompagné de  Remo Biondi à la guitare rythmique, d’Earl Backus à la guitare solo, de Paul Jordan au piano, de Mel Schmidt à la contrebasse et de Frank Rullo à la batterie.

DERNIÈRES ANNÉES

Même si après la mort d’Ellington en mai 1974, l’orchestre avait poursuivi ses activités sous la direction de son fils Mercer, Procope s’était joint au trio du pianiste Brooks Kerr. Le trio était également composé du légendaire batteur Sonny Greer, qui avait fait partie de l’orchestre d’Ellington de 1919 à 1951. Expliquant son départ du groupe, Procope avait précisé: ''I joined the band because I wanted to play with Duke.'' Procope, qui avait toujours rêvé de faire partie de l’orchestre d’Ellington, avait déjà déclaré qu’il ‘’jouait mentalement’’ avec le groupe depuis son enfance à Harlem et qu’il achetait tous les disques de l’orchestre au moment de leur parution. Il expliquait: “When I eventually Joined Duke almost 20 years later, I had been mentally playing with him all those years. When I was a kid and I had 75 cents, I would buy a Louis Armstrong or a Duke record. I'd go into the store and just. say, ‘Give it to me.’ I wouldn't even play it first.”

Procope avait quatorze ans lorsqu’il avait entendu Ellington jouer pour la première fois au Lincoln Theater de la 125e rue. À l’époque, Ellington dirigeait un petit groupe de six musiciens, les Washingtonians. Mais Procope avait surtout été impressionné par Ellington après l’avoir entendu lors de la diffusion d’un de ses concerts du Cotton Club à la radio. Procope poursuivait: “But. the first time I really paid attention was when Duke broadcast from the Cotton Club — that's when I fell in love with Duke's music. Old Man River’ was big then. Most people played it fast. But Duke played it in long meter. It was different. It was beautiful.’’

Faisant le bilan de sa collaboration avec Ellington, Procope avait ajouté:

“But now that it's over. I don't know that I'd want to go on. Age, you’ know: You can't do what you did when you were younger. Duke did it as long as he could. He died trying to do it. It was rough on him in later years. He used to be terribly tired. His contract had a clause that he'had to have a bed in his dressing room.”

En 1978, Procope avait formé un quintet appelé Ellingtonia qui interprétait un répertoire composé majoritairement de compositions associées à Ellington. Le groupe, qui se produisait régulièrement dans le West End, à Broadway et sur la 113e rue, était composé de George Kelly au saxophone ténor, de Sadik Hakim au piano (un ancien membre des groupes de Charlie Parker et Lester Young), de Peck Morrison à la contrebasse et de Ronnie Cole à la batterie, un ancien collaborateur de Earl Hines et Erroll Garner.

Décrivant sa collaboration avec le groupe, Procope avait précisé:

“We play. Duke's tunes because the fellows in the band Mow them. They even, get‐something close to the Duke's harinceny every now and then. You know; Duke's death was a greittorIoss than people- realize. Other compositors — you could. play their, music. But Duke's music didn't sound’ the seine without, his personal harmony.When I'm playing Duke's music; don'l get into that ‘what the hell’ attitude after the melody hits been play. I respect it because it's Duke and because it's in my head”.

Russell Procope est mort le 21 janvier 1981, probablement des suites d’une crise cardiaque, alors qu’il se promenait à l’intersection de la 9e Avenue et de la 43e rue, à proximité de l’appartement qu’il occupait à Manhattan Plaza. Il était âgé de soixante-douze ans. Procope avait livré sa dernière performance dans un club de la 113e rue dix jours avant sa mort, le 11 janvier. La femme de Procope, Helen, qu’il avait épousée en 1937, étant décédée en septembre 1980, il laissait comme seuls survivants son frère William et sa soeur May Procope Gonzales. Procope était aussi l’oncle de John Procope, l’éditeur du Amsterdam News. Les funérailles de Procope ont été célébrées à St. Peter's Church, à l’intersection de Lexington Avenue et de la 54e rue est.

Même si le son de Procope au début de sa carrière était très influencé par le jeu de Benny Carter, il avait progressivement bâti son propre style qui combinait une sonorité très lyrique et très swing. Même si Procope avait été très influencé par le jazz de La Nouvelle-Orléans, il était rarement mentionné aux côtés des autres grands clarinettistes de l’époque comme Jimmy Noone, Johnny Dodds, Omer Siméon, Barney Bigard, Sidney Bechet et Albert Nicholas. Une des principales causes de cet oubli réside probablement dans le fait que Procope s’était surtout fait connaître comme saxophoniste alto.

Procope, qui aimait s’identifier au style de La Nouvelle-Orléans, avait déclaré un jour: ‘’The New Orleans thing always appealed to me’’. Dans son Autobiographie du Jazz publiée en 2002, Jacques Réda évoquait d’ailleurs le jeu de ‘’Russell Procope qui conserve un savoureux cachet Nouvelle Orléans à la clarinette.’’ Pour sa part, André Clergeat écrivait dans le Dictionnaire du Jazz publié chez Robert Laffont : ‘’Pendant plus d’un demi-siècle, il a fait chanter sa clarinette et son saxophone avec allégresse, reprenant chez Duke Ellington l’héritage de Barney Bigard dont il retrouve le swing léger, l’élégance naturelle et la tradition néo-orléanaise. Au saxophone alto, il s’exprime avec la même grâce, dans un style qui pourrait être un compromis entre la manière de Benny Carter et celle de Johnny Hodges.’’

©-2024, tous droits réservés, Les Productions de l’Imaginaire historique

SOURCES:

‘’Russell Procope.’’ Wikipedia, 2024.

‘’Russell Procope.’’ Fandom, 2024.

WILSON, John S. ‘’A Touch of the Duke From Russell Procope.’’ New York Times, 20 juillet 1979.

WILSON, John S. ‘’Russell Procope, 72, Clarinetist with Ellington 29 years, dead.’’ New York Times, 23 janvier 1981.