#felix lepeletier | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

frevandrest · 10 months ago

Note

Thank you for collecting these! I think Michel is a super interesting figure and I wonder why he is forgotten when he was hailed "the first martyr" and so often depicted together with Marat.

I will try to find more about his friendship with Hérault. They were about the same age, too, although Lepeletier sounds more mature and well-adjusted.

Félix, as I understand, was a hopeless womanizer and carefree until the death of his brother. Michel's assassination changed him and he became a dedicated Jacobin for the rest of his life. He helped Babeuf and the Conspirscy of the Equals crowd (he cared for Babeuf's son after B's death), and was an "old man yelling at the cloud" during the subsequent regimes, never abandoning his beliefs. (As far as I can tell). Truly a reformed hoe! (Though I don't think Jacobinism cured him of womanizing).

I understand the story of marat and his assassination event

But who is lepeletier?

Because I saw a drawing for him by louis David and I learned about his death which happen to be the same as Marat so yeah .. I wanna know about him.

According to the biography Michel Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau, 1760-1793 (1913), its subject of study was born on 29 May 1760, in his family home on rue Culture-Sainte-Catherine, a building which today is the Bibliothèque Historique de la Ville de Paris. His family belonged to the distinguished part of the robe nobility. At the death of his father in 1769, Lepeletier was both Count of Saint-Fargeau, Marquis of Montjeu, Baron of Peneuze, Grand Bailiff of Gien as well as the owner of 400,000 livres de rente. For five years he worked as avocat du roi at Châtelet, before becoming councilor in Parliament in 1783, general counsel in 1784 and finally taking over the prestigious position of président à mortier at the Parlement of Paris from his father in 1785. On May 16 1789, Lepeletier was elected to represent the nobility at the Estates General. On June 25 the same year he was one of the 47 nobles to join the newly declared National Assembly, two days before the king called on the rest of the first two estates to do so as well. A month later, during the night of August 4 1789, he was in the forefront of those who proposed the suppression of feudalism, even if, for his part, this meant losing 80 000 livres de rente. Four days later he wrote a letter to the priest of Saint-Fargeau, renouncing his rights to both mills, furnaces, dovecote, exclusive hunting and fishing, insence and holy water, butchery and haulage (the last four things the Assembly hadn’t ruled on yet). When the Assembly on June 19 1790 abolished titles, orders, and other privileges of the hereditary nobility, Lepeletier made the motion that all citizens could only bear their real family name — ”The tree of aristocracy still has a branch that you forgot to cut..., I want to talk about these usurper names, this right that the nobles have arrogated to themselves exclusively to call themselves by the name of the place where they were lords. I propose that every individual must bear his last name and consequently I sign my motion: Michel Lepeletier” — and the same year he also, in the name of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, presented a report on the supression of the penal code and argued for the abolition of the death penalty. After the closing of the National Assembly in 1791, Lepeletier settled in Auxerre to take on the functions of president of the directory of Yonne, a position to which he had been nominated the previous year. He did however soon thereafter return to Paris, as he, following the overthrow of the monarchy, was one of few former nobles elected to the National Convention, where he was also one of even fewer former nobles to sit together with the Mountain. In December 1792 he started working on a public education plan. On January 20 1793, he voted for death without a reprieve and against an appeal to the people during the trial of Louis XVI (Opinion de L.M. Lepeletier, sur le jugement de Louis XVI, ci-devant roi des François: imprimée par ordre de la Convention nationale). After the session was over, Lepeletier went over to Palais-Égalité (former Palais-Royal) where he dined everyday. The next day, his friend and fellow deputy Nicolas Maure could report the following to the Convention:

Citizens, it is with the deepest affection and resentment of my heart that I announce to you the assassination of a representative of the people, of my dear colleague and friend Lepelletier, deputy of Yonne; committed by an infamous royalist, yesterday, at five o'clock, at the restaurateur Fevrier, in the Jardin de l'Égalité. This good citizen was accustomed to dining there (and often, after our work, we enjoyed a gentle and friendly conversation there) by a very unfortunate fate, I did not find myself there; for perhaps I could have saved his life, or shared his fate. Barely had he started his dinner when six individuals, coming out of a neighboring room, presented themselves to him. One of them, said to be Pâris, a former bodyguard, said to the others: There's that rascal Lepeletier. He answered him, with his usual gentleness: I am Lepeletier, but I am not a rascal. Paris replied: Scoundrel, did you not vote for the death of the king? Lepelletier replied: That is true, because my confidence commanded me to do so.Instantly, the assassin pulled a saber, called a lighter, from under his coat and plunged it furiously into his left side, his lower abdomen; it created a wound four inches deep and four fingers wide. The assassin escaped with the help of his accomplices. Lepeletier still had the gentleness to forgive him, to pray that no further action would be taken; his strength allowed him to make his declaration to the public officer, and to sign it. He was placed in the hands of the surgeons who took him to his brother, at Place Vendôme. I went there immediately, led by my tender friendship, and my reverence for the virtues which he practiced without ostentation: I found him on his death bed, unconscious. When he showed me his wound, he uttered only these two words: I'm cold. He died this morning, at half past one, saying that he was happy to shed his blood for the homeland; that he hoped that the sacrifice of his life would consolidate Liberty; that he died satisfied with having fulfilled his oaths.

This was the first time a Convention deputy had gotten murdered, and it naturally caused strong reactions. Already the same session when Maure had announced Lepeletier’s death, the Convention ordered the following:

There are grounds for indictment against Pâris, former king's guard, accused of the assassination of the person of Michel Lepelletier, one of the representatives of the French people, committed yesterday.

[The Convention] instructs the Provisional Executive Council to prosecute and punish the culprit and his accomplices by the most prompt measures, and to without delay hand over to its committee of decrees the copies of the minutes from the justice of the peace and the other acts containing information relating to this attack.

The Decrees and Legislation Committees will present, in tomorrow's session, the drafting of the indictment.

An address will be written to the French people, which will be sent to the 84 departments and the armies, by extraordinary couriers, to inform them of the crime against the Nation which has just been committed against the person of Michel Lepelletier, of the measures that the National Convention has taken for the punishment for this attack, to invite the citizens to peace and tranquility, and the constituted authorities to the most exact surveillance.

The entire National Convention will attend the funeral of Michel Lepelletier, assassinated for having voted for the death of the tyrant.

The honors of the French Pantheon are awarded to Michel Lepelletier, and his body will be placed there.

The president is responsible for writing, on behalf of the National Convention, to the department of Yonne, and to the family of Lepelletier.

The next day, January 22, further instructions were given regarding Lepeletier’s funeral:

On Thursday January 24, Year 2 of the Republic, at eight o'clock in the morning, will be celebrated, at the expense of the Nation, the funeral of Michel Lepeletier, deputy of the department of Yonne to the National Convention.

The National Convention will attend the funeral of Michel Lepeletier in its entirety. The executive council, the administrative and judicial bodies will attend it as well.

The executive council and the department of Paris will consult with the Committee of Public Instruction regarding the details of the funeral ceremony.

The last words spoken by Michel Lepeletier will be engraved on his tomb, they are as follows: “I am happy to shed my blood for the homeland; I hope that it will serve to consolidate Liberty and Equality; and to make their enemies recognized.”

In number 27 (January 27 1793) of Gazette Nationale ou Le Moniteur Universel, the following long description was given over Lepeletier’s funeral, held three days earlier:

The funeral of Lepeletier Saint-Fargeau was celebrated on Thursday 24 with all the splendor that the severity of the weather and the season allowed, but with such a crowd that it could have been the most beautiful day of the year. At ten o'clock in the morning his deathbed was placed on the pedestal where the equestrian statue of Louis XVI previously stood, on Place Vendôme, today Place des Piques. One went up to the pedestal by two staircases, on the banisters of which were antique candelabras. The body was lying on the bed with the bloody sheets and the sword with which he had been struck. He was naked to the waist, and his large and deep wound could be seen exposed. These were the mournful and most endearing part of this great spectacle. All that was missing was the author of the crime, chained, and beginning his torture by witnessing the sight of the triumph of Saint-Fargeau. As soon as the National Convention and all the bodies that were to form courage were assembled in the square, mournful music was played. It was, like almost all those which has embellished our revolutionary festivals, the composition of citizen Gossec. The Convention was ranged around the pedestal. The citizen in charge of the ceremonies presented the President of the Convention with a wreath of oak and flowers; then the president, preceded by the ushers of the Convention and the national music, went around the monument, and went up to the pedestal to place the civic crown on Lepeletier's head: during this time, a federate gave a speech; the president dismounted, the procession set out in the following order: A detachment of cavalry preceded by trumpets with fourdincs. Sappers. Cannoneers without cannons. Detachment of veiled drummers. Declaration of the rights of man carried by citizens. Volunteers of the six legions, and 24 flags. Drum detachment. A banner on which was written the decree of the Convention which ordered the transport of Lepeletier's body to the Pantheon. Students of the homeland. Police commissioners. The conciliation office. Justices of the peace. Section presidents and commissioners. The commercial court. The provisional criminal court. The department’s fix courts. The electorate. The provisional criminal court. The department's criminal courts fix. The municipality of Paris. The districts of Saint-Denis and the village of L’Égalité. The Department. Drum detachment. The seal of the 84, worn by Federates. The provisional executive council. National Convention Guard Detachment. The court of cassation. Figure of Liberty carried by citizens. The bloody clothes worn at the end of a national pike, deputies marching in two columns. In the middle of the deputies was a banner where Lepeletier's last words were written: "I am happy to shed my blood for my homeland, I hope that it will serve to consolidate Liberty and Equality, and to make their enemies known.”

The body carried by citizens, as it was exhibited on the Place des Piques. Around the body, gunners, sabers in hand, accompanied by an equal number of Veterans. Music from the National Guard, who performed funeral tunes during the march. Family of the dead. Group of mothers with children. Detachment of the Convention Guard. Veiled drums. Volunteers of the six legions and 24 flags. Veiled drums. Volunteers of the six legions and 24 flags. Veiled drums. Volunteers of the six legions and 24 flags. Veiled drums. Armed federations. Popular societies. Cavalry and trumpets with fourdines. On each side, citizens, armed with pikes, formed a barrier and supported the columns. These citizens held their pikes horizontally, at hip height, from hand to hand. The procession left in this order from the Place des Piques, and passed through the streets St-Honoré, du Roule, the Pont-Neuf, the streets Thionville (former Dauphine), Fossés Saint-Germain, Liberté (former Fossés M. le Prince), Place Saint-Michel and Rue d'Enfer, Saint-Thomas, Saint-Jacques and Place du Panthéon. It stopped front of the meeting room of the Friends of Liberty and Equality; opposite the Oratory, on the Pont-Neuf, opposite the Samaritaine; in front of the meeting room of the Friends of the Rights of Man; at the intersection of Rue de la Liberté; Place Saint-Michel and the Pantheon. Arriving at the Pantheon, the body was placed on the platform prepared for it. The National Convention lined up around it; the band, placed in the rostrum, performed a superb religious choir; Lepeletier's brother then gave a speech, in which he announced that his brother had left a work, almost completed, on national education, which will soon be made public; he ended with these words: I vote, like my brother, for the death of tyrants. The representatives of the people, brought closer to the body, promised each other union, and swore on the salvation of the homeland. A big chorus to Liberty ended the ceremony.

According to Michel Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau, 1760-1793 (1913), civic festivals in honor of Lepeletier were celebrated in all sections of Paris, as well as the towns of Arras, Toulouse, Chaumont, Valenciennes, Dijon, Abbeville and Huningue. Lepeletier’s body did however only get to rest in the Panthéon for a little more than a year, as on February 15 1795, the Convention ordered it exhumed, at the same time as that of Marat. It was instead buried in the park surrounding Château de Ménilmontant, the properly of which the ancestor Lepeletier de Souzy had purchased in the 17th century and that still remained in the family.

One day after the funeral, January 25, Lepeletier’s only child, the ten and a half year old Susanne, who had already lost her mother ten years before the murder of her father, was brought before the Convention by her step-mother and two paternal uncles Amédée and Félix. It was Félix who had held a speech during the funeral and he would continue to work for his seven years older brother’s memory afterwards too, offering a bust of him to the Convention on February 21 1793, (on the proposal of David, it was placed next to the one of Brutus), reading his posthumous work on public education to the Jacobins on July 19 1793, and even writing a whole biography over his life in 1794 (Vie de Michel Lepeletier, représentant du peuple français, assassiné à Paris le 20 janvier 1793 : faite et présentée a la Société des Jacobins).

The president announces that the widow of Michel Lepelletier, his two brothers and his daughter, request to be admitted to the bar, to testify to the Convention their recognition of the honors that they have decreed in memory of their relative. It is decreed that they will be admitted immediately.

One of Michel Lepeletier’s brothers: Citizens, allow me to introduce my niece, the daughter of Michel Lepelletier; she comes to offer you and the French people her recognition of the eternity of glory to which you have dedicated her father... He takes the young citoyenne Lepelletier in his arms, and makes her look at the president of the Convention... My niece, this is now your father... Then, addressing the members of the Convention, and the citizens present at the session: People, here is your child... Lepelletier pronounces these last words in an altered voice: silence reigns throughout the room, with exception for a couple of sobs.

The President: Citizens, the martyr of Liberty has received the just tribute of tears owed to him by the National Convention, and the just honor that his cold skin has received invites us to imitate his example and to avenge his death. But the name of Lepelletier, immortal from now on, will be dear to the French Nation. The National Convention, which needs to be consoled, finds relief to its pain in expressing to his family the just regrets of its members and the recognition of the great Nation of which it is the organ. The Nation will undoubtedly ratify the adoption of Michel Lepelletier's daughter that is currently being carried out by the National Convention.

Barère: The emotion that the sight of Michel Lepeletier's only daughter has just communicated to your souls must not be infertile for the homeland. Susanne Lepelletier lost her father; she must find now find one in the French people. Its representatives must consecrate this moment of all-too-just felicity to a law that can bring happiness to several citizens and hope to several families. The errors of nature, the illusions of paternity, the stability of morals, have long demanded this beautiful institution of the Romans. What more touching time could present itself at the National Convention to pass into French legislation the principle of adoption, than that when the last crimes of expiring tyranny deprived the homeland of one of its ardent defenders and Susanne Lepelletier of a dear father! Let the National Convention therefore give today the first example of adoption by decreeing it for the only offspring of Lepelletier; let it instruct the Legislation Committee to immediately present the bill on this interesting subject. I ask that the homeland adopt through your organ Susanne Lepelletier, daughter of Michel Lepelletier, who died for his country; that it decrees that adoption will be part of French legislation, and instructs its Legislation Committee to immediately present the draft decree on adoption.

This proposal is unanimously approved.

Susanne being adopted by the state would however lead to a fierce debate when, in 1797, this ”daughter of the nation” wished to marry a foreigner. For this affair, see the article Adopted Daughter of the French People: Suzanne Lepeletier and Her Father, the National Assembly (1999)

Right after Barère’s intervention, David took to the rostrum:

David: Still filled with the pain that we felt, while attending the funeral procession with which we honored the inanimate remains of our colleagues, I ask that a marble monument be made, which transmits to posterity the figure of Lepelletier , as you clearly saw, when it was brought to the Pantheon. I ask that this work be put into competition.

Saint-André: I ask that this figure be placed on the pedestal which is in the middle of Place Vendôme... (A few murmurs arise)

Jullien: I ask that the Convention adopt in advance, in the name of the homeland, the children of the defenders of Liberty, who, for similar reasons, could be immolated in the vengeance of the royalists.

All these proposals are referred to the Legislation and Public Instruction Committees.

On Maure's proposal, the Assembly orders the printing of the speeches delivered yesterday at the Panthéon, by one of Michel Lepelletier's brothers, Barère and Vergniaux.

If it would appear David never got to make a marble monument of Lepeletier, on March 28 1793, he could nevertheless present the following painting of his to the Convention, which isn’t just a little similar to his La Mort de Marat.

(This image is an engraving of the actual painting, which has gone missing)

After Marat on July 13 1793 (on the very same day the plan for public education Lepeletier had been working on was read to the Convention by Robespierre) became the second assassinated Convention deputy, we find several engravings etc, depicting the two ”martyrs of liberty” side by side.

In the following months, even more people would be join the two, such as Joseph Chalier, a lyonnais politician executed on July 17 1794 and Joseph Bara, a fourteen year old republican drummer boy killed in the Vendée by the pro-Monarchist forces.

Lepeletier’s murderer, 27 year old Philippe Nicolas Marie de Pâris, a man who the minister of justice described as "former king's guard, height five pieds, five pouces, barbe bleue, and black hair; swarthy complexion, fine teeth, dressed in a gray cloak, green lapels and a round hat” on January 21, went into hiding right after his deed. In spite of his description being published in the papers and a considerable sum of money being promised to whoever caught him, Pâris managed to flee Paris and settled for a country house of an acquaintance near Bourget. He there ran into a cousin of one of the owners. When Pâris asked for food and a bed, he was refused and instead disappeared into the night again. In the evening of January 28 he arrived in Forges-les-Eaux and stopped at an inn, where he came under suspicion once he started cutting his bread with a dagger after which he locked himself into his room. The following morning he woke up with a start as five municipal gendarmes came bursting into his room and told him to come with them. Pâris responded that he would, but in the next second he had picked up his hidden pistol, placed it into his mouth, and pulled the trigger. Searching the dead body, the gendarmes found Pâris’ baptism record (dated November 12 1765) and dismissal from the king's guard (dated June 1 1792), on the latter of which had been written the following:

My certificate of honor. Do not trouble anyone. No one was my accomplice in the fortunate death of the scoundrel de Saint-Fargeau. Had I not run into him, I would have carried out a more beautiful action: I would have purged France of the patricide, regicide and parricide d’Orléans. The French are cowards to whom I say: Peuple dont les forfaits jettent partout l'effroi, Avec calme et plaisir j'abandonne la vie. Ce n'est que par la mort qu'on peut fuir l'infamie Qu'imprime sur nos fronts le sang de notre roi. Signed by Paris the older, guard of the king, assassinated by the French.

Learning about what had happened, the Convention tasked Tallien and Legrand with going to Forges-les-Eaux and making sure the dead man really was Pânis. Having come to the conclusion that this was indeed the case, the deputies briefly discussed whether the body ought to be brought back to Paris, but it was decided it would be better if it was just buried "with ignominy.” It was therefore instead taken into the nearby forest in a wheelbarrow and thrown into a six feet deep hole.

Finally, here are some other revolutionaries simping for honoring Lepeletier’s memory just because I can:

…a tragic event took place the day before the execution [of the king]. Pelletier, one of the most patriotic deputies, and who had voted for death, was assassinated. A king's guard made a wound three fingers wide with a saber: he died this morning. You must judge the effect that such a crime has had on the friends of liberty. Pelletier had an income of six hundred thousand livres; he had been président à mortier in the Parliament of Paris; he was barely thirty years old; to many talents, he added the most estimable of virtues. He died happy, he took to his grave the idea, consoling for a patriot, that his death would serve the public good. Here then is one of these beings whom the infamous cabal who, in the Convention, wanted to save Louis and bring back slavery, designated to the departments as a Maratist, a factious, a disorganizer... But the reign of these political rascals is finished. You will see the measures that the Assembly took both to avenge the national majesty and to pay homage to a generous martyr of liberty. Philippe Lebas in a letter to his father, January 21 1793

Ah! if it is true that man does not die entirely and that the noblest part of himself survives beyond the grave and is still interested in the things of life, come then, dear and sacred shadow, sometimes to hover above the Senate of the nation that you adorned with your virtues; come and contemplate your work, come and see your united brothers contributing to the happiness of the homeland, to the happiness of humanity. Marat in number 105 (January 23 1793) of Journal de la République Française

O Lepeletier! Your death will serve the Republic: I envy your death. You ask for the honors of the Pantheon for him, but he has already collected the prize of martyrdom of Liberty. The way to honor his memory is to swear that we will not leave each other without having given a constitution to the Republic. Danton at the Convention, January 21 1793

O Le Peletier, tu étais digne de mourir pour la patrie sous les coups de ses assassins ! Ombre chère et sacrée, reçois nos vœux et nos serments ! Généreux citoyen, incorruptible ami de la vérité, nous jurons par tes vertus, nous jurons par ton trépas funeste et glorieux de défendre contre toi la sainte cause dont tu fus l'apôtre; nous jurons une guerre éternelle au crime dont tu fus l'éternel ennemi, à la tyrannie et à la trahison, dont tu fut la victime. Nous envions ta mort et nous saurons imiter ta vie. Elles resteront à jamais gravées dans nos cœurs, ces dernières paroles où lu nous montrais ton âme tout entière; ”Que ma mort, disais tu, sera utile à la patrie, qu'elle serve à faire connaître les vrais et les faux amis de la liberté, et je meurs content. Robespierre at the Jacobins, January 23

Wednesday 23 [sic] — We went to Madame Boyer’s to see the procession. I saw the poor Saint-Fargeau. We all burst into tears when the body passed by, we threw a wreath on it. After the ceremony, we returned to my house. Ricord and Forestier had arrived. I was unable to stop my tears for some time. F(réron), La P(oype), Po, R(obert) and others came to dinner. The dinner was quite fun and cheerful. Afterwards they went to the Jacobins, Maman and I stayed by the fire and, our imaginations struck by what we had seen, we talked about it for a while. She wanted to leave, I felt that I could not be alone and bear the horrible thoughts that were going to besiege me. I ran to D(anton’s). He was moved to see me still pale and defeated. We drank tea, I supped there. Lucile Desmoulins in her diary, January 24 1793

…Pelletier's funeral took place this Thursday as I informed you in my last letter (this letter has gone missing). The procession was immense; it seemed that the population of Paris had doubled, to honor the memory of this virtuous citizen. The mourning of the soul was painted on all the faces: it was especially noticed that the people were extremely affected, which proves that they keenly felt the price of the friend they had lost. Arriving at the Pantheon, Lepelletier's body was placed on the platform prepared for it; his brother delivered a speech which was applauded with tears; Barère succeeded him. Then the members of the Convention, crowding around the body of their colleague, promised union among themselves, and took an oath to save the country. God grant that we have not sworn in vain, that we finally know the full extent of our duties, and that we only occupy ourselves with fulfilling them! In yesterday's session, Pelletier's daughter, aged eight [sic], was presented to the National Convention, which immediately adopted her as a child of the homeland. Georges Couthon in a letter written January 26 1793

How could I be so base as to abandon myself to criminal connections, I who, in the world, have never had more than one close friend since the age of six? (he gestures towards David's painting). Here he is! Michel Lepeletier, oh you from whom I have never parted, you whose virtue was my model, you who like me was the target of parliamentary hatred, happy martyr! I envy your glory. I, like you, will rush for my country in the face of liberticidal daggers; but did I have to be assassinated by the dagger of a republican! Hérault de Sechelles at the Convention, December 29 1793

For a collection of Lepeletier’s works, see Oeuvres de Michel Lepeletier Saint-Fargeau, député aux assemblées constituante et conventionnelle, assassiné le 20 janvier 1793, par Paris, garde du roi (1826)

#frev #michel lepeletier #felix lepeletier

64 notes · View notes

frevandrest · 10 months ago

Text

Michel and Félix Le Peletier

I need to read more about them. If anyone has book recommendations, please let me know!

#frev #art #michel lepeletier #felix lepeletier

13 notes · View notes

nesiacha · 2 months ago

Text

A request for information about a letter from Felix Le Peletier (or a search for his humor)

I was reading a short biography of Felix Le Peletier, and I burst out laughing at his "trickster" side. I mean, nothing compares to the audacity (in a good sense) of an anecdote recounted by Lacour (I believe) about Delgrès, who, surrounded by Richepance's troops trying to restore slavery, played the violin to mock them from the ramparts.

But Felix Le Peletier can give him a run for his money if the anecdote in the document I’m going to share is true. Following his deportation under Bonaparte, he temporarily stayed on the Île de Ré while awaiting another transfer. Just before his imminent departure, he was allowed a visit from a relative, and he seized the opportunity to escape. At the same time, he took it upon himself to inform the Minister of Justice about his escape in a letter, which left the authorities in a bind apparently he informed them before the authorities became aware of his invasion. The Parisian authorities were informed earlier by Felix's letter than by the prefect.

The author speculates, based on plausible hypotheses and evidence, whether he had secured his safety and enjoyed protection, as he managed to travel back and forth to Paris without a hitch. Indeed, his childhood friend had become a councilor of state, so having connections helps.

In any case, whether it’s true or not, I want to see that letter. Don’t you?

Here are the sources of the information I already know

#Felix Lepeletier #frev #french revolution #napoleonic era #france

6 notes · View notes

nesiacha · 3 months ago

Text

The "good deeds" of the "rotten" revolutionaries:

Fouché: he gave a pension to the widow of Collot d'Herbois, apparently also one for Charlotte Robespierre Tallien: he participated in the day of August 10, 1792. In the end he was let go for the wrong reasons because even if he rallied to the right, he tried to make a turnaround to the left to try to prevent the royalists from returning which shows that ultimately he sought to preserve the revolution. Carrier Jean Baptiste: In Nantes he succeeded in repelling the English attempts to establish themselves in this port (which would have been a catastrophe for France if the English had succeeded) Fréron: Stayed in contact with Annette Duplessis, helped her financially after the execution of Camille and Lucile Desmoulins and helped to ensure the education of Horace Turreau: Would have adopted Camille Babeuf after the death of his father (even if it was Felix Lepeletier who was the real protector of this family until to his deportation) P.S: Off topic but I didn't expect it seems that Camille Babeuf sent in 1813 a letter to Pierre-François Réal for a request for financial aid as he is in difficult I'll send you the link if you can connect and access it I can't it seems we must have an account for see the letter https://www.proquest.com/docview/1294139227?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals Sources: Antoine Resche Jean Marc Schiappa For Fréron, don't hesitate to see the excellent post by @anotherhumaninthisworld here https://www.tumblr.com/anotherhumaninthisworld/757673440640647168/how-close-desmoulins-and-fr%C3%A9ron-were- and-what-did?source=share

#frev #french revolution #joseph fouché #freron #carrier jean baptiste #Turreau #my mental health took a hit #by dint of looking for their good deeds

25 notes · View notes

nesiacha · 3 months ago

Text

The political career of the revolutionary Antonelle Pierre-Antoine, close to Felix Lepeletier

Presumed portrait of Pierre Antoine Antonelle

This revolutionary was born in Arles in 1747. As a marquis, he published between 1788 and 1789 "le Catéchisme du Tiers État, à l’usage de toutes les provinces de France, et spécialement de la Provence ." He did not succeed as an officer, due to a lack of both will and ability. Instead, he preferred reading philosophy and mathematics treatises, according to Pierre Serna. He managed to become the first mayor of Arles in 1790.

Antonelle founded a Jacobin society, affiliated with Paris, and opposed Monseigneur de Lau (who was killed during the September massacres). Antonelle supported the common people, while Monseigneur de Lau, despite being attracted to Enlightenment ideas, opposed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Antonelle was elected to the Legislative Assembly in 1791 and became a legislative commissioner for the Army of the Center in 1792.

In the autumn of 1792, he gained further importance by being elected as a juror at the Revolutionary Tribunal. He was apparently an alternate who did not participate in Marie Antoinette's trial. Contrary to what Wikipedia claims, he was harsh with Marie Antoinette, although he did not believe the infamous rumors about her son. According to Pierre Serna, Antonelle acted this way because, in his view, one could not build a new world on the revolution without destroying the old roots of the Ancien Régime. However, he declared himself insufficiently informed during the trial of the Girondins. He was imprisoned in May 1794 but was released immediately after the 9th Thermidor.

The Directory was a great disappointment for Antonelle. While Robespierre was nicknamed "the Incorruptible," Antonelle was called "the Invariable," according to Pierre Serna. He maintained a lifelong friendship with Felix Lepeletier, despite a later divergence between them. Involved in the Conspiracy of Equals, he was tried during the Babouvist trial. Apparently, one of the reasons many were spared (except Darthé and Babeuf) was due to Antonelle's strategy. Here is an excerpt from Pierre Serna: "He participated in the Vendôme trial against Babeuf’s accomplices and played a key role in saving almost all of the defendants." According to Serna, for Antonelle, there should be no more martyrs, or at least no more forced uprisings of this kind. He believed in fighting the Directory from within, through elections.

He helped the majority of the Directory's directors on the eve of the coup d'état of 18 Fructidor, Year V, by publishing the newspaper Le Démocrate Constitutionnel to call on the suburbs to fight against the royalists. His election to the Council of Five Hundred in 1799 was annulled due to irregularities, namely his affiliation with the Jacobins.

He quickly sensed the danger of Bonaparte, as it matched the fears of a general too ambitious, who would definitively end the Revolution. The consequences of the Saint-Nicaise Street attack and the terrible repression of the Jacobins led to his expulsion from France. Later, when he returned to France, he was placed under surveillance, although he fared better than his friend Felix Lepeletier, who was temporarily deported. Other Jacobins were executed in what was, in Antonelle’s view, an even worse parody of justice than under the First Republic (particularly because of the use of torture). Many other Jacobins were deported, and half of them died in exile.

He lived in retirement in Arles, continuing his philanthropic activities, becoming beloved by the local population for his generous donations. Despite his reputation as a "priest-eater," he gave large sums of money to nuns in the Church so they could care for the poor. This reputation later saved his life. Antonelle had a political divergence with his friend Lepeletier. In fact, he rallied to the Restoration in 1814 in opposition to Bonaparte and published Le dernier rêve d’un vieillard . He accepted the restoration of Louis XVIII under one condition: that he respects civil equality, equal access to jobs for all, and civil liberties. This was criticized, but honestly, he had to choose between two monarchs (as the return of the monarchy was sealed the day Bonaparte crowned himself, let's not delude ourselves), one of whom had betrayed his entire political circle, executed many, caused a large number of deaths, and rolled back many achievements shortly after his coup d'état while proclaiming himself the savior of the Revolution. In comparison, one could criticize Louis XVIII, but he seemed more reasonable (we cannot say the same of Charles X, who had as much honor as he had intelligence, meaning none at all). I don't blame those who chose Bonaparte either, as they were desperate not to return under the Bourbons' yoke (it must have been a terrible dilemma for all honest republicans to choose between Bonaparte and Louis XVIII).

During the Second Restoration, he was hunted by royalists in Arles. However, being highly esteemed by the local population, especially the farmers , they hid him out of gratitude for his generosity toward them (according to Pierre Serna, the farmers owed a large debt to Antonelle, which he forget the debt after they saved his life).

Having inherited a significant fortune, he gave generously to the people of Arles, who only loved him more for it. When he died in 1817, a massive crowd reportedly attended his funeral. Here is another excerpt from Serna: "His burial led to a popular riot when the clergy refused to give him the last rites, provoking the anger of the common people of Arles. Even in death, Antonelle remained controversial."

In Arles, at 30 Rue de la Roquette, there is a hotel bearing his name, with a plaque in his honor.

Sources: Pierre Serna Jean Dautry

#frev #french revolution #napoleon #napoleonic era #the directory #noble revolutionaries #babeuf #babouvism

28 notes · View notes

nesiacha · 6 months ago

Text

Mini provocation post regarding the 2002 Napoleon series

I watched the 2002 Napoleon series years ago, so there's a chance I'm saying nonsense because there's no way I'm watching this series twice; I'm not paid for that. This series did not please me, as you might have guessed. First of all, regarding the actors: I mean, in other films, the actors playing Talleyrand and Fouché evoke great fear of these characters. You can sense the horrible things they have done without even explaining it, and you're not surprised by the revelations of the atrocities they committed, notably in Lyon with Fouché (see the series "La Caméra explore le temps"), and you fear for the characters crossing their paths. In this series, nothing at all. I would even go further in provocation: I felt like you could insult them with impunity, and they would start crying without doing anything else (I exaggerate, you can see they are ready to do other devious things, but honestly, I think an average person like me has every chance of beating them in this series, whereas in other series like "La Caméra explore le temps" or in Abel Gance's films, I never think that; I rather pray for the poor person who has the misfortune of crossing their path).

We mainly see the positive sides of Napoleon (barely touching on his flaws), but not what he did in Jaffa or his shameful behavior in Egypt (say what you want about Kléber, he had every right to be angry at Napoleon, in my opinion, for Bonaparte's actions in Egypt). The re-establishment of slavery and the atrocities committed to restore it are barely touched upon (all for nothing because in the end, it weakened France more than anything besides committing a horrible betrayal). The series' authors don't even mention that the Penal Code was never Napoleon's but that of the first constituents of 1791 (I don't know if the series says this or not, as I said, no way I'm watching it twice in a row). The Civil Code was actually devised as early as 1794, with the Convention starting to vote on civil acts. Napoleon was dreadful to women, who ended up in a worse condition than in Spain or Italy (in France, a man who killed an adulterous wife had the right to mitigating circumstances, but not vice versa), workers were even more oppressed, the fake puritanism he instilled, one rule for him and his family, another for others,etc . None of that is covered.

Characters that could overshadow Bonaparte are removed, notably Kléber, Carnot, and other Jacobins like Felix Lepeletier, Jean-Baptiste Antoine Le Franc, the Babeuf family , Simone Evrard, and Albertine Marat (honestly, women are barely represented outside of Josephine, the womens in the family of Bonaparte, as usual). To avoid overshadowing Bonaparte, his adversaries are also belittled, like Louis XVIII, who was actually intelligent in real life. The Spanish are seen as horrible people—as if they had no good reason to revolt, how dare they not let Bonaparte oppress them.

Oh yes, the Jacobins are seen as cruel people because they voted for the execution of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. No comment. I know Marie Antoinette's execution was more controversial, rightly so, as there was a lack of evidence even though it was known she was at least complicit in high treason, but regarding Louis XVI... I call on the screenwriters to urgently read a history book. And I say this while having more sympathy for Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette than for Bonaparte, as they had no ideals to betray unlike him . By the way, it is not mentioned that Bonaparte was a Jacobin who betrayed them for power, which is the worst in my eyes. The screenwriters call the Terror the Reign of Terror; here is what I think of this stupidity regarding the term:

https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/744763300619878400/i-never-understood-the-term-reign-of-terror-i?source=share

Then, for these same screenwriters, 18 Brumaire is a glorious event. I don't understand how an act of high treason to seize power with two other people, expelling all elected deputies by armed force—albeit elected by censitary suffrage—is something glorious. Someone would have to explain that to me. The only thing the series reproaches him for is the execution of the Duke of Enghien.

In short, I will stop talking about this while there are so many other things to say, like the fact that this series adopts this (stupid in my eyes) idea of a providential man.

But if I follow their logic in wanting to create propaganda, I'll propose a series to the same production on Hébert right away. So, I will make a series focusing almost exclusively on his love with Marie Françoise Goupil, highlighting only his positive aspects while not focusing on any negative side.

Here’s what I will do: first, we will start directly with Louis XVI's flight to Varennes so we can avoid Hébert's royalist side before he became a republican (to be honest, many French went through the same stage, so we won't blame him for that). I will make it seem like his newspaper is the best (while minimizing or not mentioning his vulgar style at all). I will make it seem like all the petitions from the Sans-Culottes are his doing, that all the French applauded his campaign of forced de-Christianization, that he never accused Marie Antoinette nor took advantage of the situation against what we call the enraged. We will also focus more on his life with his wife and daughter. I will emphasize that he was in prison and present the expulsion of the Girondins from the Convention as one of the greatest days of democracy, making it seem like he alone was responsible for that (I’ve already talked about what I think of this here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/753932369385373696/2-june-1793-and-18-brumaire?source=share). The only fault we will attribute to him in the series is that he did not get along with Marat. I will make it seem like he was sincere when he said he was ready to be the next victim after Marat. I will also omit the fact that he called for more executions and ensure the series does not present any victims of the Terror. In my scenario, his execution is because of the villainous Camille Desmoulins, the Dantonists, and the ungrateful Montagnards who wanted to execute him to gain more power, with Hanriot and Chaumette being traitors to Hébert. I will present him as a misunderstood victim, a great politician, and a providential revolutionary who single-handedly carried out the revolutions.

And there you go. What, this is revisionism? It risks being rejected due to a glaring lack of historical accuracy. Well, indeed XD.

P.S.: I know the Hébert scenario is utter nonsense; he is one of the revolutionaries I appreciate the least (euphemism). I just wanted to show that if we allow such a series with Napoleon (and it's always allowed because of the "providential statesman" message), it's just as nonsensical as the scenario I just proposed. A provocation, yes, but not far from what I think.

#napoleon #napoleonic era #napoleon 2002 #hebert #frev #french revolution

16 notes · View notes

nesiacha · 3 days ago

Text

Why was Carnot so vehement in repressing the Babouvists while protecting or even wanting to collaborate with some (theories)?

We have seen here that Carnot was one of the main figures behind the repression of the Babouvists, as seen here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/767944757763883008/babeuf-et-la-r%C3%A9publique-pers%C3%A9e?source=share, wanting to expand arrests to the maximum while protecting some of the Babouvists like Felix Le Peletier (a very close friend of Gracchus Babeuf and protector of Babeuf's family after his death), who had an ambiguous political relationship with Carnot to the point where Carnot protected him and sometimes wanted them to work together https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/770487228804759553/f%C3%A9lix-lepeletier-de-saint-fargeau-un-personnage?source=share. If you want to know more about Gracchus Babeuf, including some of my theories, please consult here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/768437156389715968/in-honor-of-gracchus-babeufs-recent-anniversary?source=share, and feel free to correct me, I’m not infallible.

First theory.

At first glance, this seems implausible. And it is indeed a mystery. However, I believe there are some theories that might explain why Carnot was truly after Gracchus Babeuf. Babeuf was one of those who wanted a certain redistribution of property, especially in the agrarian sense (though this is still unclear, and we can’t really talk about communism because Babeuf seemed unaware of the rise of capitalist societies). However, he is one of the rare revolutionaries who began to advocate for the redistribution of property rights.

One of the major revolutionaries who also started theorizing the right to redistribute property was Momoro. Momoro, along with Ronsin, was one of the leaders of the Hébertists. In fact, Momoro had issues with this in Normandy. Here is an excerpt: “On August 30, the Directory of the Department of Paris sent him, accompanied by a certain Jean-Michel Dufour, representing the Commune, to supervise mass levies in Normandy. They arrived in Bernay on September 7, where Momoro immediately made a vehement speech to the assembly of the Department of Eure. On this occasion, they distributed copies of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, with two additional articles of their own, sowing doubt about the inviolability of private property, which, according to them, was ‘guaranteed until the nation has established laws on the matter.’ This, of course, sparked a fierce reaction from the rural population, very attached to land ownership! The next day, they were ‘booed, insulted, disarmed,’ and treated as ‘incendiaries and seditious.’ They owed their safety only to the authority of the president of the Department’s assembly, the Girondin deputy François Buzot, who was eager to restore peace to his district. Freed, they were escorted to Lisieux. The incident made waves in the department and had some repercussions in Paris, especially under Buzot’s influence, who was determined to make Momoro pay for the disorder caused in his district. In the October 12 session of the newly established National Convention, he personally attacked ‘the man I saved from the fury of the people, to whom this wretched man preached the division of land.’ Momoro and Dufour were recalled to Paris, and on September 23, the department’s public prosecutor thanked the Minister of the Interior, Jean-Marie Roland, as these individuals ‘had conducted themselves in a manner more likely to incite trouble than to propagate respect for property and personal safety.’” (Excerpt from Jean-Pierre Duquesne, confirmed by Grace Phelan since Jean Pierre Duquesne is not reliable at times but Grace Phelan does more correct work ).

In fact, those who proposed any significant challenge to property rights were often put in the minority, even within the Enragés or Hébertists, who focused more on economic issues like the maximum price law. There was a real fear of any attack on property rights, a fear heavily played upon by the Directory, including by Sieyès. One pretext was the closure of the neo-Jacobin club, which gathered figures like Prieur de la Marne, Xavier Audouin, Topino-Lebrun, Felix Le Peletier, Victor Bach, Antonelle, Jean Baptiste Drouet, René Vatar, and Adjutant Jorry, among others. Following Victor Bach’s speech and the resurgence of the left in 1799, Poultier in his journal L’Ami des lois accused Victor Bach of advocating for an agrarian law. According to Bernard Gainot’s investigation into Victor Bach’s mysterious death, this led to a "Jacobine conspiracy" being staged by Sieyès and Lucien Bonaparte. The speech of Bach, as interpreted by his critics (presenting a “project for a constitution” which proposed a social program close to Babeuf’s system), was a true provocation. It provided conservatives with the perfect opportunity to demonstrate to the majority of deputies (who held police powers over the Tuileries buildings, including the Manège hall) that the neo-Jacobins, contrary to their legalistic demonstrations, only sought the overthrow of the Constitution of Year III and the abolition of private property (or more precisely, a "leveling" of wealth). By wielding the "red peril" scare, this provided an opportunity to close the Manège Hall and ruin the democratic strategy gathered around the Journal des Hommes libres, which aimed to unite militant networks from Paris and the provinces to form a majority in the Councils capable of gradually amending the Constitution of Year III into a "representative democracy."

What is the link to Carnot? Simply that Carnot was maybe likely part of this larger political class, more numerous than we once thought (without excusing Carnot, of course, and avoiding the false excuse of "it was his time"), which feared the agrarian law. Gracchus Babeuf had promoted this law a few years earlier, while Felix Le Peletier was more vague about it, perhaps intentionally, to better rally people, whether on property rights or progressive taxation, even though reform demands were there. (Felix Le Peletier later used the same tactic in the Manège club, where Victor Bach was more precise in his demands, showing Felix Le Peletier to be more prudent or strategic in gathering support.) Therefore, for Carnot, Felix Le Peletier, by his attitude, was less "suspicious" than Gracchus Babeuf.

Second theory.

The second theory I find plausible: Babeuf’s proximity to the Hébertists (Gracchus Babeuf had connections with many left-wing figures, including Albertine Marat, Robert Lindet, Jean-Paul Marat, the Robespierrists such as the Duplays, and even the widow of Chaumette, Pierre-Gaspard Chaumette, Jean-Nicolas Pache, former mayor of Paris, and even people like Vadier). Among these Hébertists, some had problems with the Committee of Public Safety, the General Security Committee, or the Convention. Two names that came up are Clémence and Marchand, who were imprisoned and later released in Year II. Joseph Bodson, one of Babeuf’s most important “lieutenants,” was a fervent Hébertist who resented members of the CPS, including Robespierre, for having executed Chaumette and Hébert (while Gracchus Babeuf became a Robespierrist at the end of his life). Rossignol, one of Ronsin's friends, was also involved in the Conspiracy of Equals. At this time, Carnot was part of the Committee of Public Safety. When he saw the names of these individuals again during his time as Director of the Directory, perhaps this raised a "red flag" for him. Here was Gracchus Babeuf, who had once been close to the Hébertists, surrounded by elements that had had conflicts with the government where Carnot held important positions. We know that Carnot was not close to the Hébertists, and vice versa. This likely didn’t help Carnot view Babeuf favorably, as he was surrounded by individuals Carnot mistrusted (it’s not a simple "good Hébertists vs. bad Carnot and CPS members," or good Carnot and CPS members vs Hebertists—it’s more complex).

@aedesluminis mentioned a letter Carnot wrote to Garrau, a very loyal Jacobin who remained a friend of Carnot during the Directory. Garrau warned him about a potential royalist threat, but Carnot replied, dismissing it as no threat and stating he was more concerned about the danger of extremists from the left—the Babeuf faction in this case. We know that Carnot made significant political errors, and one of them was overestimating the danger from the left while underestimating the royalists.

According to historian Claude Mazauric, Carnot was the most fervent advocate of Babouvist repression, wanting to extend many arrests, though it seems he paradoxically protected Felix Le Peletier and other figures. Barras had reservations about this (one of the rare good actions from Barras in this case). However, according to Fouché’s memoirs, Barras might have been more responsible for the repression of the Babouvists than Claude Mazauric suggests. Fouché reportedly convinced Barras that Gracchus Babeuf (who had long since broken with Fouché) was a threat. This is plausible, especially when we realize how much harm Fouché did to the Babeuf family once he became Minister of Police. He listed Gracchus Babeuf’s widow, Marie-Anne Babeuf, in the list of Jacobins to be arrested in 1801, at a time when Jacobins were despised and victims of violence following the royalist-provoked Saint-Nicaise Street bombing. And in 1808, during the Malet Conspiracy, Fouché, now Minister of Police, ordered the arrest of Emile Babeuf, who only escaped because he was abroad due to work, while Marie-Anne Babeuf underwent a harsh interrogation (though she was known for her strong character and probably wasn't intimidated, given that she had survived worse trials, notably under the Directory). It’s chilling to think that, during a time when Gracchus Babeuf mistakenly thought of Fouché as a friend, he once wrote that he trusted Fouché with his children, as you can see in this post here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/770322937812336640/one-of-the-creepiest-things-among-the-many?source=share.

However, there’s a big "but." For now, I have only the version from historian Claude Mazauric and Fouché’s memoirs, which are sometimes unreliable (understatement). So, while I have no affection for Barras, I’m more inclined to believe Mazauric unless other elements come to corroborate it. Although when Fouché speaks of the agrarian law to scare people, it seems very plausible. Knowing Fouché, who showed no mercy to those who became his enemies (and after all, Gracchus Babeuf publicly denounced him in his journal), this could be true.

Why was Gracchus Babeuf executed along with Darthé?

Gracchus Babeuf, in my view, put forward a defense of rupture, at least initially, as you can see here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/764082552563761152/three-brave-defenses-by-revolutionaries-tried?source=share. For those who don't want to visit the link, here’s what Babeuf did: He showed remarkable courage, taking full responsibility for the "Society of Democrats," acknowledging all attacks against the Directory, stating, "The decision of the jurors will solve this problem...: will France remain a Republic, or will it return to a monarchy?" Babeuf fought, refused to answer, and contested many points. He was sentenced to death with Darthé (who remained stoic and mute, refusing to answer questions). Some say Charles Germain almost got the death sentence, but he was finally sentenced to deportation .

Gracchus may have been condemned to death as the leader of the Conjuration of Equals. His defense saved many of his colleagues, but it wasn’t the only reason why other co-defendants avoided execution. Babeuf's trial is well-known thanks to Pierre-Nicolas Hésine, a revolutionary who sheltered the Babeuf family during the trial and published Le Journal de la Haute-Cour or L’Echo des Hommes Sensibles et Vrais throughout the trial. The terrible journey in the iron cage from Paris to Vendôme, where the trial took place, moved public opinion. Teresa Poggi, Philippe Buonarroti’s partner, and Marie-Anne Babeuf, who was pregnant, made the journey on foot under arduous conditions for support the two mans.

Antonelle wasn’t idle in trying to save his co-defendants, although he distanced himself from Gracchus Babeuf due to Babeuf’s irresponsible attitude and their differences on certain issues. Gracchus made foolish moves, like leaving a list of people associated with him in his room, which Pierre Serna suggests was child's play for the police to find. According to Laura Mason, the police found hundreds of documents in an apartment near the center of Paris, including underground pamphlets, insurrection decrees, and instructions to confederates to incite rebellion. Gracchus was irresponsible in this regard, which greatly frustrated his more sensible comrade Antonelle. Antonelle distanced himself, particularly on how to achieve the revolution. I simplify, but for this noble revolutionary, the revolution should be saved through the ballot box and by fighting the system from within, though history would prove him wrong. Here's what Antonelle wrote: "The act of insurrection is the dream of a sick man… The more I think about this too frivolous subject, the more I remain convinced that this great conspiracy was reduced to the petty annoyances of a few disgruntled minds, the pastimes of some idle people who shared their thoughts." The problem was also that Gracchus didn’t take the necessary measures for a clandestine operation, inadvertently putting many involved—whether directly or indirectly—in danger.

But Antonelle, in his journal, also fought to save as many of the co-defendants as possible.

Here is an excerpt from Pierre Serna: "He participated in the Vendôme trial against Babeuf’s accomplices and played a key role in saving almost all of the defendants ».

Réal was also active, just like Vatar and Lebois, in defending the co-defendants (Vatar and Lebois had, a few years earlier, campaigned for the release of Marie-Anne Babeuf, who had been arrested for handling the subscriptions of her husband’s journal. Her arrest lasted only two days thanks to them, according to what I understand).

Moreover, among the co-defendants was an important figure who couldn’t possibly be dead, as he played a symbolic and crucial role in being one of the men who arrested Louis XVI: Jean-Baptiste Drouet. Even some reactionaries panicked when they saw his name among the list of co-defendants in the Babeuf trial, even though others supported the accusation.

Here are some excerpts about Jean-Baptiste Drouet: 'The submission of J.-B. Drouet's case to the Legislative Body in the summer of 1796 crystallized the anger of the democrats. From the moment the Council of Five Hundred began debating the inviolability of the deputy, the press entirely lost interest in other aspects of the case. On the day of Drouet’s arrest, the Directory declared that the police had apprehended him in the act of conspiracy. The democrats now demanded evidence that could justify the imprisonment and trial of a sitting deputy. Drouet claimed he had been arrested while meeting political allies to discuss an official letter he was drafting. The police report, his defenders pointed out, confirmed his statement, as it only mentioned the letter from Drouet and commercial documents belonging to the host of the meeting. 'Thus, in the eyes of the commissioner and his assistants, there were no actions, words, or writings that externally indicated any kind of conspiracy; therefore, there was no flagrant crime.' If Drouet had not been arrested in the act of conspiracy, the Directory had violated his inviolability, thus violating the constitution. If the Legislative Body repeated this act by allowing a trial, it would likewise violate the constitution. 'If the constitution is violated by its main guardians, all is lost; for, how can you punish a man who has conspired against the constitution if you are the first violators?' Didn’t the Terror originate from such violations?’

None of the arguments from Lamarque, nor from the other defenders of Drouet, managed to influence the Legislative Body. The Council of Five Hundred allowed the case to go to the Council of Ancients, which voted for a trial and set up a high court authorized to judge a representative of the people. Insulted but not defeated, the democratic press continued to defend Drouet by publishing speeches, letters, and satires. Méhée even offered to defend Drouet, fearing that more qualified men, faced with the threat of royalist violence, would hesitate to offer their services.

While the democrats focused on the trial, news spread that Drouet had escaped and disappeared. Drouet was able to flee because his case had become too embarrassing for the Directory. The Directory, which had arrested the conspirators denounced by Grisel, had assumed that the case would be widely approved, without considering the obstacle presented by the reputation of the man who had arrested the king at Varennes. Despite irrefutable evidence, despite Grisel’s denunciation, and especially despite the fact that the two chambers of the Legislative Body, by a large majority, had approved the trial, the charges against Drouet continued to provoke the anger of the democrats. Perhaps the Directors hoped that by letting Drouet escape, they would shift attention back to Babeuf, a less credible figure, and thus achieve the glory they expected from his prosecution.

However, the escape came too late. Fearing that the prosecutions against Drouet and the harassment of other democrats signaled a new reaction, and convinced that the Directors had violated the constitution, the democrats were determined to follow the trial of Babeuf closely. This trial, which involved a total of sixty-three other defendants, lasted three months, from the winter of 1796 to the spring of 1797, and became a fierce battle between the Directors and their democratic opponents. During longer and more radically covered proceedings than any other trial during the French Revolution, each side accused the other of betraying the promises of the Revolution, presenting its members as the heralds of the only true Republic.' (Excerpt from the article by Laura Mason, "After the Conspiracy: the Directory, the Press, and the Affair of the Equals")

So here we see that the press, the impact of the democrats, and certain prisoners influenced the judgment, in addition to Gracchus’s defense. I think we can now understand why only Gracchus and Darthé were executed. Between Gracchus’s defense, where he fought fiercely to at least save as many of his colleagues as possible, and Darthé, who was stoic and did not respond (Gracchus and Darthé knew they were going to die, as they spent their time sharpening a blade to attempt suicide), the fact that Gracchus was among those revolutionaries advocating for the infringement of property rights through agrarian reforms (a small group of revolutionaries who scared many political factions, whether in 1789, 1792, or even more so under the Directory) likely worked against him.

As for Carnot, the fact that Gracchus was part of this group of revolutionaries who surrounded themselves with people who had had problems with the Committee of Public Safety in 1794, as we saw, must have made his case even more difficult in Carnot’s eyes. Nevertheless, even in his repression of the Babouvists, Carnot did try to save some revolutionaries, as we saw in the case of Félix Le Peletier, which is to his credit.

What I found admirable in Gracchus, however, is that while he had every right to be angry with Carnot, especially regarding the terrible ordeal of the iron cage in Paris during the Vendôme trial, Babeuf refused to lump Carnot together with Barras and others. Gracchus only made a few moderate criticisms of him, even though he had every right to be furious. I feel that Gracchus, though unable to forgive, could understand someone who committed condemnable acts, provided that person was devoted to the Republic, which was the case with Carnot, whereas Gracchus never forgave people like Tallien, Barras, or Fouché and denounced them rightly and loudly.

After the repression of the Babouvists, according to Mazauric, Carnot, though conservative on many issues, slowed down the repressive zeal of Merlin. I think Carnot realized he had made a grave mistake. But we cannot know for sure unless we contact a good medium.

At the bottom is the screenshot that @aedesluminis found from Fouché’s memoirs about Babeuf and Barras

P.S:Feel free to contradict me or add theories again because it's interesting to add evidence or discuss it.

#frev #french revolution #theories #lazare carnot #babeuf #directoire #barras #joseph fouché

2 notes · View notes

frevandrest · 9 months ago

Text

Ok. Here it goes. I swear it's such a small thing but it made me ridiculously excited.

18th Century Cop Show

Starring: Louis-Antoine Saint-Just and Marie-Jean Hérault de Séchelles

Background:

Michel Lepeletier was assassinated by royalist Pâris on 20th January 1793. Pâris fled the scene, tried to emigrate but eventually shot himself on 29th January. They found his birth certificate and a note on him taking responsibility for Lepeletier's death (and also stating his initial target was Philippe Orléans). The Convention sends Tallien and Legendre to investigate whether the dead man is indeed Pâris. Tallien makes a report confirming that's indeed Pâris, and the matter is closed.

BUT!

Michel's brother Félix Lepeletier writes about a meeting he had in late 1793 with Saint-Just and Hérault in front of Tuileries. The pair informed him that that Pâris was very much alive and in hiding in Nanterre (so, Tallien's report was wrong). They assured him that their info was reliable, and that they even knew the exact house in which Pâris was hiding.

Félix was surprised but started having doubts. Nothing came out of this, but over the years, he kept receiving occasional news from different people about Pâris being alive. A relative told him that Pâris died in 1813 in London.

Félix's description of the meeting with SJ and Hérault (in French)

So, that's all. Félix seemed convinced that his brother's assassin died in 1813, but Tallien's official report was never challenged. It is possible that none of this was true and that Pâris indeed died back in January 1793 (and that Tallien's report was correct).

Still. Still.

This shows that CSP investigated the matter, and that SJ and Hérault knew something or had specific doubts. The anecdote also shows that SJ and Hérault were willing to cooperate (they met Félix together, seemingly out of their free will lol). Hérault being interested in the matter is not surprising - Michel Lepeletier was his childhood friend. But why SJ? Were they tasked with this specific thing, or they simply happened to inform Félix of CSP's suspicions? But why together? (Unless both SJ and Hérault wanted be the one to inform Félix and neither wanted to let the other one do it, so they went together). Does this mean Tallien's report was doubted and dismissed, even if not officially? I have so many questions from this small anecdote, you have no idea.

I found something incredibly niche but super interesting to me. A little anecdote involving SJ and Hérault, in which Tallien (possibly?) is a fool, and all connected to Michel and Félix Lepeletier.

I don't want to be a tease, because the thing is really insignificant but it's so rare to learn new things, even new crumbs about SJ that I am all !!!

#frev #saint-just #hérault #felix lepeletier #michel lepeletier #tallien

74 notes · View notes

nesiacha · 2 months ago

Text

The Journey of the Forgotten French Revolutionary Victor Bach: His Opposition to the Directory and Bonaparte, and Questions Surrounding the Mystery of His Death

Le Cœur - La mort de Victor Bach, le 18 brumaire, au pied de la statue de la Liberté, place de la Concorde - P460 - Musée Carnavalet (portrait representing the death of Victor Bach)

Before addressing the hypotheses regarding his mysterious death, it is essential to learn more about the journey of this revolutionary. Here is how he is described in the book Biographie des Contemporains (Biography of Contemporaries), written by Arnault and Jay in 1821: "Doctor in Paris, elector of the department of the Seine in (...) 1798; one of the most enthusiastic and passionate supporters of the Revolution. He was arrested by order of the Directory government and brought before a jury on charges of writing a satirical pamphlet against members of the Directory, particularly those responsible for the law of 22 Floréal, Year VII (May 11, 1799) (...). After being released, Bach continued to vehemently attack the directors and all enemies of the Revolution. In June 1799 (Prairial, Year VII), he delivered a fiery speech at the Jacobin Tribune on Rue du Bac, in which he again railed against the Directory, outlined the dangers threatening the Republic, and proposed the creation of an exclusively democratic government. He concluded his speech by reading a proposed constitution, in which he expanded the notion of democracy so much that the 1793 constitution (...) would have seemed like an aristocratic work by comparison. The revolution of 18 Brumaire, Year VIII, and General Bonaparte's rise to power as Consul, shook his already fragile mind; he took his own life at the foot of the Statue of Liberty."

Historian Bernard Gainot already notes an error in this biography. Victor Bach allegedly gave this speech at the Club du Manège, not at the Jacobin Tribune. Michaud places Bach in the political spectrum of Babouvism or neo-Babouvism, describing him as: "After the fall of Robespierre, he, in turn, was persecuted and narrowly escaped the prosecutions directed at Babeuf's accomplices and the assailants of the Camp of Grenelle." However, Bernard Gainot considers this portrait confused, as it seems to mix up the repression of Year III with the repression targeting the Babouvists from Year IV onward.

This is how Bernard Gainot summarizes this opponent of the Directory: He was born into a family of blacksmiths in Villefranche-de-Rouergue in 1764. His father was a Freemason, and his cousin played a significant local role during the French Revolution. After completing his medical studies, Victor Bach always made sure to mention his medical degree in his signature.

He was deeply committed to the Revolution. According to Gainot, documents from Year III describe him as a former police commissioner of the Chalier section. In his book Les Sans-Culottes Parisiens en l’An II, Soboul cites a denunciation by Victor Bach in Germinal, Year II, against "the wealthy members of his section who had contributed a smaller sum to a collection for saltpeter than the workers of the gunpowder workshop" (as quoted by Bernard Gainot).

Some documents present him as a supporter of Carrier. As a result, the Thermidorian period depicted him as a terrorist, even a Robespierrist (a term as confused as Hébertist, Dantonist, or even Girondin). Under the Directory, Bach remained politically active, living among the neo-Jacobins and continuing to be involved with political opponents of the Directory. He was a member of the Société Politique, where he interacted with well-known revolutionary opponents of the time, including Xavier Audouin, Felix Lepeletier, Antonelle (nicknamed "the Invariable"), Adjutant Jorry, René Vatar, and others.

Victor Bach is far from the unknown figure he is today. The speech he delivered at the Manège in 1799 was well-received within certain circles, but outside, it sparked controversies, such as Poultier’s accusation of Jacobin conspiracy, accusing him of advocating for a revolutionary system based on the suppression of private property. This provided a pretext to close the Manège.

Gainot disputes the idea that Victor Bach represented a split between radicals and opportunists.

Bach invoked the tragedies of the Revolution, not out of nostalgia, but to draw "lessons" intended to strengthen the maturity of the democratic movement. He glorified the "martyrs" of the revolutionary cause, reinforcing a cult of memory typical of revolutionary rhetoric, without necessarily advocating a return to what is sometimes called the troubled period of 1793 (I still have difficulty with the word Terror, knowing that it was coined by opportunists to rehabilitate their political reputations, though I accept it more than the silly term Reign of Terror).

Bach particularly stood out for his emphasis on progressive taxation, which he saw as a key tool for social redistribution and the consolidation of the Republic. This set him apart from other reformers of the time, like Félix Le Peletier, whose proposals, though converging on certain points, lacked the same programmatic coherence. Bach’s program reflected a socially oriented vision, deeply concerned with economic justice, as evidenced by his proposals for public assistance, education, and support for the disadvantaged.

Gainot also highlights that, while Bach aligned himself with the Constitution of Year III, his discourse was perceived as a threat by conservatives. They quickly exploited some of his proposals, particularly the idea of citizens' "co-ownership," to discredit his program by equating it with extreme revolutionary ideas, such as agrarian law or the abolition of private property. However, Gainot demonstrates that Bach was not advocating for the abolition of private property but for extending political rights to a broader segment of citizens. Unlike figures like Babeuf, Momoro, or Jacques Roux ( Jacques Roux who encroached on property during food store pillages), Bach was one of those republicans who believed in the sanctity of property rights.

In a broader perspective, Gainot connects Bach to other republican figures of the time, such as Bernard Metge (a staunch opponent of Sieyes and Bonaparte, as well as an adamant adversary of Babouvism) and François Dubreuil, who shared similar concerns about pauperism and the defense of republican principles. However, these militants, though active in the democratic opposition, were unprepared for the repression that followed under the Consulate, leading to their marginalization or political disappearance.

The article shows that Bach’s trajectory, and that of the neo-Jacobins in general, is emblematic of the tensions between pursuing revolutionary ideals and the reality of a republican regime in transition, seeking to stabilize while fighting internal and external threats. Bach, though aware of the dangers, seemed to believe in the continued existence of an open public sphere where democratic debates could still take place.

I appreciated Bernard Gainot's comparison of the similarities and differences between Victor Bach and Felix Le Peletier. Both were fervent republicans who sought to regenerate the Republic and combat corruption, particularly by defending the principle that civil servants should be held accountable, transparently revealing their income, for example. Both believed in the right of association, albeit for different reasons—one to defend political freedoms, the other to maintain contact with the people, who would be a key element in the struggle.

They sought to punish traitors and embezzlers and defended a social-economic program. But Victor Bach was more radical than Felix Le Peletier. He placed even greater emphasis on proposals such as progressive taxation and assistance to the poor, whereas Felix Le Peletier, though he mentioned these issues in his speeches, was more cautious, likely out of tactical prudence given that they were a minority facing the Directory.

Bach aimed his message more at the neo-Jacobins who would recognize themselves in his discourse, while Felix Le Peletier sought to appeal to a broader audience, including republican notables or part of the Legislative Body.

Now we turn to the circumstances of Victor Bach's death. Traditionally, he is seen as a republican who, upon witnessing all his fears materialize in the form of a military dictator and the destruction of the Revolution, killed himself with a pistol on 18 Brumaire at the foot of the Statue of Liberty when Bonaparte took power. However, this theory is challenged by several pieces of evidence. At that time, the press was not yet fully censored, and if a well-known figure like Victor Bach had committed suicide under such conditions, it would have been reported in the press at least. A man did indeed commit suicide on 3 Frimaire, Year VIII (November 24, 1799), but this man was named Carré and did so at the foot of the Statue of Liberty.

So, what happened to Victor Bach? Bonaparte had not forgotten him, as we know he used the machine infernale incident perpetrated by royalists as an opportunity to eliminate opposition from the left, sending some people he knew well (notably Giuseppe Ceracchi, tortured for false confessions and sent to the guillotine, among others) to their deaths.

Bach was listed for deportation, yet his name was later altered with the claim that he had committed suicide on June 5, 1800, in the Bois de Boulogne. However, this body turned out to be that of a certain Arson. So, what happened? What are the exact circumstances of Victor Bach's death?

Nevertheless, it is important to note that the Bois de Boulogne was a known location for duels. Gainot puts forward three hypotheses: Le Journal des Hommes libres reports that during the period of Year VIII, disputes escalated into duels, with one side consisting of democratic supporters and the other of those aligned with Sieyès. Victor Bach, being an opponent of Bonaparte, may have been involved in such a duel and died as a result. His body could not be identified, even though it was said that he died in the Bois de Boulogne.

However, there is another, more troubling hypothesis raised by Gainot: it is possible that an agent (perhaps acting under Fouché’s orders) secretly eliminated Victor Bach to rid themselves of a troublesome and well-known political adversary. This is plausible, as Bonaparte (or his advisors like Cambacérès, Fouché, Talleyrand) broke many legal norms. The fact that no evidence has surfaced could support the idea of the destruction of compromising documents. Given Bonaparte's history of eliminating bodies, as seen with the former slaves, rebels, and even innocent Black individuals drowned by Rochambeau and Leclerc under Bonaparte’s orders, one might wonder if such methods were employed against Bach. But in 1800, in metropolitan France, why would they do this to Bach and not extend the same treatment to other Bonaparte opponents like Buonarroti? And what would Bonaparte (or Fouché, Talleyrand, or Cambacérès) gain from such an action? Moreover, the surprise surrounding Bach's death seems genuine, as he had been on the deportation list, and it was only when his death was learned that a modification had to be made.

The third hypothesis is that of suicide. It is suggested that Bach might have taken his own life after Bonaparte’s victory at the Battle of Marengo (June 1800), which solidified the latter’s power and dashed the hopes of the republican opposition. However, his body mysteriously disappeared, leading to speculation that his friends may have discreetly buried him, or that the police erased all traces of his death. On the other hand, Victor Bach comes across as a fighter, an authentic revolutionary who did not waver even during the harshest periods of the Directory. But this hypothesis remains more plausible than the second. Personally, I lean toward the first hypothesis, but if that were the case, why was his body never found for identification, especially since he had family he was constantly in contact with, as well as colleagues nearby? Why didn’t they reported his death? I understand the part where they might have wanted to bury him in secret to ensure his body was treated with respect, but not to mention it at all seems odd. This whole affair is quite mysterious.

In any case, it seems safe to say that he died before the roundup of Jacobins for deportation or execution, and that’s likely the only certainty we will have. However, we can still remember his revolutionary work, both for the good he accomplished and for what he may be criticized for. We should strive to bring him out of the obscurity into which he has fallen, considering that he was well-known during his lifetime.

I end with some extracts from Victor Bach's speech qu'il a adressé au Directoire.

"… calculate, if you can, the sum of the vices, the crimes, and the evils of all kinds that have emerged from the cavern of the overthrown Directory, like another Pandora's box; count, if you can, the number of families they have plunged into misery, divided, decimated, or annihilated; measure, if possible, the tears and blood they have caused to be shed! The blood of several million men, the tears of almost all the peoples of both hemispheres, condensed on their sacrilegious heads, form a black, dark, thick cloud, from which the thunder will inevitably strike to crush them sooner or later. Illustrious spirits of the victims of Vendôme, sacrificed by Viellard on the altar of the bloodthirsty gods who desecrated Luxembourg! Revered spirits of the overly trusting republicans massacred at Grenelle, no less precious spirits of the democrats of Switzerland and Italy! And you, generous and immortal spirits of our heroes, reduced to every kind of deprivation, and sacrificed in the hospices and in battle to satisfy their insatiable thirst for blood and riches, who undoubtedly delight in soaring over this cradle of liberty—take back for a moment your bloodied bodies, gather your scattered limbs, rise from your graves, stand up, and come with us, with your mutilated comrades, with your widows and orphans, your fathers, mothers, sisters, and mourning brothers! Come, come demand with us from the Legislative Body full justice and swift vengeance!" ( I think that it is Victor Bach who make this speech)

Those are definitely from him: When he warns against impulsiveness: "It is certainly good and useful to have confidence in one's abilities and resources; but this commendable presumption, without which one cannot hope for victory in battle or in politics, has its limits. If these limits are exceeded, it becomes nothing more than recklessness, powerless bravado, a ridiculous boastfulness that turns the laurels, which one was certain to win, into cypress, had one only listened to the humble voice of wisdom and prudence…"

When he addresses the members of the Directory by name: "Yes, guilty as you may be, Reubell, Merlin, and all of you legislators, directors, or ministers who may be their accomplices! I do not wish for your death, but rather that you be sentenced to sweep the streets of Paris, dressed in those grand costumes that gave you the pride, greed, and cruelty of the kings you sought to imitate."

Rest in peace Victor Bach.

Sources: Albert Soboul Biographie des Contemporains (1821) by Arnault and Jay Michaud Journal des Hommes libres Bernard Gainot’s investigation into the "suicide" of Victor Bach, extracted from Annales historiques de la Révolution française

#frev #french revolution #the directory #napoleonic era #napoleon bonaparte #jacobin #history #1800s

5 notes · View notes

nesiacha · 2 months ago

Text

Thank you very much :) The problem with Sophie Momoro is like Simone Evrard some describe her as beautiful others as ugly. Too bad photography didn't exist to know who is telling the truth or not Otherwise I would add Felix Le Peletier as tall blond with light eyes according to this link:

Anyway, thank you very much for all your informations :)

Frev appearance descriptions masterpost

Jean-Paul Marat — In Histoire de la Révolution française: 1789-1796 (1851) Nicolas Villiaumé pins down Marat’s height to four pieds and eight pouces (around 157 cm). This is a somewhat dubious claim considering Villiaumé was born 26 years after Marat’s death and therefore hardly could have measured him himself, but we do know he had had contacts with Marat’s sister Albertine, so maybe there’s still something to this. That Marat was short is however not something Villaumé is alone in claiming. Brissot wrote in his memoirs that he was ”the size of a sapajou,” the pamphlet Bordel patriotique (1791) claimed that he had ”such a sad face, such an unattractive height,” while John Moore in A Journal During a Residence in France, From the Beginning of August, to the Middle of December, 1792 (1793) documented that ”Marat is little man, of a cadaverous complexion, and a countenance exceedingly expressive of his disposition. […] The only artifice he uses in favour of his looks is that of wearing a round hat, so far pulled down before as to hide a great part of his countenance.” In Portrait de Marat (1793) Fabre d’Eglantine left the following very detailed description: ”Marat was short of stature, scarcely five feet high. He was nevertheless of a firm, thick-set figure, without being stout. His shoulders and chest were broad, the lower part of his body thin, thigh short and thick, legs bowed, and strong arms, which he employed with great vigor and grace. Upon a rather short neck he carried a head of a very pronounced character. He had a large and bony face, aquiline nose, flat and slightly depressed, the under part of the nose prominent; the mouth medium-sized and curled at one corner by a frequent contraction; the lips were thin, the forehead large, the eyes of a yellowish grey color, spirited, animated, piercing, clear, naturally soft and ever gracious and with a confident look; the eyebrows thin, the complexion thick and skin withered, chin unshaven, hair brown and neglected. He was accustomed to walk with head erect, straight and thrown back, with a measured stride that kept time with the movement of his hips. His ordinary carriage was with his two arms firmly crossed upon his chest. In speaking in society he always appeared much agitated, and almost invariably ended the expression of a sentiment by a movement of the foot, which he thrust rapidly forward, stamping it at the same time on the ground, and then rising on tiptoe, as though to lift his short stature to the height of his opinion. The tone of his voice was thin, sonorous, slightly hoarse, and of a ringing quality. A defect of the tongue rendered it difficult for him to pronounce clearly the letters c and l, to which he was accustomed to give the sound g. There was no other perceptible peculiarity except a rather heavy manner of utterance; but the beauty of his thought, the fullness of his eloquence, the simplicity of his elocution, and the point of his speeches absolutely effaced the maxillary heaviness. At the tribune, if he rose without obstacle or excitement, he stood with assurance and dignity, his right hand upon his hip, his left arm extended upon the desk in front of him, his head thrown back, turned toward his audience at three-quarters, and a little inclined toward his right shoulder. If on the contrary he had to vanquish at the tribune the shrieking of chicanery and bad faith or the despotism of the president, he awaited the reéstablishment of order in silence and resuming his speech with firmness, he adopted a bold attitude, his arms crossed diagonally upon his chest, his figure bent forward toward the left. His face and his look at such times acquired an almost sardonic character, which was not belied by the cynicism of his speech. He dressed in a careless manner: indeed, his negligence in this respect announced a complete neglect of the conventions of custom and of taste and, one might almost say, gave him an air of ressemblance.”

Albertine Marat — both Alphonse Ésquiros and François-Vincent Raspail who each interviewed Albertine in her old age, as well as Albertine’s obituary (1841) noted a striking similarity in apperance between her and her older brother. Esquiros added that she had ”two black and piercing eyes.” A neighbor of Albertine claimed in 1847 that she had ”the face of a man,” and that she had told her that ”my comrades were never jealous of me, I was too ugly for that” (cited in Marat et ses calomniateurs ou Réfutation de l’Histoire des Girondins de Lamartine (1847) by Constant Hilbe)

Simonne Evrard — An official minute from July 1792, written shortly after Marat’s death, affirmed the following: “Height: 1m, 62, brown hair and eyebrows, ordinary forehead, aquiline nose, brown eyes, large mouth, oval face.” The minute for her interrogation instead says: “grey eyes, average mouth.”Cited in this article by marat-jean-paul.org. When a neighbor was asked whether Simonne was pretty or not around two decades after her death in 1824, she responded that she was ”très-bien” and possessed ”an angelic sweetness” (cited in Marat et ses calomniateurs ou Réfutation de l’Histoire des Girondins de Lamartine (1847) by Constant Hilbe) while Joseph Souberbielle instead claimed that ”she was extremely plain and could never have had any good looks.”

Maximilien Robespierre — The hostile pampleth Vie secrette, politique et curieuse de M. J Maximilien Robespierre… released shortly after thermidor by L. Duperron, specifies Robespierre’s hight to have been ”five pieds and two or three pouces” (between 165 and 170 cm). He gets described as being ”of mediocre hight” by his former teacher Liévin-Bonaventure Proyart in 1795, ”a little below average height” by journalist Galart de Montjoie in 1795, ”of medium hight” by the former Convention deputy Antoine-Claire Thibaudeau in 1830 and ”of middling form” by his sister in 1834, but ”of small size” by John Moore in 1792 and Claude François Beaulieu in 1824. The 1792 pampleth Le véritable portrait de nos législateurs… wrote that Robespierre lacked ”an imposing physique, a body à la Danton,”supported by Joseph Fiévée who described him as ”small and frail” in 1836, and Louis Marie de La Révellière who said he was ”a physically puny man” in his memoirs published 1895. For his face, both François Guérin (on a note written below a sketch in 1791), Buzot in his Mémoires sur la Révolution française (written 1794), Germaine de Staël in her Considerations on the Principal Events of the French Revolution (1818), a foreign visitor by the name of Reichardt in 1792 (cited in Robespierre by J.M Thompson), Beaulieu and La Révellière-Lépeaux all agreed that he had a ”pale complexion.” Charlotte does instead describe it as ”delicate” and writes that Maximilien’s face ”breathed sweetness and goodwill, but it was not as regularly handsome as that of his brother,” while Proyart claims his apperance was ”entirely commonplace.” The foreigner Reichardt wrote Robespierre had ”flattened, almost crushed in, features,” something which Proyart agrees with, writing that his ”very flat features” consisted of ”a rather small head born on broad shoulders, a round face, an indifferent pock-marked complexion, a livid hue [and] a small round nose.” Thibaudeau writes Robespierre had a ”thin face and cold physiognomy, bilious complexion and false look,” Duperron that ”his colouring was livid, bilious; his eyes gloomy and dull,” something which Stanislas Fréron in Notes sur Robespierre (1794) also agrees with, claiming that ”Robespierre was choked with bile. His yellow eyes and complexion showed it.” His eyes were however green according to Merlin de Thionville and Guérin while Proyart insists they were ”pale blue and slightly sunken.” Etienne Dumont, who claimed to have talked to Robespierre twice, wrote in his Souvernirs sur Mirabeau et sur les deux premières assemblées législatives (1832) that ”he had a sinister appearance; he would not look people in the face, and blinked continually and painfully,” and Duperron too insists on ”a frequent flickering of the eyelids.” Both Fréron, Buzot, Merlin de Thionville, La Révellière, Louis Sébastien Mercier in his Le Nouveau Paris (1797) and Beffroy de Reigny in Dictionnaire néologique des hommes et des choses ou notice alphabétique des hommes de la Révolution, qui ont paru à l’Auteur les plus dignes d’attention… (1799) made the peculiar claim that Robespierre’s face was similar to that of a cat. Proyart, Beaulieu and Millingen all wrote that it was marked by smallpox scars, ”mediocretly” according to Proyart, ”deeply” according to the other two. Proyart also writes that Robespierre’s hair was light brown (châtain-blond). He is the only one to have described his hair color as far as I’m aware.

For his clothes, both Montjoie, Louis-Sébastien Mercier in 1801, Helen Maria Williams in 1795, Duperron, Millingen and Fiévée recall the fact that Robespierre wore glasses, the first two claiming he never appeared in public without them, Duperron that he ”almost always” wore them, and Millingen that they were green. Pierre Villiers, who claimed to have served as Robespierre’s secretary in 1790, recalled in Souvenirs d'un deporté (1802) that Robespierre ”was very frugal, fastidiously clean in his clothes, I could almost say in his one coat, which was was of a dark olive colour,” but also that ”He was very poor and had not even proper clothes,” and even had to borrow a suit from a friend at one point. Duperron records that ”[Robespierre’s] clothes were elegant, his hair always neat,” Millingen that ”his dress was careful, and I recollect that he wore a frill and ruffles, that seemed to me of valuable lace,”Charlotte that ”his dress was of an extreme cleanliness without fastidiousness,” Williams that he ”always appeared not only dressed with neatness, but with some degree of elegance, and while he called himself the leader of the sans-culottes, never adopted the costume of his band. His hideous countenance […] was decorated with hair carefully arranged and nicely powdered,” Fiévée that Robespierre in 1793 was ”almost alone in having retained the costume and hairstyle in use before the Revolution,” something which made him ressemble ”a tailor from the Ancien régime,” Thibadeau that ”he was neat in his clothes, and he had kept the powder when no one wore it anymore,” Germaine de Staël that ”he was the only person who wore powder in his hair; his clothes were neat, and his countenance nothing familiar,” Révellière writes that Robespierre’s voice was ”toneless, monotonous and harsh,” Beaulieu that it ”was sharp and shrill, almost always in tune with violence,” and Thinadeau that his ”tone” was ”dogmatic and imperious.”

Augustin Robespierre — described as ”big, well formed, and [with a] face full of nobility and beauty” in the memoirs of his sister Charlotte. Charles Nodier did in Souvenirs, épisodes et portraits pour servir à l'histoire de la Révolution et de l'Empire (1831) recall that Augustin had a ”pale and macerated physiognomy” and a quite monotonous voice.

Charlotte Robespierre — an anonymous doctor who claimed to have run into Charlotte in 1833, the year before her death, described her as ”very thin.” Jules Simon, who reported to have met her the following year, did him too describe her as ”a very thin woman, very upright in her small frame, dressed in the antique style with very puritanical cleanliness.”

Camille Desmoulins — described as ”quite tall, with good shoulders” in number 16 of the hostile journal Chronique du Manège (1790). Described as ugly by both said journal, the journal Journal Général de la Cour et de la Ville in 1791, his friend François Suleau in 1791, former teacher Proyart in 1795, Galart de Montjoie in 1796, Georges Duval in 1841, Amandine Rolland in 1864 (she does however add that it was ”with that witty and animated ugliness that pleases”) and even himself in 1793. Proyart describes his complexion as ”black,” Duval as ”bilious.” Both of them agree in calling his eyes ”sinister.” Duval also claims that Desmoulins’ physiognomy was similar to that of an ospray. Montjoie writes that Desmoulins had ”a difficult pronunciation, a hard voice, no oratorical talent,” Proyart that ”he spoke very heavily and stammered in speech” and Camille himself that he has ”difficulty in pronunciation” in a letter dated March 1787, and confesses ”the feebleness of my voice and my slight oratorical powers” in number 4 of the Vieux Cordelier. In his very last letter to his wife, dated April 1 1794, Desmoulins reveals that he wears glasses.

Lucile Desmoulins — The concierge at the Sainte-Pélagie prison documented the following when Lucille was brought before him on April 4 1794: ”height of five pieds and one and a half pouce (166 cm). Brown hair, eyebrows and eyes. Middle sized nose and mouth. Round face and chin. Ordinary front. A mark above the chin on the right.” Cited in Camille et Lucile Desmoulins: un rêve de république (2018). Described as beautiful by the journal Journal Général de la Cour et de la Ville in 1791 (it specifies her to be ”as pretty as her husband is ugly”), former Convention deputy Pierre Paganel in 1815, Louis Marie Prudhomme in 1830, Amandine Rolland in 1864 and Théodore de Lameth (memoirs published 1913).

Georges Danton — Described as having an ugly face by both Manon Roland in 1793, Vadier in 1794, the anonymous pamphlet Histoire, caractère de Maximilien Robespierre et anecdotes sur ses successeurs in 1794, Louis-Sébastien Mercier in 1797, Antoine Fantin-Desodoards in 1807, John Gideon Millingen in 1848, Élisabeth Duplay Lebas in the 1840s, the memoirs (1860) of François-René Chateaubriand (he specifies that Danton had ”the face of a gendarme mixed with that of a lustful and cruel prosecutor”) as well as the Mémoires de la Societé d’agriculture, commerce, sciences et arts du department de la Marse, Chalons-sur-Marne (1862). As reason for this ugliness, Millingen lifts his ”course, shaggy hair” (that apparently gave him the apperance of a ”wild beast”), the fact he was deeply marked with small-poxes, and that his eyes were unusually small (”and sparkling in surrounding darkness”), while Chateaubriand instead underlines that he was ”snub-nosed,” with ”windy nostrils [and] seamed flats.” Mercier writes that Danton’s face was ”hideously crushed.” The former Convention deputy Alexandre Rousselin (1774-1847) reported in his Danton — Fragment Historique that Danton developed a lip deformity after getting gored by a bull as a baby, had his nose crushed by another bull, got trampled in the face by a group of pigs and finally survived ”a very serious case of smallpoxes, accompanied by purpura.” In 1792, John Moore reported that ”Danton is not so tall, but much broader than Roland; his form is coarse and uncommonly robust,” while Vadier claims that Danton possessed a ”robust form, colossal eloquence,” the anonymous pamphlet that ”he was very strong, he said himself that he had athletic forms,” Desodoards that he ”held the nature of athletic and colossal forms,” Chateaubriand that he was ”a vandal in the size of Goth” (don’t know who he’s referring to), Pierre Paganel (in Essai historique et critique sur la révolution française: ses causes, ses résultats, avec les portraits des hommes les plus célèbres (1815)) that he was of an ”enormous stature,” while the pamphlet described him as a ”gigantic orator” whose voice ”shook the vaults of the hall.” René Levasseur in 1829, John Moore, Millingen, Paganel and Desodoards all agreed with this, the first four writing that Danton possessed a ”stentorian voice,” the latter that he had ”a very strong voice, without being sonorous or flexible.” In her memoirs (1834) Charlotte Robespierre claims that ”[Danton] did not at all conserve the dignity suited to the representative of a great people in his manners; his toilette was in disorder.”

Louis Antoine Saint-Just — In Saint-Just (1985) Bernard Vinot writes that Saint-Just’s childhood friend Augustin Lejeune recalled his “honest physiognomy,” and that his sister Louise would evoke her brother’s ”great beauty” for her grandchildren (I unfortunately can’t find the original sources here). The elderly Élisabeth Le Bas too stated that ”he was handsome, Saint-Just, with his pensive face, on which one saw the greatest energy, tempered by an air of indefinable gentleness and candor” (testimony found in Les Carnets de David d’Angers (1838-1855) by Pierre-Jean David d’Angers, cited in Veuve de Thermidor: le rôle et l'influence d'Élisabeth Duplay-Le Bas (1772-1859) sur la mémoire et l'historiographie de la Révolution française (2023) by Jolène Audrey Bureau, page 127). In Souvenirs de la révolution et de l’empire, Charles Nodier (who was twelve years old when he met Saint-Just…) agrees in calling him ”handsome,” but adds that he ”was far from offering this graceful combination of cute features with which we have seen it endowed by the euphemistic pencil of a lithograph,” had an ”ample and rather disproportionate chin,” that ”the arc of his eyebrows, instead of rounding into smooth and regular semi-circles, was closer to a straight line, and its interior angles, which were bushy and severe, merged into one another at the slightest serious thought that one saw pass on his forehead” and finally that ”his soft and fleshy lips indicated an almost invincible inclination to laziness and voluptuousness.” How would you know what his lips were like, Nodier. In Essai historique et critique sur la révolution française (1815) Pierre Paganel writes that Saint-Just had ”regular features and austere physiognomy.” He describes his complexion as ”bilious” while Nodier calls it ”pale and grayish, like that of most of the active men of the revolution.” Similar to Élisabeth’s description, Nodier writes that Saint-Just’s eyes were big and ”usually thoughtful,” while Paganel instead writes they were ”small and lively.” Saint-Just was of ”average height” according to Paganel, but ”of small stature” according to Nodier. According to Paganel, Saint-Just had a ”healthy body [and] proportions which expressed strength,” while Saint-Just’s colleague Levasseur de la Sarthe instead wrote in his memoirs that he was ”weak in body, to the point of fearing the whistling of bullets.” Finally, Paganel also gives the following details: ”large head, thick hair, disdainful gaze, strong but veiled voice, a general tinge of anxiety, the dark accent of concern and distrust, an extreme coldness in tone and manners.” In Lettre de Camille Desmoulins, député de Paris à la Convention, August général Dillon en prison aux Madelonettes (1793) Desmoulins jokingly writes that ”one can see by [Saint-Just’s] gait and bearing that he looks upon his own head as the corner-stone of the Revolution, for he carries it upon his shoulders with as much respect and as if it was the Sacred Host.” In Histoire de la Révolution française(1878), Jules Michelet claims that Élisabeth Le Bas had told him that this portrait, depicting Saint-Just as having ”a very low forehead, [with] the top of his head flattened, so that his hair, without being long, almost touched his eyes,” was similar to what he had looked like.

Jacques-Pierre Brissot — The following was documented after Brissot had been arrested at Moulins on June 10 1793 — ”height of five pieds (162 cm), a small amount of flat dark brown hair, eyebrows of the same color, high forehead and receding hairline, gray-brown, quite large and covered eyes, long and not very large nose, average mouth, long chin with a dimple, black beard, oval face narrow at the bottom” (cited in J.-P. Brissot mémoires (1754-1793); [suivi de] correspondance et papiers (1912)). In Journal During a Residence in France, from the Beginning of August, to the Middle of December, 1792 John Moore described Brissot as ”a little man, of an intelligent countenance, but of a weakly frame of body” and claimed that a person had told him that Brissot had told him that he is ”of so feeble a constitution” that he won’t be able to put up any resistance was someone try to assassinate him.

Jérôme Pétion — described as ”big and fat” (grand et gros) by Louis-Philippe in 1850 (cited in The Croker Papers: the Correspondence and Diaries of the late right honourable John Wilson Croker… (1885) volume 3, page 209). Manon Roland wrote in her memoirs that Pétion ”had nothing to regret physically; his size, his face, his gentleness, his urbanity, speak in his favor” as well as that he ”spoke fairly well,” a descriptions which Louis Marie Prudhomme partly agreed with, himself recording that Pétion ”had a proud countenance, a fairly handsome face, an affable look, a gentle eloquence, movements of talent and address; but his manners were composed, his eyes were dull, and he had something glistening in his features which repelled confidence” in Paris pendant le révolution (1789-1798) ou le nouveau Paris (1798). In Quelques notices pour l’histoire, et le récit de mes périls depuis le 31 mai 1793 (1794) Jean-Baptiste Louvet reported that, while on the run from the authorities after the insurrection of May 31, the less than forty years old Pétion already had a white hair and beard. This is confirmed by Frédéric Vaultier, who in Souvenirs de l'insurrection Normande, dite du Fédéralisme, en 1793 (1858) described Pétion during the same period as ”a good-looking man, with a calm and open physiognomy and beautiful white hair,” as well as by the examination of his mangled courpse on June 26 1794, which states he had ”grayish hair” (cited in Charlotte de Corday et les Girondins: pièces classées et annotées (1872) by Charles Vatel, volume 2, page 154.

François Buzot — according to the memoirs (1793) of Manon Roland, he had ”a noble figure and elegant size.” In the examination made of Buzot’s body after the suicide there is to read that he had black hair (cited in Charlotte de Corday et les Girondins: pièces classées et annotées (1872) by Charles Vatel, volume 2, page 153)

Charles Barbaroux — his son wrote in Jeunesse de Barbaroux (1822) that ”nature had richly endowed Barbaroux; a robust and large body; a charming, fine and witty physiognomy.” In 1867, François Laprade, who had witnessed Barbaroux’ execution as a thirteen year old, recollected that ”he was a brown man - that is to say he had brownish skin, black hair and beard, reclining figure” (cited in Charlotte de Corday et les Girondins: pièces classées et annotées, volume 3, page 728)

Marguerite-Élie Guadet — According to his passport (cited in Charlotte de Corday et les Girondins: pièces classées et annotées, volume 3, page 672): ”height of 5 pieds, 5 pouces (176 cm) middle sized mouth, black hair and eyebrows, ordinary chin, blue eyes, big forehead, thin face, upturned nose.” According to Frédéric Vaultier’s Souvenirs de l'insurrection Normande, dite du Fédéralisme, en 1793(1858), ”Guadet was a man of fine height, meagre, brown, bilious complexion, black beard, most expressive face.”

Joseph Le Bon — his passport description (cited in Louis Jacob, Joseph Le Bon, (1932) by Louis Jacob, volume 1, page 63) gives the following information: ”Height of five pieds six pouces (178 cm), light brown hair and eyebrows, high forehead, average nose, blue eyes, medium-sized mouth, smallpox scars.”

Claire Lacombe — the concierge of the Sainte Pélagie documented the following about the imprisoned Lacombe: ”height of 5 pieds, 2 pouces (168 cm). Brown hair, eyebrows and eyes, medium nose, large mouth, round face and chin, plain forehead” (cited in Trois femmes de la Révolution : Olymps de Gouges, Théroigne de Méricourt, Rose Lacombe (1900) by Léopold Lacour)

Charlotte Corday — according to her passport, ”height of five pieds one pouce (165 cm), brown hair and eyebrows, gray eyes, high forehead, long nose, medium mouth, round, forked (fourchu) chin, oval face.” (cited in Dossiers du procès criminel de Charlotte Corday, devant le Tribunal révolutionnaire(1861) by Charles-Joseph Vatel, page 55)

Prieur de la Marne — a passport dated October 1 1793 gives the following details: ”age of 37 years, height of 5 pieds 5 pouces (176 cm), blondish brown hair and eyebrows, receding hairline, long nose, grey eyes, large mouth.”

Maurice Duplay — ”height of 5 pieds 6 pouces (179 cm), blondish brown hair and eyebrows, receding hairline, grey eyes, long, open nose, large mouth, round, full chin and face.” Descriptions given in 1795 and cited in Les deniers montagnards (1874) by Jules Claretie.

Jean Lambert Tallien — Both a spy report written in 1794 found among Robespierre’s papers and Mme de la Tour du Pin, a noblewoman who met Tallien in late 1793, describe Tallien’s hair as blonde. Mme de la Tour du Pin adds that said hair was curly and that he had a pretty face.

#frev #french revolution

229 notes · View notes