#frimaire

[deerinhorror]

[rmelster]

Frimaire.

Starting the 21 November, Frimaire (whose name came from the French frimas, frost) was the third month of the year, and last month of autumn. Being oriented by te natural cycle and not by the once ruling Gregorian calendar, this month anticipated the first frost of the year.

[calendrier-republicain]

29 frimaire 232, Jour de l'olive !

[lemuseum]

[deathzgf]

happy 1 frimaire :3

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

His enemies reproach [Robespierre] with having sent bloodthirsty proconsuls into the departments, but, on the contrary, he was the one who had almost all those who abused their unlimited powers to exercise dreadful cruelties recalled; he was the one who wrote to the representatives of the people on mission without cease that they needed to sober in their rigors and make the revolution cherished rather than hated. Many times he asked, without success, for Carrier, whom Billaud-Varennes protected, to be recalled. Mémoires de Charlotte Robespierre sur ses deux frères (1834) page 123-124

Laignelot: When I passed through Nantes to go to Brest, I met Carrier; he spoke to me about the drownings, and told me in the presence of Beaudit: ”You’re luckier than me; you have a bigger pool, and buildings to your service.” […] Before Carrier was denounced, I had told this fact to several of my colleagues. I went to see Robespierre, who was indisposed, I described to him all the horrors that had been committed in Nantes; he replied: “Carrier is a patriot; that was needed in Nantes.”  Audition de M. Carrier devant la Convention qui remplit les fonctions de jury d'accusation, lors de la séance du 3 frimaire an III (23 novembre 1794)

It is known well enough in what way [Collot and Fouché] conducted themselves [in Lyon]; it is known that they made blood flow in torrents, and plunged the second city of the republic into fright and consternation. Robespierre was outraged by it. […] I was present for the interview that Fouché had with Robespierre upon his return. My brother asked him to account for the bloodshed he had caused, and reproached him for his conduct with such energy of expression that Fouché was pale and trembling. He mumbled a few excuses and blamed the cruel measures he had taken on the gravity of the circumstances. Robespierre replied that nothing could justify the cruelties of which he had been guilty; that Lyon, it was true, had been in insurrection against the National Convention, but that that was no reason to have unarmed enemies gunned down en masse.   Mémoires de Charlotte Robespierre sur ses deux frères (1834) page 123-124

Robespierre murmured a lot about the forms that we had established in Lyon for the execution of decrees: he constantly repeated that there was no reason to judge the guilty when they are outlawed. He exclaimed that we had let the families of the condemned go free; and when the commission sent the Convention and the committee the list of its judgments, he was not in control of his anger as he cast his eyes on the column where the names of the citizens who had been acquitted were written. Unable to change anything in the forms of judgment, regulated according to the decrees and approved by the committee, he imagined another system; he questioned whether the patriots of Commune-Affranchie were not vexed and under oppression. They were, he said, because the property of the condemned being specially intended, by article IV of the decree of July 12, to become their patrimony, we had greatly reduced their claims, not only by not judging only a quarter of the number of conspirators identified by Dubois-Crancé on 23 Vendémiare, or designated by previous decrees, but also by establishing a commission which appeared willing to acquit two thirds, as it happened. Through these declamations Robespierre wanted to entertain the patriots of whom he spoke, with the most violent ideas, to throw into their minds a framework of extraordinary measures, and to put them in opposition with the representatives of the people and their closest cooperators: he made them understand that they could count on him, he emboldened them to form all kinds of obstacles, to only follow his indications which he presented as being the intentions of the Committee of Public Safety.   Défense de J-M. Collot, répresentant du peuple. Éclaircissemens nécessaires sur ce qui s’est passé à Lyon (alors Commune-Affranchie), l’année dernière; pour faire suite aux rapports des Répresentants du peuple, envoyés vers cette commune, avant, pendant et après le siège (1794), page 23-24.

Come on now guys, which version is the truth?

[qsycomplainsalot]

I'm not gonna watch the Napoleon movie in cinema, I'll most likely watch it through completely legal means later on out of curiosity but I don't want to support the clearly anti-intellectual stance that the director has circled the wagon around. His bad takes on making a historical period movie is not creative license, which could be used in support of the "source material", it's just this dickhead turning every historical event into scenes from Gladiator. This is not Maxime Frimaire Meridien, Marechal d'Empire starring in an epic historical fiction, it's a Napoleon biopic and it comes with responsibility. The guy was very important in shaping modern Europe, he wasn't just any asshole. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum, the message and impact it has are just as much part of its artistic merits as everything else and it's very much fair to criticize him on these points the same way we could criticize the cinematography. Like that's a thing with movies talking about historical matters, it can be good on most accounts and still be a horrible fuck up in the way it speaks to people.

Said people meanwhile will get really confused by the concept that movies that aren't documentaries could shape the mainstream understanding of a certain topic while having based their entire knowledge of dinosaurs on the Jurassic Park movies. It's also not a fair take to try and absolve Ridley Scott from any inaccuracy problems on that basis when he himself fully leans into the historical aspect of his work when it's convenient for him, the man is being interviewed by mainstream media saying Napoleon was like Hitler but sure that movie being nonsense won't damage people's understanding of the early 19th century.

So yeah anyway not gonna support that with my money.

[alchemyfire]

This all makes me so sad...

Here are a few excerpts from the book about the Festival of the Supreme Being, that break my heart.

-----

According to contemporary sources, it was during the actual procession that some of the most severe personal attacks on Robespierre were launched. As President of the Convention, Robespierre was to march at the head of that body but, whether deliberately or not, he finished up marching alone and at some distance from his fellows. This opportunity to attack him directly and personally was seized upon by his opponents, since any remarks made in the open air would not give Robespierre the same facility of denouncing them as if they had dared to express the same sentiments in the Convention or at the Jacobin Club. The clearest account is that by Marc-Antoine Baudot, the representative of the Saône-et Loire, who wrote in his Notes Historiques, re-published by Edgar Quinet's widow in 1893:

There were more than eight people in the ranks between myself and Robespierre; I heard all the curses. They came from Thirion, from Montaut, from Ruamps and above all from Lecointre de Versailles, who more than twenty times called Robespierre 'Dictator! Tyrant!' and threatened to assassinate him... among those cursing Robespierre during the procession I would especially single out Thirion, Ruamps, Montaut, Duhem, Lecointre de Versailles and Baudot.

These members of the Convention had good reasons to both dislike and fear Robespierre. Thirion, Lecointre and Ruamps had been associated with the Indulgents; Robespierre had forced Duhem's exclusion from the Jacobin Club on 22 Frimaire, and had openly treated Montaut, a ci-devant Marquis noted for his extremist views, with disdain. Later, on 11 Thermidor, Lecointre published a mémoire in which he boasted of his intention to have had Robespierre assassinated during the Festival, naming his co-conspirators as Barras, Fréron, Courtois, Garnier de l'Aube, Rovère, Thirion, Tallien and Guffroy. In his description of the festival, Ruault says in a letter dated 2 Messidor 'that madman Lecointre de Versailles had formed the intention of sacrificing in the name of God and the Country the great president on the day of the Festival in the Champ de Mars, on the altar raised to the Patrie´. If Robespierre was affected by these insults he showed no reaction at the time. It was only in his last speech to the Convention on 8 Thermidor that he ever referred to the insults offered him on the day of the Festival.

...

During the celebrations at the Mountain Robespierre came in for further verbal attack. One of the most famous was, accoridng to Michelet, spoken by an unnamed sans-cullote: ´The devil! He isn´t happy to be the master, he wants to play God!´ Gorce ascribes the same words to Thuriot while Vilate ascribes a very similar remark, ´It´s not enough for him to be High Priest, he wants to be God!´ to Bourdon de l´Oise. The other equally famous remark is generally ascribed to another of Robespierre´s opponents, Merlin de Thionville, ´the Tarpean rocks are right by the Capitol´, obviously intended to remind Robespierre of the fate which had awaited unpopular legislators in Republican Rome. This time, Robespierre certainly heard the insults, even if he chose not to respond immediately. Guillaume quotes from a note in Robespierre´s private papers on the behaviour of Bourdon de l´Oise in which he accused Bourdon of expressing gross sarcasm and indecent references to the proclamation of the Supreme Being and of telling other members of the Convention that the people ´scorned this decree´.

...

There can be no doubt as to the success of the day as far as the organisation and the Festival itself were concerned. Every contemporary commentator, even such vilifiers of Robespierre as Vilate and Ruault, was full of praise for the celebrations themselves and expressed general approval of the idea of honouring a Supreme Being. The weather had been perfect, an ideal summer day. The sections too clearly enjoyed themselves, both in the formal events of the day and later in their more informal local celebrations. It would seem that Robespierre, despite the public attacks on him by some members of the Convention, could be pleased with the spectacle of the population of the capital apparently accepting wholeheartedly their joining together to honour the Supreme Being. At that level, it is clear that the day had been a complete success, everyone had enjoyed themselves and the idea of the Supreme Being, as a potential national belief system, was up and running. Yet it is one thing to have a great festival which, for a brief span, apparently unites the whole nation in joyful celebration, and quite another to lay the groundwork for something which, if successful, would become an intrinsic part of national life.

While it might have been expected that, following the success of the great festival the new belief system would be incorporated into the life of the nation as quickly and as deeply as possible, this simply did not happen. The vilifying comments of Robespierre's political opponents, despite their assertion that they were not attacking the idea of the Supreme Being as such, led inescapably to it being seen merely as the vehicle for the self-aggrandisement of its chief advocate and any hope of a new national morality, based on the acceptance of the presence of the Supreme Being, disappeared almost as quickly as it had appeared.

----Extracts from the book Robespierre and the Festival of the Supreme Being by Jonathan Smyth

Hmm... or in other words: how to ruin something beautiful with stupidity.

Isn't Bourdon the guy from Danton movie played by the same actor as Maxime in LRF?

[nesiacha]

One of the creepiest things among the many betrayals by Fouché for me

Yes, he did many horrible things, one of the most notorious being when his police tortured people, whether they were innocent or guilty, royalists or Jacobins, such as what happened in Lyon. Yes, he was involved in many schemes, sometimes horrifying (I will soon look into the case of Clément de Ris), betraying many people, including his colleagues and close ones (like Collot d'Herbois). But one of the creepiest things, in my opinion, concerns the Babeuf family, more specifically the sons of Gracchus Babeuf.

In Le Tribun du Peuple, at one point, Gracchus says that he had recommended his children to Fouché (Emile and Camille Babeuf, presumably), with this excerpt: "When I left to be exiled to the North, I believed I could place enough trust in you to recommend my children. They went to see you" (Le Tribun du Peuple, no. 35, 9 Frimaire, Year IV). Years later, Fouché struck a hard blow in the Jacobin arrest list, as Marie-Anne Babeuf, widow of Gracchus Babeuf, was included. Some claim she wasn't politically active, but I strongly doubt that: she was a woman known to be her husband's political right hand, with a terrifying strength of character who never renounced her husband's name, who campaigned politically, and who, even after his death, associated with prominent Jacobins like Felix Le Peletier, probably René Vatar, and others, as you can see in my posts here: Marie-Anne Babeuf: A Largely Forgotten Figure, In Honor of Gracchus Babeuf's Recent Anniversary, and Gracchus Babeuf's Position on Women's Rights. Moreover, this Jacobin arrest list met many specific criteria, even though among them were people who had committed nothing more than "insults and threats against the government" (excerpt from Natalie Petiteau) (in my opinion the widow Babeuf had to continue the fight in her own way like the widow of Marat as well as the sister of Marat hence the fact that she found herself in this list of arrests of the Jacobins in 1801 including with the two women after all Albertine Marat was a subscriber to the newspaper of the Tribun du Peuple). But for me, the worst part is the second time, during the First Malet Conspiracy case.

In fact, the widow Babeuf had her papers confiscated by the police and underwent a rather harsh interrogation, according to Jean Dautry. (This was the second time Marie-Anne Babeuf had run-ins with the Napoleonic police, and consequently, the second time Fouché targeted her). Marie-Anne Babeuf's son, Emile Babeuf, avoided arrest because, as far as I understand, he was in another country for work, so the police had no reason to arrest him.

So, Fouché, who had known Emile Babeuf as a child, years later attempted to have him arrested. Emile only avoided arrest because he was out of the country, if I understood correctly. Yes, Emile Babeuf would become an activist, but I don't think it was in that year. Furthermore, although the Babeufs were activists, they weren't involved in the First Malet Conspiracy (at least the confiscated papers were later returned).

Yes, I know that Fouché had manipulated Gracchus Babeuf until he realized who Fouché truly was and denounced him, but it still remains creepy. He knew well the wife of Gracchus Babeuf (that's certain, as she always assisted her husband) and their children (to the point where Gracchus temporarily trusted him with the welfare of his children, Emile and Camille). Years later, the repressive machine came down on them twice. I don't think Fouché can be excused by saying he was serving Bonaparte. I mean, Gaspard Monge protected Pache, Saint-Jean d'Angely protected Felix Le Peletier, and Réal probably protected the Babeufs.

Yes, we're likely talking about the destroyed friendship and even what Robespierre did to the Desmoulins couple, but I find what Fouché did, posthumously, to Gracchus Babeuf and especially to his children, creepy. With this, I think there's even more reason not to blame the widow of Collot d'Herbois for not standing in Fouché's way for what he did to her husband or for not fight for the political beliefs of her husband , and even for accepting the pension from Fouché. Just look at what he did to the Babeuf family. That's what would have happened to the widow of Collot d'Herbois in my opinion if she had opposed him.

P.S:If you want to learn more about the relationship between Gracchus Babeuf and Fouché, click here: Excerpts from Letters and Chapters of Historians.

[divorcedwife]

also i think the names of the months of the republican calendar are also very cute :-)

vendémiaire : month of wine harvest brumaire : month of mists frimaire : month of frost

nivôse : month of snow pluviôse : month of rains ventôse : month of wind germinal : month of sprouts floréal : month of flowers prairial : month of meadows messidor : month of harvests thermidor : month of summer heat fructidor : month of fruits

[empirearchives]

224 pages and 39 illustrated plates relate in the smallest details the outfits, speeches and major stages of Napoleon’s coronation, which took place at Notre-Dame de Paris in the presence of Pope Pius VII.

Source: Le sacre de S. M. l'Empereur Napoléon dans l'église métropolitaine de Paris, le XI frimaire an XIII dimanche 2 décembre 1804 (Gallica)

[howlingday]

Taiyang: Hey, honey, I'm home~!

Summer: Yeah, whatever, jerk.

Taiyang: Whoa! Is something wrong?

Summer: You forgot...

Taiyang: Forgot what?

Summer: EVERYTHING! This whole year! My birthday was on the third of Germinal, our anniversary was on the twelfth of Thermidor, and you promised to take me on a romantic trip in Frimaire to Vale City!

Taiyang: No, I said we'd do that in December.

Summer: December! Hasn't been a thing! FOR YEARS!

[josefavomjaaga]

A letter from Masséna to Soult, Paris, 28 Frimaire An IX (19 December 1800)

You no longer write to me, my dear Soult; where does that come from? Are you angry with me? Have you forgotten that I am your good friend? Write to me often, that will prove me different. What are you doing? The First Consul, to whom I have often spoken about you, does justice to your high military talents, and has never spoken to me about them except with the greatest interest. Farewell, my friend, never forget that I am sincerely attached to you. I embrace you. Masséna

At the time of this letter, Soult had (more or less) recovered from his wound that he had received during the siege of Genoa, had been released on parole from Austrian captivity (i.e., he was not allowed to go to war) and thus was employed in the military administration of Piemont.

I remember that Thiébault (who adored Masséna and despised Soult) in his memoirs claims that Soult, after Genoa, slowly distanced himself from Masséna - according to Thiébault, because he had gotten all advantages out of his relations with Masséna that he could, and now no longer needed him. In particular, Thiébault claimed that Soult later was furious about not being mentioned enough in the book Thiébault had written about the siege of Genoa. - Make of that, what you will.

N. Gotteri in her book on Soult does not mention Thiébault's claim. To the contrary, she lists several letters during the second half of 1800, that Masséna, Lefebvre and Oudinot (all in the entourage of First Consul Bonaparte now) had written to Soult, reassuring him of their friendship and of Bonaparte's interest in Soult. According to Gotteri, Masséna, Lefebvre and Mortier had even tried to convince Soult to come to Paris, but Soult had refused and preferred to stay with the army, where he was at home.

Maybe he regretted that decision later? Or maybe he still did not feel at ease about his personal situation (his broken leg, only released on parole)? Or, maybe the easiest explanation: Louise was with him at the time. He may just have been too busy doing household chores to keep up an extended correspondence.

[frevandrest]

read that the 14 Frimaire law was supposed to 'make the representatives more accountable'. what did it try making them more accountable for? I'd initially assumed it was for war crimes but because certain representatives were still doing that after it was passed that doesn't seem to make sense

I am so sorry for my late reply! Yes, the 14 Frimaire law (from 4 December 1793) had a goal to control representatives on a mission and make them accountable to the CSP. Because a huge problem was that representatives did basically what they wanted, although I always also blame vague instructions from Paris for that mess.

The law demonstrates that they were aware of the problem, but it is also true that some of the worst crimes/excesses happened around the time the law was made and after it. So they knew about the law and continued. Not in all cases, but some of the most notable ones, yes.

Accidentally (?) some of the grapeshots in Lyon happened on the same date as the law. As I remember, this form of execution stopped mid December. However, I am not sure if it was because of the new law - does anyone know? @tierseta knows about Fouché more than anyone else here, so maybe there is something about Joseph's writing that gives more info (though as far as I remember, he avoided talking about it and/or blamed Collot and Robespierre). As to why... I am not sure. I personally don't see much fear in the representatives on the mission in regards to this law, but that cannot be the only explanation. We know that CSP received letters from representatives and sometimes (often?) reacted positively. Also, the vague instructions continued. But then in the spring 1794 (or as early as late 1793?), we have a wave of representatives recalled/asked to explain themselves in Paris. I believe Collot himself wanted to go to Paris voluntarily to explain himself (?) Was there some tension between instructions and deeds? A divide in CSP over what to do (but they all pretended CSP has unity)? An encouragement to representatives with later understanding that things went too far? I am not sure, but it was handled badly.

If someone knows more, please share!

[microcosme11]

Some of the characters in the Sacré de Napoleon.

Le Sacré de S. M. l'Empereur Napoléon dans l'église métropolitaine de Paris, le XI frimaire an XIII dimanche 2 décembre 1804 (Artist: Isabey)

gallica

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Mlle Robespierre retired to Chaillot. Laignelot was the only one of all the former deputies that she received in her home after the death of her brother. Laignelot died at the end of July 1829, Mlle Robespierre in August 1831 [sic]. […] Laignelot, in his last years of life, often went home to Mlle Robespierre, who lived in Chaillot just like him; they were both very old. […] Charlotte bore the name of Mlle de la Roche for some time under the Restoration, as indicated by a letter from Laignelot to Agricol Moureau from August 1 1825, cited by Hector Fleischmann, page 115, note 2. 

Notes historiques sur la Convention nationale, le Directoire, l'Empire et l’exil des votants (1893) by Marc-Antoine Baudot, page 10 and 36. And Charlotte Robespierre et ”ses mémoirs” (1959), page 9.

Connections between Laignelot and Robespierre that I’ve found so far:

Laignelot: When I passed through Nantes to go to Brest, I met Carrier; he spoke to me about the drownings, and told me in the presence of Beaudit: ”You’re luckier than me; you have a bigger pool, and buildings to your service.” […] Before Carrier was denounced, I had told this fact to several of my colleagues. I went to see Robespierre, who was indisposed, I described to him all the horrors that had been committed in Nantes; he replied: “Carrier is a patriot; that was needed in Nantes.” Audition de M. Carrier devant la Convention qui remplit les fonctions de jury d'accusation, lors de la séance du 3 frimaire an III (23 novembre 1794)

In the last visit of which I speak, [Danton] spoke to me of Desmoulins with contempt: he attributed his deviances to a vice that is private and shameful, but absolutely foreign to the crimes of the conspirators the Revolution. Laignelot was witness. The capacity of Laignelot seemed equivocal to me: he kept stubbornly silent. Robespierre’s notes on the dantonists, written sometime in March 1794.

Laignelot, one of my most faithful colleagues in the National Convention, came and informed me that Danton, desirous of coming to an understanding with Robespierre, had begged him, Laignelot, to arrange for a conversation between them. One fine morning the two of them called on Robespierre. The dictator was at his toilet, the ancient forms of which took up no little amount of time. Danton, at once beginning the conversation, said, without preamble, "Let us come to a mutual understanding and save liberty, which is being attacked by our most relentless enemies; they are calumniating and deceiving the people, who look upon them as their friends.” Robespierre, who never "thou'd" anybody, replied to Danton, "What do you (vous) mean? Does this apply to me? You may give to my speeches whatever interpretation you see fit. Your mission to Belgium is perhaps not exempt from blame; you were badly seconded, badly surrounded. Lacroix has heaped odium on that mission.” Thereupon Danton, assuming a very lofty tone, said to him, "You are speaking now just as the aristocrats do; they seek to discredit the Convention and the patriots composing it. I will never suffer that any attack be made upon them. You shall not dishonor the Revolution by calumniating its founders." Here Danton's voice became weak; Robespierre, still continuing his toilet, looked at him and made a gesture of contempt. Then Danton, deeply moved, unfolded the dangers threatening liberty, saying: ”Liberty will perish if any attacks are made on its defenders, if the Terror is directed against them in lieu of continuing to strike those who conspire against it, and against whom it was established - against your very self, Robespierre, ere six months have gone by, if we become divided against ourselves." The conversation came to an end with affected civilities. Danton and Laignelot withdrew, and were still speaking in the street of this sinister interview, when Robespierre emerged from the house and passed close by them, pretending not to notice them. Memoirs of Barras, member of the Directorate (1895) page 176-177. Unclear if this story ought to be treated seriously or just as the publisher embellishing on what Robespierre had already written in his notes.