#haven’t frev posted for a while

[kindercelery]

[keepthyfaithandthylight]

I haven’t posted about it in a while, have some SJ from the frev piercing au.

I had to put him in a Breaking Benjamin shirt since I will always associate that band with him since… that.. post..

[usergreenpixel]

MALMAISON MEDIA SALON SOIRÉE 1: THE PURPLE MASK (1955)

1. The Introduction

Greetings, dearest Neighbors, and welcome to the first soirée held within the walls of Malmaison Media Salon.

Now, I wish to preface this review with the fact that, as of now at least, I’m not officially a part of the Napoleonic community. Rather, I am a friendly ambassador from the neighboring French Revolution community, yet I am more than willing to learn about your era so any factual additions are more than welcomed.

Oh, and while we’re at it, please leave your opinions on the French Revolution at the door right there, with coats and umbrellas. We’re here to talk about a movie, not fight over potentially differing opinions on politics of days past. I hope we can have a civil conversation without bickering like that as pissing off your community is about the last thing I wish to do.

Anyway, with all that out of the way, allow me to commence our little soirée. “The Purple Mask”, directed by H. Bruce Humberstone and released in 1955, became a blip on my radar entirely by accident.

I have made posts explaining how, but for those who haven’t seen them, I make reviews for my own community and I was scrolling through IMDb the other day in hopes of finding more Frev movies for future reviews. But, along with Frev movies, pieces of Napoleonic media appeared on the list, which is not that surprising from the chronological and historical prospective.

What WAS surprising to me was this particular movie, as its premise reeks of awfully familiar and repetitive anglophone propaganda more than sulfur smells of rotten eggs. I didn’t even have to have profound knowledge of the Napoleonic era to spot anglophone propaganda, as my own community fights it on a daily basis.

So, as with all things that have to do with smearing campaigns against particular time periods, I got morbidly curious and decided to see for myself how bad this movie really is.

Believe me, Neighbors, it gets pretty bad so I highly recommend you strap in, enjoy tea and cookies and listen carefully so you know what media to avoid.

Let our first soirée begin!

2. The Summary

Has anyone here ever read/seen “The Scarlet Pimpernel”?

Both the original novel and its multiple adaptations are quite known and very infamous in my community for being full of bullshit English propaganda, but the premise is that there’s this hero called The Scarlet Pimpernel whose face hasn’t been seen by anyone.

He rescues nobles from the guillotine in order to transport them to England, leaves calling cards, always has a plan, is persecuted by a persistent cartoonishly evil and dumb arch nemesis, never ever loses and masquerades as a boring noble English fop called Percy Blakeney by day.

Now let’s see what the premise of “The Purple Mask” has to say.

The screenshot is of the movie’s IMDb page as I had a feeling it sums up everything we need to know better than my own words could ever hope to do.

Notice any similarities between this movie and The Scarlet Pimpernel? I’m sure that you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to spot the fact that the former is almost a carbon copy of the latter, with minor tweaks along the way.

That said, there’s nothing inherently wrong with having similar premises as long as the creators make the story theirs and are honest about taking inspiration from the predecessor if such inspiration is indeed taken during the creative process.

But does this movie show enough originality and honesty to be saved from the label of a boring copycat? Let’s have a closer look at its various elements in order to find that out.

3. The Story

Here’s a confession for everyone who doesn’t know this about me already: I LOVE me a good swashbuckling story and reading books of that genre is something I was fond of doing as a child. I’d be lying if I said that I outgrew my swashbuckling phase so I did have some hopes that this movie would at least be good on its own, as a swashbuckling adventure that one simply has to watch with their brain turned on and be aware of its historical inaccuracies.

Sadly, my hopes were doomed to end very soon.

One thing I will give to the plot is the fact that, at least in the beginning, things seemed to be heading in an interesting direction, what with a group of royalists (who used to be nobles before Frev) planning to overthrow Naps and restore monarchy in France. And their plan to throw Naps off the trail of the mysterious Purple Mask by using a decoy impersonator so that the real Purple Mask stays unharmed does have merit.

In this universe nobody knows what exactly PM looks like so a decoy doesn’t have to even resemble the real deal in appearance, which makes the job that much easier. People in real life have faked their deaths to avoid actually meeting The Grim Reaper so it did sound like a decent plan to me.

But the problem is that the movie hits too many points that Pimpernel hit beforehand which made it boring and so predictable that my interest got shot and killed on the spot.

(Spoilers ahead!)

I’m by no means a professional author, but having a rich fop moonlight as a superhero is already an extremely boring and obvious cliché. Sure, it was pioneered by the original Pimpernel, but I really doubt that it was just as original in 1955, given the popularity of the novel and the fact that even Batman is based on that same archetype. Considering that, I really wish the writers didn’t repeat the same old plot point again.

Of course the real hero pretends to be a stupid dandy and of course he will win, get the girl (Laurette in this case) and outwit everyone! Many people have seen the story before, so is it too much to ask to subvert expectations at least once?

Another issue I have is that the villains here seem to suffer from classic villain stupidity, like in a scene where PM has a sword duel with Rochet, the Minister of Police, in front of guards armed with swords and muskets of their own yet NONE of the guards just shoots him on the spot to get it done with! Come on, guys!

This kind of stupidity just...it kills suspense, pisses off me personally and makes it a bit too obvious who will win, which is one of the fastest way to make your audience bored.

But enough about the story, let’s talk about the characters and see if they can become a saving grace for this “masterpiece”.

4. The Characters

(Spoilers ahead!)

The main character, René, aka the decoy PM, aka secretly the real PM, masquerades as a classic witty fop but in reality is PM - witty, brave, smart (unlike the villains) and an ardent royalist. Also a womanizer.

So yeah, he pretty much plays the old trope to a T and, unfortunately, never gets proper character development. Aside from one throwaway line that his father’s execution during Frev is what prompted him to adopt his alter ego, we never learn much about him, which doesn’t give us that many reasons to root for him.

His father was killed. Okay, and how did it affect him aside from his decision? Does he have other motives? Is he fully devoted to the cause or does he have an agenda? Has he always been a royalist or maybe switched after his father’s execution? All these questions are left unanswered. All the potential for creating a compelling character goes to waste. Truly a shame...

Laurette, believe it or not, actually gets more character development here than most female leads at the time. She wants to save her father. This is her motivation and we’re actually shown her worry and her actions that are taken to achieve her goal so her character motivation works much better than René’s.

I still didn’t like the plot point of her loving PM but not knowing that he has been beside her the entire time until it’s spelled out to her by a different character though, as this is a bit too reminiscent of the Pimpernel’s female lead, Marguerite.

(Spoilers ahead!)

Napoleon, the First Consul, is the main antagonist and the ONLY historical character in the movie. And he pretty much plays the role of a classic Bond movie villain, sitting in his lair, barking orders and yelling at his minions for failing.

He is also incredibly stupid here, as he lets the heroes escape to England in the end, which was their plan all along so he practically enables the conspiracy to continue! 100 IQ move right there, Naps... But hey, at least he is portrayed as having some sense of honor and keeping promises, so props for not making him a complete monster.

Rochet, the main antagonist and the Minister of Police (Where the fuck is Fouché, guys?!) is pretty much a classic dumb cartoonish villain who will definitely lose in the end. Not much else to say about him, to be very honest.

Basically he is the resident knockoff Citizen Chauvelin from The Scarlet Pimpernel. Nothing new here.

5. The Acting

Not bad, actually. Especially when it comes to the leads. They did what they could with the characters they were given so credit where credit is due. At least the actors here do their best.

6. The Setting

The settings aren’t particularly elaborate (I assume the budget wasn’t too high) but actually it wasn’t bad either. The decorations, the clothes, etc seem pretty accurate to me so kudos.

7. The Conclusion

Overall, not a terrible movie by any means but its anglophone propaganda and the fact that it’s basically a Scarlet Pimpernel knockoff with almost zero originality just makes it boringly meh.

The authors clearly didn’t care enough to insert other real people like Fouché or Talleyrand (both of whom would be good villains) instead of their dumb OC villains or at least come up with a story that’s not boring, which really shows.

Please skip this movie unless you really want to waste your time.

Well, that would be all for our first soirée, my dearest Neighbors. I hope you like my first ever review of a piece of Napoleonic media and more reviews might come your way pretty soon.

Stay tuned and stay safe!

Love,

- Citizen Green Pixel

[theravenclawrevolutionary]

i'm not a frev expert. and you seem to be approchable enough and to have read enough. i had a question, or kind of a question. i just. i think that if robespierre wasn't against all the deaths by guillotine, he wouldn't have written that quote about virtue and terror. maybe i'm getting you wrong, or i'm not understanding the sense of that quote. could you explain?

Oh dang. I'm kinda surprised that people think I have any real authority on the subject of the Frev since I'm not an actual historian or anything and I'm surprised people find me approachable but of course I'll try my best for you Anon! And if anyone else has a better interpretation or anything else to add please, go ahead. I'll also try my best to keep it in as simple language as I can. But I digress.

⚠ This post is quite long so be prepared for that ⚠

First of all, Robespierre has more than one quote talking about terror and virtue. I'm assuming that you're thinking of the one that goes, "Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country." since that is the most common one. However, if you're talking about the one that goes "Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country." Let me know and I'll write about that one. The former is definitely a quote that, in my experience studying the Frev, gets misinterpreted from what it was originally meant to say fairly often.

To start with, it's very important to know what connotation and definition the words 'virtue' and 'terror' had in revolution-era France. Modern-day definitions may not be the same ones that were used in the past. According to my research, which of course isn't infallible, virtue was used to refer to someone's disposition and the way it would lead them to choose good over evil whereas where terror was seen simply as great fear. At the time there was no connotation of our modern-day terrorism to associate with the word. Nowadays we associate terror with terrorism which brings to mind murder, mindless destruction, oppression, and unchecked authority in which someone's ideals are forced upon large groups of people. Because of this many people assume that this is what Robespierre had in mind when he referenced terror when really he meant to describe the use of intimidation tactics to seize power from those who oppressed the lower class people and the general fear that was felt by the commoners.

Essentially the Reign of Terror meant 'a time period where everyone felt a sh*t load of Fear over all the bad stuff happening at once while the regular people try to overthrow the oppressive ruling class with intimidation tactics.' It does not mean 'a time period where loads of people were purposely committing widespread acts of terrorism to push their agendas'. And really, it was the only way to give everyone the chance to get rid of the old government, the monarchy, and allow a fair democracy that would be beneficial to the future of France to be built.

Next, it's important to know the context in which this quote was originally said. The speech where Robespierre said it took place on Feb 5th (?) of 1794. By this point, the revolution has been well underway for several long years and, as I said, a lot of sucky things are happening at the same time. The republic was in a war with a massive part of Europe and they're kinda getting curb-stomped. The country is in a state of civil war between the people that still supported the monarchy and all the different groups that had different views of how the country should be run. France's economy was complete sh*t too, so all this really radicalized the people and made the whole revolution situation so much worse than it already was.

At the time there were two factions, so to say, in the National Convention that were hella pissed at each other and really at odds. the Hébertists (who, to make things easy, wanted to escalate the Terror, go on the offensive with the military, and the overthrow and replace some of the existing government structures at the time) and the Dantonists (who wanted to sorta get rid of the revolutionary government, negotiate for peace in the war, and chill out on the whole Terror thing). And remember that these groups of people were very loose and like people in today's politic didn't agree with every stance their 'faction' took.

By the time Max made this speech, which was addressing these two groups, the situation between them was escalated big time. The Hébertists, with their views of 'more terror all over! That'll help us win everything,' or 'terror without virtue,' were pushing for a system that would quickly prove fatal. By contrast, the Dantonists with their, 'we just need to kinda chill and things will work out,' way of thinking or 'virtue without terror', would only lead to them (and the rest of the country) getting walked over by everyone else.

Throughout the entire speech, a speech I haven't recently read all the way through, Max comes back to the idea of terror and virtue, stressing that both are necessary. What I think he meant to do was talk about how the revolution couldn't survive without both terror (fear and the aggression that causes it) and virtue (the choice of good over evil) being applied. He's trying to explain to both groups that a little bit of both ideals is the most beneficial way to go about things. In reality, it has nothing to do with whether he personally believed in or advocated the death penalty/ the use of the guillotine. Instead, Robespierre is emphasizing that at that particular moment in time doing what is right and good (virtue) will most likely end up causing some bad things that will make people afraid for a while (terror).

What Robespierre is not saying is that terror, and by extension the violence that is causing the terror is virtuous. There are several easy-to-find sources that prove his personal disapproval of the death penalty from a moral standpoint. As a young lawyer in his hometown in Arras, he became physically ill at the idea of having one of his clients sentenced to death, even though he was found guilty of the crime he was on trial for. He made a speech agreeing with the abolition of the death penalty on May 30th of 1791 (?) arguing that there is no place for the death penalty in a civilized society because the law needs to be a model of what is good. He attempted to save the lives of Georges Danton and Camille Desmoulins, two friends/coworkers that he is commonly charged with sending to their deaths when the opposite is actually true. Additionally, he did the same with other more controversial people including the king's sister of all people, Madame Elisabeth. Even when voting for the death of the king he reiterates his own opinion on the death penalty saying, "For myself, I abhor the penalty of death that your law so liberally imposes, and I have neither love nor hatred for the King; it is only the crimes that I hate…. It is with regret that I utter this baneful truth…Louis must die in order that our country may live." Though it conflicts with his personal views, Robespierre makes the decision based on the needs of France as a country, something that many politicians need to relearn how to do today.

Long story short, he was not supporting the use of the guillotine with that quote, but rather trying to get two opposing factions to realize that both intimidation/fear and making sound, beneficial decisions would keep France on the right track to building a successful democracy for the people. Hopefully this helped and I explained it in a way that was easy for you to understand. If you ever have any more Frev related questions feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer or I'll send you in the direction of someone else more knowledgeable if I don't know.

Also, can someone tell me if I did a good job of explaining this? I can never tell if things I write about the Frev make sense to me because I actually know exactly what I mean to say so everyone else kinda goes along with it or if I actually say helpful things of substance. Thanks guys! And if anyone else knows more about the subject or if I've made a mistake please help me out.

~Dara

[shitpostingfromthebarricade]

hey I know someone made a post for every chapter of the Brick and I forgot who, but do you have any posts about 1.3.1 (The Year 1817) because I would love a breakdown of all the references in that chapter? thanks!

 Oh my dearest friend, I have been simultaneously eagerly awaiting and absolutely dreading this question.  I tried my hand a while back at a modern version of 1.3.1-9, and in order to do that to my tastes I made a point to decode as much of The Year 1817 as possible.  The version I’m including down below is mostly Hapgood since it’s much faster to copy from Project Gutenberg than to type everything word for word, but in some areas I may pull from my FMA translation for clarity.  

Disclaimer: I learned about FRev once in high school and haven’t done a whole ton of earnest research for the sake of research into the period since; most of what I know pertains directly to Les Mis, and as such my knowledge of this era is a bit Swiss Cheese-y at times, so there are plenty of references I’m sure go over my head.   I understand that Donougher and Rose both have copious footnotes, so if anyone has any clarity to add please do because FMA, Wilbour, Wraxall, and Hapgood have precious little: this is just me and wikipedia against the world Hugo.

I also only finished the first paragraph (as divided by Hapgood) because it’s been a couple of hours and I need a break, but I will return later with more information!

1817 is the year which Louis XVIII., with a certain royal assurance which was not wanting in pride, entitled the twenty-second of his reign. 

From 1805 through 1814 Napoleon had been Emperor of France and Louis XVIII had been in exile: this is Hugo’s way of saying that Louis XVIII didn’t even acknowledge those years Napoleon had been in charge.

It is the year in which M. Bruguière de Sorsum was celebrated.

de Sorsum was a French author and translator; I think Hugo may be referring to Sakuntala (Fatal Ring), a play he translated much earlier (1803?) but which only began to gain popularity around 1815.  Unrelated (probably): de Sorsum also served as secretary to Jérôme Bonaparte from 1807 through 1813 while the latter was King of Westphalia.

All the hairdressers’ shops, hoping for powder and the return of the royal bird, were besmeared with azure and decked with fleurs-de-lys.

Following the fall of Napoleon and the end of the Hundred Days War, royalists were back in charge and many people hoping to gain good favor showed signs in support of the monarchy such as powdered hair/wigs and the royal bird: to be in support of the monarchy was fashionable again.  Most royal French coats of arms were also azure with fleurs-de-lys.

It was the candid time at which Count Lynch sat every Sunday as church-warden in the church-warden’s pew of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, in his costume of a peer of France, with his red ribbon and his long nose and the majesty of profile peculiar to a man who has performed a brilliant action. The brilliant action performed by M. Lynch was this: being mayor of Bordeaux, on the 12th of March, 1814, he had surrendered the city a little too promptly to M. the Duke d’Angoulême. Hence his peerage.

This one kind of explains itself, but put simply Jean-Baptiste Lynch had been a Royalist, was imprisoned during The Terror and released in the Thermidor, was made Mayor of Bordeaux, did not resist when France was being taken back from Bonaparte, and as such was rewarded for his loyalty during the Bourbon Restoration by being given a high-ranking position within the church.  His wikipedia article is a bit less clear on the timeline, since it also says he fled to England during the Hundred Days War and didn’t return until the Bourbon Restoration.  These aren’t mutually exclusive, of course, just an odd thing to specify when what Hugo says here isn’t mentioned at all.

Anyway, the purpose in bringing this up is for Hugo to continue harping on how traitors (to the empire) are being rewarded, how everyone in power are spineless opportunists, and to really emphasize how much society had changed in the time since 1814.

In 1817 fashion swallowed up little boys of from four to six years of age in vast caps of morocco leather with ear-tabs resembling Esquimaux mitres.

I am incapable of finding any examples of this, but I assume they look like this minus the fur?  Like a leather bonnet?

(and here’s a picture of some young boys in 1800 in fun hats from a French fashion magazine as apology)  

I do think this detail was probably more to set the time period in peoples’ memories, much like if I said “Remember when everyone was wearing those stretchy choker things?” but also Louis XVIII has spent his 18 years of exile in Prussia, England, and Russia, the last of which is also rather famous for a similar style of hat.

Update: Because of the occupation of France following the Treaty of Vienna, there was also a lot of cultural exchange happening, so it's much more likely that if it did become popular from foreign fashions, this (rather than Louis's exile) is what popularized it.

The French army was dressed in white, after the mode of the Austrian; the regiments were called legions; instead of numbers they bore the names of departments; 

I’m not gonna dive too deep into this I say, diving very deep into trying to find any solid photo reference except that I suspect that this was probably all stuff changed in direct contradiction to what Napoleon had been doing and also as a reminder that Austria was majorly instrumental in getting Louis XVIII back on the throne and provided a lot of the occupying army members currently in France.

Update: There was also a lot of very deliberate distancing of the French military (among other things) from the way things had been done by Napoléon. The white could indicate royalist sentiment (the white flag represented the monarchy in France), that Austria had some influence in its design (due to their role as a victor and at the Treaty of Vienna), or merely be a familiar point for comparison because French citizens would have been familiar with members of the occupying Austrian army.

Napoleon was at St. Helena; and since England refused him green cloth, he was having his old coats turned. 

St Helena is where Napoleon had been exiled to following the Hundred Days War.  This (as far as what I’ve found) did not literally happen and was just Hugo’s way of saying that in exile he was forced to trade his illustrious military career (including his green military coat, which he’d actually been wearing in his exile on the Isle of Elba) for a life of quietude (including a green hunting coat/frock) until his death in 1821. 

In 1817 Pelligrini sang; 

Felice Pellegrini (1774-1852), an Italian opera singer.

Mademoiselle Bigottini danced 

Emilie Bigottini (1784-1858) was an Italian dancer; apparently Napoleon was a fan.

Potier reigned; 

Antoine Julien Potier (1796-1865) was a French artist.  (I am not sure about this one, it’s very difficult to find any information on him, and what I have been finding really looks like he didn’t exhibit until 1825.)

Odry did not yet exist. 

Probably a reference to Jacques Charles Odry (1779-1853)?  He was a poet/playwright/comedic actor who started working as an actor in 1803 and was definitely in existence in 1817, but he didn’t start publishing his own work until 1820, which I suspect is what Hugo may be referring to here.

Madame Saqui had succeeded to Forioso. 

Marguerite-Antoinette Lalanne was (1786-1866) a French tightrope walker who succeeded Pierre Forioso, another member of a troupe of “rope dancers” who was once invited to walk atop a rope from the Pont de la Concorde to the Pont des Tuileries to celebrate Bonaparte’s birthday in 1807.  (Bonaparte had also been a fan of Madame Saqui: she would often walk a wire while fireworks exploded around her, depicting battles won by him.)

There were still Prussians in France. 

Prussia was one of allies of Royalist France that helped force Bonaparte off the throne.  (The Hundred Days War had ended in 1815, so it wouldn’t really make sense that Prussia was still here.)

Edit: I explained this poorly and have also been introduced to new and very in-depth information! Thank you @fremedon !

M. Delalot was a celebrity.

Charles Francois Louis Delalot (1772-1842) was a royalist who narrowly avoided execution during Napoleon’s reign for encouraging an uprising; under the Bourbon Restoration, he began to make a name for himself writing for a moderate Royalist publication and would soon begin climbing the ranks.

Legitimacy had just asserted itself by cutting off the hand, then the head, of Pleignier, of Carbonneau, and of Tolleron. 

A tanner, writer, and engraver respectively who would ultimately be executed following the Affair des Patriotes de 1816 (imagine the Amis combined with the Guy Fawkes treason, basically).  Tolleron had his right hand cut off first, and shortly thereafter all three were executed via guillotine.

The Prince de Talleyrand, grand chamberlain, and the Abbé Louis, appointed minister of finance, laughed as they looked at each other, with the laugh of the two augurs; both of them had celebrated, on the 14th of July, 1790, the mass of federation in the Champ de Mars; Talleyrand had said it as bishop, Louis had served it in the capacity of deacon. In 1817, in the side-alleys of this same Champ de Mars, two great cylinders of wood might have been seen lying in the rain, rotting amid the grass, painted blue, with traces of eagles and bees, from which the gilding was falling. These were the columns which two years before had upheld the Emperor’s platform in the Champ de Mai. They were blackened here and there with the scorches of the bivouac of Austrians encamped near Gros-Caillou. Two or three of these columns had disappeared in these bivouac fires, and had warmed the large hands of the Imperial troops. The Champ-de-Mai had this remarkable point: that it had been held in June and in the Champ-de-Mars. 

Hoo boy, okay, so this one has a lot going on.

14 July 1790:  Fête de la Fédération, celebration of the French Revolution which had occurred the year before in 1789.  Beginning of the constitutional monarchy.  Charles Maurice de Talleyrand (1754-1838) was the bishop who officiated mass at the main event in Paris, which took place on the Champs de Mars (Field of Mars).

What you really need to know here is that Talleyrand was a slippery snake: following 1790 he was close with Bonaparte, then when Bonaparte came to power in 1804 Talleyrand was named Grand Chamberlain of the Empire, and in 1806 he became Sovereign Prince of Benevento (Bénévent).  By 1807 he was already scheming for bigger and better things and selling state secrets to Austria and Russia and advocated for them in Senate; he wasn’t just instrumental in the Bourbon Restoration, he was key, and in 1820 he was made a knight of the Order of the Holy Spirit by Louis XVIII.

Joseph Dominique Louis (1755-1837) was also not great: he helped Talleyrand at the Festival of the Federation in 1790, exactly as Hugo said.  Under Napoleon he’d been named a Baron for his loyalty and assistance, but he later supported the Bourbon Restoration and was pretty much immediately made Minister of Finance after.  Much less info about him, but I doubt his hands were clean in the upset either.

Champ de Mai (Field of May): a public assembly held by Bonaparte on the Champ de Mars on 1 June 1815, during the Hundred Days War.  It was here that he was more or less sworn in again as emperor and signed the Charter of 1815 agreeing to be more liberal as a ruler if he was allowed to be emperor again.  A whole throne platform was made for him, over 200k people in attendance, it was a really big to-do,

The Austrians who had camped there were part of the forces who fought against Bonaparte in the Hundred Days War.  Hugo’s saying there’s still remnants of all of these allegiance swaps and all of the fighting, like, everywhere.

“The Champ-de-Mai had this remarkable point: that it had been held in June and in the Champ-de-Mars” is a pun: The Field of May happened in June on the Field of [Mars] -- also able to be translated to “March,” the month. 

In this year, 1817, two things were popular: the Voltaire-Touquet

I suspect this was a minor error on Hugo’s part: Exploitation du Voltaire-Touquet wasn’t published until 1823, and I can find literally nothing else related to Touquet.  He didn’t have the internet, so he gets a pass.

and the snuff-box à la Charter.

I can’t find any examples of this, but I imagine it’s kind of a novelty snuffbox (tin for your tobacco) with a print of the Charter of 1814 on it?  Vicky why are you so vague?

Update: Oh, this was actually a really good one for two reasons! The Charter of 1814 was the charter created by Louis XVIII and handed down to the people, and the snuffbox was the method by which royalty (and thereby royalists) consumed tobacco! So basically, it was popular and fashionable to be seen as a royalist/supporter or the monarchy again, after nearly thirty years of this being a very unpopular take!

The most recent Parisian sensation was the crime of Dautun, who had thrown his brother’s head into the fountain of the Flower-Market.

Pretty much exactly what it says on the tin: Charles Dautun murdered his brother Augustus, cut his body into four or five pieces, and hid them all over France.  He was sentenced to death in 25 July 1815 (so Hugo’s dates may have been a little off for this, or maybe there was so much going on in 1815 that no one really processed it until 1817?).

[margridarnauds]

Wtf is with the Tudor fandom?? Those are the same people who have “cancelled” Isabel and Fernando lmao for their colonization of America. Why are they so mad when we talk about Elizabeth I + colonization then? who tf do they think they are by saying “social justice warriors”?

I feel, personally, like the weaponization of serious issues for the purposes of ships and stanning various figures has kind of brought us to this point, ngl. Anne Boleyn supporters bring up the Inquisition, bring up slavery, bring up the colonization of America, while KOA supporters toss Ireland and the treatment of black and Jewish people around like a ping pong ball, on and on, back and forth, pettier and pettier with each exchange. There’s no real room to discuss anything, because it’s inherently polarized, and the only ones who really lose are the ones in the fandom who wanted to discuss it from the beginning because it reflects some part of their lived experience, only to find themselves used as pawns and then discarded when they’re no longer of use. And, in that area, as a white American Celticist, I got off fairly clean. I haven’t had to deal with the constant harassment that others have had to deal with. I’ve just been lied about and ignored, which, in many, many ways, is better. Annoying, but better. 

  I’m personally at an odd place with Ferdinand and Isabella given that I do live at Ground Zero of the Spanish colonization of America - The people of Florida have, for the most part (though not uncontroversially), begun to seriously question the narratives that we were always fed about Ponce de Léon and the “Discovery” of Florida, taking into account more re: his treatment of the Táino people, who were exploited, enslaved, and butchered by Spanish forces who were paid with Ferdinand of Aragon’s gold, working under Ferdinand of Aragon’s authority. We are starting to question what, exactly, it means when we talk about having the oldest continuously occupied city in the nation, along with the question of where the legendary emeralds of the lost Plate Fleet (that, let’s be real, we ALL want to find) came from, which hands mined them before they were put into crucifixes, whose blood stains them. I’m not going to pretend I have any personal love of them, though I recognize their overall historical importance. I think that, like any other historical figures, we can talk about the good and the bad, along with the lasting effects, both good and bad, of them and their reign. 

  That being said, the blatant hypocrisy of the Tudors fandom to criticize one fandom when, the second the spotlight is turned on them, they suddenly demur and claim that, actually, that doesn’t MATTER anymore, it was centuries ago, is galling. Either we critically analyze history like adults for both sides of the Catholic VS Protestant debate, acknowledging that both sides committed atrocities that echo down to the present, or we don’t. We keep brushing things under the rug, keep trying to argue why our faves were the most pure, keep trying to enter into a dick measuring contest with a thin veneer of academism. (And, at the risk of putting too fine a point on it, in my field, I have just as much standing as they do. I’m not asking for people to bow down or even to take what I say uncritically, since I hate elitism in the field, but I AM asking, if they’re claiming to be academics and using that to swing their weight around, to give me the same respect as another academic. You can’t have the respect that comes with the position without acknowledging the responsibility.) 

  All I ever REALLY wanted was for people to talk about the darker side, not to permanently #Cancel anyone (the past is a fucked up place—If I didn’t feel like I had to constantly defend my field’s existence constantly from people wanting to paint the Irish as barbarians, I could tell you some REALLY fucked up things from Irish history/literature. Especially the literature), but to TALK about the nuances involved, only to find that, on both sides, people only really cared about boosting their own pet faves. I’m not saying “You can only post a gifset of Elizabeth/Isabella if you include a dissertation tacked on at the end of how they weren't  #GirlBosses", rather that the general perception of them needed to become more nuanced, and yet, somehow, that led to me becoming one of the black sheep of the Tudor fandom. (That and, admittedly, mentioning the very true fact that one British Dynasty has received more media attention in 20 years than the entirety of Irish history’s received in cinematic history…..which I stand by, not the least because I didn’t mention WHICH dynasty, since it applies, in fact, to multiple, including the present ruling dynasty.) (Okay, and calling an ugly fraud of a portrait an ugly fraud of a portrait. Which I also stand by.)

One thing that I appreciate with the saner parts of, for example, the French Revolution fandom is that, while it can still be quite polarized, there is, essentially, at least the IDEA that both sides fucked up and did fucked up things. The idea that, even though you can appreciate that certain figures, like Robespierre, like Marie Antoinette, like Philippe Égalité (though I’m still working on that one) were slandered in their time, they ALSO were complicit in some terrible, terrible things. I haven’t really seen any Robespierre fans defending, say, the September Massacres, the Vendée, or the suppression of the Brezhoneg language. (I’ve gotten more mixed reviews from the pro-Royalist side, but at least the understanding that the Ancien Régime and the people in it weren’t ideal, which is more than I’m getting on this side.) Is the Frev fandom ideal? No. It isn’t. It suffers from many of the same shortcomings as any other historical fandom, and there are quite a few people I utterly refuse to engage with because I find them to be too extreme on one side or the other (being the one Orléanist Stan™ does help things along), but, that being said, at least they’re having SOME historical perspective.

I made the unfortunate mistake of thinking that, when people said “Oh, yes, we can appreciate these things in the context of their time, with critical thinking!” They actually meant it, as opposed to just wanting an excuse to shut us up until we’re useful again. Instead, I quickly realized that people only cared so long as it bolstered them and their side, not about the people who were actually harmed, and if we bring THEM up, we’re SJWs. No need to argue with what we’re actually SAYING if you can just lie about us repeatedly. And, frankly? I’m utterly disgusted at the number of blogs that I thought would know better, who I respected for their nuanced approach to history and the study of it, humoring them. I’m utterly disgusted at how their narrative of “Evil SJW”s has actually gained currency from people who have based their entire reputation, sometimes their careers, on critical thinking and analyzing biases. 

[lacommunarde]

I was tagged by @hotforcaptaincold

1. nicknames: Kate, or on here Laco

2. gender: Agender

3. star sign: Cancer

4. height: 5′6″

5. Time: 8:47pm

6. birthday: 7/5 @ 2am

7. favorite bands: Showtunes, Trans-Siberian Orchestra probably, Queen, Two Steps From Hell, Italo Brothers, 

8. favorite solo artists: Gabry Ponte, Loreen, dunno

9. song stuck in my head: “Carousels” from “Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris"

10. last movie I watched: Brokenwood Mysteries are a hour and a half long and therefore coubt as movies.

11. last show i watched: Say Yes to the Dress

12. when did i create my blog: 2012

13. what do i post: Flash Rogues, social justice/activism, news/US politics/world politics, Les Mis, Frev, History, LGBT stuff, Jewish stuff, women’s history, Feminist stuff, fashion I find pretty, kitties, puppies, tea/teacups, mental health stuff, depression, adhd, anxiety stuff, self care, psychology, international human rights stuff, Xmen, Stargate, Star Trek, Murdoch Mysteries, movies I like, books I like, Abhorsen stuff, Tolkienverse, His Dark Materials, etc, writing stuff,

14. last thing i googled: UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

15. do i have any other blogs: I still have two other ones, but they aren’t really active. One is an RP blog that I started some time ago, to RP Michael Scofield, Leonard Snart, characters from His Dark Materials, and Magneto, but i haven’t started RP-ing on it yet. The other is CapabilitiesCoalition, which I will start back up again soon.

16. do i get asks: Occasionally! Although I want more

17. why i chose my url: la Communarde is a reference to Louise Michel, a Communard during the Paris Commune of 1871 and a revolutionary firebrand, and the person Victor Hugo nicknamed Enjolras after Les Miserables was published (after she took it on herself, of course, but he also began to call her it after a while), and also one of my favorite historical figures.

18. following: 2k some odd

19. followers: 751

21. average hours of sleep: ~8

22. lucky number: none really

23. instruments: i play piano. I love the sound of violin

24. what am i wearing: my black skinny jeans and my black-and-white toile print button-down

26. dream job: Human Rights Investigator/Officer

27. dream trip: around the Caribbean in a pretty sailboat

28. favorite food: bastilla, chicken, phyllo/fillo dough, eggs, almond and every spice under the kitchen sink delicious pie.

29. nationality: American 

30. favorite song right now: Euphoria by Loreen, or Fight Like a Girl by Emilie Autumn

Tagging whoever wants to do it!

[theravenclawrevolutionary]

First off, is there any way I can tell if something is Thermidorian propaganda or not while researching? And second, do you have recommendations for specific books to read on Robesiperre or the Frev in general?

I got it this time Anon! Sorry, it took so long to get to. I’ve been hella busy and hella tired this week. Also, this might kinda suck cause I’m answering it at 2 in the morning, but hey! I’m trying.

Warning: Just a reminder that I don’t have a degree in history or anything. I'm simply a sixteen-year-old girl who spends a majority of my free time looking up information cause I’m a nerd like that. I am usually biased slightly towards the revolutionaries, not the monarchy. History is up for interpretation and what I post is a mixture of stone-cold facts, my own opinions, and the opinions of others. Any questions about any other aspects of the French Revolution are always welcome. I'll try to answer them as clearly, accurately, and respectfully as possible. Anyone with more information, similar, or different thoughts feel free to voice them.

In my opinion, the easiest way to identify Thermidorian propaganda is to look at either (A. the way the historical figure in question is presented or (B. to look at where the information is from.

Let’s take Max as an example. (Because come on! Who else would I of all people choose?) I’ve seen stuff that claims to be ‘historically accurate’ portray him as a bloodthirsty man who wanted nothing more than to kill off his political enemies., which sadly enough, is a fairly common narrative. Most people aren’t like that and if that’s the only thing said about them, then it’s most likely an unflattering caricature. Of course, there are some exceptions to this rule. But I have legitimately seen posts on idk what social media site, but somewhere someone claimed to say that Robespierre and Saint-Just enjoyed killing babies. Like... what!? Where’s the historical accuracy and evidence to back it up?

Additionally, some sources might give a more accurate representation of who the figure actually was. For example,Charlotte Robespierre’s accounts of her brother’s life and personality will be different and more accurate than the accounts of someone who felt threatened by him and wanted to kill him. As the oldest sibling of five kids, I can confirm that as a sibling you won’t just gush about how wonderful your sibling is all the time. They annoy you, they do stupid stuff that makes no sense, they have that one after dinner habit that they’ve gotten into to avoid doing dishes.

 Of course, you can, and will, still most definitely get extreme biases with this as well. No matter how annoying someone you’re close to is, the likelihood that you would portray them in a more flattering light than their sworn enemy is pretty high. So in order to accurately identify if you’re looking at something spread by the Thermidorians I would suggest investigating the fact between several different sources and all that jazz.

As for reading about Robespierre and the rev, well, I’ll try my best. I don't remember the titles of a majority of the stuff I’ve read so this list will be kinda short.

Robespierre: A Revolutionary Life by Peter McPhee Of course, I had to put this first! I’ve had this book borrowed from my online public library website for a solid three to four months so I can fact check for my novel and it helps a LOT!

Vive la Revolution by Mark Steele This is the first Frev book I bought myself, and while it is kinda biased, it’s pretty informative, has a decent sense of humor, and honestly, it’s just special cause it was the first Frev book I owned.

The Twelve Who Ruled by Robert Rosewell Palmer I have yet to read it because my library doesn’t have it, but I have heard from a few sources that it’s a good and informational book.

The French Revolution: A History by Thomas Carlyle This I also haven’t read yet, because someone has it whenever I try to get it from the library! (Idk who in this small town other than me is obsessed enough with the Frev for that but they need to stop for a hot sec so I can read it!). During AP English it was used as a source on one of the example essays that scored high though, so it can’t be too bad. It’s also old as hell, so idk how accurate it is after hundreds of years of additional research after it’s publication, but I thought I’d suggest it anyway.

Oh, and Charlotte Robespierre’s diaries if you can get a hold of a translation. I’ve been busy so I haven’t done much research into them, but I have read bits and pieces.

I also read a lot of @bunniesandbeheadings French revolution posts when I first started researching the Frev all those years ago and I know they were pretty informative. And internet articles. Random books I don’t know the names of. All sorts of stuff.

Sorry if this isn’t helpful or what you were looking for. I’m tired and probably should have waited ‘til I was more awake to answer. But I didn’t so here’s what you get. 

If anyone else has more to add, please go ahead! 

~Dara