#laurent lecointre

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

What caused the conflict between Robespierre and his supporters and Thermidorians that led to the events of 27/28th July? Everyone keeps saying different things

If we’re talking about a specific event that lead directly to July 27, the answer to me is pretty simple — it was the speech Robespierre held the day right before it, in which he called for new proscriptions against deputies in the Convention, the Committee of Public Safety (CPS) and the Committee of General Security (CGS), without being clear about exactly which ones he was targeting (even after explicately having been asked to to do so right after the speech was finished). If dissent between the robespierrists and other deputies, as well as more longgoing plans to undermine the former, had existed already before this speech was held, what ultimately happened on July 27 was not a result of these as much as something improvised in less than 24 hours in response to the sudden crisis it had caused by making everyone fear they might be on Robespierre’s list.

If we’re talking more about the underlying motives which made the situation on July 26-28 happen in the first place, for Robespierre’s part, he had grown convinced that the Convention and the two government committees contained conspirators within their midst. Exactly which people he suspected to be part of this conspiracy is hard to know for sure, seeing as he, as already stated, didn’t make himself clear enough in the speech (I’ve speculated a bit on which people I think it’s most likely he had in mind in this post). It is equally dubious whether Robespierre’s collegues at the CPS to some extent had supported his views or how much this new conspiracy was his own hobby horse. Regardless, Robespierre believed the conspirators had to be unveiled and crushed at any price, and, after openly having expressed his fears about them a couple of times at the Jacobin club, he finally decided to openly ask the Convention to take action.

When it comes to the people who overthrew Robespierre, once it was over and done, they would almost all give the same answer as to why they had acted the way they had acted — Robespierre was either acting like or aspiring to become a tyrant/dictator, and they killed him in order to put a stop to this authoritarian project. While I wouldn’t dismiss a fear like this to be nothing but a post construction, it can nevertheless also be established that, when looking closer at these guys’ activities shortly before thermidor, many can be revealed to have had motives grounded in personal dissatisfactions and/or fears of Robespierre as much as any eventual noble intentions. Some examples can be seen below:

Tallien (spoke against Robespierre during the session of 9 thermidor, was one of ten deputies to have signed the pampleth Conjuration formée dès le 5 préréal [sic] par neuf représentants du peuple contre Maximilien Robespierre, pour le poignarder en plein senat released shortly after thermidor) —  Openly denounced by Robespierre on June 12 on the grounds of being ”one of those who speak incessantly with terror, and publicly of the guillotine, as something that concerns them, to debase and disturb the National Convention.” His mistress has been imprisoned since May 22 (the warrant for her arrest was actually written by Robespierre himself, but idk if Tallien was aware of that) and he is in dire need to get her out of jail. In his memoirs, Fouché claims that Tallien was one of several deputies he in the weeks leading up to thermidor would tell: ”you are on the list, you are on the list as well as myself, I am certain of it!” no doubt alarming the latter.

Fouché (Pointed to by several contemporaries as the leader of/important for the conspiracy. Did however not play an active role during July 27-28) — was recalled from his mission in Lyon on March 27by a rather frosty decree written by Robespierre. After returning, Fouché possibly had a private meeting with him where he would have been scolded for his conduct (though interestingly, on April 8, Robespierre is recorded to have ”praised” Fouché after the latter had read a report regarding his activities in Lyon…) He has also come under suspicion for his alleged atheism and ties to certain hébertists (most importantly Ronsin who had been his collegue in Lyon before getting executed alongside the hébertists in March 1794). On July 14, Fouché was openly attacked by Robespierre, who called him ”the leader of the conspiracy which we have to thwart" and got him expelled from the jacobins. If Fouché wasn’t already plotting Robespierre’s downfall at that point he surely must have started doing so after this incident.

Billaud-Varennes (spoke against Robespierre during the session of 9 thermidor) — Indirectly denounced by Robespierre in his final speech, both through the phrase ”why do those who told you once that we are walking on a volcano think that we walk on only roses today?” and the suggestion to purge members of the CPS. Booed down and driven out of the Jacobin Club under shouts of ”the conspirators to the guillotine” when Robespierre rerread said speech there on the evening of July 26, which probably gave him a very strong feeling that he was on the menu and would be executed if Robespierre was not. Claimed after thermidor to during a CPS meeting loudly have accused Robespierre and Couthon of pushing through the law of 22 prairial without anyone else in the committee having been involved, leading to the session becoming so stormy that the windows had to be closed.

Collot d’Herbois (spoke against Robespierre during the session of 9 thermidor, was also chairholder during this session) — Driven out of the Jacobin Club under shouts of ”to the guillotine” at the same time as Billaud-Varennes. According to one report, this was not before he had thrown himself before Robespierre’s feet and begged him to reunite with the CPS. Had been tipped off by Fouché on April 20 that Robespierre was investigating the latter for his actions in Lyon, which would make him guilty by association. Claimed in his defence (March 1 1795) to once have been declared ”traitor and conspirator” by Robespierre, ”because I had strongly supported the useful and wise proposal that Lindet made, to require horses and carriages in each section of Paris, in order to provide for the supplies of the armies.” According to Michel Biard’s Collot d’Herbois: légendes noires et révolutions(1995) Collot and Billaud’s abandonment of Robespierre is best understood through their perception of his political role than it is by any eventual differences in political or religious matters.

Vadier, Élie Lacoste (spoke against Robespierre during the session of 9 thermidor, Lacoste being the one to demand an arrest warrant against Augustin Robespierre) — these were both members of the CGS. Robespierre had explicately denounced said committee, and particulary its agents, in his July 26 speech, ending by demanding it lose its autonomy to instead become subserviant to the CPS. The CGS had however already earlier that year been robbed of some of its special attributes, when, on April 20, a CPS driven police bureau, mainly directed by Robespierre, Couthon and Saint-Just, had been introduced, something we might imagiene also became an object of irritation. Two months later, Robespierre had also personally taken care one of the committee’s cases (the Catherine Théot affair, which I wrote about more at length here) was taken away from them to instead be run by robespierrists. The handling of said affair was also something Robespierre explicately denounced the CGS for in his July 26 speech. It is also commonly stated that Vadier disagreed with Robespierre’s religious ideas, he himself being a militant atheist, but I’m not sure for what the source for that is.

Fréron (spoke against Robespierre during the session of 9 thermidor, was one of ten deputies to have signed the pampleth Conjuration formée dès le 5 préréal…) — was never openly denounced by Robespierre as far as I’m aware, nor was the decree recalling him from his mission in Marseille, on the grounds of having gone to far when wanting to rename the city, been neither authored nor signed by him. We do however know Fréron had been close to the dantonists executed in April, thereby making revenge and/or fear of being seen as ”guilty by association” a possible motive. The same thing can be said for other men traditionally described as dantonists that we know worked against Robespierre, such as Bourdon de l’Oise, Thuriot, Guffroy etc.

Guffroy (was one of ten deputies to have signed the pampleth Conjuration formée dès le 5 préréal…) — disillusioned by the fact Robespierre and the rest of the CPS have failed/chosen not to act on the representative on mission Joseph Lebon after Guffroy multiple times had denounced him to them.

Bourdon d’Oise (spoke against Robespierre during the session of 9 thermidor) — Had spoken against the law of 22 prairial both June 10, 11 and 12, earning himself a reprimand from Robespierre on the latter of these dates. According to the memoirs of Pierre Nicolas Berryer, it was after this session Bourdon started plotting for Robespierre’s downfall, seeing in it ”a struggle to the death” between the two, and planning to on his own stab him to death with a cutlass.

Lecointre (author behind the pampleth Conjuration formée dès le 5 préréal [sic] par neuf représentants du peuple contre Maximilien Robespierre, pour le poignarder en plein senat released shortly after thermidor) — Openly spoke against the law of 22 prairial when it was introduced on June 10, asking for an adjournment and applauding the deputy Ruamps when he said he would blow his brains out was the law to pass. In the above mentioned pampleth, he wrote that it was when he heard rumors Robespierre was the only person behind the law he decided to start working to undermine him.

So as can be seen, there’s not really a single motive for the conspirators, but a whole bunch of them. To understand them better, it is also important to remember just how the political climate looked like by the summer of 1794. I think it’s safe to assume the trials and executions of the hébertists and dantonists in March and April had unnerved several of the Convention deputies, the death of Danton in particular being seen as evidence that anyone could be declared a counter-revolutionary. Then just two months later, the law of 22 prairial gets introduced by Couthon and Robespierre, a law which strips the Convention of its exclusive rights to bring its own members to trial. This just two days after Robespierre has presided over the Festival of the Supreme Being, an event which had put several members a bit off. With all these things combined, I don’t think it’s fully unreasonable people would be willing to believe Robespierre was up to no good/planning to make himself a dictator, especially if someone was actively spreading/confirming that fear. It’s also important to keep in mind that on both sides of the conflict, the deputies were overworked, tired, irrational and suffering from the summer heat. I think thermidor is therefore best understood if we assume none of the men involved in it were necessarily on their most rational behaviour when things went down.

[montagnarde1793]

Jettez les yeux autour de vous : voyez les départements qui vous environnent ; entendez les cris des Enfants immolés sur le sein de leurs meres ; voyez la terre inondée du sang des administrateurs et des patriotes ; voyez ces prêtres fanatiques qui regrettent des trésors qu’ils avaient arrachés à la Superstition de nos peres, prêcher le Carnage au nom d’un Dieu de paix ; voyez ces Emigrés et ces cy-devant Seigneurs réunis à eux ; ils veulent, le fer et la flamme à la main, rétablir la féodalité, la royauté, la noblesse, la dixme, la chasse, la gabelle, les aydes et tous ces fléaux dévastateurs qui accompagnent ces horribles institutions, et qui trainent à leur Suite le malheur et l’opprobre du Genre humain. Vous n’avés plus voulu de ces Vampires qui suçaient à longs traits le Sang du Peuple. Eh bien ! pour s’en vanger, ils veulent le repandre à grands flots ; ils veulent vous égorger, parce que vous avés voulu etre libres et jouir des droits sacrés dont la Providence a fait le plus bel apanage de l’homme. [...] Pour des hommes autres que des Républicains la politique voudrait peut-être qu’on jettât un voile sur les dangers qui les environnent ; mais loin de nous cette lâcheté et cette perfidie. Nous parlons à des hommes libres ; ils ne se laisseront point abbattre à la vue du peril ; ils n’en sentiront que mieux la nécessité de le prévenir. Et dailleurs si nos dangers sont grands, nos ressources ne sont-elles pas immenses ? nos frontières ne sont-elles pas encore intactes et respectées malgré les éxécrables trahisons de l’infame Dumourier ? des Citoyens de toutes les parties de la République ne se portent ils pas sur la Vendée ? la présence de nos phalanges guerrières ne vat-elle pas dissiper les hordes de brigands, qui ont osé quelques instants souiller le territoire français de l’aspect révoltant des signes de notre ancien esclavage, et ne serons-nous pas libres et heureux le jour où nous le voudrons ?

Proclamation de Romme, Prieur de la Marne et Lecointre, représentants à l’armée des Côtes de Cherbourg “Aux Citoyens et aux Corps administratifs des départements de la Manche, du Calvados, de l’Eure et de l’Orne”. Bayeux, 19 mai 1793 (AN AF II 265B, pl. 2240, p. 11).

[robespapier]

I’ve got a few “Wait, Robespierre wasn’t Horace Desmoulins’ godfather?” messages so I’ve made a quick search to see how widespread the idea was on the internet: 

It’s bad there are websites that say “Robespierre was his godfather in one of the first Republican baptisms” without any source, but it’s absolutely WILD some claim as such then produce a copy of Horace’s civil baptism, in which there are no godparents, but two witnesses: Laurent Lecointre et Antoine Merlin de Thionville. 

Said register where Camille clearly states he doesn’t want to bound Horace to any religion while he’s so young he can’t make his own choices, and that all he wants is the civil ceremony: So no godparents. Only the two witnesses.  

source: Horace’s record in the Paris birth register 

[rbzpr]

légende noire: archive project

In the immediate aftermath of the events of Thermidor, both the actors and spectators of these events sought to give meaning to what had just happened ; à chaud, a new imaginary was taking shape, centred around the person of Robespierre: his légende noire, which would impose itself over the next decades, slowly began to emerge in numerous speeches, proclamations, pamphlets etc. This “black legend”, which drew on the tropes and motifs that had characterised earlier attacks on Robespierre, would later acquire some degree of coherence, but at the time of its birth, it was still widely heterogeneous and, at times, even contradictory.

In the course of this research project, I have compiled some of the most influential speeches, writings and images that were published during or immediately after the events of 9 / 10 Thermidor, and which, in some cases, came to shape Robespierre’s légende noire as we know it today.

protocols, speeches, reports & proclamations

Session of 9 Thermidor at the National Convention

Report on the conspiracy against the national representation, plotted by Robespierre, Couthon, Saint-Just, Lebas &c. (9 Thermidor)

Proclamation of the National Convention (9 Thermidor)

Léonard Bourdon’s intervention at the Convention (10 Thermidor)

Report of the Committees of Public Safety & General Security on the “conspiracy of Robespierre etc.” (10 Thermidor)

Barère, au nom du comité de salut public (11 Thermidor)

Barère’s report on the reorganisation of the Committees (14 Thermidor)

Barras’ speech on the journées of Thermidor (27 Thermidor)

pamphlets & other writings

Robespierre’s Tail (Méhée de La Touche)

Robespierre peint par lui-même [...] (Laurent Lecointre)

On Robespierre’s conspiracy (Rouget de Lisle)

Véritable portrait de Catilina Robespierre (Jean Joseph Dussault)

Portrait of Robespierre (Merlin de Thionville)

La journée du 9 thermidor (André Pépin Bellement)

On the fall of Robespierre and his accomplices (C. Dejean)

Le front de Robespierre, et de sa clique [...] (Baraly)

Execrable Portraits of the traitor Robespierre [...] (J. J. Dussault)

Horrible conspiration formée, pour porter Robespierre à la royauté (Anonymous)

Facts collected in the last moments of Robespierre and of his faction, from 9 to 10 Thermidor (Anonymous)

Vie secrette, politique et curieuse de M. J. Maximilien Robespierre [...] (L. Duperron)

Fréron’s notes on Robespierre

engravings & medallions

IX Thermidor Year II (Charles Monnet)

Thermidorian medallion from Lyon (Anonymous)

Act of Justice from 9 to 10 Thermidor (Viller)

M. J. Maximilien Robespierre: nicknamed the modern Catiline, executed on 10 Thermidor Year 2 of the Republic (Anonymous)

The Triumvir Robespierre (Jean Joseph François Tassaert)

Robespierre guillotining the executor (Anonymous)

Triumphant Equality or The Punished Triumvirate (Villeneuve)

The Government of Robespierre (Anonymous)

The French People, or Robespierre’s System (A. Chataignier)

What do you think, citizens? Feel free to add things!

During my research for this project, I greatly relied on Robespierre: la fabrication d'un mythe (Belissa / Bosc) and on Jolène Audrey Bureau’s Robespierre meurt longtemps, as well as on Hippolyte Buffenoir’s extensive study Les portraits de Robespierre. I also want to thank @montagnarde1793 and @valeria-lagrimas for their generous help and advice!

[3cvinci]

Documentaires : nos nouveautés de novembre.

La Guerre d’Algérie expliquée en images, Benjamin Stora :

La guerre d'Algérie fut le grand épisode traumatique de l'histoire de la France des Trente Glorieuses. Et les blessures ouvertes alors ne sont pas encore refermées, comme en témoignent les polémiques mémorielles récurrentes qu'elle continue de soulever. Né à Constantine en Algérie, l'historien Benjamin Stora raconte ici cette guerre longtemps restée "sans nom" : ses épisodes majeurs (des massacres du Constantinois à la politique de la " terre brûlée " de l'OAS, en passant par le putsch des généraux et la répression des immigrés en métropole) et ses acteurs principaux, algériens comme français. Il restitue cette histoire dans toute sa complexité et rend compte des acquis et des débats de la recherche historique la plus récente, en racontant par exemple comment la guerre fut vécue du côté algérien. Enfin, il revient sur les séquelles politiques et mémorielles de cette guerre de huit ans des deux côtés de la Méditerranée.

Le Cerveau et les apprentissages, Olivier Houdé & Grégoire Borst :

Quelles méthodes pour faciliter l'apprentissage ? Le cerveau et les apprentissages s'intéresse au fonctionnement du cerveau des élèves et propose des pistes pratiques à explorer en classe. À travers les analyses d'experts (neuroscientifiques, neuropsychologues, chercheurs), cet ouvrage s'intéresse aux interactions entre le cerveau et les apprentissages : comment les sciences cognitives nous éclairent sur les apprentissages disciplinaires : lire, écrire, raisonner et penser, compter, vivre avec autrui ; et ce qu'elles nous apprennent sur les processus transversaux : mémoire, attention et concentration, contrôle exécutif, états mentaux. Cet ouvrage est construit autour de 3 grandes parties : - Au cœur des programmes - Les fonctions cognitives transversales - Les applications dans l'école.

3 Minutes pour comprendre les 50 plus grands aspects de l’anatomie du corps humain, Gabrielle Finn :

Les systèmes musculaire, digestif, endocrinien, nerveux, reproducteur... Bien sûr, vous en avez déjà entendu parler, mais savez-vous vraiment de quoi il s'agit, pourriez-vous les localiser ou encore expliquer en quoi ils contribuent au fonctionnement de votre organisme ? Voici enfin un livre qui met les pionniers de la médecine au défi d'expliquer les plus grands aspects de l'anatomie de manière claire et accessible, avec des illustrations d'une extrême précision en 30 secondes, 2 pages, 300 mots et 1 image, soit 3 minutes en tout pour comprendre ! Vous y découvrirez également les plus grands anatomistes de l'Histoire, à l'origine de remarquables avancées médicales. Que vous soyez étudiant en médecine, sportif ou simplement désireux de savoir comment fonctionne votre organisme, vous serez fasciné par l'une des plus merveilleuses mécaniques qui soit : le corps humain !

Apprendre avec le sketchnoting, Audrey Akoun, Philippe Boukobza, Isabelle Pailleau :

Le sketchnoting, un outil formidable de "pensée visuelle" ! Le sketchnoting, aussi appelé prise de note visuelle, est une manière créative de prendre des notes et d’organiser les informations. C’est un outil de pensée visuelle qui permet de transformer tous types d’informations (vidéo, texte, conférence, cours...) en une représentation graphique du texte, en y ajoutant des images, sur une seule page. Comme le mindmapping, il s'agit d'un outil surpuissant pour mémoriser, retrouver le gout d'apprendre, prendre des notes et organiser son travail. Audrey Akoun, Isabelle Pailleau et Philippe Boukobza réunissent dans cet ouvrage les fondamentaux pour vous aider à réaliser vos propres sketchnotes et synthétiser vos idées.

Explore ton score au lycée !, Eric Gaspar :

On pense souvent à tort que la capacité à apprendre et à retenir est innée, que les facultés du cerveau sont une donnée de naissance. C’est faux ! Les avancées en neurosciences ont confirmé ces dernières années que chacun peut développer ces aptitudes ; il n y a là aucune fatalité ! Ce petit ouvrage pratique et ludique regorge de conseils, astuces et modèles, ainsi que de tests et exercices corrigés pour développer ses facultés à apprendre et à retenir plus facilement et plus longtemps.

L’Évolution, question d’actualité ?, Guillaume Lecointre :

L'homme a-t-il inventé l'évolution ? Fidélité dans le couple, infidélité, homosexualité : que vaut-il mieux pour l'évolution ? Être parent, cela s'apprend-il ? La société est-elle un super-organisme ? Une vie sans défauts, est-ce possible ? Un monde sans violence est-il viable ? La technologie est-elle le propre de l'homme ? Cet ouvrage propose une découverte inédite et passionnante de l'évolution du vivant où se mêlent questions de société et découvertes scientifiques. Guillaume Lecointre, spécialiste des questions d'évolution au Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, entraîne le lecteur dans une aventure biologique surprenante au cœur de l'actualité et aux confins des temps. A travers 80 questions naïves ou faussement naïves posées par tout un chacun après des conférences, ce livre nous fait découvrir que l'évolution est captivante, qu'elle peut être belle, et surtout, qu'elle est d'actualité !

Dictionnaire de la Mort, collectif sous la direction de Philippe Di Folco :

La mort fait-elle aimer la vie ? Comprendre la mort permet-il de mieux apprécier la vie ? Telles sont les deux interrogations fondamentales qui parcourent ce dictionnaire, unique en son genre. D’Abattoir à Zombi, plus de 1000 entrées essayent de dresser un tableau à la fois insolite et approfondi de la mort. Ces entrées concernent aussi bien les approches socioculturelles (territoires, lieux, rites…), les concepts (désir, destruction, irréversibilité…), les manies (psychopathologies, suicides…), que les œuvres artistiques, les individualités (Cioran, croque-mort, Dark Vador...) ou les communautés et les institutions (Pirates, Inquisition...). De même l’histoire des représentations de la mort, l’étymologie, les expressions courantes utilisées à son sujet, sont présentes, sans oublier l’humour... noir évidemment. Ainsi l’histoire, racontée par Freud, du condamné à mort, qui avant d'être mené à la potence, un lundi, soupire : "La semaine commence bien."

L’Énigme Marcel Duchamp : l’art à l’épreuve du cogito, Philippe Sers :

Parce qu’elle est d’un caractère volontiers provocateur et insolent, parce qu’elle a un aspect désinvolte et disparate et culmine en des propositions qui ont l’apparence d’un pied-de-nez au jugement critique, l’œuvre de Marcel Duchamp est la grande énigme de l’art contemporain. L’usage du paradoxe ouvre la connaissance à de nouvelles régions dépassant les frontières de la logique. D’importants ajouts montrent la postérité réelle de Duchamp dans l’art moderne et contemporain. L’analyse dégage la notion centrale de « transfert d’évidence », qui sous-tend les démarches les plus fructueuses de l’art contemporain. On trouvera également dans cet ouvrage deux enquêtes que l’auteur a menées après la mort de Duchamp sur son influence auprès des principaux témoins ou des créateurs de la nouvelle génération.

Une Histoire populaire des États-Unis, Howard Zinn :

Cette histoire des États-Unis présente le point de vue de ceux dont les manuels d’histoire parlent habituellement peu. L’auteur confronte avec minutie la version officielle et héroïque (de Christophe Colomb à George Walker Bush) aux témoignages des acteurs les plus modestes. Les Indiens, les esclaves en fuite, les soldats déserteurs, les jeunes ouvrières du textile, les syndicalistes, les GI du Vietnam, les activistes des années 1980-1990, tous, jusqu’aux victimes contemporaines de la politique intérieure et étrangère américaine, viennent ainsi battre en brèche la conception unanimiste de l’histoire officielle.

Dictionnaire amoureux du Judaïsme, Jacques Attali :

De "Diaspora" à "Talmud", de "Golem" à "Yahvé", de "Philon d' Alexandrie" à "Theodore Hertzl", de "Baal Chem Tov" à "George Steiner", Jacques Attali, en bon historien mais aussi en conteur, trace les contours d'une importante religion de l'humanité.

Psychologie du bien et du mal, Laurent Bègue :

Quel sens donnons-nous à nos actes les plus quotidiens et à ceux des autres ? Pourquoi sommes-nous capables de sacrifier nos intérêts matériels au nom de grands principes comme la justice ? Par quelles mises en scène parvenons-nous à draper de moralité des conduites qui caressent notre égocentrisme ? Quelles circonstances peuvent nous conduire à trahir nos convictions les plus profondes ? Comment se forment et progressent la conscience morale et l'empathie ? Les récompenses et les punitions favorisent-elles ou non les acquisitions morales ? S'appuyant sur des exemples et de nombreuses études scientifiques récentes, ce livre explore la forme que le bien et le mal prennent dans nos têtes et les conséquences que ces idées ont sur nos vies. Une plongée au cœur de la nature humaine.

Les Journalistes sont formidables : cinquante ans d’histoire des médias, Francis Morel & Jean-Michel Salvator :

Les fake news sont parmi nous ! Les réseaux sociaux qui les diffusent en viennent à se substituer aux médias traditionnels. Pourtant, à leurs débuts, Facebook ou Twitter ont pu apparaître comme un facteur de démocratie. Une sorte de nuit du 4  août où les journalistes ont perdu une part de leur privilège d’informer. Aujourd’hui, ils sont devenus la cible de toutes les critiques, de tous les soupçons. On n’a pourtant jamais eu autant besoin d’une presse libre et exigeante. C’est un des rouages essentiels pour faire vivre la démocratie. La presse a plus changé en cinquante ans qu’en six cents ans, passant en accéléré du plomb au digital. On a vu apparaître les sites Internet, puis les smartphones, la vidéo en ligne et maintenant l’intelligence artificielle. Cette révolution est une menace, mais aussi une formidable opportunité. Grâce au Web, jamais les quotidiens n’ont pu toucher un public aussi large. C’est l’histoire de cet incroyable big bang que vous racontent de l’intérieur Francis Morel, ancien patron de presse au Figaro, aux Échos puis au Parisien, et Jean-Michel Salvator, qui a appartenu aux directions des rédactions d’Europe  1, du Figaro et de BFM.

Dictionnaire amoureux du journalisme, Serge July :

"Citizen July" est partie intégrante de notre mythologie. Fondateur et patron emblématique de Libération, depuis 33 ans il est aussi un grand témoin de l'histoire des médias : des bidonnages au triomphe de la communication, des nouveaux médias aux reportages qui changent les manières de penser. Avec naturel, simplicité et talent, ce journaliste nous raconte toutes les facettes de ce métier, depuis les origines, jusqu'aux réseaux internet. Il évoque les figures majeures, les articles et les grandes œuvres essentielles de l'histoire du journalisme.

A La rencontre des comètes : de Halley à Rosetta, James Lequeux & Thérèse Encrenaz :

Ce livre se propose de faire le point sur ces objets mythiques que sont les comètes. Que nous apprennent-elles sur les premiers âges du Système solaire ? Pourquoi leur apparition dans le ciel, interprétée comme un mauvais présage dans l’Antiquité, a-t-elle toujours un tel impact médiatique? Comment les scientifiques ont-ils finalement découvert le secret de leur trajectoire ? Et que savons-nous de leur origine ? Témoins privilégiés de grands moments de l’exploration cométaire, les auteurs en présentent un récit original et émaillé d’anecdotes, notamment autour de la traque fébrile qui s’est organisée à l’occasion de la réapparition de la célèbre comète de Halley en 1986.

L’Humanisme et la Renaissance, anthologie :

Avec le XVIe siècle s'ouvre l'ère moderne : la conquête du Nouveau Monde, l'invention du microscope, la diffusion du livre, l'éclosion d'un art neuf importé d'Italie... Les lettrés de cette époque se voient comme des hommes nouveaux et veulent œuvrer à l'épanouissement de la personne. Grâce au dialogue qu'ils établissent avec les hommes du passé - par l'étude approfondie de la culture et des langues antiques -, ils apprivoisent le sens d'un monde soumis au mouvement du temps et développent l'exercice de leur jugement. Mais cet humanisme n'empêche pas la violence. Peu à peu, l'Europe bascule dans les guerres de Religion : loin des utopies triomphantes du début du siècle, d'autres voix se font entendre - Montaigne, d'Aubigné - qui rappellent la contingence de l’humaine condition.

Petite méthodologie pour interpréter soi-même ses rêves, Hélène Renard :

Nos rêves nous fascinent. Leur langage baroque nous entrouvre la porte d'un autre monde, celui de notre vérité intérieure. Les comprendre, c'est mieux se connaître, et aborder notre "deuxième vie", celle de l'état de veille, avec plus de lucidité. Hélène Renard nous offre ses conseils pratiques et ses exercices pour garder trace de nos rêves, les analyser (images dominantes, décors, émotions...), les faire entrer en résonance avec les événements de notre vie, et les relire à travers le prisme des grandes traditions symboliques. Cette méthode simple d'initiation à l'interprétation symbolique des rêves permet à chacun d'explorer facilement sa vie intérieure et d'avancer vers une existence plus harmonieuse.

Histoire de Gaza, Jean-Pierre Filiu :

Trop longtemps l’histoire de la Palestine s’est écrite autour de Jérusalem et dans la mémoire de l’exil, comme si Gaza n’en était qu’un théâtre marginal. Or cette bande de 360 km2 doit être replacée au centre: non seulement elle a vu grandir nombre d’acteurs déterminants, mais elle concentre une densité inégalée de réfugiés, à partir de 1948-1949. Cette enclave que l’Égypte refusa alors d’annexer devint un pôle d’affirmation collective, puis la matrice des fedayins. Ce bout de territoire, qui fut durant des siècles le carrefour des empires, zone de contact entre le Levant et l’Égypte, ne doit pas aujourd’hui être réduit à une « prison à ciel ouvert ». La guerre qui l’a ravagé à l’été 2014, après deux autres guerres en cinq ans, prouve que, sans règlement de la question de Gaza, il n’est pas plus d’avenir pour la Palestine que de sécurité pour Israël. Relire l’histoire de Gaza, c’est dès lors retrouver la voie de la paix entre les peuples d’Israël et de Palestine, sur la base de la coexistence de deux États souverains.

Le Petit guide de survie en Allemagne : spécial séjour linguistique, collectif :

Tu t’apprêtes à partir en séjour linguistique en Allemagne ? C’est la première fois et tu n’es pas vraiment à l’aise ? Rassure-toi, ce petit guide pratique et plein d’humour va t’aider à préparer ton voyage et surtout faciliter ton quotidien outre-Rhin… 18 chapitres sur les différentes étapes de ton séjour (arrivée, repas et soirées en famille, sorties en groupe ou en solo...). Les mots et expressions indispensables pour t’aider à te débrouiller dans toutes les situations. Les phrases essentielles. Des astuces pour éviter certains pièges. Les expressions et les mots qui sauvent. Des conseils pratiques (les cadeaux à éviter tels que le foie gras, l’andouillette, les escargots, etc…). Des informations sur la culture allemande et sur les visites à ne pas manquer lors de ton séjour. Un maxi-quiz en fin d’ouvrage.

L’Art de la guerre, Sun Tzu :

Il y a vingt-cinq siècles, dans la Chine des "Royaumes Combattants", était rédigé le premier traité sur "l'art de la guerre". Pour atteindre la victoire, le stratège habile s'appuie sur sa puissance, mais plus encore sur le moral des hommes, les circonstances qui l'entourent et l'information dont il dispose. La guerre doit être remportée avant même d'avoir engagé le combat. Sun Tzu ne décrit pas les batailles grandioses et le fracas des épées, pas plus qu'il n'énumère des techniques vouées à l'obsolescence : L'Art de la guerre est un précieux traité de stratégie, un grand classique de la pensée politique et une leçon de sagesse à l'usage des meneurs d'hommes. Autant que de courage, la victoire est affaire d'intelligence.

La Capacité d’être seul, Donald W. Winnicott :

La solitude nous angoisse, et pourtant nous avons tous besoin d'être seuls pour nous ressourcer. C'est l'un des paradoxes de l'être humain. Winnicott est le premier psychanalyste à s'être penché sur cette question. Dans La capacité d'être seul, il montre comment le petit enfant, pour mûrir affectivement, fait l'expérience de la solitude bien que sa mère soit à ses côtés. Ce livre, qui replace au premier plan le rôle du corps, montre aussi que le bien-être mental peut passer par une simple présence physique.

Le Robot, meilleur ami de l’homme ?, Rodolphe Gelin :

Les robots sont des pièces métalliques et plastiques articulées, équipées de moteurs et de capteurs reliés à un ordinateur. Comment peut-on se poser la question de savoir si on peut être l’ami ou l’ennemi d’une telle quincaillerie ? C’est que notre imaginaire nourri, voire gavé, de livres, de films et de bandes dessinées de science-fiction, nous les présente comme des êtres amicaux ou menaçants, mais toujours dotés d’une intelligence égale ou supérieure à la nôtre. Dans ce livre, l’auteur présente l’état actuel de cette technologie dont tout le monde semble savoir ce qu’elle sera dans plusieurs dizaines d’années sans vraiment avoir une idée de ce qu’elle est vraiment aujourd’hui...

De la Joconde aux tests ADN, jusqu’où ira la chimie ?, Stéphane Sarrade :

Grâce aux progrès de la chimie, il est aujourd’hui possible de quasiment tout mesurer : notre état de santé (via les analyses sanguines) et celui de notre environnement, depuis l’eau que nous buvons jusqu’à l’air que nous respirons. Mais l’analyse permet aussi de dater et de comprendre les œuvres d art, de mettre à jour des fraudes alimentaires ou des contrefaçons et, surtout, de mettre en prison des délinquants, dans les séries télévisées et dans la vraie vie. Les progrès de la connaissance en chimie couplés à ceux des technologies émergentes permettent d’envisager un futur où, avec les progrès de la miniaturisation, les mesures chimiques vont bientôt mobiliser des micro-dispositifs et mettre en jeu des nano-échantillons, qui seront éminemment portables. Bienvenue aux systèmes intelligents de demain ! Mais, à vouloir tout mesurer, n’allons-nous pas perdre le sens de la mesure ?

Suis-je responsable de mes échecs ?, collectif sous la direction d’Alain Houziaux :

Comment vivre les échecs sans culpabilité excessive et sans fuir pour autant sa propre responsabilité ? Ce qui nous arrive, est-ce forcément notre faute ? Sommes-nous responsables de ce qui s'est passé ? Telles sont les questions qui nous assaillent quand survient un événement fâcheux. Au fond, d'où vient cette culpabilité originelle qui nous dérange ? Gérard Israël, Daniel Sibony et Paul Valadier proposent une voie : prendre appui sur l'échec pour rebondir.

La Religion est-elle encore l’opium du peuple ?, collectif sous la direction de Alain Houziaux :

La religion incite-t-elle à la fuite hors du monde ? Est-elle une drogue qui égare et endort ou une interpellation, un commandement éthique et politique ? Que voulait dire Karl Marx lorsqu'il la définissait comme un opium ? Alain Houziaux s'interroge sur la pensée de Marx et se demande quelle est sa pertinence aujourd'hui. Pour Paul Thibaud, le politique et le religieux sont actuellement confrontés à la même crise. Olivier Roy rapproche L'intégrisme musulman du fondamentalisme chrétien. Enfin, pour Marcel Gauchet, la conscience religieuse a son importance pour la démocratie de demain.

L’Animal est-il un homme comme les autres ? les droits des animaux en question, Aurélien Barrau & Louis Schweitzer :

Charles Darwin avait révolutionné l'idée que nous nous faisions de notre place dans la nature. Aujourd'hui, la science découvre peu à peu que les animaux pensent, apprennent, transmettent et qu'ils sont des êtres sensibles, déclenchant une véritable révolution philosophique et éthique. C'est ainsi que depuis 2015, ils ne sont plus considérés comme des "bien meubles", mais comme des "êtres vivants doués de sensibilité". Peut-on aller plus loin, et quel serait un droit des animaux? Entre passion et réalisme, Louis Schweitzer, président de la fondation "Droit animal, éthique et science", et Aurélien Barrau, philosophe et astrophysicien, militant pour le respect des animaux, tentent de répondre à cette question qui remet profondément en cause nos choix de société.

Hollywood Propaganda, Matthew Alford :

Premier livre à examiner le fonctionnement interne de Hollywood en tant qu’industrie politisée, Hollywood Propaganda révèle les liens étroits entre l’industrie du cinéma et les forces politiques américaines les plus réactionnaires. S’appuyant sur l’analyse minutieuse de nombreux films, Alford démontre que Hollywood, loin d’être le lieu d’expression de la gauche américaine, n’est que le versant culturel d’une politique impérialiste. Ainsi, des films comme Transformers, Terminator ou La Chute du faucon noir, ouvertement financés par le Département de la Défense, servent à promouvoir l’image de l’armée et de la politique américaine. Même des films dits critiques, voire contestataires comme Les Rois du désert, Hotel Rwanda ou Avatar, bien que d’une façon plus subtile, n’en remplissent pas moins une fonction similaire. Au-delà des tendances progressistes affichées par certaines célébrités, Alford met en évidence leur totale intégration à un système encourageant la suprématie mondiale américaine et le recours à la violence étatique.

Au Temps des Borgia, Marie Viallon :

Dans l'imaginaire collectif, le nom des Borgia rime avec corruption, népotisme, orgies, inceste, meurtres... Cette légende noire est née dès l'avènement du pape Alexandre VI Borgia en 1492. Sans doute tient-elle à la personnalité flamboyante de ce souverain pontife, habile à distribuer charges et honneurs au gré de ses intérêts, qui mène une vie de prince, affiche son goût pour les courtisanes et œuvre politiquement pour assurer l'avenir de ses enfants, dont César, condottiere ambitieux et impitoyable, et la belle Lucrèce. Mais la légende des Borgia est aussi liée à la fin de la Renaissance italienne, marquée par les guerres d'Italie et la voix puissante du moine Savonarole dénonçant la corruption de l’Église romaine. Le temps des Borgia, c'est enfin celui d'une floraison artistique exceptionnelle avec Pinturicchio, Antoniazzo Romano, Mantegna, Signorelli, Léonard de Vinci, Michel-Ange et Raphaël.

[bspolink1348]

Les nouveautés de la semaine (09/09/2019)

À la une : Obsessions : dans les coulisses du récit complotiste / Marie Peltier

Cote de rangement : HV 6295 P 258284 / Domaine : Communication

« L’islamisme, Charlie, les violences à l’égard des femmes, la laïcité, Mediapart, Edwy Plenel, Tariq Ramadan, voici quelques-uns des objets sémantiques et personnages symboliques que l’on retrouve en boucle, depuis plusieurs années, dans des polémiques et à la faveur d’événements tragiques. Comme si un récit préfabriqué s’était imposé progressivement à nos esprits et avait façonné une configuration du débat public binarisée, se cristallisant ad libitum autour des mêmes obsessions.

Comment ce récit polarisé s’est-il mis en place ? Ou plutôt comment cette guerre entre récits a-t-elle trouvé dans le débat public un lieu de joute à la fois perpétuelle et stérile, où chacun fustige en boucle le « deux poids, deux mesures » du « camp d’en face » ? Quelles sont les coulisses du récit duquel nous sommes aujourd’hui prisonniers ? Comment sortir de cette arène où l’on est sommé de choisir entre deux haines, deux « coupables universels », deux obsessions ? Qu’est-ce qui sous-tend cet imaginaire de la délation et du doute systématique ? Comment en sommes-nous arrivés là ? Pourquoi ? Pour qui ? Par quelles peurs ? Par quels échecs ? Et surtout : en espérant quoi ?

Marie Peltier est historienne, chercheuse et enseignante à Bruxelles. Elle travaille depuis 2011 sur les questions interculturelles et sur la narration relative au conflit syrien, et au Moyen-Orient en général. Elle est l’auteur de L’Ère du complotisme : La maladie d’une société fracturée (Les Petits Matins, 2016). » - Quatrième de couverture

-----------------------

Sociologie

Intersectionality as critical social theory / Patricia Hill Collins

Cote de rangement : HM 488 .5 H 258296

Other people's struggles : outsiders in social movements / Nicholas Owen

Cote de rangement : HM 881 O 258301

Tristes grossesses : l'affaire des époux Bac (1953-1956) / Danièle Voldman, Annette Wieviorka

Cote de rangement : HQ 766 .5 V 258281

Feminism : a brief introduction to the ideas, debates, and politics of the movement / Deborah Cameron

Cote de rangement : HQ 1206 C 258295

-----------------------

Économie

Principles and pluralist approaches in teaching economics : towards a transformative science / edited by Samuel Decker, Wolfram Elsner and Svenja Flechtner

Cote de rangement : HB 74 .5 P 258300

-----------------------

Communication

Future directions of strategic communication / edited by Howard Nothhaft, Kelly Page Werder, Dejan Verčič and Ansgar Zerfass

Cote de rangement : HD 30 .3 F 258299

-----------------------

Sciences politiques

The nationalism of the rich : discourses and strategies of separatist parties in Catalonia, Flanders, Northern Italy and Scotland / Emmanuel Dalle Mulle

Cote de rangement : D 1058 D 258298

Dans la tête de Viktor Orbán : essai / Amélie Poinssot

Cote de rangement : DB 958 .3 P 258283

L'implosion démocratique : pour un nouveau pacte territorial / Jean Viard

Cote de rangement : HN 425 .5 V 258280

Citizenship / Elizabeth FCohen, Cyril Ghosh

Cote de rangement : JF 801 C 258294

Insurgent truth : Chelsea Manning and the politics of outsider truth-telling / Lida Maxwell

Cote de rangement : JF 1525 .S4 M 258291

-----------------------

Éducation

Digital leadership : changing paradigms for changing times / Eric Sheninger

Cote de rangement : LB 1028 .3 S 258297

-----------------------

Sciences du travail

Social security outside the realm of the employment contract : informal work and employee-like workers / edited by Mies Westerveld, Marius Olivier

Cote de rangement : K 1705 S 258292

-----------------------

Finance

La fin du système monétaire actuel : ou comment l'or succédera au dollar / Vincent Dubée

Cote de rangement : HG 3881 D 258290

La descente aux enfers de la finance / Georges Ugeux

Cote de rangement : HG 3881 U 258285

-----------------------

Migrations

The scramble for Europe : young Africa on its way to the old continent / Stephen Smith

Cote de rangement : D 1056 .2 S 258293

-----------------------

Gestion

L'identité visuelle des musées à l'ère des marques / Gwenaëlle de Kerret

Cote de rangement : AM 125 D 258282

Manager avec les Accords toltèques : un guide vers l'intelligence collective / Laurence Aubourg, Olivier Lecointre

Cote de rangement : HD 66 A 258289

-----------------------

Philosophie

Le thème de notre temps / José Ortega y Gasset

Cote de rangement : B 4568 O 258288

Postcritique / sous la direction de Laurent de Sutter

Cote de rangement : BF 447 P 258287

Les vices du savoir : essai d'éthique intellectuelle / Pascal Engel

Cote de rangement : BJ 1421 E 258286

-----------------------

Tous ces ouvrages sont exposés sur le présentoir des nouveautés de la BSPO. Ceux-ci pourront être empruntés à domicile à partir du 23 septembre 2019.

[azveille]

Substitution biosimilaire - La position du GEMME pourrait évoluer

La substitution biosimilaire par le pharmacien ne fait pas l’unanimité au sein du GEMME. Résultat : un positionnement flou. La prise de parole du patron de Biogaran - incitant à substituer sans attendre le décret en souffrance depuis 4 ans – associée à celles des représentants de la profession, mécontents de voir le spécialiste du médicament tenu à l’écart, pourraient-elles pousser l’association de génériqueurs à revoir sa position ?

Dimanche après-midi, Jean Loaec, directeur de la stratégie chez Mylan et désigné pour représenter le GEMME à la table ronde du « Quotidien » sur les génériques et les biosimilaires, a marqué les esprits en indiquant que « la position du GEMME risque d’évoluer » quant à la substitution biosimilaire par les pharmaciens. Depuis plusieurs mois, le désaccord sur le sujet au sein de l’association est palpable. Pascal Brière, à la tête de Biogaran, a été le seul à se positionner en faveur de la substitution biosimilaire par le pharmacien… et pour une application immédiate, sans attendre le décret prévu par la loi de décembre 2013.

Depuis cette prise de parole, la Direction générale de la santé (DGS) a réagi en indiquant que la substitution n’est pas possible sans décret. Mais pas le GEMME. C’est dire si l’intervention de Jean Loaec était attendue. « Concernant la position de Pascal Brière, je pense que de temps en temps il faut savoir bousculer les choses. Il a voulu créer un électrochoc, il ne faut pas condamner cette action dont le but est d’accélérer les choses. C’est en faisant des actions comme celle-là que la substitution générique a pu se mettre en place », rappelle-t-il. 

L’exemple hospitalier

Est-ce à dire que le GEMME pourrait prendre parti pour la substitution biosimilaire ? « On est 25 entreprises au GEMME et il faut avoir une position commune. Cette position risque d’évoluer dans le bon sens. On entend la position de Federgy, de l’UDGPO, de la FSPF, de l’USPO, du CNGPO… nous ne sommes pas sourds. » Quittant sa casquette GEMME quelques instants, il précise : « Pour moi, si un biosimilaire est similaire, il n’y a pas de problème d’interchangeabilité et je ne vois pas pourquoi la substitution ne devrait se faire qu’à l’initiation du traitement. » Romain Lecointre, pharmacien hospitalier et auteur du livre « Les Biosimilaires sontils les nouveaux génériques », confirme. « À l’hôpital, la question ne se pose pas. Il arrive qu’on switche du médicament d’origine vers un biosimilaire, comme il arrive qu’un patient vienne d’une autre structure qui utilise un autre biosimilaire que nous, la substitution ne pose aucun problème. Si on peut le faire à l’hôpital, pourquoi pas à l’officine ? » 

Un avis partagé

Laurent Filoche, président de l’Union des groupements de pharmaciens d’officine (UDGPO), a lancé une expérimentation en demandant à ses membres de substituer systématiquement l’énoxaparine (Lovenox), avec l’accord éclairé du patient, du 1er au 31 mars. « Le but est de prouver qu’on peut arriver à 80 % de substitution biosimilaire, comme le prévoit le plan santé 2022. Les résultats seront transmis à nos syndicats afin de montrer au gouvernement qu’il passe à côté d’un gisement d’économies. » Une opération saluée par Christian Grenier, président de la chambre syndicale des groupements et enseignes Federgy, qui considère lui aussi que la substitution est déjà possible. De leur côté, les syndicats continuent de plaider en faveur de la substitution biosimilaire, accompagnée d’incitations financières pour le pharmacien.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

how did the thermidorians exactly start their plan and gather supporters to their cause and finish the plan successfully?

Bonus questions: I always wondered that during the period of robespierre's fall did the thermidorians tried something like winning friends of robespierre like le-bas couthon saint-just or the people who sided with robespierre etc. to their side?

Only If you want you can share the answer as a special post in 9 thermidor because it is close (after two weeks maybe) so yeah .. do whatever you please.

That is actually a bit more fuzzy than might first be expected. Important to remember is that, while a conspiracy to undermine Robespierre may have already existed beforehand, what actually played out on 9 thermidor was not the result of a longgoing plan as much as something cooked up at the last minute, in response to the unexpected speech Robespierre had held the day before. It is unlikely a coup would have taken place when it did had said speech not existed. Laurent Lecointre even admitted shortly after thermidor that:

Even though [Robespierre’s] death wasn’t the result of any combined plan, it nevertheless avanged the national representation, that has proven, through its courage, that it feared the tyrant less than it did the danger of striking him without success.

Lecointre wrote this in the pampleth Conjuration formée dès le 5 préréal [sic] par neuf représentants du peuple contre Maximilien Robespierre, pour le poignarder en plein senat (1794). From it, we learn what he (along with Fréron, Barras , Courtois , Garnier de l’Aube, Rovère, Thirion, Tallien and Guffroy, who co-signed the pampleth) had been doing to undermine Robespierre in the weeks predating thermidor. But, as the title already suggest, their plan had actually been to stab Max to death in public, as opposed to having him arrested, outlawed and executed like how things ended up going down:

Amar and Moyse-Bayle told me, at the liberty salon, on 24 prairial (June 12) in the presence of our collegue Mallarmé and the people who heard us, that the decree of 22 prairial was the work of [Robespierre] alone, that the committees had had nothing to do with it. After having told them that the committees had therefore not fulfilled their duty, I proposed to them that I myself denounce to the Convention such an extraordinary fact. They stopped me by reminding me of the political considerations which then governed the Convention, the fear of an early and unsuccessful split. I replied: ”You know me. I did not strike down a tyrant just to gain another.”Since that time, our hate was public. On 6 thermidor I asked Robert-Lindet on his opinion of a monster who had plunged the republic into such a deplorable state of debasement and servitude. On the 7th, I spoke to Vadier about the furies of a tyranny whose progress we would perhaps no longer be able to stop. To me, they all appeared convinced that we still had to wait, and that the favorable moment was perhaps not far off. At that time, the indictment that I was preparing against the traitor and his accomplices had been completed; Fréron who helped me with his insights, Barras, Rovère, Thirion, Courtois, Garnier de l'Aube, Guffroy and Tallien etc advised me to attack him in person, so that success would be more certain. The roles were divided to support my opinion, and to combat with force the sophisms of Robespierre, but they were of the opinion that the memoir should be printed and distributed an hour before being read at the National Convention: Guffroy was in charge and had promised, from the 6th, to have it printed; and it was solemnly sworn by us that if the truth succumbed, we would immolate the tyrant in the middle of the Convention. Happier events preceded the execution of a project whose success was inevitable, but whose consequences could have disturbed the public peace. The monster is dead, he has, by his imprudence and his delirium, revealed all the villainy of his plots and his liberticidal projects; but his fall would perhaps have compromised the freedom of the citizens less, if my advice had been followed.

Fouché, who several contemporaries pointed to as the leader of/important for the conspiracy wrote the following about his role it in his memoirs:

I did not trifle in contending for my head, nor in long and secret deliberations with such of my colleagues as were threatened with my own fate. I merely said to them, among others to Legendre, Tallien, Dubois de Crancé, Daunou and Chénier: "You are on the list, you are on the list as well as myself, I am certain of it!” Tallien, Barras, Bourdon de l'Oise and Dubois de Crancé evinced some energy. Tallien contended for two lives, of which one was then dearer to him than his own: he therefore resolved upon assassinating the future dictator, even in the Convention itself. But what a hazardous chance was this! Robespierre's popularity would have survived him, and we should have been immolated to his manes. I therefore dissuaded Tallien from an isolated enterprise, which would have destroyed the man, but preserved his system. Convinced that other means must be resorted to, I went straight to those who shared with Robespierre the government of terror, and whom I knew to be envious or fearful of his immense popularity. I revealed to Collot d'Herbois, to Carnot, to Billaud-Varennes, the designs of the modern Appius; and I presented to each of them separately, so lively and so true a picture of the danger of their situation, I urged them with so much address and good fortune, that I insinuated into their breasts more than mistrust, but the courage of henceforth opposing the Tyrant in any further decimating of the Convention.  "Count the votes," said I to them, "in your committee, and you will see, that when you are determined, he will be reduced to the powerless minority of a Couthon and a Saint-Just. Refuse him your votes, and compel him to stand alone by your vis inertiæ." But what contrivances, what expedients were necessary to avoid exasperating the Jacobin club, the Seides, and the partisans of Robespierre. […] My eye was on him; and seeing him reduced to a single faction, I secretly urged such of his enemies who still clung to the committee, at least to remove the artillery from Paris, who were all devoted to Robespierre and the Commune, and to deprive Henriot of his command, or at least to suspend him. The first measure I obtained, thanks to the firmness of Carnot, who alleged the necessity of sending reinforcements of artillery to the army. As to depriving Henriot of his command, that appeared too hazardous; Henriot remained, and was near losing all, or rather, to speak the truth, it was he, who on the 9th Thermidor ruined the cause of Robespierre, the triumph of which was for a short time in his power. But what could be expected from a drunken and stupid former footman. 

That his enemies spread slander and fear in an attempt to undermine him was also something Robespierre himself seemed aware of:

Since a long time back, men who call themselves representatives of the people, and whom I do not regard as such, at least as a man, because I believe that one must have a soul to be a representative of the people; a certain species of men, I say, deploy all their strength, all their means, all the energy, to throw poison into the pure soul of a part of the members of the Convention. They seek to bring together, at suppers, at dinners unworthy of republicans, pure men, men whom we would embrace as brothers, and who know neither these meals nor the guests. There, the object of the conversation, heated by circumstances, is slander against you, against those who are regarded as true patriots, against the Committees of Public Safety and General Security. […] Learn then that there is a league of corrupt men who try to make believe that the Committee of Public Safety wishes to attack the members of the Convention in general, and the estimable members in particular. We have this confession from some of our colleagues themselves, who do not sleep at home, struck with the terrors which these scoundrels have inspired in them. […] Currently we are in the same position, without having even had the intention of prosecuting any culprit. No, the Committee of Public Safety has not drawn up a new indictment against anyone; but men who call themselves representatives of the people, and who are not, I swear by virtue, embitter against you estimable deputies, colleagues whom we regard as good citizens. Take care, they tell them, there is a new indictment drawn up against certain members, you will be included... Certainly you will be included. The infamous add adroit circumstances to these perfidious reports; and we believe them. We have, I repeat it again, the details of these criminal artifices of the deputies whom the Committee ranks among the best citizens, and who no longer dare to live in their houses. Robespierre on June 27 1794

Of course, these claims just revolve around the conspirators gaining the trust of other Convention deputies. When it comes to getting broader public on their side I had a harder time finding any sources. The only thing related to this that I know of is the theory that the multiplied amount of executions in the weeks before Robespierre’s fall was actually the result of a sabotage by his enemies who through it aimed to paint him like a bloodthirsty tyrant to make him lose the public’s approval, but, like I already wrote in this post, I haven’t yet got a hang on what sources that idea is actually based on (besides the fact that Robespierre himself claims that’s how it is in his 8 thermidor spech).

Once Robespierre, Saint-Just, Couthon, Lebas and Augustin had actually gotten arrested, the conspirators mainly seems to have focused on laying their hands on other robespierrists in power, the majority of which were those executed on thermidor 10, 11 and 12. Once word got around that the five deputies had escaped from their different prisons, the Convention also took the measure to outlaw them to easier get them condemned.

As for if the thermidorians sought to save any of Robespierre’s allies or win them over to their side, I only know of the story that Barère wanted Saint-Just to be left alone, though for the moment I don’t remember from where it comes (not Barère’s memoirs as far as I saw…?) It should be remembered that Augustin and Lebas actually volunteered to share their friends’ fate right after they got arrested, so who knows if they would have been left alone had they refrained from doing so… Though given the fact how big the robespierrist purge actually ended up being, I’m not that sure anyone would actually have sought to spare them, unless they themselves had gladly been willing to switch sides…

[montagnarde1793]

Vous, les vrais apôtres de la liberté et de l’égalité, Sociétés populaires, c’est à vous qu’il appartient de faire parvenir jusques dans l’asile respectable de l’homme des champs, la connoissance de ses droits, et les principes éternels de notre nouvelle existence sociale ; c’est à vous d’embraser tous les cœurs de l’amour de la Patrie. Déjà vous avez répandu, autour de vous, les premières semences de l’esprit public ; vous avez senti que les vertus sociales doivent suppléer au défaut des lois, dans la désorganisation radicale d’un gouvernement corrompu. Achevez votre ouvrage, redoublez de zèle ; mais pour être vraiement Sociétés du peuple, le peuple doit être dans votre sein ; appelez tous vos frères, que la publicité de vos séances garantisse la pureté de vos intentions, et ajoute au fruit d’une bonne action celui d’un bon exemple. Que la tribune populaire, en répandant les lumières de la raison et du républicanisme, électrise les cœurs froids, donne une direction utile à ces ames impétueuses, et brûlantes du feu sacré de la liberté ; qu’elle console et honore les victimes vertueuses d’un dévouement civique, et tonne contre ces esprits cruellement mesurés, dont les efforts cherchant à rallentir le mouvement révolutionnaire qui anime la république entière, appelle sur elle toutes les calamités de la guerre civile. La Convention nationale vous associe formellement à notre surveillance. Envoyez des missionnaires dans les campagnes, fondez de nouvelles Sociétés, établissez des correspondances entre vous ; et par là, vous suppléerez provisoirement à l’instruction publique, dont la Convention nationale, dominée par les circonstances, n’a pu encore s’occuper.

Extrait de l’adresse de Lecointre, Romme et Prieur de la Marne, Représentants du peuple envoyés par la Convention nationale près l’Armée des Côtes de Cherbourg aux Corps administratifs, aux Municipalités et aux Sociétés populaires des Départemens de la Manche, du Calvados, de l’Eure et de l’Orne. Bayeux, 24 mai 1793 (AN AF II 265B, pl. 2240, p. 25).

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

What is the whole story of the law of 22 prairial? Who wrote it in the first place? Because I've learned that Georges couthon is the one who wrote it and not robespierre so I just wanna know everything and the background of this.

Tell me about it if you can, and what was the consequences of that law that came after?

The law of 22 prairial has always been a hot topic of debate for historians, both when it comes to who exactly worked it out, as well as what the intended and actual consequences for it were.

If we start with the first of these questions — who was involved in the creation of the law? — it can be observed that the draft of it is in Couthon’s handwriting. This makes him the only person where any direct involvement in the development of the law can be truly established.

Today, this draft is apperently being kept at AN C 304, pl. 1126 et pl. 1127.

The law of 22 prairial does however share several undeniable similarities with the instruction decree for a commission at Orange, written on May 10 1794, exactly a month before Couthon’s draft was presented before the Convention. Below are the relevant extracts:

The decree for the commission at Orange

The duty of the members of the commission established at Orange is to jugde the enemies of the revolution.

The enemies of the revolution are all those who, by any means whatsoever and with any deeds they may have covered themselves, have sought to thwart the march of the revolution and to prevent the strengthening of the Republic.

The punishment for this crime is death.

The evidence required for the conviction is all information, of whatever nature, which can convince a reasonable man and friend of liberty. The rule of judgments is the conscience of judges enlightened by the love of justice and of the fatherland. Their goal, the public health and the ruin of enemies of the fatherland.

Law of 22 prairial

The Revolutionary Tribunal is instituted to punish the enemies of the people.

The enemies of the people are those who seek to destroy public liberty, either by force or by cunning. [there then follows a list of eleven actions that will deem you an enemy of the people]

The penalty provided for all offenses under the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Tribunal is death.

The proof necessary to convict enemies of the people comprises every kind of evidence, whether material or moral, oral or written, which can naturally secure the approval of every just and reasonable mind; the rule of judgments is the conscience of the jurors, enlightened by love of the Patrie; their aim, the triumph of the Republic and the ruin of its enemies; the procedure, the simple means which good sense dictates in order to arrive at a knowledge of the truth, in the forms determined by law.

This time, the draft of the decree is in Robespierre’s handwriting (see the image below), and was signed by him, Collot d’Herbois, Couthon, Barère, Billaud-Varennes and Carnot. This, together with Robespierre’s undeniable support for the law of 22 prairial, is was has led some historians to want to give him and Couthon equal responsibility for it. There does however exist no real proof for Robespierre being the actual author behind the draft for the law of 22 prairial, nor evidence that he was the mastermind behind the law and just got Couthon to write it, as stated by his enemies after his death (see for example Robespierre peint par lui-même et condamné par ses propres principes… (1794) by Laurent Lecointre).

Today kept at AN, F7 4435, p. 3, pl. 85

When it comes to the involvement of anyone else in the development of the law of 22 prairial, Barère, Billaud-Varennes and Collot d’Herbois would in their Réponse des membres des deux anciens comités de salut public et de sûreté générale… (1795) claim that the law had been secretly worked out between Robespierre and Couthon — the rest of the CPS had not only had nothing to do with it, but even protested against it.

Is it not known to all citizens since the sessions of 12 and 13 Fructidor, that the decree of 22 Prairial was the secret work of Robespierre and Couthon, that it never, in defiance of all customs and all rights, was discussed or communicated to the Committee of Public Safety? No, such a draft would never have been passed by the committee had it been brought before it. […] At the morning session of 22 floréal [sic, it clearly means prairial], Billaud-Varennes openly accused Robespierre, as soon as he entered the committee, and reproached him and Couthon for alone having brought to the Convention the abominable decree which frightened the patriots. It is contrary, he said, to all the principles and to the constant progress of the committee to present a draft of a decree without first communicating it to the committee. Robespierre replied coldly that, having trusted each other up to this point in the committee, he had thought he could act alone with Couthon. The members of the committee replied that we have never acted in isolation, especially for serious matters, and that this decree was too important to be passed in this way without the will of the committee. The day when a member of the committee, adds Billaud, allows himself to present a decree to the Convention alone, there is no longer any freedom, but the will of a single person to propose legislation. 

Against this be lifted the fact that Barère described the law of 22 prairial as ”a law completely in the favor of the patriots” when it was introduced (in the name of both the CPS and CGS, it might be added) to the Convention on June 10, and that both he and Billaud-Varennes stood on Robespierre’s side when the law was being criticised on June 12 (albeit this time they didn’t strictly speak about the law in itself). Furthermore, Collot d’Herbois, Barère, Billaud-Varennes and Carnot, as mentioned above, had actually co-signed the decree for the Commission of Orange on May 10, which suggests that, if they had a problem with the law of 22 prairial, it’s at least unlikely it had to do with the articles it had in common with said decree. All that said, like in the case of Robespierre, there is no solid proof of anyone besides Couthon having worked on the draft.

The historian Léonard Gallois wanted in his Historie de la Convention par elle-même (1835) to give the principal authorship of the law of 22 prairial not to Couthon, but to René-François Dumas, the president of the revolutionary tribunal. This based on the fact that Dumas, according to Gallois, ”didn’t cease to explain to the Committee of Public Safety that it was impossible to legally reach all the enemies of the people and conspirators when these found defenders, allegedly mindful, who held them to ransom, or who insulted revolutionary justice.” On May 30 at the Jacobins, Dumas did indeed suggest ”not to lightly grant unofficial defenders to all those who come to ask for them” and asked ”that a decree stipulating that no unofficial defender may not be granted without the Committee having previously examined the case for which one is requested, be strictly enforced.” Fouquier-Tinville, the public prosecutor, also reported the following in his defence (1795):

On 19 Prairial, I was in the council chamber with Dumas and several jurors. I heard the president speak of a new law which was being prepared and which was to reduce the number of jurors to seven and nine per sitting. That evening I went to the Committee of Public Safety. There I found Robespierre, Billaud, Collot, Barère and Carnot. I told them that the Tribunal having hitherto enjoyed public confidence, this reduction, if it took place, would infallibly cause it to lose it. Robespierre, who was standing in front of the fireplace, answered me with sudden rage, and ended by saying that only aristocrats could talk like that. None of the other members present said a word. So I withdrew. I went to the Committee of General Security, where I was told that they had no knowledge of this work. Two days later, on the 21st, President Dumas spoke again in the council chamber of this new law which was about to be passed, and which would abolish interrogations, written declarations and defenders. That evening again I went to the Committee of Public Safety. There I found Billaud, Collot, Barère, Prieur and Carnot. I informed them of this fact. They told me that it was none of their business, only Robespierre was in charge of this work. They wouldn't tell me more. I went to the Committee of General Security where I found Vadier, Amar, Dubarran, Voulland, Louis du Bas-Rhin, Moses Bayle, Lavicomterie and Elie Lacoste. I showed them my concern. All answered me that such a law was not in the status of being adopted.

While Gallois’ account has not been repeated by other historians (seeing as, again, Couthon’s handwriting is the only one which can be spotted on the draft), it’s also not impossible pressure from people like Dumas inspired the law, especially as he was close to the robespierrists (he is listed on second place on a list of patriots written by Robespierre).

When it comes to the second question — what was the intention with the law? — the historian Annie Jourdan summarized rather neatly the different main theories that have been laid out by historians over the years in a 2016 article titled Les journées de Prairial an II: le tournant de la Révolution ? (which I really recommend for anyone wishing to learn more about all the questions asked here). Franky, I think they all are probably true to some extent, one doesn’t have to exclude the other.

The first interpretation goes that the law was a response to the two failed assassination attemps against Collot d’Herbois and Robespierre on May 22 and 23. These events, the supporters of this theory argue, rattled the Convention in general (who viewed them as part of a bigger, English conspiracy) and Robespierre in particular (see for example this speech he held about it and this letter recalling Saint-Just to Paris written in his hand, both dated May 25 and both rather panicky in tone, as well as a claim made by the deputy Vilate that Robespierre during the last months of his life could speak only of assassination — ”he was frightened his own shadow would assassinate him.”) and this ”law of wrath” to borrow an expression from Hervé Leuwers, was the response, meant to act as the ultimate instrument of defense to protect the regime. What speaks against this being the full truth is the fact that the Orange decree existed already before the assassination attempts, which, as seen, contains much of the same content.

The somewhat opposite interpretation is that the law, instead of a passionate reaction to a sudden event, was a rational response to the Parisian revolutionary justice’s ongoing development. On May 8 1794, a decree had been passed ordering all local revolutionary tribunals (with a few exceptions) be closed and all suspects tried in front of the Revolutionary Tribunal in Paris. Naturally, this had caused overcrowding in the prisons of the capital a month later, and a law which speeded up the administration of justice therefore became a servicable solution. A similar line of thought is that the law was one in a series of decrees with the aim of bringing more power for Committee of Public Safety (we already have the law of 14 frimaire (December 4), the decree of 27 germinal (16 April) and the above mentioned decree of 19 floréal (8 May).

The third interpretation is that Robespierre and Couthon wanted to use the law of 22 prairial to be able to lay their hands on Convention deputies they thought needed to be purged. The law contained an article more or less stripping the Convention of its exclusive right to bring its representatives before the Revolutionary Tribunal. This was what said representatives took the biggest issue with, and on June 11,while Couthon and Robespierre were absent, they talked about scrapping it, something that however was undone the next day when the two came back, proving that that article was important to them. Historians especially sympathetic to Robespierre have argued that purging Convention deputies was his only intended purpose with the law (see for example Albert Mathiez who in his Robespierre terroriste (1920) wrote ”It therefore seems quite likely that by passing the law of 22 Prairial, Robespierre only aimed to punish five or six currupt and bloodthirsty proconsuls who had made the Terror the instrument of their crimes.”) But if that’s the case I wonder why Robespierre also personally contributed to making sure people who very clearly were not proconsuls were put under the mercy of the law (the most obvious example being his contribution to the prison conspiracies, where prisoners were brought before the tribunal in big groups to more or less be judged collectively).

A fourth interpretation goes that the reasoning behind the law was neither emotional nor practical, but ideological. Opposing the former interpretation, where it would only have been the question of using the law against only a small number of deputies, this one argues that it was aimed towards all counterrevolutionaries all over France, in an attempt to finally exterminate them all and thus create the ”virtuous republic” Robespierre talks about in his very last speech on 8 thermidor. Against this interpretation can be lifted the fact that Robespierre seemingly protests against the latest bloody developments in the same speech (though while simultaneously asking that revolutionary justice stays the way it currently is…)

Finally, when it comes to what the actual consequences for the law were, it is undeniable that it contributed to what we today call ”the great terror”, that is, the bloody parisian summer of 1794 during which, between the law’s passing on June 10 and the fall of Robespierre on July 27, 1366 people were executed. Exactly how much it is to blame has however been debated. While older historians have wanted to put all the blame almost exclusively on the law, more recent ones have argued that bickering, overlapping and rivalries between different operative bodies made the whole system work badly and that this was the true cause of the bloodletting, and that the law of 22 prairial would not have multiplied the amount of executions had only things around it worked properly.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Alleged meetings between Robespierre and Danton and Desmoulins in the weeks leading up to the arrest of the two latter compilation (and yes, this is the most contrived title I’ve ever had for one of my posts)

Danton tried to imitate the talent of Fabre, but without success, since the efforts, which he made in order to cry, proved to be powerless and ridiculous, first at the tribune of the Jacobins, later at my house. […] In the last visit of which I speak, he talked 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, before the signing of the arrest.

He (Robespierre) had pressed the hand of Camille, his childhood comrade, the same day he signed his arrest warrant.  Fréron in a text written shortly after Thermidor

Billaud-Varennes: Danton was Robespierre's accomplice; for, the day before Robespierre consented to abandon him, they had been together in the countryside, four leagues from Paris, and had returned in the same carriage.  Les crimes des sept membres des anciens comités de salut public et de surete general (1794) by Laurent Lecointre, page 25.

I must record here a fact which passed between Robespierre and Danton, a fortnight before the death of the latter, which will serve more than a long speech, to make the character of both of these two men appreciated and understood.  Danton and Robespierre had been at odds for some time: their division afflicted me; it could only be harmful to the interests of the Republic. I made my uneasiness in this respect known to these patient souls. They shared them and we concerted among ourselves the most effective means to put an end to it; the idea of ​​bringing them together at a common dinner seemed the most favorable. Humbert, head of the office of foreign relation, one of us, moved by his ardent love for liberty and the Republic, undertook to invite them to dinner at his house, and to inform us of the agreed day.  This fixed day, we went to his house, it was at the end of Ventôse, the second Republican year. Robespierre and Danton were already there. I had been instructed to inform them of the reasons which had induced us to bring them together: I showed them how much their misunderstanding astonished their friends of the fatherland; that, it being unable to have any other cause than their misunderstood self-love, jealousy, or wounded pride, I found it strange that they listened rather to their personal resentment, than to the voice of the patrie, to which, like us, they deviated the sacrifice of all their affections. Danton took the floor and told us: “Hate has always been foreign to my heart; I have never felt this painful torment of weak souls; those I don't like, I leave; but I neither hate nor persecute them; I don't know why Robespierre, who was always to be at the head of the Colonne of Patriots, isolates himself almost always; I no longer know the cause of the very marked indifference which he has shown me for so long, which I can only attribute to the intrigues and to the hatred that several members of the Committee of Public Safety have dedicated to me, notably Messieurs. St. Just and Billaud-Varenne, the latter, because he cannot forgive me for having been lucky enough to forget him, when he and his wife were in misfortune; and the other, because I could not conceal my astonishment, that at his age, he professed principles as bloodthirsty as those he manifested. I also believe that the gossiping which surrounds him (Robespierre) contributes not a little to it, in that it never ceases to fill his imagination with a thousand chimeras, by maintaining him only with conspiracies, the guillotine, poison and daggers ready to tear his chest. Yes, continued Danton, addressing Robespierre himself, since circumstances allow me to tell you what I think, in the presence of patriots who, like us, are veterans of the Revolution, I believe that these are the causes of your conduct towards me; I have never complained about all the absurd comments that have been made about me, both in relation to the missions with which I was charged in Belgium, and to the fortune that it is claimed that I have acquired, because I never let my personal life impact my public life, and everyone knows that not only have I not increased my fortune, which is very mediocre, but that I have sacrificed parts of the one I had before the revolution. However, as I have no doubt that you love and serve your country in good faith: the unfortunate believed it!!! I must tell you, I have often moaned about your extreme credulity, and the ease with which, from the gossip of a few imbeciles, or the stupid insinuations of a few idlers, you seem to believe in crime, seeing you almost continually tire and trouble the Convention by the recital of piety conspiracies, which are only the fruit of your imagination, too easy to alarm: or the result of the most atrocious combinations. I'm not talking to you for no reason; I know what are the plans of the two charlatans I told you about, but I also know their cowardice, and they don't have enough courage to attack me: they don't dare!!! Believe me, Robespierre, reveal the intrigue, unite with the patriots, let us all walk in good faith, on the same path; let us forget our resentments to instead see only the patrie, its needs and its dangers; let us imitate our brothers in arms, who fight at the borders; come together, and our enemies without will soon be vanquished and subdued; with regard to those within, they are not big enough, no matter what people say, to be as dangerous as some people would like us to believe, let us keep our eyes open in regards to them, punish the culprits; the leaders, but pardon error, and you will see that the Republic, triumphant and respected outside, will soon be loved from within, by those same ones who, up to now, have blackened their enemies.”  ”But with your principles and your morale”, observed Robespierre, who until then had kept the coldest silence, ”would one ever find culprits to punish?”  ”Would you be angry, Robespierre,” Danton answered him, with that accent of the soul and of the heart through which we knew him, ”if there were no culprits to punish?”  Reader, whoever you are, put your hand on your heart, and tell me for which of these two men the tears that I see flowing down your cheeks are for!  Robespierre's observation frightened me, as well as those who said: "His category is depicted in its entirety, like that of the unfortunate Danton in his reply."  The reconciliation, however, appeared to be complete; they embraced: Danton put frankness in it; he was touched; we were all moved: well! How could you not? We only think, we only see the patrie, liberty, the republic; Only Robespierre remained cold like marble!....   Legendre, from Paris, Panis, deputies, Deforgnes, then minister of foreign affairs, Jeannet Boursier, administrator of military subsistence, Saintin, secretary general of the same administration, Humbert the elder, Humbert the younger, myself, and several other people, were present for this interesting scene, and a few days later Robespierre himself sent Danton to the scaffold!  Principaux évènemens, pour et contre la Révolution, dont les détails ont été ignorés jusqu’à présent: et prédiction de Danton au Tribunal révolutionnaire, accomplie (1794) by Jean-Lambert Tallien and Jean-Louis-Marie Villain d’Aubigny, page 49-50. Story reported by d’Aubigny. According to Danton (1978) by Norman Hampson, this meeting was confirmed by Legendre in 1795, although I’ve not yet found the place where he does so…

Looking through his bars, he (Danton) said many things that he might not have meant. […] Here are some phrases I retained: […] ”What proves Robespierre is a Nero, is that he never spoke as kindly to Desmoulins as on the day before his arrest.”  Mémoires d’un detenu pour servir à l’histoire de la tyrannie de Robespierre (1795) by Honoré Riouffe, page 88. According to Terror! The French Revolution and its demons (2020) by Marisa Linton and Michel Biard, Riouffe was heavily influenced by his own imagination when writing the book, claiming to have personally witnessed all famous prisoners, and that a study of the prison registries from Paris throws light on passages where Riouffe either invented, lied or exaggerated his account. Unfortunately, they don’t mention if this was the case for Danton or not. I would otherwise be willing to give this anecdote some sort of credability, seeing as the notes of Fréron, that report the same story, weren’t published until 1828, as far as I know. According to Danton (1978) by Norman Hampson, the same story was repeated by Courtois (can’t find the place he’s referring to), as well as by Desmoulins, if we’re to believe ”the well-informed and contemporary” pamplet The trial and punishment of Camille Desmoulins which I unfortunately can’t find any trace whatsoever of online.

Danton shook hands with her (Albertine Marat) and left, promising not to waste time. But when he got to the meeting room, he saw Robespierre chatting familiarly with Desmoulins. The latter came to tell him that Robespierre had shown him so much friendship that the sinister rumors being circulated must have been unfounded. Danton shrugged his shoulders, did not answer, and let the day go by again. In the middle of the night, gendarmes with an unmotivated warrant came to arrest him and took him to the Luxembourg prison. Camille, Philippeaux and Lacroix were also taken there.  Histoire de la Révolution française (1850) by Nicolas Villiaumé, volume 4 page 41. Villiaumé got into contact with Albertine Marat not long before her death in 1841.

Very little time before the cathostraphy where Camille Desmoulins was victim, Joseph Planche, the humanist, the old rhetorics professor at the Bourbon college, who was strongly tied to him, met him in the hooks around Rue de Tournon. Camille was concerned, and told him: ”I’m lost. I went to see Robespierre, and he refused to see me.”  Historie de Robespierre et du coup d’état du 9 thermidor (1865) by Ernest Hamel, page 337. According to J.M Thompson’s Robespierre, Joseph Planche told the story to Quicherat, and he to Carteron, a friend of Hamel.

All I know is that my brother had much love for Camille Desmoulins, with whom he had studied, and that when he learned of his arrest and incarceration in the Luxembourg he went to that prison with the intention of imploring Camille to return to the true revolutionary principles he had abandoned to ally himself with the aristocrats. Camille did not want to see him; and my brother, who would probably have defended him and perhaps saved him, abandoned him to the terrible justice of the Revolutionary Tribunal. Now, Danton and Camille were too closely linked for him to save one and not the other; so therefore, if Camille had not repulsed him at the moment when he was reaching out to him, Camille and Danton would not have perished.  Mémoires de Charlotte Robespierre sur ses deux frères (1835) page 135-136

The fact was that Danton, the most magnificent and grandest revolutionary who ever breathed, was beginning to be pointed out as a moderate, in other words a traitor, because he thought that excesses might prove harmful to the revolution, and had styled exaggerations ultra-revolutionary. 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. This is clearly the same meeting Robespierre mentions in his notes. However, it is hard to know for sure if this story actually comes from Barras himself, or if is an embellishment created by the people he passed the notes his memoirs were based on in 1827 up until their publication in 1895. And if that is the case, were they added before or after Robespierre’s notes were first published in 1841?

[montagnarde1793]

La séance publique [du département de la Manche] s’ouvre ensuite ; le procédé du Calvados [c'est-à-dire l'enlèvement et l'emprisonnement au château de Caen de Romme et Prieur de la Côte-d'Or] excite l’indignation : Lalande, Guérin & Rapilly, braves sans-culottes, s’offrent en otages au Calvados pour la liberté de nos collègues. Hubert, Dupré, membres des sociétés populaires de Valogne & de Cherbourg, parlent avec énergie ; tous les citoyens présens partagent les mêmes sentimens, & il est arrêté qu’il sera répondu aux administrateurs du Calvados que l’assemblée désapprouve leurs procédés, qu’ils seront invités à réfléchir sur leurs suites désastreuses, & à se rallier autour de la Convention nationale. Un arrêté consacre ces heureuses dispositions ; il est signé par beaucoup de citoyens ; mais, ce qui est digne de remarquer, c’est que sur neuf administrateurs qui étoient présens et qui tous paraissoient avoir partagé les principes de cet arrêté, trois seulement le signent, & le procureur-général-syndic qui l’a rédigé ne le signe pas.

Le 9 juin 1793 à Coutances d’après le rapport de Lecointre et Prieur de la Marne sur leur mission à l’armée des côtes de Cherbourg, lu par Lecointre à la Convention le 17 août suivant, p. 3-4.

Quand la Convention a reçu la nouvelle de cette séance le 14 juin 1793, Robespierre a fait décréter que l’administration du département de la Manche avait “bien mérité de la patrie” (AP, t. LXVI, p. 528). Malheureusement pour les représentants sur place, et comme le suggère la dernière ligne de cette citation, elle avait déjà changé d’avis à leur sujet...

[montagnarde1793]

24 mai 1793 : Les représentants à l’armée des Côtes de Cherbourg préparent leur visite à Caen du lendemain et l’on apprend que Romme avait un cheval préféré

Les Représentants du Peuple envoyés par la Convention Nationale près de l’Armée des Côtes de Cherbourg.

             Nous invitons le Général [Wimpffen] à mettre à notre disposition Cinq Chevaux de Selle équipés et armés, pour le Service de la Commission de la Convention Nationale, près de l’Armée des Côtes de Cherbourg.

             A Bayeux, ce 24. may 1793. L’an 2.e de la République.

            Prieur de la marne               G. Romme

                                                            L. Le Cointre

— AD Calvados 2 L 27. Correspondance des représentants du peuple en mission

Séance du Conseil de guerre de l’armée des Côtes de Cherbourg. Bayeux, 24 mai 1793

Les représentants du peuple prés larmée des Côtes de Cherbourg ont adréssé [sic] au Général une invitation de faire Mettre a leur disposition Cinq Chevaux de Selle Equipés et Armés pour le Service de la Commission de la Convention N.le

           Le Général a Sur le Champ fait la requisition Suivante.

           Le Citoyen aide de Camp St front fera Conduire aux Ecuries des Commissaires de la Convention N.le 1° les deux Chévaux arrivés du St lô [Saint-Lô] les deux Chévaux arrivés de St lô [Saint-Lô] 2° le petit Chéval que prefére le Citoyen romme, et qui Sera payé au prix de Six Cents Vingt quatre Livres, a son propriétaire sur les fonds de la Caisse du Conseil, 3° les deux Chevaux arrestés a Cet Effet a l’escadron de Caën [Caen] et que lui remettra le Chef descadron loir.

           Le Citoyen St front Egalement Chargé de pourvoir a l’equipement, au pansément et a la nourriture des Cinq Chevaux affectés a la Commission de la Convention N.le prés larmée de Cherbourg.

— SHD Vincennes GR B5 19

[montagnarde1793]

L’administration, par l’organe du Procureur général Sindic, leur a annoncé la Satisfaction qu’elle partageoit avec les differents corps et les citoyens de posséder au sein d’eux les Representans du peuple et de les voir prendre part a leurs inquietudes ; que de leur côté ils apprendroient avec plaisir et qu’ont fait les administrations et les administrés du Calvados, et ce qu’ils peuvent encore pour la chose publique, et leur ardent amour pour la liberté. Le citoyen Prieur de la Marne, l’un des Representans, aprés avoir annoncé que l’attachement des citoyens du Calvados à la cause de la liberté étoit depuis longtems connu de la convention Nationale et qu’elle n’avoit jamais douté de leurs principes Republicains, a donné lecture d’une Proclamation que lui et ses collegues adressent aux  Corps administratifs, aux municipalités et aux Societés populaires des départemens de la Manche du Calvados de l’Eure et de l’orne ; ainsi que d’un arrêté qu’ils ont pris pour l’organisation d’une force armée de 16000 hommes pris dans lesdits Départemens pour se réunir à l’armée des côtes de Cherbourg.

Les représentants en mission Prieur de la Marne, Romme et Lecointre devant l’administration du département du Calvados. Caen, 26 mai 1793 (AD Calvados 1 L 68, p. 179, verso-180, recto).

Qui croirait qu’à peine quatre jours plus tard cette même administration allait se révolter contre la Convention ?

[montagnarde1793]

Les Représentants du peuple Envoyés par la Convention Nationale près l’armée des Côtes De Cherbourg. Sur l’exposé qui nous à Eté fait par le procureur de la Commune D’Arromanches que les Citoyens Matelots qui doivent partir Pour Brest lundy prochain demandent à la Municipalité que les fonds accordés pour deux travaux [defensifs ?] et destinés à préparer au havre pour mettre les Barques des pêcheurs à l’abri des attentats de la mer leur Soyent delivrés avant leur depart ; Vu aussy la [Req.te ?] présentée par la municipalité dud.t lieu au dep.t a l’effet d’obtenir une Somme de 700 [livres] pour l’acquisition du [terrain ?] nécessaire au havre dont il Sagit. Considerant que la Somme de 200 [livres] déja accordée pour Les travaux dont il S’agit destiné a un objet de la plus Grande utilité dont touts les citoyens d’arromanches Et particulierement les marins, Rétireront le plus grand avantage. Arrêtons que deffenses sont faittes au procureur de la commune D’arromanches d’Employer lad.te Somme à d’autres Objets que des travaux de Secours auxquels Elle est destinée Et faisons deffenses à toutes personnes d’exiger lad.te Somme.

Arrêté de Romme, Prieur de la Marne et Lecointre. Bayeux, 24 mai 1793 (AN AF II 265B, pl. 2240, p. 23).

[montagnarde1793]

Le citoyen Prieur, l’un des commissaires a ensuite adressé au discours aux Citoyens rassemblés dans lequel après avoir presenté les ressources de la Republique, il a fait Sentir avec energie la necessité de se reunir contre les despotes coalisés et de se rallier avec confiance autour des representans du peuple pour le salut de la liberté. Les commissaires de la Convention ont invité le Conseil à S’occuper de la formations [sic] de l’etat de leurs ressources en tout genre pour sur le Vu desdits Etats estre [sic] par eux ordonné les dispositions que nécessitent les circonstances et profiter de la situation du département pour coopérer a la défense de la République. D’après l’annonce qu’ils ont reçue que l’administration S’empresseroit a toujours de Satisfaire au desir des representans du Peuple.

Séance du 13 mai 1793 de l’administration du département du Calvados — la même qui va se révolter en moins de trois semaines et qui finira par enlever et emprisonner Romme et Prieur de la Côté-d’Or (pas encore arrivé à ce moment-là, alors le Prieur en question dans la citation est sans aucun doute Prieur de la Marne) et encourager le département voisin de la Manche à faire de même (AD Calvados 1 L 68).