#legray;posting

[nesiacha]

Call to Clarify the Complex Political Relationships Between Albertine Marat and Simone Evrard, and Their Interactions with Various Revolutionary Figures

Albertine Marat seems to offer a more reliable account than other revolutionaries, such as Charlotte Robespierre in her testimonies

Nevertheless, some points still need clarification, especially Albertine's assertion that Marat had very good relations with Danton and would have saved him if her brother had not been assassinated. Personally, I doubt this. Indeed, Jean-Paul Marat publicly expressed his doubts about Danton when the latter began to fall into disgrace. However, I am willing to accept the idea that Albertine might be right when she says that, had Marat been alive, he would have saved Camille Desmoulins, although the matter concerning Danton is more complex than she suggests.

Simone Evrard, for her part, gave a speech in 1793 against several political figures, including Jacques Roux and Théophile Leclerc. This speech aligns with the political positions of Jean-Paul Marat, especially with respect to Roux, with whom he had a significant break (a crucial element to understand in this context). The relationships between Albertine Marat, Simone Evrard, and the Cordeliers Club are also complex, largely due to the difficult relations between Hébert Jacques-René, and Jean-Paul Marat. These tensions made Albertine and Simone attentive to the internal debates within the club.

The Marat women ( Simone Évrard and Albertine Marat)  , involved in the writing and dissemination of Marat's works, did not want to carry out this task alone. They therefore requested the support of the Cordeliers Club, while insisting on having a voice in the decisions made. They occasionally attended meetings to follow the progress of the publication. On several occasions, the club expressed its support for a national edition of Marat’s works, with the proceeds going to his heirs.

On January 4, 1794, a club member expressed dissatisfaction with the continued neglect of Marat’s writings, which were essential to the consolidation of the Republic. Although Marat left great glory to his heirs, he did not leave them a fortune. He proposed reprinting his works and having the National Convention purchase many copies, with the profits going to Marat’s heirs.

During the debates, Hébert, expected to co-write a petition with Momoro, insisted on clarifying his past differences with Marat. Another member suggested appointing a commissioner to draft a petition requesting that the Republic cover the costs of publishing Marat’s works. However, Simone and Albertine insisted that nothing be decided before they had the chance to present their views. They were told that the Society had already decided they would come to an agreement with Hébert and Momoro. Nevertheless, the Marat women demanded a postponement, showing their desire to maintain control over this decision. Simone, in particular, being well-informed about the relationships between Marat and the Cordeliers, wanted to ensure that these relationships were respected. Eventually, a text was drafted and submitted to the National Convention on January 12.

Through these discussions, the Marat women sought to ensure that Marat’s intellectual and political legacy was preserved and that his heirs benefited from the revenue generated by the publication of his works.

Here is an interesting website that presents the struggle of Albertine Marat and Simone Evrard. Although it is still incomplete, it serves as a good starting point: Site on the Edition of Marat's Works

However, it seems that, at least at the beginning of 1794, Albertine Marat had some criticisms of the Cordeliers. Nevertheless, she could also have sympathies for certain figures close to the faction of the "exagérés" (the Hébertists) or the Enragés. For example, Albertine wrote a letter to Fréron protesting the imprisonment of Legray, as seen here: Legray’s Imprisonment ( in the end of these post). It appears that Legray was connected to Varlet (a figure of the Enragés) as well as to Joseph Bodson, a prominent Hébertist revolutionary who would later become one of Babeuf’s "lieutenants" in the Babouvist conspiracy ( one the most important). Bodson continued his revolutionary activities at least until 1800, associating with neo-Jacobins and remaining an influential figure in that movement, according to Jean Jaurès (I can no longer find any trace of Joseph Bodson after 1800) .

It is also worth noting that Bodson was closely associated with Hébert and Chaumette and he never forgave the Committee of Public Safety for their executions(to the point that even though Babeuf and he always respected each other deeply, they disagreed on Robespierre when Gracchus admired Robespierre again after he had criticized him as you can see here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/768074996296892416/relations-between-babeuf-and-robespierre?source=share ) . Here is an excerpt showing the relationship between Legray, Bodson, and Varlet: Source on Cairn.info

This raises several questions. First, Varlet was part of the Enragés, a faction that the Hébertists fought against while taking up their petitions. One element of their confrontation is discussed here: Conflict Between Enragés and Hébertists. It is thus legitimate to question why Varlet and Bodson continued their relationship despite their ideological differences.

Second, it must be remembered that Simone Evrard was very close to Albertine Marat. However, Simone delivered a speech at the Convention against Roux and Leclerc, two men whom Varlet followed. Moreover, Legray, a man linked to Varlet, was supported by Albertine Marat. It seems that Albertine sympathized with figures from factions that her brother Jean-Paul fought against during his lifetime, which does not seem entirely inconsistent, given Albertine’s admiration for Danton.

Another hypothesis could be proposed: when Albertine wrote this letter to Fréron, she was strongly associated with Gracchus Babeuf, who published it in his journal Le Tribun du Peuple, especially after her break with Guffroy. Babeuf and Jean-Paul Marat had a deep mutual respect, even when they disagreed. Babeuf, who was close to Bodson and Legray, might have led Albertine to believe that a political alliance with the remnants of the Hébertists and Enragés was necessary to face Fréron even if they disagree. After all, Albertine Marat could also have been a politician, just like her brother.

In the end, it would be worth exploring further the political divergences of Albertine Marat and her ambiguous relations with Simone Evrard, though both of these women remain undeniably figures of political integrity.

P.S.: Gracchus Babeuf personally met Simone Evrard and Albertine Marat (and by extension, Babeuf’s wife, Marie-Anne as well, it is clearly certain ). However, it would be interesting to know if, in addition to Babeuf’s extensive correspondence with Jean-Paul Marat during his lifetime, he met him in Paris.

[drrubinspomade]

#larissa legray? photo

YES, yes.

We post pinups daily! If you dig this pic we’ve found online, u should investigate the creator/subjects of the above work and fan them, follow them, hire them.

If you’d like us to remove, or you know who made this so that we can credit, DM. Thanks. Greetings from Los Angeles.

YOU ARE THE LIGHT

Dr Rubin’s Pomade

[psudosims]

                                      ˗ ˏ ˋ  𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕓𝕠𝕪𝕤  ˎ ˊ ˗

𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐲: 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐚𝐚𝐚... 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐋𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝: 𝐘𝐞𝐚𝐡 , 𝐦𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞. 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐲: 𝐢𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭 ! 𝐋𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝: 𝐅𝐚𝐫𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐡𝐚 ~

[rbzpr]

9 Thermidor (Françoise Brunel)

More than any other memorable date of the revolutionary decade, 9 Thermidor remains prisoner of its historiographical legend. In the « speech of the Revolution on itself », the event is immediately presented under the dual appearance of a last rupture and of a founding episode. Thus, the declaration then made by Collot d'Herbois, president of the Convention, affirms: « it was not an insurrection in their manner [the one of the counter-revolutionaries] which was necessary, it was an insurrection against tyranny, and it is you who have made it. It will have its place in history, this insurrection which has saved the patrie ». The tone is set, formalised by the Proclamation to the French people which was presented, in the morning of 10 Thermidor, by Barère in the name of the Committees of Public Safety and of General Security: « on 31 May, the people made its revolution ; on 9 Thermidor, the National Convention made its [own] ; liberty has applauded both equally ». Thus, its actors themselves erected 9 Thermidor as an event while, in their desire for an immediate legitimisation, they used 31 May 1793 as a historical and revolutionary referent. Obscured by this interpretation « in the heat of the moment », understanding 9 Thermidor is even less easier as the very proceedings of the action are not as clear as they may seem at first. It is not a matter of beginning a detailed study of it again here, but let us attempt to determine whether these journées of July 1794, beyond their immediate consequences – more than 100 persons were executed –, constitute a watershed in the history of the Revolution or not.

Historiography has retained three categories of actors: the Parisian popular movement, the Convention (or, more precisely, the ratio of power between the Plain and a Montagnard group in a state of « disintegration ») and, finally, the two Committees of Public Safety and of General Security. Limiting oneself to Paris may seem restricted and distorting, but let us recall that 9 Thermidor was a Parisian and parliamentary « journée » and that the provinces initially only took part as echoes (the addresses to the Convention).

Since the « drama of Germinal », the sans-culottes, as Albert Soboul has shown, had lost their political initiative and autonomy. Three indicators illustrate the ambiguities of the popular movement in the late spring of Year II. The attempts to revive the cult of Marat brought about the ban of fêtes sectionnaires on 27 Prairial. Filed on 1 Messidor, the petition of the Section de la Montagne, repeating its adhesion to the Constitution of 1793, constituted an implicit remise en cause of the revolutionary government. Finally, the campaign of fraternal banquets is, above all, testament to a vigorous moderate offensive. At the outset of Thermidor Year II, Paris was a city in turmoil, politically stirred up by the arrests of the militant sans-culotte Legray and the former minister Bouchotte, as well as socially weakened by the hungry gap and the publication of the maximum of salaries (5 Thermidor). What about the Convention? One has often emphasised the « conspiracy » that was incited by the deputies of the Plain, hostile towards the social policy was carried out since Ventôse Year II, and certain representatives on mission who had been recalled for their excesses (Fouché, Fréron, Tallien, etc). In fact, the opinion of the deputies of the Convention is difficult to grasp (many of them were on mission), and it is wise not to give credit to posterior Mémoires. The Plain hardly manifested before Fructidor Year II, and the Convention does not seem to have experienced stormy debates between the sessions of 22-24 Prairial and 8 Thermidor.

Concerning the two Committees, one has spoken of internal rivalries and divisions, but,  here again, it is necessary to force oneself to forget the declarations of their former members, firstly denounced without effect by Le Cointre in Fructidor, later successfully in Frimaire Year III. According to the classical analysis of Albert Mathiez, the Committee was composed of « déchristianisateurs » who were struck by the Cult of the Supreme Being: this is possible, but not determining. More decisive in the hostility of a part of its members towards the Committee of Public Safety was undoubtedly the law of 27 Germinal Year II, which entrusted the latter with the supervision of the constituted authorities, created the General Police Bureau and decided, in accordance with the Ventôse Decrees, the creation of six popular commissions charged with the « sorting » of suspects: dependent only on the Committee of Public Safety, they escaped the authority of the Committee of General Security, which possibly delayed their formation (only two of them sat in the Muséum). But, all things considered, was it a matter of serious political antagonisms or a conflict of jurisdiction? The divisions of the Committee of Public Safety have also provoked numerous commentaries. According to the tradition, Robespierre was absent, as he said himself on 8 Thermidor, for « more than six weeks ». Now, it seems that his absence was shorter, from 13 Messidor to 4 Thermidor. As to the argument of the supposed divisions between a « right wing » (Carnot and Lindet), a « centre » (the « Robespierrists ») and a « left wing » (Billaud and Collot), it seems hardly convincing. Even if Carnot indeed showed himself to be in favour of wars of conquest and hostile towards social policy, this is not the case for either Billaud or Collot, who were both essential actors of 9 Thermidor.

Obscured by the post-Thermidorian writings, the prodromes of the journée thus raise more questions than providing explanations, and the account of the facts is suspect of analogous distortions: written in accordance with the decree of Brumaire Year IV, the Procès-verbal of the session did not escape criticism more than the journals, the testimonies or the Mémoires. « 9 Thermidor » is only the beginning of a permanent session of the Convention, which was closed on 14 Thermidor at four o'clock in the evening, when one proclaimed: « Paris is quiet ». Furthermore, the parliamentary crisis built up on 5 Thermidor, when Barère gave a report on the « reconciliation » of the Committees of Public Safety and of General Security: some accepted following Carnot and depriving Paris of four gunner companies, the others declared wanting to accelerate the formation of the popular commissions and to entrust Saint-Just with the report on the institutions, which had been announced three months earlier. Two days later, in a new report « intended to enlighten the good citizens on the current circumstances, by presenting to the French people a comparative record of our situation at the time of 31 May 1793 and of our situation on 7 Thermidor », Barère spoke of the rebirth of the factions and emphasised, in this regard, the unity of the committees. What happened then? Here, one enters the realm of hypotheses. According to A. Mathiez, Robespierre did not believe in the sincerity of the reconciliation and, deciding to explain himself to the Convention, was thus heading towards suicide: this was the long speech of 8 Thermidor (repeated, in the evening, at the Jacobins) wherein he denounced and accused without naming, and castigated certain deputies, e.g. Cambon and Mallarmé. Cambon replied: « It is time to tell the whole truth ... » 9 Thermidor already began on the 8th. On the next day, the session was opened at eleven o'clock in the morning by the reading of the correspondence. Saint-Just took the floor at noon but, being interrupted by Tallien, could not continue his speech. Then, everything happened very fast: Billaud denounced Dumas, Sijas, Hanriot and the general staff of the Parisian National Guard, whose arrest he obtained. A décret d'arrestation was passed against Maximilien Robespierre, the presumed leader of the conspiracy, upon Louchet's request, the deputy of Aveyron (and a Montagnard) ; Saint-Just, Lebas and Couthon, who were declared accomplices, were put under arrest afterwards, then Augustin Robespierre. The « normal » procedure was a décret d'accusation and the transfer before the Revolutionary Tribunal. The session was closed at five o'clock in the evening.

The second stage unfolded at the Maison-Commune, where the mayor, Fleuriot-Lescot, the national agent Payan and the vice president of the Revolutionary Tribunal, Coffinhal, invited the members of the General Council to return to their sections in order to call to arms and sound the alarm. What follows is the history of a failed insurrection. Around six o'clock in the evening, all sections were alerted, but only sixteen sent men to the Place de Grève (among them the Section Marat, in spite of having been deeply affected by the « drama of Germinal ». At that moment, however, as the Jacobins had declared themselves en insurrection, the Commune was numerically superior. At seven o'clock, the Convention resumed its session and outlawed the five deputies, as well as the Commune of Paris and Hanriot. The Commune liberated the Robespierrists, who arrived at the Hôtel de Ville at one o'clock in the morning of 10 Thermidor, while the gunners and sectionary militants, having remained without instructions, gradually dispersed. The Convention organised  the reaction. The Jacobin Club was closed, and the sections successively came to swear allegiance. Léonard Bourdon entered the Maison-Commune with gendarmes (among them the famous Méda, the hero who was « produced » in order to give more dramatic intensity to the scene): all deputies, except for Saint-Just, seem to have attempted suicide. The Convention resumed its session at ten o'clock in the morning of 10 Thermidor. The two Committees ordered the Revolutionary Tribunal, stripped of its judiciary function as the accused had been outlawed, to « do justice » during the day. The guillotine was erected on the Place de la Révolution. At half past five, the twenty-two convicted persons left the Conciergerie, and two hours later, everything was over ; 71 accomplices were executed on 11 Thermidor, and 12 more on the following day. Counting Lebas, who was dead before being executed, and Coffinhal, who was guillotined on 18 Thermidor, the « batch » counted 107 victims.

To conclude, it seems useful to reflect on the often suggested « historical necessity » of 9 Thermidor. The study of the post-Thermidorian period shows that the « déjacobinisation » of France was less easy and considerably slower than one has suggested, that it required original political techniques and that, in the end, it was necessary to resort to both brutal repression and a « coup d'État » (the writing of a new Constitution) in order to shatter the hope for this « democratic Republic », whose traits were outlined in the spring of Year II. In this sense, 1795 broke with 1793 as much as with 1789. Strictly in terms of events, it is appropriate to pose the question: who « made » 9 Thermidor? In the parliamentary journée, thirty-five deputies intervened against the « Robespierrists »: only two sat in the Plain (Féraud and Lozeau), thirty-three in the Montagne. In Year III, sixteen of them would be « Montagnards réacteurs » and fifteen would become « last Montagnards » – while most of them were condemned to prison or deportation as « accomplices of Robespierre », two « butted out ». Barras, contrary to the legend, did not play any role before being appointed – in his capacity of general – to command the troops of the Convention. This shows the ambiguity of 9 Thermidor, which only reveals the extraordinary heterogeneity of the Montagne. If it wasn't for the personality of those who were its victims, Thermidor would at worst appear like a « non-event » that occurred between two major turning points, the elimination of the factions in Germinal Year II and the « reactionary » offensive which began in Frimaire Year III.

Source: Dictionnaire historique de la Révolution française (Albert Soboul)

[landscapeusa]

Why Pioneers Of Landscape Photography Had Been So Popular Till Now? | pioneers of landscape photography

Why Pioneers Of Landscape Photography Had Been So Popular Till Now? | pioneers of landscape photography – pioneers of landscape photography | Pleasant to my personal website, in this period I am going to explain to you about keyword. Now, here is the very first impression:

The American West as you've never seen it before: Amazing … – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

Think about photograph over? will be which incredible???. if you��re more dedicated consequently, I’l t provide you with many photograph once again down below:

So, if you wish to get all of these magnificent pics related to (Why Pioneers Of Landscape Photography Had Been So Popular Till Now? | pioneers of landscape photography), press save button to download the graphics in your pc. They’re all set for down load, if you love and want to have it, just click save logo in the post, and it’ll be instantly downloaded to your desktop computer.} Lastly if you desire to have new and the latest graphic related with (Why Pioneers Of Landscape Photography Had Been So Popular Till Now? | pioneers of landscape photography), please follow us on google plus or book mark the site, we attempt our best to present you daily up grade with all new and fresh shots. Hope you love keeping right here. For many up-dates and latest news about (Why Pioneers Of Landscape Photography Had Been So Popular Till Now? | pioneers of landscape photography) pictures, please kindly follow us on tweets, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on bookmark section, We attempt to provide you with up-date periodically with all new and fresh photos, like your surfing, and find the perfect for you.

Thanks for visiting our site, articleabove (Why Pioneers Of Landscape Photography Had Been So Popular Till Now? | pioneers of landscape photography) published .  Today we are excited to declare we have found an incrediblyinteresting contentto be discussed, that is (Why Pioneers Of Landscape Photography Had Been So Popular Till Now? | pioneers of landscape photography) Lots of people trying to find specifics of(Why Pioneers Of Landscape Photography Had Been So Popular Till Now? | pioneers of landscape photography) and of course one of these is you, is not it?

Landscape Photography Reader: Beyond Art & Environment – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

17 Best images about Wisconsin Dells History – Our Story … – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

Pin by Stephane Venne on Retro | Landscape Photography … – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

A brief history of landscape photography « Canberra … – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

Winkleigh – History of the Village & County of Devon … – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

American West Photographs | National Archives – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

High Country Living – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

15 Pioneers Ln, Morris Twp, NJ 015960 – realtor.com® – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

Landscape Photographers – 15 Names You Should Know | Widewalls – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

UBC Pioneers Eco-Friendly Landscape Initiative | planning.ubc.ca – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

Landscape Photography – The History & Definition of … – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

Amazon.com: Pioneers of Landscape Photography: Gustave LeGray and … – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

Azure Window – Gozo, Malta – Landscape, travel photography … – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

Survey photography and the landscape in 19th century America – pioneers of landscape photography | pioneers of landscape photography

from WordPress https://landscapeusa.club/why-pioneers-of-landscape-photography-had-been-so-popular-till-now-pioneers-of-landscape-photography/