#rivarol

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Il y a quelque chose de plus haut que l'orgueil, et de plus noble que la vanité, c'est la modestie, et quelque chose de plus rare que la modestie, c'est la simplicité.

- Antoine de Rivarol

[raisongardee]

"Sans prendre les ménagements qu’un courtisan aurait jugés naturels, même à l’égard d’un souverain déchu de sa puissance, il reproche à Louis XVI la coupable indulgence qu’il eut toujours pour sa "chère noblesse" : "Aujourd’hui, les aristocrates prononcés ne sont bons à rien pour s’être trompés sur tout ; ceux qui sont restés passent leur vie à Paris autour de trois mille tapis verts, et se consolent par la perte de leurs écus de celle de leur existence. […] En tout, la corruption a des effets plus cruels que la barbarie. Les aristocrates ont succombé sous les démocrates pour la raison qui fit tomber les Gaulois et les Romains sous les fondateurs de la monarchie. Règle générale : toutes les fois qu’on est mieux chez soi que dans la rue, on doit être battu par ceux qui sont mieux dans la rue que chez eux. C’est le principe des révolutions et même des conquêtes." On a peine à croire qu’un texte d’une telle violence ait pu être adressé au roi, mais Rivarol n’avait nulle raison de craindre la cour, à laquelle il n’avait jamais été attaché et qui avait provoqué, par ses erreurs, les malheurs dont souffrait la France."

Arnaud Odier, « Rivarol, "le Tacite de la Révolution" », in Renaud Escande (dir.), Le livre noir de la Révolution française, 2009.

[e-c-guyot-blog]

La caresse d'un Chat...

“Le chat ne nous caresse pas. Il se caresse à nous.”Antoine Rivarol Grison (une chatte grise et grincheuse) : évidement. Nous sommes les chefs, nous décidons de tout! Margot (une chatte noire et nerveuse) : et puis il faut bien vous apprendre comment on fait… c’est un art, vous savez? Emilie C. Guyot est une auteure de romans fantastiques avec des chats grincheux dedans, les Aventures de…

[fidjiefidjie]

“Femme qui voyage laisse voyager son coeur.”

Antoine de Rivarol

Gif de Eugenia Loli

[nigrit]

'The War of the Districts, or the Flight of Marat…'

Part 1 (of 5)

Some years ago I photographed a fantastic, satirical poem from a compendium of French Revolutionary verse in the BnF (réserve). It’s been gathering virtual dust ever since. But no more! It’s a witty take on a key moment from early in the Revolution, when the Paris authorities pitted themselves against the radical Cordeliers district (under Danton’s leadership). With help from @anotherhumaninthisworld (merci encore!), we managed to produce a rough translation, which I revised, added some footnotes (to clarify the more obscure references) and added this brief intro to put it in context. While the translation is a literal one, I’ve tried to preserve some of the rhyming spirit of the original where possible. So boil the kettle, get a brew on and settle down to an epic account of Maranton vs Neckerette…

In the early hours of 22 January 1790, General Lafayette, commander of the National Guard, authorized a large military force to arrest the radical journalist Jean-Paul Marat, following a request from Sylvain Bailly, the Mayor of Paris, to provide the Chatelet with sufficient armed force [“main-forte’] to enable its bailiff to enforce the warrant.[1] Bailly’s request was in response to the outrage caused by the publication, four days earlier, of Marat’s 78-page Denunciation of the finance minister, Jacques Necker.[2] Marat had moved into the district the Cordeliers district in December to seek its declared protection against arbitrary prosecution.

His best-selling pamphlet denounced Necker – probably the most popular man in France after the King in July 1789 – of covertly supporting the Ancien Régime and working to undermine the Revolution. His accusations included plotting to dissolve the National Assembly and remove the royal family to Metz on 5 October, colluding in grain hoarding and speculation, and generally compromising the King’s honour. The charges were intended to reveal a cumulative (and damning) pattern of behaviour since Necker’s reappointment in July 1788, and again in July 1789. Bearing his Rousseau-derived epigraph, Vitam impendere vero (‘To devote one’s life to the truth’) – now used as a kind of personal branding, Marat adopted the role of “avocat” to ‘try’ Necker before the court of public opinion.[3] Its general tone came in the context of a wider distrust of international capitalism, with which Necker was closely associated, and which appearted to violate many traditional values.[4] For those interested in the nitty gritty, here’s a footnote explaining why Marat had completely lost faith in Necker.[5]

It caused such a sensation that the first print-run sold out in 24 hours. Most of the radical press hailed Marat’s audacity in challenging Necker’s ‘virtuous’ reputation, while providing invaluable publicity for his pamphlet. The legal pursuit of Marat was largely prompted by the rigid adherence of the Chatelet to Ancien Régime values against the offence of libel (attacking a person in print).[6] I suspect that Marat was hoping a high-profile campaign against Necker would help to establish his name in the public eye by provoking a strong response. However, this was one of the rare occasions when Necker delegated his defence to ‘hired’ pens, providing Marat with valuable extra publicity.

If libel was the main reason for going after Marat, the impetus for pursuit was further motivated by wider political concerns over the extreme volatility that had gripped Paris since mid-December. After pre-emptive popular action in July and October against perceived counter-revolutionary plotting, a new wave of similar rumours was seen by many as a signal that the thermometer was about to explode again. The arrest of the marquis de Favras on Christmas Eve, for allegedly conspiring to raise a force to whisk the King away to safety, assassinate revolutionary leaders, and put his master, Monsieur (the King’s middle brother) on the throne as regent, only served to intensify popular fears. This, combined with the continuing failure to prosecute any royal officers, including the baron de Besenval, commander of the King’s troops around Paris during 12-14 July – who would be acquitted on 29 January for ‘counter-revolutionary’ actions – led to large crowds milling daily outside the Palais de Justice, as the legal action against both men dragged on through January.[7] On the 7th January, a bread riot in Versailles led to the declaration of martial law; on the 10th, a large march on the Hotel de Ville had been stopped in its tracks by Lafayette; on the 11th, there was an unruly 10,000-strong demonstration, screaming death-threats against defendants and judges, in the worst disturbances to public order since the October Days march on Versailles (and the most severe for another year); and on the 13th, tensions were further exacerbated by a threatened mutiny amongst disgruntled National Guards, which was efficiently snuffed out by Lafayette.[8] As a result, Marat’s Denunciation, and earlier attacks on Boucher d’Argis, the trial’s presiding judge, were seen as encouraging a dangerous distrust towards the authorities. Hence the pressing need to set an example of him.

So much for the background. Do we know anything about the poem’s authorship? it appeared around the same time (July/August) as Louis de Champcenetz & Antoine Rivarol’s sarcastic Petit dictionnaire des grands hommes de la Révolution, par un citoyen actif, ci-devant Rien(July/Aug 1790), which featured a brief entry on how Marat had eluded the attention of 5000 National Guardsmen and hid in southern France, disguised as a deserter. These figures would become the subject of wildly varying estimates, depending on who was reporting the ‘Affair’ – all, technically, primary sources! The higher the number of soldiers, the greater the degree of ridicule.[9] Contemporary accounts ranged from 400 to 12,000, although the latter exaggerated figure, included the extensive reserves positioned outside the district.[10] Since the poem also suggests around 5000 men, this similarity of numbers, alongside other literary and satirical clues, such as both men’s involvement in the Actes des apôtres, and the Petit dictionnaire’s targeting of Mme de Stael, suggest a possible common authorship.[11] While the poem took delight in mocking the ineptitude of the Paris Commune, the lattertook aim at the pretensions of the new class of revolutionary. While it is impossible to estimate the public reception of this poem, its cheap cover price of 15 sols suggests it was aimed at a wide audience. It was also republished under at least two different titles, sometimes alongside other counter-revolutionary pamphlets.[12]

Both act as important markers of Marat’s growing celebrity, just six months after the storming of the Bastille. A celebrity that reached far beyond the confines of his district (now section) and readership (which peaked at around 3000).[13] Marat was no longer being spoken of as just a malignant slanderer [“calomniateur”] but as the embodiment of a certain revolutionary stereotype. While he lacked the dedicated ‘fan base’ of a true celebrity, such as a Rousseau, a Voltaire or (even) a Necker, he did not lack for public curiosity, which was satisfied in his absence by a mediatized presence in pamphlets, poems, and the new lexicology.[14] For example, Marat would earn nine, separate entries in Pierre-Nicolas Chantreau’s Dictionnaire national et anecdotique (Aug 1790), the first in a series of dictionaries to capitalize on the Revolution’s fluid redefinition of language.

There seems little doubt that Marat’s Denunciation was intended to provoke the authorities into a strong reaction, and create “quelque sensation”, of which this mock-heroic poem forms one small part.[15] It would prove a pivotal moment in his revolutionary career, transforming him from the failed savant of 1789 to a vigorous symbol of press freedom and independence in 1790. Who knows what might have happened, if, as one royalist later remarked, the authorities had simply ignored this scribbling “dwarf”, whose only weapon was his pen.[16]

I'll post the 3 parts of the poem under #la fuite de Marat. enjoy!

[1] The Chatelet represented legal authority within Paris.

[2] Dénonciation faite au tribunal public par M. Marat, l’Ami du Peuple, contre M. Necker, premier ministre des finances (18 Jan 1790).

[3] The slogan was borrowed from Rousseau’s Lettre à d’Alembert, itself a misquote from Juvenal’s Satires (Vitam inpendere vero = ‘To sacrifice one’s life for the truth’).

[4] See Steven Kaplan’s excellent analysis of the mechanisms of famine plots and popular beliefs in the collusion between state and grain merchants. In part, this reflected a lack of transparency and poor PR in the state’s dealings with the public. During 1789-1790, when anxieties over grain supply were the main cause of rumours and popular tension, Necker made little effort to explain government policies. The Famine Plot Persuasion in Eighteenth-Century France (1982).

[5] As a rule, the King, and his ministers, did not consider the workings of government to be anyone’s business, and was not accountable to the public. However, in 1781, Necker undermined this precedent by publishing his Compte-rendu – a transparent snapshot of the royal finances – yet on his return in 1788, he failed to promote equivalent transparency over grain provision. In consequence, local administrators suffered from a lack of reliable information. Given the underlying food insecurity that followed the poor harvest of 1788, any rumours only unsettled the public. The most dramatic example of this came in the summer of 1789, when rumours of large-scale movements of brigands & beggars created the violent, rural panic known as ‘The Great Fear’. It was Necker’s continuing silence on these matters that lost Marat’s trust.

[6] Necker had a history of published interventions defending himself before the tribunal of public opinion, confessing that a thirst for gloire (renown) had motivated his continual courting of PO, then dismissing it as a fickle creature after it turned against him in 1790. eg Sur l’Administration de M. Necker (1791). For the best demonstration of continuity with Ancien Régime values after 1789, see Charles Walton, Policing Public Opinion in the French Revolution (2009).

[7] The erosion of Necker’s popularity began on 30 July after he asked the Commune to grant amnesty to all political prisoners, including Besenval.

[8] While the evidence was slight, Favras’ sentence to be hanged on 18 February made him a convenient scapegoat, allowing Besenval and Monsieur to escape further action. See Barry M. Shapiro, Revolutionary Justice in Paris, 1789-1790 (1993).

[9] The most likely figure appears 300-500. See Eugène Babut, ‘Une journée au district des Cordeliers etc’, in Revue historique (1903), p.287 (fn); Olivier Coquard, Marat (1996), pp.251-55; and Jacques de Cock & Charlotte Goetz, eds., Oeuvres Politiques de Marat (1995), i:130*-197*.

[10] For example, figures cited, included 400 in the Révolutions de Paris (16-23 Jan); 600 (with canon) in Mercure de France (30 Jan), repeated in a letter by Thomas Lindet (22 Jan); 2000 in a fake Ami du peuple (28 March); 3000 in Grande motion etc. (March); 4000 in Révolutions de France; 6000 (with canon) in Montjoie’s Histoire de la conjuration etc. (1796), pp.157-58; 10,000 in Parisian clair-voyant; 12,000 in Marat’s Appel à la Nation (Feb), repeated in AdP (23 July), reduced to 4000 in AdP (9 Feb 1791), but restored to 12,000 inPubliciste de la République française (24 April 1793).

[11] “Five to six large battalions/Followed by two squadrons” = approximately 5000 men (4800 + 300). A royalist journal edited and published by Jean-Gabriel Peltier, who also appears the most likely publisher of this poem.

[12] For example, Crimes envers le Roi, et envers la nation. Ou Confession patriotique (n.d., n.p,) & Le Triumvirat, ou messieurs Necker, Bailly et Lafayette, poème comique en trois chants (n.d., n.p.). Note the unusual use of ‘triumvirate’ at a time when this generally applied to the trio of Antoine Barnave, Alexandre Lameth and Adrien Duport.

[13] By the time the poem appeared, the Cordeliers district had been renamed section Théåtre-français, following the administrative redivision of Paris from 60 districts to 48 sections on 21 May 1790.

[14] For the growth of mediatized celebrity, see Antoine Lilti, Figures publiques (2014).

[15] As Marat explained in a footnote (��Profession de foi’) at the end of his Denunciation, “Comme ma plume a fait quelque sensation, les ennemis publics qui sont les miens ont répandu dans le monde qu’elle était vendue…”

[16] Felix Galart de Montjoie, Histoire de la conjuration de Louis-Philippe-Joseph d’Orléans (1796), pp.157-58.

[si-monik-7]

"Kto ma rację dzień wcześniej od innych, ten przez dobę uchodzi za idiotę"

[lolochaponnay]

[justwatchmyeyes]

Es gibt nichts Hässlicheres als Reichtum ohne Tugend.

Antoine de Rivarol

[underground211]

It is the dim haze of mystery that adds enchantment to pursuit.

Antoine Rivarol

[iranondeaira]

"Il y a quelque-chose de plus haut que l'orgueil et de plus noble que la vanité,

c'est la modestie.

Et quelque-chose de plus rare que la modestie,c'est la simplicité"

- Antoine de Rivarol

" Je veux être simple. Ceux qui savent sont simples."

- Cézanne

[oltre-la-linea]

Allora genio grillino:

Alianiello

Aron

Auden

Babel’

Barrès

Benn

Bernanos

Berto

Bloy

Borges

Brasillach

Brodskij

Bulgakov

Burckhardt

Burke

Buscaroli

Carlyle

Cattabiani

Céline

Chateaubriand

Cioran

Claudel

Corradini

Corridoni

Croce

Cuoco

Cvetaeva

D’Annunzio

De Benoist

De Bonald

De Felice

De Maistre

De Sivo

Del Noce

Donoso Cortès

Drieu La Rochelle

Dugin

Dumezil

Elías de Tejada

Eliot

Ernst Nolte

Ernst von Salomon

Evola

Finkielkraut

Florenskij

Forster (E. M.)

Gadda

Gentile (Giovanni)

Gentile (Panfilo)

George (Stefan)

Gide

Giuliotti

Gómez Dávila

Guareschi

Guenon

Haller (von)

Hamsun

Heidegger

Herman Hesse

Houellebecq

Ionesco

Jouhandeau

Jünger

Kirk

Klages (Ludwig)

Koestler

Lamennais

Landolfi

Lewis (C.S.)

Longanesi

Malaparte

Malraux

Mandel’stam

Mann

Marai

Marinetti

Mauriac

Maurras

Mishima

Moeller van den Bruck

Montale

Montherlant

Mosca (Gaetano)

Musil

Nabokov

Oriani

Ortega y Gasset

Orwell

Palazzeschi

Papini

Pasternak

Pessoa

Pirandello

Ploncard d’ Assac

Pound

Prezzolini

Rand

Rivarol

Romeo

Rothbard

Salamov

Salomon (von)

Schmitt

Scruton

Soffici

Solzenicyn

Sombart

Spengler

Spirito

Tolkien

Tomasi di Lampedusa

Tönnies

Ungaretti

Unamuno

Vogelin

Weil

Wolfe (Tom)

Yeats

Zolla (Elémire)

Solo una parte e

quasi tutti solo del Novecento.

Studia...

[raisongardee]

"Rivarol se refusa toujours à voir dans le peuple français le souverain dont ses adversaires prétendaient établir le règne effectif. Tandis que les partisans de l’ordre nouveau exaltaient les vertus idéales de ce peuple, il leur opposait ironiquement le témoignage de l’expérience : "En général le peuple est un souverain qui ne demande qu’à manger et sa majesté est tranquille quand elle digère.""

Arnaud Odier, « Rivarol, "le Tacite de la Révolution" », in Renaud Escande (dir.), Le livre noir de la Révolution française, 2009.

[zemagltd]

Everyday Poetry - "It is the dim haze of mystery that adds enchantment to pursuit." Antoine Rivarol

[denimixart]

„Nadzieja to pożyczka, którą udziela nam szczęście”.

Antoine de Rivarol

[the-framed-maelstrom]

The weaver, who as a weaver of cloth produces and sets out his cloth, the cloth woven by him as his work, is in this producing always (only) occupied with the back and forth, that is, with the forth to the not-yet, and the back from the ‘‘already there,’’ and the reverse. The transition is the presence of non-being. In so far as the weaver is occupied therefore with not-being back and forth, he creates the being, the finished fabric. In the back and forth the present appears. Everything that is present at rest is a stilled back and forth. The vision of the present is yielded not by what is at rest, but by motion. The emphasis of the maxim lies on the first word: le mouvement. Customarily we represent what is present as what is unwavering, remaining, and at rest. Rivarol states, however: Motion is the vision of the present.

Martin Heidegger to Ernst Junger, Freiburg im Bresgau, 1 January 1956

[nesiacha]

Relations Between Gracchus Babeuf and Jean-Paul Marat

After relaying Babeuf's opinion of Napoleon here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/767626191447392256/the-journey-of-the-forgotten-french-revolutionary?source=share

It seemed important to me, after having mentioned Albertine Marat, to say what relationships and opinions Jean-Paul Marat and Gracchus Babeuf may have had.

Gracchus Babeuf and Jean-Paul Marat had a rather complex relationship. In fact, Gracchus Babeuf was arrested in 1790 for, as he stated, “having supported that the French, being free, could sow motions in the streets and tobacco in the fields. He was taken from his bed in the night by an armed squad with the secrecy and violence once used by Sartine and Le Noir; and he was dragged from Roye to Paris, where he was incarcerated under an order from the Court of Aids, combined with the Committee of Searches” (National and Political Journal, directed by Salomon [his real name: Antoine de Rivarol, 1743-1801] and before him by Antoine Sabatier de Castres, No. 3, Cambrai, July 1790). He wrote to Marat to inform him of his conditions of detention, arbitrary decisions, and Marat published his correspondence with Babeuf: "These unfortunate individuals were each thrown into a separate dungeon, where they were shackled, and all imaginable precautions were taken to prevent any communication. What are they accused of? Who issued the orders? Why were short-coated horsemen used instead of the National Guard? Why these barbaric precautions, these violations of the home in the dark of night, to drag the poor from their sleep, who appeared to be living without reproach and peacefully in their families? Who could have caused this alarm, fear, and pain? Why this gloomy, dark, frightening procession? Why these chains, these black cells? Why this sequestration of each prisoner, of the rest of the living? Why, why, why? … Important questions raised by these alarming acts of despotism and barbarism, to which every good citizen awaits an answer.” (Babeuf, in L'Ami du Peuple, No. 138, June 19, 1790). Historian Jean Marc Schiappa claims that Marat continued to support Babeuf’s release.

However, there were differences in their opinions, and at times, they harshly criticized each other. An example is the "Joly affair", one of the secretaries of the municipality (unfortunately, I was unable to access the full document due to technical issues, but I will send you the link). They also disagreed in their critiques of Necker, despite both being opposed to him. Marat accused Necker, according to Babeuf's correspondence, of having “sought to restore the chains of despotism to the King, having ceased to appear as the defender of the People at the very moment when his enthusiasm had rehabilitated him; of having cowardly abandoned, in order to solicit clemency for the traitors to the Homeland, the blind trust of this devoted People whose loud demands had brought him back from exile. He had even gone so far as to lead the vile monopolizers, and barbarically tried to make the People perish from hunger.” Babeuf responded, saying: "If Mr. Marat’s grievances were valid, if he could prove what he claims, if while France believed him to be the virtuous Minister and the honest man par excellence, he had the talent to discern a traitor cloaked in the mantle of hypocrisy, and was capable of clearly exposing his black deeds and criminal machinations, his denunciation would become an act of courage and true patriotism, for which the Nation would owe him eternal gratitude. But if this act is merely a slanderous attack aimed at sowing distrust towards an administrator who has become the idol of the Kingdom, such an offense cannot be punished too harshly. Mr. Marat will need strong evidence to justify his accusations when the feelings inspired by the person he accuses are such that the French would hesitate to believe he could do harm, as though they saw him committing it. It will not be with epithets like 'foolishly adored minister,' 'ambitious intriguer,' or 'knight of industry,' and other similar terms that he can make an impression; but with the evidence, which prudence requires always to support anyone who dares to act as a denouncer." Moreover, while Marat constantly attacked Necker, he was also opposed to the maximum and the establishment of stable prices in February 1793, according to Daline (a policy favored by the Hébertists, close to Babeuf, such as Chaumette), while Babeuf, according to Daline's excerpt, believed that the only way to solve the supply difficulties was "taxation," the establishment of stable prices. In his correspondence, he wrote: “Until we come to more decisive taxation, we will always be at risk of shortages, and no committee of provisions will stop us from suffering hunger.” The unfinished manuscript also contains interesting observations by Babeuf about the grain market of Santerre in Picardy, France, as he tried to understand why the grain coming from there to Paris was not reaching the capital.

But in 1793, a kind of rupture occurred between Babeuf and Marat. Mathiez claims it was an act of ingratitude on Babeuf's part toward Marat, but Victor Daline sees it differently. It is important to also understand the private context of Babeuf’s life: his wife Marie-Anne Babeuf , who was his political right-hand (a fervent political activist in her own right), had to give up part of their family credit to pay off creditors, even though they had three children (their daughter Sophie would die of famine two years later in February 1795, to their great sorrow). They were helped by a friend of theirs, Claude Fournier, known as "the American" (another revolutionary figure at the time). In a pamphlet, C. Fournier (the American) wrote to Marat: "Marat, you are not the Friend of the People. True friends of the People do not lightly denounce the best patriots. (…) If you are truly the Friend of the People, if you are truly of that unfortunate portion that has done everything and for whom nothing has yet been done for four years, to whom it seems that no one has even thought of helping, be constantly in the tribune, make it a permanent station, and do not leave until you have achieved what Duchosal and Tallien, friends of the sans-culottes, have dared to ask: THE COMFORT OF THE INDIGENT CLASS, etc..." Dommanget points to a contradiction between Babeuf’s praise of Marat and his attack on him. But let us not forget that Babeuf believed that friendship should not spare criticism. As for his critique of Tallien, he was forced to show that Marat was right in my opinion to present Tallien as “a greedy intriguer seeking positions” (Manceron, 1989). According to Eric Walter, later, Babeuf would break with Tallien, seeing him for what he really was, starting in December 1794. He attacked the world of the Directory in his Tribune du Peuple journal, calling it “fakery” and “mercantile,” and the “empire of the frisure” and the “legislation of the wig” (No. 28). He then attacked Theresia Tallien as a “Messalina,” a “Pompadour,” an “Antoinette,” and other “Venus-Dubarry,” while addressing his fellow citizens: “Frenchmen, you have returned under the reign of the courtesans” (No. 29). (This is quite sexist on Babeuf's part, and I say this while not liking Theresia Tallien at all, but he would have done better to attack her on political grounds, where there was so much to criticize, even if the fact that he saw his daughter slowly starving to death while these people lived in corruption without being able to do anything about it may have fueled his anger. This is clearly not his finest moment, which is an understatement). When Marat was alive, he would speak of "creating a great scandal" in such situations, while Babeuf says he will break windows, “the Tribune of the People here breaks the windows and releases all the important truths” (No. 29).

However, Daline explains that while Babeuf was harsh in his critiques, it did not prevent him from having friendship or admiration for those he truly admired; he just expressed his opinion clearly, even if it was unpleasant for the person he considered a friend. At times, Marat was right about Tallien, while other times it was Babeuf who sought to see beyond Necker's record. Moreover, Babeuf, who received a warm welcome in Picardy, liked the nickname "Marat of Picardy" and was popular there.

Babeuf also had political ties with Simone Evrard and especially Albertine Marat. When Guffroy, his former ally (with whom he would sever ties, much like Fouché), betrayed him, Babeuf, in his own words, “went to the refuge of the family of the Friend of the People. I felt the involuntary movement that pushed me in my distress towards the sanctuary of liberty. I told the widow and sister of Marat what had just happened to the one who had tried to follow in his footsteps.” Albertine Marat would form political ties with Gracchus Babeuf. Albertine Marat was a subscriber to Le Tribun du Peuple, and it was Babeuf who published her letter against Fréron. Babeuf would say of Albertine Marat, "The sister of the Friend of the People has taken a truly wise course: it is good, it is useful that one should follow her..." He also paid tribute to all mothers who “dedicate their entire days to prevent us from starving” and said of them, “But beware, women, whom we have degraded, without whom, however, and without their courage on the 5th and 6th of October, we might not have had freedom!”

Sources:

Eric Walter

Jean-Marc Schiappa

Victor Daline

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41926004?read-now=1&seq=20#page_scan_tab_contents