#showing liberty leading the people for the French revolution

[kaiserin-erzsebet]

I'm begging video essayists to read and cite actual history. You would not believe how many I've clicked off of for very basic errors. Not bad interpretations or arguments; just very basic factual errors.

[whencyclopedia]

African Americans in the American Revolution

On the eve of the American Revolution (1765-1789), the Thirteen Colonies had a population of roughly 2.1 million people. Around 500,000 of these were African Americans, of whom approximately 450,000 were enslaved. Comprising such a large percentage of the population, African Americans naturally played a vital role in the Revolution, on both the Patriot and Loyalist sides.

Black Patriots

On 5 March 1770, a mob of around 300 American Patriots accosted nine British soldiers on King Street in Boston, Massachusetts. Outraged by the British occupation of their city, as well as the recent murder of an 11-year-old boy, the crowd was filled with Bostonians from all walks of life; among them was Crispus Attucks, a mixed-race sailor commonly thought to have been of African and Native American descent. When the British soldiers fired into the crowd, Attucks was struck twice in the chest and was believed to have been the first to die in what became known as the Boston Massacre. He is regarded, therefore, as the first casualty of the American Revolution and has often been celebrated as a martyr for American liberty.

Five years later, in the early morning hours of 19 April 1775, a column of British soldiers was on its way to seize the colonial munitions stored at Concord, Massachusetts, when it was confronted by 77 Patriot militiamen on Lexington Green. Standing in this cluster of militia was Prince Estabrook, one of the few enslaved men to reside in Lexington, who had picked up a musket and joined his white neighbors in defending his home. In the ensuing Battles of Lexington and Concord, Estabrook was wounded in the shoulder but recovered in time to join the Continental Army two months later. He was selected to guard the army headquarters at Cambridge during the Battle of Bunker Hill (17 June 1775) and was freed from slavery at the end of the war.

Attucks and Estabrook were just two of the tens of thousands of Black Americans who supported the American Revolution. There was no single motivation for their doing so. Some, of course, were inspired by the rhetoric of white revolutionary leaders, who used words like 'slavery' to describe the condition of the Thirteen Colonies under Parliamentary rule and promised to forge a new society built on liberty and equality. These words obviously appealed to the enslaved population, many of whom were optimistic that, even if slavery was not entirely abolished, they might receive better opportunities in this new nation. Others enlisted in the Continental Army to secure their individual freedoms, as the Second Continental Congress had proclaimed that any enslaved man who fought the British would be granted his freedom at the end of his service. African Americans also enlisted to escape the day-to-day horrors of slavery, to collect the bounties and soldiers' pay offered by recruiters, or simply because they were drawn to the adventure of a soldier's life. Additionally, several Black Americans were forced to enlist by their Patriot masters, who preferred to send their slaves to fight instead of going themselves.

Of course, not all Black Patriots served in the Continental Army or Patriot militias. Some, like James Armistead Lafayette, were spies; posing as a runaway slave, Lafayette was able to infiltrate the British camp of Lord Charles Cornwallis and procure vital information that helped lead to the Patriot victory at the Siege of Yorktown. The French general Marquis de Lafayette was impressed with his service and helped procure his freedom after the war, leading James Lafayette to adopt the marquis' name.

Other Black Patriots showed their support for the movement with their words. Phillis Wheatley was an enslaved young woman who had been brought to Boston from Senegal, where she had been seized. She was purchased by the Wheatley family, who quickly recognized her literary talents and encouraged her to write poetry. By the early 1770s, Phillis Wheatley was already a celebrated poet. She began to write extensively on the virtues of the American Revolution, praising Patriot leaders like George Washington. Despite his status as a slaveholder, Washington was moved by Wheatley's work and invited her to meet him, stating that he would be honored "to see a person so favored by the muses" (Philbrick, 538).

Continue reading...

[a-fluffer-nutter]

Rapscallion

A/N - Day one of August's Tickletober! Anticipation is today's prompt, so here is a Deadpool and Wolverine fic! Please enjoy.

Word Count: 975

     “My dearest fanfic readers, you have absolutely no idea how horny I am right now,” Wade let out an exaggerated moan as he stared deeply into Logan’s fiery eyes. Fiery was an understatement, the literal pits of hell could be seen if you looked into his pupils long enough. 

      “I have no fucking clue on why you keep talking to ‘the readers,’ but it's starting to piss me off,” Logan snarled, his to the running across his top row of teeth. 

       “Oh, you are such a tease, Peanut! Speaking of bits, mine has an itch that needs to be juiced.”

      “You are one of the most revolting people I have ever met,” Logan's center claws slipped out from between his joints, lowering just enough for Wade’s wrists to feel pinpricks of anticipation. “What I wouldn't do to tear your bottom jaw off your disgusting face so you could never speak again.”

         “Admit it, sweetheart,” Wade cooed, ready to recoil the second his statement was finished, “You'd miss the blowies way too much.”

        As Wade turned his head away, burying his face in his shoulder, he waited for his wrists to be sliced like a fish filet. However, this didn't happen. Uncomfortably shifting underneath Logan's weight, wrists still trapped above his head. 

       It was a super-secret mission that they were on, Wade had told Logan. Knowing Wade, Logan presumed that this mission was to spy on the Avengers or some shit, especially as Wade kept humming this one “heroic” song that he had told Logan was “really fucking cool in 2012.” While there were no sightings of Thor or Hawkeye, the two, in traditional superhero fashion, did manage to stop some sort of evil entity that wanted to take over Philadelphia. Aside from the Liberty Bell now having a new crack, Wade's fault naturally, the day was saved and our heroes needed a place to crash. Despite saving the day and all, they were a bit short on pocket money, so a grungy Motel 6 was their destination. Logan stayed in to watch TV, which based on the size and shape of it, was miraculously showing films in color, while Wade went hunting for the perfect Philly Cheesesteak. This temporary separation worked exceptionally well until Wade returned and spoiled the end of the film Logan was watching. 

       “It's not my fault your universe was still waiting for Incredibles 2! I thought you'd seen it!”

       “Why would I be watching it if I hadn't seen it yet?”

        “Maybe it's your favorite movie, I don't know. You seem like the kinda guy that would prefer more manly movies like Top Gun, Bridesmaids, or Velocipastor, but who am I to judge?”

      Naturally, Wade continued to push his luck and Logan's buttons, which lead them to our current situation. Logan pinning Wade on the bed, his wrists trapped between two of Logan's claws and Logan's entire weight on top of him. 

       Squirming as if he was wearing “grandma's surprise Christmas sweater,” Wade now looked back up at Logan, muscles tensing in the slightest. 

      “So, are you gonna do the stabby thing? Spaw my blood everywhere like a Quintin Tarantino film?”

      “I'm not sure yet.”

      “Ah, I see,” Wade clicked his tongue. “Well, we don't have to do the whole slicing me up like a sandwich thing. While this joint certainly isn't a Four Seasons, we don't need to Rudy Giuliani it all and spread mysterious liquids everywhere. Wait, who is the president in your universe?”

        “Matthew Perry?”

        “Ah, shit. Those kids from Smosh are psychic!” Logan let out a grumble, reminding Wade of his current predicament. “Shit, um, what should you do to me? Bondage? Sing songs of the French Revolution? Whisper sweet nothings in my ear? Hold me closer, tiny da-ack!” Wade was cut off by his own vocal tic. Logan released one of Wade's arms and when Logan repositioned his own, he accidentally grazed Wade's side. “What the shit, man? You didn't tell me I was gonna need to point out where the scary man touched me on a doll to my therapist this week!”

       “What the fuck was that noise, bub?” Logan mused; one eyebrow cocked upward. Making a humming sound, Logan moved his hand back to Wade's side and squeezed. Once again, Wade made a strangled yelp. 

       “Okay, maybe we can get back to the stabbing and bleeding part again,” a wave of nervousness washed over Wade's words. 

       “Of course, why wouldn't you be ticklish too?” Logan said mostly to himself, and he continued to poke and prod Wade's side, slowly walking his fingers up to the lower rib cage. 

       “Marvel Jesus does not condone this level of violence!” The last two words were an octave higher as Logan decided that was the moment to stop holding back and quickly skitter his fingernails across the sides of his ribs. “Shit! Peanut!”

       Logan continued his assault silently, trying not to smile as Wade writhed beneath him. Shouting out obscenities and references that went over Logan's head, Wade's laugh became increasingly hysterical and frantic as Logan's fingers journeyed upward. 

        “This is communist propaganda! A war crime! Don't you understand the Geneva Convention? You heathen. You rapscallion. A scoundrel. A hippocampus! A flou-!” Wade's words vanished from his tongue, replaced with loud cackles and hiccups. 

       “Damn shame this is the only way to shut you the fuck up, bub,” Logan broke his silence, his amusement of the situation now apparent by the upturned curl of his lips. He was thankful that Wade's eyes were as shut as they could be, Wade seeing this little bit of joy could be a catalyst to something bigger than Logan wanted to deal with any time soon. 

       What Logan didn't know was that Wade was already plotting his revenge. Something so devious, cruel, and sexy, that the world was not prepared for it. 

[aedesluminis]

🤚 ^^

🤚Book recs

This is hard because I had stopped reading for many years and I've been trying to get on track in the last year. Overall, I have read many books, but the only ones I feel like recommending are all historical essays about the French Revolution and despite some being in Italian and French I will mention them anyway, given that some of my followers are also from Italy and France ^^

1. P. McPhee's Liberty or Death.

This book is very dear to me, because it was my first ever frev book! I recommend it because it's heavily sourced, explains very clearly the causes and consequences of the Revolution and the history is told, through the quoting of primary sources and accounts, from the people's pov, something quite unique in frev historiography. Unfortunately, this last point can also be a downside, especially for those who know absolutely nothing of the French Revolution: some of the key events sometimes get discussed in a few lines to give much more space to how they were perceived by the population. Not only this may lead to an oversimplification of said events, but also to confusion regarding their chronological order. At the end of the book there's a timeline though, which I suggest to consult in case you feel lost while reading.

I would say it's accessible to everyone interested in the topic and who has an adequate level of English to understand it. Of course, the read will be much more fluid if one already knows a bit about the French Revolution.

2. M. Vovelle, La Révolution Française 1789-1799.

This book exists only in French and Italian sadly. I say sadly, because despite not having read it in full, it's an excellent and concise summary of the French Revolution. It's perfect for literally everyone: students who have to prepare an exam, historians who have to quickly revise it and amateurs who want to be introduced to the French Revolution through something that's not too big or overwhelming. What I like about it, it's the fact it's short, but it manages to perfectly highlight the main events and key figures, showing how important the Revolution was and its consequences in our present era.

I believe an English equivalent would be Soboul's The French Revolution 1789-1799.

3. M. Reinhard, Le Grand Carnot vol. I & II.

Yes, a specific biography, I mean it seriously. Lazare Carnot's life is truly fascinating, but in case you are not interested in him at all, I would still recommend it since it's a nice example of how it's perfectly possible to make an amazing, detailed, well sourced, as impartial as possible work on a beloved historical figure. Because Reinhard likes Carnot, but he cleverly manages to conceal it, by exposing his merits, epic fails and controversial actions; even when he enters the realm of speculation, he does it relying on sources, primary most of the time. Moreover, he is rather knowledgeable about the historical period Carnot lived through, thus the latter's words and decisions get explained in their relative historical context, making it easier to decipher Carnot's motives.

Lastly, it's godly and elegantly written. I genuinely can't wait to fully devote my reading sessions to it, because until now I have only read separate chapters and excerpts.

4. Anything about Nikola Tesla.

Seriously guys, I can't even find the right words to explain how important that genius was, and how unfairly poorly he was treated. Each of us would have something to learn from such a brilliant, devoted and altruistic mind.

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from?

Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists produced by participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution (see Section A.5.4). They point out that:

“The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free non-statist society of workers under self-management. “So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become particularly alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle of the working masses. “The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in the masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and knowledge to specify and spread it.” [pp. 15–16]

Like the anarchist movement in general, the Makhnovists were a mass movement of working class people resisting the forces of authority, both Red (Communist) and White (Tsarist/Capitalist) in the Ukraine from 1917 to 1921. As Peter Marshall notes “anarchism … has traditionally found its chief supporters amongst workers and peasants.” [Demanding the Impossible, p. 652]

Anarchism was created in, and by, the struggle of the oppressed for freedom. For Kropotkin, for example, “Anarchism … originated in everyday struggles” and “the Anarchist movement was renewed each time it received an impression from some great practical lesson: it derived its origin from the teachings of life itself.” [Evolution and Environment, p. 58 and p. 57] For Proudhon, “the proof” of his mutualist ideas lay in the “current practice, revolutionary practice” of “those labour associations … which have spontaneously … been formed in Paris and Lyon … [show that the] organisation of credit and organisation of labour amount to one and the same.” [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 59–60] Indeed, as one historian argues, there was “close similarity between the associational ideal of Proudhon … and the program of the Lyon Mutualists” and that there was “a remarkable convergence [between the ideas], and it is likely that Proudhon was able to articulate his positive program more coherently because of the example of the silk workers of Lyon. The socialist ideal that he championed was already being realised, to a certain extent, by such workers.” [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 164]

Thus anarchism comes from the fight for liberty and our desires to lead a fully human life, one in which we have time to live, to love and to play. It was not created by a few people divorced from life, in ivory towers looking down upon society and making judgements upon it based on their notions of what is right and wrong. Rather, it was a product of working class struggle and resistance to authority, oppression and exploitation. As Albert Meltzer put it:

“There were never theoreticians of Anarchism as such, though it produced a number of theoreticians who discussed aspects of its philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has been worked out in action rather than as the putting into practice of an intellectual idea. Very often, a bourgeois writer comes along and writes down what has already been worked out in practice by workers and peasants; he [or she] is attributed by bourgeois historians as being a leader, and by successive bourgeois writers (citing the bourgeois historians) as being one more case that proves the working class relies on bourgeois leadership.” [Anarchism: Arguments for and against, p. 18]

In Kropotkin’s eyes, “Anarchism had its origins in the same creative, constructive activity of the masses which has worked out in times past all the social institutions of mankind — and in the revolts … against the representatives of force, external to these social institutions, who had laid their hands on these institutions and used them for their own advantage.” More recently, “Anarchy was brought forth by the same critical and revolutionary protest which gave birth to Socialism in general.” Anarchism, unlike other forms of socialism, “lifted its sacrilegious arm, not only against Capitalism, but also against these pillars of Capitalism: Law, Authority, and the State.” All anarchist writers did was to “work out a general expression of [anarchism’s] principles, and the theoretical and scientific basis of its teachings” derived from the experiences of working class people in struggle as well as analysing the evolutionary tendencies of society in general. [Op. Cit., p. 19 and p. 57]

However, anarchistic tendencies and organisations in society have existed long before Proudhon put pen to paper in 1840 and declared himself an anarchist. While anarchism, as a specific political theory, was born with the rise of capitalism (Anarchism “emerged at the end of the eighteenth century …[and] took up the dual challenge of overthrowing both Capital and the State.” [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 4]) anarchist writers have analysed history for libertarian tendencies. Kropotkin argued, for example, that “from all times there have been Anarchists and Statists.” [Op. Cit., p. 16] In Mutual Aid (and elsewhere) Kropotkin analysed the libertarian aspects of previous societies and noted those that successfully implemented (to some degree) anarchist organisation or aspects of anarchism. He recognised this tendency of actual examples of anarchistic ideas to predate the creation of the “official” anarchist movement and argued that:

“From the remotest, stone-age antiquity, men [and women] have realised the evils that resulted from letting some of them acquire personal authority… Consequently they developed in the primitive clan, the village community, the medieval guild … and finally in the free medieval city, such institutions as enabled them to resist the encroachments upon their life and fortunes both of those strangers who conquered them, and those clansmen of their own who endeavoured to establish their personal authority.” [Anarchism, pp. 158–9]

Kropotkin placed the struggle of working class people (from which modern anarchism sprung) on par with these older forms of popular organisation. He argued that “the labour combinations… were an outcome of the same popular resistance to the growing power of the few — the capitalists in this case” as were the clan, the village community and so on, as were “the strikingly independent, freely federated activity of the ‘Sections’ of Paris and all great cities and many small ‘Communes’ during the French Revolution” in 1793. [Op. Cit., p. 159]

Thus, while anarchism as a political theory is an expression of working class struggle and self-activity against capitalism and the modern state, the ideas of anarchism have continually expressed themselves in action throughout human existence. Many indigenous peoples in North America and elsewhere, for example, practised anarchism for thousands of years before anarchism as a specific political theory existed. Similarly, anarchistic tendencies and organisations have existed in every major revolution — the New England Town Meetings during the American Revolution, the Parisian ‘Sections’ during the French Revolution, the workers’ councils and factory committees during the Russian Revolution to name just a few examples (see Murray Bookchin’s The Third Revolution for details). This is to be expected if anarchism is, as we argue, a product of resistance to authority then any society with authorities will provoke resistance to them and generate anarchistic tendencies (and, of course, any societies without authorities cannot help but being anarchistic).

In other words, anarchism is an expression of the struggle against oppression and exploitation, a generalisation of working people’s experiences and analyses of what is wrong with the current system and an expression of our hopes and dreams for a better future. This struggle existed before it was called anarchism, but the historic anarchist movement (i.e. groups of people calling their ideas anarchism and aiming for an anarchist society) is essentially a product of working class struggle against capitalism and the state, against oppression and exploitation, and for a free society of free and equal individuals.

[pyromaniacbibliophile]

bricktober day 12- ghosts

@lesmis-prompts

It's not going to work. no one will show up. Why am I trying so hard to make a difference for a few people?

I feel stupid, now. Oh sure, I know it's a good thing, what they're doing (what we're doing) but we read about the French Revolutions today and that's just so much more-

What I mean is that they were fighting for everything. For everyone. For freedom, for liberty, for their lives. They won. They made a difference. What can I do, me and my friends?

It's not a competition I hear and spin around.

There's- fading in and out of view, a few inches above the ground, is a ghost. Messy black hair and green coat, paler than he would have been in life. It's a shock. Sure, I know ghosts are real, but it's one thing knowing and another seeing.

"What?" I probably sounds stupid but I can't bother to care.

Revolutions, fighting battles that shouldn't have to be fought, they're not a competition.

I say nothing so the ghost continues.

I know some of us thought similar. Back then. We were thinking that really, what can we do? Dictatorships and monarchies? People were dying daily in the galley for crimes they didn't commit. Other places were torn by war. Thieves were sentenced to twenty years just for running away. Our government were bad but there were other things far worse that were taken for normal.

But you can't fight every cause at once. Just because there are worse things doesn't make your thing irrelevant. Injustice can be big or small. The important thing is that you are fighting it. I thought, when I was alive, that we wouldn't change anything. And if you looked at us, just us, we didn't. But after we fought and lost, others took up the banner. When they fought and lost, others took it up. After them others. After them more. Until one day some people fought and won.

It might not feel like anything now but there are people who will see what you are doing and be inspired. Or be happy. Or maybe their life will have changed because of it.

Let me tell you something. There will be fights after you. After this cause has been won there will be others. And they will look back and think that they aren't doing anything, that bigger causes have been fought. And then they will change more than they imagined.

It happens every fight. The people might doubt, the leader might doubt, but as long as they fight things will happen. Things will change. Je te promets.

"Who are you?" I ask.

Me? Nobody. Just Aire. R. That's me.

"You-The french revolution?"

It was never one revolution. A thousand different ones, sequencial and simultaneous. We called ours the June Rebellion, then. But yes, in a way.

"But then-really?"

Really.

"Wait!" I call, but he's already gone.

I sit on my bed, thinking about what he said.

Years later and I'm leading a rally through London. Waving rainbow flags, there must be thousands of us. Out of the corner of my eye I see a flash of green. I turn.

R is there, smiling sadly. When I blink he's gone.

I looked through as many books as I could, after that day. I know his name now. His revolution, his golden leader. I still don't know why he found me, nor why he gave me advice. I am glad he did, or I might not be here today.

It's 2013. I haven't seen R since that day, but so much has changed. Yesterday the Same-Sex Couples Act was passed. I'm already thinking on how we can celebrate it, make sure everyone knows. I see what R meant now. I would never have thought our battle would have become this big, but it did and we've just won it. There's still so much more to do though...

[animefeminist]

Every Rose Has Its Thorns: Vilifying female ambition in The Rose of Versailles

The Rose of Versailles is a shojo classic with a reputation as an LGBTQ+ work, mostly thanks to Oscar’s character and their relationships with women like Marie Antoinette and Rosalie. While that’s one of the show’s main draws and much can be said about it, this time I’m looking into a less-discussed side of the show: its portrayal of female anger, ambition and power, and how they exist within considerable limitations.

The show—which takes place in France in the years leading to the French Revolution—blends fantasy with history, keeping major historical events and figures while taking liberties in the way they fit in the story. Historical accuracy doesn’t matter much beyond following key events that culminate in the revolution and eventual execution of Marie Antoinette. The layers of fantasy give the story flexibility not only in the relationships it creates and the subplots it follows, but in the way the characters are portrayed.

As a main character, Oscar is an all-encompassing figure who struggles with gender roles and love, duty and upbringing, loyalty to the Queen and a growing empathy to the people. But with Marie Antoinette and the women who act as villains, we see a more traditional exploration of female power, ambition, and anger. Meanwhile, Rosalie is a sympathetic character who offers a combination of kindness with anger that, notably, lacks the ambition associated with the female villains.

Read it at Anime Feminist!

[usergreenpixel]

JACOBIN FICTION CONVENTION MEETING 39: ONE FOR ALL (2007)

1. The Introduction

Hello, Citizens! I’m back at it again, reviewing Frev media! Hope you’re happy to see me again in action!

Anyway, today we have an obscure book. A book I found by accident while looking for any media featuring people of color during Frev — which is an overlooked angle in my opinion.

I found this book on Goodreads and, unfortunately, it can only be purchased through Amazon so far… so I had to make an order and wait for the shipping to arrive. Let’s see if the money and the waiting were worth it though!

This review is dedicated to @saint-jussy , @revolutionarywig , @michel-feuilly , @theorahsart and @lanterne .

2. The Summary

I had to “borrow” the summary from the Amazon page, because it includes some… INTERESTING details:

"In the bloody chaos of the French Revolution an exceptional man comes of age: Alexandre -romantic, intelligent, immensely strong, son of a slave-owning Count and his Haitian first wife.

He accidentally discovers the guilty secret of his new stepmother and her vicious brother. They conspire to destroy him. Cast out by his father, Alexandre is befriended by Chevalier de Saint-George - France's greatest swordsman, Marie-Antoinette’s lover - and falls in love with hot-tempered Marie Labouret.

When Saint-George is wounded helping the Royal Family escape, Alexandre leads the Free American Legion - 1,000 Black lancers - in a brave defence of the Republic against the invading Royalist armies. In ONE FOR ALL the most extraordinary people and amazing events are actual historical fact. Alexandre's son, world-renowned author Alexandre Dumas, found inspiration in the adventures of his father and his father's friend - the Black originals of the much loved characters Porthos and D'Artagnan in THE THREE MUSKETEERS."

I already see a few questionable choices done by the author, but let’s not judge the book too harshly just yet and proceed with the review! I do, personally, love a good swashbuckling story, so it might be a good piece of fiction despite the inaccuracies.

Just put a pin on the “inspired by true events” tidbit included on the cover. You’re going to need to remember this.

3. The Story

I do think that the book has a good prologue, showing Alexandre’s carefree childhood with his parents, where he is a typical child who pulls pranks and doesn’t want to adhere to rules yet. It does a good job of setting up the backstory of the character.

The story proper, I feel, is also doing a good job introducing the characters, especially the stepmother and the step uncle (more on them later). The pacing is also quite good, for the most part, although I really wasn’t that able to turn off my brain and ignore the numerous historical liberties taken by the authors.

Perhaps it would have been better to just make a book about fictional characters instead of the historical ones, but hey. We have what we have.

Also, I didn’t like the fact that the main two villains of the story sometimes lack motivation to do all the shit they pull in the book. As if they are Disney villains whose only trait is “evil”.

For example, the stepmother wants Alexandre cast out so his father doesn’t have him as heir. Pretty standard plotting for an “evil stepmother” type of character, but I occasionally got the feeling that she was only doing it for the evils, even when Alexandre’s father dies and she still attempts to murder her stepson, even though now she has the inheritance she wanted and technically doesn’t need to bother herself with Alexandre’s existence anymore.

But I guess villains just can’t chill out, can they?

Mostly, however, the adventures were quite interesting to follow and I did finish the book in one sitting.

4. The Characters

I do like Alexandre, although at times he seems a bit too idealized in the book. He is kind, brave and chivalrous, just trying to achieve justice and take back the inheritance that is rightfully his.

His stepmother, referred to as “the Countess” in the book, is a standard issue evil stepmother, similar to Madame de Villefort from “The Count of Monte Cristo”. Honestly, the authors do a pretty good job of portraying a vile aristo snake that you just want to see destroyed.

Her brother, de Malpas, is just as evil, and is even incestuous with his sister. As if those two weren’t gross enough. He also murders people left and right for fun, so there’s that.

Chevalier de Saint-George is a character I also liked. He is kind of like a mentor and a brother to Alexandre, and they have a sweet friendship going on!

Marie Labouret is an independent and fierce young woman, but she didn’t seem too modern for the most part.

I couldn’t care less for Alexandre’s father, though. Or rather sperm donor. When the Countess accused her stepson of unspeakable things, this ass immediately through Alexandre out and didn’t even bother to investigate the issue even AFTER the fact. Father of the Year, everybody!!!

5. The Setting

As I mentioned, there are inaccuracies and creative liberties. MANY OF THOSE. That being said, I was pleasantly surprised that the setting wasn’t too bad when it comes to portraying Frev.

There are mentions of mobs killing nobles, as usual, but it’s only mentioned by one character and so we don’t know if it’s true or not.

Also, both Alexandre and Saint-George are still republicans, despite the latter having romantic feelings for the Queen. So the authors at the very least are SOMEWHAT familiar with nuance.

6. The Writing

Sometimes the descriptions are lacking and sometimes the linguistic choices felt a bit too modern to me, but otherwise the writing was quite fine.

7. The Conclusion

All in all, this book is a hit in some ways and a miss in others. I don’t know why the authors twisted history so much when they could have made up their own characters, but the book was still a pretty enjoyable adventure and an interesting experiment.

Read at your own discretion, if you want, but I wouldn’t say I highly recommend it to everyone.

On this note, I declare the Jacobin Fiction Convention closed for now. Stay tuned for future updates!

Love,

Citizen Green Pixel

[canmom]

l'aventure de canmom à annecy épisode DEUX - lundi partie 2

I ate a late "breakfast" at a cute little french café and made contact with @mendely (shout out to mendely btw, super talented animator) who said he was watching L'Armée des Romantiques*, which sounded pretty fun so I decided to give it a shot!

(*or to give it its clunky English title, Legends of Paris: A Tale of the 19th Century)

This turned out to be a documentary with a limited animation portrayal of a bunch of the artists, writers and composers active in the early 19th Century, framed through the conflict between Romanticism and Classicism. We meet characters like Alexandre Dumas and Victor Hugo as young up-and-comers trying to make a name for themselves in a France still bubbling with republican sentiment. We watch as these new Romantics are moved to tears by Shakespeare, and write a series of hit plays and novels, with the July Revolution providing some much needed spice in the middle.

It was pretty interesting history, though Mendely tells me they left out some of the spicier anecdotes about his favourite composers. On a presentation level, it does interesting things with paint textures in Revelle for all the BGs, and it was definitely at its strongest when the subject was a painting or symphony where it could actually show us what the big deal was rather than just showing reaction shots. As drama, it was a bit lacking in tension - each of these guys was pretty much guaranteed to cause a stir or they wouldn't feature in this documentary - but it was cool to learn a bit about some artists from this period I know less about, and learn something of the history behind works like Liberty Leading the People. (You know, the one with the titty.)

The next act for me was the world premiere(!) of the film version of Flavours of Iraq, adapting the life of Iraqi-French journalist Feurat Alani. This film was a treat, honestly. The framing device is his father Amir's funeral, and the film cuts between Feurat's life, returning to Iraq after growing up in France, and his communist father's life of political exile after a childhood in Fallujah, later increasingly despairing at the state of his country. Which is a hell of a lot of history to cover in one film, but it handles it very well, a compelling flow of events and reactions in the present unified by Feurat's personal story.

The film has broadly a left wing secularist bent, with little sympathy towards Saddam (seen from a child's eyes as a towering cyclops responsible for Amir's torture and exile), the Americans who cause the country's collapse as they hollow out the state to purge all influence of Saddam, or the Islamists of Al Qaeda and Daesh who flourish in their wake; a little more sympathy goes to the tribal judge who increasingly sides with them after being tasked with counterinsurgency by the Americans, but most of all, the film sympathises with the people low on the hierarchy tossed between all these geopolitical forces. The anchor in personal experiences of Feurat and his extended family avoids it simply becoming a polemic and gives the film a lot of emotional substance. Great soundtrack and stylish animation, later intercut with news footage, do a lot as well - this is edited tight.

Comparison with Persepolis is inevitable - both films use a similar limited colour palette, both films try to flesh out from personal experience a country viewed with ignorance in the west, both first saw publication as a BD before becoming a movie. The thrust of the films is a little different, if only because Iran is in a lot better shape than Iraq - this film is very much a tragedy, and its plea for an Iraq that is not divided by religion or tribe is coloured by the hopelessness of Amir, who unlike his son gives up on his country and applies for French citizenship after his childhood friend is shot as a suspected collaborator. Feurat, too, is haunted by ghosts, such as his cameraman friend Yasser who is killed while interviewing members of Daesh. It is, all in all, quite an overwhelming watch.

Unlike Persepolis, this film's director, also the author of the comic, is not writing autobiographically; apparently the real Feurat wrote about his life on Twitter which was adapted first as a comic and TV series then finally as this film with the funding of various European TV stations and art organisations. It's hard to know how much the real story has been abridged or simplified to make a more compelling narrative. But that's the way of these things, and it certainly felt far more grounded than the likes of The Breadwinner.

The style was also interesting - the flat graphical colours emphasising the eyes, but also moustaches, lips and teeth. The characters are often coloured red against a more desaturated field. For the most part, actual proportions and acting are naturalistic but often it will morph into fantastical symbolic imagery of dogheaded soldiers or a creeping centipede as a rather heavy handed symbol of islamism.

I'm curious how this would be received by Iraqi audiences because tbh it does kinda feel like it's written for westerners but so it goes.

All in all... big dose of history this afternoon, but compelling shit. Next up I'm trying to get into The Birth of Kitaro... no idea if this is going to be lighter, but at least it will be a bit more fantastical. Nevermind, Kitaro is full, going for TV films 5 lmao

[smchr-nina]

THE PORTRAYAL OF THE JUNE REBELLION WE SEE IN LES MISERÁBLES

So, while trying to be funny I made a few posts about barricade day aaand, okay, might have used the term "fictional" when I shouldn't because now apparently some people think I didn't know the revolution actually happened, and while some people just pointed it out I also had to read a very offensive comment calling me a "dumbass" (for a minute I even thought I was using Twitter and not tumblr but anyways)

To clarify it and also to bring actual facts to this day I'm using the knowledge I actually do have on this matter (guess what, I love history) to show a few facts about the revolution we see in the novel and the one that actually happened

In both, the novel/musical and the actual rebellion the catalyst for the rebels was General Jean Lamarque, he was a favorite among the people because of how he appreciated the lower classes' desires and and needs

Historians believe that without Victor Hugo and his romanticism the June Rebellion would probably not even be remembered (make it an underground revolution) since it was such a fast act and since it was primarily a Parisian revolution rather than something that stirred the whole country

Although the starvation that the poor people of Paris were going through is mentioned in the musical and in the original novel there are some facts that influenced the Rebellion that Vicky did not mention, the best example of it is the huge cholera outbreak that swept the country in the spring of 1832

In Victor Hugo's work only one day separates the death of Lamarque from his funeral, in real life there was a 5 day gap between these events

When it comes to the course of the revolution, Les Mis is actually accurate, the shots during Lamarque's funeral happened and then it all lead to the barricades and the infamous cannon fires

Although the people did not rise and the revolution failed, Les Mis kind of reduces our understanding of how big the rebellion actually was, this happens because the book focuses on a group of students (our dear amis) and even for literary purposes it is the right choice, but it gives the impression that like, maybe 40 ou 50 people were hurt or died, while in real life the rebellion had something close to 800 people who were killed or injured

Victor Hugo might not know, but he probably saved a historical event from becoming lost in the world's vast history (and gave us our favorite characters

Les mis is actually only partially accurate if we look at whole context of the revolution and the whole depths of it, but the reason why this isn't a real problem is because it is a novel written by a French romanticist, so naturally he focused on individual redemptions and more simplified ideas of social justice, also, since the book focuses on a specific group of people for plot purposes we can't properly understand how there were actually more people involved than it seems, and that there were more barricades around the city

Some of the characters were actually inspired by people who took part in the real revolution, for example, there was, allegedly, a man who stood in one of the barricades and yelled "Liberty or death" while waving a red flag, and that, as we know, inspired the creation of Enjolras

I think this is it for now, might add something later tho, I hope this clarifies that I actually do know about the real revolution, what I meant was that the literary romanticized revolution we see in Vicky's work is not 100% accurate since it's filled with fictional characters from the novel

When the best fandom reunites to celebrate a non-official holiday based on a revolution mentioned in a 200-year-old novel

[sarthak2405]

Why I Love The Song "Viva La Vida" By Coldplay

"Viva La Vida" by coldplay is the fourth album of the British Rock Band Coldplay which released on 12 June 2008 on the Parlophone label. Although Viva La Vida is the band's highest grossing album, Coldplay’s song “Viva La Vida” is an interpretation of king Louis’s lost last speech before his death. The song is written through King Louis point of view, as he apologizes to his people, accepting his fate.

The album cover art features the 1830 historical painting known as “Liberty Leading the People”. The art piece was painted by French artist Eugène Delacroix, depicting French revolutionaries marching and waving the French flag, led by the human manifestation of Lady Liberty. The painting serves to portray the revolutionaries in a heroic light, complementing the Album’s themes of life, death, war, and change.

“I used to rule the world Seas would rise when I gave the word Now in the morning, I sleep alone” — King Louis led one of the world’s most powerful countries, he commanded hundreds of ships with his simply words. However, now he was reduced to sleeping alone in a jail cell.

“Listen as the crowd would sing: “Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!” — King Louis XVI succeeded the throne after his grandfather had passed. Following the death of the beloved king, Louis XV, Louis XVI held much potential in his people’s eyes. Many celebrated his rise to kingship.

“Shattered windows and the sound of drums People couldn’t believe what I’d become.” — Although his people saw much potential in the new king, they were left disappointed. His early reign was that of reform and success, however, as time grew and promises were left unfulfilled, the French masses demanded a new order.

“Revolutionaries wait for my head on a silver plate. Just a puppet on a lonely string. Oh who would ever want to be king?” — Louis recognizes that revolution was now in full swing and that no amount of reform can help him now. Although Louis accepted his Kingship in eagerness, he looks back at his powers as a burden. He admits that the power he thought he wanted was not the same when he held it.

Unlike Delacroix’s “Liberty Leads the People”, which shows the revolutionaries as heros. The songs takes a complete 180 by showing sympathy for the fallen king. The song is a admittance of guilt by the king. This regret humanizes the King, showing understanding that he had ultimately failed his people.

Once a revolutionary himself, the first part of his reign was that of enlightenment reform, however, along his kingship he had lost sight of his values. Retreating to the comforts of his palace rather than facing his problems. The songs shows the regret of a man who once promised so much more but delivered none, accepting his fate as he knows it is well deserved.

This contrast is a deliberate choice to reinforce the album’s theme of change. With the revolutionaires fierce march and the King’s introspective review, the listener is not put onto a single side. Instead, it allows the listener to process both perspectives, allowing a completely new view of the revolution.

So people tell me what to do you feel about this song and the fallen king was he truly a villain or misunderstood man in a terrible time?

[gokitetour]

 The 8 most famous French paintings of all time.

French art has created some of the world's most famous and important artworks, which captivate viewers with their beauty, emotion, and historical relevance. From the enigmatic grin of the "Mona Lisa" to the whirling stars of "The Starry Night," these works have made an unforgettable impression on art history. One of the most renowned French paintings of all time is Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa," which is displayed at Paris's Louvre Museum. This timeless depiction of a woman with a secretive grin has captivated audiences for ages, serving as a symbol of Renaissance creativity and mystery. Vincent van Gogh's "The Starry Night" is another well-known French artwork, distinguished by its vibrant colours and swirling brushstrokes. This masterpiece depicts the artist's emotional agony and creative talent. Other prominent French paintings include Eugène Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People," Édouard Manet's "Olympia," and Théodore Géricault's "The Raft of the Medusa." Each of these pieces offers a distinct tale while reflecting the creative movements and cultural circumstances of the time. With their beauty, meaning, and historical relevance, the most renowned French paintings continue to inspire and enchant audiences all over the world, demonstrating art's eternal ability to transcend time and place.

 Here are some of the most famous French paintings of all time.

1. "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci: The "Mona Lisa" is possibly the world's most renowned painting, and it is kept in the Louvre Museum in Paris. During the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci painted this intriguing picture of a woman with a strange smile, which has fascinated audiences for ages.

2. Vincent van Gogh, "The Starry Night": A famous painting by Vincent van Gogh, "The Starry Night," shows the night sky over the hamlet of Saint-Rémy-de-Provence. The famous artwork, renowned for its vivid hues and whirling clouds, is kept at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

3. Eugène Delacroix, "Liberty Leading the People": Eugène Delacroix's striking picture "Liberty Leading the People" portrays the July Revolution of 1830 in France. A representation of liberty personified a woman leading the populace over barricades has come to represent liberation and revolution.

4. Édouard Manet's "Olympia": Édouard Manet's controversial painting "Olympia" features a reclining, naked woman gazing straight at the observer. When this controversial picture was initially displayed in 1865, it created a stir and questioned accepted ideas of morality and beauty.

5. Théodore Géricault's "The Raft of the Medusa": Théodore Géricault's dramatic painting "The Raft of the Medusa" shows the aftermath of the French navy ship Méduse's 1816 crash. This enormous piece, which is kept at the Louvre Museum, is a poignant representation of the pain and resilience of people.

6. Sandro Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus": Sandro Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus" is a masterwork of the Italian Renaissance. This famous picture, which shows the goddess Venus rising from the sea on a shell, represents beauty, love, and the human form.

7. Édouard Manet's "The Luncheon on the Grass": Édouard Manet's controversial artwork, "The Luncheon on the Grass," shows a naked woman enjoying a picnic in a rural area with two fully dressed guys. This ground-breaking 1863 exhibition piece startled viewers with its unusual subject matter and realistic portrayal.

8. Auge Rodin's "The Thinker": Auguste Rodin is a well-known sculptor whose "The Thinker" was initially intended to be a component of his bigger piece, "The Gates of Hell." This famous sculpture, which shows a man lost in reflection, has come to represent intellectualism and introspection.

Conclusion

 Finally, the most famous French paintings of all time remain eternal treasures of creative expression and cultural legacy. From the enigmatic grin of the "Mona Lisa" to the emotional brushstrokes of "The Starry Night," these works continue to captivate and inspire audiences across the world. For art fans who want to see these great masterpieces firsthand, acquiring a France visa from Delhi is the key to embarking on a trip through the rich tapestry of French artwork. With a France visa, travelers may explore the galleries of the Louvre Museum in Paris, which houses the "Mona Lisa" and numerous other treasures.

Aside from the "Mona Lisa," visitors may see the paintings of French painters such as Eugène Delacroix, Édouard Manet, and Vincent van Gogh, each with a unique viewpoint on art and society. Exploring the most renowned French paintings is not only about enjoying brushstrokes and colours; it's about digging into the tales, emotions, and historical circumstances behind each masterpiece. Whether you're gazing at the revolutionary zeal of "Liberty Leading the People" or delving into the complexity of "Olympia," these paintings urge us to consider the human experience and the eternal power of imagination. The most renowned French paintings, with their beauty, complexity, and cultural relevance, serve as reminders of art's global language and its tremendous effect on our lives.

Read More -: France Tourist Visa From Mumbai, France Tourist Visa From Bangalore

[uni-seahorse-572]

gotta love showing my best friend art. it’ll be liberty leading the people, a major romantic work that used allegory to capture the ideals of the French Revolution, and she’ll ask me “are those her titties”. priorities I guess

[itsawritblr]

Hmm.  The wall is covered with wisteria, which symbolically represents love, beauty, creativity, fertility, patience, honor, and long life.  Wisteria can live for 100 years, so it can also represent everlasting wisdom.

I notice in the last panel that the statue of Emilie is missing.  The third picture shows a mural inspired by the famous painting “Liberty Leading the People,”  by Eugène Delacroix.  It commemorates the French 1830 July Revolution.  But the figures are Marinette, Adrien, Alya, Nino and their friends.  Liberty is holding a baby (I think).

Wonder if this will actually appear in the show?

[kestrel-of-herran]

vincenzo: anti-capitalism, moral greyness, and katharsis

or, why watching vincenzo is both satisfying and blood-thirst-inducing

this analysis is a response to the wonderful discussions on this topic already flourishing in the fandom, and an attempt to synthesize and expand on the points already raised by others. let’s dive in!

anti-capitalism

vincenzo’s aim as a work of art is not only to engage and delight an audience, but more importantly to inspire a civic consciousness among it. by building the central conflict around the crimes of a capitalist conglomerate easily exchanged with any big company anywhere in the world, the writer directs our attention towards the violation of human rights that such enterprises commit in our everyday reality. by explicitly showing the atrocities orchestrated by its boss and his underlings time and again - their tireless, shameless suppression and falsification of the truth in the name of greed and ambition, their disregard for the lives of people they deem to be ‘lesser’ - the narrative inspires the anger and contempt we should direct towards the perpetrators of this system in our daily lives. by making both people who are far and close to the protagonists the direct and indirect victims of this company’s tyranny and portraying side and main characters’ pain in the aftermath of these crimes, the series makes us bear witness to the ‘casualties’ of unchecked economic growth and realize its inherent inhumanity. by demonstrating how members of the private sector, the jurisdiction, and the media all contribute to the upholding of the company’s myth and conspire to prevent each other’s downfall, vincenzo exposes the rotten state of the system along with its relentless oppression of those who refuse to play by its crooked rules.

this message is underlined by the series’ explicit, frequent references to the class war in the form of its symbolic invocation of the french revolution through the reconstruction of liberty leading the people and the name of the ‘guillotine’ file as well as its off-hand references to parasite, a film which illuminates the horrific consequences of the struggle between the rich and the poor. it is even directly addressed through the conversation between the tenants after prosecutor jung’s betrayal in ep.15, in which they wonder about their newfound awareness of corruption and corporate propaganda, and understand that the political is personal and the personal is political.

one of the chilling ways in which vincenzo reminds us of how vulnerable we are to the abuse of power perpetuated by big corporations is through the fact that the four relatives of babel’s victims are targeted and murdered thanks to the retrieval of their text messages from their phone providers, an extreme example of the privacy violation that data collectors and controllers are capable of committing at any time.

the audience’s warranted anger against capitalism is focused towards the characters of han seok and myung hee, and the extremity of our bloodlust for their suffering demonstrates how successful the series has been in achieving its aim. while han seok’s diagnosis as a psychopath almost provides an excuse for his nonexistent understanding of basic human morality, the character of myung hee is a fascinating case study of the moral corruption caused by extreme ambition and blind commitment to climbing the corporate ladder. her introduction as a potentially positive character is telling of her capacity to be one in different circumstances, but her deliberate steps over corpse after corpse of her creation demonstrates her willingness to cross any boundary on her way to accumulate more power as quickly as possible. the recurring scenes of myung hee’s gratuitous consumption of food during or after a murder of her planning provide a visual metaphor for her symbolic devouring of her victims’ life forces on her way to the top. while oppressors at the bottom of the chain like the bye bye balloon crew can read the wake-up call of their own abuse by the system, those at the very top like myung hee have to fully embrace the position of exploiter in order to thrive.

moral greyness

who is bold and tenacious enough to not only defeat these monsters, but return the suffering they have caused tenfold?

enter vincenzo cassano and hong cha young, two deliciously morally grey protagonists who have been forced to use their talents to do the bidding of others - the mafia and babel - up until now. their introduction as already firmly over the border of human decency is the key to their ability to best their enemies at their own game, because how can one win against a cheating player surrounded by accomplices and false witnesses professing his innocence, unless one is happy to get one’s hands dirty as well?

cha young’s arc of empowerment through her embrace of conventionally negative traits is not only particularly impressive for a female character, but is especially satisfying because she acts as the audience’s double in her journey from passive bystander to powerful villain. it is this subversive portrayal of badness as a force of individual and collective good that proves so fascinating and humanizes characters who could have been portrayed as bland defenders of universal good just for the sake of principle.

vincenzo and cha young’s negative actions are so easy to understand and agree with because they are driven by the positive forces of familial and romantic love. the fact that these protagonists are allowed to achieve both their public life goal - vengeance - and their private life goal - belonging - through the same act of defiance is the cherry on top.

katharsis

katharsis in vincenzo is achieved through the empowerment of the powerless and the avenging of the wronged.

we cheer at the the protagonists’ commitment of arson, kidnapping, and murder because we are shown that the only way to meaningfully punish those responsible for suffering is to return their favours in kind.

through our identification with vincenzo and cha young, we live a fantasy of just retribution for the very real crimes of capitalism and are encouraged to take the extreme actions necessary to right the systemic wrongs in our everyday reality.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Le jour où la France coupa la tête de son roi, elle commit un suicide.

- Ernest Renan (1823-1892)

The painting has served as inspiration for much, from banknotes to a cover of a Coldplay album but is most commonly associated as the definitive painting to depict the storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789 to light the fuse for the start of the French Revolution of 1789. Liberty Leading the People was painted in 1830 by Eugene Delacroix right after the revolutionary effervescence that had swept across Paris that same year.

Characterised by its allegorical and political significance, this large oil on canvas has become a universal symbol of liberty and democracy. Often used in popular culture to symbolise people’s emancipation from oppressive domination, it is one of the most famous paintings in Art History.

However this is wrong.

Liberty Leading the People is a painting usually associated with the July Revolution of 1830 in France. It is a large canvas showing a busty woman in the centre raising a flag and holding a bayonet. She is barefoot, and walks over the bodies of the defeated, guiding a crowd around her.

Eugène Delacroix was a master of colour and it is in Liberty Leading the People that he clearly expressed this. Carefully, Delacroix built a pulsating and dynamic scenario about an extremely current theme in his times. As he participated little in the fighting, he wrote: “If I can not fight for my country, I paint for it.”

The painting is about freedom and revolution. First, because that is exactly what it portrays. In July 1830, France rose up against King Charles X, who was extremely unpopular for, among other things, being very conservative in political terms and trying to restore an old regime that French people no longer wanted. In the artistic sense, the painting also represented a revolution – and more than that: freedom. In the time of Delacroix, painters generally obeyed the rules of the Academy of Fine Arts which stressed the mastery of drawing, disegno. Delacroix, however, put more emphasis on the use of colour in an unobstructed way.

A year after its production, the painting was bought by the French Government and but was not on display for a long time. Currently, the artwork is part of the Louvre collection.

If Jacques-Louis David is the most perfect example of French Neoclassicism, and his most accomplished pupil Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, represents a transitional figure between Neoclassicism and Romanticism, then Eugène Delacroix stands (with, perhaps, Theodore Gericault) as the most representative painter of French romanticism.

French artists in early nineteenth century could be broadly placed into one of two different camps. The Neoclassically trained Ingres led the first group, a collection of artists called the Poussinists (named after the French baroque painter Nicolas Poussin). These artists relied on drawing and line for their compositions. The second group, the Rubenists (named in honour of the Flemish master Peter Paul Rubens), instead elevated color over line. By the time Delacroix was in his mid-20s - that is, by 1823 - he was one of the leaders of the ascending French romantic movement.

From an early age, Delacroix had received an exceptional education. He attended the Lycée Imperial in Paris, an institution noted for instruction in the Classics. While a student there, Delacroix was recognised for excellence in both drawing and Classics. In 1815 - at the age of only 17 - he began his formal art education in the studio of Pierre Guérin, a former winner of the prestigious Prix de Rome (Rome Prize) whose Parisian studio was considered a particular hotbed for romantic aesthetics. In fact, Theodore Gericault, who would soon become a romantic superstar with his Raft of the Medusa (1818-19), was still in Guérin’s studio when Delacroix arrived in 1815. The young artist’s innate skill and his teacher’s able instruction were an excellent match and prepared Delacroix for his formal admission to the Ecole des Beaux-Arts (the School of Fine Arts) in 1816.

To become leading figure of the French romantic school, Delacroix wished to emancipate himself from academic art’s classical ideal and canons. The subject of the painting was a contemporary one, whereas canvases of this size were generally reserved for historical paintings, at least according to the rules of the hierarchy of genres of the Academy. Delacroix stated that he has “undertaken a modern subject, a barricade, and although I may not have fought for my country, at least I shall have painted for her. It has restored my good spirits.” The painter also uses reds and blues, which result in stark contrasts, instead of the more muted colours that were used at that time.

Delacroix wasn’t much of a revolutionary himself and did not take part in the Paris fighting, but rather defined himself as a “simple stroller.” As he wrote in a letter to his brother; “A simple stroller like myself ran the same risk of stopping a bullet as the impromptu heroes who advanced on the enemy with pieces of iron fixed to broom handles.” However, he advocated for liberalism and was struck by a feeling of patriotism and pride as he observed his fellow citizens fighting.

The revolution depicted in this painting is not to be confused with the 1789 French Revolution. Delacroix was inspired by the events of the July Revolution (known as Les Trois Glorieuses” (Three Glorious Days), a political upheaval that took place between 27th and 29th July 1830. These violent demonstrations took place as the ruling French King Charles X tried to restrain the freedom of the people by executing a constitutional takeover. Parisians violently protested against the abuses of their individual rights. Rioters took hold of the city and violent fighting ensued, resulting in a high death toll. Charles X eventually abdicated and a constitutional monarchy, the July Monarchy, was established with Louis-Philippe I being made King of the French.

This uprising of 1830 was the historical prelude to the June Rebellion of 1832, an event featured in Victor Hugo’s famous novel, Les Misérables (1862), and the musical (1980) and films that followed. Anyone familiar with Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil’s musical can look at Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People and hear the lyrics of the song that serves as a call to revolution:

Do you hear the people sing? Singing a song of angry men? It is the music of a people. Who will not be slaves again.

Marianne, the Allegorical Muse

At the centre of the painting, the allegorical depiction of Liberty draws the eye immediately. Represented as Marianne, a symbol of the Republic, the woman coiffed with a Phrygian cap (a nod to the sans-culottes of the French revolution) is leading a group of revolutionaries. Her draped yellow dress reveals her breast and recalls the Greek goddesses of Antiquity. Her profile, a straight nose, plump lips, and a delicate chin are reminiscent of Antique Greek and Roman statues. She is a tribute to Ancient Greece, the cradle of democracy, as well as to the Roman republican tradition. However, Delacroix mixes in modern symbols as she holds the tricolour flag in one hand, and a bayonet in the other. This way, Liberty embodies both the modern struggle and Antiquity’s ideology of freedom.

The painting’s pyramidal structure heightens the fighting’s momentum. The ground is strewn with bodies and, out of the misery and pain, Liberty stands tall on the remains of a barricade, emerging strong and victorious. This rigorous composition contains and balances the painter’s impetuous brushstrokes and creates a striking lighting effect. It is a scene of chaos and energy, filled with smoke and movement, and yet Delacroix’s pyramid successfully creates a sense of order. The painting recalls Gericault’s Raft of the Medusa, that represents violence without idealising it.

The title makes it obvious, the woman represented here is the ideal of freedom. But even as an allegorical figure, the woman is more than that: her name is Marianne, which is probably the result of joining together two very common names in France at the time, Marie and Anne.

Curiously, 18 years after the July Revolution, Marie Anne Hubertine, a French activist who fought for the insertion of women in politics, was born. This is because, although the representation of freedom was feminine, women still couldn’t vote or stand for public office - although the female figure was always chosen to represent most of the allegories.

Liberty protagonists in the painting

But if the female figure represents an allegory, those who surround her represent different types of people. The man on the far left holds a briquet (an infantry saber commonly used during the Napoleonic Wars). His clothing - apron, working shirt, and sailor’s trousers - identify him as a factory worker, a person in the lower end of the economic ladder. His other attire identifies his revolutionary leanings. The handkerchief around his waist, that secures a pistol, has a pattern similar to that of the Cholet handkerchief, a symbol used by François Athannase de Charette de la Contrie, a Royalist solider who led an ill-fated uprising against the First Republic, the government established as a result of the French Revolution. The white cockade and red ribbon secured to his beret also identify his revolutionary sensibilities.

This factory worker provides a counterpoint to the younger man beside him who is clearly of a different economic status. He wears a black top hat, an open-collared white shirt and cravat, and an elegantly tailored black coat. Rather than hold a military weapon like his older brother-in-arms, he instead grasps a hunting shotgun. These two figures make clear that this revolution is not just for the economically downtrodden, but for those of affluence, too.

Delacroix clearly suggests that people of all classes came together to fight for a better society. The revolution was not about one class fighting another, but it was about the people rallying against royalist oppression.

This revolution is not only for the adults - two young boys can be identified among the insurgents. On the left, a fallen adolescent who wears a light infantry bicorne and holds a short sabre, struggles to regain his footing amongst the piled cobblestones that make up a barricade. The more famous of the pair, however, is on the right side of the painting (image, right). Often thought to be the visual inspiration for Hugo’s character of Gavroche in Les Misérables, this boy wildly wields two pistols. He wears a faluche - a black velvet beret common to students - and carries what appears to be a school or cartridge satchel (with a crest that may be embroidered) across his body.

The dead bodies of soldiers and citizens on the ground represent the terrible costs of the revolution.These are best summed up by the figure on the left corner, who is nude from the waist down and wears only a nightshirt, implying perhaps that royalists had dragged him from his bed to impart on him a terrible fate. The body is the very close to the viewer, invading our immediate vision.

A modern urban painting

With no less than five guns and three blades among these six primary figures, it is not surprising that the ground is littered with the dead. Some are members of the military, note the uniform decorated with shoulder epaulettes on the figure in the lower right, while others are likely revolutionaries. In total, the painting accurately renders the fervour and chaos of urban conflict. And it is, of course, an urban conflict. Notre Dame, perhaps the defining architectural monument of Paris (at least until the Eiffel Tower arrived at the end of the nineteenth century) can be clearly seen on the right side of the painting. Importantly, Delacroix signed and dated his painting immediately underneath this monument.

Although not everyone can pick up a weapon and stand a post in a war, Delacroix would have us believe that everyone can be a revolutionary. When corresponding with his brother on 28 October 1830 - less than three months after the July Revolution, Delacroix wrote, “I have undertaken a modern subject, a barricade, and although I may not have fought for my country, at least I shall have painted for her. It has restored my good spirits.” In doing so, Delacroix completed what has become both a defining image of French romanticism and one of the most enduring modern images of revolution.

Post-life of the painting

On instructions from Louis-Philippe, Liberty Leading the People was bought by the French Ministry of the Interior (for 3,000 francs). The painting was purchased by King Louis-Philippe to demonstrate his support of Republican values and to mark his accession. In other words as a sop to the liberal left. The original idea was to display it in the throne room of the Palais du Luxembourg, but instead it was kept in the palace's museum gallery. The painting caused a commotion at the Salon, and it was kept hidden from the public owing to its inflammatory and seditious nature.

The reaction of the general public to the Liberty at the Salon of 1831 is not well documented. Heinrich Heine records that he always saw a throng of visitors in front of it and therefore concluded that it was one of the paintings which attracted the most attention. Gustave] Planche on the other hand, got the impression it was not enjoying the public success he thought it deserved. The picture was received with mixed feelings by the professional critics, who divided roughly into those who judged the realism ignoble, the colouring drab or distastefully livid and the allegorical Liberty a contradiction within itself or within the context of the whole (e.g. Auguste Jal, Louis Peisse, Ambroise Tardieu); and those who by contrast admired the combination of truth to nature and artistic licence, and recognised that the subject demanded a wide use of earthy colours (Planche, Victor Schoelcher, Charles Lernormant).

Théophile Thoré, a few years after the Salon, resolves most concisely the argument about anomalies in the central figures when he wrote, ‘Is it a young woman of the people? Is it the genius of liberty? It’s both; it is, if you’d like, liberty incarnated in a young woman. True allegory should have a character that is simultaneously alive and symbolic…Here again, M. Delacroix is the first to have utilised a new allegorical language.’

Following the June Rebellion of 1832, it was returned to the artist. because the revolutionary ideologies behind the painting became perceived as dangerous and potentially inflammatory. A good reminder of how politicised art was in nineteenth century France. On his death in 1863 it was reacquired by the Musee du Luxembourg who in 1874 passed it to the Louvre.

The picture is believed to have inspired Bartholdi's Statue of Liberty (1870-86) - a depiction of Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom - which was given to the United States as a gift from the French people. Today it is considered to be a universal work symbolising the triumph of the 'popular will', and an important forerunner of 20th century works like Picasso's Guernica (1937, Reina Sofia Art Museum, Madrid).

But it’s more than just a ‘political’ painting. The emotional rhythm of Delacroix's brushstroke seemed to be central in his originality. In its diversity one can see long and large, continuous strokes as well as small, divided, independent ones. Such techniques had a great influence on the Impressionist and Post-Impressionists, particularly van Gogh and Cezanne.

In sum then, Delacroix’s apotheosis of the Revolution of 1830 was, in a way, the apotheosis of his generation. That is the way it is seen by art critic René Huyghe: “From time to time a work of art contrives to bring together and express all the ideas that mean most to the spirit of a particular time and give it its meaning. This is certainly the case with Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People, in which the clamour of a generation on the march becomes a joyous and unanimous hymn.”

When, however the search for unanimity is focused on the lists of killed and wounded on the revolutionary side of the barricade, it does not reveal an ‘entire people,’ but the worker-artisans who comprised, mutatis mutandis, the Paris insurrectionary crowds from 1789 to 1871. It is difficult to find that figure in the top hat, or the student from the Ecole polytechnique, or even the pistol-packing gamin, forerunner of [Victor] Hugo’s Gavroche, on the lists of those who actually did the fighting. Even so, the painting was soon perceived as a disproportionate celebration of the unwashed masses by those who would reap the political fruits of the ‘three glorious days’ of July.

The ambiguity of Liberty Leading the People, dated 28 July when the issue of the battle was still in doubt, might also be read as representing the political indeterminacy of the event. Delacroix portrays the last moment before the solidarity of his generation fractured along political lines. Those who contrived the invention of King Louis-Philippe would find the fulfilment of their ambitions and their spiritual home in the July Monarchy. For this reason I have always found this painting intriguing because of its ambiguity of meaning behind the appropriation of symbolism.

** La Liberté guidant le peuple (1830) by Eugène Delacroix