#thermidorian propaganda went wrong

[sillyletterscomposingsillywords]

Couthon

How often do you ask yourself “What Couthon thought about it?” when you read Robespierre’s and Saint-Just’s opinions about something?

It seems to me (at least this evening) that Thermidorian propaganda was most cruel, albeit unintentionally, to Couthon.

Both Robespierre and Saint-Just were demonized, one as a bloody dictator, another as an “Archangel of Terror”. But these images, though far from reality, were magnetizing. Thermidorian propaganda turned people into a kind of myths characters, into symbols. And they are attrecting (not attective), they make you want to learn more.

What French Revolution movies tend to depict? The Reign of Terror. What people far from the Revolution remember the best? Bastille and the Terror – and so they know Robespierre as a dictator, and maybe they know about Saint-Just, his supporter.

And now we have two points:

Couthon didn’t get a dark legend that could attract. His function was to be the third in Triumvirate, while the ones who were usually named, acted in person and really bothered and offended thermidorians were Robespierre and Saint-Just. That deprives Couthon of his identity, so when he is finally named it’s like: Couthon in Lyon acts the way triumvirs thought was right; Couthon in Prairial suggested the Robespierre’s law.

Couthon was a deputy of Legislative Assembly, but who cares? Legislative Assembly is an approaching of the war, is the beginning of the ‘suspects’ politics, is a march to the republic, is Girondins rise and shine.

 On 5th October 1791 Couthon gave a stunning speech about why the pomp around the executive should be reduced and the king should be addressed only by “the king of French” (the decree was enacted the same meeting, repealed the next day). Moniteur

On 7th October 1791 Couthon gave a speech criticizing the priests who didn’t take a civil oath. It was the first speech of that type given in the Legislative Assembly. Moniteur And then disappears from history books until he meets Dumouriez and then until the National Convention. I can’t believe he ceased acting. But I have no time to search for his name in every issue of the Assembly period.

I don’t say no one studies him. My point is different.

When I searched for “Couthon” on Internet Archive, I got this:

With “Couthon” in a title:

On Gallica with “Couthon” in a title:

And this:

How is he usually depicted in movies? Sitting here and there in his wheelchair.

What will someone without special interest in him mostly remember about him?

Lyon mission

Prairial law

A dog

Paralytic

Member of CPS, Triumvirate

A friend of Dumouriez before his treason

Not much, and not much politics.

And that is my point: Thermidorian propaganda put a “Nothing interesting here” sign on him.

That big one, that what made me seriously think about Couthon was a biography of Vergniaud, where he acted by his own.

If anyone knows a good biography of Couthon, please, share it.

[octavodeci]

Alright frevblr I got beef with the 2023 Napoleon movie. It’s well done, medium, medium rare, and RAW. I also got beef with Ridley Scott and his portrayal of Robespierre and the events that lead to Napoleon’s rise. Historians critiquing the movie and Ridley Scott goes “haha well shut up you weren’t there and I wasn’t either”

Ohhhhh arghh ohhh my body aches ohhhh Max! how they did him wrong. MAAXXX 😫😭😭 That’s not how he went down. HELLO? Did hotel de ville not exist? What about the paris fucking commune? Saint-Just didn’t even appear to defend him like he actually did (Ridley fucking Scott would know this if he had the brains and willpower to pick up a historical novel and READ it) with his laziness he’d probably skim over the index and call it a day.

Do not get me started on the costumes. Why was Robespierre and others wearing 20th century style suits? Why were the shoulder lines so sharp? They did not have them that sharp back in the day i can guarantee you. Also it’s a blend of early 18th century attire. Confusing since….it wasn’t early 18th century.

Robespierre’s actor just wasn’t it. I’m sorry. The wig is wrong too im not sorry about that. Being straight up. It was also lop-side so screw you Ridley Scott. Don’t touch anything historical ever again and just stick to the damn alien franchise cause that went to shit anyway.

I’m not in the Napoleonic fandom but I know god damn well they did my boy Napoleon wrong too. Him and Joséphine. Serve them Justice. The next friend of mine that gushes about the Napoleon (2023) movie because Joaquin Phoenix is in it will meet the floor SOON.

I knew the movie was about to be shit as soon as i saw Marie Antoinette being lead to the guillotine with LONG HAIR. She had nothing to cover her head and she was still wearing a dress and not a plain shift underneath. She. Had. Makeup. On.

It’s just pure lack of research and i find it more offensive than Thermidorian propaganda. Idk maybe if I’d posted this on my main account I’d have structured this nicer more professionally but i have a migraine right now and it’s chronic and im tired and it’s 4:31 am.

so basically fuck the Napoleon movie. I cant believe Ridley Scott directed The Duelists (1977) which I arguably enjoy for its raw, realistic and guttural portrayal of fencing in any film I’ve ever seen. thanks for listening reading my Ted talk.

[sillyletterscomposingsillywords]

Saint-Just being a suisidal bloodsucker for 21 pages

Recently I’ve found this old post made by @saint-jussy with quite an amusing annotation of an article about Saint-Just and his homi-/suicidal inner tension. Here it is.

The article was awfully fantastic and fantastically awful and, as @saint-jussy wrote no review of that masterpiece, I now present it to you all. Enjoy.

Need to say, I have no intention of writing a real review. Just some of my considerations.

Basically, the author believes that

“Which aggression?” would you ask.

Here we move to the beginning of the article and its GREAT PRESUMPTION (that Saint-Just was “cruel” and “self-destructive”).

So, the presumption is that Saint-Just always possessed some kind of an aggression, that resulted in him being an Archangel of Terror (the author loves this metaphor a lot). Neither the origin of this aggression nor concretization of it is a matter of this article. The proof of its existence is “Believe me”:

I do believe that “Needless to say” is the worst thing that can happen in historiography. MYTHology can depict anyone in any way. But calling a person that refused to decapitate a prosecutor of the Revolutionary tribunal of Strasbourg [Schneider], who travelled through Alsace with guillotine and adjudicated by himself with no documentation (Histoire parlementaire, t. XXXI), but instead made him stand on an echafaud under the rain, possessing a wish to kill needs an appropriate proof.

Well, the author does illustrate their point of view:

They even quote Curtis for an alternative opinion:

Was Saint-Just that fair? I believe yes and he was also self-esteemed enough to want to try to beat Danton in oratory. His speeches were magnificent. The author writes by himself that:

But the author answers Curtise with the following part:

Which arrests were illegal and who enjoyed parliamentary immunity? Since the spring of 1793 there was no parliamentary immunity. Technically all arrests were legal, because they fitted the decree about Revolutionary tribunal (see Histoire parlementaire t. XXV, p. 59-62).

Was Saint-Just always fair? Let me ask it a bit differently: was every statement in his speeches true? No. But it doesn’t mean that he was unfair in general. As with the usage of guillotine or participating in battles, Saint-Just hated it, but it seemed inevitable for him sometimes. That is the point.

It’s about 15th germanal. Saint-Just said that the court session was ended because of inappropriate behavior of defendants, while the president of the court suggested Danton to rest after several hours of talking and continue his defense the next day (Danton agreed). But Saint-Just acted after a Committee meeting in which everyone considered it was necessary. And the trial was stopped not out of 15th germinal decree, but on a base of an old decree that the jury may consider the case clear to them after three days of a trial (originally made for Girondins trial). Source: L. Blanc “Histoire de la Révolution françes” t. 10

So, while the same facts can be interpreted in different ways, the author presents them only in a way that is suitable for his theory (not new thing, yeah) and the theory is Saint-Just Was A Real Blood Sucker, whose ideals “would turn the whole of France into a rigid, huge military camp”.

But now let’s move to the suicidal and self-destructive intention of Saint-Just.

We all know his letter to Daubigny. But the author connects it with the martyrdom theme he has in his speeches and writings. They point out an image of Marat in this case and the line “Great men do not die in their beds”. They call it a “noble death” and a duel with Danton, a colossus, might be a good death, because, according to the author, Saint-Just is a death maniac.

And then goes a “ravishment” and “oedipal hypothesis” and many many many “Archangels of death” and Hebertists being minor leaders and his speech on Thermidor leading to a Committee’s downfall (WHAT?) and all his speech that day called an “unnecessary public confrontation” (WHAT? 2.0).

According to that theory, on Thermidor Saint-Just should denounce Robespierre and then himself.

But the thing is: Saint-Just the author writes about is a syndrome model he imagined, not a person. And not everything can be described by one theory when it comes to a real person.

Oh, shit, oh fuck.