Please, just give me the FACTS @anotherhumaninthisworld - Tumblr Blog

Some primary sources

I plan to add more whenever I find more.

#frev resources #frev #french revolution #maximilen robespierre #augustin robespierre #robespierre #george couthon #couthon #camille desmoulins #desmoulins #joseph fouché #fouché #charlotte robespierre #elisabeth lebas #elisabeth duplay #billaud-varennes #jerome Pétion #jacques-pierre brissot #saint-just

i was lucky enough to see this today- any idea when it’s from/what it means?? it was obviously taken from robespierre’s papers after his death, but it can’t be that recent, given fouché is on the list… also why isn’t saint-just on it?? 😭 but yeah what are your theories……

Discussed that here! I think this is most likely a list of representatives on mission Robespierre (or perhaps the CPS as a whole, since we don’t really know if he wrote this just for himself) considers trustworthy.

As for why SJ isn’t on it… That’s actually a very good question.

#robespierre #ask #frev #french revolution

hi!! i’m having to read schama’s ‘citizens’ for my history coursework (evaluating interpretations as to why the cps fell out) and there are some claims he makes that i don’t recognise, and i absolutely do not trust him to get things right, or represent things correctly, so could you please tell me if any of this has any basis or if he’s just making guesses and passing it off as fact 💀 schama also doesn’t cite his sources in the footnotes, there’s just one massive fuck off bibliography at the end which doesn’t help

did carnot ever say this about the supreme being?? and is there anything to suggest that he and prieur were specifically horrified by the lack of immunity?

what about this? i know that barere helped enforce the ventose decrees to appease sj (palmer discusses it), but was this offered to robespierre too, in exchange of stopping the denunciations?? and what about them fearing hanriot and sj staging a coup???

thank you so much lmao

To start off with Carnot and the Supreme Being, in Mémoires sur Carnot par son fils (1861), Hyppolite Carnot writes the following:

Carnot also openly expressed his displeasure with the way Robespierre seemed to be interpreting the decree of 18 Floréal. It has been recounted that after the Festival of the Supreme Being, where Robespierre had assumed the role of pontiff of the new cult, Carnot ironically placed a crown on his head. This seems entirely implausible to me, as such familiarity was quite out of character for him, and his hostility toward Robespierre had by then become fully apparent. What was even less in keeping with my father's spirit was to treat religious matters lightly. But the anecdote can paint a fairly accurate picture of the impression his colleague's theatrical displays made on him.

Hyppolite nevertheless follows this up with writing his father’s religious beliefs ”were in accordance with the new profession of faith,” citing an intervention made by him at the Convention on May 16 1794 where he is recorded to have stated that ”to deny the existence of the Supreme Being is to deny the existence of nature.”

As for any fears Prieur and Carnot might have had concerning the Law of 22 Prairial, I actually had trouble finding the two saying anything about the law at all, both in Hippolyte Carnot’s memoirs and the biographies Le Grand Carnot (1952) by Marcel Reinhard and Prieur de la Côte-d'Or (1946) by Georges Bouchard.

For the Ventôse decrees, on 4 thermidor (22 July 1794), we do find a CPS decree declaring those are to be implemented within three days. It is signed by several members of both the Committee of Public Safety and Committee of General Security, among them Saint-Just and Couthon. If this was done to ”appease” Robespierre and Saint-Just is not something I’ve found any contemporary source say outright. I think it is more likely this is an interpretation on the part of Palmer (who of course doesn’t cite sources either, I have no idea from where he gets the impression Barère in particular played a big role in getting the committees to go through with the decree on 4 thermidor) and Schama, based on the fact Robespierre is recorded to have shown up to the committee session the day right after this decree was penned down (according to the testimony of the CGS member Philippe Rühl, given on March 23 1795) after having boycotted them for several weeks, and the fact Billaud, Collot and Barère after the fact claimed Saint-Just and Robespierre had ”constantly pressured” the two committees to implement the ventôse decrees. (Réponse des membres des deux anciens Comités de salut public et de sûreté générale… (1795), page 46)

The part about Saint-Just and Hanriot I also view as Schama’s own interpretation of a fear the other committee members might have had, I don’t know of any source where such concerns are voiced. Do they exist, they would have most likely come into existence after Hanriot and Saint-Just were already dead, meaning we should treat them with a grain of salt regardless.

#and this kids is why we use footnotes #ask #frev #carnot #prieur de la côte d’or #french revolution

evulpes

"The Colours of the Revolution": A review of a surprisingly decent FREV novel

About a year ago I came over the freshly published German novel Die Farben der Revolution: Eléonore und Robespierre (Jeanette Limbeck) and after a bit of initial scepticism – FREV fiction often tends to be more bad than not – I was actually pleasantly surprised by the result. As the title suggests the novel follows the perspective of Eléonore Duplay through 1791 to 1794, and while it is by no means flawless, it is still a reasonably informed and nuanced one for the standards of many French novels posted around here and definitely deserves a shoutout especially for those who can read German.

The positives

The author has clearly done a fair share of good secondary reading on relevant topics in revolutionary historiography in French and English (Godineau, McPhee, Linton, Leuwers...) and in fact even includes a list of major factual changes or at times inventions at the end of a book (though as we will see later there are a few she missed)

Choosing character on which there are limited sources like Eléonore Duplay can be a bit of a tricky task - it leaves room for invention but also the risk of overdoing it - but for the most part Limbeck succeeded in fleshing her out as a character. A character that shows has artistic and political interests as well as personal friendships beyond her relationship with Robespierre. A character that can be wrong - there is for example a good part in the book where the author decided to make her very enthusiatic for the revolutionary war in 1792 and let her argue with Robespierre on the topic until they finally work it out. Its also pretty good in stressing some of the limits of her outlook as a middle class woman for example as she grows increasingly suspicious of Enragé allied women like Pauline Léon and their "material interests".

And importantly the author for the most part resists the urge to make the main heroine in a historical novel a girlboss who overcomes all the sexist constraints of society through sheer brilliance. Instead she actually has to struggle with them. So, even as she gets more more interested in politics, she has to constantly work on her readings skills to get from basic literacy to actually reading comfortably (and borrow Maximilian's books) because of the limits of her primary education. When she tries to pain classical or revolutionary scenes in her painting lessons, she actually repeatedly realises or is even told by others (thank you David!) that her paintings are stale – which obviously makes sense when female painting students were to allowed to see real male bodies.

While not the POV, Robespierre is overall handled reasonably well - it definitely leans towards a more favourable perspective, especially when the authors can choose between multiple explanations and scenarios, but he is flawed in his own right. It does a pretty good job illustrating the mix of admirable conviction and frustrating self-assurance (eg. he is both very right and very arrogant when explaining why Eléonore is wrong about he war), the limits of his role in the Revolutionary government, not shying away from his growing paranoia (or indeed generally that of revolutionaries), while at the same time doing a good job of making the reader understand it under the circumstances.

For the most part it is also pretty nuanced on a great variety of players at least on the broad revolutionary "left". We can see a Danton who can be frustrating, offensive, vulgar and corrupt but also warm and humane and perhaps a bit more conventionally sympathetic but also naive Desmoulins. We get at first a little distant but increasingly sympathetic Saint-Just and see a lot more of his human side once him and Eléonore warm up to each other. We get sympathetic portrayls of women from the Citoyennes Republicaines Révolutionnaires as well as wives of other revolutionaries like Lucille or Simonne Éverad (who becomes a bit of an older advisor/friend). We even get a couple of sympathetically portrayed Hébertist sympathisers (though usually fictional), which is otherwise pretty rare in FREV media. And it even has a few quite well written interactions between Eléonore and her royalist former teacher, who is portrayed with some human sympathy but is also clearly wrong, not both-siding the issue.

Finally, the relationship between Eléonore and Robespierre is handled generally well – probably better than in any other FREV novel I read. The author goes for a romantic interpretation of the relationship, which is obviously not universally shared and can at times seem a bit overstated, but the relationship itself is reasonably good. You have an element of friendship, admiration, interest so that the relationship does seem natural but also hardly idylic with its arguments and tensions.

Also has some great moments - some more serious personal or political conversations but also funny ones. Eg. when Eléonore and Robespierre eventually start sleeping together (which is again handled a lot better than in most other FREV media), she gets very excited by the fact that she can finally improve her skills with drawing male bodies while he sleeps, only for him to wake up and start panicking what would happen if someone leaks it to the press or if god forbid (!) their children or grandchildren would find it one day.

The controversial/ mixed bag

The whole book is from Eléonore's POV which sometimes creates a tensions between when the author is trying to authentically represent her perspective and when to present a more objective analysis of situations or push her own view. For example, the Girondins basically come of as self-serving hypocrites - which may well be authentic in terms of Eléonore's perpective but is clearly reductionist if it is the author's own. By contrast, Eléonore seems to hold a lot of understanding and even sympathy for the Dantonists until the end (and while she comes to treat the trial as a political necessity, she knows they are not actually foreign agents) - which may be a more nuanced view, but not one that would represent Eléonore's opinions.

As is a bit of a tradition with women in FREV literature the author has decided to make Eléonore a lot more interested in women's rights that we have any indication she would be. Now, given how little we actually know about her, there is certainly some space to do this. In some cases it can be just fairly natural frustration about the limitations imposed on her as a woman in society - whether in the expectations of marriage or the limits on her artistic pursuits, which seems quite realistic. Her interest in issues like family law reform or education or the fact that she attends some meetings of the mixed Société des Amies de la Verité and later even of the SCRR (though she eventually parts with them), don't seem implausible either. But eventually this is simply pushed too far with the author attributing her proto-feminist views that she almost certainly did not have, especially support for womens' right to vote and even repeatedly arguing with Robespierre over the issue (as if that was something widely supported even among revolutionary women). And yes, technically all those conversations happen behind closed doors, but it seems like an instance of the author projecting views she would like the heroine to have.

While the book does a lot of good in constantly reminding the reader that Robespierre is not some bloodthirsty dictator but a member of a collective government in the middle of war, it can sometimes come off as if the burden of blame for things that go wrong is shifted to a couple "extremists" - especially Billaud, Collot, Vadier and Amar – rather then having to explain the variances and complexities of revolutionary violence.

While most characters are quite nuanced, Madame Duplay and Charlotte Robespierre clearly get the short end of the stick - with Eléonore's mother coming of a bit like a kind of Madame Bennet obsessed with securing her daughters' future and Charlotte being pretty much reduced to the jealous sister trope (though again, its Eléonore's POV).

And perhaps most controversially, the author decides to include a plot-point just before Thermidor, where Eléonore with the support of Le Bas (concerned both for the revolution and the fate of their families) try to convince Robespierre to eliminate his enemies by force and temporarily take on the role of dictator. It makes for good tension and Robespierre does quite categorically refuse the suggestion but it is certainly a very 19th century drama/dubious mémoires inspired invention.

The bad

Even apart from the final corrections (usually to do with simplifications, cutting out characters etc), there are at least two strange moments with outright incorrect descriptions of political events. Once it is claimed that appart from baning women's clubs the Convention also banned women from its galleries and from gathering in the streets in 1793, even though that only happened after the Insurrection of Prairial in 1795. It is also implied that the Law of 22 Prairial did away with any judicial process entirely, which is simply an overstatement whatever objections one can have to it.

In a bit of a Hilary Mantel-esque moment the author decides that Robespierre could not simply have come to signing the arrest warrant over Desmoulins of his own volition. Fortunately we are spared fake SA stories (indeed Danton's harasment of Elisabeth is mentioned and taken seriously). Instead, Eléonore makes some politically unsound comments criticising the repression in the Vendée and Vadier then threatens Robespierre that the CPS could issue an arrest warrant for her if he does not agree to add Desmoulins to the list. While I can take overplaying the romantic element elsewhere, this seems simply like a cop-out of a morally uncomfortable decision.

But overall, I would definitely recommend the book - it was in some respects a bit like Piercy's A City of Darkness, a City of Light with occasional modernisation or simplification, but still a well informed and nuanced book, especially in the context of FREV media.

#very interesting review!!!#but why does the girl who allegedly attacked 2 to 3 convention deputies WHILE the ”terror” was still ongoing #always have to get reduced to ”jealous woman whose only interest was pampering her brothers and keeping them for herself” 😭😭#ok it’s largely her own fault with how she chose to portray herself in her memoirs but STILL do some research people #and yeah i agree it often comes off as pretty artifical when novelists feel they have to make historical women have modern feminist ideas #like they think readers will go ”look how likable she is she has the same ideals as us!!”#as if the entire point of history isn’t that standards constantly change #but yeah certainly sounds like a much better book than ribbons of scarlet (not that that’s saying particularly much…)#also glad i’m not the only one who gets frustrated when Robespierre is saved from the ”bloodthirsty monster trope”#only by throwing it onto Billaud and Collot instead #when i don’t think there’s even much indicating they were more violent/bloodthirsty than him?

anotherhumaninthisworld

How many times did robespierre get an assassination attempts?

Because I remember his sister Charlotte robespierre says in her memoir maybe? That he had multiple assassination attempts not only Cécile-Aimée Renault who tried her luck.

And who is Cécile Renault and what is her story?

Charlotte speaks of attempts on her brother’s life in chapter four of her memoirs:

Since Maximilien Robespierre perished, a victim of counterrevolutionaries, his enemies’ rage has emerged in calumnies, lies, and furious diatribes against him; but before his death, independent of those means which have always suited them, they had another which was no less worthy of them: the dagger. A great number of assassination attempts were made on him. History has spoken of Cécile Renault and of Ladmiral, but it has said nothing of the many other assassins who came to my unhappy brother’s house in the intention of cutting his throat. We were one day gathered at M. Duplay’s house, when a man came and asked to speak to Maximilien Robespierre. My brother went to him and prayed him to say what he wished. That man replied that he could only speak to him in private; he was then shown into a neighboring room where my brother followed him. Some moments later we heard a violent movement. Right away we suspected the unknown man; we entered the room where he was with Maximilien, and we saw that he had seized my brother around the neck, that he had pushed him against the wall, and that he was strangling him!... the assassin was built like Hercules, and had an easy advantage over Maximilien, who was weak bodily and of a delicate complexion. We cried out piercingly; the assassin then let go his victim and took flight; entirely occupied as we were with succoring my brother, we did not think of cutting off his escape. Another time, two men came likewise to M. Duplay’s house to speak to my brother, who had gone out; we told them that he was absent. They insisted on seeing him. There was something suspicious in their countenances, in their miens, and even in their words; everything about them announced their malevolent designs; they were questioned on the object of their visit, and they cut themselves off, which succeeded in confirming our idea that those two men were nothing but criminals, who wanted to assassinate Maximilien. They said that they absolutely needed to speak to him, and that they would return. They did return, in effect, the next day at dinnertime when we were at the table; they did not enter together; perhaps they had made M. Duplay’s house a meeting-place to execute their crime. The first to arrive seemed embarrassed; he asked to speak to Robespierre in private; we replied that their vile plans had been discovered. At these words, he became troubled, mumbled a few words, and retired in all haste. Only a few minutes passed before his companion of the previous evening arrived. He was not given the same to speak; he was told that his accomplice had preceded him by an instant, that there was nothing more for him to do than to join him, and that their attempt had failed. No more was needed to destroy him; one might have called him a man struck by lightning; he fled as if being pursued. These two events, and many others as well, gave Robespierre the certainty that a gang of assassins had been organized to make attempts on his life.

Lucile Desmoulins also mentions an assassination attempt in a diary entry written December 12 1793, when recounting the events surrounding the Insurrection of August 10th four months earlier — ”On August 8, I returned from the countryside. Already the spirits were strongly aroused, someone had wanted to assassinate Robespierre.” While it’s tempting to assume this is one of the attempts Charlotte is describing above, this sounds unlikely to be true considering she hadn’t arrived in Paris by August 8 1792, yet claims to have been an eyewitness. I think it’s also a bit strange how, aside from the testimonies of the two women, we appear to have no other source for/mention of these three assassination attempts. Especially when we know the Cécile Renault one stirred up so many emotions…

As for her story, as told by Histoire du tribunal révolutionnaire de Paris (1880) by Henri Wallon, she lived on rue de la Lanterne (today Rue de la Cité) in Paris with her father and brothers. Acquaintances would later describe her as ”young, lively and nice, [someone who took] pleasure in conversation and loved finery,” and that her reserved father had a constant concern for his daughter. On May 23 1794, at nine o’clock in the evening, Renault presented herself at the Duplay house on Rue de la Saint-Honoré, roughly two kilometers away from her home, and asked to see Robespierre, claiming to have been out looking for him for six hours. When Éléonore Duplay, who had received Renault at the door, told her Robespierre wasn’t home, Renault got surprised and responded ”that he is a public official and therefore should respond to all those who come to his house.” This got her arrested (it is unclear to me whether Éléonore was the one who called for it or not) and sent to the Committee of General Security. On her way there, the three men escorting her reported that ”[Renault] told us that during the l’ancien régime, when one presented oneself at the king’s, one could enter straight away. We asked her whether she would rather have a king, she responded that she would shed all her blood in order to have one and that these were her opinions and that we were tyrants.”

Once arrived at the CGS, Renault was interrogated:

What is your name, age, profession and recidence?

My name is Aimée-Cécile Renault, I’m twenty years old, I live with my father, paper merchant, on rue de la Lanterne, close to rue des Marmousets, in the Cité section.

Where were you arrested and by whom?

I was arrested at Robespierre’s house by men I didn’t know.

What was your motive for going home to representative of the people Robespierre?

To talk to him.

What did you plan to talk to him about.

That depended on whether I found him or not.

Had anyone ordered you to go talk to him?

No.

Did you have anything to present him with?

#happy anniversary to this weird little episode!#”the dagger just showed up in my pocket i didn’t know it was there” girl is that the best explanation you can come up with?????

secondjulia

"Who translated into French and annotated Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Woman?"

Historian Isabelle Bour, in a 2022 article, argues that the unnamed translator was likely none other than Félicité Brissot, wife of the ill-fated journalist/deputy. Here are some of her arguments.

Félicité is known to have done translation work under the name Miss D.P. (her maidan name was Dupont) in the 1780s, both on her own and possibly together with her husband:

#great post!#it’s good to have a solid summary of this article and its main points #i agree the evidence presented doesn’t make Félicité being the translator a 100% certainty #But i still think it’s rather possible #with Félicité’s letters to her sister basically only consisting of her complaining about how married life is not always that fun #and that she should not follow in her footsteps…

robespierres-secret-daughter

Heyyy just asking in case you might know

Why is everybody calling Camille by his first name and not his surname? Not only his friends/close cycle but everyone, even to us everybody else is knows as Robespierre, Saint-Just, Danton but he is simply Camille.

Hi!

So I'm not sure either to be honest (⁠@⁠_⁠@⁠)

I've seen people call different revolutionaries by both their first and last name,it depends from person to person but I see where you're coming from!

It may be because Camille is easier to pronounce the Desmoulins,or because it simply sounds better?

Or it may be simply something we all agreed on as a community?

I'm sorry citizen I'm not sure either

(if someone knows the answer please say it)

anotherhumaninthisworld

According to Hervé Leuwers’ Camille et Lucile Desmoulins: un rêve de république (2018):

Many call the journalist ”Camille Desmoulins” and not ”Desmoulins.” The man of letters Linguet, the deputies Mirabeau, Sillery and Anthoine, and a number of the correspondents to the journal, even if they’ve never met its author, settle for ”Camille.” How can one not be surprised over that? After all, the habit of the century is to refer to men by their surname only, even when they are well known; the use of the first name hardly goes beyond the intimate circle. Historians have explained this apparent familiarity by the journalist’s youth and cheerfulness; how many authors, taking up the formula of Robespierre (1794) have not called him ”a spoiled child”? And how many, since Michelet (1847) ”un enfant terrible”? In the eyes of everyone, Camille is ”this child so naïve and so spiritual” that Fréron celebrates after the revolutionary events. One calls him by his firstname, like one would for a rascal… Nothing is more incorrect. From 1790, ”Camille” ceases to be a firstname to become a name; the journalist becomes ”Camille” or ”Camille-Desmoulins,” and it’s the letter C one must search for in the index of Révolutions de Paris or in le Petit dictionnaire des grands hommes de la Révolution. For those who identify him with the speaker of Palais-Royal, for Loustalot, for Cloots, for Robespierre, he has become the French Camillus; and he himself is convinced of having saved the revolution on July 12, like the general Camillus saved Rome from Brennus in the fourth century BCE. Where many contemporaries opt for ancient sounding names (Anacharsis Cloots, Gracchus Babeuf, Anaxagoras Chaumette…), the journalist manages to transform his name into a Roman and glorious reference. His opponents, moreover, do not fail to mock such a clever sleight of hand: ”His godfather, who meddled in judical astrology,” one reads in the Chronique du Manège (1790), ”thought it neccesary to give him at baptism the name of Camille. He had read in the stars that one day his godson would save France from the rapacity of the ministers, as once Furius Camillus had saved Rome from the fury of Brennus. This prediction has fortunately come true, and posterity will always share its admiration between Camille the dictator and Camille the folliculaire.” The attack is part of a work meant to discredit, that the journalist perceives as the ransom of his notority: if he has become ”Camille,” it’s because he matters in the political arena.

#desmoulins #ok just realized the ask was why ppl on tumblr call him camille #not why his contemporaries did

Frev friendships — Robespierre and Buzot

In 1791 and 1792, Robespierre had the most intimate liasons with Pétion, Buzot and even Roland, how can he accuse them today without accusing himself? The deputy Armand Gensonné in his defence, written 1793

Buzot wishes good morning to his friend Brissot and asks him to meet at Pétion's house this evening around six o'clock. Robespierre's imprudent vanity has ruined everything. If we don't change measures, there's nothing left to do. We need men who want good to be done and who want nothing else. Such men are very rare! Buzot in a letter to Brissot, April 10 1791

The section immediately named a deputation of 12 members, and we took this woman to the National Assembly. Robespierre and Buzot, whom we consulted, were carried away by the assured countenance of the witness, and by the whole of the testimony; but they were greatly perplexed as to the measures to be taken. All the members of the assembly were against revolutionaries, some without knowing it, but many knowingly, and the others out of fear. We will be, they said, pushed back from the tribune, referred to the research committee, and our accusation will be entered in this mortuary register of denunciations. Péthion [sic] came, and increased the embarrassment, and stopped Robespierre, who, at first, was quite disposed to take away the reputation of Bailly and La Fayette by assault. Desmoulins in number 82 (June 27 1791) of Révolutions de France et de Brabant, describing his activities on June 21 1791.

Roland and I were truly worried about [Robespierre]: we had ourselves taken to his house, in the middle of the Marais, at eleven o'clock in the evening [of a day around the the Champ de Mars massacre], to offer him asylum. But he had already left his home: we went to Buzot to tell him that, without abandoning the Jacobins, he might perhaps enter the Feuillans to judge what was happening there, and be ready to defend those who were being persecuted. Buzot hesitated for a while: "I would do anything," he said, "to save this unfortunate young man (speaking of Robespierre), although I am far from sharing the opinion of certain people about him; he thinks too much of himself to love liberty so much: but he serves it, and that is enough for me. Nevertheless, the public must come before him; I would be inconsistent with my principles, and I would give a false idea of them, if I went to the Feuillans; I have a repugnance to a role, which would give me two faces, Grégoire went there, he will inform us of what is happening there; and finally, nothing can be done against Robespierre without making the Assembly act; there, I will always be there to defend him. Mémoires de Madame Roland, volume 1, page 370-372.

After some debates useless for me to report here, I strongly reproached Robespierre for his conduct, and repeating his eternal slanders against the most estimable men: "And me for example," I said to him, "can you in the privacy of your conscience, can you here publicly, in the presence of your friends, indict mine, accuse me of improbity, ambition, intrigues, slander my patriotism and the righteousness of my intentions?” “No,” Robespierre replied to me, “no, I esteem you, because I know you well; but one deceived you about us, about our views, and that’s all.” “How can you ignore the good faith, the probity, the patriotism of Roland? Would you dare say that Roland is sold to foreign powers? You must also know his inflexible austerity of morals, and his unwavering civic-mindedness, and his ardent love for liberty. Have you not forgotten the services he rendered you, that he was your most intimate friend under the Constituent Assembly? “No,” replied Robespierre, “I do not accuse Roland of having sold himself abroad, but I stopped seeing him from the moment he adopted Brissot’s opinion on the war.” “And Brissot,” I said to him, “Brissot, whose honorable poverty you know, you accuse him of having sold his pen and his talents to the enemies of France!” “I do not believe him to be corrupt,” Robespierre continued, “but since his opinion on the war it has been shown to me that he is not a patriot.” I was going to respond with passion; but the silence and the interest that our conversation had caused in the committee aroused some jealousy. Our debate was bitterly interrupted, I responded in the same way to the interrupters, and Robespierre left. One of us said: “I bet Robespierre is going to the Jacobins to start his odious accusations again;” and the fact was true: he slandered us louder than ever. As for his views, his projects of ambition and disorder, the event has only too justified our useless foresight. Memoirs of Buzot, in Mémoires inédits de Pétion et Mémoires de Buzot & de Barbaroux (1866), page 17-18. Buzot here recalls a conversation he and Robespierre had at the Commission of Public Safety, to which they were elected members on March 26 1793. The commission was put to death just two weeks later, April 6 1793.

#buzot are you implying robespierre slept with the princess of lamballe…? 🫣#robespierre #buzot #françois buzot #maximilien robespierre #frev #frev friendships #french revolution #ok but why does it sound like buzot always was the third wheel to pétionspierre and is getting his frustration out in his memoirs?#like take it easy dude in the end you’re still the one who got to pull a romeo and juliet with pétion #after sharing a bed with him for several months

Hi, I have a somewhat dumb question.

I've encountered an earlier post where you've said "It is Robespierre himself who talks about this episode in an undelivered speech (speaking of himself in third person like he sometimes does for some reason)" and it made me giggle for an hour because Robespierre talking about himself in the third person is so strange and also somehow unsurprising to me.

Are there any more examples of him talking about himself in the third person like this and could you give quotes or approximations of it from the sources.

Unfortunately I am monolingual so I won't be able to understand the French text… yet, so I apologize in advance for any trouble this effort may cause you.

Thank you so much for your blog by the way. It's taught me so much and I'm always looking to learn more.

Sure, here are the instances of Robespierre referring to himself in third person that I for the moment know of:

On [blank] Chabot went to find one of the members of the Committee of Public Safety and said to him: “I have come to wake you up, but it is to save the nation; I have uncovered the thread of the most dangerous conspiracy ever hatched against liberty.” Robespierre in an undelivered speech written around March 1794

Robespierre was accused; he (Danton) didn’t say a single word if it wasn’t for isolating himself from him. Robespierre in his notes against the dantonists (March 1794)

[Bourdon de l'Oise] presented a clerk to [the Committee of Public Safety] which Carnot placed in his offices and who has been dismissed from it upon the repeated proposal of Robespierre. Robespierre in a note on Bourdon de l’Oise (June-July 1794)

#thank you!! 😊#robespierre #frev #maximilien robespierre #Max why do you do this?

Plot twist: the biggest myth surrounding Maximilien Robespierre isn’t that he was an all powerful dictator constantly thirsting for the blood of French infants or whatever, but rather the idea that he was nicknamed ”Maxime” among his friends. 😱

#ok not really but kinda #robespierre #maximilien robespierre #frev #french revolution #happy birthday ig

you know Billaud’s childhood memoirs. I’ve never seen anyone talk about them apart from the gooning in church subplot so I wondered what your take on it was. I read it in google translate and he seemed to be going through it

I have only read Tumblr posts about that story of Billaud’s, as I can’t find it in full online anywhere (in the post it says the memoirs were published in the book Towards the Brink(1989) that can be found on Internet Archive but isn’t borrowable. If anyone knows some other place where they can be read, please share!)

As for my take on the excerpts that I have read, @montagnarde1793 has brought up the fact the real Billaud did not attend the school he in the story portrays the events as taking place at, so that probably rules out it being a full on drawn from life story, even if that of course doesn’t remove the idea of it simply having happened at a different school. Regardless, Billaud writing a self-insert story about having sex with other boys probably points to him not being 100% straight if I may put it like that…

💬 1 🔁 42 ❤️ 124 · Interesting, but Françoise Brunel, who has done a lot of work on Billaud contends that there’s no evidence that Billaud

💬 0 🔁 8 ❤️ 26 · No worries! In any case, I think homoeroticism in historical texts is often one of those “seek and you will find” kinds of

#billaud varennes #frev #ask #poor Billaud for being beaten in that ”most gay CPS member” poll by SJ a while back…

if this is a stupid question please disregard but why is Olympe de Gouges disliked on tumblr?

People who take more of an issue with Olympe de Gouges than I do are perhaps better suited to answer this question, but from what I myself have seen, much of the animosity is perhaps grounded not so much in what de Gouges actually did as in the elevated status she has received in pop culture in recent decades. Since simplifications are always bound to happen there, de Gouges often end up getting portrayed as the only woman save Marie-Antoinette who played a part in the revolution. Common is also the claim she was the only revolutionary to push for women’s rights and that it was her feminist ideas that got her executed. This narrative does however come to overshadow both some of the women’s rights actually pushed through by the male revolutionaries (the right to divorce, right to their own property, reaching legal age etc) as well as other revolutionary women (Claire Lacombe, Théroigne Méricourt, Louise de Kéralio, Etta Palm etc) which they too have interesting stories to be told. Then it might again be worth mentioning that, according to the court records, de Gouges’ feminist ideas did not have anything to do with her getting condemned to death.

Aside from the fact De Gouges elevated status leads to other aspects of the revolution getting overshadowed and/or unfairly demonized, many also seem to find her too moderate to be deserving of said status in the first place. People have pointed out flaws in de Gouges’ reasoning when it comes to both of the areas where she today is most celebrated for having taken a stand — women’s rights and slave emancipation. When it comes to the first subject, people have underlined that her efforts mainly amounted to rewriting the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen from 1789 so that it included both men and women, but in reality did very little to change the situation for actual French women. As for the abolishment of slavery, it has been pointed out that de Gouges was against slaves using violence to free themselves, which many find to be a naive take to say the least.

Now I think it deserves to be said de Gouges is hardly the only revolutionary to hold beliefs that were progressive for her time but still rather problematic for the modern day (for example, Claire Lacombe, a prominent member of the all female Society of Revolutionary and Republican Women, also openly told other women to stay out politics if they had children to take care of, while Robespierre wanted to abolish slavery but also accused the girondins of having ”wanted in an instant to free and arm all the Negroes to destroy our colonies.”) But it is of course much easier to point out someone’s ideas don’t reach perfection if the person in question is commonly presented in an idealized manner compared to if they’re not.

Finally, I think it should be said tumblr tends to skew robespierrist and montagnard, so a woman who outright wrote to Robespierre telling him to drown himself in 1792 and wanted the French people in 1793 to vote on whether they wanted a republican government, a federal government or a monarchic government might not always be received too well…

Here are two posts discussing de Gouges critically if you want to hear more:

💬 5 🔁 33 ❤️ 112 · No, Olympe de Gouges Was Not Executed for Being a Feminist As @mathildeaquisexta and @robespapier already explained so

💬 0 🔁 3 ❤️ 28 · This might be a bit controversial but I’m just going to leave it here for discussion. Of all the amazing women from the En

#olympe de gouges #frev #french revolution #ask

Hello! What information do you have about charges of corruption against Desmoulins?

In The Life and Opinions of Maximilien Robespierre (1974) historian Norman Hampson writes that it was ”commonly thought” Desmoulins and Fabre d’Églantine lined their own pockets when they served as Danton’s secretaries during the latter’s time as Minister of Justice. He doesn’t cite any source for this allegation however.

Desmoulins also got mentioned in the following way in the act of accusation against the East India Company scandal. He was however never questioned about this charge at his trial:

Camille Desmoulins nonetheless supported the hopes of the financial companies with all his might; he also wanted to share the product of their plunder, and said on this occasion that he couldn’t understand how it could be so people didn’t earn money in France, because Desmoulins himself, among a host of means that presented themselves to his mind, was bothered only by the amount of choices [for money-making] there was.

In private letters, Desmoulins firmly denies having used the revolution to enrich himself. Make of that how much or how little you want I guess:

But I congratulate myself at every moment that I will be able to emerge from the Convention and the Revolution in the same form in which I entered it, and without having increased my patrimony from Bourg-de-l’Égalité. In this way I have escaped all the satire directed at the extravagance of certain patriots, and I cannot be accused of having made a currency speculation in the Republic. Desmoulins in a letter to his father, 9 July 1793

And I, who for five years devoted myself to hatred and peril in the name of the Republic, I who kept my poverty through the Revolution. Desmoulins in his last letter to his wife, 1 April 1794

#desmoulins #camille desmoulins #frev #french revolution

Barnave was silent and respectful during the entire journey. Péthion, garrulous and insolent, asked Madame for something to drink whenever he was thirsty, with the most revolting familiarity. He was always talking of America, and the happiness of republics. ”We well know,” said the King to him, ”your desire to establish one in France." — "France is not yet ripe for that, " he replied insolently, "and I shall not be fortunate enough to see one established during my lifetime." […] During the journey from Meaux to Claye, Péthion, having noticed a friend of his named Kervelequen, made the carriage stop, while he wished him good-day. This man made a point of turning his back on the King, and keeping his hat on his head. Péthion remonstrated with him for this. ”We neither salute nor look at a fugitive King,” he replied insolently. Then putting his mouth close to Péthion's ear he said something to him in a low voice, and afterwards told the coachman to drive on.

Pétion on the journey back from Varennes, as reported in Memoirs of the Duchess de Tourzel: Governess to the Children of France During the Years 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793 and 1795 (1886) volume 1, page 356-357, 360.

Why is it that everything this guy does and says is always just absolute gold??

#pétion #jérôme pétion #frev #french revolution #pétion the airhead and sunshine friend

Teenage Lucile Desmoulins being #relatable compilation

Source: Lucile’s diary from 1788 and 1789

1788

Friday 27 — I want to finish my story, I cannot finish it! I pick up the pen, I want to write, but nothing comes…

Monday 30 — […] I had fun breaking dead wood, then I found a snail. I examined it a little, I broke its shell, but having fallen onto my stomach it made me cry out loud, because this ugly beast was crawling on my stomach!

Sunday 5 — […] After dinner, I went upstairs to read a few passages from Grandisson, but I had to go back down to go for a walk with everyone, which annoyed me quite a bit, because I would have liked to read forever.

Monday 6 — I didn’t go out all morning, I did nothing but read.

Monday 21 — […] Maman made me tremble last night: she came to fetch the inkwell, I was in bed, she opened my drawer to take a pen, I was afraid she would take my diary…

Thursday 24 — […] I love only one person on earth, her alone! Yes, Maman alone makes all my happiness, everything else is indifferent to me. She’s the only friend I want to have.

Saturday 26 — […] I spent the morning, as well as the Friday afternoon, without being able to do anything, starting everything and finishing nothing.

Monday 28 — […] I went and threw myself on a haystack, I stayed there a long time. I found a few hours of happiness there. […] This lack of spirit does not leave me. I dare not talk about it because I cannot explain what I feel, not understanding it. They would laugh at me.

1789 (undated entries)

How upset I am! Everything I see only serves to despair me! Scourge of the earth, you whom heaven made to punish us… How tired I am of living, and I fear to die… Alas, why am I?… What am I useful for on earth? If I didn’t exist… I don’t know what I’m saying anymore. My mind is absent, I go to bed without thinking about where I am… What am I? Very little…

[…] What, men… Oh, what a lot to say! Be quiet, Lucile, let the men do what they want, close your eyes to their actions, you have nothing to do with them…

Cruel moments, which have lasted too long!… The dreadful memory still comes to torment me… Ah, all my life I will remember it! Oh, what temerity! O you, happy inhabitants of these sweet lands, you guided by simple nature, how I envy your fate! Why was I not born among you? I have rage in my heart… Flow my tears, flow, relieve my pain or rather consume me! Perish my memory! May I be reduced to ashes, and may the winds scatter it throughout the earth!

#omg lucile truly was the og girl blogger #lucile desmoulins #desmoulins #frev #frev compilation #french revolution

do you have any primary sources regarding Simmone Evrard? Do we have any surviving writing penned by her?

I have gathered all info I could find on Simonne and on her relationship with Albertine Marat in the following two posts. We do indeed have some primary sources left behind by her, perhaps most notably a speech defending her dead fiancé from August 1793. I also really recommend the different articles on the site marat-jean-paul.org for whoever wants to learn more about Simonne & co.

💬 1 🔁 24 ❤️ 53 · Some info on Simone Évrard? :3 I’m basing the majority of this answer on this great article, so if I’m not citing a sou

💬 2 🔁 10 ❤️ 45 · Frev friendships — Simonne Évrard and Albertine Marat · [Albertine] had come to Paris after the death of her brother, at

#simonne evrard #marat #frev #ask #just realized i started writing on a compilation on the life of albertine Marat and then basically forgot about it 🫤#so feel free to ask about the subject if you want to help me actually finish it

cowperviolet

I am currently absolutely fascinated by this primary source find - one of the ‘grievance lists’ (cahiers de doléances) written in 1789. This one was created by a widow from Normandy. And… if half of these lines had been given to a period drama character, the screenwriters would have been raked over the coals for being hamfisted and anachronistic.

#very cool!#who is this gal before her time?

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Please, just give me the FACTS