Small and full of rage

Vale | 21 | just started being obsessed with the french revolution, not yet ver knowledgeable but trying :)

[bathtubwriter]

Hello new to frev (somewhat. I was obsessed for a month or two last year but stuff happened) and just started reading bunch of ressources. I'm not sure how precise I can be with limited knowledge but if anyone wants I'm open to translating French texts and ressources, as a native French and English speaker.

[armotar]

yet another illustration of our friend... miss him more than ever

[schubertiades]

If i had a dollar for each tpodg cover with Franz Liszt…..

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

The Pétion playing with the dog anecdote is so sweet. Could you do a pet compilation? I know there’s Brount and that Couthon had a dog (and a bunny?), but that’s all I’m aware of.

That’s a great idea!

Is the puppy (petit chien) you are raising for my sister as pretty as the model you showed me when I passed through Bélhune? Whatever it is, we will always welcome it with distinction and pleasure. We can even say that, however ugly it may be, it will always be lovely. Robespierre to ”a young girl” in a letter dated June 6 1788

[Robespierre] had a dog, named Brount, that he loved a lot; the poor animal was very attached to him. Le Conventionnel Le Bas: d’après des documents inédits et les mémoires de sa veuve (1901) page 107

At Madame de Kéralio’s I have seen [Robespierre] hold himself apart for an hour, playing with a big dog. Anecdote reported in 1791 by Charles-Engelbert Oelsner, cited in Robespierre: a revolutionary life (2010) by Peter McPhee, page 94.

On these occasions [Robespierre] was always accompanied by a large dog , of the Pyrenean breed, of which he was very fond. Strange to say, several of these monstrous anomalies of the Reign of Terror, were most partial to animals; and the ferocious Couthon would shed tears when his favourite spaniel was ill. Robespierre's dog always kept watch at the door of his master's bed-chamber. […] [Robespierre] appeared to me like a bird of prey — a vulture; his forehead and temples were low, and flattened; his eyes were of a fawn colour, and most disagreeable to look at; his dress was careful, and I recollect that he wore a frill and ruffles, that seemed to me of valuable lace. There were flowers in various parts of the room, and several cages, with singing birds, were hanging on the walls and near the window, opening on a small garden.  Recollections of Republican France 1790 to 1801 by John Gideon Millingen, page 283-284 and 288.

[Maximilien] rarely shared the games and pleasures of his comrades; he liked to be alone to think at his ease, and passed entire hours reflecting. He had been given pigeons and sparrows which he took the greatest care of, and close to which he often came to pass the moments which he did not consecrate to his studies. […] We were sent, my sister and I, to go join our two brothers every Sunday. These were days of happiness and joy for us. My brother Maximilien, who collected images and engravings, displayed his riches and was happy with the pleasure of seeing that we felt they should be contemplated. He also gave us the honors of his aviary, and placed his sparrows and pigeons, one after another, into our hands. We strongly desired that he should give us one of his favorite birds; we solicited this with entreaties; he refused for a long time, fearing that we would not take the best possible care of them. Yet one day, he ceded to our insistences, and gave us a pretty pigeon. My sister and I, we were enchanted. He made us promise to never let it lack for anything; we swore thus a thousand times, and kept our word for a few days, and moreover we would have kept our oath forever if the unhappy pigeon, forgotten by us in the garden, had not perished on a stormy night. At the news of this death, Maximilien’s tears flowed, he piled reproaches on us that we had only too well merited, and swore that he would no more confer any of his dear pigeons on us. It was sixty years ago that by a childish flightiness I was the cause of my elder brother’s chagrin and tears: and well! My heart bleeds for it still; it seems to me that I have not aged a day since the tragic end of the poor pigeon was so sensitive to Maximilien, such that I was affected by it myself. Mémoires de Charlotte Robespierre sur ses deux frères (1833) page 47-49

Talking of so important a subject, shall I be pardoned, Mademoiselle, if I speak to you of canaries?  No doubt I shall be if the canaries are interesting; and how could they not, considering they come from you? They are very pretty, and, being bred by you, we expected them to be the most gentle and sociable of canaries. What was our surprise when, upon approaching the cage, they threw themselves against the bars with an impetus which made us fear for their lives! They recommence this performance every time they see the hand that feeds them. What plan of education did you adopt for them, and how have they acquired this savage character? Do the doves that the Graces rear for the chariot of Venus display this wild temperament? Such a face as yours should surely have familiarized without difficulty your canaries with the human face.   Or is it that, after seeing yours, they cannot tolerate any other? I beg of you to explain this phenomenon. Meanwhile, with all their faults, we shall always find them lovable. My sister begs me to express her thanks for your kindness in sending her this present, and to assure you of the affection with which you have inspired her. Robespierre to mademoiselle Duhay in a letter dated June 22 1782

He detests violent entertainments, and when M. Deshorties spoke to him this very evening in front of me of going on a hunt, M. de Robespierre, only responding by a refusal of his head, gently moved away the firearms that were shown to him. This gesture was imbued with a kind of repugnance. I even saw a kind of tear glint and a bitter smile form on his lips when we talked about the prey that we would infallibly bring back. He is seen as the greatest lover of the pigeons with which he coos. […] I have taken detailed notes on all this from one of his friends, with whom he is lodging on rue de Saintonge. This friend, like M. de Robespierre, is a great lover of birds;  they have raised several hundred birds in a fine aviary; these gentlemen are skilled bird-keepers even if they are not deputies of the first rank. Mémoires tirés des archives de la police de Paris: pour servir à l’historie de la morale et la police(1838) by J. Peuchet, volume 5, page 340-342. The historian Hector Fleischmann questioned the authenticity of this report, given the fact he could see few reasons for police to investigate Robespierre back in 1789-1790.

I was able to converse between 1838 and 1839 with a  famous parrot who had been the friend of Robespierre. He belonged to Mme the widow Lebas...whom I had the honour of seeing often in her little house in Fontenay-aux-Roses, where she would make the sign of the cross when she pronounced the name Robespierre... As to her parrot, when one said "Robespierre", it replied Hats off! Hats off! (Chapeau bas! chapeau bas!)  It sang the Marseillaise with perfect diction and Ça ira like a Jacobin. It was - and perhaps, thanks to its diet of grain, still is - a parrot sans-culotte, the like of which can no longer to be found. Mme Lebas recounted  with great emotion how she had managed to save this precious psittacus  after Thermidor.  It had been seriously compromised.  After the arrest of Robespierre and Lebas, in the course of a long domiciliary inspection,  every time the name of Robespierre was pronouned the parrot would repeat its refrain, Hats off! Hats off! The government agents had grown impatient and were about to wring its neck, when Mme Lebas, as quick as lightning,  grabbed the bird, opened the window and set it free. The poor parrot flew from window to window, until it found a charitable person to open up for it; a few days later Madame Lebas was able to regain possession of this last friend left to her by Robespierre, the only one perhaps, besides his elderly mistress, who has remained faithful to his memory. L’Union médicale: journal des intérêts scientifiques et pratiques, moraux et professionnels du corps médical (1861) volume 12, page 258-259. This anecdote is a bit suspect, because how would Élisabeth be able to go and fetch the parrot ”a few days” after the arrest of Robespierre when she herself was arrested just three days after it?

My husband had a dog named Schillichem, of a German breed; he only returned three days after the death of his master; he was panting, his tongue hanging out; that poor beast had passed that time on his master's grave.  Le conventionnel Le Bas: d’après des documents inédits et mémoires de sa veuve (1901) page 145

Embrace Henriette for me. Schillickem (sic) caresses me a lot and I hug him back. Letter from Philippe to Élisabeth Lebas, May 16 1794

[Couthon] wore a white dressing-gown, and on his arm was a young bunny which he was feeding with clover. His son, an angelically beautiful boy of three or four, alternately stroked his father's hand and the pretty white animal. These innocent sourroundings and Couthon's great affability charmed me. […] Persuaded that Couthon was sincere I said to him: ”Monsieur Couthon, you who are all-powerful on the Committee of Public Safety, are you aware that the Revolutionary Tribunal daily condemns unfortunate men who are accused of the same crime as these magistrates? This very day, Monsieur Couthon, sixty-three prisoners are to be executed under this pretext.” This reflection produced an indescribable effect on Couthon: his face became distorted and assumed a tiger-like expression... He made a movement. The bunny was overturned and the child, weeping, rushed into his mother's arms. Extract from the memoirs of Maurice André Gaillard, cited in Romances of the French Revolution (1909) by G. Lenotre, volume 1, page 171-172

During the Constituent Assembly, at the time of the revision, I was one day with Buzot's wife, when her husband returned from the Assembly very late, bringing Pétion to dinner. It was the time when the court had them treated as factious, and painted them as intriguers, all occupied in stirring up and agitating. After the meal, Pétion, seated on a large ottoman, began to play with a young hunting dog with the abandonment of a child; they both let go and fell asleep together, snuggled on top of each other: four people conversing did not prevent Pétion from snoring. ”So here we have this rebel,” said Buzot, laughing; ”we were looked askance on leaving the room, and those who accuse us, very agitated for their party, imagine that we are to maneuver!” Mémoires de Madame Roland, volume 2, page 167

I had crossed the yard and was going to my carriage while finishing a conversation with an old sans-culotte, certainly well paid to indoctrinate the dupes. A cute dog ​​pressed itself against my legs. “Is this poor animal yours? said my coachman to me, with an accent of sensibility very rare in his equals, and which struck me singularly. "No, I don't know it," I replied gravely, as if it were a person, and already thinking of something else entirely: ”Drop me off at the galleries of the Louvre.” I wanted to see a friend there to talk about the means of getting Roland out of Paris. But we had only gone twenty foot when the carriage stopped. "What is it?” I said to the coachman. ”Well! he left me like a fool, while I wanted to keep him for my little boy, who would have fun with it: Petit! Petit! come here!” I remembered the dog; I found it sweet and agreeable to have a good man, a sensible father, as my coachman at this hour. “Try to catch it, I shouted to him, put it in the carriage and I will guard it for you.” The good man, very happy, takes the dog, opens the door and gives me company. This poor animal seemed to feel that she was finding protection and asylum; I was well caressed, and I remembered this tale by Saadi, which depicts an old man, the last of men, repulsed by their passions, retired to a forest where he had made a dwelling. He animated his stay with a few animals which paid for his care with the affectionate testimonies of a gratitude to which he had confined himself, failing to find so much in his fellows. Mémoires de Madame Roland, volume 2, page 81-82

Fréron often visited madame Duplessis country house at Bourg-la-Reine and every time he played with the bunnies there. Hence the nickname Bunny (Lapin) that was given to him by Lucile. Footnote in Correspondance inédite de Camille Desmoulins (1836) by Marcellin Matton. Matton was a friend of Lucile’s mother and sister, and it’s probably from them he acquired this anecdote.

Monsieur Duplessis, his cabinet, the fireplace, My sister and I know you must go to the countryside one day this week. Do you remember that you for more than fifteen days have promised to bring you with us there? You told me, that if I learned Zaire, you would give me whatever I wanted. I already know it almost by heart, papa, and I’m dying to see the little piglets. My sister joins me to ask of you this same favor, and to present you the respectable attachment with which we are, my dear papa, your very humble servants. Lucile and Adèle. Undated note from child Lucile Desmoulins, probably written sometime in the 1780’s.

We have gotten ducks, I went to see them. […] I ate gooseberries, and then I was alone in the pavilion, I picked a little hornbeam which I brought to Lolotte, then I I was dreaming in the grove. Lucile Desmoulins’ diary, June 28 1788

After dinner I went for a walk in the grove. 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! I made a big hole and buried it. In two or three days I will go and see what has become of it. Lucile’s diary, June 30 1788

An hour after leaving you yesterday, citoyenne amie, I gave Horace his snake (couleuvre), which he saw again with tenderness, and they played together to fully reconnect. Letter from Panis to Annette Duplessis regarding Horace Desmoulins, dated March 1 1802. If anyone has a more logical translation, alternatively knows if snakes were optional pets in the 19th century, feel free to share! 

Georges Couthon at the Convention with a small dog, sketch by Dominique Vivant Denon from 1793.

Robespierre with a small dog, painting by Louis-Léopold Boilly from 1783.

[partywithponies]

My woke take, as someone who has worked in both a public library and a school library, is that we desperately need both more books that are at a higher reading level but a less mature subject matter, and more books that are at a lower reading level but a more mature subject matter, because 8 year olds who are advanced readers are still 8 year olds and don't want to read about graphic violence and torture, and teens and adults who have learning difficulties or who are just later readers for whatever reason are still teens and adults and don't want to read about Billy the Bunny going to school or whatever the hell.

[3liza]

[draculasdaughter]

This is about Sci-Hub. yeah we get it.. gatekeep knowledge and protect the interests of capital…

[three-blogs-in-a-trenchcoat]

Listen, this is serious.

Do not use the website called Sci-Hub!

It lets people access scientific articles for free. This is dangerous. It helps the free flow of knowledge and reduces the competitive edge of all the people who worked really hard to have been born into a wealth.

Like, it’s literally a website where you can type in the DOI of an article and read it, without ever having to pay the publisher who exploited the author.

So, again, do not, under any circumstance, use Sci-Hub. I mean, can you imagine a world where knowledge is free and easily accessible to everyone? Even, y'know, poor people?

[whateverthebeeswant]

Libgen also has many books online, including textbooks, searchable by name, author, and ISBN. Can you imagine textbook companies not getting their hard-earned income from poor college students? Here is the link just so you make sure that you never accidentally stumble across this horrible, unethical website.

[three-blogs-in-a-trenchcoat]

Oh, and while we’re talking about books, if you’ve managed to stay clear from Libgen, definitely don’t go to zlibrary, where you can also find a lot of textbooks, but unfortunately they’re completely free.

[teachingtales]

Reblogging so you know which sites to totally avoid

[professionalwritingnerd]

[irockasingranite]

Another inside tip from academia: Those papers in really expensive journals that are effectively inaccessible to anyone not in a university network? Depending on the discipline it’s very likely that same paper is on a “preprint” server somewhere, with no access restrictions.

Like if you want to read basically any physics, math, or CS paper, arXiv.org will have you covered, because everyone uploads their papers there before submitting to a journal (and generally updates it after peer review). I know all of my papers are on there. This is such common practice that journals have it baked into their licensing agreements that authors retain the right to upload their work to these places.

So the next time you get hit with that paywall, you may not even need sci-hub, just click the arxiv link on google scholar instead.

[twinkenjoyer-deactivated2023083]

if for some reason none of this works, the old “send a email nicely asking for the paper to the author” is always a good trick. remember most scientists hate the commercialisation of scientific knowledge

[afoxwithpenguins]

Don’t mind me, just gotta share this with my bf so that he knows what websites to avoid

[astudyinpanda]

Many authors of papers are on ResearchGate! You can ask for papers there, if they don’t just post a copy to download. If they’re associated with a college, you can usually find their email addresses in the department directory, also.

[viking369]

Always reblog.

[bonebeautyart]

A brief comment: A necessary critique of Jacobinism

I am currently working on a relatively lengthy post about the philosophy of Saint-Just. Since it is taking me quite a long time, here is a brief reflection I decided to share; rather than a critique of Jacobin thought itself (or the metatheory of Jacobinism), it is a critique of its actions in politics.

I recently came across a comment I found interesting: the view that Napoleon was a figure of historical progress. One might assume this opinion comes from a liberal or even a reactionary; however, it actually belongs to a Marxist. What does this entail? The matter can be divided into two facets: Napoleon the institutionalizer and Napoleon the expander (I will not yet label these facets as good or bad). I am referring to Napoleon as the embodiment of the ideology of his historical era, while acknowledging that he was not the only one to establish such legislation; clearly, a whole group of individuals was involved: The Napoleon who institutionalized—or the institutionalizing Napoleon—is the one who transformed bourgeois ideology (inherited from the Directory) into law. In this sense, he enabled the stabilization of that ideology and the creation of institutions and customs centered around it.

The Napoleon who expands is the one who, through military and colonial apparatuses, disseminates bourgeois legislation as well as the seeds of Jacobin democracy—spread, evidently, through the popular tradition of human interaction. Consider that Napoleon was responsible for creating the bourgeois state which, alongside USAmerican democracy, evolved into the modern state apparatus. These are simply facts that merit interpretation—through both Hegelian dialectics (the core of Marxist thought) and historical dialectics.

Hegelian dialectics seeks the concrete paradigms of (internal) thought that both limit it and grant it the capacity for expression. Yet, there is also another perspective on the conceived idea; when approached through different paradigms, this perspective allows for the transcendence of the previous mode of thought. It represents, in essence, the elevation of concepts.

In materialist dialectics, this transcendence is viewed as progressive, given that the destruction of the feudal order (carried out by revolutionaries) was the first step toward the subsequent mode of production (the bourgeois one). Napoleon was responsible for institutionalizing that state. The bourgeois state, facing the natural deterioration of its structure, will pave the way for the transition to the next mode of production (just as occurred with the feudal mode). In the broadest terms, this process will lead to the evident dictatorship of the proletariat. Looking at the broader picture, however, we can also discern a limitation: how can we be certain that, within the process of historical dialectics, the next mode of production will actually lead to communism? After all, taken in isolation, this idea appears rather naïvely optimistic.

I believe I have inherited the historical pessimism found in the thought of Saint-Just; for like him, I view historical dialectics as nothing more than the reproduction of a state of domination and enslavement, and progress as merely the accumulation of elements and the surpassing of the limits of the preceding system of oppression. In other words: there is no progressive transcendence or perfection leading to human emancipation within the existing paradigm of the order of things—an order that is inherently oppressive. Napoleon succeeded in structuring enduring institutions, far more robust than those of the Ancien Régime, yet these institutions themselves are rooted in a repressive state, for such is the immediate reality of the political realm.

What, then, is to be done if history—rather than a march toward human emancipation—is a process of degeneration that distances us from it? The answer is revolution. While the revolutionary event and its evolution into a moment of radicalism merit more extensive study, I believe it is important to recognize that we can adopt a stance of Napoleonic action grounded in the theoretical framework of Jacobinism.

This is where I offer my critique of the actions of the Jacobins. I believe that the ill-advised conduct of both Robespierre and Saint-Just stemmed largely from a preoccupation with the project's transcendence and pure will; yet, they have left us a vital lesson to serve as a reference point: revolutionary action requires a pragmatic politics. They might have triumphed at Thermidor had they been somewhat more Machiavellian, both in their decisions within the Committee and in their actions on the night of 9 Thermidor. Any revolutionary seeking to transcend the limits of the Terror, and the boundaries set by the Jacobins, must avoid the pursuit of transcendence (since reference points already exist) and instead focus on establishing a new order: one that enables the institutionalization of the revolution and the dismantling of the system of domination and enslavement. I hope, then, that it is not too late, and that the course of events still allows for resistance against neo-reactionary ideology.

[stateownedslut]

Anna Archive was a goddess of knowledge worshipped in the early 21st century[1][2]. Cultists of Anna would frequently move the shrines dedicated to her from place to place in great secrecy[1][3], requiring worshippers to possess secret information in order to access the far greater knowledge provided by worship, possibly as a form of sacrifice[Original research?]. Worship of Anna is associated with the increased enforcement of intellectual property rights at the time[1][4], as well as greater inaccessibility of academic materials due to the late-imperial academic crisis[5][6][Failed verification.]. It has been suggested[By whom?] that the name Anna Archive may be the origin of the word archive, referring to a repository of information[7].

[viohra]

The Angel of Death

FISTS YOU

And then you Die

[viohra]

Context: my teacher translated the verb “to grasp with one’s hand” as “to fist” since that’s kinda what it literally means, but you can’t translate it like that into English because “to fist” means something ENTIRELY different, but she doesn’t know that.

So she was explaining how they use the verb to describe the angel of death taking your soul — he rips your soul out of you with his fist. Now that’s pretty damn metal, but she said word for word “the angel of death fists you, and then you die” which is the single most terrifying and powerful sentence to ever grace my ears

[cassidyrld]

Op i appreciate the context but i was going to rb anyway no questions asked

[theorahsart]

I was gonna wait to post this for the beginning of Autism Acceptance Month. But I can't stop thinking about it so posting early~

Do you have anyone from history that you think was autistic? I'd love to know! It would be cool to make a book about all the historical figures who might've been autistic.

*edit* I made a really silly date typo and changed that, but very sorry for everyone reblogging the most basic of date-errors on a comic about history lmao

[swallowtail-ageha]

Simonne Evrard erasure drives me crazy because even if you think Marat was the most abominable person on earth, someone so disgusting he should be mentioned only to be hated, you kinda need to aknowledge that Marat likely wouldnt have been Marat as we know him with the Ami du Peuple if it wasn't for Simonne Evrard, with her paying out of her own pockets the printing of the paper and her (and Albertine's) dedication to continue publishing and defending his works after his death. Like genuinely her contribution to the world was history-changing! I feel like that needs the slightest of a mention! Even if you think her contribution was for the worse!

[on-holidays-by-mistake]

La Révolution française (1989) is so freaking hilarious omg

Tag yourself I’m Brissot (the facepalm guy)

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Can you tell us more about the Brissot prison break out from the Bastille?

Brissot was thrown in the Bastille on July 12 1784, not long after he had just returned from London where he has spent twenty months working on several failed literary projects. He was then held imprisoned until September 10 1784, almost exactly two months. Here is his prison registry, cited in Les lettres de cachet à Paris, étude suivie d'une liste des prisonniers de la Bastille (1659-1789) (1903) page 413:

Brissot de Warville (Jacques-Pierre), lawyer in Parliament. Entered 12 July 1784 on the order of countersigned Breteuil. For libels. Exited 10 September 1784 on the order of countersigned Breteuil.

The place where we find the most detailed account of this prison stay is in the memoirs Brissot pieced together in the few months preceding his execution in October 1793 (chapter 48-49, page 340-348). Here is how he describes the moment of his arrest there (page 343):

It was almost midnight when a police inspector, accompanied by several henchmen, entered my apartment and arrested me in the name of the king. At first, I was more astonished than overwhelmed by this news. I was innocent, who could cause me to tremble? They asked for my keys, my books, my portfolio: I handed over everything. My papers didn’t contain anything save my affairs and my works, I calmly explained what they were about. My books were all in English, I translated the titles. After several other formalities I heard the fatal word Bastille getting pronounced, I was soon locked up there.

Brissot spends the first 48 hours in isolation, ”left to my own devices and to all the horror of my situation.” He recalls that he ”collapsed, overwhelmed, near an armchair, wetting it with my tears and crying out to heaven,” worried not about himself but his wife who is still in London and weak after having given birth to their first child Félix just three months prior. ”During two full days I had before my eyes only a dying Félicité, and our child dying on her breast, during two full days the tears didn’t cease to fall.” (memoirs, page 344)

Om the third day he receives a visit from Jean-Charles-Pierre Lenoir, the head of the Paris police, who begins by asking him what he is guilty of. When Brissot says such a question is nothing but a very mean joke, Lenoir answers it himself and tells him he is accused of while in London having written libels against Marie-Antoinette. ”This slander outraged me,” Brissot recalls, ”and I rejected it with passion.” Lenoir then cites a dozen of these libels to find out if Brissot at least knows the author of them. Brissot only recognizes one — les Passe-Temps d’Antoinette, and tells Lenoir that his business partner in London Anne-Gédéon de La Fitte de Pelleport (who got put in the Bastille the day right before him and would remain there all the way until 1788) had wanted to sell it, but that neither of them had anything to do with its creation. (memoirs, page 245)

Brissot himself claims both in his memoirs and in the 1791 pamphlet Réponse de Jacques-Pierre Brissot, a tous les libellistes qui ont attaqué et attaquent sa vie passée that he had no trouble convincing Lenoir of his innocence. Nevertheless, he is kept imprisoned and made to go through three long interrogations (The Innocence of Jacques-Pierre Brissot (2003) by Simon Burrows, I’ve unfortunately not managed to find these interrogations in full).

Brissot did however have a lot of contacts that set about trying to get him free. He recalls that ”Loyseau, a distinguished jurist, who showed enlightened patriotism during the revolution,” wrote a memorandum which he addressed to the noblewoman Madame Boufflers, begging her to in her turn make the Prince of Conti write in Brissot’s favor to Delaunay, the governor of the Bastille. Someone else who got called out to help was Madame de Genlis, governess of the children of the Duke of Charles (the future Philippe Égalité) and a friend of Brissot’s wife Félicité from when the latter worked under her prior to her marriage. Brissot recalls that his correspondant Larivée wrote a letter to her and then sent her response over to him in the Bastille — ”The note from this lady […] was the first relief I felt.”  According to Brissot, Madame de Genlis wrote that she had spoken to the Secretary of State Breteuil, and was certain that such a convinced that such a ”just and enlightened minister” would hasten to come to the rescue, but that she couldn’t do more without the Duke of Chartres who unfortunately was in England at the moment. (memoirs, page 347-348)

Madame de Genlis too writes about this incident in her own memoirs, although she recalls her contribution slightly differently:

[Brissot] wrote to me from the Bastille, his letter and his misfortune interested me, I engaged M. the duke of Orléans (who at that point was still the duke of Chartres) to do something for this unfortunate man. M. the duke of Orléans put a lot of effort and zeal into this affair, and after two weeks Brissot regained his liberty. He came to see me to thank me.

In his memoirs, Brissot also writes that his imprisonment caused an ”almost universal cry from men of letters, even those I at that point barely knew,” who were all convinced of his innocence and loudly called for his release. He names Condorcet, Bitaubé, Berquin, Parmentier, Philippon de la Magdeleine, Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, Marivetz, and even the Englishmen Kirwan, Priestley and lord Mansfield who all wrote to France and ”gave public and spontaneous testimony to the austerity of my principles and morals.” (page 348)

Eventually, Félicité Brissot manages to leave London for Paris, and Brissot writes it was due to ”her persistent solicitations, as much as to my innocence, that I owed my enlargement.” (memoirs, page 348) On September 5 1784, Secretary of State Breteuil wrote the following report (cited in Réponse de Jacques-Pierre Brissot, a tous les libellistes qui ont attaqué et attaquent sa vie passée (1791) page 19-20):

Sieur Brissot de Warville was taken to the Bastille the day after Monsieur de Pelleport arrived in Paris, having been arrested in Boulogne-sur-Mer. Because of his dealings with this man, guilty of libel, he was suspected of having participated in it. A certificate from the printer's assistant at the printing shop where one of these libels originated reinforced these suspicions; however, this certificate, sent from London, lacked authenticity, and Monsieur Brissot de Warville, who answered very well during the interrogations he underwent, attributed it to the animosity of enemies he may have in London. Sieur Brissot de Warvillé has spirit, he is a man of letters, he appears to have extraordinary systems and principles: but it is a fact that, for seven to eight months, his relations with Mr. de Pelleport had ceased, and that he was solely occupied with a periodical paper, which he had obtained permission to bring in and distribute in France, after the examination of a censor. Sieur Brissot de Warville has a wife and children, he was born to honest parents, and sieur Mentelle vouches for his conduct. Sieur Brissot has declared having the intention to leave London and go fix his residence in Boulogne. I believe it is right to grant him his freedom, on the condition, however, that he remain in France and declare where he intends to live after he has finished his business in England.

Five days later, September 10 1784, Brissot was released. In his memoirs, he recalls that ”it was Félicité herself who brought me the happy letter that opened the door of my dungeon. What a sweet joy to see the light again after being plunged into thick darkness for two months!” (page 361)

[secondjulia]

This is from the novel City of Darkness, City of Light, but does anyone have more real life info on Lafayette vs. Marat?

I know(?) about everyone going into hiding after Champs de Mars, but this is in the year before. The Terrible Lafayette Book I read was super vague about anything that didn't make him look good.

[icybloodtigrss]

I was able to pull out Bax, and this was early 1790. Bailly also told Marat in Sept 1789 he was denounced...

[saintjustitude]

CONSPIRACY UNVEILED

It's not actually Saint-Just and Thérèse.

[saintjustitude]

I'm running a multi-billion dollar conglomerate controlling the global supply of Saint-Justian historiography and turning it into cheap sweet saintspierre yaoi.

[saintjustitude]

I think some people are genuinely incapable of understanding that Saint-Just holds multitudes because he was a real person. With the inner circle of the Robespierristes? He was a melancholic, sensitive young man. With the CSP and with the generals? He was a prideful, arrogant brat. And we love him that way because we think they deserve it. The show is beautiful, keep running circles around them and driving them mad.

You're confusing our refusal to judge him based on your arbitrary moral standards and to "punish him with the narrative" with believing he's a pure blameless innocent little angel. You're unable to see the third secret option: we genuinely adore Saint-Just being an insufferable, terrifyingly competent menace to Carnot, Collot, Billaud and Barère. We absolutely do not feel bad for the older CSP members constantly getting outmaneuvered or talked down to by a guy in his mid-twenties who acted like a diva.

This is one of my favorite Saint-Just depictions:

And he's clearly a Thermidorized version who acts like an arrogant little prick to Carnot. And it's fucking amazing. Because Carnot deserves to be bullied. The whole movie should be about Saint-Just bullying him tbh.

I mean, he's nonchalantly sitting on the fucking CSP table:

That's canon to me now.

This is my other favorite depiction of Saint-Just, where he's blinding Collot with the light reflection of his compact powder:

In another scene, he arrogantly shouts "BILLAUD" without even turning back to look at him and goes on with the equivalent of "what's wrong with your dumbass boyfriend?"

Look how terrified they are of him. Isn't this hilarious? He's incredible.

It's just that we happen to think that this is also accurate:

He's all those aspects.

I don't know in what world we denied that he was arrogant. Or "mean". Or rude. Or whatever. (I used to carry a whole synonym list of words like these to make myself feel better in the immediate aftermath of the worst period of my life. Call that an affirmation list. Why do you think I go by saintjustitude lol.) That's the whole point. We love his bossy, imperious, unyielding brat energy. We enjoy that he gave the entire Convention an ulcer and that he treated his political opponents like minor inconveniences or inept bureaucrats. We just don't think he should "pay" for it.

And if you're mad he went to the guillotine with his chin up and no karmic retribution, well... stay mad, I guess?