Send the tyrants to guillotine

♀️ • history lover • star trek fan forever✨🖖 • mostly about history and my other interests • welcome into my blog everyone • 《🔴: i delete most of my posts in order to edit // add // organize my blog only 》 • I wish you all have a good day •

[noura-addams]

Because I'm new at tumblr( I've been here for only 3 or 4 months maybe ) and I'm not an elite person ( like @anotherhumaninthisworld or @edgysaintjust or @saint-jussy .) So I ask the all elites of this glorious community ( don't ask why I speak like that just ignore) to give an answer for this good fellow out here.

Because I found it very hard to answer him properly with evidences and sources etc. And I want to give the best answer I can by asking help from you everyone.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

I saw a post that said Marie Antoinette had her dog follow her during her execution and they killed it too.

Do you know the source of this story? Or is it just a myth of some kind?

Because I've never heard of this before.

I actually found a explanation for where that story might originate from on Reddit of all places. It is an article in the royalist newspaper l’Union, published 1858, 65 years after the fact, and apparently built on material collected by one of Louis XVI’s former bodyguards. The article doesn’t say the dog was killed, but that it was wounded with a spike by a revolutionary for howling at the execution and then eventually drowned itself in the Seine out of despair.

This story would however appear to be a variation of another one, released already in 1797. In this version, the dog kept watch outside his mistress’ prison, got struck by bayonets by the gendarmes, and disappeared around a year after Marie-Antoinette’s death. How exactly the author of the story got this information is left unknown.

Using Retronews, I’ve not found any newspaper that even mention the word ”chien” in the month of October 1793. You might imagine they would had Marie-Antoinette’s dog really been killed alongside her on 16 October…

[vivelareine]

it's honestly very surprising that the manifesto Louis XVI left behind at the Tuileries is glossed over in almost all English works about him. Even Hardman's biography doesn't address it very much. But it's such a critical document to better understanding his mindset, his goals, how he viewed the revolution and was approaching it.

to copy a comment I made on a reblog a bit ago--

It brings to mind Louis XVI’s manifesto left behind before the flight to Montmedy.

While Louis XVI absolutely does address what he views as basic ideological and political concerns, the first detailed complaint (granted he does complain about the attempted murder first before getting into this–) is about the fact that the Tuileries palace wasn’t made ready for them and the layout being annoying:

The King, yielding to the wish expressed by the Parisian army, came to settle with his family at the Château des Tuileries. It was over a hundred years since the Kings had made their habitual residence there, except in the minority of Louis XV.

Nothing was ready to receive the King, and the layout of the old apartments was far from providing the conveniences to which His Majesty was accustomed in the other Royal houses, and which any private individual who was at ease could enjoy.

In the context of the manifesto, he places the complaint about the layout of the palace on the same level as his complaints about the stripping of any real royal power, shutting him out of creating laws or policies in the new government, frustrations regarding the Assembly’s tax plan, addressing the murders of various people associated with the old regime, etc etc.

Aside from being rather ludicrous to read, though, it gives a deeper insight into the impossible mental gap between the royal family and everyone else.

To them, these things that were frankly ridiculous–a palace layout, being seated on a normal chair with a royal cover instead of a throne–were of the utmost importance, on the same level as the attempted murder of the royal family and the actual murder of various people from 1789-1791.

How do you reconcile that with trying to get them to accept the new framework of a constitutional monarchy, even one which (per Barnave's attempts) would allow them more political power than the acting one?

--

Anyway I feel like in general, Louis XVI's actual writing--or what survives of it--is just not very well studied compared to Marie Antoinette's.

It's kind of like how people obsess over Marie Antoinette's letters to Fersen but only read them in the context of "Were they LOVERS?!?!" and not in the context of "these must be read and understood as being just one of the countless strings of correspondence she was sending out all over Europe at the same time, they are inherently political letters that can't be understood on their own."

[amateurvoltaire]

Deconstructing the Myth of Robespierre the Dictator

This video took forever to make, but I’m glad I made it... It’s a topic that gets rehashed to death, to the point that Robespierre gets called a dictator more often than some actual dictators.

The standard story is familiar. Robespierre seized power, ruled through terror, then fell when the people had had enough. The blade dropped, and the Terror ended.

That version is tidy and easy to digest. It’s also historically dishonest.

This video goes back to the actual structure of government during Year II. We look at what the Committee of Public Safety could and couldn’t do, who else held power, what Robespierre’s role actually was, and why Thermidorian deputies were so invested in isolating blame onto one man.

Key points include:

The conditions that produced “the Terror”

Who was Robespierre and what did he fight for?

The real function of the Committee of Public Safety

Why the idea of “Robespierre the dictator” only gained traction after his death

The political utility of scapegoating

What the primary sources actually say, including his speech on “virtue and terror”

This isn’t about defending Robespierre. It’s a refusal to accept Thermidorian propaganda as historical fact.

Video Sources:

Hervé Leuwers, Robespierre, Fayard, 2014.

Peter McPhee, Robespierre: A Revolutionary Life, Yale University Press, 2012.

Albert Soboul, “Robespierre ou les contradictions du Jacobinisme,” Annales historiques de la Révolution française, No. 231, 1978.

Jacques Goulet, “Robespierre, la peine de mort et la Terreur,” AHRF, No. 251, 1983.

J. Thompson, “L’organisation du travail du Comité de Salut Public,” AHRF, No. 59, 1933.

Yannick Bosc, “Robespierre libéral,” AHRF, No. 371, 2013.

Hervé Leuwers, “Maximilien de Robespierre, élève à Louis-le-Grand,” AHRF, No. 371, 2013.

Peter McPhee, “Crises politiques, crises médicales dans la vie de Robespierre,” AHRF, No. 371, 2013.

Marc Belissa & Julien Louvrier, “Robespierre dans les publications françaises et anglophones depuis 2000,” AHRF, No. 371, 2013.

Michel Biard & Philippe Bourdin (dir.), Robespierre: Portraits croisés, Armand Colin, 2012.

Michel Biard & Hervé Leuwers, Visages de la Terreur, Armand Colin, 2014.

Albert Mathiez, excerpts from Robespierre terroriste and The French Revolution: A History.

Michel Biard, “Introduction: « Je vous laisse ma mémoire... »”, AHRF, No. 371, 2013.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

How would you rank each french revolution memoirs

Based on how faithful to the events and anything as it was.

I can't trust the fouché nor the barère nor the others except Elizabeth honestly (her beef with Charlotte is funny to me ngl).

The only memoirs I have truly read from cover to cover several times (and therefore feel comfortable really saying anything about) are those of Élisabeth Le Bas and Charlotte Robespierre. I agree that, at least on the surface, Élisabeth’s memoirs come off as more truthful, mainly because they revolve around things that are not of that great historical significance (her memoirs are very focused on she herself and her relationship with her husband) and perhaps too because she is not a politician. However, are we to make some kind of objective measurement, then I wouldn’t say Élisabeth is necessarily more of a reliable narrator than Barère, Fouché or Charlotte is. The bottom line for me when reading memoirs is to simply not trust any of these people too hard or interpret any of the things they have to say all too literally. Not only is there decades between them and the events they are describing, but they also all had an (political) agenda to portray certain things and people a certain way. So if memoir 1 says A and memoir 2 says B, then there is not really much of a basis for believing one over the other, as long as all we have are the memoirs themselves. The exception, of course, is when the things stated in the memoirs can be fact checked by other, more reliable, sources. This is for example how we can dismiss Charlotte’s claim to during the revolution have been engaged to Fouché, Barère’s version of the way Collot d’Herbois returned from Lyon and Élisabeth’s description over how many months she spent in jail after thermidor. So my humble advice would simply be to as often as possible try to compare claims in memoirs with what more contemporary/objective sources say about the subject, and, when this isn’t possible, be very careful not to choose to trust one over the other just because the author comes off as more sincere and/or trustworthy to us.

[noura-addams]

Just like you said i choose not to trust fully nor distrust it either, and try to fact check it whenever I'm able to do so.

[theblackrook]

Bonbons injuries: Could he have survived?

I already discussed this quite a while ago with a friend for the purpose of creative writing, but I lost all of my notes and analysis, sooo.. I'm revisiting it! To understand the injuries Augustin sustained, we first have to look at the mechanics of the fall itself.

My jaw dropping amount of two WHOLE sources as i write this because i had more before (Lenôtre and Young) place him on the cornice of the first floor (the premier étage, which in American terms is the second floor), roughly 30 feet (9–10 meters) above the ground.

And unlike a simple stumble (looking at you, Berthier), this was most likely intentional (I could go on for hours about this but you all will be spared). Augustin removed his shoes, paced the ledge for up to three minutes, and deliberately threw himself head-first.

His landing zone is the crucial variable. He did not hit flat pavement (which would have likely killed him instantly via massive skull fracture) but instead he landed on a mix of:

Stone steps.

Sharp metal (Bayonets and sabers held by the crowd.)

Human bodies: Specifically Citizen Chabru (who was crippled for life) and another citizen.

Hitting Citizen Chabru likely saved Augustin from immediate death: The human body acts as a shock absorber, distributing the kinetic energy. However, while this prevented his skull from shattering completely on the stone, it did not prevent the rotational forces that tear veins in the brain, nor did it stop the bayonets.

Based on the descriptions ("bleeding profusely," "unconscious," "weakness and anxiety," "fractured pelvis"), we can deduce he suffered from a myriad of things:

A. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Symptoms: Unconsciousness followed by "raving," confusion, fixation on specific topics (Panis/Carnot/Collot), and "anxiety."

Diagnosis: At minimum, a severe cerebral contusion (bruising of the brain tissue) and likely a Subdural Hematoma.

Why it matters: it can only be deduced that this means "anxiety" the doctors noted wasn't just fear but it was likely hypoxia (lack of oxygen from blood loss) and rising intracranial pressure. His brain was swelling against his skull.

B. The Pelvic Fracture

Severity: In 1794, this is a death sentence. The pelvis is a ring of bone; to break it usually requires immense force (like falling 30 feet).

The danger: A broken pelvis bleeds internally. It can hold liters of blood. This explains his "weakness" and inability to stand. He was slowly bleeding out into his own abdominal cavity: It's important to note that in this area specifically you can bleed out liters of blood without a single drop hitting the floor

C. Penetrating Trauma

The Wound: A bayonet wound to the thigh.

The Luck: If the bayonet had hit the femoral artery, he would have died in 3 minutes. The fact that he survived for hours means it likely hit muscle or a smaller vessel.

The Risk: 18th-century bayonets were not clean. Even if the bleed was controlled, deep-tissue infection (gangrene) was inevitable within days.

If you want some Additional Mechanical Nuance:

Head-first orientation adds angular momentum which means even if the skull holds, the brain slams and rotates, worsening shear injuries. Coupled with the uneven landing (people + steps + weapons) creates multiple force vectors: one for head, one for pelvis, etc. This entire cascade compounds damage rather than focusing it absorbably (like feet-first).

Plus theres the constant movement post-fall (chair carry → section committee → Committee of General Security → Conciergerie → cart → scaffold) probably resulted in reopened clots, worsened bleeding, and spiked pain/shock.

Augustin Robespierre was a "dead man walking" from the moment he hit the steps. His injuries result in a crushing tirade: If his intracranial pressure was rising due to the brain bleed, the body tries to compensate. The "raving" and agitation are standard behavioral responses to a brain that is being squeezed to death.

The doctors at the Section of the Maison Commune knew it — that’s why they "dared proceed no further." They weren't just being lazy because they were looking at a man with a shattered pelvis, a hole in his leg, and a brain bleed, and realizing there was nothing 18th-century medicine could do (even if it was worth it, the man was about to be guillotined I mean).

The fact that he remained conscious enough to defend his brother's honor while his body was essentially shutting down is a testament to either his adrenaline or his sheer devotion, but physiologically, the fall had already killed him. The guillotine just sped up the inevitable.

Now, if the Guillotine Hadn't Taken Him

Let’s assume the Convention decided to spare him or let him rot in prison. Would Bonbon have survived?

Short answer: No chance. He was already in multi-organ failure trajectory.

I had initially made an estimate of 2 to 8 days and, in my professional opinion, this seems medically sound to me. We can only speculate now on how he likely would have died:

Scenario A: Brain Bleed (24–48 Hours) Without craniectomy (skull surgery) to relieve pressure, the swelling in his brain would have forced the brainstem down, causing respiratory arrest. He would have slipped from "raving" into a coma and simply stopped breathing.

Scenario B: Sepsis (3–7 Days) The bayonet wound and the compound fractures (if bones broke skin) would have festered. "Hospital fever" (sepsis) would set in. Given his weakened state from blood loss, his immune system would have collapsed.

Scenario C: Fat Embolism (24–72 Hours) This is common in long bone and pelvic fractures. Fat globules from the bone marrow enter the bloodstream and clog the lungs or brain. This causes rapid respiratory failure and confusion — symptoms he was arguably already showing.

By every medical metric — then and now — he was unsalvageable, untreatable, and importantly actively dying. The guillotine did not rob him of a future, but instead it shortened a prolonged, brutal death that had already begun at the window of the Hôtel de Ville: It was basically mercy compared to days/weeks of agony, swelling brain, rotting wounds, and organ shutdown.

If anything, history understates the cruelty of what happened — not because he died, but because he lived long enough to suffer.

[noura-addams]

I couldn't stop wincing while reading this, it must've been so painful my goodness.

[xiranjayzhao]

Nobody:

Robespierre Stans:

(Published in 1837 btw)

[theblackrook]

Well, one things for sure, nobody is out Robespierrist-ing fucking

James Bronterre O'Brien

@anotherhumaninthisworld I wonder how all of Maxime's friends and supporters feel about this new competition..

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Augustin would probably sue, Saint-Just would say some shit like ”we want virtuous men, not great men!” Camille I’m not really sure would be in the mood for more Robespierre defending following the events of April 1794 if you know what I mean… 😅

[noura-addams]

James is now famous

[saintjustienne]

There is something deeply bittersweet about getting so invested in the life and works of someone who is long gone. You read about them, you collect informations, you think you know them, but your knowledge will always be incomplete. We base our perception on what we have, which sometimes is not very much. You cannot know how they really looked like (if they lived before the invention of photography) or how their voice sounded. A million little details you would like to know. You can grasp something of their lives if you are lucky enough to have personal objects, diaries, letters preserved... but even then it's not enough. They lived, they breathed like you do, and now they are gone. You both walked on the same earth but there are centuries separating you. There is a certain ache in that.

[noura-addams]

I thought i am the only person who thought like that 💙

[nesiacha]

French Revolutionary Women Imprisoned with Their Children

Félicité Brissot – Wife of Jacques-Pierre Brissot. She was imprisoned together with her youngest son, Anacharsis Brissot (born in 1791), who was arrested at the same time as his mother and detained with her until their release in February 1794.

Suzanne Pétion – Wife of Jérôme Pétion. She was imprisoned with her ten-year-old son. Initially placed under house arrest, they were later incarcerated together (first at Sainte-Pélagie, then at the Maison Desnos) for more than a year.

Élisabeth Le Bas Duplay – Wife of Philippe Le Bas. She was imprisoned with her infant son and detained with him from July to December 1794.

Élisabeth Le Bon – Wife of Joseph Le Bon. She was imprisoned with her one-year-old daughter, Pauline, and gave birth in prison to her son Émile. Both children therefore shared her detention in the prison at Arras.

Marie-Anne Victoire Babeuf (née Langlet) – After the attack on the rue Saint-Nicaise, she was imprisoned as part of the Jacobin repression (her imprisonment most likely began on 10 January 1800 and lasted at least until 31 January 1801). During this period, Émile was living in boarding school, and Camille was staying close to his brother, while Caius Babeuf, the youngest child, lived with his mother in prison.

Commentary

To be honest, I do not believe that the authorities deliberately targeted the children. Rather, their mothers, lacking any alternative, were forced to care for them themselves. Nevertheless, this situation remains extremely harsh, given the conditions of imprisonment at the time.

I have included Marie-Anne Babeuf because, even though the period of the French Revolution officially ended with 18 Brumaire, she herself was undeniably a woman of the French Revolution. Should I identify additional cases, I will mention them.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

I am currently reading "The life and character of Maximilian Robespierre" by james O'Brian and the author was calling out historians in his introduction (Desodoards- Montgaillard- Montjoye- Dulaure- Thiers- mignet and saying they are the soucre origin of the reputation of Robespierre the cruel bloodthirsty tyrant especially mignet as he says) and I wanna know your opinions about it? If you read it

His work is solely dedicated to cleaning the image of Robespierre as the author said.

Unfortunately, I haven’t actually interacted with any of the authors you here list , so I can’t say how ”complicit” any of them might be here. Sorry. 🫤

Tho I can def buy that O’Brian’s work is ”soley dedicated to cleaning the image of Robespierre” judging by the full title: The life and character of Maximilian Robespierre: proving by facts and arguments, that that much-calumniated person was one of the greatest men, and one of the purest and most enlightened reformers, that ever existed in the world: also containing Robespierre's principal discourses, addresses, reports, and projects of law, &c., in the National assembly, National convention, Commune of Paris, and the popular societies; with the author's reflections on the principal events and leading men of the French revolution, etc., etc., etc.

[noura-addams]

this is only the introduction and I'm already hooked enough.

[18thcenturythirsttrap]

how could one make the ideal football team using only frev figures?

Thank you so much for this ask, @citizen-card! I'm sorry it has taken me a little while to answer. Your question was sent to me during the anti-truth hour but tbh, creating a football team of FRev figures has been on my agenda for some time.

I present… MONTAGNE F.C.

Montagne F.C., est. 1793, are an exciting team with an attacking ethos but also strong in defence (of the patrie). They tend to play in the popular modern 4-3-3 formation, which morphs into a 4-3-2-1 in the final stages of attack with Fabre as the lone striker up front.

Goalkeeper: Hérault de Séchelles. Team heart-throb. At over 6' tall, has the reach to make saves across the width and height of the net. Tends to leave the field as soon as the final whistle has blown so that he has time to sign hundreds of portraits before heading off to some highly exclusive nightclub. Fabre always tries to tag along.

Left Fullback: Saint-Just. The youngest team member, just as well given the amount of running he has to do on the overlap. Wishes Robespierre would allow him to trust his own instincts more rather than constantly shouting, “Forward, forward – no, come back! Come back!” Has a good understanding with his right fullback counterpart Le Bas. Desmoulins lives rent-free in his head.

Centre Back: Desmoulins. Only plays here because he thinks he can leave most of the defensive work to Danton, which is interesting because Danton thinks he can leave most of the work to Desmoulins. Writes the official fan newsletter, gets annoyed that Robespierre keeps sending back articles covered in red ink. Sings “You’re shit, and you know you are” at Saint-Just, then pretends it was someone in the crowd. Robespierre often has to separate them in the tunnel at half-time.

Centre Back: Danton. Undoubted talent, but lazy a.f. Stands by one of the goalposts chatting with Hérault, only springing into action if there’s an imminent danger of the opponents scoring a goal. When he does decide to put in a tackle, he goes in studs up. Loudest voice on the pitch, constantly shouting at the lads up front to show more audacity in counterattack.

Right Fullback: Le Bas. Lovely clean player, never booked, never carded. Not flashy, but he runs his heart out for the team every game. Sometimes wishes he’d get as much attention in match reports as Saint-Just, but then pushes the idea out of his head and keeps smiling through. His Instagram account is basically pictures of his wife, their baby, and Saint-Just.

Left Midfielder: Marat. Pushing 50 and still an absolute demon on the attack. Nips around defenders easily, puts this down to his low centre of gravity. Runs an edgy underground fanzine. Team physio and doctor, takes a no-nonsense approach to injuries, believes everything can be cured by sponging off with cold water and vinegar. Gives Fabre a kick when he dives, claiming “it’ll do him good”.

Central Midfielder: Billaud-Varenne. Always turns up for training and matches with Collot d’Herbois. In rondos, has to be reminded to pass the ball to someone else once in a while. Does allegedly unscripted fun fan-meet videos with Collot.

Right Midfielder: Collot d’Herbois. Devises the scripts for the fun fan-meet videos he films with Billaud. Threatened to shoot a fan who tried to improvise. The archetypal loose cannon, as much of a menace to his team-mates as to the opposition. Once tried to throw Robespierre over an advertising hoarding for windows.

Left Winger: Maximilien Robespierre. Self-appointed player-manager. Did all his coaching certificates, attended at least one course twice “to make sure I’ve taken it all in”. Obsessive in preparation for matches, likes to have a week analysing the opposition before he presents his tactics to the team. Doesn’t like overly physical play, says 99% of the game is won by character. Often booked for arguing with the referee for so long, it gets dark. Cult icon with the female fans, nobody – least of all him – is quite sure why.

Right Winger: Augustin 'Bonbon' Robespierre. His brother’s biggest fan and cheerleader, but a gifted player in his own right. More physically courageous in attack than Maximilien, also has something of a reputation as a talent-spotter. Reckons he saw a player who might be “the next big thing” down in Toulon.

Striker: Fabre d’Églantine. Fancies himself as much as he wishes everyone else fancied him. Posts daily (but suspiciously short) topless workout videos on his Instagram. Hérault always puts three laugh emojis in the comments. Feigns injury to try and win penalties, a nightmare for Robespierre who’s convinced he’ll be red carded for fakery one of these days. Dives, rolls and wails shamelessly. Should spend longer in the shower after matches.

----

At some point I might get round to drawing the team, team kit and badge, etc... But yep, that's my FRev starting 11!

[noura-addams]

Let Marat be the ref

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Is it true that When a juror, Joachim Vilate, told Robespierre over a dinner about the incest accusations made by Antoinette's son Louis-Charles, pressured into doing so by the radical Jacques Hébert who controlled him, Robespierre broke his plate in anger, and said "That imbecile Hébert!" Is it true?

Vilate reported this anecdote on page 12-13 of his pamphlet Causes secrètes de la révolution du 9 au 10 thermidor, released on October 6 1794:

”The day after the trial of Antoinette, I received some great insights: I had been a spectator at the proceedings. Barrère had arranged for a dinner at Venua's place, to which Robespierre, Saint-Just, and I were invited. […] Seated around the table, in a secret, well-closed room, I was asked for some details from the table of the proceedings of the Austrian's trial. I did not forget the one of outraged nature, when Hébert, accusing Antoinette of obscenities with her eleven [sic]-year-old son, she turned with dignity towards the people: I appeal to the mothers present and their conscience, to declare if there is anyone of them that does not shudder at such horrors! Robespierre, struck by this response, as if by a stroke of electricity, broke his plate with his fork: that imbecile Hébert: it is not enough that she is really a Messalina, he must make her an Agrippina as well, and provide her at her last moment with this triumph of public interest. Everyone remained astounded. Saint-Just broke the silence: morals will benefit from this act of national justice. Barrére said: the guillotine cut a powerful knot in the diplomacy of the courts of Europe. Without doubt my pride in finding myself with these masters of the republic was very excusable: like Circe's cup, each glass of wine was a revolutionary poison which intoxicated me with illusions.”

If then this anecdote is true, somewhat true or completely made up is of course a question a person living today can’t possibly answer. Through a CPS decree issued on October 17 1793, AKA the exact same day Vilate claims this dinner happened, we see that Saint-Just and Le Bas were ordered to ”immediately” travel to the Rhin army, which might make the former attending a dinner the very same day seem a bit illogical, but it’s certainly still far from impossible. In the end, what can be said for sure is that the anecdote originates from Vilate himself, it is not one of those apocryphal stories invented by a romanticizing historian decades after the fact.

[noura-addams]

I hope that plate was cheap enough to break it Robespierre.

[mathildeaquisexta]

How to search for a specific document on the French National Archives website?

I'm going to use this post by @montagnarde1793 as an example because it's very convenient for me: she perfectly noted the archive's class mark and she chose a document that requires going through several files.

Here we have a letter from the Comité de Salut Public by Barère, Prieur de la Côte d'Or and Billaud-Varenne and adressed to Prieur de la Marne. The details are as follows:

There is a lot of informations. They have to be decoded one by one. For now, only those details are important :

"AN" means "Archives Nationales". So the virtual reading room of the Archives Nationales is the most suitable website to conduct researches if you live far away from Paris and cannot go directly. This is what their home page is supposed to look like.

Okay now, remember the following numbers provided by montagnarde1793 right after the "AN" ? "AF II 37" ? This is the archive's class mark, its identity card. Now, we are going to use it.

Now, we see that that we put the right number and it is giving us the following information : the letter comes indeed from an archival fund produced by the Comité de Salut Public, it is stored in Saint-Denis, and it is available to be "Reserved" or "Added to the class marks cart". For now, we ignore those. We only click on the number.

And here appears a problem: the number exists twice, in two different places. I started by looking at the first fund, but it soon became clear that it didn't contain what I was looking for (here, the AF/II/37 call mark referred to naval affairs, which doesn't correspond to the document published by montagnarde1793), so the right link must be the second one.

So we click on the second link and we end up on this page.

We don't care about the general presentation of the fund because we are searching for a specific item so we directly go to dig into the details.

Okay. We know we have to click on the last link titled "Comité de Salut public. Cartons." because we already know the letter we are looking for is a CSP document and AF/II/37 is obviously somewhere between AF/II/20 and AF/II/42. And now we keep searching for AF/II/37 until we find it.

Now, remember the informations provided by montagnarde1793 ? The rest of the numbers is finally going to be useful.

Oh, it's here !

And finally :

AHAH, HERE IT IS !

And you found the document. Good job ! <3

[revolutionarywig]

AAAHHH this is SO USEFUL ive never known of this before and how to access the difital archives nationales before this is so helpful thank you for putting this together!!

looking for any particular letter and minutes was always so painful this makes it way easier and goes straight to the primary source too AUGGGHH 😭😭😭

[noura-addams]

My god thank you this is so much useful !

[bunniesandbeheadings]

Fine. Maybe I need to update it.

Who had the best fashion sense?

Queen Marie-Antoinette

Empress Josephine

Maximilien Robespierre

Marie-Jean Hérault de Séchelles

Joachim Murat

Voting ended onJun 15, 2025

[bunniesandbeheadings]

I’m surprised Robespierre is pulling numbers. I never really thought of him as a fashionista.

Although

I guess he could rock it when he wanted

[goddammitjosef-deactivated20251]

this two tags next to each other says all that needs to be said

[bunniesandbeheadings]

It’s me I’m frev fangirls

[revolutionarywig]

Listen hes such a fashionista listeennn 😔👌👌✨

[noura-addams]

he's a fashionista indeed... ✨

[octavodecimo]

A newly graduated Maximilien de Robespierre with his law degree, circa 1781

[noura-addams]

His hair color is chestnut mabye? .. I like it ..

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

The Committee of Public Safety being a totally healthy work environment with no issues whatsoever compilation

First, some statistics:

Leaving in the middle of a session due to fighting: Collot (1 time), Robespierre (3 times), Saint-Just (4 times)

Starting to cry during a session: Carnot (1 time), Robespierre (1 time)

Threatening your co-workers: Robespierre (2 times), Saint-Just (2 times, one of them a death threat), Couthon (1 time)

Calling your co-workers traitors/scroundrels/ counter-revolutionaries/aristocrats/conspirators/foreign agents: Billaud (1 time), Saint-Just (3 times), Robespierre (5 times), Collot (2 times)

Accusing your co-workers of aspiring towards dictatorship: Carnot, Billaud, Barère, Collot (1 time)

Accusing your co-workers of wishing to destroy patriots: Robespierre, Collot (1 time)

Using physical violence against your co-workers: Collot (2 times?)

Defending your co-worker against another co-worker in a way that doesn’t at all make it seem like you’re into him: Saint-Just (3 times) Barère (1 time)

Saint-Just had such indifference that, about this time (return from Fleurus), he came one evening to propose to the committee a strange means of promptly ending the struggle of the revolution against the suspected and imprisoned nobles. These were his words: ”For a thousand years the nobility have been oppressing the French nation with exactions and feudal vexations of every kind, feudalism and nobihty exist no longer, if you want to repair all the frontier roads for the passage of the artillery, convoys, and transports of our army, order the imprisoned nobles to go to work daily and mend the highways.” […] When Saint-Just had finished there was a movement of silent indignation amongst us all, succeeded by a unanimous demand for the order of the day. I thought I ought to stipulate for the national character by saying to Samt-Just and the committee that we should be opposed to such a kind of punishment for prisoners even if the law pronounced it, that the nobility could be abolished by wise laws, but that the nobles always preserved in the mass of the people a rank, a distinction due to education, which prevented us from acting at Paris as Manus did at Rome. ”Ah,” exclaimed Samt-Just, “Marius was more politic and a greater statesman than you will ever be. I wished to try the strength, the temperament, and the opinion of the Committee of Pubhc Safety. You are not fit to combat nobility, since you cannot destroy it, it will devour the Revolution and the revolutionists. I retire from the committee.” He quickly withdrew, and set out for the army, until the moment when he thought himself capable of executing vaster projects with Robespierre, Couthon, and Lebas, his associates. Memoirs of Bertrand Barère, volume 2, page 139-140.

It is the inherent vice of bad laws, and, above all, of penal laws devoid of motive, which attack a great number of innocent people, to nullify themselves. Saint-Just did not understand that. He attacked me, and accused me of having put under requisition the relatives of several emigrants whilst the law punished them in their property. The committee appeared struck by this accusation, and asked him to explain himself and name some of the relations. He named several, but they were all unknown to us. He afterwards named Mademoiselle d’Avisard, of Toulouse, whose father was abroad. Here I replied that the fate of this innocent girl, who was but sixteen years of age, and obliged by the terrible laws against emigrants to subsist at Paris by manual labour, for she was then engaged in making gaiters for our soldiers, was in the highest degree worthy of compassion and interest. […] The Committee of Public Safety thought this explanation sufficient. It saw that it was only a wicked recrimination by Saint-Just, supported by the presence of Robespierre. Memoirs Of Bertrand Barère, volume 2, page 147-148.

Robespierre murmured a lot about the forms that we had established in Lyon for the execution of decrees: he constantly repeated that there was no reason to judge the guilty when they are outlawed. He exclaimed that we had let the families of the condemned go free; and when the commission sent the Convention and the committee the list of its judgments, he was not in control of his anger as he cast his eyes on the column where the names of the citizens who had been acquitted were written. Unable to change anything in the forms of judgment, regulated according to the decrees and approved by the committee, he imagined another system; he questioned whether the patriots of Commune-Affranchie were not vexed and under oppression. They were, he said, because the property of the condemned being specially intended, by article IV of the decree of July 12, to become their patrimony, we had greatly reduced their claims, not only by not judging only a quarter of the number of conspirators identified by Dubois-Crancé on 23 Vendémiare, or designated by previous decrees, but also by establishing a commission which appeared willing to acquit two thirds, as it happened. Through these declamations Robespierre wanted to entertain the patriots of whom he spoke, with the most violent ideas, to throw into their minds a framework of extraordinary measures, and to put them in opposition with the representatives of the people and their closest cooperators: he made them understand that they could count on him, he emboldened them to form all kinds of obstacles, to only follow his indications which he presented as being the intentions of the Committee of Public Safety.   Défense de J-M. Collot, répresentant du peuple. Éclaircissemens nécessaires sur ce qui s’est passé à Lyon (alors Commune-Affranchie), l’année dernière; pour faire suite aux rapports des Répresentants du peuple, envoyés vers cette commune, avant, pendant et après le siège (1794)

Billaud Varennes: […] The first time I denounced Danton to the committee, Robespierre rose like a madman and declared that he saw my intentions, that I wanted to lose the best patriots. Billaud-Varennes accuses Robespierre during the session of 9 Thermidor

Why should I not say that [the dantonist purge] was a meditated assassination, prepared for a long time, when two days after this session where the crime was taking place (March 30 1794), the representative Vadier told me that Saint-Just, through his stubbornness, had almost caused the downfall of the members of the two committees, because he had wanted the accused be present when he read the report at the National Convention; and such was his obstinacy that, seeing our formal opposition, he threw his hat into the fire in rage, and left us there. Robespierre was also of this opinion; he believed that by having these deputies arrested beforehand, this approach would sooner or later be reprehensible; but, as fear was an irresistible argument with him, I used this weapon to fight him: You can take the chance of being guillotined, if that is what you want; For my part, I want to avoid this danger by having them arrested immediately, because we must not have any illusions about the course we must take; everything is reduced to these bits: If we do not have them guillotined, we will be that ourselves.  À Maximilien Robespierre aux enfers (1794) by Taschereau de Fargues and Paul-Auguste-Jacques.

In the beginning of floréal (somewhere between April 20 and 30) during an evening session (at the Committee of Public Safety), a brusque fight erupted between Saint-Just and Carnot, on the subject of the administration of portable weapons, of which it wasn’t Carnot, but Prieur de la Côte-d’Or, who was in charge. Saint-Just put big interest in the brother-in-law of Sijas, Luxembourg workshop accounting officer, that one thought had been oppressed and threatened with arbitrary arrest, because he had experienced some difficulties for the purpose of his service with the weapon administration. In this quarrel caused unexpectedly by Saint-Just, one saw clearly his goal, which was to attack the members of the committee who occupied themselves with arms, and to lose their cooperators. He also tried to include our colleague Prieur in the inculpation, by accusing him of wanting to lose and imprison this agent. But Prieur denied these malicious claims so well, that Saint-Just didn’t dare to insist on it more. Instead, he turned again towards Carnot, whom he attacked with cruelty; several members of the Committee of General Security assisted. Niou was present for this scandalous scene: dismayed, he retired and feared to accept a pouder mission, a mission that could become, he said, a subject of accusation, since the patriots were busy destroying themselves in this way. We undoubtedly complained about this indecent attack, but was it necessary, at a time when there was not a grain of powder manufactured in Paris, to proclaim a division within the Committee of Public Safety, rather than to make known this fatal secret? In the midst of the most vague indictments and the most atrocious expressions uttered by Saint-Just, Carnot was obliged to repel them by treating him and his friends as aspiring to dictatorship and successively attacking all patriots to remain alone and gain supreme power with his supporters. It was then that Saint-Just showed an excessive fury; he cried out that the Republic was lost if the men in charge of defending it were treated like dictators; that yesterday he saw the project to attack him but that he defended himself.

”It’s you,” he added, ”who is allied with the enemies of the patriots. And understand that I only need a few lines to write for an act of accusation and have you guillotined in two days.”   ”I invite you, said Carnot with the firmness that only appartient to virtue: I provoke all your severity against me, I do not fear you, you are ridiculous dictators.” The other members of the Committee insisted in vain several times to extinguish this ferment of disorder in the committee, to remind Saint-Just of the fairer ideas of his colleague and of more decency in the committee; they wanted to call people back to public affairs, but everything was useless: Saint-Just went out as if enraged, flying into a rage and threatening his colleagues. Saint-Just probably had nothing more urgent than to go and warn Robespierre the next day of the scene that had just happened, because we saw them return together the next day to the committee, around one o'clock: barely had they entered when Saint-Just, taking Robespierre by the hand, addressed Carnot saying:

”Well, here you have my friends, here are the ones you attacked yesterday!”

Robespierre tried to speak of the respective wrongs with a very hypocritical tone: Saint-Just wanted to speak again and excite his colleagues to take his side. The coldness which reigned in this session, disheartened them, and they left the committee very early and in a good mood. It was at this time that the division became pronounced in a very noticeable manner, and soon after we saw it claimed in the English papers that the Committee of Public Safety was divided. For some time now we had been distrusting each other, we were observing each other, we were no longer deliberating with them with this abandonment of trust. Until then Robespierre had done little; he constantly brought us his concerns, his suspicions, his shady expressions and his political bile; he only concerned himself with personal measures; he only drafted arrest warrants, he only dealt with factions, newspapers, the revolutionary tribunal. Nothing about the Government, nothing about the war, never having either views to propose or a report to make, he spent his time destroying our courage, despairing of the salvation of the country and speaking of its slanderers and its assassins; his favorite expressions were, everything is lost, there are no more resources. I no longer see anyone to save it, he always cried. When news of victory were brought by a courier, he spoke of upcoming betrayals, he tarnished our joy or attacked the representatives of the people near the victorious army. The more triumphant the Northern army was, the more strongly he denounced Richard and Choudieu; when the troops besieged Ypres, a stronghold and the key to West Flanders, a capture which, according to the decrees of the committee, was to open and ensure the campaign; Robespierre shouted against the representatives of the People near this army and had complaints written that the troops had not taken Ostend sooner. He seemed to us to be pursued by victories as well as by furies, and he often reproached the committee's rapporteur for the length and exaltation of his reports on the triumphs of the armies. Réponse des membres des deux anciens Comités de salut public et de sûreté générale (Barère, Collot, Billaud, Vadier), aux imputations renouvellées contre eux, par Laurent Lecointre et declarées calomnieuses par décret du 13 fructidor dernier; à la Convention Nationale (1795), page 103-105.

Robespierre, supported by the Jacobins, was the most influential member of the Committees without being the most wicked. His supporters were, however, in the minority; the plan to adjourn the sessions of the Convention had not obtained theor approval. One thought it necessary to oppose Robespierre with the masculine structure of Collot d’Herbois. A quarrel caused by the proposal of a proscription list to which Robespierre was precisely opposed (it involved the arrest of 14 deputies and citizens); this list, put up for discussion by the majority, passed to each member who added names to it, when it reached Robespierre, it had 32 deputies on it. Robespierre said: “I see five or six deputies unworthy of the character with which they are invested: it will be easy to induce them to resign: but I will lend neither my vote nor my signature to the revenge that you want to exercise.” Two friends of Robespierre were of his opinion: heads became heated, quarrels ensued: Robespierre was reminded of the fact he had voted against the Danton faction. The three opponents were treated as moderates. Robespierre, getting up angrily, said to them: “You are killing the Republic, you are the faithful agents of the foreigner who fears the system of moderation that we should adopt.” The session became so stormy that Collot used acts of violence against Robespierre. He threw himself at him and seized him by the flanks. He was about to throw Robespierre through the window when the latter's friends rescued him. Robespierre then declared that he was leaving the committee, that he could not honorably sit with executioners, that he would report this to the Convention. One saw the danger of publicizing this scene, blamed Collot's patriotic anger, and begged Robespierre, after having torn up the disastrous list, not to give the enemies of the Republic new means of attacking it. Robespierre seemed to calm down, but when Collot approached him to embrace him he refused and despite being urged not to he left.  Mémoires de Barras, membre du Directoire (1895) page 349-350. In a footnote, there is to read: This argument between Robespierre and Collot is recounted in more detail in another autobiographic note by Barras: Robespierre having opposed a new measure of proscription, saying: “You are decimating the National Convention, you are arresting citizens whose republican energy you fear,” the boor Collot d'Herbois threw himself at him and, having seized him by the flanks, he was about to throw Robespierre through the window when the latter's friends freed him. This scene was followed by explanations. Robespierre observed that he could no longer sit with executioners, that he was withdrawing and that he would report to the Convention. The Committee which predicted his fall then opposed Robespierre's exit. The proscription list was torn up in his presence. The hypocrite Carnot and the honeyed Couthon told him that Collot's angry outburst was disavowed by the Committee, that the publicity of what had just happened would ruin the Government Committees and the Republic. He was implored to make the sacrifice of all resentment, and that this proof of patriotism was expected of him. Collot furiously addressed the two mediators, complained about the weakness of his colleagues and left the session. Robespierre, very affected, alternately observed his adversaries. He said to them as he left: “You would have made me look crazy if the abortive plan to throw me through the window had taken place. I see here beings more atrocious than the one who tried to execute that plan. He left ashamed of having accepted this assassination.” Robespierre withdrew and did not appear again for two months at the Committee.

At a time when the Convention was already in a high state of alarm [Robespierre] had circulated a list of five or six deputies. It was rumored that Robespierre intended to have them arrested as a little treat to himself, alleging their immortality as the motive of this proposed act of severity. Robespierre, informed of what was being imputed to him, asserted that such an idea was foreign to him, and, desirous of hurling it back at its authors, he maintained that it had originated with the majority of the committee, which, he alleged, had pushed its cruelty so far as to seek to include 32 deputies in its latest proscription-list. In vain did those who spoke in defence of Robespierre’s innocence of the idea and his humanity protest that it was he who had opposed this more than rigorous measure, that he had torn up the list with his own hands, and apostrophizing the Committee, had said: ”You are seeking to still further decimate the Convention; I will not give my support to such action.” Robespierre had indeed spoken these words just as, making an attempt to leave the committee, he had opened the door with the intention of being heard by the deputies and a large number of citizens who, attracted by the noise of a quarrel in the bosom of the committee, were waiting in the antechamber for the purpose of gratifying their curiosity thus aroused. Collot d’Herbois, furious at such hypocrisy, had sprung after Robespierre, seized him by his coat, and, dragging him towards him in order to bring him back into the room, exclaimed in his resounding voice, which, the door remaining ajar, was heard by all, both the committee and the people outside: ”Robespierre is an infamous scroundrel, a hypocrite; he seeks to impute us that of which he alone is capable. We love all our colleagues; we carry all patriots in our hearts. There stands the man who seeks to butcher them one and all!” Thus vociferating, Collot d’Herbois still remained his hold on Robespierre’s coat-collar. As I had at that very moment left the Convention on my way to the committee, I became a chance spectator of this fearful scene, whose violence was still not the greatest crime in my eyes. Behind it stood revealed the plot of premeditated vengeance, far worse than a mere outburst of anger. I was among those who compelled Collot d’Herbois to release his hold on Robespierre, who thereupon declared that he could no longer sit with his enemies, styling them a party of septemvirs, whom he would unmask and fight in the body of the Convention. He then took his departure, in spite of the entreaties of the entreaties of the committee, which, having been unable to conquer, sought to retain him in its midst. ”Let him go his way,” I said to those surrounding him. All my interest in him lay in the fact that I did not wish to see him strangled on the spot by a stronger man, and one perhaps as wicked as himself. I followed him for a short distance in order to see him safely home; he was trembling as he walked alone. Memoirs of Barras, Member of the Directorate (1895), volume 1, page 196-198. A variation of the anecdote found in the French memoirs?

On 19 Prairial (June 7 1794), I was in the council chamber with Dumas and several jurors. I heard the president speak of a new law which was being prepared and which was to reduce the number of jurors to seven and nine per sitting. That evening I went to the Committee of Public Safety. There I found Robespierre, Billaud, Collot, Barère and Carnot. I told them that the Tribunal having hitherto enjoyed public confidence, this reduction, if it took place, would infallibly cause it to lose it. Robespierre, who was standing in front of the fireplace, answered me with sudden rage, and ended by saying that only aristocrats could talk like that. None of the other members present said a word. So I withdrew.  Réponse d'Antoine-Quentin Fouquier, ex-accusateur-public près le Tribunal révolutionnaire de Paris (1795) page 52-53.

The day after the one on which the [law of 22 prairial] was issued, (June 11 1794) […] there was such a stormy scene at the Committee of Public Safety that Robespierre cried out of rage, since that time he only came two times to the Committee of Public Safety, and it was agreed that the Committee of Public Safety would hold its sessions one floor higher so that the people would not witness the storms that were agitating us. Billaud-Varennes at the Convention, August 30 1794. In fact, Robespierre is proven to have continuously signed CPS decrees up until June 30 1794.

At the morning session of 22 floréal [sic, prairial] (June 10 1794), Billaud-Varennes openly accused Robespierre, as soon as he entered the committee, and reproached him and Couthon for alone having brought to the Convention the abominable decree which frightened the patriots. It is contrary, he said, to all the principles and to the constant progress of the committee to present a draft of a decree without first communicating it to the committee. Robespierre replied coldly that, having trusted each other up to this point in the committee, he had thought he could act alone with Couthon. The members of the committee replied that we have never acted in isolation, especially for serious matters, and that this decree was too important to be passed in this way without the will of the committee. ”The day when a member of the committee,” added Billaud, ”allows himself to present a decree to the Convention alone, there is no longer any liberty, but the will of a single person to propose legislation.” ”I see well that I am alone and that no one supports me,” said Robespierre, and immediately he flies into a rage, he declaims violently against the members of the committee who have conspired, he says, against him. His cries were so loud that on the terraces of the Tuileries several citizens gathered, the window was closed and the discussion continued with the same passion. ”I know,” said Robespierre, ”that there exists within the Convention a faction that wants to lose me, and you’re defending Ruamps here.” ”It must be said,” Billaud rebutted, ”that with this decree you wish to guillotine the National Convention.” Robespierre responds with agitation, ”you are all witnesses that I am not saying that I want to have the National Convention guillotined.” He added, “I know you now,” addressing Billaud. ”And I too, know you as a counter-revolutionary,” responded the latter. Robespierre became agitated as he paced around the committee; and then speaking again with more calm, he carried his hypocrisy to the point of shedding tears. Réponse des membres des deux anciens comités de salut public et de sûreté générale… (1795), page 108-109. This very much sounds like the same session Billaud is describing above, that here got wrongly dated twice.

It was agreed that the reform of the law of 22 Floréal [sic, prairial] was to be proposed in consultation with the Committee of General Security and that the internal divisions would be kept a secret as they were seen as capable of serving the enemies of the Convention and the revolutionary government. Robespierre became more of an enemy of his colleagues, isolated himself from the committee and took refuge with the Jacobins where he prepared to sharpen public opinion against what he called the known conspirators and against the operations of the committee. Only a few days he was seen reappearing at the committee, one evening it was to accuse Richard and Choudieu of the slow and uneven march of the Northern army, and of allowing Ostend to be evacuated during the siege of Ypres. He was told that Choudieu was very ill, that Richard’s conduct had always been good, that they had the confidence of the committee and that the general was carrying out the orders of the committee by securing Ypres. Robespierre affected great concerns about the operations of the armies of the North, he announced to us upcoming betrayals or even double inertia, he proposed to Billaud-Varennes to go to the North, to excite the energy and activity of the operations, but the members of the committee, being few in number and feeling the need to be reunited, opposed this dangerous measure, and Billaud remained. He had done the same thing some time earlier after a big fight (une alteration très-vive) with Collot d'Herbois, who reproached him with the fact he seemed to want to destroy the patriots, in his way of constantly denouncing them. The next day, Robespierre suggested that he go to Commune-Affranchie where royalism was regaining, he said, a frightening consistency. But this tactic of Robespierre was foiled both these two times by the very strong wish of the Committee of General Security which saw itself just as threatened as us by the maneuvers and denunciations of Robespierre. Réponse des membres des deux anciens comités de salut public et de sûreté générale… (1795), page 109-110. Note that on July 3 1794 we also find a CPS decree signed by Collot, Carnot, Saint-Just, Barère, Billaud and C-A Prieur ordering Couthon to go to the army of the Midi, an order that he never followed through with, indicating Robespierre might not have been the only one to try this tactic…

How many nights have not been fruitfully devoted to preparing everything that could strengthen the brilliant destiny of the Republic? How many battles have not been fought against the despotism of Robespierre? He had come to reject, either out of jealousy or malice, the most obviously salutary ideas. He once wanted to declare me a traitor and conspirator, because I had strongly supported the useful and wise proposal that Lindet made, to require horses and carriages in each section of Paris, in order to provide for the supplies of the armies. Défense particulière de J-M. Collot, représentant du peuple (March 1 1795) 

At several times, we had seen from afar the plan to attack the National Representation, intending to resect it; sometimes Couthon, and more often Robespierre, denounced deputies to the Jacobins. One day, we read letters and information sent to the Committee of General Security: Robespierre demanded immediate arrest for the two deputies denounced in these letters: the arrest of Dubois-Crancé was discussed and rejected: that of Alquier was strongly advocated by Robespierre who accused us of softening against the culprits and thus losing the public sake; but that he would denounce these facts to the Jacobins. An arrest warrent was drafted against this Representative; but by a unanimous wish of the two Committees, without hearing Robespierre, the execution was postponed indefinitely and was never carried out. Robespierre returned to the Committee a few days later to denounce new conspiracies in the Convention, saying that, within a short time, these conspirators who had lined up and frequently dined together would succeed in destroying public liberty, if their maneuvers were allowed to continue unpunished. The committee refused to take any further measures, citing the necessity of not weakening and attacking the Convention, which was the target of all the enemies of the Republic. Robespierre did not lose sight of his project: he only saw conspiracies and plots: he asked that Saint-Just returned from the Army of the North and that one write to him so that he may come and strengthen the committee. Having arrived, Saint-Just asked Robespierre one day the purpose of his return in the presence of the other members of the Committee; Robespierre told him that he was to make a report on the new factions which threatened to destroy the National Convention; Robespierre was the only speaker during this session. He was met by the deepest silence from the Committee, and he left with horrible anger. Soon after, Saint-Just returned to the Army of the North, since called Sambre-et-Mouse. Some time passes; Robespierre calls for Saint-Just to return in vain: finally, he returns, no doubt after his instigations; he returned at the moment when he was most needed by the army and when he was least expected: he returned the day after the battle of Fleurus. From that moment, it was no longer possible to get him to leave, although Gillet, representative of the people to the army, continued to ask for him. Saint-Just awaited in Paris the determination that matters would take. In the morning he took care of the police bureau, and decided on arrests or correspondence to be signed; in the evening, he dealt with the detained persons to be judged, together with the public prosecutor, or made violent motions to the committee; he would often speak twenty times in an evening session, and would only speak out of sentence or out of anger when he was not subjecting himself to an affected and painful silence, or rather he would spy on the committee. Most often, he spoke to us about the conspiracies that were being formed in the prisons, he insinuated ideas on this point to the committee's rapporteur, and above all wanted us to refuse the help requested in the prisons. One day he wanted to reduce it to 15 sousand called us defenders of counter-revolutionaries, because we were arguing for the rights of humanity. Réponse de Barère, Billaud-Varennes, Collot d’Herbois et Vadier aux imputations de Laurent Lecointre (1795) page 101-103.

Finally one day during the meeting of the Convention [sic, Committee?], Robespierre asked if one wanted to decide to attack the new factions or to perish by their maneuvers; he attacks and indicts several deputies in turn. An impatient member of the committee, oppressed by this ever-reviving project, stood up and said to him with violent severity: “Robespierre, for a long time you have been trying to lure us with terror into the project of striking our colleagues. You keep complaining about them, attacking them, gathering grievances and denouncing them. This is what the Hébertists and other punished counter-revolutionaries did. There are six of us here who profess the dogma of the integrity of national representation: if you want more, I declare to you, in my own name and in that of my colleagues who work with me and whose feelings I know, that you will only achieve national representation through our bloody corpses. These are the obstacles that we oppose to every ambitious person.” The same member of the committee has since repeated these words to the National Convention while speaking to Robespierre himself on 8 Thermidor. (Billaud) Robespierre felt the force of this unanimous response, bit his brakes, accused us of being defenders of the factions and threatened us with denunciation to the People and to the Convention, he moved away from the committee for some time and never stopped accusing us at the Jacobins, while he was preparing the speech he read on 8 thermidor. Réponse de Barère, Billaud-Varennes, Collot d’Herbois et Vadier aux imputations de Laurent Lecointre (1795) page 103

On 10 messidor (June 28) I was at the Committee of Public Safety. There, I witnessed those who one accuses today (Billaud-Varenne, Barère, Collot-d'Herbois, Vadier, Vouland, Amar and David) treat Robespierre like a dictator. Robespierre flew into an incredible fury. The other members of the Committee looked on with contempt. Saint-Just went out with him.  Levasseur at the Convention, August 30 1794. If this scene actually took place, it must have done so one day later, 11 messidor (June 29), considering Saint-Just was still away on a mission on the tenth.

In several evening sittings the two committees united to devise a means of revoking the law of 22 Prairial. After several conferences during the month of Messidor, they called Robespierre and Saint-Just into their midst to force them to revoke this law, which was the result of a combination unknown to all the members of the government. The meeting was very stormy. Vadier and Moise Bayle were the members of the Committee of General Surety who attacked the law and its authors with the greatest force and indignation. As to the Committee of Public Safety, it declared that it had no part in it, and plainly disowned it. All were agreed to repeal it next day. After this decision Robespierre and Saint-Just declared that they would appeal to public opinion, that they saw that a party was formed to assure immunity to the enemies of the people, and thus to destroy the most ardent friends of liberty , but they could warn good citizens against the united manoeuvres of the governing committees. They retired uttering threats against the members of the committees. Saint-Just called Carnot, amongst others, an aristocrat, and threatened to denounce him to the Assembly. This was like a declaration of war between the two committees and the triumvirate. Seeing Carnot, the most indispensable worker in the committee, thus attacked on account of his courageous honesty and great military talent, I rose up against Saint-Just. Carnot seemed astonished at these threats of denunciation — terrible indeed from a man who two months before had denounced and destroyed Danton. On behalf of my attacked colleague, I said to this little dictator: ”I do not fear you, I have always defended our country openly and without personal interest I will answer you in the tribune if you lay the blame on Carnot. You know that I make reports that are favourably heard by the Assembly, I will make one of those reports in favour of Carnot and against you.” From this moment Robespierre and his friends acted with hostility against us, and especially against me. One day they even sent Robespierre the younger to me, whom they had recalled from the Basses Alpes. This lunatic entered the committee under pretext of giving an account of his mission to Nice; but instead of fulfilling this duty, he addressed me in a furious tone: ”You have maltreated my brother. We missed you on the 31st of May, 1793, but we shall not miss you on the 31st of May, 1794.” He left still threatening us. Memoirs of Bertrand Barère, volume 2, page 167-169.

I obtained from Barère the following fact: During a session of the Committee of Public Safety, Saint-Just and Robespierre reproached Carnot for being an aristocrat (the latter was frightened and shed tears, Barère said) and threatened to denounce him as such at the Convention. Then Barère said: In that case I will make public that you are angry with the man who organized the victory. Testimony of Filippo Buonarroti, cited in Études robespierristes; La corruption parlementaire sous la Terreur (1917) by Albert Mathiez. This sounds very much like the same incident Barère is describing above.

Having come to the Committee of General Security three or four days before 9 Thermidor (July 23), I was told that the two committees of public safety and general security would meet between noon and one o'clock in the place where the first held its sessions, and that I had to go there. Having asked what the reason for this meeting was, I was further told that it was to mutually explain the division which, according to what Robespierre had claimed on different occasions to the Jacobins, existed between the government committees. As I did not have the slightest knowledge of this alleged division, and as I was completely ignorant of what Robespierre had said to the Jacobins, I went to the Committee of Public Safety where I found several of my colleagues who had preceded me, and above all Robespierre, walking with long strides, glasses on his nose and throwing at everyone, from the height of his grandeur, looks which marked the deepest contempt. After a few minutes of silence, Saint-Just spoke and said in his exordium that although the youngest among us, he spoke first since we had often seen young people open opinions which enlightened those who were older; he then spoke on the necessity of organizing a constitution and ended up making a pompous eulogy of Robespierre, calling him the martyr of the liberty of his country and assuring him of all his esteem. This praise having been applauded and confirmed by Le Bas, Robespierre believed that it was time to burst out and first complained in general about his numerous enemies, whom he said were too cowardly to ever allow themselves to persecute him; he then indicted Amar, Vadier, Jagot, Carnot, Collot and Billaud, reproaching them for the fierceness with which they tore each other apart, which, having given rise to explanations, was the cause of Carnot telling him to his face that he did not like him, and Billaud and Collot repulsed his attacks with so much vehemence, energy and noise, that I more than once invited Collot to speak more quietly. Now, in the heat of this explanation, I heard for the first time that Robespierre was also criticized for having intended to put on trial the 72 of our colleagues who were still incarcerated; I also heard him being told that he had complained that one had not yet made use of this infinity of denunciations which were in the Committee of General Security against others of our colleagues, that nothing had been done so as not to provoke new troubles and to maintain concord and peace between us. This storm having passed and Robespierre having seemed to calm down, one agreed on ending the session, and that Saint-Just would make a report on behalf of the two Committees to inform the National Convention that they were not divided. Philippe Rühl in a speech held March 23 1795

Robespierre bitterly reproached us, at the committee, on 5 Thermidor (July 23), for having had the statue of superstition, erected on the Tuileries basin, brought down during the night. Réponse des membres des deux anciens comités de salut public et de sûreté générale… (1795), page 96.

You (Dubois-Crancé) say that Robespierre being absent the other members of the committee therefore agreed to lose you. It was rather to save you. Twice at the end of Messidor and on 7 Thermidor (July 25 1794) Couthon wanted to have the committee adopt the draft of the act of accusation against you; twice he was rejected. The last time especially, seeing himself rejected by us with a sort of cold and firm indignation, he went so far as to request from the committee the refusal that we made to deliberate on these serious denunciations which he brought against Dubois-Crancé. We opposed him in political principle the integrity of the legislative body and the danger of supporting the liberticidal projects of the aristocrats and tyrants in coalition; in public consideration, his reconciliation with you at the Jacobins, and in principle of justice the lack of legitimate evidence. Couthon left the committee furious, and threatened to denounce or silence our refusal to the people and the Convention. B. Barère à Dubois Crancé: Réponse (1795), page 29

This decisive scene, to unmask the conspirators, happened at half past midnight, from the 8th to the 9th of Thermidor (July 26 to 27). Several members of the two committees were gathered. We worked on the ordinary operations of the committees, but we worked with that sad impatience accompanies a terrible outcome, which all circumstances told us would be imminent. Saint-Just kept a profound silence, observed from time to time the members of the committees, and showed neither concern nor rest. He had just sent to Tuilier, his creature, the first 18 pages of the report he was to make the next day; and he then told us that he could not read the report to the committee, of which he only had the last pages. Collot d'Herbois come over from the Jacobins, where he had just been insulted, threatened, proscribed, so to speak, he seemed very agitated. Collot-d'Herbois had barely entered when his colleagues ask him why people left the Jacobins so late? Saint-Just asks him coldly, ”what's new at the Jacobins?”

”You’re asking me what's new? Are you the one who ignores it? You, who are in league with the main author of all these political quarrels, and who only wants to lead us to civil war: you are a coward and a traitor: it is you who deceives us, with your hypocritical air; you're just a box of apothegms, and you're spying on us in the committee. I have just convinced myself of this by everything I have heard; you are three scoundrels, who believe you are blindly leading us to the loss of our homeland, but liberty will survive your horrible plots.”

Here Elie Lacoste rose in fury and said: “there is a triumvirate of knaves, it is Robespierre, Couthon and Saint-Just, who are plotting against the homeland.”

Barère adds: ”who are you then? Insolent Pygines? Who wants to see the spoils of the homeland split between a cripple, a child and a scoundrel; I wouldn’t give you a barnyard to govern.”

Collot-d’Herbois continues: “I know that perhaps you will have us assassinated this night, perhaps we will be hit, by your plots, tomorrow morning, but we are determined to perish at our posts; and before then, perhaps, we will be able to unmask you. Among us, you are making plans against the committees. You have, I am sure, in your pockets calumnies leveled against us; you are a domestic enemy and a conspirator.” 

Saint-Just was struck by this speech; he turned pale, and he did not know what to answer. He opened one of his pockets, stammering, and placed some papers on the table; no one came to read them.

Collot-d’Herbois continues and says to him: “You are preparing a report; but from the way I know you, you have undoubtedly written our act of accusation? So what hope do you have? What lasting success can you expect from these horrible betrayals? You can, perhaps take our lives, have us murdered, but you will not deceive the virtue of the people. Do you believe that when it sees itself deprived of its defenders, of men who sacrificed themselves for it, it will not tear you to pieces? Do you believe that it will sit tight tomorrow, a quiet spectator of your crimes? No, there will be no unpunished usurpation when it comes to the rights of the people.”

Saint-Just then fell back on his report, and said that he would join the committee the next day and that if it did not approve it, he would not read it. Collot continued to unmask Saint-Just; but as he focused more on depicting the dangers praying on the fatherland than on attacking the perfesy of Saint-Just and his accomplices, he gradually reassured himself of his confusion; he listened with composure, returning to his honeyed and hypocritical tone. Some time later, he told Collot d'Herbois that he could be reproached for having made some remarks against Robespierre in a café, and establishing this assertion as a positive fact, he admitted that he had made it the basis of an indictment against Collot, in the speech he had prepared. Saint-Just, during that night, prolonged his allegations and his remarks so much, that it was quite obvious that he only dragged on in this way, in order to prevent us from taking measures against their conspiracy. Several members of the committees, impatient to so much falsehood, went into the next room and deliberated whether they would have him arrested immediately, but they thought it was wiser to refer it the next day to the National Convention, after having known the intentions of Saint-Just, in the report he was to make. It is even worth noting that when we drew up a picture of the unfortunate circumstances in which public affairs found itself, each of us looked for measures and proposed means; Saint-Just stopped us, acting astonished, as if not being in the confidence of these dangers, and complained that all hearts were closed, that he knew nothing, that he could not conceive this quick way of improvising lightning at every moment, and he conjured us, in the name of the republic, to return to fairer ideas, to wiser measures. This was how the traitor kept us in check, paralyzed all our measures and cooled our zeal. At five o'clock in the morning, Saint-Just fled and the members of the committee sought means to paralyze the armed force of Paris, which the scoundrels had in their hands. Réponse des membres des deux anciens Comités de salut public et de sûrété générale… (1795) page 105-107.

Billaud: you’re a COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY

Couthon: no u

Prieur Prieur Lindet Saint-André: just chilling in a corner hoping to survive 

[aedislumen]

Oh, I have one more to add! According to Joseph Carnot in one of the various beefs among the Committee members, Lazare threw a writing case at Robespierre's head.

Source: M. Reinhard, Le Grand Carnot vol. II, p. 145

Thank you a lot for gathering all the CSP drama in a post! Very convenient.

[saintjustitude]

Lindet:

I notice that Lindet mostly stays out of it 😂

Meanwhile, the rest of the CSP:

[saintjustitude]

"Calling your co-workers traitors/scroundrels/ counter-revolutionaries/aristocrats/conspirators/foreign agents: Billaud (1 time), Saint-Just (3 times), Robespierre (5 times), Collot (2 times)"

Oh, you forgot to count Barère saying: "you three are a child, a cripple and a scoundrel".

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Oh you’re right there! I’ll fix that, we want to be fair after all!

[noura-addams]

I will never get bored from the committee's drama ..

[we1rd0atyourservice]

Carnot throwing a writing case at Robespierre’s head as Saint Just and Couthon watch on and Collot Dherbois continues ranting

(C’était trop amusant à faire pas 😭)

[noura-addams]

The committee of public safety drama is good enough to be a great TV series ten times better than the office.

[octavodeci]

As much as I love La Révolution Française (1989) for simply being the first frev film I’ve watched and the nostalgia that comes along with it, if I see another person post “LRF is the best French Revolution film yet” on reddit or any other social media site then saying every actor was accurate in their portrayal, I’m going to lose my marbles because La Terreur et la Vertu (1964) fucking exists. Watch it you normies. I’ll gouge your eyes out.

[saint-jussy]

Thank u that was me

[noura-addams]

Nothing can be like la terreur et la vertu this movie is really the goat...