Buy more wigs for Robespierre

Side account for frev, doodles, and the silly requests and asks temporarily closed (sorry gotta get through all the existing asks first)

[revolutionarywig]

Character clarification post

Because I have way too many AUs and to avoid confusions lol.

ROBESPIERRE: The actual historical figure from the French Revolution, 1758-1794. Not an OC, the literal historical guy. Yes I think he has a very special relationship with Saint-Just. Most of my drawings in the main blog are just historical Robespierre.

VAMPIRE ROBESPIERRE: I thought it would be cool if Robespierre was actually a vampire, since many historical commentaries compared him so. This turned into a side project where I made a zine (L' Archange et le Diable) about him. The whole historical context is still the same, I try to research and integrate the vampirism into the politics of the period. I am still continuing to develop this idea. I made many illustrations of him.

Here is a page from the zine also.

DND ROBESPIERRE: Dnd Robespierre has almost nothing to do with his original historical counterpart. He was literally about to get guillotined in the French Revolution then POOF he got teleported to faerun and he got turned into a vampire. The vampirism has completely gone to his brain he is fucked up and evil and gay gaslighter as hell. Here is the character reference sheet I made at the beginning of playing.

I tag him with the "dnd robespierre" tag

MODERN AU ROBESPIERRE: Just a silly reimaging if all the French Revolutionaries lived in the modern day France....No one dies in this AU at long last (realistically the Revolution still happened etc but like dont think too much about it), everyone sort of keeps their personalities.

I am trying to make a comic with Modern AU Robespierre, it makes references to many names of other French Revolutionaries but the story is very very different from the actual history. It's more slice of life i guess. (It's on pause rn lol i drew a lot of pages but I didn't like the direction, need more time to figure out)

MAXIME: I started playing Baldur's Gate 3 and for my first run, I tried to make Robespierre (DUH) as my Tav (custom character), but they don't have 18th century wig option so I thought okay modern au hair will also do, but then the face type I like only comes with the body type that has boobs. I played like that for a while and i just can't tolerate him with big naturals anymore so i downloaded a flat chest mod so congrats on the top surgery.

He's morally good....a little freaky.....romanced Astarion etc.....

EDWIN: Now onto the non-Robespierre related territory....Edwin was my dark urge run for Baldur's Gate 3. He has the Durge backstory. I imagine him and Tav (Maxime) travelled together for the whole BG3 plot line, but he ultimately chose chose to doom the world and betray the rest of the party including Maxime. He's very morally conflicted.

Outside of the horrors he is just the tisms hes just a little guy....

DND EDWIN: Everything comes back to DnD......So while DnD Robespierre is in jail, obviously it's time for me to play a different character so I decided to play Edwin. Except I can't really play an actual murder hobo in my DnD game so his backstory was modified. He is morally good, he still got the austismTM in him. He's kind of like a gay grandpa figure. Also a wild magic sorcerer.

Although occasionally, he does get the dark urge in him...

Okay I think that covers it all....or who knows maybe the list will get longer

[saintjustitude]

Happy anniversary to the Failed Conciliation Meeting of 5 Thermidor

:(

From Vinot:

[secondjulia]

Dunno how accurate, but I Englished it with Google Translate...

COMPROMISE WITH THE COMMITTEES

A patch-up of the Committee of Public Safety appeared to be the least bad solution to safeguard the Revolution, at least in the short term. Committed for a year, despite their differences, to a policy that brought them together, their members had restored the state and saved the homeland. One would have had to be very blind not to perceive the danger of disunity. Their adversaries seized the first opportunity to regain the initiative. In the last ten days of June, the Mountain section had opened a register and invited citizens who approved the 1793 constitution to register: the maneuver was obviously aimed at calling into question the emergency government, which then had the document burned. During the first half of July, civic meals were organized, under the pretext of celebrating the victories and the impending peace. The national agent of the Paris Commune dissuaded patriots from participating. "Which one of you, after drinking to the health of the Republic with moderates, will denounce them the next day with such courage?" On the 16th, Barère at the Convention and Robespierre at the Jacobins also denounced these fraternizations, and on July 20, a certain Legray, a member of the revolutionary committee of the Museum section, was arrested for violently criticizing the excesses of the government and specifically accusing Saint-Just and Barère of being nobles.

Aware of the Robespierrists' weak position, Saint-Just maintained correct relations with the members of the Committee, except for Carnot. "I have no reason to complain, he confided; I was left undisturbed, like an unpretentious citizen walking alone." Thus, on July 14, he had Billaud countersign a decree ordering the levying of 50 million in cash from the city of Brussels, and on the 21st, he asked Collot to arrest the woman Lambert who had come to insult him. But his partners wanted assurances that he and Robespiere would not seek to play the sans-culottes against the Convention and the Committees. He then gave assurances. On the 20th, he had also signed the order to disarm the Surveillance Committees. A significant detail: while the author had indicated that the weapons would be deposited at the "Police Office," he had corrected it in his own hand: "Committee of Public Safety," no doubt to show that the said weapons would be placed at the disposal of the entire government. It was this gesture that seemed to have unblocked the implementation of the Ventôse policy so dear to Saint-Just: from July 19 to 21, the two commissions already in operation submitted their first lists of prisoners and had them approved by the Committees.

But this rapprochement was somewhat artificial because, on the 21st, at the Jacobins, Couthon, very close to Robespierre, spoke differently: "No one respects and honors the Convention more than we do. We are all willing to shed our blood a thousand times over for it. I invite my colleagues to present their thoughts to the National Convention. It is pure, it will not allow itself to be subjugated by four or five scoundrels." It is true that, on the same day, newspaper vendors were shouting: "Great arrest of Robespiere." Who had released this sensational news?

 But these differences between the Robespierrists did not hinder the negotiations. On 4 Thermidor (July 22), in the absence of Couthon and Robespierre, the two Committees finally established the last four popular commissions provided for by the Ventôse decrees. Lindet himself eventually signed. Barère, whose role as conciliator is evident here, invited the Assembly "to put an end to the slander and oppression under which they sought to place the most ardent patriots who had rendered the greatest services to the Republic," which amounted to paying homage to Robespierre. Billaud-Varenne, who had gone so far as to draw up the indictment of the Incorruptible, agreed; a new plenary meeting, with Robespierre and Couthon, was scheduled for the following day.

Saint-Just therefore seems to have been able to relaunch the Ventôse policy that the Committees had been sabotaging for four months and to prepare Robespierre's return to the government.

ESTABLISH A DICTATORSHIP?

On 5 Thermidor, the two Committees met as planned. Testimonies on the content and progress of the discussion were divergent and contradictory. Saint-Just claimed to have, from the beginning, asked for a frank explanation. The evil, fueled and exploited by foreign powers, lay, he said, in the absence of institutions; The most virtuous—he was thinking of Maximilien—were suspected of aspiring to tyranny, even though they dominated neither the army, nor the finances, nor the administration. David supported the deputy from Aisne, and Billaud-Varenne said to Robespierre: "We are your friends; we have always marched together." Charged with presenting a report on the situation to the Assembly, Saint-Just would do so, he said, with respect for "the Convention and its members" and would draw attention to "public morality." Billaud-Varenne and Collot d'Herbois, always sensitive to anything that might evoke spiritualism, asked him not to speak of the Supreme Being or the immortality of the soul, to which Saint-Just reluctantly agreed.

But Saint-Just does not mention that he also signed, with Barère, Billaud, and Carnot, a decree removing from the capital four companies of sectional gunners devoted to the Robespierrists and that he apparently agreed to recognize the police prerogatives of the Committee of General Security at the expense of the Police Bureau.

It has been claimed in the entourage of Carnot and Prieur that he also called for the strengthening of the Executive. The historian Toulongeon, a former Constituent who knew many revolutionaries, reports this, and Barère asserts that, supported by David, Le Bas, and Couthon, he requested dictatorial powers for Robespierre: "The evil is at its height [said Saint-Just], you are in the most complete anarchy of powers and wills. The Convention is flooding France with unenforced and often even unenforceable laws. The representatives to the armed forces dispose of public wealth and our military destinies as they please. Representatives on mission usurp all powers, make laws, and collect gold, which they substitute with assignats. How can such political and legislative disorder be regularized? As for me, I declare on my honor and conscience, I see only one way: of salvation: this means is the concentration of power (...) A dictatorial power other than that of the two Committees is needed; a man is needed who has enough genius, strength, patriotism, and generosity to accept this use of public power (...) This man, I declare, is Robespierre: he alone can save the State. I demand that he be invested with the dictatorship and that the two Committees, meeting together, make a proposal to the Convention tomorrow."

Nothing in this speech, reported by Barère, resembles the formulas of Saint-Just, generally more political and more nuanced. But the Gascon deputy probably did not entirely invent these remarks. College teaching had long exalted the dictatorship that, in Rome, had saved the Republic on several occasions. Rousseau himself wrote: "...If the danger is such that the legal system is an obstacle to protecting oneself from it, then a supreme leader is appointed who silences all laws and temporarily suspends sovereign authority; in such a case, the general will is not in doubt, and it is evident that the people's primary intention is that the State not perish..."

Barère and the Thermidorians certainly did not understand the word in the same way and exploited its pejorative connotations to discredit their adversaries and justify their own actions. But it must be noted that the Robespierrists constantly attempted to expand their power to implement their ideas. It is entirely possible that, on 5 Thermidor, Saint-Just once again lamented the impotence of the Executive. Certainly, it was not easy not to raise the specter of despotism. Five months earlier, the deputy from Aisne had declared to the Convention: "Marat had some happy ideas about representative government that I regret he took with him; he was the only one who could have expressed them; only necessity will allow them to be heard from the lips of anyone else." The Friend of the People had lamented that power had not been concentrated in a few virtuous hands. Saint-Just believed, with Rousseau, that "a dictator could in certain cases defend public liberty without ever being able to attack it, and that the chains of Rome would not be forged in Rome itself, but in its armies." While awaiting the establishment of institutions, Robespierre appeared to him to be precisely in a position to control the victorious armies and strengthen the revolutionary legacy.

SAINT-JUST DUPED.

Whether or not the issue of dictatorship was raised, the meeting of 5 Thermidor was very negative for Saint-Just, who was duped. The decree on the four popular commissions was not followed by implementing texts. Maximilien received only a few polite tributes. In return, his young colleague had accepted the partial disarmament of the sections, renounced the centralization of the police, the purge of the Convention, and the publicity of his religious policy. With composure, he concealed his bitterness and did not decline responsibility for the report. That same evening, Barère was able to celebrate the restored governmental unity. But Robespierre persisted in not believing in an agreement with the Vadiers, the Billauds, the Collots, and the atheists of the two Committees. For him, much more than for Saint-Just, the question of the Supreme Being was non-negotiable. The Aisne deputy had to implicitly acknowledge that Maximilien's political analysis had been more lucid and realistic than his own. More worryingly, on the same day, a delegation from the Committee of General Security, led by Amar and Voulland, visited the 75 imprisoned "protesters" to inquire about their treatment: a seduction operation was well underway by the Committees aimed at Plaine.

Thus, in a few days, the Robespierrists had just lost the battle of the Committees, compromised their appeal to the people through their concessions, and already found themselves on the defensive at the Convention. Time was against them.

On the evening of the 6th, at the Jacobins, Couthon certainly reaffirmed the unity of the Committees but, forgetting the promise made by Saint-Just, persisted in wanting to crush "five or six small human figures whose hands were full of the riches of the Republic and dripping with the blood of the innocents they had sacrificed." He only blamed corrupt representatives and showered "the national representation" with very emphatic tributes. A speech in line with Robespierrism, but moderate enough not to displease Plaine. Maximilien, for his part, was now aware of the unfortunate consequences of his absence. Feeling the noose tightening around him, while Dubois-Crancé demanded that he explain why he had him expelled from the Jacobins, he took the podium of the Convention on the 8th.

[revolutionarywig]

HEY FELLOW CANADIAN FOLLOWERS

Please help to sign this federal petition to restrict AI data centres being built across the country! The Petition closes on September 24th 2026. Just learned recently that there is gonna a data centre built near my home city too, signing this petition is the least we can do to help prevent this from happening

Bruh fr this AI shit so ass im so done bruh

(You can only sign if you are Canadian. But if you know any canadian friends/mutuals, spread the words to them)

[tangjue]

Modern AU frev characters part 2! 🥳

Still can’t decide who to draw if there has part 3…? Maybe the other members of CPS?

[revolutionarywig]

[...la loi pénale doit nécessairement avoir quelque chose de vague, parce que, le caractère actuel des conspirateurs étant la dissimulation et l'hypocrisie, il faut que la justice puisse les saisir sous toutes les formes. Une seule manière de conspirer laissée impunie rendrait illusoire et compromettrait le salut de la patrie. La garantie du patriotisme n'est donc pas dans la lenteur ni dans la faiblesse de la justice nationale, mais dans les principes et dans l'intégrité de ceux à qui elle est confiée...]

Was reading Robespierre's speech on 8 thermidor and personally this passage gave me a sudden more understanding for his mental space on the law of 22 prairial...?

Perhaps he thought it is actually difficult to define what constitutes a patriot vs. conspirator in detailed writing. To some degree i do understand that, because 1) anyone can use and adapt the revolutionary lingos/rhetoric. 2) He certainly wants to distinguish between errors vs. deliberate intentions. 3) Especially in a sensitive time where the Committee of Public Safety could not stand decrease of trust.

4) (sort of, funky reason) If I was going after people like Billaud, Carnot, Vadier, Fouché, etc, what would I even charge them with like......I know mentally some of these people are sus asf, but wtf do I even label them with. At least with Fabre and Danton they had the concrete East Indie company thing/financial corruption to indict them, the Thermidorians don't have that clear trail to pin (and they are very different from each other). Like we can all say in hindsight some of these people committed horrific war crimes, we can define what they did as excess because we know now, but how are the deputies supposed to know that during the revolution beyond the reports they receive from those exact people.

So Robespierre's solution is to make the law in writing vague, and to put his trust in selecting good people, the right people, for the judicial roles. Not gonna lie it's still a very questionable method and I still think the law is quite controversial of a decision...But I can see he really had this focus/hope on the people itself having enough moral basis* and not just the governing structure too.

*(as in, remembering general interest and not just private, the whole definition of virtue etc etc.)

[revolutionarywig]

i am struggling so hard to seeee the difference between frock coat morning coat and sack coat and chesterfield coat and whatever the other heck exist and i havent EVEN get into womens fashion yet-

I think im too wired to 18th century….

[tangjue]

Modern AU frev character part 1🥳

[revolutionarywig]

I LOOOOOVE THESE VISIONS SO SPECIFIC TO EACH ONE OF THEM

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Revolutionaries’ activities on the day of the Champ-de-Mars massacre

Pauline Léon took part in the demonstration. On her way home from there, she used her fists to defend a friend against the family of a national guard. This is the first conserved trace of any militant activities from her side. (Pauline Léon, une républicaine révolutionnaire (2006) by Claude Guillon).

Manon Roland wrote in her memoirs that she on the day in question had been at the jacobins ”where I had witnessed the agitations caused by the sad events on Champ-de-Mars.” Manon remembers walking home eleven o’clock in the evening and bumping into François and Louise Robert. Louise (who it might be worth mentioning would have been seven months pregnant at this point) explains that ”my husband was writing the petition on the altar of the homeland, I was at his side. We escaped the slaughter without daring to retire neither to our house nor that of one of friends.” She therefore asks if they can take shelter at Manon’s place. Manon happily agrees, and brings them over to hôtel Britannique, rue Guénégaud. The next morning, the Roberts start talking through the window with an acquaintance by the name of Vachard, whom they invite up. Vachard speaks loudly about yesterday’s events, boasting about having run his sabre through a National Guardsman. Manon finds this conduct to be careless, and asks the Roberts to tell their friend to leave, which they do. The Roberts themselves leave around noon.

Forty years after the fact, Sergent-Marceau claimed that he on the morning of the day in question had been at Danton’s place together with Desmoulins, Fréron, Fabre, Santerre, Brune, Duplain and Momoro, discussing the lynching of two men at the Champ-de-Mars. At nine o’clock, Legendre arrives and tells the group that two men had come home to him and said: We are charged with warning you to get out of Paris, bring Danton, Camille and Fréron, let them not be seen in the city all day, it is Alexandre Lameth who engages this. Camille, Danton and Fréron follow this advice and leave, and were therefore most likely not present for the demonstration and shootings (Revue rétrospective, ou Bibliothèque historique: contenant des mémoires et documens authentiques, inédits et originaux, pour servir à l'histoire proprement dite, à la biographie, à l'histoire de la littérature et des arts (1834),p. 284-285). Desmoulins is nevertheless confirmed to have shown up at the jacobins’ evening session the very same day to talk about the split with the Feuillants and bring to attention the fact that his journal since six weeks back has been unable to reach Marseille. Sergent-Marceau too was there.

Robespierre did, according to the memoirs of his sister Charlotte, see the shootings with his own eyes. He is confirmed to have been at the jacobins’ evening session and there have intervened twice, first asking that commissioners be appointed to find out and report back what exactly is going on in Paris, and then lamenting the sad state of affairs. Both Charlotte, Fréron and Philippe Lebas Jr. write it was on this day Robespierre moved in with the Duplay family on rue Saint-Honoré 398 Charlotte claims that this happened when he was walking away from the massacre following said street. A considerable crowd then showed up, recognized him and started shouting vive Robespierre!, which caused Maurice Duplay to come out and offer Robespierre to rest up in his house. Fréron on the other hand writes that when leaving the jacobins in the evening and crossing its courtyard, which was filled with Lafayette’s soldiers who ”vomit[ed] imprecations and threats against the Jacobins” Robespierre got so scared that he had to grab onto Lecointre and La Poype in order to support himself. Not daring to go home he asked Lecointre if he knew any patriot in the vicinity of the Tuileries who could give him shelter for the night, whereupon the latter brought him to the Duplays. Philippe jr simply writes that on the day in question, a rumor had spread that ”the most influential members of the democratic party, and in particular Robespierre” were going to get arrested, causing his grandfather to offer him asylum. Charlotte claims her brother wanted to leave after an hour or two, but was made to stay for dinner and kept in the house for days.

Pétion too was at the jacobins’ evening session, where he held speech about the founding of the Feuillant club the day before, calling for calm in these ”stormy times” and for a circular to be sent to all the sister clubs.

Brissot admitted in a interrogation held October 15 1793 that his ”great occupations” had hindered him from attending the demonstration. He is confirmed to have been at the jacobin club in the evening and there have read aloud the circular to the sister societies regarding the split with the Feuillants Pétion proposed writing. At the very end the circular says the following, apropos of the day’s event on Champ-de-Mars: ”Something has just happened at Champ-de-Mars: the blood of the people has flowed. Brothers and friends, beware of false stories and slander that may be directed at you. We owe you the truth, you know that.” The circular was approved.

Duforney, Régnier and Royer are also confirmed to have been at the Jacobins’ evening session.

[fluviusy]

I miss our sessions

[revolutionarywig]

saaaame need to play again GAWHHHH season 2 lets go pleaaaase

[igmaiguanna]

attack on @revolutionarywig that came to me in a heatwave induced delirium

[revolutionarywig]

this truly is a divine vision…

[aramistinguette]

happy Bastille Day citizens 💥

[revolutionarywig]

Picking up traditional drawing again

[fluviusy]

“After a certain point in the negotiation, neither man could concede defeat or accept the humiliation of concession. The time for words, for arguments over syntax, was past.”

Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr by Nancy Isenberg

Well I hope they didn’t, Happy 7/11

[revolutionarywig]

2025/11/10: DnD Robespierre had a dream of Maive, the Swords adventurer that saved him and that he once travelled with. He woke up, realizing he had unconsciously bit Attila Linestone in reality.

Disclaimer: Dnd Robespierre is twisted and fucked up and a vampire and has almost nothing to do with the historical counterpart he's literally Thermidorian maxxing

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Frev friendships — Pétion and Brissot

Brissot and Pétion were both born in Chartres, Brissot on January 15 1754, Pétion almost exactly two years later, January 3 1756. We unfortunately know very little about their relationship back then, this extract from Pétion’s Discours de Jérôme Pétion sur l’accusation intentée contre Maximilien Robespierre (1792) being the strongest indicator of it:

…I’ve known [Brissot] since his childhood. I’ve seen him in these moments where the soul completely shows itself.

I so far haven’t found any hard evidence Pétion attended the college of Chartres, where Brissot studied between age eight to sixteen, even if that certainly sounds plausible. In his Notice sur Brissot (1794) Pétion also shares the following details regarding Brissot’s studies…

Brissot, from his childhood, showed a passion for study; he spent the nights reading, and serious works occupied him at this age when most men dream only of dissipations and pleasures. He was always at the head of his fellow students in classes, and numerous prizes were awarded to his early work.

…which match up rather well with what Brissot, unbeknownst to his friend, had written about the same subject in his memoirs:

At eight years old, I entered college; At nine, I was in fifth grade and people were already talking about my successes. I owed them to a prodigious love of work which devoured me, and this love came from the encouragement and help given to me by a professor who had taken a liking to me. […] Abbot Comusle had a fairly well-stocked library, he left it to me. It was with some pride that at that age I immersed myself in reading instead of sharing the games of my college comrades. […] I will only cite one trait to give an idea of ​​my tireless zeal. The day was not enough for my ardor, I devoted part of the nights to it. My elder sister, who, out of devotion, went to the cathedral at four o'clock in the morning, gave me light, and I enclosed it in a dark lantern, so that it would not be seen by my father, whose room was next door to mine. It was in this concentrated light that I studied my Latin authors.

In the same memoirs, Brissot also mentions that both he and his ”fellow patriot and unfortunate friend” Pétion got their second lastnames de Warville and de Villeneuve from the name of the towns they had been wetnursed in, ”following the custom of Beauce.”

Throughout the first months of 1787 we find a series of letters (the first conserved ones that we have) from Pétion in Chartres to Brissot in Paris, regarding the establishment of a philanthropic institution in Chartres. Pétion addresses Brissot with tutoiement, suggesting the two are close:

My friend, I read with satisfaction the letter from M. the Marquis of Crest and the one from you, but I fear that these letters will only be received by frostiness by the members of the committee, or at least by several of them. The Literary Society was for them the most attractive bait. The self-loving weighed on the love for humanity and perhaps they shall in the surrender which is made of the literary establishment see a skillful and honest way of evading it and of not founding this establishment. They wee also so convinced that the Palais Royal would support their views, that they would have difficulty in imagining such a delay. Add here that the project had leaked out to the public and that they will find themselves stung by a delay which they will regard as a refusal. Rest assured that I will spare nothing to bring back the spirits. I'm going to call a meeting tomorrow. I am very happy that you have chosen me as one of the members of the Gallo-American society.  I haven’t heard anything about Desauger. All to you. Pétion de Villeneuve. Chartres, 6 February 1787. To Monsieur, Monsieur Brissot de Warville, secretary general of the chancellery of M. the duke of Orléans. Paris. Letter from Pétion to Brissot February 7 1787

Chartres, 25 February 1787.  This morning, we were impatiently awaiting the copy. I immediately sent someone to search for your letter in the office. Not only do I have nothing to say against M. Meslier's son, but I desire with all my heart that he gets the position he is seeking. Letter from Pétion to Brissot February 25 1787

To Monsieur Brissot de Warville, Secretary General of the Chancellery of H.M.S.M., the Duke of Orléans, in Paris.  Please, my good friend, never make an announcement that does not come true punctually. You tell me about a conspicuous letter for the Literary Society, and I don’t receive it. You tell me, on February 23, that on the 24th, MM. the Lieutenant-General, the Mayor of the city will receive letters, and your letters do not arrive. Do you know what happens? People come to my house, they ask me for news, I report what you tell me, and I unintentionally mislead. For more than six days these MM. have expected to at any moment receive a letter, and you would not believe how much distrust and discouragement these delayed words give my colleagues. Yesterday, our session was very languid. By raising the causes of begging in Chartres, almost everyone considered it impossible to eradicate it, even to do any significant good to the suffering class. We dwelled on the ills, we exaggerated them, we doubted the effectiveness of the remedies, we doubted the abundance of help. Several voices were raised to say that we were forming an enterprise which would never be successful, that from the first year we would be forced to abandon it, that the Palais-Royal gave no certain promise, that we varied in the price. Judge what situation I was in. I did everything I could to bring the spirits back together, and finally the session ended with the conclusion that everyone would make their observations on the regulations of the Society of Orléans, which in general were not very well received. The letters you tell me about will give a salutary jolt to the machine.  You can also count on all my efforts. Take care of yourself. When you get interesting news, pass them to me. All to you,  Pétion de Villeneuve. Pétion to Brissot, February 27 1787

My friend, I am urged to print. M. de Lubersac to whom the prospectus has been communicated, finds it very good; it is generally appreciated. The common charity fund is perhaps the only way to eradicate begging. In Amiens, Le Mans, Châteauroux, there are similar ones, and it is assured that they produce great good. I have not given this idea all the developments of which it is susceptible. The Monday assembly was stormy, not as much as I expected. I hope we will manage to bring MM. the priests to our goal, there are two or three very stubborn ones. We have appointed commissioners to draft the statutes, and they will take care of it. It is the basis of the building, and it must be made solid. All to you. Pétion de Villeneuve. Pétion to Brissot March 13 1787

Two years later, March 20 1789, one Madame de la Seinie writes a letter to Brissot in which she reveals that Pétion has been elected to the Estates General and will do everything he can to try to make sure the same thing happens to him. Five days later she does however have to report that ”M. Pétion sends you all his sympathy that you were not elected a member of the Estates-General. If he had had a quarter to spare, he thinks he would have won. You only lacked four votes.”

Brissot therefore remained in Paris, while Pétion in May 1789 settled for Versailles and the Estates General. On June 18 he writes his friend the following letter, announcing that the third estate has declared itself the National Assembly:

Monsieur Brissot de Warville Rue de Gretry n. 1 Paris Versailles, 18/7 I write to you, my friend, with joy in my heart. I can only say two words to you, and you would probably learn nothing new. At yesterday’s session, we constituted ourselves as the National Assembly. To ensure our success, we declared taxes null and void and nevertheless authorized their collection until the day we no longer convene. To calm the concerns of the state's creditors, we assured their pledges on French honor. To merit the favor and blessing of the poor, we announced that we would immediately address the means behind the calamities that devastate the destitute classes. We ordered the printing of this decree for distribution throughout the provinces. With the exception of the constitution, the remainder was unanimously approved. Judge how well-disposed people were. I assure you that I will never neglect anything to ensure the triumph of good principles. I am ready to make every sacrifice for the public cause. The special committees are progressing well. The operations will give great energy to the spirits. All to you. Pétion de Villeneuve

Three months later, September 8 1789, we find yet another letter from Pétion in Versailles to Brissot in Paris, this time in regards to the royal veto:

I am undoubtedly very angry, my friend, not to have been able to confer with you on the veto question. I would doubtless have gained new insights from conversing with you. I have reflected as much as I could; I do not know if I am on the right path. So far I have not yet heard reasons given that have made me change my mind. I do not know if those who do not want any veto reflect well on our present position; our nation is very old, our monarchs are accustomed to great power, the people are still idolatrous of their kings; they would not see them stripped of all their prerogatives without murmuring; there are not twenty cahiers that recommend that deputies make the law in concert with the king: the king would retain a profound hatred of absolute spoliation; he would only seek means of revenge, and a great executive power has many opportunities to poorly execute what it has not consented to. The suspensive veto only leaves him with an appearance of power, which I find almost impossible for him to abuse with permanent assemblies. However, it is also possible that the Legislative Body does not always defend the rights of the people, and then the people are warned by a veto. The suspensive veto occurs in America itself, because the President of Congress may not sign, and the matter is subject to further examination. The duration of the veto and the manner in which it is lifted are important points to examine. I would like to speak with you for a moment about the appeal to the people; I cannot tell you how many means justify this appeal and how lightly one treats one of the most important matters, on which national liberty may depend for the future. Abbé Sieyès has advanced the most anti-political principles on the articles of representation and mandates. They tend toward nothing less than the constant stripping of constituent power, for, in his opinion, constituted powers can do anything, and the nation is free, as Rousseau said of the English nation, only when it holds its elections. I can tell you that I have delved into this matter somewhat, and perhaps I am no less prone to error. All to you. To Monsieur Brissot de Warville, Rue Grétry n. 1 Paris.

Not having obtained a place in the National Assembly, Brissot did instead choose to turn to journalism, founding the journal Le Patriote Français in July 1789, in which he supported Pétion and the other ”radicals” in the National Assembly.

On December 25 and December 27 1790 the two signed the wedding contract and attended the wedding ceremony of Camille and Lucile Desmoulins, Camille reporting to his father that ”I had as witnesses Péthion [sic] and Robespierre, the elite of the National Assembly, Sillery, who wanted to be there, and my two colleagues Brissot de Warville and Mercier, the elite among the journalists. […] The dinner was at my house, only M. and Mdm Duplessis, their daughter Adèle, the witnesses and the celebrant.”

In February 1791, Manon and Jean-Marie Roland moved from Lyon to Paris. In a letter to a friend towards the end of the month, Manon happily announces that the two have gotten to meet ”the brave Pétion.” In the memoirs she put together two years later, she reveals this was thanks to Brissot, with whom the couple had corresponded since at least 1787. Manon too underlines a certain closeness between Pétion and Brissot:

Born in Chartres, and comrade of Pétion, who came from the same town, Brissot became even more closely linked with him during the Constituent Assembly, where he through his knowledge and his work helped his friend several times. He made us get to know him, as well as several other deputies, that old relationships or the simple conformity of principles and the zeal for public affairs frequently brought together to confer on it.

A month later, in number 69 (March 21 1791) of Révolutions de France et de Brabant, Desmoulins spends ten pages addressing Brissot personally. Desmoulins begins by underlining that he still puts a high value on his fellow journalist, whose most honorable title is ”the friend of the irreproachable Péthion [sic].” After this, he does however regret the fact that they’re starting to drift apart, and writes that he would gladly ask Pétion to judge them both. When Brissot responded to Desmoulins in number 659 (May 29 1791) of Le Patriote Français, he did however just scoff at this idea, proclaming that it’s rather obvious whose side Pétion would choose: ”he knows my entire soul, my whole life, my current existence, my means, my views… interrogate him.” Desmoulins would however not appear to have been so satisfied with Brissot’s explanation. In number 81 (June 18 1791) of Révolutions de France et de Brabant, he describes how he a little while earlier had met Pétion at the jacobin club and talked to him about it. ”How, I said to him, you who are Brissot's friend, did you not at least make him feel the ridicule with which he covered himself by playing Monsieur Lafayette's Don Quixote, and by writing me three letters friendly and paternal in appearance, where he ends a lot of praise with telling me that I slander, like Marat and Fréron, his dear Lafayette?” To his surprise, Pétion responded by asking him to ”cite a single fact” against Lafayette.

On April 3 1791, Robespierre made the motion that the recently deceased Mirabeau be buried in the Panthéon. In his memoirs, Brissot claimed that ”Pétion reproached [Robespierre] for this the same day, he reproached him for it in my presence.” Five days later, we find the following letter from the Society of Friends of Blacks, co-authored by president Pétion and secretary Brissot:

Monsieur President, The Society of Friends of Blacks, always dedicated to the defense of these unfortunate people whom ignorance and greed pursue so relentlessly, hastens to place before the eyes of its brothers, the Friends of the Constitution, the new memoir which it has just published in favor of the colored citizens of our islands. It prides itself on having demonstrated beyond doubt that we cannot, without injustice, without hurting the principles and interests of France and those of the colonies, refuse them the rights of active citizens. It therefore implores the members of the National Assembly who are among the Jacobins to read it with the most serious attention. The in-depth discussion on the commercial relations of the metropolis and the colonies will shed light on this subject which will dissipate the false and perfidious terrors excited by greed. The Society of Friends of Blacks sends 400 copies to its brothers, the Jacobins.  We are very fraternally, M. President, The members of the Society of Friends of Blacks J. Pétion, president J-P. Brissot, secretary

This society had been founded by Brissot in 1788. Pétion, as well as many other members of the National Assembly, had joined it during the revolution and had then, in Brissot’s words, proven themselves to be ”colleagues ready to everyday defend the sacred cause that we were serving.” (J.-P. Brissot: Mémoires (1911), page 87) This can also be seen a month later, May 11 1791, when Brissot made his debut at the jacobin club and held a long speech arguing free people of color in the colonies should enjoy the same rights as active citizens. After the speech, two or three people asked for it to be printed only to be shut down by Barnave, who in his turn got covered in applause. Pétion did nevertheless step in to take his friend’s side, while Laclos instead supported Barnave. In the end, it was the latter camp that came out victorious. (La Feuille du jour, number 134 (May 14 1791) page 365-366)

Yet another month later, June 21 1791, the royal family left Paris and attempted to flee the country. In her memoirs, Manon Roland recalled that on the very same day she, Brissot and Robespierre all gathered together at Pétion’s house (on rue du Faubourg-Saint-Honoré n. 6, around twenty minutes walking distance from Brissot’s home on 1 Rue Grétry) discussing the flight, Robespierre being scared, but the childhood friends arguing that it presented an oppurtunity to start preparing people for a republic. The following night, the royal family was discovered in Varennes, and Pétion, alongside Barnave and Maubourg, was assigned to go escort them back. They reached Paris again on June 25. According to Étienne Dumont’s Souvenirs sur Mirabeau et sur les deux premières assemblées législatives (1832), in the days that followed, the following scene took place:

I remember that one day, gathered at Pétion's house to find out what would be proposed in the assembly on the return of the king, he was quietly playing his violin, and Brissot became seriously angry at this indifference and this frivolity when it was a question of the fate of the monarchy.

On September 30 1791, the National Assembly was finally closed to be replaced by the Legislative Assembly. Like many other journalists, Brissot provided a lenghty description of the triumphant exit Pétion and Robespierre made from there the very same day. Here is what he wrote in number 783(October 2 1791) of Le Patriote Français:

When the two Catos of the legislature, that is to say, Pétion and Robespierre, appeared, they were crowned with civic oak, to the sound of unanimous applause and the strains of a military band positioned on the terrace of the Feuillans. "Receive," they were told, "the prize for your civic virtue and your incorruptibility; in crowning you, we give the signal to posterity." As these deputies tried to avoid such well-deserved honors, they were stopped by young women, one of whom presented them with her little girl, a most charming child: "At least," she said, "you will allow my child to embrace you." They took her in their arms; and the applause, the cheers, the cries of "Long live the brave legislators, the SPOTLESS deputies!" redoubled and escorted them back to their homes. To escape the crowd, which was flocking from all sides accompanied by music, the two heroes of the celebration hastily climbed into a carriage. The horses were immediately unharnessed, and some citizens, fearing they hadn't sufficiently demonstrated their gratitude, themselves lingered behind the carriage. At this sight, the deputies had rushed towards the ground, trying to flee. Good citizens managed to restrain them and persuade the people that they should not stoop to this slave-like idolatry, thus giving ammunition to slander. They were then allowed to depart, to the sound of fanfares, applause, and the acclamations offered to reward three years of courage and incorruptibility.

A week later, October 7 1791, both Brissot and Pétion were elected by the jacobins to to take part in ”conferances on moral and constitution” alongside ten others. Soon enough, they would however each be handed heavier duties — on September 14, Brissot got elected to the new Legislative Assembly, and on November 16, Pétion got elected Mayor of Paris.

Throughout the following year, we find some more signs their friendship was known to the public. In number 112 (fall 1791) of Révolutions de Paris, Prudhomme calls Brissot ”the advicer and friend of Pétion,” and in number 649 (May 6 1792) of l’Ami du Peuple, Marat writes that ”people know about [Pétion’s] intimacy with Brissot.” In a letter written in the spring of 1792, Brissot’s wife Félicité also reports that ”everyday I go home to the mayor of Paris, M. Pétion, who has a charming garden overlooking the boulevards close to us. He’s leaving it soon, but M. Clavière, minister of finance, is going to move in there.” In Réponse de Maximilien Robespierre à Jérôme Pétion (November 1792), Robespierre also claimed Brissot exterted big influence over Pétion when it came to the election of new ministers in March 1792. He portrayed things as having gone down the following way:

When Brissot, and a few patriots of the Legislative Assembly of the same ilk, in concert with Narbonne, with Lafayette's consent, and through the mediation of several women, such as the Baroness de Staël, the Marquise de Condorcet, etc, had arranged everything, and the terms of the agreement were finalized, Brissot came to you and said: "Who shall we appoint as ministers? Roland, Claviere. They're good! Do you want them? Good Lord! Yes... Roland, Claviere... Oh! But do you know how wonderful it would be if we appointed them?" And you believed that the ministry was your creation.

In Observations de Jérôme Pétion, sur la lettre de Maximilien Robespierre (December 1792), Pétion claims that at midnight August 10 1792, Brissot and Guadet came over to the mayor’s office. The very first thing they told him — ”with the outpouring of the soul and the fire of feeling” — was: ”Finally the homeland is saved!” Robespierre on the other hand claimed in Réponse de Maximilien Robespierre à Jérôme Pétion (November 1792) that it was actually on August 11 or 12 the two had come over, but that it had not been to celebrate what had happened. Brissot would have instead have openly reprimanded Pétion for ”the ease with which you had complied with the popular wish,” accusing him of cowardice and summoning him to stop ”the chariot of the revolution.” This, according to Robespierre, caused Pétion to show up to the Paris Commune the following day to announce a plan to dismantle it and bring the old municipality back. Robespierre said he had obtained this anecdote from  an ”irreproachable citizen” that he nevertheless refused to name. Pétion denied any of it to be true.

During the trial of the girondins, Fabre d’Églantine also testified that he together with Danton had once dined at Pétion’s house and ”begged him to support the revolution of August 10th,” only to receive ”bloody insults in response.” A bit into the dinner Brissot arrived. According to Fabre, ”we judged, by the reception he received, the influence he held over this gathering.” (cited in Histoire parlementaire de la révolution française, volume 30, page 83)

On September 2 1792, the so-called September massacres broke loose in the prisons of Paris. In Histoire générale et impartiale des erreurs, des fautes et des crimes commis pendant la Révolution française (1797) Louis Marie Prudhomme claimed that, the following day, September 3, Théophile Mandar privately proposed creating a dictatorship in order to stop the massacres to Pétion and Robespierre. To that, the latter responded by crying out: ”Be aware! Brissot would become dictator! […] I hate dictstorships and I hate Brissot!” while Pétion didn’t say a word.

In Discours de Jérôme Pétion sur l’accusation intentée contre Maximilien Robespierre (November 5 1792) Pétion recounts how on the next day, September 4 1792, he and Robespierre met again at the mayor’s office, where they came to discuss Brissot. Robespierre would have started by accusing Pétion of being ”disposed against me, you see my enemies every day, you see Brissot and his party.” Pétion admitted that this was true, but firmly denied that Brissot would ever be capable of being some kind of brain behind a conspiracy like Robespierre was suspecting:

You’re right, I see Brissot, however rarely, but you don’t know him, and I know him since his childhood. I have seen him in those moments when the whole soul shows itself; where one abandons oneself without reservation to friendship, to trust: I know his disinterestedness; I know these principles, I assure you that they are pure; those who make him a party leader do not have the slightest idea of ​​his character; he has lights and knowledge; but he has neither the reserve, nor the dissimulation, nor these catchy forms, nor this spirit of consistency which constitutes a party leader, and what will surprise you is that, far from leading others, he is very easy to abuse.

Robespierre would then have admitted he believed Brissot to be allied with the Duke of Brunswick, a charge Pétion called straight madness:  ”this is how your imagination leads you astray: wouldn't Brunswick be the first to cut his head off? Brissot is not mad enough to doubt it: which of us can seriously capitulate! which of us does not risk his life! Let us banish unjust mistrust.” Danton then stepped in and put a stop to the argument between the two.

During the trial of the girondins, Convention deputy Duhem also testified that on September 5 1792, he had attended a dinner at Pétion’s house together with Brissot and several other deputies. Towards the end of it, ”the two doors opened, and I was quite astonished to see fifteen cutthroats enter, their hands dripping with blood; they had come to ask the mayor for orders regarding the eighty prisoners who still remained to be massacred at La Force. Pétion gave them something to drink and dismissed them, telling them to do their best.” The deputy Chabot also testified to have witnessed the very same event, but he placed it on September 3 instead. Regardless, Brissot firmly denied ”that anyone with hands dripping with blood presented himself at Pétion’s house, or that I drank with him” (cited in Historie Parlamentaire de la Révolution Française ou Journal des Assemblées Nationales, depuis 1789 jusqu’en 1815, volume 30, page 71-72, 105-106)

In the days following the massacres, both Brissot and Pétion were elected to the National Convention, both representing the Eure-et-Loire department. Soon thereafter, the contemporary descriptions underlining the close friendship between the two are replaced with ones designating Pétion as belonging to the ”girondin faction” surrounding Brissot (descriptions which, it can be noted, hadn’t circulated prior to this point). In number 685 (21 September 1792) of L’Ami du Peuple, Marat wrote that he ”know[s] full well that [Pétion] was continually possessed by the Brissot faction.” A few weeks later, October 6 1792, another journal, Journal de la République française, called Pétion ”Brissot’s patron.” At the end of the month, October 29 1792 Merlin de Thionville exclaimed to the jacobins: ”isn’t Pétion human? Isn’t he weak? Isn’t he Brissot’s friend? Doesn’t he see Roland? Doesn’t he receive all the intriguers that we’re hunting?” In Réponse de Maximilien Robespierre à Jérome Pétion (November 30 1792) Robespierre wrote: ”Brissot, praised by you (Pétion), seems to be praising himself. One does not consult a disciple on the ability of his master, nor a lover on the charms of his mistress.” He also reminded Pétion that ”you have told me twenty times over that Brissot was a child.” On December 30 1792, Hébert wrote ”To hell with Brissot, Condorcet, Vergniaud, Pétion, Buzot” in his journal Père Duchesne. On February 27 1793, Pétion got struck from the Jacobin club’s list of members (the same thing had happened to Brissot already on October 10 1793), on the suggestion of Monestier, who argued that ”his (Pétion’s) ties to them (Manuel and Brissot) amply confirm that he is pursuing the same course of action.” (Journal des hommes libres number 120 (1 March 1793)

In his memoirs, Pétion recalls that the night between May 30 and 31 1793 was the very first during which he didn’t sleep at home, choosing instead to stay at the house of a respectable old couple. Early in the morning of May 31 he left to take cover at the house of yet another citizen. He met Brissot there, and the two spent some time together. Out of fear someone in the house would recognize them, reveal their location and get the apartment surrounded, they did however soon start planning on retreating. After almost blowing their cover by accidentally starting a fire and then quickly putting it out, the two managed to leave the house and go their own ways. The next day, they met again at the house of the deputy Meillan, alongside several other girondins (Pétion writes that the most prominent were Vergniaud, Gensonné, Guadet and Buzot) to discuss what to do if the Convention was to gave in to the demands from the mob which had surrounded the building that same day and call for their arrest. The group ended up spending the entire night together, lying on chairs and listening to the toscin ring. The next day, right as they were working on drawing up a declaration for the French people explaining their principles, the brother of Rabaut Saint-Étienne stormed in and said: ”There is no longer a Convention, they are bursting into the hall and seizing deputies. Every man for himself! Every man for himself!” The group therefore quickly split up without taking further measures, choosing instead to seek retreat. (Mémoires inédits de Pétion et mémoires de Buzot & de Barbaroux (1866) page 108-110)

This was the last time Pétion and Brissot ever saw each other. Already the next day, June 3, Pétion got captured and placed under house arrest. Brissot on the other hand had more luck and managed to escape the capital. A week later, June 10, he had reached Moulins, where he was identified and detained. On June 22 he was back in Paris, where he got locked up in an actual prison rather than just being placed under house arrest. In his memoirs, Pétion writes that it was when he learned of Brissot’s return, along with the harcher measures for those still under house arrest brought about by it, he decided to make a second escape attempt, and this time he succeeded, reaching Caen and then eventually Saint-Émilion.

With their roles now reversed — Pétion in hiding and Brissot under arrest — and with a threat of death looming over over them both, Brissot and Pétion both set about writing. In his memoirs, pieced together during his four months long prison stay as well as last period alive, Brissot admits that ”I was known to be closely linked with Pétion.” (J.-P. Brissot: Mémoires (1911), page 12) He also calls Pétion an ”irreproachable man” (page 90) whose ”firmness is devoid of harshness, and nothing is gentler or more sensitive than the depths of his heart,” without that affecting his patriotism in any negative way (page 125), and praises both his efforts for people of color as well as his conduct when escorting the royal family back from Varennes in 1791. Brissot also wrote a long response to the report made on him and his fellow accused, written by Saint-Just and read to the Convention on July 6. Brissot firmly dismissed the charge there printed that Pétion during the Insurrection of August 10 would have given the Swiss guards order to fire on the people invading the Tuileries palace — ”this order has never existed.” (page 244-245) He also claimed that on September 6 1792, Pétion had gone over to the la Force prison alone and called for the massacre of prisoners to stop. (page 246)

Pétion’s memoirs, which only concern themselves with telling us about his activities following the Insurrection of May 31, don’t mention Brissot in more places than those already covered. In the beginning of 1794, a few months after the execution of Brissot and twenty other girondins, Pétion did on the other hand dedicate a whole work to his friend’s memory, Notice sur Brissot (cited in J.-P. Brissot : Mémoires (1911), page 357-370). In it, Pétion doesn’t write anything about Brissot’s career after 1789, with the motivation that ”the things he’s done in the Legislative Assembly and the Convention are too well known to be talked about,” but does on the other hand provide a detailed and glorified portrait of his friend’s life prior to that. Already as a child he was studious and the best in his class. He always had a facility for learning and studied both science as well as several languages — English, Italien, Greek, Spanish and German. He also had an amazing memory and could cite his favorite authors almost by heart. Eventually the curiosity of his soul led him out of Chartres and into Paris, where he never let any of the big amusements the city had to offer distract him from his work, choosing instead to spend Sundays and holidays ”with Locke, Montaigne, and Montesquieu.” Pétion brings up and praises all of Brissot’s pre-revolutionary works. In regards to one of them, Bibliothèque criminelle du législateur et du philosophe (1782), a work on penal justice reform, he even writes that, had it been released by a more famous author, ”it would have been celebrated, widely disseminated, and regarded as a benefaction to humanity.” Pétion also underlines Brissot’s opposition towards ”the tyranny of academic bodies” and efforts for people of colour. He brings up the Society of the Friends of Black, and firmly rebukes those thinking it was a work of self profit rather than one of philantrophy — ”Not only did Brissot derive no profit from acting as the unofficial defender and champion of this class of unfortunate men, but he also devoted his time to the cause without pay and spent his own money on it.” After returning to France from America in 1788, Brissot started busying himself with ”ways to cultivate the first seeds of public spirit and prepare the French people for liberty,” telling his friends: "Let us write, let us write, there is not a moment to lose." Finally, Pétion also pays homage to the private person Brissot, writing that ”everyone who knew him was aware that he never indulged in luxuries nor led the life of a man with money to spare. It was impossible to be simpler in one’s dress, to have less ostentatious living quarters, to keep a more frugal table, or, in short, to spend less money.” He never sought glory, willingly shared knowledge and source material with his friends without asking for credit and his only real concern was simply to be useful. According to Pétion, Brissot’s biggest flaw, besides being utterly indifferent to his own interests, was simply that he was too trusting — ”no one was more prone to being deceived than Brissot; his trust was boundless, and he believed in the good faith of others with the simplicity of a child.” Pétion ended with the words: ”He was a good father, good husband, good citizen.”

[revolutionarywig]

Okay but I really wanted to add this one specific occasion where Brissot threw Petion under the bus (April 20 1793) LOL

Source: Brissot de Warville by Eloise Ellery page 335, the original cited document is J.P. Brissot, député à la Convention, sur la dénonciation de Roberpierre [sic], et sur l'adresse prêtée aux 48 sections de Paris

[broncoburro]

Art Fight 2026 - smileyfaceorg's Robespierre (DND)

[wigfucker]

:3