he/him, 20, en/fa learning fr ♥︎ fallen angel + victorian aristocrat ♡ multi-fandom, other-kin “ the trouble is, you think you have time ” — Siddhartha Gautama
my name is ayin, i am an autistic queer man born in 2005 with a love for all that fuels my angelic soul.
i am a fallen angel inside a soulless human vessel. i am also fictionkin, no not cazador ;; but astarion and some others which this blog will not focus on at all.
this blog will not serve just one or a specific kind of purpose. i may kinpost, analyse, whine, write, so on and so forth over here. this is my main blog, and i shall use it to dump all that does not fit into archival artistic purposes here.
@bel1ved is my art blog, you won't find my drawings here unless they're hasty doodles and wips.
# — beloved's soliloquy : is my... soliloquy tag, except I'm not a character, i'm just a person talking to a wall ;;
some of the things i like are: sonic, french revolution, victorian england, fear & hunger, hello charlotte, v-kei, ouji and dandy fashion, literary fiction/creative writing, fine arts (animation concentration), (melodic/symphonic/death/black) metal music — most especially the agonist.
it might look like a lot, but I'm simply full of passion for the artistic facets of life.
On 9th December 1785, Saint-Just and Thérèse Gelle were godparents to a friend’s son. Church books from Blérancourt show the baptism record with their signatures. This is the earliest (or one of the earliest?) Saint-Just’s signatures that we know of:
It looks so different than his later ones (he was 18 here):
(and yes, this is Thérèse’s signature next to his)
Source: Archives départementales de l'Aisne (document titled 5Mi0161 - 1772 1792, page 242)
As I was skimming through Blérancourt’s 1790 records (I was looking for Thuillier’s wedding), a familiar signature caught my eyes:
On the 10th April 1790, Saint-Just was godfather to Louis Bigot (born the day before), son of Pierre Nicolas Bigot and Françoise Adélaïde Lamotte. The godmother was Françoise Adélaïde de Lignière (I’m not sure of her surname), young daughter (she was a minor) of Ferdinand de Lignière, farmer (then there’s something I can’t read, about a “moulin”. Do tell me if you can read it :)). Saint-Just was 22 going on 23 then and, as the record states, a “licenciè ès lois/graduate in law”.
source: here (bottom of the right page, continuing on the next page)
And on the next page, another familiar signature!
Barely a month later, on the 4th May 1790, Thérèse Gellé was godmother to Marie Thérèse Bigot (born the day before), first cousin of Louis Bigot, Saint-Just’s godson! Marie Thérèse was the daughter of Charles Marie Bigot, carpenter, and Marianne Magdeleine Sidustique (not sure, what an unusual name!) Vieille. The godfather was Martin Claude Augustin Vieille, “maître de pension de la paroisse de Notre-Dame des Vignes de Soissons”. The record states that Thérèse was the wife of “maître François Emmanuel Thorin, notaire royal”. She had been married to him before the age of 20 (it was young, the medium marriage age for women was 25!) in July 1786, most probably to keep her from marrying Saint-Just.
This one is important, because it tells us that SJ said that he was a graduate in law at this point. There is an ongoing mystery over whether he ever graduated or not, and this doesn’t prove it (because he could have lied about it). But it tells us that this is how he presented himself. (At the identification on 10th Thermidor, he gave “student” as his occupation before the revolution, but idk if it was meant like “previous occupation” or “prior to 1789”.)
Therese was born in October 1766, so she was not yet 20 when she married Torin. And Thorin himself was not yet 21. Both is unusually young for marriage.
Women Affiliated with the Jacobin Movement in the Face of Bonaparte’s Repression after the Rue Saint-Nicaise Attack
I am not infallible, so please feel free to correct me.
It is generally accepted in historiography that after the attack on the Rue Saint-Nicaise, which targeted Bonaparte, although the royalists were in fact the real perpetrators, the event allowed Napoleon to eliminate the left-wing opposition, more specifically the Jacobins.
Until the Battle of Marengo, Bonaparte’s regime still rested on fragile foundations, but after Napoleon’s victory, he was finally able to rid himself of this opposition. Some historians believe that Napoleon genuinely thought the Jacobins were responsible for the attack. However, I believe that he knew they were innocent and that the attack merely served as a convenient pretext. The proof lies in the fact that even after the real culprits were identified, he nevertheless allowed the repression to continue, as seen in the executions of Topino-Lebrun, Ceracchi, Arena, and Demerville during the Conspiracy of the Daggers, as well as in the deportation of other Jacobins. Some of these deportees were only able to return in 1809, others not until 1814, and some never returned at all; several died as a result of their deportation.
Moreover, some of those deported had already been imprisoned since 1797 (I am thinking in particular of the Babouvists Charles Germain, Cazin, and Moroy), which made it impossible for them, despite their opposition to Bonaparte, to have conspired against him.
But what was the place of women in all this?
I will first highlight the position of those who were imprisoned beginning on 16 Nivôse, Year IX, and explain why they were the ones “chosen” to be incarcerated despite their innocence.
On 14 Nivôse, Year IX, a sénatus-consulte ordered the deportation of certain individuals outside European territory. Among those concerned were opponents of the Consulate such as Félix Le Peletier, Rossignol, and Lamberthé, as well as individuals such as Dufour, Chrétien, Brisevin, René Vatar, René Lebois, Mathurin Bouin, and others.
On 17 Nivôse, other Jacobin opponents were placed under surveillance, including Antonelle, as well as men such as Laignelot, Cochet, and Ricord. However, the day before, on 16 Nivôse, Year IX, an order for administrative detention was issued. This order concerned the arrest and incarceration of certain women.
The imprisonment of women affiliated with the Jacobin movement after the attack on Rue de Saint-Nicaise
I have identified four such women, all of whom had been well known during their lifetimes in the French Revolution: Henriette Simonin, the widow of Chaumette; Simone Evrard, the companion of Marat; Albertine Marat, sister of Jean-Paul Marat; and Marie-Anne Victoire Langlet, widow of Babeuf.
I have not been able to determine exactly where Simone Evrard and Albertine Marat were imprisoned during this period. The only available information is that Simone Evrard was interrogated six days after her incarceration. Here is her interrogation:
Q: What’s your name, place of birth, residence? And how old are you?
A: My name’s Simonne Évrard, Jean-Paul Marat’s Widow. I’m 36 years old. I was born in Tournus, department of Saône-et-Loire. I currently live in Rue Saint-Jacques n° 674 division of Thermes with my sister.
Q: Why were you arrested?
A: I don’t know.
Q: Where were you on Nivôse the 3rd?
A: I stayed at home all day long.
Q: Who did you welcome that day?
A: Nobody.
Q: There were people at your place that evening; we saw various people around a table lit by three lights.
A: I had been cleaning the whole day and I finished in the evening, at nine. My sister had only her lamp, she works at the watchmaker’s shop. I went out only to get a litre of wine and I dined alone with my sister. It has been ten years since I welcomed somebody to my place.
Q: Who have you met this month?
A: Only Citizen Tamu, the watchmaker, who lived in Rue de la Barilliere and offered a job to my sister. He came from a small village located near ours, which I forgot the name of.
Q: Who are your neighbours?
A: Citizen Digard, the oven owner. The rest of the building is shared with other women.
Q: When and how did you know of the event of the 3rd?
A: It was the baker who told me the following day that a house was blown up to crush Bonaparte.
Q: By refusing to name the people you engage with, I am inclined to think you met with the enemies of the government.
A: I told you the truth. I do not welcome anybody, because I’m also extremely poor since I receive only 560 from the state.
Marie-Anne Victoire Babeuf was imprisoned in the Madelonnettes prison along with her son Caius, who was three years old. Her two other sons, Camille (who was eleven) was waiting for her and Émile (sixteen), was enrolled as boarding student.
She wrote to her eldest son, Émile, on 20 Nivôse, Year IX (that is, 10 January 1801):
“My dear child,
Yes, my friend, I have been arrested without knowing why, having been transferred without being interrogated (she is attempting various démarches to regain her freedom and asks Émile to see Cordier, her principal tenant). He is fully prepared to vouch for me, as are all my neighbors. See him, my friend, and share my letter with him. It is to him that I entrusted the key to my shop; if you need anything from our place, ask him for the key and then return it to him, for I entrusted it to him.
You ask me how I am. Overwhelmed by misfortune, scarcely able to breathe alongside my dear children, I suddenly found myself torn from my home, forced to close my shop and to pile my goods one on top of another. You know the dampness that prevails there; if I remain here for a long time, everything will be lost. That is why you must go into the shop and ask Citizen Dupré, the porter of Citizen Cordier, to help you fold and take down everything that is in the shop, which you will place in the cupboard (…) on the shelves (…).
I am well, and your brother is as well. If you have not written to your brother, do not tell him that I have been arrested, for it would cause him too much sorrow. Write to me as often as possible; it will give me great pleasure.
Your mother, Woman Babeuf.”( Letter and text explanation by Robert Legrand )
It appears that she dictated this letter.
Barely two days later, she wrote to him again:
“I also recommend that you go and see Citizen Dasse so that he may take steps to obtain my release, for I have not yet been interrogated. Also see Citizen Réal: you are a friend of his son—try to ensure that he is of use to you with his father…
Your mother, Woman Babeuf.”
In another letter dated 11 Pluviôse, Year IX (31 January 1801), she expresses happiness at having news from her son, but asks him to write as often as possible.
Here is an excerpt from this new letter, along with comments by Robert Legrand:
“You know my sensitivity toward all that remains dear to me in this world. I would take great pleasure in seeing you, but I believe you are already too old; I think permissions are given to small children, and besides, I would rather embrace you freely than there. Try to imagine a dreadful visiting room, me on one side and you on the other. I confess that it would remind me of the memory of my unfortunate fate.”
She wishes that her son Camille not be worried. As a clear-headed woman, she also thinks about letters that might arrive at her address. She says that she does not need money, but adds:
“You would please me by sending me four melons to revive my appetite, for I assure you that I am quite weary of eating peas and beans. I am very pleased with the good idea someone had of putting a padlock on my shop; that was yet another of my worries… Say a thousand kind things to the people who are still willing to take an interest in me…”
As for Henriette Simonin, the widow of Chaumette, I have found no records, no letters, nor any interrogation reports, apart from the fact that she was imprisoned for some time.
Why were these four women imprisoned, and why them in particular?
Lenôtre simply states that, in the case of Simone Evrard, it was an unfortunate coincidence that on the evening of 3 Nivôse she had lit three candles in her home which would explain why she was arrested . I do not believe this.
In his excellent thesis on Élisabeth Le Bas, “Veuve de Thermidor”, @sieclesetcieux makes a very perceptive remark about the arrest of Simone Evrard in 1800, which I will quote here:
“It is difficult to leave the political world once one has been marked by it: Simone Evrard, the widow of Marat, was arrested and interrogated in connection with the attack on the Rue Saint-Nicaise of 3 Nivôse, Year IX.”
Napoleon Bonaparte deeply despised the Babouvists and the very name of Gracchus Babeuf—a hostility that was fully reciprocated, as can be seen here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/767626191447392256/the-journey-of-the-forgotten-french-revolutionary?source=share
For example if Buonarroti, at the beginning of the Consulate (having been imprisoned since the failure of the Babouvist conspiracy), was able to benefit from improved conditions, this was not due to Napoleon. Their former friendship had long since turned into mutual animosity. Rather, Buonarroti owed this improvement to Napoleon’s brother, Lucien Bonaparte.
Even though among the Jacobin opponents whom Bonaparte had deported or executed there were figures who were themselves anti-Babouvist (such as Bernard Metge—although this did not prevent him from forming alliances with Lamberté in particular), the majority of Babouvist sympathizers were nevertheless targeted during this wave of repression.
Now, Simone Evrard and Albertine Marat, in addition to having been subscribers to Le Tribun du Peuple, had provided considerable assistance to Gracchus Babeuf—who had already been a close ally of Jean-Paul Marat during the latter’s lifetime—particularly during Babeuf’s political break and struggle against Guffroy and Fréron. They sheltered Babeuf when Guffroy denounced him to the Committee of General Security following that political rupture. Albertine Marat wrote a letter that Babeuf published against Fréron, calling for the liberation of the Hébertist Legray. Both women were publicly honored by Gracchus Babeuf, and Le Tribun du Peuple even cited Albertine Marat as an example.
One might argue that their imprisonment resulted from the fact that they were “Maratists,” defenders of Marat’s legacy, and from their other revolutionary activities—such as Simone Evrard’s speech at the Convention, or Albertine Marat’s political letters addressed to the Cordeliers Club and other revolutionary clubs. This is without even mentioning that Bonaparte seems to have harbored a deep dislike for Marat himself. However, I believe it was their links to Gracchus Babeuf that ultimately led to their incarceration.
Everything seems to point in the same direction for Henriette Simonin, the widow of Chaumette. In the post I wrote about her, all evidence shows that she was politically active and close to Montagnard politics shortly before the insurrection of Prairial, Year III. She was close to Marie-Anne Babeuf and jointly sent a letter with her to Gracchus (whom she referred to as “cousin”), who was then imprisoned in Arras, informing him of the political situation. She was also in contact with René Lebois, which suggests links to other important political figures. She may well have continued her political activities later on; in any case, the fact that she was in direct correspondence with Gracchus Babeuf must have played a role in her eventual imprisonment. It is also possible that she remained politically active in Year VII, but more evidence would be needed to confirm this.
Marie-Anne Victoire Babeuf played a far more significant role than that of a mere collaborator in the publication of her husband’s journal. She acted as a liaison agent for her husband, skilled enough to evade the police, a perceptive adviser capable of political cunning—or even deception—in order to protect her husband and his allies. Her role was crucial, though far less visible than that of other women, and took place largely in political clandestinity. When her husband claimed that she could neither read nor write, or when he minimized her abilities, this was a deliberate falsehood intended to protect her. Moreover, the simple fact that she was married to Gracchus Babeuf certainly did not help her case. In the context of the Jacobin repression that was about to unfold, it sadly seemed logical that she too would be arrested.
Nevertheless, one point remains intriguing. Simone Evrard was interrogated, whereas Marie-Anne Babeuf apparently was not, judging from her letters. Yet of the two, the one who had most recently encountered problems with the police was Babeuf’s widow. Even though Simone Evrard had been imprisoned for three weeks at Sainte-Pélagie after 1795, she was not subjected to further police proceedings thereafter. By contrast, Marie-Anne Babeuf had been arrested on 5 February 1796 and imprisoned for three weeks in a failed attempt to force her to reveal her husband’s whereabouts. Moreover, in Year VII she was placed under police surveillance following a denunciation by an informant, who accused her in the following terms:
“The woman Babeuf, rue Honoré, near the Jacobins, is supported by the Society, which has provided her with what she needed to stock her shop.”
She was also close to Félix Le Peletier, an opponent of Bonaparte.
It is therefore surprising that on this occasion she was not interrogated, despite having been accustomed to such procedures throughout her life. I believe this merely underscores how well the authorities knew, at a deeper level, that the Jacobins were innocent in this affair. Had there been any real danger, immediate interrogations would undoubtedly have taken place.
The Role of Women Supporting the Jacobins in the Face of Repression
Faced with this Jacobin repression, women did everything they could to free their husbands or acquaintances from the judicial machinery. Some relied on more conventional methods.
Toulotte, a former Babouvist whose name appeared on the list of deportees, was placed under surveillance on the island of Oléron but managed to escape before being recaptured. He was subsequently imprisoned at Sainte-Pélagie. In Messidor, Year X, his wife wrote to Desmaret:
“You promised me that my husband would be transferred to the Temple. But he is still at Sainte-Pélagie, where I must bring him food every day… I am nursing a child, and the eldest is still in the cradle… If my husband were at the Temple, he would breathe healthier air, enjoy walks, and devote himself to literature.”
He was eventually released and placed under surveillance.
Other efforts, however, were far less successful. Théodore Lamberté, a printer for the Babouvists who had been acquitted at the Vendôme trial, remained politically active in Year VIII, when he signed a petition against Sieyès during the Directory. A year earlier, he and his wife, Claire Privat, had once again encountered legal troubles. In Prairial, Year VII, they were accused “of having uttered insulting remarks against the government in a café in Melun, and of having threatened to stab one of its members.” Their informal defense counsel, Béchet, stated:
“They are accused of having spoken insultingly of the government—and even if that were true, who does not speak ill of it? Should we then indict all French citizens?”
The public prosecutor remained silent » (Robert Legrand, Babeuf et ses compagnons de route).
After the attack on the Rue Saint-Nicaise, Lamberté was arrested. As soon as the Jacobins—and he himself—were recognized as innocent of the attack, his wife demanded his release. Nevertheless, he was deported to Cayenne, from which he escaped in Fructidor, Year XII, with a fellow detainee named Pignatel, using a pirogue. According to a report by Victor Hugues, it was believed that “Théodore Lamberté and Pignatel must have drowned while escaping from Cayenne.” However, according to the Maitron database, "the Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog mentions the existence of a newspaper entitled L’Écho du Commerce, printed in New Orleans in 1808–1809 by Théodore Lamberté. One may therefore conclude that Lamberté not only succeeded in escaping in 1804, but also reached New Orleans, where he settled and resumed his former profession as a printer" .
Another case must also be mentioned. François Dufour, a carpenter who had sheltered important Babouvists and who seems to appears to have been a neo-Jacobin, was arrested the day after the attack on the Rue Saint-Nicaise, leaving behind his wife and their six children. Madame Dufour reacted with remarkable determination. While other Jacobin wives focused on gathering testimonies and undertaking administrative démarches, she openly delivered pro-Jacobin—and likely anti-Bonapartist—speeches. A police report dated 19 September 1803 states:
“The wife of the deportee Dufour, residing on Rue Papillon, stands out for the boldness of her remarks; she is a true fury; she constantly runs between brothers and friends; she openly proclaims the imminent success of the Jacobins. This woman was once involved in Babeuf’s conspiracy; it was in her home that most of the meetings were held.”
(quoted by Aulard)
Unfortunately, her efforts proved futile. The deportations were carried out, and most of the deportees—including her husband—died in exile (in Year X).
Another case should be mentioned in the context of Jacobin repression, although it predates the Rue Saint-Nicaise attack. This is that of the widow Brisset, who sheltered Topino-Lebrun on the Rue de Tournon for an entire month while he was being hunted by Bonaparte’s police. His eventual arrest occurred by chance, demonstrating her considerable skill in maintaining secrecy.
It must be understood that most women suffered from the loss of the Jacobins not only politically, but also economically. Their husbands were often the primary providers for their families, and many households were plunged into extreme hardship when these men were condemned to deportation. One must also recognize the immense courage these women displayed. After the Rue Saint-Nicaise attack, Parisians—incited by the censored and government-controlled press—were violently hostile toward the Jacobins, mistakenly believing them responsible for the attack. Crowds would assault anyone suspected of Jacobinism. To openly support the Jacobins at that time was therefore extremely dangerous.
Nevertheless, the shift toward clandestine opposition to Bonaparte further increased the political role of women. A police report dated 13 Brumaire, Year IX (4 November 1800), shortly before the Rue Saint-Nicaise attack, states:
“The men scarcely go out anymore; it is the women who spread the news and collect money.”
Women were already playing a political role in opposition to Bonaparte.
However, as in any struggle, they were also vulnerable to betrayal. It is reasonable to believe that François Réal may have assisted them. After all, he unsuccessfully attempted to spare the Jacobins and was the only councillor—along with Admiral Truguet—to openly oppose the repressive measures taken after the Rue Saint-Nicaise attack, as demonstrated by the historian Victor Daline. It is therefore logical to assume that he supported these women. Others, however, gained their trust only in order to extract information to pass on to the state.
The Parein du Mesnil Case
Parein du Mesnil is a figure best known for the major role he played in the repression of Lyon in Year II and for his political ties to Fouché. Here is how Robert Legrand describes him:
“Born in Mesnil-Aubry (Seine-et-Oise) in 1755. (…) He took part in the storming of the Bastille. In September 1789, he became an officer in the company of the ‘Victors of the Bastille.’ He was appointed brigadier general in the Army of the Coasts on 2 October 1793, having previously come to Abbeville as a commissioner.
From November 1793 onward, Collot and Fouché were charged with repressing the Lyon insurrection. (…) The Revolutionary Army arrived in Lyon on 23 November (…) and a military commission—presided over by Parein—condemned 1,682 individuals to death out of 3,539 defendants (…).
Parein, whose aide-de-camp was another sans-culotte, Corchand, was appointed provisional major general in March 1794. Denounced in Year IV, Fouché vouched for his patriotism. He became chief of staff of the Army of the Coasts of Brest on 28 May. Dismissed on 18 October 1794. Imprisoned in May 1795. Retired in September of that same year. He took part in the defense of the Convention on 13 Vendémiaire. Reinstated with the rank of brigadier general on 25 October 1795. Appointed to the Army of the Coasts of the Ocean on 1 January 1796.
Decreed under arrest as an accomplice of Babeuf, Parein wrote on 24 Floréal to the members of the Executive Directory:
‘I have just learned with the greatest surprise that my name appears on a list sent to the Central Bureau in order to issue a warrant for my arrest, as an accomplice in a conspiracy that was to break out in Paris in recent days. I solemnly protest, in the name of all that is most sacred, that not only did I have no knowledge of such a plot, but that I attended no secret meeting whatsoever. I therefore defy the wretches who denounced me to provide the slightest substantiated evidence in support of their accusation.’
He added that he had always been in the field during the Revolution, that his health was now ruined, and that he found himself without resources. As a fugitive, he was not arrested. He was nevertheless indicted at Vendôme, tried in absentia, and acquitted. Granted retirement pay. Reinstated on 9 September. Retired again in 1798. Reinstated once more on 14 August 1799 for service with the Army of Italy, though he would not depart.”
From my perspective, however, Parein du Mesnil knew more about the Babouvist conspiracy than he ever admitted even though he didn't play a major role .He met Babeuf from time to time, and even if he was not one of the conspirators himself, his colleague Rossignol—whom he frequently associated with—was far more deeply involved. At that moment, Parein said nothing against Babeuf or the others, even though doing so might have ensured his own safety.
In his biography of Ronsin, General Herlaut notes that Parein du Mesnil also spent time with Ronsin’s widow, who was a subscriber to Le Tribun du Peuple (later she would become the wife of Turreau, who was the adoptive father of Camille Babeuf, son of Gracchus) and frequently attended revolutionary clubs. She was even an “Amazon” for the Jacobins, leading them on horseback on one occasion during Fructidor under the Directory. Yet Parein had nothing to gain by associating with the widow of a man who had been executed and never rehabilitated. He nevertheless did so, which I believe stemmed from respect for Ronsin, shared political convictions, and perhaps personal friendship (she, like him, would later rally to Bonaparte’s regime).
At that point, despite everything that could be reproached to him—particularly his role in Lyon—he was not yet a political weathercock, ready to abandon his former comrades for personal safety or financial gain. He was initially hostile to the coup of Brumaire, which suggests a certain political consistency.
It was only later, when he entered the service of the police under Fouché, that his attitude changed. A police note from Year VIII states: “It is believed that the Minister of General Police has attached General Parein to himself.” During the Rue Saint-Nicaise attack, Parein encountered no difficulties. The reason appears to be that he had denounced “patriots in order to purchase his own tranquility.” I believe it is reasonable to assume that these “patriots” were his former Babouvist comrades, whom he knew well. He had not betrayed them under the Directory, but he would do so under the Consulate.
Even worse, Robert Legrand demonstrates in his thesis, through convincing evidence, that Parein betrayed the trust of the deportees’ wives, who had come to him seeking assistance. They must have trusted him deeply, knowing him well and perhaps sharing memories from the Babouvist conspiracy or from other traumatic revolutionary events. Another document concerning him states:
“On 2 Messidor, Year XI (21 June 1803), the police report that the former general Parein is beginning to reappear and frequently sees a certain number of ‘exclusives.’ He enjoys great influence among them and has managed to gain their confidence. The wives of deportees say they owe him a great deal and that he often provided them with assistance; yet in doing so he was acting as an informer on behalf of Fouché, ‘the subsidies coming from the funds of the Ministry.’”
To be fair, Fouché had been temporarily removed from his position as Minister of Police at that time. However, if Parein du Mesnil had been acting in this manner from the outset, after the repression began, it is possible that he was already working on Fouché’s behalf. In any case, this offers a plausible explanation for why Madame Dufour—who was not herself a police informant—was able to move freely despite openly delivering speeches against the Consulate. By allowing her such freedom, the police may have hoped to gather information through Parein du Mesnil. His initial hostility to the coup of Brumaire may unfortunately have served, for these women, as an additional reason to trust him.
In any case, this episode illustrates how a man who had once associated with Babeuf and his companions, and who in his own way had supported them under the Directory, could ultimately turn against them in such a manner.
Source :
Robert Legrand Babeuf et ses compagnons de route
Natalie Petiteau
Victor Daline
Alain Jouffroy and Philippe BordesGuillotine et Peinture: Topino-Lebrun et ses amis
Stefania di Pasquale Madame Marat
Aulard
For the information I have been able to find about the life of Chaumette’s widow, see here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/804044312295964672/the-information-i-have-been-able-to-find-about?source=share
For information on the life of Ronsin’s widow, later the wife of Turreau, see here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/794437214869340160/marie-ang%C3%A9lique-lequesne-widow-of-ronsin-and-wife?source=share
For the relationship between Babeuf and Jean-Paul Marat (and therefore with Simone Evrard and Albertine Marat), as well as access to Albertine Marat’s letter, see here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/767708756031176704/i-am-so-exhausted-that-i-only-now-realize-that-i?source=share
On the role played by Simone Evrard and Albertine Marat in support of Babeuf during his conflict with Guffroy, see here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/780339711912869888/the-collaboration-and-eventual-break-between?source=share
For certain aspects of the life of Marie-Anne Babeuf, see here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/771850387276873728/edit-here-is-an-excerpt-from-the-arrest-of?source=share
and here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/777915103545786368/the-personality-of-marie-anne-victoire-babeuf-n%C3%A9e?source=share
(which I plan to update).
Draft Constitution of 1791 annotated by Robespierre
Standfirst:
The annotations, transcribed hereafter, essentially concern provisions relating to public powers and civil rights. They constituted the plans of two interventions that Robespierre delivered before the Constituent Assembly on August 10 and 11, 1791, during the discussion of the draft Constitution.
Transcription of Robespierre’s handwritten annotations:
On page 12 of the document, first annotated page: (The image is available above.)
The page starts with title III of the Constitution, which concerns the public authorities. It has been annotated with a series of dates: "1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1750" (no apparent explanation…)
Below the first article of the title III he wrote; "il n'y a q" what could be the written beginning of a sentence starting by "il n'y a qu'à" or of "il n'y a que" meaning respectively "there is only to" and "there is/are only." (it seems that Robespierre did not follow up on this sentence.)
At the end of article II, Robespierre added two rows of suspension points. Then he wrote about this article at the very top of the page; "We do more; we annihilate the sovereignty itself; no section of the people; the people attributes the exercise of it, when they say. The nation can only exercise them by delegation. Note that it is your committees that violated the constitution and I who defend it."
At the page's top left, the word "exactly" is crossed out as well as the sentence "If the nation were to alienate in any way that" which is in the middle of the margin. And just above this crossed-out sentence, we find a last comment by Robespierre on this article II; "The legislative power, the judicial power, the executive power are parts of the powersovereign, divided in relation to the various objects to which it applies."
Regarding article III, Robespierre wrote in the margin, under the crossed-out sentence; "Notice, I beg you, that the legislative power cannot be delegated in this way: because it is the very essence of sovereignty. Rousseau. There would no longer even be a shadow of the will general; since it is assumed here that the King shares this delegation of legislative power."
For article IV, he comments at the bottom of the page; "Power must be clearly distinguished from functions; indeed the nation delegates the various public functions; but power cannot be alienated or delegated. If one could delegate these powers in detail, it would follow that sovereignty might be delegated; and then you would adopt what the committee Mr. Malouet proposed ; you would do more; you would decree that it may be alienated because delegation is perpetual. Neither convention; nor any means for the nation toreform the abuses of the legislative body."
On page 16 of the document:
The texts on this page are located in section II of chapter I of the constitution, which is dedicated to the National legislative assembly. Section II being itself dedicated to the primary assemblies as well as the nomination of voters.
On the top left corner of the page, we read the words "limit them". To the right of these words, Robespierre wrote this paragraph that continues in the margin until the bottom of the page; "For The reason for removing the money mark applies even more strongly to what concerns voters. what could be the reason? to leave consciousness free: but the choice of voters is also the work of consciousness. To warn the aristocracy of wealth: but you still introduce it more surely. Voters usually choose among themselves; and as a result there will only be people with a silver mark who will be elected. the active Citoiens (citizens) will not go. Refutation of motives. Riches corrupt more than poverty. It would rather be the millionaires who should be excluded than people with ten days of workers. This decree is your own satire. Can those who have elected you be robbed by you? The next legislature will therefore be worth nothing. What does your guarantee of equal rights mean: eligibility for all jobs. no matter that you have removed the nobility! What was the guarantee of Aristide; what was the guarantee of Rousseau. A deputy who rich (understand here 'a rich deputy') wants to increase his fortune; a poor deputy wants to be free. Contradictions of the committees. The ministry; the legislature: and they believe that it is permissible to believe only an incompatibility that results from the very nature of the thing, to prevent perpetuity, and the coalition of the legislative body with the king against the nation! and they do not find any inconvenience in excluding the representatives of"
(We notice here that Robespierre had already begun the drafts of his reflections and arguments for his speech The silver mark. We find the reference to Aristide, to the contradiction with the Declaration of Human Rights, and many other elements.)
On page 39 of the document:
Concerning the article VIII of Section II, relating to royal action, of Chapter III of the Constitution which grants the exercise of legislative power, Robespierre annotated it in the margin on the right; "The decrees bringing reunion to the domain of national goods alienated against forms."
On page 51 of the document:
In the margin, at the bottom right of Article IX of Chapter V of the Constitution, relating to the judicial power, the politician added; "On applications for cassation of alienation titles or exchanges of alienated national goods or exchanged for the forms. These requests will be made by the National Assembly."
On page 54 of the document:
In the left margin, regarding title IV on the Public Force, Robespierre wrote; "It is up to the legislative body to determine the number of troops and to fix their pay."
On the last page of the document:
Finally, at the very end of the Constitution, he noted; "The manner in which communes can be assembled is not determined."
This letter, which marked the beginning of the relations between Robespierre and Saint-Just, was found, after the 9th of Thermidor, in Robespierre’s papers, and published for the first time in Courtois’s report
The letter:
Blérancourt, near Noyon, on August 19, 1790.
You who support the fatherland faltering against the torrent of despotism and intrigue, whom I know only, like God, by wonders; I turn to you, sir, to beg you to gather with me to save my sad region. The free markets of the town of Blérancourt (this rumor is circulating here) have been transferred to the city of Coucy. Why would cities swallow up the privileges of the countryside? Therefore, only the taille* and taxes will remain for this latter! Please support, with all your talent, an address that I make by the same letter, in which I ask for the reunion of my heritage to the national domains of the canton, so that my region retains a privilege without which it must die of hunger.
I don’t know you, but you are a great man. You are not only the deputy of a province, you are the one of humanity and of the Republic. Please ensure that my request is not despised.
Saint-Just,
elector in the department of Aisne.
*Taille was a direct tax that the king levies on his subjects through his vassals. This tax was levied to finance wars, the vassals allowing the king to raise the necessary funds
Facsimile of the letter:
Front and back:
Envelope of the letter:
It is written; "To Mr. Mr. de Robespierre at the national assembly in Paris."
