More information on Jeanne-Marguerite Chalabre, a supporter of Robespierre’s political views
I'm not infallible, feel free to correct me
I haven’t found anything on Tumblr other than a few excerpts of information about her. Maybe someone has already done it; if so, I apologize and will make sure to mention it.
Regarding Marguerite Chalabre, who wrote a letter to Maximilien Robespierre that shows both her admiration for this historical figure and her own political thinking — as well as remarkable clarity about the question of war in 1792: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/752565697102626816/letter-of-madame-chalabre-to-robespierre?source=share
I found some information about her thanks to Hector Fleischmann (who, in my opinion — especially in his early writings — does engage at times in harsh criticism tinged with misogyny; so I don’t consider him a reliable source) concerning more of her writings.
Finally, I came across other letters and references to her, which I include here.
Here is what Hamel says of her: “The letters of this lady that have been preserved,” writes M. Hamel, “are all animated with the ancient spirit of liberty. She is not a republican after the fashion of Charlotte Corday, stirred by the vindictive passions of the Nemeses; she is a Spartan woman, whose love of liberty and equality has inflamed her heart.”
To M. Robespierre, deputy of the Constituent Assembly.
This 26th of February 1791.**
“It is to the conformity of our patriotic sentiments, Sir, that I owe the praises you have addressed to me. In that sense, my heart has deserved all, and I take pride in it. Vanity could not make me mistake it, I would lose too much. You were kind enough to send, along with your letter, an excellent treatise on the principles regarding the organisation of juries. According to my very limited knowledge on this matter, it seems to me that you touch upon the truth as in all your other speeches; and the patriot Camille (Desmoulins), in his latest address, paints with charming naturalness, with truly original precision, the character of your talents. One would think that the genius of the good and too-unfortunate Jean-Jacques inspired him; it is of such delicate touch. He would have shed so many tears reading that passage! Good Camille, you deserve the happiness which I hope you will enjoy with your amiable companion.
But let us return to politics. It seems to me, Sir, that the Committees in general always wish to produce a work for the mind, which often spoils things, for simple ideas are closer to nature and truth. I hope that the progress of enlightenment will make better known and appreciated, day after day, those who, detached from this childish vanity, have the noble and true courage to cross the barrier of prejudice to rise to the height of revolution and reason; unfortunately, they are few. Quite striking events have occurred in recent days; I flatter myself that we shall know how to make use of them as of others. If all your moments were not devoted to the salvation of our dear homeland, I would wish to speak of them with you; but I fear stealing from it time so precious. If it were possible to reconcile this wish, you would do me great honour and pleasure. Do not fear the large circle of an idle company; it is not at all my sort; a very small number – but very small – of old friends make up my society; all good patriots, for I cannot esteem others. Without esteem, there is no pleasure nor happiness; you add to ours, Sir, that of the most heartfelt gratitude. You will find it in our expressions as it is in our heart.
Chalabre"
Here is another, more vehement one, from Madame Chalabre against the decree on finances:
“Finally, Sir, our ruin is consummated by the dreadful decree which returns the management of our finances into the hands of greedy courtiers, thanks to the so-called usages that now guide the National Assembly. No, no, the nation cannot consent to its enslavement by laws contrary to its true interests; this final injustice will rouse it from its submission. Was it worth making a revolution to end it thus? Heavens! Oh, what iniquity, what degradation of the human species; and it is gold, that vile metal which renders men stupid and ferocious. What contempt for riches true patriots must have! They must disdain them, reject them, fear them like a subtle poison that corrupts all it touches. Happiness and virtue are found only in mediocrity. Riches and virtues are incompatible; nothing has proven that more to us than this revolution. Only three deputies – and you are among them – always on the path of honour, fought this infamous decree. What will the provinces say? I wish they would all, without exception, make the most vigorous complaints.
It is impossible that confidence should ever be restored, that order and economy should return. The property of the clergy will be squandered; the shares are allotted, the Court seizes them, and our best deputies keep a guilty silence. What! It was chiefly to remedy the disorder of finances that the nation appointed representatives, and after eighteen months of suffering, the abyss opens again to swallow our resources! What cruelty to make us languish so long only to complete our misfortunes. I cannot express to you how these thoughts afflict me. You feel as deeply as I do, I am persuaded, these last blows struck at our liberty. Fatal decree, accursed decree that breaks all measures of just reparation, that shatters the sweet bonds of equality! Shameless men who passed it, may you one day be crushed by remorse; we would be sufficiently avenged. Unhappy homeland! Indignation has reached its height. Thus are we constitutionally under the yoke of tyrants. Ah! let us leave this painful subject. Do me the honour, Sir, of accepting a small patriotic dinner at the beginning of next week. Choose the day which suits you best, which least disturbs your work, provided that I am informed two days in advance so that I may gather M. and Mme Bataubé, who would be flattered to meet you. I am, with sentiments of esteem and fraternal gratitude of all good citizens toward you,
Chalabre. A thousand thanks for your pamphlets".
Here is another letter she wrote on 20 March 1792:
“Patriot friend, I am drying up with impatience waiting for your speech, which a thousand incidents have delayed. So here is a Jacobin ministry. You had foreseen this resource of a Machiavellianism at bay. The patriots, who see everything through rose-coloured glasses, recount with complacency the last session of the Jacobins; the presence of the new ministers who desire communication with that Society. Good God! Is liberty thus lost forever? They offer a kiss of peace to the most zealous defender of that sacred liberty, as if he could guarantee such fine promises or be accessible to flattery. Thus vice takes a corner of the garment of virtue to hide its deformity and impose upon trusting minds. As for me, I have the misfortune of seeing darker than ever. If the National Assembly lets slip the occasion now presented to avenge at last the nation upon a hostile power, proven to have lately again plotted its ruin by supporting the counter-revolutionaries of Arles, Avignon, etc.; if there is not in that Assembly a patriot courageous enough to tear away the veil that covers these horrible and shadowy machinations, to paint in fiery strokes the dangers of preserving that odious power, of letting it gain merely a month, France is lost.
Alas! after so many hopes, must we resign ourselves to see our unhappy homeland covered with ashes and ruins? It is the wish of the guilty—no, no, let them be judged, and all is saved. I no longer understand the aims of the patriots; so much slowness drives me to despair. O Robespierre! your genius must find the remedy to our misfortunes. It is only you, so to speak, who leave me any glimmer of hope. I cannot paint to you the sadness of my soul; the more I see confidence in others, the more I tremble: it increases our dangers. If you deliver your speech tomorrow, do not forget me, I beg you. To spare our young friend the trouble of coming twice on the same day, for it is far from here to your house, I shall wait for him tomorrow until two o’clock for dinner. Receive the renewed assurances of the most inviolable attachment.
Chalabre.”
Hector Fleischmann affirms that Robespierre replied to these letters but that they disappeared. Possible, since Madame Chalabre was among those persecuted after Thermidor, but no other evidence has yet been found (I still hope that one day such letters may surface).
After Thermidor she was imprisoned (at one point in the same prison as Éléonore Duplay and Claire Lacombe), though eventually released.
Here is what Fleischmann says of her:
“One sees her, indeed, arrested on 22 Thermidor, almost the day after the execution of Maximilien. She is committed to the Talaru house, rue de la Loi, formerly Richelieu. Until the 25th of the following Thermidor she remains there, then she is transferred to Sainte-Pélagie. From there she goes to the Bourbe (or Maternity) on 8 Vendémiaire Year III; to the Luxembourg on 25 Brumaire; to the Plessis College on 2 Floréal; on the 28th she returns to the Bourbe. Finally, after one year minus five days of detention, she is freed. Thermidor Year III sees her gathering the scattered remnants of her lost prosperity. Henceforth she has no more history. She plunges into the night of a silence which year after year presses upon her, buries her, and removes her from history. Where does she die? When? Nothing is known. Of her remain only those letters saved from the great shipwreck of time, fragile yet lasting debris which attest to her Jacobin devotion. But somewhere also, in a box of the Archives, remains the proof of her feminine weakness, of her renunciation.”
Based on the National Archives, here is what Hector Fleischmann writes:
“22 Thermidor. The Committee orders that the woman called Chalabre, who frequented the house of Robespierre, shall be immediately placed under arrest at Pélagie. Signed: Louis (of Bas-Rhin), Merlin, Vadier, Élie Lacoste, Legendre, Dubarran, Goupilleau. Certified copy: Bourguignon.”
"We do not know where the agents of the regenerated police executed the warrant, but the pieces of another dossier may offer indications in this respect. It concerns the printer Nicolas, juror of the Revolutionary Tribunal, arrested on 9 Thermidor as a Robespierrist. Nicolas lived on rue Saint-Honoré. When they came to his home, they found in a room of the apartment Mme de Chalabre: “Saying she was at home and being in the domicile of said Nicolas,” reads an inscription on a bundle of seized papers. It follows from this that Robespierre’s friend was lodging with this Nicolas. Likely she was still there on 22 Thermidor, when she was arrested. Taken to the Talaru house, rue de la Loi, formerly Richelieu, she did not remain long. Four days later, the police administrators announced her transfer to Sainte-Pélagie. The prisoner only passes through. She is transferred again to the Bourbe, or Port-Libre. Weeks and months pass. The prison gradually empties, the detainees are released, she alone remains. Thus it continues until Pluviôse Year III, seven months. Then she decides to request her liberty:
Paris, 29 Pluviôse, Year Three of the French Republic, one and indivisible.
“Citizen Representatives, Citizeness Chalabre, detained for nearly seven months without knowing any cause for her detention other than having been a neighbour of the scoundrel Robespierre, and in whose house, after the most exact examination, nothing was found that could give rise to the slightest suspicion, lays before you that, aged forty-three years, afflicted since her youth, as the effect of a suppressed tetter, with infirmities which have considerably increased with age, and since her detention, she needs assistance and care which she cannot obtain in a house of arrest. She appeals to the justice and humanity of the members of the Committee of General Security; to whom she also believes she must observe that a national house which she acquired and repaired at great cost is falling into ruin, having neither doors nor window panes, and for lack of her surveillance.
House of Port-Libre.”
And this “tetter,” these infirmities, she has attested by the physician Thibaut, in a certificate annexed to the petition. The document also proves that Mme de Chalabre was not of the first youth and provides, lacking a precise date of birth, a useful indication:
“I, the undersigned, former physician, certify having given my care to Citizeness Chalabre for about twenty years. I attest that all she says in the present memorandum about her infirmities and their cause is true, and that they could only have increased by detention, especially at the age she has reached. Paris, 30 Pluviôse, Year III of the Republic. Thibault.”
Neither the tetter nor the national property threatening ruin could sway the Committee of General Security. They left the petition unanswered, and for five more months Mme de Chalabre expiated, in the Luxembourg and the Plessis, her enthusiasm for the “divine” Robespierre. That cured her of the Jacobinism of Year II, to the point that she renounced forever all political admiration once liberated. She was not of the stuff from which Mme de Staël are made.”
Contrary to what the author claims, it would not be the last time Madame Chalabre took interest in politics. She would become a subscriber to Babeuf’s newspaper Le Tribun du peuple.
We know that Marguerite Chalabre was close to the Duplay family, even living at one time as their neighbour. Lamartine once wrote:
“Madame de Chalabre, noble and wealthy woman, an enthusiast of Robespierre, devoted to him like the widows of Corinth or Rome to the apostles of the new cult, offering him her fortune to aid the dissemination of his ideas, and winning the friendship of the wife and daughters of Duplay in order to deserve a glance from Robespierre.”
I did not use Hector Fleischmann for the way he describes the life of Marguerite Chalabre (I have already explained what I think of his writings), but only for the documents and letters he reproduces. It is clear that she was a woman of strong political conviction, beyond her admiration for Maximilien Robespierre. I would like to know whether, in addition to knowing the Duplay family, she might also have known the Desmoulins couple well. Similarly, I would have liked to know more about her relationship with Claire Lacombe, since she was imprisoned with her — although we all know what opinion Élisabeth Le Bas, and therefore perhaps even Éléonore Duplay, held of Lacombe that is to say a bad opinion.
When Fleischmann implies that Marguerite Chalabre showed cowardice regarding Robespierre’s memory when she “renounced” him, it is, in truth, quite unfair. She had been imprisoned for several months; we must not underestimate the danger faced by anyone suspected of Robespierrism (or even by those who simply opposed the post-Thermidorian political line) after Thermidor. Prison conditions could also be extremely harsh at times. In my view, she likely adopted a strategy similar to that of Marie-Angélique Lequesne, widow of Ronsin and later wife of Turreau—also imprisoned until Year III—namely, renouncing and denouncing Robespierre in order to be released sooner, and thus better able to resume the political activity she had always supported. (In the widow Ronsin’s case, she said she did not share her husband’s “error,” as you can see here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/794437214869340160/marie-ang%C3%A9lique-lequesne-widow-of-ronsin-and-wife?source=share ) Chalabre’s later subscription to Le Tribun du peuple speaks for itself.
Fleischmann’s criticism seems far too easy to me, especially since he does not take into account how difficult Marguerite Chalabre’s situation truly was, nor how real and immediate the danger remained.
Je n'ai pas non plus compris la comparaison faite par Fleischmann entre elle et Madame de Staël. Sans vouloir dénigrer Staël (qui a pris des positions positives, notamment contre l'esclavage), elle était loin d'être un génie politique incorruptible, comme je l'explique ici : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/798948052816838656/germaine-de-sta%C3%ABl-an-essay-in-demythologization?source=share . De toute façon, elle n'a jamais connu l'emprisonnement ; nous ne pouvons donc pas savoir comment elle aurait réagi à la place de Chalabre.
