Revolutionaries that encountered each other before the revolution compilation
Comment if there was anything that surprised you! 🙃🫢
Sources:
For the college relationships between Robespierre, Desmoulins, Suleau and Fréron, see this post.
For Robespierre welcoming Louise de Kéralio to the Academy of Arras, see Un inédit de Robespierre: Sa réponse au discours de réception de Mademoiselle de Kéralio 18 avril 1787 (1974) by Léon Berthe.
For the relationship between Robespierre and Carnot pre-revolution, see this post.
For the relationship between Robespierre and Fouché pre-revolution, see this post.
For the relationship between Robespierre and Guffroy pre-revolution, see Censure républicaine, ou, Lettre d’A-B-J Guffroy, répresentant du peuple (1794), page 66: ”Robespierre the elder must remember my firmness when, both working as judges in the episcopal hall of Arras, we condemned an assassin to death. He must remember, it seems to me, our philosophical and philanthropic debates, and even that it cost him much more than me to resolve to sign the sentence.”
For Fréron’s father Élie Fréron praising one of Collot d’Herbois’ plays, see this post.
For the relationship between Desmoulins and Charles Lambrechts, see a letter to the former from the latter dated September 12 1781, cited in Camille et Lucile Desmoulins: un rêve de république (2018) page 28-29: ”[Your successes make me encourage you] to make the final efforts to overcome the small natural defect of which you complain, and which must embarrass you much more in France than it would embarrass you in this country, where people hardly plead verbally, and where in all genres people look much more at the substance than at the form; I urge you, however, not to be discouraged on this side and I dare to predict that with constancy you will overcome all obstacles; you will imitate Demosthenes in this.”
For the relationship between Desmoulins and Lucile Duplessis’ mother, see this post.
For Lucile Desmoulins and Sylvain Maréchal’s relationship, see Lucile’s diary from 1788.
For Hérault de Séchelles and Michel Lepeletier being childhood friends, see the Convention session of December 29 1793 (Gazette nationale ou le Moniteur universel, number 100, page 404), during which Hérault is recorded to have said: ”I who, in the world, have never had more than one close friend since the age of six. Here he is! Michel Lepeletier, oh you from whom I have never parted, you whose virtue was my model, you who like me was the target of parliamentary hatred, happy martyr!”
For Billaud-Varennes serving as Danton’s secretary in 1787, see Billaud-Varenne, membre du Comité de salut public: mémoires inédits et correspondance (1893) page 21. See also Notes de Topino-Lebrun, juré au Tribunal révolutionnaire de Paris sur le procès de Danton et sur Fouquier-Tinville (1875) page 19, according to which Danton during his trial would have stated: ”Billaud-Varennes doesn’t forgive me for having been my secretary.”
For Brissot and Pétion being childhood friends, see Discours de Jérôme Pétion sur l’accusation intentée contre Maximilien Robespierre (1792) page 16: ”I’ve known [Brissot] since his childhood. I’ve seen him in these moments where the soul completely shows itself.”
For Barbaroux taking an optics course under Marat, see Mémoires inédits de Charles Barbaroux, député a la Convention nationale (1822), page 57.
For Brissot and Marat’s relationship pre-revolution, see Mémoires de Brissot, volume 1, page 346-361, as well as a letter from Brissot to Marat dated June 6 1782 and a letter from Marat to Brissot dated 1783.
For Brissot’s relationship with the Rolands pre-revolution, see a letter from Brissot to M. Roland dated June 24 1787, and an undated one from Brissot to Mme Roland, as well as Mémoires de Madame Roland, volume 2, page 358.
For the relationship between Brissot, Clavière and Mirabeau, see Mémoires de Brissot, volume 2, page 23-24 and 28-33, as well as a letters from Mirabeau to Brissot dated 11 August 1783 and 15 July 1786and a letter from Brissot to Mirabeau dated July 1786.
For the relationship between Brissot and Lafayette, see a letter from Lafayette to Washington in favor of Brissot dated May 25 1788, and number 659 (May 29 1791) of Brissot’s journal Le Patriote Français: ”I saw Lafayette before the revolution.”
For the relationship between Madame de Genlis and Brissot, see Mémoires inédites de Madame la comptesse de Genlis, volume 4, page 106-110, as well as this letter dated June 1783 from Félicité Brissot to Félicité Genlis.
For Condorcet objecting to Brissot’s imprisonment in the Bastille in 1784, see Mémoires de Brissot, volume 1, page 348: ”I owed my freedom also to the warmth of a few precious friends who offered to vouch for me at the price of their own liberty; I also owed it to the almost universal outcry from men of letters, even those I scarcely knew at the time, who, convinced of the austerity of my principles and morals, denounced as slander the composition of the pamphlets attributed to me and loudly demanded the end of my captivity. Thus, not only did the friends I mentioned in these memoirs give me proof of their devotion, but I also received marks of interest from a host of other people who were then almost strangers to me, such as Condorcet, with whom I have since had so many honorable relations.”
For Brissot and Gabriel Vaugeois being college comrades, see Mémoires de Brissot, volume 1, page 34: ”I have yet not spoken of Vaugeois, he was one of my college comrades, who had de la solidité dans l’esprit and love for the sciences.”
For the relationship between Prieur de la Côte d’Or and Guyton-Morveau, see Prieur de la Côte d’Or(1946) by Georges Bouchard, page 54, 62.
For Laclos critizicing Carnot’s work Éloge à Vauban, see Lettre à MM. de l'Académie françoise, sur l'éloge de M. le maréchal de Vauban, proposé pour sujet du prix d'éloquence de l'année 1787
Some doodles for a monster hunting au that’s been plaguing me nonstop. For now it’s a lot of vague concepts and a couple little designs. More will come eventually.
Here's 5 key things I see people most commonly not consider that I think greatly impacts how they interpret events:
-There was much 'state sanctioned' violence in France long before The Revolution started. The early clashes in the Revolution (ie. Storming of Bastille) didn't just come out of nowhere. People were genuinely fearing for their lives and felt they had no other choice. This same fear and anxiety haunted the rest of the Revolution.
-The Monarchy wasn't just killed for purely idealogical reasons. Louis and Antoinette essentially started a war against their own country. They posed a very real danger to people's lives, and even then the choice to kill Louis was a long deliberated one. The country was at war, people felt they had no choice.
-It's right to acknowledge that the amount of suspicion going around during The Terror was excessive, and it became arguably too easy to accuse and arrest people. It's wrong to assume people were accused purely on basis that they 'didn't share the same opinions' as those in power. The country was at war. Rightly or wrongly, most people were arrested because they were suspected of threatening the safety of France, not because the Jacobins simply wanted to eradicate anyone who didn't share their values.
-There were many, many events over several years that justified people becoming so overwhelmingly concerned with stamping out counter-revolution and being excessively suspicious. Such as: Aristocrats gathering personal armies and sending open threats about destroying the Revolutionaries, or once trusted heroes surprising everyone with secret betrayals (see Lafayette or Mirabeau for good examples), and all of these threats and spies and assassinations happening whilst the country was at war.
-THE COUNTRY WAS AT WAR. Every reductive criticism I've seen of the Revolution seems to dismiss that everyone was making choices against the very real fear that at any minute their hard fought for human rights and democracy could be taken away if they lose one more battle to a neighbouring country. It was basically 'kill the enemy or lose an entire country to war and oppression', that's the mindset politicians were in at that time.
One rly basic thing that I have to explain all the tie (just cos I'm making a comic about him so I get many comments on him specifically lol):
-Robespierre was only one person and didn't control the entire country lol Evidence generally points to him actively avoiding having any power as much as possible. The only executive power he had was in the last year of his life, and he still shared that with 11 other ppl, who had a chance to vote each other out of their committee every month. There wasn't some long term plan to take him down after he'd ravaged the country for a year. It happened very suddenly in an atmosphere of paranoia and extreme anxiety, when he made a bad speech that set off alarm bells. He was then *accused* of tyranny/conspiracy/etc etc. That didnt mean he actually was a tyrant. Loads of politicians across the years had similar accusations used against them. Robespierre was as much a victim of the irrational suspicion and anxiety of The Terror as anyone else at the time.
One final long note:
Every bad moment in the Revolution was A Group Project, it's naive and reductive to put the blame on any single person. I also think its naive and reductive to try frame The Revolution as being a failure or a success. We take for granted all the freedom, protections and choices we have today. Those things never existed back then, it was all entirely new and scary and no one knew wtf they were doing, or if it would last. History doesn't seem to ever have neat tidy success or failures when so many people are involved.
Perhaps the one tangible aspect of the Revolution is it's undeniable impact on modern day human rights and political systems. For me personally, I would want people to focus on this aspect of Frev and how they created those things, alongside all the violence that was frankly, very normal across many European countries during that time.
Like, people go on about how monstrous and vengeful the Guillotine was, either romanticising it or demonising it. But the kind of capital punishment that existed pre-Guillotine was much more barbaric. The kind of capital punishment that exists in modern day USA is much more barbaric (a death that was over in seconds is more humane than pumping someone with chemicals that burn your insides slowly and paralyse you so that you don't cry out in pain in front of whoever is watching you die. In case you hadn't guessed I'm very very against the capital punishment laws in USA =_=)
I went to a UK museum recently and read an article in a Bath newspaper from 1790s. Two boys were publicly hanged for stealing some food.
Considering that 1790s France was a) dealing out a style of public execution that was less painful/quicker than hangings and b) working very hard in attempts to ensure that boys such as that had free education, a right to vote, and protection of rights, so that they'd never have to be arrested for stealing bread to begin with- which of these countries is more barbaric at that time? Why do we frame the Revolution as barbaric and not the wider culture it was clumsily attempting to evolve from?
That was rly long lol But those are the things I want everyone to consider first before they begin any of the more nuanced opinions/discussions I'd LOVE to be having with strangers on Instagram.
FYI Im NOT an expert so I might still be wrong about any of these points nad I will VERY HAPPILY accept that, if any awesome respectable well read ppl call me out. And thats the last thing rly, just trust that it's an endless journey and you're always gonna be learning new things all the time when it comes to history.
Misterious history behind the Mirabeau in the Panthéon
In the Panthéon of Paris, right behind the The National Convention statue, you will find one representing Mirabeau
From this, I discovered the incredible story of the Mirabeau fountain of Aix!
In november 1926, in the city of Aix, an impressive monument was built in front of the Courtroom palace, represented Mirabeau surrounded by the allegories of royalty, republic, history and a sleeping France. All realized by Antoine Injalbert.
This monument was destroyed and pieces lost, but the statue of Mirabeau in the Pantheon we can see was realized by the same artist and looks identical as the one from the monument. Probably a way to not loose the hard work to honor this figure of the revolution.
source: L'ancien monument à la gloire de Mirabeau (m.a.j.) - Aix en découvertes
Removed text from my Tourist guide themed after frev
"He was one of the most zealous humanitarians of the eighteenth century."
Brissot de Warville, Eloise Ellery, 1915, p. 182
My emotional support problematic fave 😭😭😭
It's bad. Brissot has moved into my head like he's trying to speculate on the territory. I'm just over 200 pages into the biography (~halfway) & I have so much to say, but I'm also anticipating all my feelings being proven wrong at some point or just having to complete another Brissot is Complicated thesis when this is all over. None of my opinions on the Girondins in general, the war-mongering, the blaming the Montagnards for violence/extremism etc. have changed, and I'm interested to read past 1791 to see if anything can shift my perspectives. It's been shocking (even though I knew this abstractly) to see how close — identical basically — Brissot is to the "radical" figures. On topics like active vs. passive citizens, the king's veto, republic vs. monarchy, the colonies, etc. he has taken the same positions as Robespierre. Camille & Brissot have squabbled a bit in the press, but minorly & the author points out some places where Brissot's actual positions don't quite match up with what Camille claims (e.g. being inconsistent about a republic) (Camille v. Brissot pre-1791 probable needs its own post.) He consistently opposes more conservative revolutionaries like Mirabeau and Barnave.
Because I've gotten into a habit of of making stupid shit lol, I made a table of if I had to vote for Brissot vs. the first few revolutionaries I could think of
& honestly, this doesn't even clear things up for me. Technically, Saint-Just should probably be green, but Brissot's humanitarian efforts are really, really hard to beat. Pétion & Marat, I admit, I probably just don't know enough about. Time is also a factor. 1792-3 Saint-Just vs. 1792-3 Brissot would definitely go to Saint-Just. (I think.) But what about 1789-90 Brissot vs. 1792-4 Saint-Just? And would I really choose Robespierre over Brissot in 1789-1791? I know my knowledge of later years is coloring my opinion. But this is also a bullshit mashup election that's taking place between my head and my heart, so none of it makes sense.
Anyway, I don't have a conclusion. This guy has taken over my head so much that it's obstructing my work. Not sure if it helped to write it out or if I'm just spreading the confusion lol
