Angela

That’s a great idea!

Is the puppy (petit chien) you are raising for my sister as pretty as the model you showed me when I passed through Bélhune? Whatever it is, we will always welcome it with distinction and pleasure. We can even say that, however ugly it may be, it will always be lovely. Robespierre to ”a young girl” in a letter dated June 6 1788

[Robespierre] had a dog, named Brount, that he loved a lot; the poor animal was very attached to him. Le Conventionnel Le Bas: d’après des documents inédits et les mémoires de sa veuve (1901) page 107

At Madame de Kéralio’s I have seen [Robespierre] hold himself apart for an hour, playing with a big dog. Anecdote reported in 1791 by Charles-Engelbert Oelsner, cited in Robespierre: a revolutionary life (2010) by Peter McPhee, page 94.

On these occasions [Robespierre] was always accompanied by a large dog , of the Pyrenean breed, of which he was very fond. Strange to say, several of these monstrous anomalies of the Reign of Terror, were most partial to animals; and the ferocious Couthon would shed tears when his favourite spaniel was ill. Robespierre's dog always kept watch at the door of his master's bed-chamber. […] [Robespierre] appeared to me like a bird of prey — a vulture; his forehead and temples were low, and flattened; his eyes were of a fawn colour, and most disagreeable to look at; his dress was careful, and I recollect that he wore a frill and ruffles, that seemed to me of valuable lace. There were flowers in various parts of the room, and several cages, with singing birds, were hanging on the walls and near the window, opening on a small garden.  Recollections of Republican France 1790 to 1801 by John Gideon Millingen, page 283-284 and 288.

[Maximilien] rarely shared the games and pleasures of his comrades; he liked to be alone to think at his ease, and passed entire hours reflecting. He had been given pigeons and sparrows which he took the greatest care of, and close to which he often came to pass the moments which he did not consecrate to his studies. […] We were sent, my sister and I, to go join our two brothers every Sunday. These were days of happiness and joy for us. My brother Maximilien, who collected images and engravings, displayed his riches and was happy with the pleasure of seeing that we felt they should be contemplated. He also gave us the honors of his aviary, and placed his sparrows and pigeons, one after another, into our hands. We strongly desired that he should give us one of his favorite birds; we solicited this with entreaties; he refused for a long time, fearing that we would not take the best possible care of them. Yet one day, he ceded to our insistences, and gave us a pretty pigeon. My sister and I, we were enchanted. He made us promise to never let it lack for anything; we swore thus a thousand times, and kept our word for a few days, and moreover we would have kept our oath forever if the unhappy pigeon, forgotten by us in the garden, had not perished on a stormy night. At the news of this death, Maximilien’s tears flowed, he piled reproaches on us that we had only too well merited, and swore that he would no more confer any of his dear pigeons on us. It was sixty years ago that by a childish flightiness I was the cause of my elder brother’s chagrin and tears: and well! My heart bleeds for it still; it seems to me that I have not aged a day since the tragic end of the poor pigeon was so sensitive to Maximilien, such that I was affected by it myself. Mémoires de Charlotte Robespierre sur ses deux frères (1833) page 47-49

1 Thermidor

When I have taken at this tribune the parole against those who seek to smother the complaints of oppressed innocence and patriotism, I well expected that one would abuse my complaints, and that those who had rendered them necessary would seek to turn them to the benefit of their perversity. This only applies to those who want identify themselves with the Convention, and to fill it with their own concerns, in order to conspire against it with impunity. These ones would like to see lavish hazardous denunciations against the representatives of the people, free from blame, or who only failed by error, in order to give consistency to their system of terror.

To say that it was a stupid and ill-considered move is to underestimate his intelligence. Just because something didn't happen the way you wanted it to, doesn't mean it was wrong.

What happened would have happened anyway.

Or would you rather he had stooped to compromise and ruled together with scoundrels against his own principles?

Some people already used to claim that Saint-Just made breeches out of human skin. It was a very old, obviously very false royalist legend that claimed Saint-Just had made human skin breeches from a woman who rejected his advances.

But after ACU? The legend changed: now when people reference it, they talk about coats, not breeches, because that's what the game said.

The way this kind of sensationalist caricature works best is by insidiously manipulating the public consciousness and changing the narratives that circulate.

Le Bas uses the “vous” to address Robespierre while Saint-Just uses the “tu” in the same letter.

At the time this letter is written, the proposed change is being pushed but isn't quite present in their minds yet. In Saint-Just's military correspondance to generals, he goes back and forth between "tu" and "vous", sometimes with the same person, with one day apart. That's in Fall 1793. By Spring '94, he uses "tu" consistently.

This is why what's going on here is special and noteworthy.

That letter was written on 15 Brumaire II (November 5, 1793) which coincides with when the CPS started to use “tu” in its correspondence around October 31. I’ve found secondary sources saying that a decree was passed a few days later on November 8, making tutoiement mandatory, but I couldn’t find a copy. In any case, I agree it would have been impossible to fully enforce even among officials. Nevertheless, citizens were encouraged to drop the “vous” at the time, particularly in official public settings.

You also see on the same day that he switches to "tu" with Pichegru, he forgets (?) to do so in the previous message.

Le Bas' letter to Robespierre, and especially Saint-Just's post-scriptum, indicate it would be a bit more personal rather than intended as public CSP communications. In any way, the interesting thing I'm pointing out is that Le Bas uses "vous", while Saint-Just has much easier switched to "tu". Even later, after his wedding to Élisabeth, when he's practically almost sort-of Robespierre's brother-in-law (whether you consider his future wedding to Éléonore a possibility, or take into consideration how Élisabeth sees him as an adoptive older brother), Le Bas still uses "vous".

It confirms what both Charlotte and Élisabeth respectively said in their memoirs: Maximilien felt closer to Saint-Just, while Le Bas felt closer to Augustin.

ORIGINAL

Strasbourg, 15 du 2e mois de l'an II.

Hérault vient de nous annoncer, mon cher Robespierre, qu'il était envoyé dans le département du Haut-Rhin. Il nous propose une correspondance ; notre surprise est extrême. Au reste, ce n'est pas la seule chose qui nous paraisse extraordinaire. Pourquoi ceux qui étaient ici lorsqu'on força les lignes de Weissembourg ne sont-ils pas remplacés, et pourquoi laisser ici des représentants forcés par la nature de leur mission à s'isoler de leurs collègues ! Je n'ai pas le temps de vous en dire davantage; mais j'espère que vous voudrez bien nous écrire là-dessus vos idées. Je vous embrasse.

LE BAS

Et plus bas, de l'écriture de Saint-Just :

La confiance n'a plus de prix, lorsqu'on la partage avec des hommes corrompus ; alors on fait son devoir par le seul amour de la patrie, et ce sentiment est plus pur. Je t'embrasse, mon ami.

SAINT-JUST.

TRANSLATION

Strasbourg, 15th of the 2nd Month of Year II. (1)

Hérault has just informed us, my dear Robespierre, that he has been sent to the département of Haut-Rhin (2). He proposes a correspondence with us; our surprise is extreme (3). Besides, that is not the only thing that seems extraordinary to us. Why have those who were here when the lines at Wissembourg were breached not been replaced, and why leave here representatives who, by the nature of their mission, are forced to isolate themselves from their colleagues! I do not have time to tell you (4) more; but I hope that you (4) will write to us with your (4) thoughts on the matter. I embrace you (4).

LE BAS

Lower, in Saint-Just's handwriting:

Trust is worthless when shared with corrupt men (5); then one does one's duty out of love for the patrie alone, and this sentiment is purer. I embrace you (6), my friend.

SAINT-JUST

NOTES

(1) This would be 15 brumaire or 5 November 1793. The report by Fabre d'Églantine introducing the names of the months had been presented to the Convention less than two weeks before on 24 October. It shows that even Le Bas and Saint-Just were not used to the new nomenclature yet. (However, Saint-Just did not seen to care much about dates back in 1791 either!)

(2) According to Michel Biard, Hérault's mission started on 5 brumaire an II (26 October 1793). Saint-Just and Le Bas were assigned to the army of the Rhine by order (arrêté) of the Committee of Public Safety on 17 October and confirmed by decree (décret) on 22 October. Bernard Vinot says Saint-Just left on 17 October (26 vendémiaire).

(3) It's interesting to compare with Couthon's letter of 20 October from Lyon where he talked about receiving letters from Hérault but not from Saint-Just. While he didn't mind keeping a correspondence with Hérault then, it "surprises" Le Bas and Saint-Just 16 days later. However, this might reveal personal enmity (Saint-Just had a few reasons to dislike Hérault) more than a quick change in revolutionary politics as Hérault hadn't been accused of anything yet. He was denounced a month later on December 16 at the Convention by Bourdon (from the Oise département), in the presence of Couthon who defended him and demanded they wait for his return from mission:

Bourdon (from the Oise). I am taking advantage of the previous speaker's opinion. I denounce to you the ci-devant Attorney General, the ci-devant noble Hérault-Séchelles, member of the Committee of Public Safety and currently commissioner to the Army of the Rhine, for his connections with Pereyra, Dubuisson, and Proly.

​Bentabole. A colleague of ours is being denounced, one who has made himself known through acts of patriotism, who worked on our immortal Constitution and was its rapporteur. This colleague is absent; the Convention must hear him before passing judgment. Is it not possible to have known people who have since become suspects, and yet still be a good patriot? I note that Lepelletier was, like Hérault-Séchelles, a ci-devant member of the Parlement and a former noble, yet he earned his place in the Panthéon.

​Couthon. I ask for the adjournment of Bourdon's proposal. I do not know if Hérault has had connections with suspicious individuals; I have known him on the Committee of Public Safety, and I have never noticed him straying from the path of patriotism. He is currently absent; wait until he has arrived and can respond to the accusation made against him.

(4) Le Bas consistently uses the more polite "vous" to refer to Robespierre alone.

(5) One must wonder if Saint-Just's postscript directly relates to Hérault or to other representatives he might disagree with and disapprove of while having to work with them on mission. Marc-Antoine Baudot, for example, had just been sent to the armies of the Rhine and the Moselle two days earlier on 13 brumaire (3 novembre). The timing is a bit close, but it's possible he had already arrived. They were not on good terms, as Baudot expresses in his own memoirs.

(6) Saint-Just uses "tu".

COMMENTARY

This letter most likely was not official correspondence as the way they complain about Hérault and reject the idea of keeping a correspondence with him doesn't seem like something they would like the rest of the Committee of Public Safety to know.

If this is personal correspondence between Saint-Just and Le Bas to Robespierre, there's no reason to strictly adhere to the tutoiement, which the Committee of Public Safety made an administrative rule to use on 10 brumaire (31 October). (See the article below.)

Assuming that Saint-Just is only doing it to obey a law (when he's still inconsistently doing it with Pichegru a week later) or to prove his revolutionary fervor (something he doesn't need to prove by then) is rather reductive, especially when Le Bas is still writing "vous" in the same letter. It would be more appropriate to attribute this to a difference in temperament and in closeness/intimacy, which reflects what Élisabeth Duplay-Le Bas wrote in her memoirs that her husband told her (it's Philippe Le Bas who speaks in this quote):

Finally Robespierre came one day; he was the only man from whom I could have had news of you; but how unhappy I was! I did not know how I could ask him. [...] Robespierre the Younger came at last to see me. What joy for me! I was more familiar with him: we were of the same age. We spoke of his brother. Finally, I could no longer restrain myself; I spoke to him of your family, of your sisters; I spoke to him of you, my Élisabeth.

Moreover, the tone is a bit different between the two messages in the letter to Robespierre. While Le Bas gives general news and complaints (he's basically asking "why are the incompetent people who let the enemy through still hanging around?"), Saint-Just's post-scriptum feels like heartfelt advice given with melancholy. Even if he phrases it with his usual aphoristic style, the content itself feels deeply personal.

It's also interesting to note that in Couthon's letter to Saint-Just of 20 October (which also cannot be official Committee of Public Safety correspondence either considering the intimate tone), he uses the "tu" and "my dear friend".

We can officially retire the idea that these men think of themselves only in terms of "work colleagues": they considered each other to be friends. Not only is the concept of "work colleague" as defined by 21st century corporate culture completely alien to them, we already know from Saint-Just's philosophy how fundamental friendship is to his model of society. This sharp divide between workplace relationship and intimate friendship doesn't exist to them. While the Revolution will see the eventual divide between the public and private spheres consecrated in the 19th century, the principles of Year II that the Robespierristes believe in advocate instead for a blurring of the spheres in adherence to the ideal of transparency, especially for public officials. If anything, they truly do believe in the idea that the personal is political.

ON THE REVOLUTIONARY "TU"

Translated extract from Philippe Wolff's article:

The Chronique de Paris of October 3, 1792, declared: "If vous suits Monsieur, then tu suits Citoyen." And it commented: "Under the happy reign of equality, familiarity is but a reflection of the philanthropic virtues we hold in our hearts." On 10 Brumaire Year II (October 31, 1793), a delegate of the Popular Societies, Malbec, recalling that "the principles of our language must be as dear to us as the laws of our Republic," concluded: "I ask, on behalf of all my constituents, a decree stating that all French Republicans shall be required in the future, in order to conform to the principles of their language regarding the distinction between singular and plural, to use the tu without distinction toward those they speak to individually, under pain of being declared suspect, as flatterers, by such means lending support to the arrogance that serves as a pretext for inequality among us." Bazire demanded that a decree be issued ordering everyone to use the tu (21 Brumaire Year II, November 11, 1793). However, his colleague Thuriot opposed this in the name of liberty: "It is well known that vous is absurd, that it is a linguistic error to speak to one person as one would speak to two or many, but is it not also contrary to liberty to prescribe to citizens the manner in which they must express themselves? It is not a crime to speak French poorly." And the Convention followed his lead.

If you talk about Robespierre in conjunction with left wing politics [or even if you are just a left wing person who also talks about Robespierre], it will scare people off.

But the only way to dispel those myths that scare people off (not just with regard to the French Revolution, but all the dire warnings about any progress "going too far") is to talk about Robespierre.

Joyeux anniversaire, Robespierre. Wherever you are, thank you again and here's to another year.

The letters to Beuvin were written in the spring of 1791, shortly before the publication of Saint-Just's first political essay, Esprit de la Révolution et de la Constitution de France. Published in June, the essay was intended to bolster his candidacy for the Legislative Assembly elections that summer - an ambitious run he attempted despite still being a legal minor.

​While his age ultimately prevented him from being seated, the work earned him significant notoriety. In his memoirs, Barère notes the essay's success, and historian Antoine Boulant affirms in his biography of Saint-Just that the publication was instrumental in helping the young revolutionary make a name for himself.

For over a century, the two letters published by Charles Vellay in 1910 represented the extent of our knowledge regarding this correspondence. This changed in 2024, when Mathias Boussemart, a PhD candidate in the history of law, "discovered" three "new" letters. These were found within a collection of papers belonging to the Conventionnel Louis François Portiez de l'Oise (1765–1810).

​Originally stored in the Bibliothèque de l'Assemblée nationale in 1832, the documents were transferred to the Archives nationales de France in 1920. However, because an inventory of these specific papers had never been conducted, they remained hidden in plain sight for over a hundred years. It is a powerful reminder of what historical treasures may still be "sleeping" within the Archives!

I am currently working (I have been for some time actually) on a complete translation of these letters. It is a meticulous process, as I am striving to remain as faithful as possible to the original 18th century nuance while ensuring the text remains accessible to modern readers. Until the full set is ready, I have selected a few extracts that I find particularly illuminating. They offer a unique window into Saint-Just's mindset during the years immediately preceding the National Convention.

(For some reason, the original anonymous ask and answer I thought I had saved in my drafts has disappeared? Did I accidentally delete it? Who knows with Tumblr. Anyway, good thing I screenshotted it, I guess.)

Since I am STILL working on my extremely long post series going in depth into recommendations, I guess I should really just answer this ask and give a plain and simple list, as it was requested -_- (Don't worry, the extremely long post series is still going to happen.)

First of all, let’s just say, again (and it really must be insisted on), that most Anglophone historiography is… not very good. There are exceptions, but not many. At least, not enough to satisfy me. Fortunately, some good French books have been translated to English – so that’s great news!

So here are my main recommendations:

Sophie Wahnich’s La liberté ou la mort. Essai sur la Terreur et le terrorisme (2003) which was translated to In Defence of the Terror: Liberty Or Death in the French Revolution with a foreword by Slavoj Zizek in 2012.

This essay basically changed my life, and led me to take the path I have walked since as a historian. Zizek’s foreword is very good in summarizing the ideological oppositions to the French Revolution (until he rambles the way he usually does).

It opens with a quote from Résistant poet René Char which perfectly sets the tone:

“I want never to forget how I was forced to become – for how long? – a monster of justice and intolerance, a narrow-minded simplifier, an arctic character uninterested in anyone who was not in league with him to kill the dogs of hell.”

Keep in mind that when I first read it, in 2003, the very notion of anything like the Charlottesville rally happening was still in the realm of pure fantasy.

Marie-Hélène Huet’s Mourning Glory: The Will of the French Revolution (1997). One of the rare books in my list that was originally written in English (!). I think a lot of it might be available to read via Google Books, but it’s worth buying.

This book is hard to categorize: it talks of historiography and ideology, and it’s overall a fascinating book.

It feels a lot like Sophie Wahnich’s first essay – it was also similarly influential on my research. It inspired a lot of my M.A. thesis. I’ve recently found my book version of it, and this book was annotated like I’ve rarely annotated a book. It was quite impressive.

Dominique Godineau’s Citoyennes Tricoteuses: Les femmes du peuple à Paris pendant la Révolution française (1988) which was translated to The Women of Paris and Their French Revolution (1998).

It’s the best book on women’s history during the French Revolution IMO. I really don’t have much more to say about it: it’s excellent. It talks of working class women, it talks of the conflicts between different women groups, it talks of what happened after Thermidor and the Prairial insurrections, and the women who were arrested. No book has compared to it yet.

Jean-Pierre Gross’s Fair Shares for All: Jacobin Egalitarianism in Practice (1997). You can download it for free via The Charnel House (link opens as pdf).

Another rare book that was originally written in English, and later translated to French, though the author is French! (I think some French authors have picked up that the real battlefield is in Anglophonia…) It’s very important to understand social rights, a founding legacy of the French Revolution.

François Gendron’s essential book on the Thermidorian Reaction: first published in Québec as La jeunesse dorée. Episodes de la Révolution française (1979)  (The Gilded Youth. Episodes of the French Revolution). It was then published in France as La jeunesse sous Thermidor (The Youth During Thermidor). As I explained here, its publication history is quite controversial (though it seems no one noticed?). It was thankfully translated to English as The Gilded Youth of Thermidor (1993). However, the English translation follows Pierre Chaunu’s version – which didn’t alter the content per se, but removed the footnotes and has a terribly reactionary foreword – so be careful with that. If anything, that’s a very good example of all the problems in historiography and translations.

Much like Godineau’s book on women, no book can compare. In the case of women’s history during the French Revolution, it’s because most of it is abysmally terrible; in the case of the Thermidorian reaction, it’s because no one talks about it. And it’s not surprising once you start reading about it.

(You might notice that Gendron’s translated book, much like many others, are prohibitively expensive. I do own some of these so if you ever want to read any, send me a message and we’ll work it out!)

Antoine de Baecque’s The Body Politic. Corporeal Metaphor in Revolutionary France, 1770-1800 (1997), which is a translation of Le Corps de l’histoire : Métaphores et politique (1770-1800) (1993). (Here’s the table of contents.) It’s a peculiar book belonging to a peculiar field, and it can be a bit complicated/advanced in the same way most of Sophie Wahnich’s books are, but I still recommend them. See also: La gloire et l’effroi, Sept morts sous la Terreur (1997) and Les éclats du rire : la culture des rieurs aux 18e siècle (2000), but I don’t think either have been translated. Le Corps de l’histoire and La gloire et l’effroi also are nice complements to Marie-Hélène Huet’s book.

If you can read French, I really recommend the five essays reunited in Pour quoi faire la Révolution ? (2012), especially Guillaume Mazeau’s on the Terror (La Terreur, laboratoire de la modernité) – which I might try to eventually translate or at least summarize in English coz it’s really worth it.

The following books are extremely important to understand the historiographical feud and the controversies that surrounded the Bicentennial of the French Revolution in 1989 (and both have been translated to French so that’s cool too):

First, Steven L. Kaplan’s two volumes called Farewell, Revolution: Disputed Legacies (1995) and The Historians’ Feud (1996).

Then, Eric Hobsbawm’s Echoes of the Marseillaise: Two Centuries Look Back on the French Revolution (1990) which gives you the Marxist perspective on the debate. If you want to look for the non-Marxist perspective: look at literally any other book written on the French Revolution and its historiography (I’m not kidding). For example, you can read the introduction by Gwynne Lewis (1999 book edition; 2012 online edition) to Alfred Cobban’s The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution (1964), the founding “revisionist” book.

Again, if you can read French, I recommend Michel Vovelle’s Combats pour la Révolution française (1993) and 1789: L’héritage et la mémoire (2007). I have not read La bataille du Bicentenaire de la Révolution française (2017) but it might recycle parts of the previous two books, so I’d look that up first.

Marxist historiography is near inexistant in Anglophonia, because of reasons best explained in this short historiographical recap on Anglophone historiography and specifically Alfred Cobban (link opens as pdf), but there was Eric Hobsbawm, who wrote a series of very important books on “The Ages of…”:

The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848

The Age of Capital: 1848-1875

The Age of Empire: 1875-1914

The Age of Extremes: 1914-1991

Some of Albert Soboul’s works have been translated as well:

A Short History of the French Revolution, 1789-1799 (1977)

The Sans-Culottes: The Popular Movement and Revolutionary Government, 1793-1794 (1981)

Understanding the French Revolution (1988), which is a collection of various essays translated to English (here’s the table of contents)

While we’re on the subject of classics: I do need to re-read R. R. Palmer’s The Twelve Who Ruled (1941) to see if I still like it, but I believe it’s still positively received? I’ve never actually read C. L. R. James’ The Black Jacobins. Toussaint Louverture and the San Domingo Revolution (1963) but I’m going to rectify that this summer.

That’s a good way to segue into a final part.

Here is a list of books I technically have not read yet (I skimmed through them), but would still recommend because I trust the authors:

Michel Biard and Marisa Linton’s The French Revolution and Its Demons (2021) which was originally published in French as Terreur ! La Révolution française face à ses demons (2020). It looks like an excellent summary of all the controversies surrounding the Terror: Robespierre’s black legend, how the Terror was “invented”, the conflicts between different political factions and clubs, the Vendée, and stats on who actually died by the guillotine (no, there was no “noble purge”). (Here’s the table of contents.)

Peter McPhee wrote several good syntheses, the most recent being Liberty or Death: The French Revolution (2017). Others he wrote: Living the French Revolution, 1789-99 (2006) and A Social History of France, 1789-1914 (1992, reedited in 2004). Why 1914? The 19th century was defined by Hobsbawm (see above) as “the long 19th century” (by contrast with “the short 20th century”), or “the cultural and political 19th century”, which is regarded as lasting from the fall of Napoléon Bonaparte to the First World war.

Eric Hazan’s A People’s History of the French Revolution (2014) and A History of the Barricade (2015), which are translations (Une histoire de la Révolution française, 2012, and La barricade: Histoire d’un objet révolutionnaire, 2013). If you can read French, check out his essay published by La Fabrique: La dynamique de la révolte. Sur des insurrections passes et d’autres à venir (2015).

Just as a final note: this post is the equivalent of four half single-spaced pages in Times New Roman 12 pts. It also took two hours to write and format (and make the side-posts with table of contents) even though most of it is already written in several drafts – i.e. the long post series of in-depth recommendations, so that gives you an idea of why that other series of posts is taking so long to write.

I’m going to go lie down now. -_-