Collection of essays, thoughts, references, reviews, vulgarizations and translations by a historian of the French Revolution. Support me!
Main Topics of Interest/Areas of Expertise: Year I-III (1792-1795), the circle of the "Robespierristes", specifically Maximilien Robespierre (I've written about his "black legend" and Thermidorian propaganda for my M.A. thesis) but also his sister Charlotte, Louis-Antoine Saint-Just and Ălisabeth Duplay-Le Bas. I wrote my PhD thesis about the latter's memoirs, her role in the transmission of the memory of the Revolution, and how the "Duplay House" and the circle of the "Robespierristes" reflect Saint-Just's concept of a "community of affections".
Currently working on several side-projects: 1) on the women of the Montagne, 2) on BarĂšre and the Carnot family's role in preserving but also withholding Saint-Just's manuscripts, and 3) on the representations of revolt and revolution in media and pop culture.
(I take a very long time to reply to asks because I value accuracy first and foremost but I promise I will answer them eventually.)
Media and books influenced by Thermidorian propaganda
Here are some facts we take for granted that revolutionaries didn't know that will blow your mind
Learning to Be a Lawyer in 18thc France
Brief historiography on women, the law, marriage and divorce (scroll down)
Brief overview of the Thermidorian Reaction
On Saint-Just's Personality: An Introduction
Saint-Just in Five (Long) Sentences
Random Sources and References on Saint-Just's Youth (In French)
Louise Michel's Poem on Saint-Just
On Charles Le Bas, Philippe's brother and Ălisabeth Duplay's second husband
References on Couthon
Book and article recommendations:
The "short" version
Part 1 - A Note On Objectivity and Two Approaches (introduction) + Culture: Enlightenment and Antiquity
Part 2 - Ideological Stakes
Part 3 - Old Classics and Syntheses
Part 4 - Specific Topics and Areas of Research
Part 5 - Side-related but still important
Part 6 - Highlights and Short Reviews
My Posts In Progress and Eventual Research:
My thoughts and analysis of Saint-Just's unsent letter to Villain dâAubigny
A (brief?) introduction to Saint-Justâs many faces and myths
Why Enjolras was inspired by Saint-Just: comparing the text of the brick to Saint-Justâs Romantic Myth
An Episode of the Thermidorian Reaction: the Attack on the Club des Jacobins and the Misogynist Targetting of Women
How the pamphlet about the Club infernal locates them in the circle of Wrath and not Treason - the latter would out them as counterrevolutionaries
Can we call the French Revolution a "fandom"? The invention of celebrity culture, etc.
The differences between Thermidorian propaganda and Anglo-American propaganda (and where they overlap)
Other Important Posts
Some primary and secondary sources available online for free (by anotherhumaninthisworld; some additions by myself)
Frev Resources (by iadorepigeons)
Myths and misconceptions about the French Revolution
Anglo American historiography (by saintjustitude and dykespierre)
On the Terror's Death Toll and Donald Greer (by montagnarde1793) More about this topic here and here (by lanterne, anotherhumaninthisworld, frevandrest and radiospierre)
On Robespierre's Black Legend (by rbzpr)
On Thermidorian propaganda (by lanterne)
On Couthon (by iadorepigeons)
Marat Ressource Masterpost (by orpheusmori)
Collaborative Masterpost on Saint-Just (many authors)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch âą No registration required âą HD streaming
As @stalinistqueens suggested to me: if Camille Desmoulins' "shameful vice" that they couldn't name was adultery like some people have suggested, then wouldn't it have been brought up against Augustin Robespierre, especially post-Thermidor, since he had relationships with two married women, one (La Saudraye) less ambiguous than the other (Ricord)? đ€
Also, Claude-Antoine Prieur actually lived with a woman still married to another man. Now, he wasn't targeted the way Augustin was, but you'd think it might cause scandal if it was frowned upon.
I think some people are confused about what a representative on mission was.
They were not military.
They were civilians with extreme oversight, supervision and direct control of the military.
It was the very deputies of the Convention, - the elected members of the Assembly - being sent to the front lines not to play soldier but to keep an eye on the officers for any Cesarist impulse or treasonous whim. They were all obsessed with the fear that someone would rise as a Caesar - and they were right to be. Both Robespierre and Saint-Just warned against celebrating military victories so it didn't inflate the ego of any general. The reason they debated battle plans with generals is because they wanted to keep a firm legislative control on military operations.
Remember what you might have heard about at one point in class, the three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial? The Convention had literally decapitated the executive (that was the king) and left that seat vacant, then drained the powers of the ministers, who they no longer trusted, and transfered them to the Committee of Public Safety. The CSP emanated from the legislative but acted like a de facto pro-tem (temporarily appointed) executive. (Important note: the CSP had power over everything but the police i.e. who was arrested and sent to the Revolutionary Tribunal - it was the Committee of General Security who was in charge of that, which was the source of tension with the CSP and led to a crisis in late Spring/early Summer 1794.)
(Nowadays, executive power is usually in the hands of either presidents or still of monarchs in parliamentary monarchies though it's mostly symbolic.)
Just in case this is too vague, I'm going to use a modern analogy:
Imagine if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) or any member of "The Squad" (if you're USAmerican) or Rima Hassan (I know she's a European deputy not a French one but try to follow my analogy here, I'm struggling to find radical leftist politicians who actually get an impact so insert here any radical-ish leftist elected member of a legislative house). Imagine one of those, and they were sent to Iran (or Iraq and Afghanistan in a very close past) (and yes the fact they're women of color and some of MENA origin is actually very relevant in terms of social power struggle for the analogy here), and they could directly decide on battle plans, they could demote or promote any member of the military, and they had the power of life and death on not just regular soldiers but the generals themselves.
That's how fascinating a representative of mission was.
I don't know for AOC but I know for sure that if Rima Hassan had the power equivalent to a representative on mission in 1793-1794, she would be leading a war against Israel in the name of Gaza. (Remember, the Montagnards/Jacobins were actually, sincerely, genuinely leading a war in the name of Universal Rights against the "Coalition of Kings and Tyrants". It wasn't a hollow, cynical slogan hiding a need for oil or, in their case, wheat - though this did become a matter of debate when the armies started being victorious.) That's how much power they had to change the course of history. And that's why they were "terrifying" to the establishment.
okay youve made me a little obsessed with all the drama of robespierres personal life kejehrhek all i knew before was the gullotining did his brother gets long with the duplays?
bro he genuinely has the most fascinating personal life from start to finish i could talk about that shit for 600 years
but yeah augustin had no issue with the duplays and im pretty sure he lived in the rooms connected to their house until he died? he was the complete opposite of robespierre (super outgoing, opinionated, ladyâs man, etc) which at times led robespierre - who who was always walking a fine line between being a brother and a parent to his siblings - to chide or scold him but they still got along incredibly well. augustin was also a deputy in the convention as well as a rep on mission with the armies.Â
one of the coolest fucking things about augustin is that he dated this (married lmao) creole woman named madame de la saudraye who was extremely politically active to the point where sheâd piss off a lot of the racist and misogynist jacobins by showing up to give speeches at the provincial clubs. in his letters to robespierre, augustin brings her up a bunch, asking robespierre to meet up with her in paris to get her opinions on the rev. at another point he wrote to robespierre:
âi wish that you would see citoyenne la saudraie [sic]; she will give you true information on all the plots which it is interesting to know in these circumstances.â
we donât know if robespierre ever took augustin up on this offer but it would be cool as fucking hell if he did
The only thing I'd change here is that, unfortunately, he didn't send multiple letters to Maximilien about her, but really only one, the one you quote from. It is, however, a very interesting story.
It took me days of research to find anything about her and, to begin with, her full name: Jeanne-Rosalie Guillodon de Tillet.
Ernest Hamel says she was the wife of "an academician named La Saudraye", most likely Charles-Joseph Lohier de la Saudraye.
Henriette Simon-Viennot, a 19th century woman historian, wrote an annex about her in her book about Marie-Antoinette.
She goes off on a weird anecdote about how La Saudraye interceded on Simon-Viennot's father behalf to Augustin in order to save him from the guillotine -- a rather typical anecdote attributed to many women close to French Revolutionary men.
Charles Nodier tells the story of how she was refused at the Jacobins' Club in Besançon:
Some people, like Albert Mathiez, have argued against the accuracy of the anecdote (because Nodier is, well, always weird when he recounts things which he reportedly witnessed at 13-14 years old), but it's a verified fact that Augustin had trouble in Besançon with Bernard de Saintes, a fellow representative on mission, and the man who denounced her at the club was one of his partisans.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch âą No registration required âą HD streaming
Here's another shocking mistake: journalists make mistakes too.
Look what he wrote:
The general on a horse is Hoche, as beautiful as a god, with his thoughtul brow and his poet eyes [...]
It's stated as evidence but it's actually his assumption. Nowhere does it say "Sicard told me so". It's the journalist's interpretation. And his interpretation is extremely bizarre because throughout the 19th century, starting all the way back to Michelet, this kind of description - "as beautiful as a god, with his thoughtul brow and his poet eyes" - matches Saint-Just.
When it comes to a monumental statue meant to represent the spirit of the Convention nationale, you have to factor several things where myth-making and legend collide with an accurate representation of history.
Yes, one side represents the deputies and the other the military. However, the Convention nationale DID NOT heroize generals. They put the military under direct control of the Convention.
Now, is it more likely to be a general or a representative on mission?
At first glance, if you see a figure on a horse surrounded by soldiers, you'll conclude it's a general. With superficial aesthetics in mind, Hoche could fit the bill.
Hoche was important - but was it enough, among all the generals, to choose him to be represented here?
We can't know what Sicard thought, but we know his monument is meant to represent the Convention nationale. It's specifically designed to honor the legislative assembly, its members, and the triumphs achieved under its direct governance. Hoche was never a member of the Convention. He was a soldier. Moreover, choosing him among other generals might cause controversies.
It's just as likely to be depicting a Representative on Mission, as the extension of the legislative will (on the left) and of the Republic (in the middle) who is guiding the troops to victory. Because the Representatives on Mission were members of the Convention. They were part of the military machine but only as the necessary civilian/legislative supervision.
That's for the symbolism.
Next, when you study the actual iconography, you see that it's clearly not Hoche:
So, is it Saint-Just? We can't know for sure, but based on iconographical cues, it's possible. Why Saint-Just? Because of how he built his own legend on mission that Michelet then cemented to our very days.
However, here's an alternative explanation that can satisfy everyone:
The figure on a horse might be both.
He might be meant to be a Generic General or a Generic Representative on Mission. It might be intentional that you can choose to interpret him as either Hoche or Saint-Just. Because depictions of the French Revolution, especially state-sponsored ones, have always been extremely controversial, prone to scandal and polarization. Example: the Bicentenial movie.
French Republican memory has always been a fierce political and emotional battle. The ambiguity might be specifically designed to reconcile both types of Republicans - those who glorify the generals and those who celebrate the representatives on mission - rather than divide. It's very possible that this debate we're having is written in the very origin of the monument itself. That Sicard never said who it was, the journalist assumed it was Hoche, and Sicard didn't correct him. We might never know, unless we find a document by Sicard that identifies the figures exactly.
Ultimately, the most reasonable interpretation might be what you, as the observer, decide it depicts, not what the artist intended.
What follows is a collections of engravings depicting the uniforms worn by soldiers with a specific military ranks during the French Revolutionary Wars.
@cheeri1yfrancis I had started writing a long answer to your question about what representatives of mission used to wear when I remembered that @saintjustitude already talked about it here ^_^
In any case, Saint-Just wore none of the above: those were military uniforms worn by members of the army!
I am sure there is some post on tumblr describing the statue of Convention nationale and concluding that it is not a portrait of Saint-Just, but of Hoche or Jourdan? I don't remember anymore. I can't find the post. Anyone help?
no worries!! itâs really interesting either way :) and hoche and sj look so similar, my brother saw the hoche statue behind this one and was like âomg itâs saint-justâ đ
At the time, the use of âtuâ was mandatory in administration. They would have all been addressing each other with âtuâ in official public settings (the Convention, the CPS, etc.) so itâs interesting to see Lebas switching back to âvousâ in private. Itâs also possible that Saint-Just was only applying the law to his private sphere, but weâd have to see how he addressed other people.
No, it was not. Not yet anyway. And it was never applied as well as some desired it to be. It was hardly enforceable.
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.
(I've spent the last month studying the uses of the "tu" and the "vous".)
Let me just stress that Iâm not arguing against the idea that Saint-Just's use of âtuâ towards Robespierre may imply a special bond. Iâm curious if it could be an instance of SJâs enthusiasm for new republican practices.
That letter was written on 15 Brumaire II (November 5, 1793) which coincides with when the CPS started to use âtuâ in its correspondence around October 31. Iâve found secondary sources saying that a decree was passed a few days later on November 8, making tutoiement mandatory, but I couldnât 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 âvousâ at the time, particularly in official public settings.
I wouldnât leave out that Saint-Just was actively applying the new norm here, especially since it was gathering attention at the time. SJ and Robespierre both being members of the CPS, they were 1)familiar with the practice 2)familiar with one another; it must have been easy to adopt tutoiement among each other.
It confirms what both Charlotte and Ălisabeth respectively said in their memoirs: Maximilien felt closer to Saint-Just, while Le Bas felt closer to Augustin.
Even nowadays, the customs and knowledge of when to switch from "vous" to "tu" remains complicated in French-speaking societies. It is in my own life in certain occasions with certain people. So I think it's a very interesting historical example.
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.
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'Ăglantine 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!)
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 Ălisabeth 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 Ălisabeth.
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.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch âą No registration required âą HD streaming
At first glance, it's clear from the style that this is a 19th century painting. I would argue it's from the late 19th century, because the woman's clothes and hairstyle are extremely off and reflecting the silhouette and fashion of the late 19th century rather than the late 18th century. This is the depiction of an idealized past they are no longer able to capture accurately, which might still have been possible in the early 19th century if only by using visual memory of older people you knew dressing this way.
âWhile his age ultimately prevented him from being seated, the work earned him significant notoriety. In his memoirs, BarĂšre 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 (1765â1810).
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.
[Ch. Vellay Transcriptions]
First letter:
"It is unfortunate, and I have told myself this many times over the past two years, that I am as much a slave to my adolescence as I truly am. You are not the first to make me bitterly regret possessing nothing; it would have been pleasant to find at home, as it is in my own feelings, what you ask of me, though I am fortunate if I have found it elsewhere. If I were the master, I would ask for nothing better than to help you in a powerful way in a career that requires wealth. But do you know my age? I am 23 years, 5 months, and a few days old."
"Tell me what you think. I have the desire to start a journal until I turn 25, because I'm only 23, what am I supposed to do? I'm bored and this constant work in solitude is an obsession. Besides, I wish I were in Paris to frequent the libraries, which I can no longer do without."
"You quite rightly anticipated that I would be awaiting your response with the utmost impatience. In truth, I feared that you had sent me packing. I take a sincere interest in your affliction; however, it does not befit a man of wit to succumb to it."
"The title of the work does not please me; it strikes me as a bit inflated. Substitute it with this one: Public Law of the French and Revolution in France."
"I am a man truly vexed at being unable to do as I please to fulfill your wishes, but no one possesses more goodwill nor more impotence than I do at this moment. How much bitterness my legal minority brings me - not to mention the bitterness of being unfit for any employment, and of being in this world as if I had no motherland at all."
"I would, however, prefer the title Public Law or the Spirit of the Revolution of France, and here is why: as I have often strayed from my subject, I have seemed more to expand upon the principles of the public law of this France than I have appeared merely to lay them down. The first title was sufficient, in truth, according to the first draft; it has become insignificant following everything I have sent you since."
âIn these letters, the man of "twenty-three years and five months" literally counts the days to his majority. He is powerless and terrified that the first serious political work into which he poured his soul might be suppressed or discarded. It is perhaps one the most fragile moments we have of him - there is no arrogance or aggression, merely a young thinker facing the existential dread of being silenced before he has even begun.
âHe apologized for his youth and gave thanks for the indulgence shown to him and for the lesson in democracy he was being offered. He expressed regret at having to take a side: "My conscience belongs to one, and my heart to both." Then, without passion, he laid out arguments that had been virulently rehashed for two days and invited the assembly to repudiate all local chauvinism by thinking of the unfortunate people who lacked bread.
âThe assembly ended in confusion, as most of the partisans of Soissons had left the premises before the vote that consecrated the triumph of Laon. Saint-Just was hardly affected by it. He confessed to Desmoulins: "It seems to me that it is only a point of honor between the two cities, and points of honor are very little thing in almost every regard." By the evening of May 20, Soissons had suffered a blow that weighed heavily on its future... But the detachment Saint-Just had displayed was interpreted as a sign of poise and mastery that placed him above partisan passions. He was congratulated from all sides: "I left loaded with compliments like the donkey with relics." He could tell Camille of his confidence in being elected "at the next legislature."
âA week later, the electors of the Chauny district met to appoint their administrators. The choice of Saint-Just as the assembly's secretary bears witness to his adoption into the circle of notables: he had accomplished the most difficult part.
2. It's interesting to read his motivations (it sounds a bit too pompous, it doesn't accurately reflect the final text) and insistence on changing the title of his essay, as his choice clearly didn't prevail. The fact he focuses on "Droit public" gives a stronger basis to Quennedey's hypothesis that the true title of the manuscript known as "De la Nature" should be known as "Du Droit social".
3. Like Boussemart notes, he didn't check the date when writing the third letter, writing only "10 ou 11 mars 1791": "the young revolutionary didn't have the possibility or didn't have an interest in checking the date".
3. He reveals he feels unfit for any job which raises some questions about his work as a clerk in Soissons, like Quennedey observes:
"One cannot help but be surprised by Saint-Justâs admission, in one of his letters, that he was 'unfit for any position'. This statement casts doubt on whether his work as a clerk to a prosecutor in Soissons from 1787 to 1789 went smoothly."
One could argue this admission also suggests a man whose intellectual ambitions had already made the clerk's desk feel like a cage. The bitterness and frustration he evokes weren't just about age; they were about a spirit that refused to be small and contained.
Conclusion
The discovery of these new letters after two centuries is a testament to the fact that the history of the Revolution is never truly "closed". There are still voices waiting to be heard in the uncatalogued boxes of our archives. For Saint-Just, these fragments restore a sense of intimacy that official records cannot provide. They remind us that behind every political decree was a human heart, often heavy with the bitterness of being misunderstood and the desperate hope of being seen.
Ultimately, these letters do more than just fill a biographical gap; they humanize a man who is too often flattened into a cold symbol. In the silence between his lines to Beuvin, we find the real Saint-Just: a young man of immense ambition struggling against the limitations of his age, his finances, and his isolation. Before he walked to a rostrum in Paris that would seal his image as the "Archangel of the Terror", he was this anxious, brilliant and deeply vulnerable soul, counting the days until he could finally begin to live.
âWhile his age ultimately prevented him from being seated, the work earned him significant notoriety. In his memoirs, BarĂšre 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 (1765â1810).
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.
[Ch. Vellay Transcriptions]
First letter:
"It is unfortunate, and I have told myself this many times over the past two years, that I am as much a slave to my adolescence as I truly am. You are not the first to make me bitterly regret possessing nothing; it would have been pleasant to find at home, as it is in my own feelings, what you ask of me, though I am fortunate if I have found it elsewhere. If I were the master, I would ask for nothing better than to help you in a powerful way in a career that requires wealth. But do you know my age? I am 23 years, 5 months, and a few days old."
"Tell me what you think. I have the desire to start a journal until I turn 25, because I'm only 23, what am I supposed to do? I'm bored and this constant work in solitude is an obsession. Besides, I wish I were in Paris to frequent the libraries, which I can no longer do without."
"You quite rightly anticipated that I would be awaiting your response with the utmost impatience. In truth, I feared that you had sent me packing. I take a sincere interest in your affliction; however, it does not befit a man of wit to succumb to it."
"The title of the work does not please me; it strikes me as a bit inflated. Substitute it with this one: Public Law of the French and Revolution in France."
"I am a man truly vexed at being unable to do as I please to fulfill your wishes, but no one possesses more goodwill nor more impotence than I do at this moment. How much bitterness my legal minority brings me - not to mention the bitterness of being unfit for any employment, and of being in this world as if I had no motherland at all."
"I would, however, prefer the title Public Law or the Spirit of the Revolution of France, and here is why: as I have often strayed from my subject, I have seemed more to expand upon the principles of the public law of this France than I have appeared merely to lay them down. The first title was sufficient, in truth, according to the first draft; it has become insignificant following everything I have sent you since."
âIn these letters, the man of "twenty-three years and five months" literally counts the days to his majority. He is powerless and terrified that the first serious political work into which he poured his soul might be suppressed or discarded. It is perhaps one the most fragile moments we have of him - there is no arrogance or aggression, merely a young thinker facing the existential dread of being silenced before he has even begun.
âHe apologized for his youth and gave thanks for the indulgence shown to him and for the lesson in democracy he was being offered. He expressed regret at having to take a side: "My conscience belongs to one, and my heart to both." Then, without passion, he laid out arguments that had been virulently rehashed for two days and invited the assembly to repudiate all local chauvinism by thinking of the unfortunate people who lacked bread.
âThe assembly ended in confusion, as most of the partisans of Soissons had left the premises before the vote that consecrated the triumph of Laon. Saint-Just was hardly affected by it. He confessed to Desmoulins: "It seems to me that it is only a point of honor between the two cities, and points of honor are very little thing in almost every regard." By the evening of May 20, Soissons had suffered a blow that weighed heavily on its future... But the detachment Saint-Just had displayed was interpreted as a sign of poise and mastery that placed him above partisan passions. He was congratulated from all sides: "I left loaded with compliments like the donkey with relics." He could tell Camille of his confidence in being elected "at the next legislature."
âA week later, the electors of the Chauny district met to appoint their administrators. The choice of Saint-Just as the assembly's secretary bears witness to his adoption into the circle of notables: he had accomplished the most difficult part.
2. It's interesting to read his motivations (it sounds a bit too pompous, it doesn't accurately reflect the final text) and insistence on changing the title of his essay, as his choice clearly didn't prevail. The fact he focuses on "Droit public" gives a stronger basis to Quennedey's hypothesis that the true title of the manuscript known as "De la Nature" should be known as "Du Droit social".
3. Like Boussemart notes, he didn't check the date when writing the third letter, writing only "10 ou 11 mars 1791": "the young revolutionary didn't have the possibility or didn't have an interest in checking the date".
3. He reveals he feels unfit for any job which raises some questions about his work as a clerk in Soissons, like Quennedey observes:
"One cannot help but be surprised by Saint-Justâs admission, in one of his letters, that he was 'unfit for any position'. This statement casts doubt on whether his work as a clerk to a prosecutor in Soissons from 1787 to 1789 went smoothly."
One could argue this admission also suggests a man whose intellectual ambitions had already made the clerk's desk feel like a cage. The bitterness and frustration he evokes weren't just about age; they were about a spirit that refused to be small and contained.
Conclusion
The discovery of these new letters after two centuries is a testament to the fact that the history of the Revolution is never truly "closed". There are still voices waiting to be heard in the uncatalogued boxes of our archives. For Saint-Just, these fragments restore a sense of intimacy that official records cannot provide. They remind us that behind every political decree was a human heart, often heavy with the bitterness of being misunderstood and the desperate hope of being seen.
Ultimately, these letters do more than just fill a biographical gap; they humanize a man who is too often flattened into a cold symbol. In the silence between his lines to Beuvin, we find the real Saint-Just: a young man of immense ambition struggling against the limitations of his age, his finances, and his isolation. Before he walked to a rostrum in Paris that would seal his image as the "Archangel of the Terror", he was this anxious, brilliant and deeply vulnerable soul, counting the days until he could finally begin to live.
On the 11th of that month [March 1790], the young man claims to have received a package containing thirty copies of a counterrevolutionary pamphlet, along with a letter urging him to âuse the influence he has in this country to support the religion undermined by the decrees of the National Assembly and to disseminate the text contained in the package.â Who could have imagined that the rebellious student of the Oratorians, the author of Organt, and the political activist would distribute a counterrevolutionary pamphletâone that, moreover, favored traditional religion?
Thus armed with this document, Saint-Just convened an extraordinary meeting of the municipal council and read aloud the âinfamousâ letter. âThe entire Assembly, rightly outraged by the abominable principles that the enemies of the Revolution seek to instill in the minds of the people, resolved that the declaration should be torn to shreds and burned on the spot; which was done immediately; and Mr. de Saint-Just, with his hand over the flames of the libel, took an oath to die for the motherland and the National Assembly, and to perish rather by fire, like the document he had received, than to forget that oath: these words brought tears to everyoneâs eyes. The Mayor, with his hand over the fire, repeated the oath along with the other municipal officials...â
This scene, evoking the heroism and political resolve of Mucius Scaevola, had obviously been conceived by Saint-Just. Even if they could read, the peasants who swore the oath with him were not familiar with Plutarch... It was he, too, who inspired this report, written by Thuillierâs own hand. People have often mocked the theatrical nature of this display, but at the end of the 18th century, there was a strong appreciation for grandiloquence, even among the most educated and critical circles. Rome, Greece, and their heroes had become models.
Read to the Constituent Assembly on May 18, 1790, the text was warmly applauded and its printing ordered (proof that it did not seem ridiculous). It was a great success that earned Saint-Just the esteem of many of his compatriots.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch âą No registration required âą HD streaming
sorry, i might have worded my question wrong. what i meant was, was his full name "louis de saint-just" or "louis saint-just"? what's the correct way to refer to him?
By 1792, Saint-Just stopped using the "de". This was part of the movement of democratization and de-aristocratization, the same way "citizen" replaced "monsieur":
