Без названия

Fast forward to July- and the debates on whether King Louis is exempt from the law, just because he's a King. We still have modern day debates over things like this, how weird is that🫠

Power belonging to every citizen and so tho whole France, abrupt examples, starst with forms and ends up with ideas, faith in reasonably established institutions.

And the one he opposes is Salles.

They are both the same age, born in 1759. Hérault studied at the Collège de Juilly until 1777 or 1785:

“On December 1, 1777, the King, convinced that 'Sieur Hérault de Séchelles, having inherited the virtues of his fathers and uncles and inspired by their example, will hasten to follow in their footsteps, prove himself worthy of his esteem, and strive to earn his trust more and more,' appointed him as his lawyer at the Châtelet, exempting him from the requirement of being twenty-five years of age: he was eighteen.” (we must be very careful with this first source, as it is also the one telling that Fouché was Hérault's teacher and so it contradicts itself...)

“Hérault de Séchelles was only twenty-five years old when he was appointed, on July 20, 1785, Attorney General of the Parliament, thanks to the protection of the Duchess of Polignac, his cousin.” (I think 1785 was when he definitely left Juilly and not 1777)

However : “In September 1784, [Fouché] was a fifth-year teacher at the college in Saumur, then a philosophy teacher the following year at the college in Vendôme, which he left to join Juilly on September 26, 1787, where he took on substitute teaching duties and mainly taught physics. He remained at Juilly for a year and finally spent the following year at the college in Arras, where he again taught physics.” (source : Emmanuel de Waresquiel, "A l'oratoire", Fouché : les silences de la pieuvre)

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

“This important sculpture depicts Mirabeau standing upon a high pedestal, with a lion at his side. […] The presence of this monument provoked numerous comments and controversy.” - Bernard Terley, Aix-en-Provence

“The only thing that bothers me about Aix is seeing Mirabeau so often. Statues of him are everywhere: in the museum; in the town hall; in the [library]; in the Arbaud museum; and elsewhere. So many Mirabeaus! It's an indigestion.” - Émile Henriot, En Provence

“In reality, the statue was indeed intended for the courthouse from the outset, but some protested against its presence, given that Mirabeau had been convicted by the Aix courts… It was therefore decided to install it, contrary to what had been planned, in the courtyard of the Town Hall, where Mirabeau, by pure chance, had his finger pointing… towards the men's restroom.” - Le monument en l'honneur de Mirabeau place Verdun, Les échos de l'Académie d'Aix

 “My colleagues will forgive me for repeating myself, but they should remember what I said when I once mentioned to them what I called, referring to a monument recently erected near our courthouse, a generously furnished gynaeceum , where one can even make out a lion crossed with a cocker spaniel, whose roars must not have bothered the tribune much, as it barely reaches his garter.” - Discours de Jean Pianello, séance publique de l’Académie d’Aix, 13 juin 1942

Rousseau: Men, once accustomed to Masters, can never afterwards do without them.

Adams: France is trying. 1794

Adams: France is still trying 1800. __

Rousseau: I should have chosen for my Country [Geneva] one secured against the brutal Rage of Conquest by a happy Impossibility of making any

Adams: Read the History of Geneva for the Last 20 years. 1800

The pre-Revolution period is kind of freaking me out.

Fouché's being "a class favourite teacher" of every class.

Herault chatting with Jefferson.

Girondins being a literature club.

The Rosati thing.

Vergniaud being Turgot's protégé.

Condorcet becoming a friend of Brissot after participating in releasing him from Bastille with a half of France and a quarter of Britain.

Charles "spam letters to scientists" Barbaroux. And his mineralogy era. And his Ode to electricity.

Saint-Just and silver.

Marat pouting on Brissot, because he didn't want to acquaint him with Lavoisier (Brissot wasn't in his circle and couldn't do it, but Marat believed otherwise).

Brissot and Laplace love hate relationship.

Brissot publishing Pétion.

Garat, a star of literature competitions and a parisian life observer.

Warning: for sensitive readers: at one point, there will be mention of torture.

I'm not infallible, so if I make a mistake, please feel free to correct me — just politely, if possible :)

During the French Revolution, some friendships between revolutionaries remained strong throughout their lives, while others, unfortunately, didn’t survive the political turmoil. We often hear about the broken friendship between Camille Desmoulins and Robespierre, or sometimes the rift between Brissot and Desmoulins. But many other broken friendships are rarely, if ever, mentioned.

One particularly interesting case is that of Marat and Barbaroux, which is explored in this brilliant post by @sillyletterscomposingsillywords: https://www.tumblr.com/sillyletterscomposingsillywords/782810395976105984/i-had-a-special-liaison-with-barbaroux-back-at?source=share. It's both ironic and tragic to think that Barbaroux later met Charlotte Corday in Caen — though, to be fair, Barbaroux had absolutely no responsibility in Marat's death. Had he known what Corday intended to do, I believe he would have done everything in his power to prevent her from traveling to Paris, despite his falling out with Marat.Killing Marat was a completely stupid initiative on Corday's part, which led to the death of some Girondins, among others.

I still wonder why this past friendship between Marat and Barbaroux is so rarely acknowledged. Even in the (rather awful) film La Révolution française by Heffron, the two never interact — Barbaroux only mentions Marat during a speech in Caen against him. But portraying their former friendship would have undermined the film’s goal of depicting Marat solely as a deranged fanatic. I haven’t found a single historical novel about the French Revolution that portrays their prior bond — much to my deep frustration.

Honestly, I’ve often lost hope that films or graphic novels will ever portray the broken friendship between Pétion and Robespierre. I was thrilled when the comic book series Ils ont fait l’Histoire finally included their friendship — and its eventual rupture. What makes it even more poignant is that they tried, for a time, to preserve their bond until around August 1792. For more details, I recommend this excellent post write by @anotherhumaninthisworld: https://www.tumblr.com/anotherhumaninthisworld/760041507348692992/hi-a-lot-has-already-been-written-about?source=share. If we ever get new films that stop demonizing the revolutionaries, the friendship between Pétion and Robespierre deserves to be highlighted.

Another case is the friendship between Pache, Monge, and Manon Roland — before they became political enemies. At first, Jean-Nicolas Pache was close to the Rolands (especially Manon), whose intelligence and skills helped him become their secretary, and eventually Minister of War. Their friendship was so strong that, according to Louis de Launay, Monge and Manon would go on countryside walks with Pache, and the three of them even played games together when they had time.

In her memoirs, Manon Roland wrote that Pache’s children, Jean and Sylvie, missed Paris terribly when they were in Switzerland. While I doubt the full truth of this — they were still very young when they left Paris — it’s more likely they missed their friends rather than the city itself. (I’ve also noticed some inconsistencies in Manon Roland’s memoirs, so they shouldn’t always be taken at face value — just like many other revolutionary writings.) Still, this suggests that Roland truly knew Pache’s children, or that despite his famously secretive nature, Pache confided in her — which shows how close they must have been, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, their friendship broke down due to political disagreements. For instance, Pache distrusted Dumouriez (who in turn came to hate him), and while he initially agreed with Roland on centralizing military supply procurement through the "Directoire d’achats," he later diverged. As the Montagnards increasingly supported Pache over Dumouriez, political tensions grew. Monge, siding with Pache, also broke ties with Manon Roland. In her memoirs, she would later write harsh — even violent — words about both men.

When Pache became mayor of Paris, tensions with the Girondins worsened. Notably, he supported his son-in-law's chilling proposal: “We propose to relieve the Revolutionary Tribunal of the formalities that stifle conscience and prevent conviction; to add a law that grants jurors the right to declare they are sufficiently informed. Only then will traitors be deceived, and terror will be the order of the day.”

I can’t help but wonder how Pache and Monge reacted to Manon Roland’s execution. Yet, according to Pierquin, Pache’s greatest regret at the end of his life was not her death, but his failure to reconcile the Dantonists and the Hébertists. I often wonder how Manon Roland would have reacted if their roles had been reversed (though like Vergniaud, she refused to flee Paris or lead insurrections — albeit with more ambiguity on the matter).

For more on the friendship between Pache, Monge, and Roland, I recommend these two posts:

https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/777295133948411904/jean-nicolas-pache-the-swiss-minister-of-war?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/778721992245477376/jean-nicolas-pache-the-swiss-minister-of-war?source=share

Ironically, Buzot( who was very close to Manon Roland) once made an insulting remark about Pache’s daughter Sylvie (who was only 16 at the time), claiming: “Pache’s children, his daughters, ran like madmen to the places where murder and pillage were preached with the most impudence, and they were often seen in so-called fraternal embraces, warming themselves up for the disgusting orgies.” Either Buzot imagined sisters Sylvie didn’t have, or he was referring to all the women in the Luxembourg section — but the innuendo is clear.

Gracchus Babeuf and Dubois de Fosseux: Dubois de Fosseux and Gracchus Babeuf exchanged regular correspondence well before the French Revolution — from as early as 1785 — when Dubois became the permanent secretary of the Royal Academy of Sciences and Fine Letters of Arras. They wrote to each other about social rights (including women’s rights), inoculation, and agricultural models — particularly the usefulness of farm division. Dubois even asked Babeuf to suggest topics for the academy’s future programs. He was the one who encouraged Babeuf to write and publish Le Cadastre Perpétuel.

Their exchanges weren’t only intellectual: they shared personal anecdotes, especially about their children. When Babeuf became a father, he expressed his joy, while Dubois shared his own experiences of parenthood. And when Babeuf lost his daughter, Dubois sent him comforting words — as seen at the beginning of Émile Babeuf’s biography: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/797597465829359616?source=share

However, with the onset of the Revolution (perhaps even as early as 1788, according to Galina Tchertkova), a sharp break occurred between the two. It's worth noting that pre-revolutionary Babeuf still had a certain respect for feudalism and, according to historian Markov, considered redistributionists to be economically misguided.So, like so many other revolutionaries, Babeuf evolved towards much more left-wing ideas, so there must have been this break.

Later, when Babeuf was imprisoned in Arras, he considered sending false letters of friendship — a strategy advised by his wife — to men like Fréron, Tallien, Guffroy, and even possibly Fouché, to appear naïve and corruptible in hopes of securing his release. Dubois de Fosseux was among the recipients. Babeuf resumed correspondence with him for the reasons mentioned above. Sadly, we don’t have access to the content of these letters, since, according to Tchertkova, Dubois de Fosseux’s descendants refused to allow historians to consult them (at least as of 1974).

How did a relationship filled with shared joy, consolation, and personal connection dissolve into such distance — and eventually manipulation? Jean-Marc Schiappa points out that Dubois de Fosseux employed several assistants who read and replied to letters on his behalf, so perhaps he wasn’t as involved as it seemed. Still, given the personal nature of their early correspondence, I find it hard to believe there wasn’t a genuine connection between them.

Topino Lebrun and Jacques-Louis David:

Topino Lebrun was more than just a student of Jacques-Louis David — they shared a real friendship. In 1792, Topino referred to David as “his dear friend.” According to Alain Jouffroy and Philippe Bordes’s book on Topino Lebrun, they had known each other since 1784, having met in Rome, where David offered to take him on as a pupil. Their friendship lasted until around 1800.

However, while David eventually sided with Bonaparte, Topino came to detest him. During the so-called “Dagger Plot” (la conspiration des poignards) — which most historians now agree Topino was innocent of — David made a half-hearted attempt to defend him. He spoke up, but weakly. He was also forced to explain his connection to the sculptor Ceracchi. In contrast, Chauveau-Lagarde was a much stronger and more effective witness for Topino’s defense.In his article, James Henry Rubin accuses David of accepting Topino's execution too easily, particularly since he went on to accept appointments under Bonaparte — whose police tortured Ceracchi into trying to falsely implicate Topino. There is evidence suggesting that Ceracchi, Demerville, and Arena were innocent, and that they never actually plotted to kill Bonaparte — though historians remain divided.

Fouché and Condorcet

This one is frustrating because I know very little about this subject despite several searches . According to Waresquiel, Fouché “would often emphasize his friendship with Condorcet.” In his memoirs — which are widely considered unreliable, though some historians argue Fouché himself may have authored them — he writes:

“My first introduction into the Government was in the Committee of Public Instruction, where I connected myself with Condorcet, and through him with Vergniaud.”

Historian Antoine Resche notes that Fouché seems to have formed a close relationship with Condorcet in 1792, during their time on the Committee of Public Instruction. I would love to know more, but surely their friendship must have ended when Fouché turned his back on the Girondins.

Interestingly, Sophie de Grouchy — Condorcet’s wife — continued to host prominent idéologues in her salon in 1802, including someone named Ginguené. Later, when the Moreau conspiracy was uncovered, Fouché’s police began persecuting the idéologues, forcing them to abandon Rue du Bac. They eventually took refuge at Madame de Condorcet’s home, as Henri Valentino notes in Madame de Condorcet, ses amis et ses amours.

Bonaparte and Buonarroti:

Initially close friends, Bonaparte and Buonarroti eventually became bitter enemies. According to Victor Daline’s article Napoleon et les babouvistes, Buonarroti told the Turgenev brothers in 1836 — shortly before his death:

“Old man Buonarroti... had lunch with us. He’s a living chronicle of the last half-century. He vividly characterizes many people and recounts little-known details. In his youth, and later, he knew Napoleon: in Corsica, he lived in Napoleon’s mother’s house. On the last night Napoleon spent there as a sub-lieutenant, they even slept in the same bed. Later, they argued frequently and never reconciled. Bonaparte rose to the throne; Buonarroti went to prison.”

Buonarroti, a fervent Jacobin, was outraged when Bonaparte shut down the Panthéon Club. After the events of 13 Vendémiaire, Bonaparte allegedly summoned Buonarroti. In the Cahiers de Sainte-Hélène, General Bertrand reports Bonaparte recalling:

“He was a Babouvist. I summoned him. He answered proudly. I said, ‘That’s fine, but you promoted communist ideas to have the commander of Paris beheaded — I won’t have that. I’ll have you judged by a military commission and shot.’”

Of course, we can’t take Bonaparte’s version at face value. Still, it’s true he loathed the Babouvists. And the fact that Buonarroti was one of the closest friends of Babeuf — who despised Bonaparte and was despised in return — certainly didn’t help.

We don’t know how deeply Buonarroti was involved in clandestine opposition networks like the Société des Philadelphes, as he was very careful to leave no trace (as was Antonelle, for instance). But we do know he associated with known Bonapartist opponents like the neo-Jacobin Rigomer Bazin and General Malet. The police kept a close eye on him throughout the Consulate and Empire, though he managed to avoid execution or deportation — unlike many of his comrades.

At Saint Helena, Bonaparte finally softened his stance. According to Daline, he said:

“Napoleon reads Le Moniteur. He reads the Babouvist trial and finds it interesting… Buonarroti was a man of great talent… He was a friend of the common good, a leveler. I had him released. I don’t believe Buonarroti ever thanked me, or ever addressed me. Perhaps it was pride, or maybe he thought himself too insignificant. Or maybe I just forgot — I was so busy! Buonarroti was so far from my system that I may have paid no attention. But he could have been very useful in organizing the Kingdom of Italy. He would have made a great professor — a descendant of Michelangelo, a poet like Ariosto, writing better French than I did, drawing like David, and playing piano like Paisiello.”

But Buonarroti never let go of his hatred. In a 1828 letter to Émile Babeuf (Gracchus Babeuf’s son), he wrote:

“Don’t speak to me of the ‘great man’: he delivered the death blow to the Revolution and completed, for his own benefit, the work of iniquity that immorality and aristocracy had long begun. He could have repaired everything — instead, he ruined it all. That is his greatest crime.”

Note written by Edme-Bonaventure Courtois, cited in Camille Desmoulins and his wife; passages from the history of the Dantonists founded upon new and hitherto unpublished documents (1878) by Jules Claretie, p. 458.

Sorry for the month delay, anon.

Firstly, I will let her speak for herself.

Vatel T.3 pp.780–782:

Committee of General Security Interrogation of сitizen Lefevre, wife of Pétion, on the fourth of August 1793, year II of the Republic, one and indivisible. Q: When did you arrive in Caen and for how long did you stay there? A: For four or five days, I arrived on 26th or 24th. Q: During your stay in Caen, have you seen that girl Corday? A: No. Q: Have you heard what was said there about her crime? A: Yes. Q: What was the general opinion on it in Caen? A: People were content. Q: Can you name people who were content and did you share their admiration? A: I don't know the names, the opinion was general. What's for mine, it's mine, and I'm not obliged to share it. Q: When the news about Marat's assassination reached Caen, were the fugitives still there? A: I know nothing about it. Q: Do you know if the letter written by the girl Corday to Barbaroux was delivered to him? A: I have no idea. Q: Was the letter talked about in Caen? A: I have no idea. Q: Do you know about any relations between Corday and fugitives, your husband in particular, before their departure from Caen? A: No. Q: I observe that if you had been in Caen when the news about Marat's assassination reached it, you would have been there with your husband and other fugitives. What motive makes you hid it from us? A: I don't have any. ................................................. Q: Where did you stay in Caen? A: In Hôtel d'Angleterre, rue Saint-Jean, according to the testimony of a ten years old boy. Q: Who have you seen in Évreux? A: Madame Vallé and madame [mother of] Barbaroux. Q: Have you seen the wifes of the deputies? A: No. Q: Who have you seen in Caen? A: None. Q: Before your husband's departure did you know about Sicion (sic) plans against the majority of the Convention? A: No. Q: Who you used to see most often in Paris? A: Almost all proscribed, because, as a wife, I received the guests of my husband. Q: The proscribed you are talking about, were they gathering on certain days and hours? A: I don't know their motives. They had several meetings, but I was not admitted to them. Written in the said Committee, signed in confirmation of the answers Lefevre, femme Pétion.

Note: If you still have doubts, madame Pétion haven't been in Caen.

Louise-Anne-Suzanne Le Fèvre (or Lefevre) was born in Chartres (as well as Pétion) in 1760 or 1759.

She was 4'11'' (about 150 cm) tall, had brown hair and eyes, a long face with a long chin and a nose described as big.

She was arrested and put in prison (Sainte-Pélangie) on 9th August 1793 together with her ten years old son Louis-Étienne-Gérôme (1782–1847, Vatel), transfered to Port-Libre (la Bourbe) on 8th Vendémiaire. Since 14th Vendémiaire was in hospitals (due to her sons health problems). Release oreder was signed on 19th Brumaire (Vatel mixes dates here and writes Frimaire), she was free on the same day.

Pétion must have known here fate, because Buzot did (Memoires, J. Guadet version, p.188), most likely from Madame Roland.

From Vatel T.2 p.278

She received an annual pension of 2,000 francs (Vatel T.2 p.271).

Louise-Anne died in 1823 or 1824. She retained an oil on canvas portrait of her husband (I don't know which one), his writings, including his description of travel to England (Vatel T.3 p.513).

Her handwriting:

She says “I arrived on 26th or 24th”. Of which month?

If June, she could not know the reaction on Marat’s assassination. I will straight away point out the fact that Madame Pétion is not mentioned in Pétion’s memoires, while Buzot writes that his own wife stayed in Bretagne and Louvet says a lot about Lodoïska. Louvet on page 134 (1823 ed.) states that they were travelling to Dinan with “quelques femmes” in addition to Lodoïska*. From Buzot (p.188) we conclude that Madame Pétion was not amongst them. Could she return from Caen to Paris? If it was June there was no sense in it, because Pétion himself was in the city only on 28th (Mancel’s note in Souvenirs du fédéralisme p.208). And how could she reach Caen before him, when in his memoires she possesses no will to leave Paris?

But could she arrive in July? If yes, why would she return to Paris where she would be arrested and not follow her husband? What for would she stay for four or five days in a city where her husband no longer is, in a city where the Constitution is accepted (20th July) and where insurrection is officially, formally, democratically ended by vote (25th July for all the sections but one)?

It may seem for a moment that she could have a reason. Vaultier (author of Souvenirs du fédéralisme) claims that Pétion was in Caen with his son of eight or ten years (p. 72). How plausible it would be to imagine Madame Pétion coming to take her son back left in the city, if not one thing. Pétion had no son with him (see his memoires). The origin of such a mistake is interesting (and the fact that it’s the second time a child is incorrectly defined as Pétion’s may amuse @anotherhumaninthisworld). Yet it’s explainable; Vaultier, a twenty-two year old president of a section, befriended with Barbaroux, had connections with Valady, Girey-Dupré and Duchâtel, but was only introduced to the older deputies. Pétion belonged to those he had seen “from greater distance and on less occasions” (p.64).

Another detail from Madame Pétion answers that must be taken into account is the fact that she had seen Barbaroux’s mother in Évreux. I don’t know exactly when Barbaroux’s mother arrived in Caen, but it was before 24th July, because, according to Louvet’s memoires (p.118-119), the deputies must have departed from Caen either on 20th July or shortly after. The only significant detail she adds to her story ruins all the story.

The way Madame Pétion answers the questions is very provocative. She says what the Committee would be glad to hear – and then gives no details. She nearly mokes them. Even the interrogator points to her on the irrationality of her answers "observe that if you had been in Caen when the news about Marat's assassination reached it, you would have been there with your husband and other fugitives. What motive makes you hid it from us?".

I doubt she was forced to; she would have been put in prison even if she had said nothing at all. It could have been a form of a protest – an interesting trace of her character left for us.

*- Buzot's wife, Barbaroux's mother, a woman who "avait aidé" Barbaroux (Buzot, p. 37) and maybe someone else.

Upd. 4th June: @anotherhumaninthisworld shared in this post a letter from Carrier saying that Madame Pétion was arrested in Homfleurs (sic.) together with her son and another woman. If Homfleurs is what Honfleur is now, it's here, and then Madame Pétion was arrested on her way to Caen, which is very sad.

I will now also observe how things happened according to Madame Pétion words.

In Évreux she meets Madame Barbaroux, who says either that the deputies are still in Caen or that they no longer are. If first, Madame Pétion travels there to reunite with her husband, if second, to learn where he had gone. She arrives in Caen and finds out the deputies had left it. The city is still favours them, because it is content with Charlotte Corday deed. It is therefore easy for Madame Pétion to ask where her husband departed to and learn that he headed to Quimper. She might decide that the road is too dangerous to try catch her husband up. She stays in Caen for that several days and, finding it less and less safe for her (Romme and Prier were released on 29th), travels to Honfleur where gets arrested.