Iâm pairing up the following French Revolution figures:
Maximilien Robespierre / Georges Couthon: because I love seeing them together. I donât really know why, but personally, I find them completely in sync.
Philippe Le Bas / Saint-Just: do I really need to explain why?
Charlotte Robespierre / Guffroy: simply because of their relationship.
Ălisabeth Le Bon / Ălisabeth Le Bas: I find them totally compatible, especially in the way they faced adversity after the deaths of their husbands and their imprisonment, as well as in the fact that they maintained important political ties with some of the most significant figures of the Babeuvist conspiracy.
Simone Evrard / Marie-Anne Victoire Babeuf: one for her speeches and visible political activity, capable of rallying people; the other for her strong ability to operate in political clandestinity. Both were women skilled in political maneuvering, capable of facing adversaries, and both were imprisoned twice. In addition, both were able to gather documents despite the risk of persecution and enjoyed a very good reputation among most of their revolutionary peers.
Blondeau / Moroy: Based solely on what Cazin said during their imprisonment in Cherbourgâthat they got along so well in their shared hatred of him (and vice versa) that he claimed he feared for his life.
Gaspard Monge / Jean-Nicolas Pache: Two best friends who entered the French Revolution together, always protected one another, and whose eventual separation under Bonaparteâthough amicableâonly makes them feel completely compatible in my eyes .
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
In your opinion, who were the true Thermidorians who supported Robespierreâs fall, approved of it, or truly despised him
Iâm sorry, but Iâll surely forget quite a few names. Moreover, it's true that from a historical standpoint, some may be considered "good." Still, here are a few figuresâthough some are speculative due to the lack of written evidence:
Gilbert Romme, who supported the Cult of Reason and the de-priesting of certain figures like Gobel. Although he was absent during the Thermidorian events, itâs reasonable to assume he approved of Robespierreâs fall due to their deep religious disagreements.
Cambon. Although he participated in Thermidor, he was previously one of the most progressive figures on the Committee of Finances. He pushed for policies like forced loans, effectively taxing the wealthy. He considered the Committee of Public Safety too lax and became one of Robespierreâs opponents after the latterâs speech on 8 Thermidor. He played a role in Robespierreâs fall but remained loyal to Montagnard principles. He opposed Tallien and company from the outset and, even when isolated as one of the âCrĂȘtois,â gave a speech in support of them. He paid for his convictions with exile after the Year III uprisings to avoid arrest. Itâs worth noting that some historians say he regretted Robespierreâs execution.
Iâve forgotten many more (so don't hesitate to add others people), but my aim was to show that there were numerous politically left-leaning figuresâsometimes even further left than Robespierreâwho either contributed to his fall, approved of it, or simply disliked him. This doesnât mean Robespierre was badâon the contrary. The problem is that the "black legend" surrounding him remains so strong, despite the work historians have done to rehabilitate his image, that we often focus more on refuting falsehoods about him than on understanding the sincere revolutionaries who opposed himâsome of whom were even more socially radical or politically committed.
Sources:
Antoine Resche
Pierre Serna
Jean JaurĂšs
Dommanget
Jean-Marc Schiappa
Raymonde Monnier
Tomasso Jean-Jacques
To learn more about Drouet, whom I mentioned earlier, you can visit this link:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/789529983972507649/life-of-drouet-jean-baptiste?source=share
And for Varlet, Bodson, and Legray, check this article (although it's in French, you can translate it if needed):
https://shs.cairn.info/revue-annales-historiques-de-la-revolution-francaise-2014-2-page-179?lang=fr&tab=texte-integral
Antonelleâs Arrest and the Beginning of His Imprisonment (and Robespierre's responsibility in all of this)
I'm not infallible, feel free to correct me
I have already discussed Antonelleâs life here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/761515728971202560/the-political-career-of-the-revolutionary?source=share
as well as his role as a juror here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/781747560324956160/antonelles-role-as-juror-during-the-revolution?source=share.
Here is what historian Pierre Serna says about Antonelleâs arrest. According to him, Antonelle had tensions with Maximilien Robespierre. On 9 February 1794, a decree of the Committee of Public Safetyâsupposedly written in Robespierreâs own handâstates, according to Serna, that the âCommittee of Public Safety, convinced that its foremost duty is to prevent the alteration of revolutionary laws; instructed that for some time now jurors have introduced the practice, at the hearings of the Revolutionary Tribunal, of giving reasons for their individual opinions and of the inconveniences resulting from it; considering likewise that it is contrary to the spirit of this institution and to all principles that members of the revolutionary jury transform themselves into orators (âŠ), reminds them that jurors must limit themselves to giving their statement plainly and simply in accordance with principles and laws, without engaging in any discussion.â
According to the same historian, Antonelle opposed this policy. A month later, a note from the Committee of Public Safety ordered that âcitizen Antonelle, juror at the Revolutionary Tribunal, shall be immediately placed under arrest and his papers sealed.â The decree was signed by Couthon, Le Bas, Robespierre, Collot dâHerbois, Billaud-Varenne, BarĂšre, Bayle, Vouland, Jagot, Louis du Bas-Rhin, and Dubarran.
Here is an excerpt from Pierre Sernaâs biography of Antonelle:
«On 28 VentĂŽse (18 March 1794), at eleven-thirty in the evening, the two secretaries of the Committee of General Security of the National Convention, Gourlade and Bontemps, delivered the arrest order to the members of the Montagne section, who went to rue de la Loy, Vauban residence, no. 882. Citizen Antonelle offered no resistance. The documents were gathered, seals were placed on the door of the apartment. Once the report was read, the person apprehended was immediately taken to prison. It was one oâclock in the morning. The register of detainees at the Luxembourg indeed records Antonelleâs incarceration on 29 VentĂŽse Year II. A witness did not fail to point out in his memoirs the explosive mixture, half-comical, half-tragic, found in the prisons of the Republic: âI was at that time in this prison [âŠ]. Our new table companion, Monsieur dâAntonelle, presented himself [at the lemonade sellerâs] with ease, politeness, and as much familiarity as if he had been at the tribunal, the defender of our friends, he who had already sent a great number to the scaffold. We gathered around him, asking each other in a whisper whether this was really the man who had sacrificed so many brave men whose innocence we knew so perfectly; but what was our astonishment when we heard him elaborate on his principles of revolutionary justice and strive to demonstrate their purity to us, who were being slaughtered by them every day, and he delivered all this with a good-naturedness, a sort of candor one cannot imagine [âŠ]. However, his insulting sincerity earned him some rather harsh sarcasms which drove him away. He ceased to mix with us!â»
Pierre Serna affirms that the tension between Antonelle and Robespierre was already considerable before this. The historian notes that during the exclusions from the Jacobin Club, several nobles or foreignersâsuch as Cloots (a complex case of the French Revolution, as I discussed here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/763168272650846208/anacharsis-cloots-a-noble-internationalist?source=share)âwere expelled.
On 26 Frimaire Year II, Robespierre demanded that the Jacobins enforce the expulsion of all nobles: âI demanded the exclusion of nobles because in this proud caste there always exist conspirators; because, under the red cap, this species was also a friend of the red heels.â On the very day he gave this speech, Antonelleâs case was reconsidered. To be fair, it was mostly Sentex who opposed the exception made for Antonelle, but tensions were clearly visible.
Antonelle responded by reminding them that he was no longer noble, describing that status as âmadness,â âimagination,â âbizarre fiction,â âproud unreason,â âhuman fantasy,â and a âfrivolous and ridiculous creation.â About the decree, he added: âIt would be as if to tell them: under the shameful regime of inequality, you did not wish to affect lofty status (âŠ). Well then, under the happy regime of equality, we will create for you a humiliated and proscribed caste; your names, so few in number, will be solemnly inscribed there; we will separate you from what you cherish most, you who did not want a privilege of pride and preeminence, we will endow you with a privilege of reprobation.â
According to Robert Reboul in Physionomies provençales, Collot dâHerbois allegedly made a troubling confession on 6 Germinal Year III (though made much later, and its authenticity is uncertain):
«If there is one arrest warrant I signed with regret, it is that of Antonelle: we fought for a long time in the Committee; Robespierre argued that he was a former noble; he made it the subject of his continual declarations to the Jacobins, and we were forced to give in.
But he was the first we released on 9 Thermidor.»
It is true that Antonelle was freed shortly after 9 Thermidor, although he remained a fervent neo-Jacobin, a close ally of Babeuf, and a critic of both the Directory and Bonaparte. Furthermore, Collot dâHerbois refused in some cases to shift blame onto others (he refused to shift blame onto anyone regarding Lyon, fully aware of the danger and taking responsibility himself). Yet I am sure there were moments when he blamed others for actions he had takenâprobably out of calculation.
And in any case, Robespierre did not deprive the Committee of its free will when they all signed Antonelleâs arrest order. The vast majority of the Convention did not protest it either. So noâRobespierre was not the only one responsible for Antonelleâs arrest.
As for the expulsions of foreigners or nobles, it should not be forgotten that Robespierre also protected certain individuals on a case-by-case basisâsuch as Pache, considered a foreigner because his father was Swiss and because he had resided there for a time, yet whom Robespierre always defended (except on 8 Thermidor Year II).
Regarding the law on jurors, I wonder whether this might be one of the reasons Topino-Lebrun disliked Robespierre so intensely, in addition to the arrest of his friend Antonelle.
The Life of Jean-Baptiste François Topino-Lebrun, Painter, Revolutionary Juror, Ally of Babeuf under the Directory, then a Neo-Jacobin Executed under the Consulate by Bonaparte (Part I)
Portrait of Topino-Lebrun painted by Wicar in 1791 in Rome
I am not infallible, so please feel free to correct me. Moreover, since I had to copy everything by hand for the letters, it is possible that I made a transcription error, so please be understanding, especially as I caught a bad cold.
I have already made a post about Topino-Lebrun here:
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/764520082663735296/topino-lebrun-a-revolutionary-jacobin-close-to?source=share
It is now time to further refine his life and his tragic end. The second part of his lifeânamely his journey to Switzerland, his path as a neo-Jacobin under the Directory during the repression of the Babeuf movement, his arrest, interrogation, trial, and execution under the Consulateâwill be covered in a second part.
Finally, please remember that when Topino speaks about figures such as Robespierre or Fouquier-Tinville, this reflects only his own point of view, which is not necessarily shared by others.
âWe, the undersigned commissioners, have brought before us the individual named below, who appeared to us to be approximately one meter seventy centimeters tall; brown hair; eyebrows of the same color; a broad forehead; a long nose; grey-blue eyes; a medium-sized mouth; a round chin; and an oval face.â
The Life of Topino-Lebrun before the French Revolution
However, it was not until 1784 that François Topino-Lebrun first met David in Rome, where the latter was then working on a new painting, The Oath of the Horatii. It was at that moment that David offered him the opportunity to join his pupils.
In 1787, Topino-Lebrun enrolled at the Royal Academy in Paris, while also becoming a student in Jacques-Louis Davidâs studio. A deep friendship developed between the two men. In March 1789, Topino had a son named RaphaĂ«l Jean-Baptiste, whom he had baptized at Saint-Eustache. The childâs mother was Anne GeneviĂšve Manser. He officially recognized his son in 1792 and married Anne GeneviĂšve Manser on 4 December 1792.
Early Life during the French Revolution
In 1790, Jean-Baptiste François Topino-Lebrun traveled once again to Rome, where he remained for approximately two years. There, he met and became close to several French figures sympathetic to the French Revolution, including Wicar, who painted his portrait. He even began work on his painting The Death of Caius Gracchus, but, according to him, he was forced to interrupt it because of persecution by agents of the Papal government, who, he claimed, were targeting French nationals sympathetic to the Revolution.
Nevertheless, repression intensified against people like him. One notable example was the case of two men from Lyon: the sculptor Chinard and the architect Rater, who were arrested by the Roman authorities and imprisoned in Castel SantâAngelo. In response, Topino-Lebrun wrote from Florence to Minister Lebrun and to Jacques-Louis David. In his letter, he explained that he had fled Rome on 24 October to escape surveillance by papal authorities and that, according to him, there had even been an attempt on his life.
Shortly afterward, he returned to Marseille.
Below is the letter in question:
Letter from Topino-Lebrun to David
"Florence, 31 October 1792
Citizen,
I come to offer your zeal an opportunity to be useful to the fatherland, by having it respected abroad and by rescuing from the inquisitorial flames two French patriots .
Citizens Rater and Chinard, returning home on the night of 22 to 23 September, were set upon by henchmen who bound them and led them to the government prisons. A few days later, several models by Chinard were seized, as well as a hat adorned with a national cockade, which he wore only at home. The seized groups are: Liberty crowning the Genius of France, whose feet rest upon clouds and whose head, adorned with rays, indicates that he is the light of the world. Well then, the Abbati of the Government spread among the public that Chinard had insulted Religion, that it was trampled underfoot, etc. The two prisoners were transferred to the Castle of Saint Angelo, and there, rotting in filth, the Inquisition is conducting their trials.
No one speaks of anything but Chinard now, and rumor has it that Rater is dead. Both served in the National Guard of Lyon; Chinard was a captain; they were to depart at the first moment to resume their posts. That is surely their greatest crime in the eyes of their executioners.
I am writing by the same courier to the president. I am requesting a report from the minister on this affair; he must be informed of it. Ah, if only we had in Rome a minister like the one in Tuscany! The activity of his patriotism would have spared many patriots much anguish.
You may find it surprising not to have received any letter about this affair, but watched by tyrants, one does not dare write from Rome, and I hastened my departure solely in order to make protests in the name of the patriots I left behind, groaning over the fate of their brothers".
Here is a reply from Jacques-Louis David to Topino-Lebrun, dated December 24, 1792:
"I have supported my dear friend in the impulses of your heart. I read your letter to the National Convention. It gave the greatest pleasureâor rather, to put it better, it produced the effect you expected, for it stirred people to indignation, and I immediately had it decreed that the Executive Council would be charged with taking the swiftest measures to stop the thunders of the Inquisition. You know the letter the ministers wrote to the Pope, that they sent couriers, and that the Pope hastened to release Chinard and Rater from prison. He was very fortunate to have a warm friend like you, and I would say, a lover of humanity like me. We both succeeded; so let us not exchange compliments.
As for you, my good friend, if you can return here, I strongly advise you to do so, for in Marseille you cannot receive the encouragements you would have here. Besides, you know my friendship for you, and with what pleasure I would give you my advice.
Consult the state of your fatherâs fortune, to whom I ask you to convey many regards from me; moreover, I could also help you earn money here. You were in the process of acquiring meritâyou already had someâand under my eyes you will profit all the more. You know the sincerity of my offers, and I shall not make any longer protestations.
Girodet has just written to me; it seems he has not received the letters I sent him, one among them containing a letter for you.
Farewell, my friend for life, my fellow citizen.
David.
After this letter, some time later, Topino lived with David at the Louvre. In Paris, he formed numerous friendships with revolutionaries, including Pierre-Antoine Antonelle, Sambat, and many others.
On 10 June 1793, Topino submitted a request to Garat, who was still serving as Minister of the Interior, asking for a specific mission: âthe commission to go to the areas around Marseille to try to discover what is happening there.â After renewing his request on 16 June, it was approved.
Later, on 26 September 1793, he was appointed juror of the Revolutionary Tribunal, thanks to the recommendations of Jacques-Louis David and Antonelle.
Here is one of his verbal statements made in his capacity as a member of the Jury of the Arts during the judgment of the Painting Prize in 1794:
"My memory recalls the annals of the freedom of nations; these annals attest to the greatness and energy of the defenders of human rights. Terrible to tyranny, these generous fighters also know how to enjoy the charms of sensitivity; devoted to the cause of humanity, there is no sentiment of theirs that is foreign to it. If one of their brothers falls beneath the enemyâs sword, their proud weapons are seized by grief, and if this victim is a hero of the homeland, a savior of the people, what torments, what anguish do they endure? What are its expressions? Oh, you who appreciated Marat, speakâŠ!
It is with a heart moved by feelings of gratitude, affection, tenderness, vengeance, anger, rage, deep sorrow, and extreme affliction; it is with a mind occupied by all ideas of grandeur, energy, courage, audacity, devotion, and enthusiasm, that I fix my gaze on Brutus, victorious, dying while fighting for the freedom of his country, on the body of Brutus carried by his fellow soldiers and received by his fellow citizens.
These ideas, these feelings, I seek in these paintings submitted to my judgment, and I see them nowhere; yet I believe I catch some traces in the third work. â The group of young warriors who carry and accompany the body of the liberating hero, the eager senators who come to receive him, present, weakly it is true, the aspect of that character of affection, sadness, dejection, and grief that the subject demands.
But why does the fourth work offer me only small men, soulless, motionless, stiff and rigid, as if they were copied from certain painted wooden figures? Why did the author of the second painting use his talent to trace for us the attitudes, insignificant to the heart, awkward, cold, or forced, of a few men afflicted with consumption?
I turn my eyes away from the spectacle of misery that the fifth canvas portrays⊠Why remind us, out of place, of the pitiful existence of those unfortunate souls who, under despotism, lay painfully on the steps of Catholic temples?
I pause at the first work⊠I still do not recognize, in these men occupied with I know not what arrangement, the Romans I am seeking. The forms are swollen, and these so-called senators resemble toothless duenna, dressed in togas.
What are the causes of the mediocrity of these paintings? Could it be a lack of judgment, or, more unfortunately, an absence of feeling?
The degree of mechanical skill that I notice in the execution of each part proves to me sufficiently that the fault should not be attributed to the hand.
After having examined these works in their relation to the heart and to genius, let us assess them in their scientific aspects.
Already my mind traverses the monuments of the arts; it does not linger on these individual imitations: I prefer to admire good and simple nature; and if I suspend the emotion that always overwhelms me in contemplation, to turn my gaze to the works of men, I then demand that they speak to my imagination, that they depict for me the phenomena I cannot see, the sublime acts of sages and heroes, and their characteristic likenesses; that all the fleeting, isolated, yet harmonious beauties, which my original laziness prevents me from seeking, be united into a whole.
Ah! How well these ancient artists knew humanity! Wiser, more skilled than we, masters of their art, they compensated for its limitations by offering our senses the image of beauty. Their names became famous; they are immortal. The demonstrated sublimity of their masterpieces spares me from explaining the causes, and it suffices, for the opinion I express at this moment, to indicate this point of comparison.
In paintings, I know, I should not demand that elevated science which makes a man a creator; but I must require, to make the arts worthy of a free people, that at least the conscious intention to follow its principles be evident. Well! I discover this intention only in painting three⊠Observe these facial features, these legs, these feet; even despite their inaccuracies, notice the thought behind the ensemble of these figures. A trained eye will even see this intention in the execution itself; execution already far superior, apart from the inexperience of the artist, to the polished, affected, and lifeless style of painting twoâŠ
But this painting, lacking invention, poorly composed, without expression, drawn without character, first attracts all eyes and seems to capture some approval, a necessary effect of its chiaroscuro, its coloring, and the value of its tone. This generally dark tone, its rather melancholic color, and the play of light and shadow are well suited to the character of the subject. The eye delights in this softness; melancholy is also food for the heart, and the imagination finds some charm in this mysterious obscurity.
However, I reproach the artist for the uniformity of the value of his light masses and the lack of atmosphere, both in the overall composition and in each object, which are placed too close together; solely concerned with imitating each part, he has not subordinated them to the whole. This flaw would be more easily perceived if he had dared to emphasize his lights and to make all his local colors more pronounced; uniformity is not harmony.
In the secondary aspects of art, despite its diaphanous quality, the first painting has much merit: there is something agreeable, airy, and refined in its coloring. Yet⊠on one hand, Romans, Brutus killed in battle⊠and for the expression of all this, bastard colors! On the other hand, the scene illuminated by the sun⊠and indecisive shadowsâŠ
The general tone of painting three has a suitable character; its coloring is energetic, but uniform; the artist still does not know which colors are receding and which first strike our eyes. Its chiaroscuro, fairly well arranged, is not properly rendered; all its lights tire the eye.
The opaque, monotonous coloring, devoid of character, and the academic arrangement of light and shadow spare me from dwelling further on the fifth work.
It would be superfluous to demonstrate the lack of judgment in the distribution of light and shadow in the fourth painting. The artist seems to have used all his faculties to paint each part of his work in isolation, without thinking of the whole, as common sense prescribes.
Costume will not be the object of my observations at this moment, because it is less a part of art than a knowledge necessary for the historian, and in this regard, a simple object to imitate; the monuments that transmit them to us must be our models.
I will only say that the competitors, their minds still preoccupied with academic combinationsâundoubtedly very learned, perhaps ridiculousâknown as âadjustments,â have weakened the character of the Roman costumes, which, moreover, are not unknown to them.
Let us therefore never forget that, without simplicity, art is no longer art: let us make clever use of costume, but let us not encumber our figures with their garments.
The composition, the expression, the drawing, the sentiment of execution, and finally the general character of painting three demand that its author take precedence over the other competitors; yet its qualities are not of a sufficiently high degree of merit to justify a first prize.
Study will doubtless develop the fortunate seeds of his talents, and experience will show him the necessity of embracing all parts of his art.
I believe that the author of the second painting, whose talents deserve some praise, could become an artist useful to the fatherland; if he sought the principles of the great history paintersâprinciples drawn from philosophy and the monuments of the Greeks, sublime imitations of nature. Until then, I have no vote to give regarding him.
I am severe in my judgment because I am convinced that it would be better to do without the arts than to allow oneself to be weakened by them; that the bad taste which governs them must be eradicated promptly if we wish to make them useful to liberty, and if we wish to transmit to posterity the noble deeds and virtues of regenerated France. Indeed, if the monuments of the arts have no grandeur, energy, or beauty, how can they express the actions born of liberty? How can these same monuments inspire the magnanimous soul of republicans if they are petty, timid, and insignificant?
It was the very chisel of the famous Greek artists that, by reviving the image of heroes, gave them numerous successors. Yet fanaticism, perceiving the profound impact of these works of genius on the imagination of men, directed Phidiasâ chisel, and the Greeks trembled before the statue of Olympian Jupiter; before the colossus of the French people, slaves and tyrants must be struck with terror.
Republicans, let us seize the arts, or rather restore them to their original dignity. Only then will they merit the publicâs gratitude. Servile and crawling under despotism, they will obey the all-powerful voice of a sovereign people; they will assume its sublime attitude.
His Accomplishments as a Juror of the Revolutionary Tribunal
It was in his role as a juror that he made the following reflections regarding the trial of Madame Du Barry (7 December 1793). Here is what he is said to have written:
"A revolutionary juror, a mixture of justice and rigor, whose ardent love of the fatherland makes him passionate. When an accused counter-revolutionary appears before him, he is then like a man in the presence of his personal enemy, and from that moment, he must guard against prejudice.
The virtues and talents of a man earn him the esteem and respect of his fellow citizens, but intrigue alone produces partisanship, infatuation, and fanaticism".
(Notes de Topino-Lebrun,...sur le procĂšs de Danton et sur Fouquier-Tinville, published by Chardoillet in Paris, 1875).
During the arrest of his friend Antonelle, Topino-Lebrun did everything he could to intercede on his behalf. Furthermore, Topino claimed that on July 6, 1794, he went to the Committee of General Security to speak with Moyse Bayle and Dubarran, and obtained from them a commitment to "put a brake on the barbarity," citing a witness to this scene, Petit-Tressin, who was also a juror.
Nevertheless, according to Alain Jouffroy, when Topino claimed in 1801 that he had been arrested on Robespierreâs orders because he advocated clemency, this was false.
It is therefore very clear that Topino-Lebrun genuinely disliked Maximilien Robespierre, unlike Jacques-Louis David, who admired the Incorruptible. Yet, when David was arrested on August 2, 1794, Topino did not hesitate to do everything he could to help free him, together with Robespierreâs other pupils, publicly at the Convention on November 30, 1794.
Perhaps it was his attitude during the trial of the Dantonists, or his general dislike of Maximilien Robespierre, that led to Topino-Lebrun being temporarily retained in his role as juror alongside Presselin and Sambat.
In the turmoil of reactionary and Thermidorian politics
Nevertheless, Topino-Lebrun was among the revolutionaries who also opposed Thermidorian policies. On 28 December 1794, Jacques-Louis David was released, but two days later a warrant was issued against Topino-Lebrun for him to be imprisoned at the Plessis detention house. The members of the Committee of General Security who signed this order were Reubell, Monnayou, Mathieu, Bourdon de lâOise, Garnier de lâAube, Bentabole, and Harmand. It is not known whether he actually served time in prison afterwards.
He nevertheless continued to maintain political connections with the left, including some well-known figures such as Marc-Antoine Jullien and Gracchus Babeuf.
Indeed, in 1795, together with David and a friend of his, Bassal, he decided to subscribe to the newspaper the Tribun du Peuple. He strengthened these connections further by corresponding with Babeuf and Jullien.
"I am sending you a manuscript whose printing could not be useless. You will judge it and reply to me, as well as to Baboeuf (sic), who is writing to you at the moment. In that case, I would need some advance payments for the printer, who would recover the rest of his expenses, since the title alone could ensure its sale. I judge this based on a poor Notice about 12 Germinal, which sold for a high price because the subject aroused curiosity. I dwell briefly on these details; the main obstacle is finding a printer and ensuring it can be printed safely.
You will understand well enough that, given the times we live in, a republican who wants to tell the truth cannot sign what he publishes. He would need to be in a cellar, safe from a siege and from arrest orders, like Marat. You will therefore be the only one to know the name associated with this letter.
At first, I wrote purely and simply to a friend of mine; Baboeuf and I thought we could discern some useful truths in the lines hastily written, but dictated by love for our country, and I have decided to send you my historical perspective on a day whose results alone will make it appreciated. If the patriots do not make use of it, it is almost disastrous for the Republicâor at least meaningless. What use is it to have destroyed the royalists in Paris if we are still persecuted and proscribed?
I embrace you and ask you to write to me. We know each other little, but we are made to unite. True friends of the people are so rare. I send my warmest regards to Bassal. I am not sending my manuscript to my father because he would have no means to get it printed. Perhaps his paternal affection would fear exposing me, and I have long suffered from not being able to dedicate myself to my country in any way.
It is possible that I will be released soon; then we shall see each other.
Topino would play a role in Babeufâs newspaper, since at that time (late October 1795) he gave a printer Babeufâs text, which would be included in issue number 34 of the Tribun du Peuple.
Nevertheless, this remained a very difficult period for activists. Months earlier, in addition to the White Terror, which put several Montagnards on trial, the policies of people like Boissy dâAnglasâwho, refusing any challenge to liberalism and the Maximumâhad caused a considerable number of deaths from famine (or suicide due to the situation) in Paris, combined with the failure of Prairial Year III and its repressive consequences, made life extremely dangerous for left-wing figures. Jacques-Louis David, arrested a second time on 28 May 1795, although released in August, temporarily sidelined Topino-Lebrun and other left-wing political personalities (according to what I have understood from the writings of Jean-Marc Schiappa).
His friend Bassal was assigned a mission in Switzerland and took him on as a secretary. Topino-Lebrun would return to France less than a year later. At that point, he had only about four years and three months left to live before facing the guillotine.
Sources :
Jean- Marc Schiappa
Daline
Soboul
Mazauric Claude
Alain Jouffroy and Philippe Bordes authors of the book  Guillotine et peinture : Topino-Lebrun et ses amis. Thanks to these two authors and this book, I was able to learn a great deal about Topino-Lebrunâhis family, his physical appearance, his writings, as well as his friends, such as Bassal and Ceracchi. It is an excellent book for shedding light on this often-forgotten figure, who was, nonetheless, very well known during his lifetime (like so many others).
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
The life of Emile Babeuf, son of Gracchus Babeuf, from Babouvist to Bonapartist then Royalist
Warning: for sensitive readers: at one point, there will be a slanderous accusation made by his political opponents against Gracchus regarding cannibalism involving his daughter (completely false).
I'm not infallible, so if I make a mistake, please feel free to correct me â just politely, if possible :)
Also, my computer can be a bit temperamental and sometimes deletes files, so even if my post is a bit rough or hard to read, I'd rather share it here and come back to fix it later than risk losing it completely.
From the start, the Babeuf couple took great care of their children, and Gracchus expressed immense pride in being a father. During the time he was allied with Dubois de Fosseux, the permanent secretary of the Royal Academy of Sciences and Belles Lettres of Arras, and corresponded with him on topics such as inoculation, the condition of women, illegitimate children, certain social reforms, and the utility of dividing farmsâtaking advantage of Gracchus's profession at the time as a surveyor on the Academy's programs or his writingsâhe constantly expressed his paternal pride and attachment to his children. When Dubois de Fosseux told him he had gone to the countryside with his children, Babeuf replied that there was much "to be done" and that "How pleasantly that name sounds to my ear! That I have a weakness for all that is a child | This sensibility has long dominated me. Thus, I was not content for a very long time to indulge in it through mere speculation. The proof is very tangible. Barely of age, I find myself a father to these charming beings, one of whom is four years old, of the female sex, and the other, aged 14 months, is quite the opposite. Forgive me, Sir, if, yielding to the inclination of my heart, I enter into details that might seem meticulous; but no, I was mistaken, you are a father, that is enough, they will not be so for you. Nature, then, as if to reward my sentimental dispositions in advance, has been pleased to favor these little creatures with its most flattering gifts; a happy constitution, ravishing features, an animated physiognomy, an appearance of character that promises everything."
Unfortunately, the little girl was severely burned on her hips in an accident in July 1787 and died in November 1787, devastating her father to the point of losing his reason (and surely his mother as well, although no written record of it exists). Gracchus was allegedly slandered by his political opponents, according to Jean-Marc Schiappa, who falsely accused him of having eaten part of his deceased daughter's heart. Dubois de Fosseux sent him his condolences on December 11, 1787, saying, "I take all possible part in the loss you have just suffered, and I conceive the extent of your grief both by the feelings of my own heart and by the merit of the child you mourn; however, you must come to terms with this misfortune and try to resume the course of your occupations, which will be the way to heal the wound in your heart sooner, though it will still bleed for a long time." Nevertheless, this would not prevent their later personal and political break. Gracchus and Marie-Anne would later have another daughter who also bore the name Sophie, born on September 3, 1788, and a son named Camille, born on November 26, 1790.
The Beginning of the Revolutionary Period
It would therefore be Ămile Babeuf, in place of his deceased older sister, who became his political heir, to whom he would speak about politics as an equal. When he was 4 years old, his father called him by several nicknames, including "my rascal, my little scoundrel, my comrade, my devilish rogue, my little darling, my friend," which were the same ones Ămile gave him, as this letter from Sunday, October 4, 1789, attests: "I was very happy with my son's letter: he still remembers all the pretty names we gave each other: my rascal, my little scamp, my comrade, my devilish rogue, my little fellow, my friend. I speak of this as if I had left him ten years ago. Time seems so long when one is far from those one loves... I have become accustomed to the role of a father; I feel that today it is the primary need of my existence, and that I could not live otherwise."
Despite facing difficult financial situations and poverty, as the Babeuf couple was born into the lower social classes, Gracchus bought gifts for his family and children whenever he could, as another letter from May 7, 1790, shows: "Hello, my dear child, hello, my little comrade, my brother, my dear Robert, I write to you from St-Quentin, where I bought you a cane, a very nice one, you hear: oh yes, really a pretty little cane, itâs a St-Quentin cane, that one, youâll lend it to me, wonât you? I bought it for both of us, you see. Oh! if you knew how beautiful it is, here, this is how itâs made, look: yes, thatâs exactly how it is, just like that; isnât it nice? Oh, ragamuffin, you will be so happy to walk with it, to play with it at home with your little sister, youâll give her the cane, sometimes for a little while; oh! surely poor little one; and then always you will lend it to me too. I am well, you see [?] and you, donât you have the smallpox? Goodbye, donât be sick, tell your mom that I kiss her and your little sister too. I am your ragamuffin of a father."
Nevertheless, this would also mark the beginning of a long series of misfortunes that would strike Ămile Babeuf. The first would be the arrest of his father at their home in Roye in 1791, before his son's eyes, who began to cry (this was not his first arrest or imprisonment; he had already been imprisoned in Paris from May 19 to July 10, 1790). It was during this period that he took his first steps into politics while meeting famous figures of the time. While it is true that Marie-Anne Babeuf played an important role as a collaborator for her husband, a kind of right-hand woman in politics and sometimes even his equal, as he often followed her political advice and they were in sync, as evidenced by a letter he gave to Thibaudeau, Ămile was taking his first steps into politics. While ensuring his education, his parents, especially his father, spoke to him as an equal and involved him in some of their political actions.
Moreover, this did not prevent him from writing them many letters, one of which was intended for Ămile on 8 PluviĂŽse, Year II. Ămile had fallen ill with smallpox. To lift his spirits and with humor, his father wrote to him in the style of PĂšre Duchesne.
"The great joy of Emile's dad.
To see that the damn smallpox is buggering off faster than it came, and leaving my child alone. His good advice to the little survivor so he doesn't bring (...) back by stuffing himself with food and so he doesn't stick his fingers in the damn sores so much (...)...
Ah, damn it, I knew the (...)smallpox only had a few more days to torment you. That damned disease was planning to carry you off to the grave. What a bloody mess you would have been there. But we sure caught that goddamn disgusting aristocrat. We resisted her, we showed her we were strong enough to give a damn about her, we swallowed the elderberry and the other drugs we needed and the scum was forced to leave our body, where she wanted to suffocate us. Ah, you cursed villain, we don't give a damn about you now. You think you can still do something to us by imagining we're going to eat like gluttons before you're completely gone to hell (...) We'll do whatever it takes to make sure you don't play any dirty tricks on us and may the devil take you forever, damn it!
Babeuf!""
He also sends him a letter on 12 PluviĂŽse:
"Don't worry, my friend, we will try to arrange for you to come see me as soon as your sores are no longer crusted over. Your papa,
G. Babeuf"
On 13 PluviĂŽse, Ămile receives another letter from his father:
"You are well. Long live the Republic. Kiss your little brothers for me.
Babeuf"
Another letter to Ămile on 14 PluviĂŽse, Year II:
"...Do not do unto others what you would not have them do un to you. That is the most beautiful of all maxims. If men followed it exactly, they would all be happy. Everyone should be alike: I wish to enjoy all that is necessary for me, but I must also wish that each of my fellow men enjoys equally all that is necessary for them; thus, I must not have more than the share of enjoyments that can be provided to each individual in society, provided that each contributes, as he is able, to working for the benefit of that society. Thus, we can say that equality reigns, that all men are brothers. No more harsh rich people who insult the misery of the unfortunate, no more poor people who lack everything and who, to sustain a sad existence, are obliged to sell their services to the rich, to become their slaves, and to be entirely subject to their will. My friend, this precious equality, the sublimity of whose principle has struck you, is my morality, it is your father's religion, his constitution, his law; it is the object of all his affections, and he believes that as long as men have not adopted this system, there will be neither peace, nor happiness, nor justice among them.Many people, who have not reflected enough on the exclusive justice of this system and on the ease of its organization, raise objections against both; but it is infinitely easy to convince them of the lack of solidity in their reasoning and to reduce them to silence. This is what I hope to prove to you later in a very clear manner and to demonstrate at the same time that it is probable that the French people will lead their revolution to the happy conclusion of this system of perfect equality, which will ensure a felicity all the more delightful as it will be based on provisions that will make it unchangeable: this alone is the goal at which the efforts of our Republic must stop." At the moment Gracchus wrote this letter, his other son Camille was sick, and Ămile had just recovered from smallpox.
On 16 PluviĂŽse, Year II, learning that it was his other son Camille who had fallen ill, Gracchus wrote to his eldest son:
"I am very sad to learn that my little Camille is sick. Take good care of him, my friend, I beg you.
The poor child had promised himself to save something for you of what he had; if the dear little one did not do it, it is because he forgot.
Good day, my little comrade. Your papa.
Babeuf
P.S. â I would very much like to know if you have any complaints about your mother, and if she always took good care of you during your illness.
You always abbreviate your name Babeuf, signing like this: Emile B.
This is neither customary nor in accordance with principles. One can rather abbreviate the first name, that is, you can put only the first letter of the word Emile and sign like this: E. Babeuf, just as I sign G. Babeuf.
It is also always necessary to put the date at the head of the letters and not at the end; to make it easier to arrange them in order of date."
Nevertheless, after having taken care of her children who had all fallen ill while her husband was imprisoned, Marie-Anne fell ill, and according to Robert Barrie, she came close to death.
On 20 PluviĂŽse, Year II, Gracchus wrote to him: "I am very sorry, my friend, to learn what happened to your mother; you did what you could to relieve her, you are a good little child.
You did not answer what I wrote to you to encourage you to take a reading lesson every day; you did not tell me if you felt disposed to confirm it.
I promised you yesterday to speak of my situation. I have been here for a long time now, and my affairs are not advancing much. The unfortunate printers are not finishing. During this time, my friend, your father suffers. But you know how great his constancy is in resisting misfortune. As long as his innocence is finally revealed, that is all he desires. Try to offer him, O my dear child, some consoling considerations to help him sustain his courage."
Nevertheless, there were sometimes understandable tensions for the child Ămile, who found it difficult to bear the poverty imposed on them.
"You tell me that the printing workers earn more than I do; I am sorry not to earn more; I earn what I can and I give it to you; you should not seem to be reproaching me for it.
I kiss you, your papa
Gracchus."
Indeed, during this period, there were new periods of misery. According to Robert Barrie, "the wretchedness of the Babeuf family had now reached new depths. Outside the Abbaye Marie-Anne struggled through the bitter January and February days (as the revolution entered one of its worst food crises), saved from starvation only through Daubeâs constant help. Possibly through contact with the prison, the three children all contracted smallpox; and Marie-Anne was forced to spend her days nursing them before visiting the Abbaye in the evening with the meager supplies which made her husbandâs prison diet tolerable." This surely explains the letter of complaint Ămile had sent to his father, to which he replied. Robert Barrie's assertions can be corroborated by certain letters found from Marie-Anne Babeuf, in which she complains about the state of her children, whom she calls "poor little ones," and praises Daubeau, saying of him: "Daube has already given me a lot before I became ill, and for my illness, he gave me a lot, and our three children who also fell ill. This good Daubeau has not let us lack anything because his wife came several times to bring me butter and eggs. I believe these good people are very tired. For eight days, they havenât given us anything. I went to tell him yesterday that it cost three livres, but he didnât say anything. I didnât dare ask for more."
Prison visits could sometimes go badly for Ămile, as this excerpt from Robert Barrie attests: "Later, although still weak, the 8-year-old Emile was able to help with the visiting, but on 28 February Babeuf complained that his son had been refused entry to the prison and had been wandering the streets, cold and hungry, until ten in the evening."
Nevertheless, with his mother during this new period of his father's imprisonment, he went so far as to meet Gohier in person to plead for his father's release. During their meeting, Gohier assured them that he was going to put his father's case before the Committee of General Safety. Gohier's wife received Marie-Anne and Ămile with kindness; Ămile, having written a petition himself and then learned it by heart, for the ministerâs benefit.
On July 18, 1794, Gracchus was finally released, surely to the great joy of his family. At that point, although he approved of the Thermidorian reaction, he still sought to defend the principles of the social revolutionâplacing him in line with other revolutionary figures such as Charles Gilbert Romme. Babeuf briefly alleviated his familyâs poverty by returning to his position at the Paris Food Commission (a role he had also held in 1793), but this income was insufficient to sustain his revolutionary ambitions. Although he approved of Robespierre's fall and had a political relationship with Guffroy, who would become his printer, he still sought to defend the principles of the social revolutionâplacing him in line with other revolutionary figures such as Charles Gilbert Romme. Babeuf briefly alleviated his familyâs poverty by returning to his position at the Paris Food Commission (a role he had also held in 1793), but this income was insufficient to sustain his revolutionary ambitions.
Meanwhile, while Babeuf led the Club Ălectoral, the Journal continued to be published every three daysâthanks to the tireless work of his wife, Marie-Anne Babeuf, and their nine-year-old son, Ămile, despite his young age. An August 1794 excerpt captures the familyâs dedication:
âMy wife (Marie-Anne) and my son, aged 9 (Emile)âboth as devoted and republican as their husband and fatherâassist me in every possible way. They make the same sacrifices. They spend day and night at Guffroyâs print shop, folding, distributing, and dispatching the newspaper. Our home is abandoned. Two younger children, one only three years old (likely Camille and Sophie ), are left alone, locked inside for a month. This neglect causes them to wither, yet they utter no complaints; they already seem filled with patriotic love and prepared to make all sacrifices. No meals are cooked anymore; during the publication period, we lived on bread, grapes, and nuts.â
"Citizen,
Citizen Legray, president of the electoral club, was thrown into chains last night; having nothing to counter the great truths he announced from the tribune, in order to silence what he still had to say, he was thrown into a dungeon. This assault on the liberty of the best patriot is for us the signal that the system of oppression and tyranny will renew itself; but it is in vain that they believe they are preparing new chains for us. Worthy of the liberty whose fire circulates in our veins, we shall break them before they can be imposed upon us. Determined to perish rather than return to the shameful slavery they are preparing for us, and from which we have only just emerged, we reiterate the oath to annihilate ourselves rather than subscribe to any act of tyranny, oppression, or arbitrariness. We acknowledge, based on the Declaration of Rights, our compass and our shield, that there is oppression against the social body in the person of the patriot Legray, one of the most ardent defenders of these rights, and we will, in a manner worthy of us, fight against his enemies and ours. Our weapons are all ready, and we would all perish, but their sharpness would not be dulled. The crimes of our enemies, those are our weapons; the series is made; we have forgotten nothing, and I declare to you that I have fulfilled my task and provided the sharpest blows against them. I have done more, I have ensured that, whatever fate awaits me, they will not be broken. I have handed them over to be launched against them with a steady hand so that they cannot escape. You see from this that our resolve is unshakable. If one of our fighters perishes on the breach, the place will never be empty until the last of us is annihilated. Open your bastilles, create new ones to engulf us, but above all, do not forget a single one of us, for it would only take one to relight the torch of liberty that you are trying to extinguish.
And you, who call yourself the apostle of Marat! and who have just promised to follow in his footsteps, remember that he was never silent when a patriot was oppressed, remember that he never allied with political brigands, with the oppressors of the people, remember also that he never denied the sacred name he took.
There are only two roads, that of crime and that of virtue. However thorny and anxiety-ridden the latter may be, patriots will never deviate from it, even if our bloodied corpses fill the graves that have already been prepared for us: this is our final determination.
Signed, Albertine Marat"
At that moment, one can wonder if Ămile personally met Albertine Marat and Simone Evrard after he and his mother had their violent dispute with Guffroy and the two women of the Marat family helped Gracchus.
Did Ămile approve of his father's strategy out of a desire to see his father again sooner, out of hatred for the people mentioned given what they had done to his family, or did he, despite being ten years old, reason politically like his parents, given that he already had a revolutionary background alongside them? We will probably never know for sure.
Ămile during the period of the Babouvist conspiracy
Nevertheless, in 1796, Gracchus was wanted again, and as usual, he escaped the police authorities, staying in contact with his allies through his son and especially his wife, who managed to deliver letters to him by hand while shaking off the police. She was the only known point of contact to her husband's whereabouts. One day, Babeuf was nearly arrested by Inspector Pernet. A fight broke out; he either beat or knocked out one of the officers and escaped again. The Directory decided to arrest Marie-Anne under the pretext that she was handling the newspaper subscriptions, in order to pressure her into revealing her husbandâs whereabouts.
The arrest took place while she was caring for her sick son Camille; she asked a neighbor to take charge of the children. Ămile had gone to alert his father of his mother's arrest. The police followed the child, but in vain, because according to their reports, "this measure was not followed with exactitude, as it appears from the information I gathered on the 17th that the child returned on the evening of the 16th and left the next day at six in the morning to find his father and has not returned since." If this police report is accurate, it would seem that Gracchus and Marie-Anne taught their son how to know when the police were following him and how to better lose them.Â
During the Babouvist conspiracy, just like his parents, he would have a role in this episode. After all, Joseph Bodson, an important member of the conspiracy, reportedly proposed "to use women and children to break the ranks of the soldiers and draw them to mingle with the people." Ămile, despite his young age, became a rather effective newspaper peddler and a courier to Jean-Baptiste Drouet, a participant in the conspiracy, while remaining in contact with his father, which shows that, like his parents, he had skills in clandestine activities. Nevertheless, the conspiracy would be suppressed by the directors of the Directory, such as Lazare Carnot (the main spearhead of the repression). Some plausible historical claims also point to Barras as a second person responsible, not to mention the more than obvious responsibility of Merlin de Douai (to the point that Carnot himself had to calm his zeal, according to the historian Claude Mazauric), as well as Minister Cochon.
When Gracchus, Buonarroti, and the other conspirators were put in the iron cage to be transferred to VendĂŽme where their trial would take place, his mother, then a few months pregnant, and he made the journey on foot to follow him, as did several women connected to the conspirators: Teresa Poggi (Buonarrotiâs partner), Laignelotâs wife, Pottofeux's sister, and Vadier's wife. Only Camille Babeuf did not participate in this very trying journey.
One of the reasons for Marie-Anne and Ămile's journey, despite Gracchus's wife being several months pregnant, was that it was very possible he wanted her to help him and his companions escape. Indeed, he had already used a coded letter that she could decipher for his escape attempt; perhaps Ămile was also part of the plan. In any case, Gracchus's escape attempt would fail.
On September 5, 1796, Gracchus wrote to his wife and son these words: "How did you come, my good friends? Probably on foot, and you must be very tired. Are you not sick? Did you find decent lodging here? Satisfy me on all these things that worry me, while I wait for you to tell me everything, even the smallest details of your food, the day when I can enjoy the pleasure Iâve been deprived of for so long, that of embracing you, speaking to you, seeing you... That will be when we finish building a parlor... However, this indefinite delay still saddens me. It has been so long since I saw you! You deserve, on so many levels, my concern and love!... Good mother, good child, what should I not do to speed up, if possible, the moment I can hold you in my arms. I will write... to the Municipality to urge them to speed up our meeting... What could you have done with my Camille! The poor dear child! Is he the only one who could not follow his tender father... Surely he has cried for me, surely he will cry. His young soul, soaked with the sweetest sensitivity, has long known the nature of tender affections. Why is he so young, so weak? He would have accompanied me, and then you would have been in Gracchusâ terrible circumstances... I will tell you too much now... We were reasonably on the road. We spent only one night in prison, and it was in Rambouillet. We spent nothing of our own and were well treated everywhere. We are the same here. We had soup and boiled food at noon, a vegetable dish; in the evening, another good dish... a bottle of wine a day... Goodbye, my good friends."
Nevertheless, while the prisoners received favorable welcomes from the population in some places, Buonarroti would say that he and his fellow prisoners in the iron cage were mistreated by the gendarmerie. If Buonarroti is telling the truth, Gracchus lied to his wife and son about being well-treated to better reassure them.
Ămile's education was not neglected by his father, even in his worst moments. The eldest son of the family said he wanted no other tutor than his father, and his father agreed to his request: "I believe indeed, my friend, that the method that seems to suit you best for your instruction is better than the school where you would have been sent, and I ask for nothing better than to support your wishes in this regard."
Initially, Gracchus and Marie-Anne hoped that Ămile could continue his education with his father, even considering arranging the prison cell for this purpose. But administrative complications eventually forced them to abandon this project. On September 24, 1796, Gracchus wrote to his son: "I am sending back your corrected paper and I await the next one as soon as possible. I am not very displeased with the part of this paper that is copied by you; you have not made too many mistakes and it is clear that with attention you can manage to achieve something." He also gave him advice on his lessons: "A first condition for learning is to have a strong desire for it. One usually succeeds in everything one strongly wants. It is therefore only a matter of wanting it well and not getting tired of it," and continued with advice on spelling: "It is very useful to copy. One thus gets used to seeing all the words written according to correct spelling. By copying, one is forced to read the words letter by letter, and they thus become engraved in the memory with the detail of their configuration. One becomes familiar with the true way of writing them and remembers them easily after having written them several times. However, it is not enough to copy a lot and to apply oneself to doing it accurately to achieve perfect knowledge of spelling. This means of instruction would be too slow and too uncertain if one did not add the study of principles and rules. Those who only copy to learn are like those who want to play the violin without knowing music. Both can never acquire more than a certain routine [...]. You would never become capable of spelling correctly if, to learn it, you confined yourself to copying, but that would have served to give you a foundation. The advantage of learning by principles instead of learning by routine is that principles shorten and facilitate study because they apply at once to a multitude of cases, so that often the rule established for one word applies to thousands of other words whose construction and use it determines, according to their role in the sentence where they are introduced. Principles serve to generalize and therefore to classify and limit what must be retained; routine generalizes nothing."
Nevertheless, Ămile, at eleven years old, preferred amusement to study, which is normal for his age and even more so given what was happening, as his father was at risk of being executed and he had witnessed the repression of the Babouvists. He preferred to play on stilts. Learning this and receiving a brief letter from his son full of spelling mistakes, his father sent him a letter: âWhy do you not tell me about your stilts, my dear friend? It is said they make you look very tall and that you cross the river with them. That is quite brave, but I am not, however,dazzled with admiration. I fear that, with all this height from the stilts, you remain a very small man in terms of intelligence, and your letter from yesterday does not dispel this fear. You accuse me of having insulted you (in French Ămile wrote des ingures). I guessed that you meant des injures (insults). I saw with regret that you understood neither the meaning of the word nor how to spell it, and it is the stilts and other such distractions that are to blame. I told you never to speak like a parrot; that you should be sure of the meaning of expressions before using them; that even the simplest words should be well understood before you use them, because otherwise one risks babbling nonsense. Try to remember this lesson. It is one of the first and most important.â
When Ămile later wrote a letter expressing his desire to improve, Gracchus wrote the following to Marie-Anne:
âI was not too displeased with Ămileâs work yesterday. The copy was done with some precision. From what you tell me, I can hope that he will do well. However, he must realize that it is not enough to be sensitive, to cry, and to behave well for a dayâhe must make a lasting decision.â
Nevertheless, Gracchus reminded Marie-Anne when he learned that, in his opinion, Ămile was not practicing his violin enough
"One must resign oneself to everything, my dear friend. There is nothing left, I hope, to fear now; we must give those who torment us some time, at least, to allow some new refinement to present itself to their inventive genius. The first constantly happy man is truly me. At the slightest sign of internal turmoil, and regardless of the silence that almost always keeps my mouth shut, the oppression that strikes the inside never escapes me. How are you? Is the liberating moment, the moment of deliverance, approaching soon? After that, my little unfortunate one, what will become of you? My soul, every day, runs and wanders through a thousand worries for you; comfort it. In the morning, in the evening, write to me. As you say, we will manage to bear these sufferings along with so many others. Tomorrow noon, you must present yourself here. I donât think they will turn you away, unless they truly have no more entrails. After the storm comes calm, and no more Aquilon will whistle... winning men to reason, to justice, or at least to seem to have reason, we find this difficult, we are reduced to this. Will we win in the end? Will we determine this victory? With perseverance, I am by no means completely desperate. By devoting ourselves to principles, to liberty, singing... out loud and persistently all the civic virtues that [Rome and modern Paris have seen blossom, in the first degree. Tell me, was there anything other than pure motives that guided us [last night]? Could it be possible, could it even be conceivable, I said upon receiving your letter and reading it, that in this moment... as in the time of Sylla, we were reduced to waiting for the moment desired, when despotism will drag, strike...
Liberator of men! ... Shall I finish? Yes... it will strike whole families, hurling, overturning, here and there... friends, wives and husbands, fathers and children. What a land. Courage, though. It is essential that you, me, and your son, all three, have it. People, your enemy can try once more, but this time it will perish. What have all its successive conquests been? It will have to, as the Picard says, fall into the ditch and its dog with itâhow false is the path where its imagination strays. Pride swells it, ambition finishes blinding it. Emile plays croquet now and then, I was told; he has been seen more than six times. Why doesn't he stick to his little violin, which has such a beautiful sound? With this amusement, he can combine exercise with his little rifle; eight or ten days will make him tired of each toy. I say the opposite: if I were near him, he would work with me morning and evening, I would direct his activities. Instead, by... one flatters oneself in vain... Why think of the impossible? Letâs leave it at that. Would I depart from these ideas if I forgot my situation? This Citizen, by whom you are solicited, is undoubtedly still taking great care of you* As the description you made of it pleased me. Let us console ourselves... A friend's house is still open to us**; let us congratulate ourselves that there are even more unfortunate people to be pitied than we are. You will write to me and give me news often, as agreed. Donât you know that nothing gives me more pleasure.
âI embrace you. G. Babeuf."
This letter had been written by Ămile, in which he had written the words "Gracchus I" to express the admiration he had for his father. The president of the tribunal had it read to falsely suggest that Gracchus Babeuf's goal was to restore the monarchy. Gracchus, angry at this kind of method, pointed out in court that it was Ămile, 12 years old, who had written that, furious that the president of the tribunal was using his son in this way.
Apart from these episodes, one can wonder if Ămile did not feel consoled that some inhabitants of VendĂŽme showed sympathy for his father and the accused. Indeed, according to Buonarotti's memoirs, a crowd of citizens from VendĂŽme and the surrounding areas attended the sessions of the High Court and joined in and applauded the republican songs of the accused.
Here is what Gracchus said about Ămile and Camille in this letter of 26 Messidor, Year IV: "Of my two sons, the elder, as far as I can judge from the little that has been done for his education, will not have a great aptitude for the sciences; this initial disposition suggests that he will also not have the ambition to play a brilliant role on the political stage: he may be more peaceful for it, and he will avoid the difficult life and misfortunes of his father. This child nevertheless has excellent judgment and a spirit of independence consistent with all the ideas in which he was raised. I have sounded him out on what he would like to do. 'A worker,' he answered me, 'but a worker of the most independent class possible'; and he cited that of a printer. He is perhaps not so wrong; and I desire nothing more than that his taste be followed. I can say nothing in this regard about his younger brother; he is too young for one to yet discern what he promises; but if I have reason to hope that you will do for him as much as for his brother, I am content..."
It should be noted that Gracchus knew this letter could be intercepted by the authorities, so it is possible he downplayed his son's political ambitions, although he was sincere in his desire for him to avoid the same misfortunes as himself.
We must not forget that following the assassination attempt on Rue Saint-Nicaise, the pressâunder Bonaparteâs influenceâincited such hatred against the Jacobins in Paris that they could no longer appear in public without risking being assaulted. I wouldnât be surprised if Ămile also faced persecution among his peers, given the hostility toward Jacobins at the time.
Nevertheless, it seems that Ămile Babeuf (and with his mother's blessing, or at least she was aware, as Ămile wrote that his mother sent her regards) was in contact with Bonaparte's republican opponents since 1806, including Antonelle (one of Le Peletier's greatest friends, a companion in the Babouvist conspiracy as well, and an opponent of Bonaparte under the Consulate, and it seems, subtly under the Empire; he would harbor a great hatred for Bonaparte all his life). According to Pierre Serna, Ămile was one of the clerks of the opposing booksellers who constantly contacted Antonelle. When the first Malet conspiracy was dismantled, one of the suspects was found in possession of a note written by Ămile Babeuf asking for the address of "the reverend father Antonelle" (knowing that Antonelle had a reputation as a priest-eater). Moreover, if the Malet conspiracy had succeeded, Antonelle would have been a minister. But here we will never know the truth, as Antonelle destroyed a good number of documents, while we now know that Marie-Anne never had any qualms about lying to the police.
Ămile also managed to meet Buonarroti (who had ambiguous links with the Society of Philadelphes, like Antonelle and Le Peletier, as well as with Malet) in 1806 in Geneva, despite the police surveillance to which they were both subjected.
Nevertheless, in Lyon, Ămile Babeuf found love with Catherine Finet, a bookseller 16 years his senior. He married her on December 27, 1809, and became a "licensed bookseller in Lyon in 1810." In 1811, he experienced what may have been the happiest year of his life: the birth of his daughter, Ămilie. Her name, I believe, was a feminine homage to Rousseauâan echo of the name his father had once given him in tribute. In 1812, his publishing activity is attested, but the license was not issued to him until January 1, 1813.
But Ămile would see two tragedies: the first being the death of his younger brother Caius Babeuf, aged 17, during the "defense of Paris." One account suggests he may have been hit by a stray Prussian bullet, although this remains unconfirmed. Shortly thereafter, the Bourbons were restored, and his other brother, Camille, committed suicide in 1815âsome say from madness, others from despair at the return of the monarchy.
The White Terror continued, and this time Ămile Babeuf was a direct victim, suffering through the "Patriots Affair." The Maitron website explained the facts well: âĂmile Babeuf was implicated in the Nain tricolore affair, a Bonapartist journal printed in Troyes in January 1816, artificially linked by the courts to the so-called âPatriots Affair,â which was even more harshly repressed⊠He was charged with printing texts containing direct or indirect incitement to overthrow the government⊠and sentenced to deportation by the Seine assize court on June 11, 1816.â At the time of the events, he lived with his wife and daughter in Paris at 7 rue Servandoni and was incarcerated at the La Force prison on March 10. The printers, booksellers, and editors were accused of "having sent to press writings containing direct or indirect provocations to the overthrow of the government and to the change in the order of succession to the throne." The public prosecutor was hostile to any less severe penalty, arguing that Ămile Babeuf was the author of an "infamous" libel, that he had behaved "audaciously," and that his opinions were "perverse." The severity of the sentence, in my opinion, testifies to the ultra-royalist cabal, the fact that Ămile was the son of Gracchus Babeuf, and that he had played a role in the Hundred Days against the Bourbons by assisting Carnot, which also explains the harshness of the penalty.
His mother often visited him in prison, while his wife Catherine wrote a letter to Louis XVIII to implore his pardon, mentioning their daughter Ămilie.
Ămile's reactionary turn
In 1818, Ămile was pardoned by the king, and his deportation sentence was annulled. This was due to the fact that, unlike his comrades, he refused to escape when the opportunity arose and instead turned himself in.
Here is an excerpt from the letter:
"I have just seen with sorrow, my good father, that BabĆuf (sic) has not kept his promise to you regarding your brother's biography. Not only was the article you gave him not inserted, but the one contained in the work in question is more malicious, more hostile than anything the Michauds wrote in their biographie universelle13. My heart is broken to see lies and slander perpetuated, and a noble and pure being reduced to the rank of the most infamous scoundrels. It is claimed, in this detestable libel, that our poor Philippe behaved in Strasbourg with such violence and cruelty that he forced all the inhabitants of the city and countryside to expatriate and flee to the Black Forest. His beautiful death is reported with as much perfidy and inaccuracy. Have our misfortunes not been enough for our enemies? There is truly much cowardice in insulting the dead, especially when one coddles and spares the living. I believe, truly, that we cannot suffer this coldly, and I am of the opinion that you should ask these gentlemen for a correction. It would not be the first example of a retraction they have given. If you are willing to take this step, here is, I think, the surest way to make it succeed. Go see M. Norvins, one of the editors; tell him with whom I am. He knows Mme la duchesse*. You can even add that she authorizes me to invoke her name in this circumstance. It will be easy for you to convince him of the falsity of the accusations advanced by his colleagues or by him. Give him the article you had given to BabĆuf (sic); perhaps he will consent to insert it. Add, if you deem it necessary, that all those who knew your brother in the army, M. Lavalette** for example, are pleased to do him justice and agree that the gentleness of his character was equal to his ardent patriotism.
Laurent, whom you mention, taught me to esteem and love him through the pages full of truth and warmth he wrote about 9 Thermidor in his refutation of that miserable Montgaillard; I am grateful to him for the justice he rendered to your father's intentions and to mine, and I ardently wish that he finds many imitators. Since you name in your letter the two Lafayettes, Corcelle, Sebastiani, and Dumeillet, allow me to ask you to tell me exactly what each of them truly thinks about the Revolution and the current state of affairs. This will help clarify my ideas about their personal merit and the events in which they participated.
Rey, whose work you find pale, has touched a very delicate chord, but what he said is entirely true; anyone who knows how to reason a little can deduce consequences of the highest importance from it. If the principles he dares to put forward found many defenders, it would be the end of the main support of all tyrannies.
My work should, if my publisher speaks true, appear on the first day of the month we are about to enter; I will do my best to send you a copy, but I foresee that it will not be easy. However, I will neglect no means, and I will not forget to address myself for this purpose to the person you indicate. If a new edition is made, I will ask you to communicate to me the writings you mention, particularly the "Tribuns du peuple," of which I was only able to report one very important issue incompletely; we will also ask you for your father's portrait.
Do not speak to me of the great man*: he gave the revolution the coup de grĂące and completed for his own benefit the work of iniquity that immorality and aristocracy had long begun. He could have repaired everything, he lost everything, that is his great crime.
May we, my dear friend, both seize a favorable opportunity to see each other again; that would considerably soften my situation; since I like to see in you a true friend, and permit me to say, a tender son.
All yours. B."
P.S. The first music of Goujon's hymn.
*This is Napoleon Bonaparte
Another letter from August 20, 1828, from Brussels:
"My dear Emile.
It would be impossible for me to express all the pleasure your news and greetings have given me, which I received from the good friend who will deliver this letter to you; he will tell you how much interest I take in your fate and how profound are the great memories your name awakens in me. I love you, my dear Emile, because you are the son of a virtuous man whose memory I cherish, and because you do not belie your origin.
Since your visit to me in Geneva, I have never lost sight of you; I have often asked for news of you and have regretted that you have given me it so rarely. When you appeared before the Tribunal that condemned you, I applauded your courage and lamented the misfortunes that were its consequences. The subsequent sorrows you have experienced are not unknown to me; I have shared them and have only been consoled by thinking that amidst the vicissitudes of fortune you have always remained faithful to virtue and have preserved the esteem of good people.
Your Father, my dear Emile, has left us a great example and has opened a path where it will always be glorious to walk in his footsteps; it is especially up to you who received his first education, who learned from his lips to love and serve the Fatherland and equality, who heard his last words, to study well the doctrines he has bequeathed to us, to be imbued with his wise principles, and to apply them with prudence to the circumstances in which you may find yourself. Your illustrious Father had already perceived the true cause of public ills and had the good fortune to live in a time when it was still possible to apply a radical remedy promptly; he was virtuous and was not imprudent; let us always have before our eyes the goal at which he aimed so that, despite the corruption that surrounds us, our thoughts and actions always have the only tendency that can assure us the favorable testimony of our conscience.
Our friend will tell you how charmed I would be to see you and to converse with you, but strong reasons prevent me from going where you are; I can only hope for this pleasure from a trip you might make to this country, should I flatter myself with this? The same friend will be in charge of getting your letters to me. Receive, my dear friend, the assurance of my invariable attachment and my most affectionate embraces.
Nevertheless, he would not tolerate the slightest insult made to his late father and was ready to defend his honor in writing.
He outlived Buonarroti and Le Peletier (who were engaged in different networks against the Bourbons). He died before 1842. We do not know if his mother survived him or not. There is also no precise date for Catherine Babeuf's death. We only know that Victor Advielle found a shop in 1842 named "Veuve Babeuf." We will never know if it was Marie-Anne Babeuf or Catherine Babeuf...
Ămilie Babeuf became a laundress . She never married. Perhaps to escape poverty or simply to feel better, she decided to live in Loir-et-Cher, where the Babeuf family had found refuge during Gracchus Babeuf's trial, hoping to find moral support from the population. She died at the age of 66 on April 27, 1878, in Blois.
My personal opinion:
I have already stated what I thought about it here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/788885441253392384/my-theory-on-why-%C3%A9mile-babeuf-took-a-reactionary?source=share and my opinion has not changed. Just as Marie-Anne Babeuf's role has been greatly underestimated because she had to deal with the no less important, and at times more dangerous, but less visible, political side of clandestine life her whole life, Ămile Babeuf has been underestimated. From a very young age, in addition to handling the press, he inherited his parents' ability to shake off the police, to be astute, to keep a cool head to deliver messages safely, and to be an effective newspaper peddler. His parents (especially his father) were quite self-taught on many points, despite coming from the lower classes and therefore having only a limited education (which did not prevent Gracchus from having a beautiful handwriting, economic notions, and holding a conversation with his former friend Dubois de Fosseux, who entrusted him with tasks, or Marie-Anne from knowing how to read and being interested in her husband's works, including that of the Cadastre, a mix of science, letters, etc...)and from being very cunning. Ămile was able to receive a more advanced education, and we can see that he was sought after on certain points in his life for his writings, while also showing cunning (first, shaking off the police under the Directory to pass clandestine messages, then managing to be in contact with opponents of Bonaparte from 1806 to 1808 is no small feat).
I think there are two parts to Ămile's life of activism. One until 1818, and the second part where he becomes reactionary and a liar for selfish reasons. In the first part of his life, he is seen as completely reliable, even in the worst moments. It is possible that he decided to fight Bonaparte with his own means at the beginning of the Empire, which also shows how determined he was, having seen the suffering of his Jacobin colleagues under the Empire and the trust people showed him (but as I said above, we will unfortunately not know much apart from indirect clues due to the mysteries surrounding Antonelle, Marie-Anne Babeuf, etc.). During the Hundred Days, he collaborated with Carnot and even Bonaparteâperhaps out of pragmatism or, eventually, beliefâin service of the revolutionary ideals he had inherited from his father. He willingly ignored the suffering that these two men (albeit for different reasons) inflicted on him in an attempt to save France and the revolutionary ideas that consolidated it.
But after 1818âespecially after 1820âĂmile took a reactionary path. He failed to uphold the very ideals he had once embraced, and he deeply disappointed many who had believed in him. I think it was during his imprisonment and when he was almost deported that something broke in him, more precisely at the moment when, unlike his comrades, he refused to escape. I canât help but wonder if his parents would have done the oppositeâknowing them, they probably would have. I suspect something inside Ămile broke at that moment. That may have been the beginning of his reactionary turnâa retreat into submission.
We must also consider the hypothesis that it was a series of misfortunes he endured since his childhood that led him to become what he was: he had practically no childhood, a ruined adolescence, a difficult start to adult life (the Malet conspiracy), the violent deaths of all his brothers and sisters, and this persecution by the ultra-royalists was finally the last straw that broke the camel's back.
I get the impression that Gracchus, in some ways, reproduced the family dynamic he himself experienced as a childâparticularly in his high expectations (although, unlike his own father, he never raised a hand against his children). I understand their fears. If Ămile failed in his education, what future would he have? Both Gracchus and Marie-Anne had their childhoods stolen by poverty and were forced to work at a young age for just a few coins. They knew better than anyoneâespecially Gracchusâwhat it meant to have a childhood stripped away. But even with the best of intentions, there are better ways to guide a child than placing such a heavy burden on his shoulders. They were good parents, but they made mistakes.
In the end, when we look at the end of Ămile Babeuf's journey, we are faced with a great waste, with someone who had great potential and who ultimately became what he did. His suffering doesnât excuse him. He remains responsible for the damage his actions and lies caused. As a man attached to the memory of his father, whom he had long seen slandered, he should have taken into account the request of Philippe le Bas's son. He did not.
Ultimately, we must remember Ămile Babeuf for his entire political journey, whether it was admirable (until 1818) or his less glorious moments (after 1818, the false memoirs, what happened with Philippe le Bas's son, his less reliable side).
Reddit:
I had fully translated the post, but due to fatigue and being sick, I forgot to include some excerpts â including letters mentioning Didier, Madame Le Bas, etc. My apologies â Iâve now updated the post and added the missing texts.Without it my post is incoherent at times.
I think we can be fairly certain that the Elisabeth Le Bas mentioned in the letter by Buonarroti is indeed the one we know. However, itâs also possible that he was referring to a potential wife of François Le Bas â a caterer who lived in VendĂŽme and became friends with Ămile Babeuf during his fatherâs trial. Their friendship apparently lasted quite a long time.
This second possibility seems unlikely to me, but I wanted to mention it just in case.
P.SÂ : About the posts on Marie-Anne Babeuf and her mysteries, here are several different ones:
The first post here is more traditional â it focuses mainly on the official support she gave her husband.
The others, however, reveal a more cunning, clever, and at times even manipulative side of her â although always in pursuit of a goal. She was far more than just a collaborator: as you can see here, here, and here, she acted as a sharp political strategist and advisor to her husband.
As for Gracchus Babeufâs personality traits, you can find them here.
To see the political relationship between Babeuf and Guffroy, click here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/780339711912869888/the-collaboration-and-eventual-break-between?source=share
The relationship between Jean-Paul Marat and Gracchus Babeuf is here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/767708756031176704/i-am-so-exhausted-that-i-only-now-realize-that-i?source=share
To learn more about Antonelle, go here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/761515728971202560/the-political-career-of-the-revolutionary?source=share and here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/781747560324956160/antonelles-role-as-juror-during-the-revolution?source=share
Naturally, I could not rely on Wikipedia, even though there is a page dedicated to him. However, I did find a short biography written by the historian Robert Legrand in his book Babeuf et ses compagnons de route. And from what I read, it is quite intriguing:
However, several points here raise questions for me. How could Talleyrand have been in contact, at one point, with a man even loosely connected to the Babouvist conspiracyâsomeone who had friends in that circle, even if he played no direct role? It is quite clear that this was not his political inclination (and likely not a mutual affinity either).
Secondly, what was the secret mission Talleyrand assigned to Jorry? Did Jorry really steal from him? If so, why was he acquitted of fraud?
âMassard returned last night from Versailles with his travelling companions. He brought back some money given to him by Lepeletier, both for himself and for other agents to whom he is to distribute it today. [âŠ] No decision was taken at this meeting in Versailles; as in all the others, it consisted merely of declamations against the government, wishes for an imminent change, and the distribution of Lepeletierâs money.â
(Police report, 30 Prairial, 19 June 1800)
The fact remains that Jorry associated with individuals hostile to Bonaparte during this period. It almost seems remarkable that, given his reputation, he was not arrested during the repression following the âmachine infernaleâ affair, when others were deported or executed for far less during these period.
However, not only is this unreferenced, but it also seems unlikely: the Consulate at that time was still too fragile to openly attack the neo-Jacobins . So no other reason is needed to explain why Jorry and his political associates are being spared for the moment. After the Battle of Marengo and the Rue Saint-Nicaise attack, however, the situation changedâthe regime became stronger, and Bonaparte took the opportunity to eliminate the Jacobins, even though he knew they were not responsible for the attack.
Or is there another reason, such as the fact that he had high-ranking allies who ensured he was not disturbed (as was the case for some others)?
The problem is that Jorry is one of those largely forgotten figures, and in my view, this question has not been sufficiently explored. I am especially curious about the political nature of his relationship with Talleyrand. Did he really steal from him? Or was it Talleyrand who deceived him (which seems more likely to me)? And above all, what was this secret mission?
If you have any further information, please feel free to share it with me.
I'm not infallible, so please feel free to correct me. Also, I apologize if this text is too dense or not easy to read; it's just that with my computer problems, I preferred to publish it anyway, even if it means revising it next time.
In 1794, he played an important role alongside Le Bon, who was on mission in the Pas-de-Calais. Their aim was to combat internal threatsâforeign agents, royalists, and populations sympathetic to the enemies of the Revolutionâthrough the methods of the Terror, particularly in the regions of Cambrai and Arras, which were suspected of supporting territorial separation in favor of foreign powers (if I understand correctly). He is also said to have served as a juror and later as public prosecutor for the Revolutionary Tribunal of Arras.
Here is an excerpt from the Maitron entry concerning this repression:
Moreover, the testimonies against Le Bon at his trial were inconsistent. Some witnesses holding important offices claimed to have seen nothing during Le Bonâs mission (such as Ranson, public prosecutor of the Northern tribunal), which seems implausible given the dates of their appointments. Others gave false testimony. In addition, friends of Guffroy were among the jurors, so Le Bonâs attempts to defend himself were ineffective.
Here is a Tumblr link where you can find many documents concerning Le Bon and this period in Arras, which seem well sourced (except for those by LenĂŽtre):
https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/780574222159331328/links-to-documents-on-the-le-bon-vs-guffroy?source=share
He nevertheless made a mistake that would later be frequently held against him: the recruitment of Grisel. Here is an excerpt from the biography of Gracchus Babeuf written by Jean-Marc Schiappa:
Grisel later claimed:
âAround half past nine, a cavalry patrol stopped outside the door. I saw everyone trembling in that instant.â
But, as Schiappa points out, when one considers that Drouet was known as a man of action; that Javogues was executed while singing La Marseillaise; that Rossignol, despite all his faults, was renowned for his courage; and that Babeuf remained calm and composed even while being hunted by the policeâacting rationally to improve his chances of escapeâit is difficult not to doubt Grisel, who had a reputation for exaggeration and self-aggrandizement.
According to Robert Legrand, Drouet even reportedly dismissed the police with arrogance when they arrived too late to make arrests.
There are here neither divisions nor parties, neither quarrels nor fears. A single sentiment animates us; one and the same resolution unites us. There is but one principle: to live and die free, to show ourselves worthy of the sacred cause for which each of us considers himself happy to suffer.
There is also here another general and no less unanimous thought: that the proscribed republican would have no need to see his brothers under unworthy chains in order to love them; but that when he does see them thus, he cannot help but feel for them a more tender love and a reverent respect.
We merely ask you to insert in your paper the declaration which we believe we must oppose to it; it is desired that this declaration be placed immediately following the two notes themselves: such a juxtaposition would say everything.
Democratic and fraternal greetings.
According to his mini-biography on Maitron, this is what is said about him during the trial:
âHe denied the authority of the High Court and was sentenced to death, more because of his past as a terrorist in the Pas-de-Calais than on the basis of the accusations set out in the indictment by the national prosecutor Viellart. The latter claimed, among other things, that he was the author of a printed pamphlet titled Tuez les Cinq (âKill the Fiveâ), allegedly a call for the assassination of the five Directors. In the absence of this now-lost pamphlet, it is impossible to decide the matter, but Viellartâs claims seem highly implausible.â
According to Robert Legrand, he delivered only a long statement, which constituted his political testament (a document I have not been able to locate).
According to Jean-Marc Schiappaâs book on Gracchus Babeuf:
âThe crowd became agitated and moved toward the accused; the soldiers leveled their bayonets. The condemnedâboth the wounded and the unharmedâwere dragged away by the gendarmes.â
After their execution, Bonin wrote:
âAfter the execution, the administration, observing the legal delay, exposed the bodies to the families and the public and confirmed the deaths. Then the mayor designated individualsâamong those who had come from the surrounding countrysideâto carry out the burial. They were placed, with respect and dignity, in a common grave dug at the eastern end outside the chapel, in the main cemetery of the city located in the Grand Faubourg.â
Buonarroti said of their execution:
âThey went to their deaths as if to a triumph.â
For the moment, I have not found any reactions from his relatives to his death, apart from those of Buonarroti and Tissot (a political associate), but I am certain such accounts exist.
On Antonelle : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/761515728971202560/the-political-career-of-the-revolutionary?source=share, his role as juror https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/781747560324956160/antonelles-role-as-juror-during-the-revolution?source=share and his arrest before thermidor itâs here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/802041947886878720/antonelles-arrest-and-the-beginning-of-his?source=share