#dubarran

I'm not infallible, feel free to correct me

I have already discussed Antonelle’s 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 Antonelle’s arrest. According to him, Antonelle had tensions with Maximilien Robespierre. On 9 February 1794, a decree of the Committee of Public Safety—supposedly written in Robespierre’s own hand—states, according to Serna, that the “Committee 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 (…), 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.”

According to the same historian, Antonelle opposed this policy. A month later, a note from the Committee of Public Safety ordered that “citizen Antonelle, juror at the Revolutionary Tribunal, shall be immediately placed under arrest and his papers sealed.” The decree was signed by Couthon, Le Bas, Robespierre, Collot d’Herbois, Billaud-Varenne, Barère, Bayle, Vouland, Jagot, Louis du Bas-Rhin, and Dubarran.

Here is an excerpt from Pierre Serna’s biography of Antonelle:

«On 28 Ventôse (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 o’clock in the morning. The register of detainees at the Luxembourg indeed records Antonelle’s incarceration on 29 Ventôse 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: “I was at that time in this prison […]. Our new table companion, Monsieur d’Antonelle, presented himself [at the lemonade seller’s] 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 […]. However, his insulting sincerity earned him some rather harsh sarcasms which drove him away. He ceased to mix with us!”»

The source for this prison testimony is Claude-François Beaulieu, Essai historique sur les causes et les effets de la révolution de France.

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 foreigners—such 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)—were expelled.

On 26 Frimaire Year II, Robespierre demanded that the Jacobins enforce the expulsion of all nobles: “I 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.” On the very day he gave this speech, Antonelle’s 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 “madness,” “imagination,” “bizarre fiction,” “proud unreason,” “human fantasy,” and a “frivolous and ridiculous creation.” About the decree, he added: “It would be as if to tell them: under the shameful regime of inequality, you did not wish to affect lofty status (…). 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.”

Was Robespierre in favor of Antonelle’s exclusion? It is possible, since Félix Le Peletier (one of Antonelle’s closest political allies and friends) accused Robespierre in his writings of supporting his exclusion from the Jacobins (as discussed here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/795923031920885760/the-tumultuous-relationship-between-maximilien?source=share), whereas even men like Sentex supported keeping him in the club. So why not Antonelle as well? But more evidence would be needed. Moreover, Félix Le Peletier is not always a reliable narrator—like many others.

According to Robert Reboul in Physionomies provençales, Collot d’Herbois 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 d’Herbois 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 taken—probably out of calculation.

And in any case, Robespierre did not deprive the Committee of its free will when they all signed Antonelle’s arrest order. The vast majority of the Convention did not protest it either. So no—Robespierre was not the only one responsible for Antonelle’s 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 basis—such 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).