#freron

Charlotte Robespierre is said to have physically restrained Couthon so that Maurice Gaillard could escape, according to Gaillard’s own account, later reported by Lenôtre. This episode is discussed in detail in the excellent post by @anotherhumaninthisworld, available here: https://www.tumblr.com/anotherhumaninthisworld/747746530277146624/i-found-the-charlotte?source=share

Tallien reportedly threatened to stab Robespierre if he were not placed under arrest.

According to Paul Ségur, Fouché allegedly proposed having Robespierre seized as a rebel and thrown into the river.

On 19 Brumaire, Year VIII, Fouché is said to have promised Arnault and Regnault that he would throw into the river anyone who caused unrest in Paris, according to Louis Madelin.

Bonaparte reportedly threatened Buonarroti with appearing before a military commission and being executed, according to General Bertrand (Cahiers de Sainte-Hélène, 1818–1819).

Lazare Carnot is said to have threatened to strike Fréron with a stick:

“Fréron had especially lobbied to drive Lazare Carnot from the Committee of Public Safety. Throughout November of 1794, he attacked him in the Orateur du Peuple. Carnot caught Fréron off guard one day and threatened to beat him with a stick if he persisted in his attacks.” (Kuscinski, Dictionnaire, entry on Lazare Carnot)

Babeuf was at times involved in physical altercations with police officers when he failed to persuade them, which occasionally enabled him to escape. One such confrontation involved police inspector Pernet and other officers shortly before Babeuf managed to flee once again( according to Robert Rose Barrie). At other moments, Gracchus Babeuf openly incited the crowd to intervene and stop the police attempting to arrest him, resulting in the officers being roughly handled.

During his final imprisonment in Vendôme, Babeuf “kicked the cook twice in the ribs.” Together with his colleague Blondeau, he is also said to have mistreated the prison doctor (according to historian Jean-Marc Schiappa).

From his prison in Vendôme, Charles Germain reportedly

“gave himself over to the most violent excesses, attempting to strike the administrators with his chair; they would have fallen victim to his rage had it not been for the presence of the gendarmerie officers and the concierge.” (Robert Legrand)

Blondeau, imprisoned in Cherbourg, stated about his fellow detainee Charles Germain that

“he would have preferred death to entering into a new association with Germain, whom he considered a scoundrel and whom he would kill unless he himself were struck down first.” (Robert Legrand)

Cazin, another Babouvist detainee in the Cherbourg prison, wrote that

“Moroy and Blondeau got along very well together (…) and that they hated Cazin, and he hated them in return,” adding that he even feared being murdered by them (Robert Legrand).

Félix Le Peletier threatened to attack Jean-François de Witt if he married his niece Suzanne Le Peletier, as evidenced by a letter sent to de Witt’s mother, Madame de Witt:

“Only through an atrocious crime will your son become my niece’s husband. She is a victim being cunningly used to achieve this end. Even those who are leading her astray know everything. One day, if your son marries Minette, he will learn more. When that secret is revealed, he will have my life or I will have his — but the peace of his household will be shattered forever if he survives…”

Félix Le Peletier also challenged Ernest Talleyrand to a duel after Talleyrand married one of Suzanne Le Peletier’s two daughters. The dispute arose from Talleyrand’s refusal to repay 50,000 livres owed to Félix by his late niece. Ernest Talleyrand declined the duel. (Laurence Constant, Félix Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau – Un itinéraire, de la Révolution à la monarchie de Juillet)

Notes and Context

P.S. – Regarding Carnot: Some elements of these accounts should be treated with caution, as many of the accusations originate in Barras’s memoirs. Since Carnot had criticized Barras and his circle for their violence, they retaliated by portraying him as a brutal man in turn. These claims should therefore be handled carefully.

On Charles Germain: His violent behavior is partly understandable given his circumstances. In addition to his arrest and his transport to Vendôme in an iron cage, he learned of his wife’s murder by brigands, leaving their three-year-old child behind—presumably with family, but under severe financial strain.

On the violence involving Germain, Babeuf, and Blondeau: Jean-Marc Schiappa notes that while Babeuf was known for his sometimes explosive temperament, it never reached such intensity as during his imprisonment in Vendôme. This, he argues, stemmed from Babeuf’s “defensive strategy of rupture,” which involved rejecting all authority in order to mobilize public opinion—seen as essential to the accused’s eventual “rescue.”

On the behavior of Blondeau, Cazin, and other prisoners: The prison conditions in Cherbourg were atrocious, compounded by uncertainty over possible deportation. Prisoners frequently fell ill, making violent tensions almost inevitable. In such situations, either solidarity increases or conflicts intensify; in this case, the latter prevailed. Moreover, Cazin wrongly believed at times that Germain had acted as an informant for Barras, which was not the case. Furthermore, it's important to remember that just because revolutionaries fought on the same side and didn't betray each other doesn't mean they get along. Sometimes they are comrades in arms but despise each other.

Further Reading on Tumblr

On the antagonistic relationship between Carnot and Fréron: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/789452990250614784/the-antagonistic-relationship-between-fr%C3%A9ron-and?source=share

Some examples:

Camille:

Bouli-Boula

Loup-Loup

M. Hon (in reference to his stutter)

Lucile:

Lolotte

Loulou

Rouleau (her last name)

Camille also calls her "Vesta" (Hestia, I assume) and "Angel"

Fréron himself was Lapin (rabbit) and Horace was "little lizard" to Camille.

I'll try and add more as I find them. In the meantime, if anyone else knows more please add them! I love finding little personal details like this.

Albertine Marat seems to offer a more reliable account than other revolutionaries, such as Charlotte Robespierre in her testimonies

Nevertheless, some points still need clarification, especially Albertine's assertion that Marat had very good relations with Danton and would have saved him if her brother had not been assassinated. Personally, I doubt this. Indeed, Jean-Paul Marat publicly expressed his doubts about Danton when the latter began to fall into disgrace. However, I am willing to accept the idea that Albertine might be right when she says that, had Marat been alive, he would have saved Camille Desmoulins, although the matter concerning Danton is more complex than she suggests.

Simone Evrard, for her part, gave a speech in 1793 against several political figures, including Jacques Roux and Théophile Leclerc. This speech aligns with the political positions of Jean-Paul Marat, especially with respect to Roux, with whom he had a significant break (a crucial element to understand in this context). The relationships between Albertine Marat, Simone Evrard, and the Cordeliers Club are also complex, largely due to the difficult relations between Hébert Jacques-René, and Jean-Paul Marat. These tensions made Albertine and Simone attentive to the internal debates within the club.

The Marat women ( Simone Évrard and Albertine Marat)  , involved in the writing and dissemination of Marat's works, did not want to carry out this task alone. They therefore requested the support of the Cordeliers Club, while insisting on having a voice in the decisions made. They occasionally attended meetings to follow the progress of the publication. On several occasions, the club expressed its support for a national edition of Marat’s works, with the proceeds going to his heirs.

On January 4, 1794, a club member expressed dissatisfaction with the continued neglect of Marat’s writings, which were essential to the consolidation of the Republic. Although Marat left great glory to his heirs, he did not leave them a fortune. He proposed reprinting his works and having the National Convention purchase many copies, with the profits going to Marat’s heirs.

During the debates, Hébert, expected to co-write a petition with Momoro, insisted on clarifying his past differences with Marat. Another member suggested appointing a commissioner to draft a petition requesting that the Republic cover the costs of publishing Marat’s works. However, Simone and Albertine insisted that nothing be decided before they had the chance to present their views. They were told that the Society had already decided they would come to an agreement with Hébert and Momoro. Nevertheless, the Marat women demanded a postponement, showing their desire to maintain control over this decision. Simone, in particular, being well-informed about the relationships between Marat and the Cordeliers, wanted to ensure that these relationships were respected. Eventually, a text was drafted and submitted to the National Convention on January 12.

Through these discussions, the Marat women sought to ensure that Marat’s intellectual and political legacy was preserved and that his heirs benefited from the revenue generated by the publication of his works.

Here is an interesting website that presents the struggle of Albertine Marat and Simone Evrard. Although it is still incomplete, it serves as a good starting point: Site on the Edition of Marat's Works

However, it seems that, at least at the beginning of 1794, Albertine Marat had some criticisms of the Cordeliers. Nevertheless, she could also have sympathies for certain figures close to the faction of the "exagérés" (the Hébertists) or the Enragés. For example, Albertine wrote a letter to Fréron protesting the imprisonment of Legray, as seen here: Legray’s Imprisonment ( in the end of these post). It appears that Legray was connected to Varlet (a figure of the Enragés) as well as to Joseph Bodson, a prominent Hébertist revolutionary who would later become one of Babeuf’s "lieutenants" in the Babouvist conspiracy ( one the most important). Bodson continued his revolutionary activities at least until 1800, associating with neo-Jacobins and remaining an influential figure in that movement, according to Jean Jaurès (I can no longer find any trace of Joseph Bodson after 1800) .

It is also worth noting that Bodson was closely associated with Hébert and Chaumette and he never forgave the Committee of Public Safety for their executions(to the point that even though Babeuf and he always respected each other deeply, they disagreed on Robespierre when Gracchus admired Robespierre again after he had criticized him as you can see here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/768074996296892416/relations-between-babeuf-and-robespierre?source=share ) . Here is an excerpt showing the relationship between Legray, Bodson, and Varlet: Source on Cairn.info

This raises several questions. First, Varlet was part of the Enragés, a faction that the Hébertists fought against while taking up their petitions. One element of their confrontation is discussed here: Conflict Between Enragés and Hébertists. It is thus legitimate to question why Varlet and Bodson continued their relationship despite their ideological differences.

Second, it must be remembered that Simone Evrard was very close to Albertine Marat. However, Simone delivered a speech at the Convention against Roux and Leclerc, two men whom Varlet followed. Moreover, Legray, a man linked to Varlet, was supported by Albertine Marat. It seems that Albertine sympathized with figures from factions that her brother Jean-Paul fought against during his lifetime, which does not seem entirely inconsistent, given Albertine’s admiration for Danton.

Another hypothesis could be proposed: when Albertine wrote this letter to Fréron, she was strongly associated with Gracchus Babeuf, who published it in his journal Le Tribun du Peuple, especially after her break with Guffroy. Babeuf and Jean-Paul Marat had a deep mutual respect, even when they disagreed. Babeuf, who was close to Bodson and Legray, might have led Albertine to believe that a political alliance with the remnants of the Hébertists and Enragés was necessary to face Fréron even if they disagree. After all, Albertine Marat could also have been a politician, just like her brother.

In the end, it would be worth exploring further the political divergences of Albertine Marat and her ambiguous relations with Simone Evrard, though both of these women remain undeniably figures of political integrity.

I would like to add a few details about this woman—details I have found beyond what Victor Sardou reported about Carrier’s widow, who described her husband as a “good man” and refused to believe he was responsible for the drownings in Nantes. (It is important to note that she was not with him on mission in Nantes.) After some years of research, I have managed to uncover a bit more information about her, although I must warn that the sources are scarce and not always reliable.

Françoise is said to have married him at the age of nineteen in 1785. Everything suggests that Carrier took at least some minimal care of his in-laws. According to Lallié, in 1788, while serving as a prosecutor, he intervened to “guarantee a loan of 17,140 livres taken out by his mother-in-law and his brother-in-law.” We know he was unfaithful to his wife while on mission in Nantes—though not to the extreme that some have claimed—and he was not the sort of sexual predator depicted in certain films, even if he did have affairs with at least two women during his mission in Nantes (one apparently named Madame Le Normand).

According to the same author, Carrier was a hardworking man before the French Revolution and supported it wholeheartedly; despite his competence, he even lost clients because of his commitment to revolutionary ideals. Based on an unnamed contemporary source he found, Carrier was described as “a man involved in business, but said to be very gentle and even quite charitable.” One can easily understand why his wife thought of him as a good husband.

Mr. Dugast-Matifeux (whose reliability I cannot assess) mentioned Carrier’s wife and wrote: “It is unfortunate that Carrier did not bring his wife with him. He might not have abandoned himself to depravity, and might have been less influenced by the mob of scoundrels around him.” Does this mean she was seen as a good influence on him?

The website Rodama also provides information about Carrier’s wife—though one must be cautious, as it repeats the black legend surrounding many revolutionaries (including false claims about her appearance), based largely on the unreliable Lenôtre, Joseph Le Bon, and others.

Rodama states that Carrier expressed concern for his wife during his trial and after his condemnation: “At his trial and after his condemnation, Carrier reasserted a conventional concern for his wife and her future financial situation.” If he truly did not care for her, he would not have worried about her future. No one questions Danton’s love for Gabrielle despite his infidelities—so why not extend the same benefit of the doubt to Carrier?

That she refused to believe her husband was responsible for the drownings, combined with the assistance he offered her family, suggests—at least to me—that he was reasonably attentive as a husband. According to Rodama, she reappears briefly in the historical record in Year VI, when “reduced to the greatest straits,” she petitioned the Directory for monies owed to Carrier and for the proceeds from the sale of his furniture. She lived quietly in Aurillac until 18 August 1830, when she died on rue du Collège.

It is not much, but historians ought to show greater interest in her. I really hope the muscadins left her in peace. (I have no sympathy for her husband, but she certainly did not deserve to suffer—just like nearly all the wives of revolutionaries.)

What is particularly interesting about her—if this information is accurate—is that she represents a new type of woman among the entourage of revolutionary figures. Elisabeth Le Bon, as shown here ,https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/796250597866209280?source=share , Lucile Desmoulins, Élisabeth Le Bas, Sylvie Audouin, and Marie-Françoise Hébert supported their husbands’ politics, for better or worse (and in Sylvie Audouin’s case, also her father’s). They were not simply “yes-women”; they were capable of thinking and acting independently within the very patriarchal constraints of their time.

Other women—fiercely loyal no matter what their husbands had done—seem to have been fully aware of their spouses’ actions. Then there were women like Charlotte Robespierre, who disagreed with her brothers’ politics, or Madame Monge (according to Louis de Launay), who temporarily fled with her daughters when her husband and his friend Pache signed the decree for the execution of Louis XVI.

Ronsin’s widow pretended—after months in prison and after her husband’s execution—that she didn't shared his ideals (which implied acknowledging his “errors”), but in reality, this was above all a strategy to regain her freedom. She soon resumed militancy in ultra-revolutionary circles, continuing to associate with Ronsin’s old comrades (as shown here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/794437214869340160/marie-ang%C3%A9lique-lequesne-widow-of-ronsin-and-wife?source=share).

Carrier’s wife appears to represent yet another category: a woman who loved her husband but was in complete denial about what he had done—so much so that she refused to believe the accusations against him. I do not blame her; she was not responsible, and we cannot imagine what she must have felt. In short, we must find more information about her.

Honestly—and as I wrote in my post here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/784116354865381376/in-defense-for-carrier?source=share—Carrier was far from the deranged and stupid monster described by I Grandi Camaleonti. He was a very competent (and therefore intelligent) man in all the missions he was given. He achieved several notable feats, such as helping to repel the English at Nantes—a task far beyond the ability of an ordinary man, and crucial for France.

When a man reproached him for having a woman and two small children shot, Carrier replied: “On the contrary, I protected those who surrendered. As for the brigands who perished in the Loire, it happened when they attempted to cross the river. I not only forbade children to be brought before the courts, but I allowed good citizens to take them in.” This was true .

Moreover, the real reason he was executed was not the drownings, but his opposition to the Thermidorian policy and his unwavering loyalty to the Constitution of Year II. He was among those who ordered the expulsion of Fréron and Tallien from the Jacobin Club. According to Karen L. Greene in her study of Fréron:

“There can be little doubt that Carrier’s words were a declaration of war against the Thermidorians. What followed made the threat even clearer: after two hours of debate, Fréron and Tallien were expelled from the Jacobin Club.”

Another excerpt:

“Carrier’s trial brought renewed support for the Thermidorians and gave Fréron and his colleagues more ammunition against the Jacobin Club, of which Carrier was a loyal and outspoken member.”

A passage from Moyse Bayle, au peuple souverain et à la Convention nationale (Paris, 1795) further illustrates the hostility between them:

« Fréron had condemned Carrier and others for their actions as representatives on mission, but Bayle intended to prove that Fréron had been even more vicious than Carrier. Fréron responded to Bayle through his own pamphlet that he published over the course of three issues of the Orateur du peuple. Projecting a confident façade, Fréron declared that public opinion was on his side Moreover, he attempted to explain that his aggressive, bloodthirsty correspondence from Marseilles and Toulon had been mere exaggeration, overplayed for the satisfaction of Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety. His hypocritical excuses appeared futile, however, when Bayle released a second pamphlet that contained even more damning excerpts from Fréron’s correspondence".

According to Gastine Louis—unreliable on many points—Carrier said this about Tallien after Thermidor:

“Tallien kept demanding justice—which is rather like a great scoundrel constantly insisting he is an honest man.”

This, ultimately, is the true reason for Carrier’s execution: his opposition to political operators such as Tallien and Fréron, right to the very end. That incorruptible revolutionaries like Topino-Lebrun or Charles-Gilbert Romme approved his execution does not erase the duplicity of some of Carrier’s enemies, who used him both as a scapegoat to cover up their own crimes and as a means to eliminate a political adversary.

It is possible that he told his wife only part of the truth—that he was about to be executed for his loyalty to the Constitution of Year II and for his opposition to Fréron and Tallien, but that the drownings were not his doing. The dubious nature of the justice he received certainly made it harder for his widow to sort truth from falsehood.

On the other hand, at his trial, he did say that the Convention was as guilty as he was.

I believe it is time for a modern biography of him and his wife, in order to clarify all of this.

Letizia: Pauline loves Fréron. Napoleon: An assassin, a bloodthirsty butcher — absolutely out of the question.

So I thought: on one hand, I wouldn’t want my brother — who, by the way, married for love —or anyone else to force his choice of husband on me. But then again, he’s not exactly wrong about Fréron. After what Fréron did with his muscadin friends to women, there’s no way I’d want him as a brother-in-law.

Napoleon: I have someone better for her.

Then he describes this man as “worthy of his consideration,” and it turns out to be Leclerc.

My reaction: Well, it can't be worse than Fréron’s bloody record… or so I thought.

Then I came across a letter from Charles Leclerc, giving his opinion to his brother-in-law Napoleon about Saint-Domingue:

“Here is my opinion on this country. All the Black people from the mountains, men and women, must be exterminated. Only children under 12 should be kept alive. Half of the people in the plains should be wiped out, and not a single man of color who ever wore an epaulet should remain in the colony.”

Not to mention the mass deportations, drownings of civilians, and other atrocities — to the point that even French soldiers were rightly disgusted.

So, when it comes to murderers, I think we’ve found someone who broke every record (though Lacrosse, Rochambeau, and others were serious contenders too). Compared to them, even the most ruthless envoys during the year II look like innocent choirboys.