#frev representations

Some people seem to believe that Thermidor only happened because Robespierre made "a stupid speech", and Saint-Just refused to read his to men who had insulted and assaulted him on the night before.

It fails to acknowledge the reasons Robespierre made that speech, or why we expect Saint-Just to submit to the inspection and judgment of men who just demeaned him and physically attacked him.

Their speeches weren't the cause. They were a pretext.

Even if Robespierre's speech was "stupid", one evidence remains: the people who let the conspiracy build in the shadows and refused to intervene, the ones who watched the assault in the night of the 8 to 9 thermidor yet still expected loyalty, they're the ones who truly ended the Revolution - the ideal, the dream, the hope and the Republic they were building - by sacrificing the principled for an union with mediocrity.

We've basically adopted an interpretation that absolves the Thermidorians of all responsibility.

Robespierre wasn't "too far gone" and didn't "lose himself". Saint-Just didn't become "too arrogant" to the point he couldn't be "reasoned with". That is the narrative of the men who murdered them to appease their own guilty conscience.

A note on the "too far gone" trope: it implies madness, and moves the conversation from political ideology in order to pathologize radicalism. It's a very common and useful trope: not only is it successfully used in La Révolution française: les années terribles and arguably in Saint-Just et la force des choses, it's also used with Anders in Dragon Age, Viktor in Arcane, and Daenerys Targaryen in Game of Thrones - a decision so poorly executed, it participated in making the finale universally loathed and destroyed the franchise overnight as a cultural phenomenon.

Transforming the oppressed victim who becomes a champion for the marginalized into a "mad tyrant" is, again, very common and very useful. And, of course, it's psychophobic/ableist.

I was having a lot of thoughts about this topic, so here we go.

Yes, a blurb on the official Panthéon website says the figure on a horse is General Hoche.

Here's a shocking truth: sometimes even official websites make mistakes.

It's quite possible the source for the Panthéon blurb is the 1911 news clipping found by @robespapier:

Here's another shocking mistake: journalists make mistakes too.

Look what he wrote:

The general on a horse is Hoche, as beautiful as a god, with his thoughtul brow and his poet eyes [...]

It's stated as evidence but it's actually his assumption. Nowhere does it say "Sicard told me so". It's the journalist's interpretation. And his interpretation is extremely bizarre because throughout the 19th century, starting all the way back to Michelet, this kind of description - "as beautiful as a god, with his thoughtul brow and his poet eyes" - matches Saint-Just.

François-Léon Sicard (1862-1934) lived his entire life fed with the romantic imagery of the French Revolution used by the Third Republic where Saint-Just became the quintessential Representative on Mission:

When it comes to a monumental statue meant to represent the spirit of the Convention nationale, you have to factor several things where myth-making and legend collide with an accurate representation of history.

Yes, one side represents the deputies and the other the military. However, the Convention nationale DID NOT heroize generals. They put the military under direct control of the Convention.

Now, is it more likely to be a general or a representative on mission?

At first glance, if you see a figure on a horse surrounded by soldiers, you'll conclude it's a general. With superficial aesthetics in mind, Hoche could fit the bill.

Hoche was important - but was it enough, among all the generals, to choose him to be represented here?

We can't know what Sicard thought, but we know his monument is meant to represent the Convention nationale. It's specifically designed to honor the legislative assembly, its members, and the triumphs achieved under its direct governance. Hoche was never a member of the Convention. He was a soldier. Moreover, choosing him among other generals might cause controversies.

It's just as likely to be depicting a Representative on Mission, as the extension of the legislative will (on the left) and of the Republic (in the middle) who is guiding the troops to victory. Because the Representatives on Mission were members of the Convention. They were part of the military machine but only as the necessary civilian/legislative supervision.

That's for the symbolism.

Next, when you study the actual iconography, you see that it's clearly not Hoche:

Note that the first image is Hoche's statue in the Panthéon, which is right next to the monument.

So, is it Saint-Just? We can't know for sure, but based on iconographical cues, it's possible. Why Saint-Just? Because of how he built his own legend on mission that Michelet then cemented to our very days.

However, here's an alternative explanation that can satisfy everyone:

The figure on a horse might be both.

He might be meant to be a Generic General or a Generic Representative on Mission. It might be intentional that you can choose to interpret him as either Hoche or Saint-Just. Because depictions of the French Revolution, especially state-sponsored ones, have always been extremely controversial, prone to scandal and polarization. Example: the Bicentenial movie.

French Republican memory has always been a fierce political and emotional battle. The ambiguity might be specifically designed to reconcile both types of Republicans - those who glorify the generals and those who celebrate the representatives on mission - rather than divide. It's very possible that this debate we're having is written in the very origin of the monument itself. That Sicard never said who it was, the journalist assumed it was Hoche, and Sicard didn't correct him. We might never know, unless we find a document by Sicard that identifies the figures exactly.