Call to Clarify the Complex Political Relationships Between Albertine Marat and Simone Evrard, and Their Interactions with Various Revolutionary Figures
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.
P.S.: Gracchus Babeuf personally met Simone Evrard and Albertine Marat (and by extension, Babeuf’s wife, Marie-Anne as well, it is clearly certain ). However, it would be interesting to know if, in addition to Babeuf’s extensive correspondence with Jean-Paul Marat during his lifetime, he met him in Paris.
