#mirabeau

Comment if there was anything that surprised you! 🙃🫢

Sources:

For the college relationships between Robespierre, Desmoulins, Suleau and Fréron, see this post.

For Robespierre welcoming Louise de Kéralio to the Academy of Arras, see Un inédit de Robespierre: Sa réponse au discours de réception de Mademoiselle de Kéralio 18 avril 1787 (1974) by Léon Berthe.

For the relationship between Robespierre and Carnot pre-revolution, see this post.

For the relationship between Robespierre and Fouché pre-revolution, see this post.

For the relationship between Robespierre and Guffroy pre-revolution, see Censure républicaine, ou, Lettre d’A-B-J Guffroy, répresentant du peuple (1794), page 66: ”Robespierre the elder must remember my firmness when, both working as judges in the episcopal hall of Arras, we condemned an assassin to death. He must remember, it seems to me, our philosophical and philanthropic debates, and even that it cost him much more than me to resolve to sign the sentence.”

Here's 5 key things I see people most commonly not consider that I think greatly impacts how they interpret events:

-There was much 'state sanctioned' violence in France long before The Revolution started. The early clashes in the Revolution (ie. Storming of Bastille) didn't just come out of nowhere. People were genuinely fearing for their lives and felt they had no other choice. This same fear and anxiety haunted the rest of the Revolution.

-The Monarchy wasn't just killed for purely idealogical reasons. Louis and Antoinette essentially started a war against their own country. They posed a very real danger to people's lives, and even then the choice to kill Louis was a long deliberated one. The country was at war, people felt they had no choice.

-It's right to acknowledge that the amount of suspicion going around during The Terror was excessive, and it became arguably too easy to accuse and arrest people. It's wrong to assume people were accused purely on basis that they 'didn't share the same opinions' as those in power. The country was at war. Rightly or wrongly, most people were arrested because they were suspected of threatening the safety of France, not because the Jacobins simply wanted to eradicate anyone who didn't share their values.

-There were many, many events over several years that justified people becoming so overwhelmingly concerned with stamping out counter-revolution and being excessively suspicious. Such as: Aristocrats gathering personal armies and sending open threats about destroying the Revolutionaries, or once trusted heroes surprising everyone with secret betrayals (see Lafayette or Mirabeau for good examples), and all of these threats and spies and assassinations happening whilst the country was at war.

-THE COUNTRY WAS AT WAR. Every reductive criticism I've seen of the Revolution seems to dismiss that everyone was making choices against the very real fear that at any minute their hard fought for human rights and democracy could be taken away if they lose one more battle to a neighbouring country. It was basically 'kill the enemy or lose an entire country to war and oppression', that's the mindset politicians were in at that time.

One rly basic thing that I have to explain all the tie (just cos I'm making a comic about him so I get many comments on him specifically lol):

-Robespierre was only one person and didn't control the entire country lol Evidence generally points to him actively avoiding having any power as much as possible. The only executive power he had was in the last year of his life, and he still shared that with 11 other ppl, who had a chance to vote each other out of their committee every month. There wasn't some long term plan to take him down after he'd ravaged the country for a year. It happened very suddenly in an atmosphere of paranoia and extreme anxiety, when he made a bad speech that set off alarm bells. He was then *accused* of tyranny/conspiracy/etc etc. That didnt mean he actually was a tyrant. Loads of politicians across the years had similar accusations used against them. Robespierre was as much a victim of the irrational suspicion and anxiety of The Terror as anyone else at the time.

One final long note:

Every bad moment in the Revolution was A Group Project, it's naive and reductive to put the blame on any single person. I also think its naive and reductive to try frame The Revolution as being a failure or a success. We take for granted all the freedom, protections and choices we have today. Those things never existed back then, it was all entirely new and scary and no one knew wtf they were doing, or if it would last. History doesn't seem to ever have neat tidy success or failures when so many people are involved.

Perhaps the one tangible aspect of the Revolution is it's undeniable impact on modern day human rights and political systems. For me personally, I would want people to focus on this aspect of Frev and how they created those things, alongside all the violence that was frankly, very normal across many European countries during that time.

Like, people go on about how monstrous and vengeful the Guillotine was, either romanticising it or demonising it. But the kind of capital punishment that existed pre-Guillotine was much more barbaric. The kind of capital punishment that exists in modern day USA is much more barbaric (a death that was over in seconds is more humane than pumping someone with chemicals that burn your insides slowly and paralyse you so that you don't cry out in pain in front of whoever is watching you die. In case you hadn't guessed I'm very very against the capital punishment laws in USA =_=)

I went to a UK museum recently and read an article in a Bath newspaper from 1790s. Two boys were publicly hanged for stealing some food.

Considering that 1790s France was a) dealing out a style of public execution that was less painful/quicker than hangings and b) working very hard in attempts to ensure that boys such as that had free education, a right to vote, and protection of rights, so that they'd never have to be arrested for stealing bread to begin with- which of these countries is more barbaric at that time? Why do we frame the Revolution as barbaric and not the wider culture it was clumsily attempting to evolve from?

That was rly long lol But those are the things I want everyone to consider first before they begin any of the more nuanced opinions/discussions I'd LOVE to be having with strangers on Instagram.

I need a break from my intense library reading, so let me talk about the Deaf Jacobin sculptor Claude-André Deseine today. He’s one of the most successful Deaf artists I’ve discovered during the French Revolution, but so far I’ve found very little about him in Deaf history research. Most of what follows is from internet sources.

You may not be familiar with the Deaf artist Deseine. But many of you may know this wonderful sculpture of Robespierre:

Yes, this is one of Deseine’s amazing works. Many considered it the most lively artistic representation of Robespierre by his contemporaries. I certainly agree.

Deseine was born in 1740 as the eldest in a large family of more than fifteen children, and he seemed to be the only deaf child. He became a student at Abbé l’Épée’s school for the deaf, where he trained with sign language teaching methods. He later studied at the Académie Royale in Paris and exhibited at the Salon.

He was a great supporter of the Revolution and frequented the Jacobin Club. His bust of Mirabeau won a prize in 1791. Later, he continued to make several busts of revolutionary figures.

Deseine also made several busts of his teacher, Abbé l’Épée. He even successfully petitioned the Assembly to make a full-size statue of Abbé l’Épée, but it was never completed, because priestly figures became less and less favoured as the Revolution progressed.

As for Deseine’s legal rights as a prominent Deaf artist at the time, I found some very intriguing descriptions. Apparently, in 1777, his family accompanied him to court after his father’s death, questioning his right to “manage and administer his person and possessions.” The court appointed guardians for Deseine to take care of his possessions, noting that he “does not read or write.” Some sources suggested that he was permitted to receive income himself with the management of a guardian, while others suggested that he never received income directly and had to have his mother, his royalist brother, and then his nephew receive it on his behalf throughout his life. I also found another source stating that he was recognized the right of inheritance, which was rarely granted to deaf people at the time.

I wonder which was true, and how the legal status for Deaf people progressed in general during his lifetime. I also wonder if it’s true that he didn’t read or write. How did he communicate with clients then? Could he have had an interpreter of some kind? So much mystery!

Another scandalous work by Deseine was his bust of Antoinette Gabrielle Danton. Reportedly, the Deaf artist accompanied Danton to Sainte-Catherine cemetery. They opened the grave of the deceased Antoinette Gabrielle and took a death mask, which this sculpture work was based on. I’ve heard a version of the story that Danton opened his wife’s grave to confess and repent on his cheating in tears. If that were true, you may also have to imagine a Deaf artist standing aside, perhaps not fully understanding what was happening, but only wanting to get the job done quickly.

It turned out that Deseine’s younger brother, Louis-Pierre, also became a renowned sculptor. Unlike his Deaf brother, this hearing artist was a faithful royalist, making sculptures for kings and nobles across decades. Some noted that, because of this, Claude-André often signed “Deseine the deaf” in order to distinguish himself from his brother.

In the meantime, Claude-André Deseine went into hiding like many Jacobins after Thermidor in 1794 and never exhibited again. He lived into his eighties and died in 1823, but little was known about his life afterward, while his hearing royalist brother enjoyed a much longer artistic career. Whenever I think of this, I feel extremely sad. However, art historians still praised the revolutionary sensibility in Claude-André Deseine’s works more than those of Louis-Pierre.

This is referencing exactly what you think it is.

Did you know Mirabeau was only 42 when he died?

In the Panthéon of Paris, right behind the The National Convention statue, you will find one representing Mirabeau

From this, I discovered the incredible story of the Mirabeau fountain of Aix!

In november 1926, in the city of Aix, an impressive monument was built in front of the Courtroom palace, represented Mirabeau surrounded by the allegories of royalty, republic, history and a sleeping France. All realized by Antoine Injalbert.

This monument was destroyed and pieces lost, but the statue of Mirabeau in the Pantheon we can see was realized by the same artist and looks identical as the one from the monument. Probably a way to not loose the hard work to honor this figure of the revolution.

source: L'ancien monument à la gloire de Mirabeau (m.a.j.) - Aix en découvertes

Brissot de Warville, Eloise Ellery, 1915, p. 182

My emotional support problematic fave 😭😭😭

It's bad. Brissot has moved into my head like he's trying to speculate on the territory. I'm just over 200 pages into the biography (~halfway) & I have so much to say, but I'm also anticipating all my feelings being proven wrong at some point or just having to complete another Brissot is Complicated thesis when this is all over. None of my opinions on the Girondins in general, the war-mongering, the blaming the Montagnards for violence/extremism etc. have changed, and I'm interested to read past 1791 to see if anything can shift my perspectives. It's been shocking (even though I knew this abstractly) to see how close — identical basically — Brissot is to the "radical" figures. On topics like active vs. passive citizens, the king's veto, republic vs. monarchy, the colonies, etc. he has taken the same positions as Robespierre. Camille & Brissot have squabbled a bit in the press, but minorly & the author points out some places where Brissot's actual positions don't quite match up with what Camille claims (e.g. being inconsistent about a republic) (Camille v. Brissot pre-1791 probable needs its own post.) He consistently opposes more conservative revolutionaries like Mirabeau and Barnave.

Because I've gotten into a habit of of making stupid shit lol, I made a table of if I had to vote for Brissot vs. the first few revolutionaries I could think of

& honestly, this doesn't even clear things up for me. Technically, Saint-Just should probably be green, but Brissot's humanitarian efforts are really, really hard to beat. Pétion & Marat, I admit, I probably just don't know enough about. Time is also a factor. 1792-3 Saint-Just vs. 1792-3 Brissot would definitely go to Saint-Just. (I think.) But what about 1789-90 Brissot vs. 1792-4 Saint-Just? And would I really choose Robespierre over Brissot in 1789-1791? I know my knowledge of later years is coloring my opinion. But this is also a bullshit mashup election that's taking place between my head and my heart, so none of it makes sense.