#moroy

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

I’m pairing up the following French Revolution figures:

Maximilien Robespierre / Georges Couthon: because I love seeing them together. I don’t really know why, but personally, I find them completely in sync.

Philippe Le Bas / Saint-Just: do I really need to explain why?

Charlotte Robespierre / Guffroy: simply because of their relationship.

Élisabeth Le Bon / Élisabeth Le Bas: I find them totally compatible, especially in the way they faced adversity after the deaths of their husbands and their imprisonment, as well as in the fact that they maintained important political ties with some of the most significant figures of the Babeuvist conspiracy.

Claire Lacombe / Jacques Roux: for their shared Enragés politics.

Gracchus Babeuf / Buonarroti: do I need to say why?

Antonelle / Félix Le Peletier: since they were constantly together and shared all their political ideas and struggles—whether during the Babeuvist conspiracy, as neo-Jacobins under the Directory, or in opposition to Bonaparte. On top of that, they were always inseparable( until their break during the Restoration) .

Théroigne de Méricourt / Charles Gilbert Romme: simply for their associations and their involvement in women’s rights.

Simone Evrard / Marie-Anne Victoire Babeuf: one for her speeches and visible political activity, capable of rallying people; the other for her strong ability to operate in political clandestinity. Both were women skilled in political maneuvering, capable of facing adversaries, and both were imprisoned twice. In addition, both were able to gather documents despite the risk of persecution and enjoyed a very good reputation among most of their revolutionary peers.

Madame Royale / Sylvie Audouin:Yes, they would be totally incompatible given Madame Royale’s political views and those of the Hébertist Sylvie Audouin, who even signed a manifesto calling for the trial of Louis XVI. However, both showed remarkable psychological strength during imprisonment, when they were completely isolated from the world or facing danger as adolescents. Both came from the upper classes (although Madame Royale held a higher rank), were well known during their lifetimes, and I’ve read that Madame Royale was interested in the army and its soldiers—which is not incompatible with Sylvie, who associated with the collaborators of her father, Jean-Nicolas Pache, when he was Minister of War.

Joséphine de Beauharnais / Thérésa Tallien: no need to explain—the Queen of the Directory and the Empress, both skilled at navigating politics and life, are made for each other.

Talleyrand / Fouché: Do we really need to explain why vice is meant to be paired with crime?

Blondeau / Moroy: Based solely on what Cazin said during their imprisonment in Cherbourg—that they got along so well in their shared hatred of him (and vice versa) that he claimed he feared for his life.

Gaspard Monge / Jean-Nicolas Pache: Two best friends who entered the French Revolution together, always protected one another, and whose eventual separation under Bonaparte—though amicable—only makes them feel completely compatible in my eyes .

As a reminder, Charles Germain was one of the leading figures of the Babouvist movement who were condemned to deportation during the Vendôme trial.

Imprisoned in Cherbourg alongside men like Buonarroti, Cazin, Moroy, Blondeau, Vadier, he decided to write directly to Napoleon Bonaparte, then First Consul.

On 6 Frimaire Year VIII, he sent the following letter:

“I am one of those sentenced to deportation by the High Court of Vendôme. I was born in Narbonne in 1771. At the age of sixteen, I traded my Aristotle for a horse and a musket. In 1790, my good parents bought me a full discharge; two months later, I took up the helmet and saber again. In 1793, representatives on mission with the Army of the Western Pyrenees decorated me on the battlefield with an epaulette in the 12th Hussars. On 24 Prairial Year II, the representatives dismissed me. After coming to Paris following 9 Thermidor, a minor scuffle earned me a lettre de cachet. After nine months in detention, I was released and found myself, on 13 Vendémiaire, in the ranks of the patriots (I still have my certificate). The new government was established: Jean-Baptiste Annibal Aubert-Dubayet, Minister of War, promised me employment, while Philippe-Antoine Merlin de Douai (referred to here as Cochon), Minister of Police, had me arrested on 21 Floréal Year IV… I am 28 years old; I have spent five years in prison. I have only ever been a soldier, I have served in three active campaigns, and I have received wounds. I still have some blood left: do not let it calcify in the horror of dungeons; allow me to go and shed it at the frontier… provided I may serve liberty and, if necessary, die for it. My parents are poor, and I have always been poor myself. Long live the Republic. Respectful greetings.”

(French National Archives, BB³ 21)

According to Robert Legrand, Lucien Bonaparte intervened at one point to ease the conditions of Buonarroti, Blondeau Moroy, and Germain by granting them a small daily allowance of three francs while they were held on the island of Oléron awaiting deportation to Guyana.

On Oléron, a report mentions that Charles Germain and others “maintain incendiary rhetoric against the government and its officials; they publicly insulted the local justice of the peace and are corrupting the public spirit.”

Later, like many neo-Jacobins (especially Babouvists), he was deported following the Rue Saint-Nicaise assassination attempt.

In 1802, he reunited in Cayenne with former Babouvist companions, including René Vatar.

Here is what Robert Legrand writes about him:

“He remained there for several years. The governor, General Hugues, enlisted certain exiles on privateers maintained for the defense of the colony. Some deportees from Cayenne were wounded while fighting the English off the coast of Africa. Germain, one of the most indomitable republicans of his time, was captured in one of these engagements and taken aboard English prison hulks. He never ceased to preach to French sailors and soldiers, his companions in misfortune, a love of the Republic and hatred of Bonaparte.”

Meanwhile, in January 1809, a Portuguese fleet and an English corvette attacked Cayenne, forcing Governor Hugues to capitulate. A prisoner of the English, Germain was still held on prison hulks in 1810; he did not return to France until 1814.

Nothing is known about him after that date (although there are some hypotheses—but that will be for a future post).

Marie- Adélaïde Lambert was one of the many revolutionary women who have been largely forgotten in the history of the French Revolution. Yet during her lifetime she was well known and became one of the most prominent figures of the Babouvist Conspiracy, particularly during her trial.

At the time of her arrest, this young woman was twenty-five years old. She was therefore probably born around 1771 . According to Robert Legrand, in his book Babeuf et ses compagnons de route, she “worked as a broker and was employed in the linen trade.”

Her address was on Rue Vieille-du-Temple. She frequently visited the Bains chinois, a place where the Babouvists prepared their conspiracies and where subscriptions to the newspaper Le Tribun du Peuple were collected (according to Aulard).

When she was arrested, “she admitted having been five or six times to this café and having seen Darthé there. At first, she refused to answer the interrogation (…) During the search of her home, a large number of Babeuf’s newspapers and pamphlets were found” (Robert Legrand).

However, her role in the conspiracy was not limited to possessing Babeuf’s newspapers or maintaining political relations with Darthé (the brother-in-law of the late Joseph Lebon). Drouin, a young man indicted at the Vendôme trial (and later acquitted), who had been in contact with the Babouvist Sophie Lapierre, stated that it was Marie- Adélaïde Lambert who recruited him for the insurrectionary wing of the Babouvist conspiracy. She was reportedly in charge of enlistment.

According to Maurice Dommanget, she “boasted of having recruited 2,000 legionaries by herself.” This claim suggests a degree of exaggeration—perhaps deliberate—but it nonetheless indicates that her role within the conspiracy was of some importance.

She distinguished herself once again in a remarkable manner during the Vendôme trial. She became part of the group of ten Babouvists who refused to acknowledge the authority of the Vendôme Court, alongside Babeuf, Blondeau, Darthé, Moroy, Germain, Cochet, Sophie Lapierre, Toulotte, and Cazin.

She also signed several manifestos together with some of the other accused. These are as follows:

PUBLIC DECLARATION

Statement made by all the detainees in the House of Justice of the High Court, in response to two perfidious, infamous, and slanderous notes inserted in issue no. 422 of Le Rédacteur officiel, presented as a report emanating from the offices of the Ministry of General Police concerning the prisoners of Vendôme.

There are here neither divisions nor parties, neither quarrels nor fears. A single sentiment animates us; one and the same resolution unites us. There is but one principle: to live and die free, to show ourselves worthy of the sacred cause for which each of us considers himself happy to suffer.

There is also here another general and no less unanimous thought: that the proscribed republican would have no need to see his brothers under unworthy chains in order to love them; but that when he does see them thus, he cannot help but feel for them a more tender love and a reverent respect.

Vendôme, 25 Pluviôse, Year V of the Republic.

Signed: Ch. Germain, G. Babeuf, Cochet, Antonelle, Toulotte, Darthé, Maurice Roy, Taffoureau, Didier, Moroy, Lamberté, Cazin, Fossard, Antoine Fiquet, Rayebois, Blondeau, Clerx, Dufour, Goulard, Boudin, Crépin, Cordas, Laignelot, Ricord, Mugnier, Nayez, Vergne, Vadier, Amar, Fyon, Morel, Massart, Buonarotti, Potofeux, Maurice Duplay, Jacques-Maurice Duplay, Widow Monnard, Breton’s wife, Breton, Sophie Lapierre, Adélaïde Lambert.

There is another circular which they are said to have drafted and signed(according to Victor Advielle, Histoire de Gracchus Babeuf et du babouvisme ).

Circular to Journalists

Vendôme, 26 Pluviôse.

Citizen, there are two sacred things on earth: misfortune and truth. If you wish to know the respect shown by Mr. Cochon for either, read his two notes on the prisoners of Vendôme, which Le Rédacteur officiel has just embellished in its issue no. 422. Every line of these two notes is a lie and a snare. We shall not debase ourselves by refuting the infamies of this report, which, if it is not the greatest of the Minister of Police’s crimes, is at least the most cowardly.

We merely ask you to insert in your paper the declaration which we believe we must oppose to it; it is desired that this declaration be placed immediately following the two notes themselves: such a juxtaposition would say everything.

Democratic and fraternal greetings.

Other accounts of Marie-Adélaïde Lambert’s trial

There are other traces of the trial of Marie-Adélaïde Lambert, notably in an excerpt cited by Victor Advielle in his book Histoire de Gracchus Babeuf et du babouvisme d'après de nombreux documents inédits :

“The following session is partly occupied by three women, one of whom is the wife of a wine merchant. What was drunk, who paid, did such a person wear this waistcoat, what was said? Such are the questions that make up the proceedings of that day.

The trial, whose resonance is so great, becomes, through excessive minutiae, childish and grotesque.

Citizen Lambert is heard; herself disgusted by these debates, she replies to the President: ‘If my previous protest is not sufficient, I declare to you once again that I protest against your competence.’”

It appears that, like Sophie Lapierre, Marie- Adélaïde Lambert supported Babeuf’s tactics—alongside Blondeau and at times Germain—by engaging in disruptive behavior in prison in order to draw public attention to their incarceration. She suffered the consequences of this conduct, as reported in a letter dated 11 Nivôse (Daude correspondence):

“Blondeau, the perpetual voice of the troublemakers, attempted to flout rules and laws by installing himself among the women in order to share scandalous pleasures with a few other accused men, whom these women had invited to dine in their corridors. We opposed this blatant violation. There were shouts, disturbances, insults, threats, and even violence… Determined to overcome all resistance, we called in the gendarmerie and had Blondeau and the other guests escorted back to their rooms. Babeuf, moments later, struck the cook. We reported the incident to the municipal administration, which issued a decree sentencing Blondeau, Sophie Lapierre, Adélaïde Lambert, and Babeuf to three days of confinement in their rooms, while the others were sentenced to five days.”

According to Robert Legrand, she was closely associated with Sophie Lapierre in particular. At the end of the Vendôme trial, she was acquitted, but like many of her co-defendants, she faced severe financial hardship. It is easy to assume that she was deeply affected by the deaths resulting from the repression of the Grenelle camp, as well as by the executions of Darthé and Babeuf.

Like many acquitted co-accused, she was among the detainees who requested compensation for the time they had spent in prison—some of them having been detained for up to thirteen months. This request was initially refused by the Directory, but compensation was eventually granted after the Coup of 18 Fructidor, Year V.

Like Sophie Lapierre, she disappeared from the political scene thereafter. Nothing is known about what became of her or the date of her death, even though she had been one of the most famous women of that period.

Sources: Maurice Dommanget Victor Advielle Robert Legrand Jean-Marc Schiappa

For further information on Sophie Lapierre—former activist alongside Claire Lacombe and a Babouvist singer—see: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/804946147651272704/sophie-lapierre-activist-of-the-french-revolution?source=share