Not a silly question at all! I presume you are referring to my version of the French Republican Calendar. As I see it, the women on the calendar sheets are not identical, nor do they represent Marianne: they are, from what I have gathered, the personifications of the respective months. This becomes clear if one looks at the original images. Consider, for example, the month of Prairial.

Beneath the image of the woman, there is a poem:

My scythe only made the hay of the Prairie fall 

In order to nourish, during the winter, the useful herds; 

Likewise I will take care of the caressing birds, 

Which your burning love makes hatch into life.

If one considers the attributes of the woman (holding a scythe, caressing a bird), as well as the background of the picture, it becomes clear that the narrator of the poem is the depicted woman, i.e. the allegory of the month of Prairial.

A Revolutionary Coin

As I have a weakness for revolutionary “souvenirs”, I recently acquired this coin that was in circulation during the Revolution. (In fact, this series of coins was not demonetised until 1856, which may account for the traces of usage on mine, as well as for the rarity of coins from that series without said traces.) It is made of bronze, and its diameter is 28 mm (1.1 inches).

The coin is part of a series that was minted following the Decree pertaining to the stamping of copper and bronze coins of 26 April 1793:

Article I. The copper and bronze coins of the French Republic will bear a tablet as a stamp, upon which these words will be written: Les hommes sont égaux devant la loi ; above this tablet, a radiant eye will be engraved ; at the two sides, a bunch of grapes and a wheat sheaf will be engraved. The caption will be composed of the two words: République Françoise ; the epigraph will indicate the year of the Republic, in Roman numerals.

The reverse of the coin will bear a weighing scale as a stamp, whose two pans will be in equilibrium, combined with a civic crown, crowned by a liberty cap. The value of the coin will be engraved in the middle of the crown. The caption will be composed of the two words: Liberté, Égalité ; the epigraph will contain the manufacture year [...], in Arabic numerals.

Article II. The minister of public contributions will give the orders [that are] necessary so that the diverse workshops used for the fabrication of copper and bronze coins are rapidly provided with the moulds and hallmarks [that are] necessary for the execution of the present decree, and so that the former hallmarks, moulds and squares are immediately annulled and deformed.

(On a side note, the issue concerning the orthography of République Françoise / Française is quite interesting: while the only contemporary print of the decree I could find uses the spelling “françoise”, most later collections, including the Archives Parlementaires, spell it “française“, which may merely be the result of an effort to standardise orthography in general. This is all the more relevant as there are two different spellings used in the fabrication of the coins: while the overwhelming majority of series bear the caption “République Françoise”, the workshop of Strasbourg used the spelling “Française” when minting its coins.)

The decree conveys a detailed impression of the coin’s design ; for illustrative purposes, I will use the image of another coin from the same series as mine that is in a better condition in order to analyse its features.

The coin, which was minted in Year II (1793), is made of bronze (presumably métal de cloche, as was common practice at the time) ; its value, engraved in the middle of the civic crown, is 1 sol, and as the letter “W” below the crown indicates, it was produced in Lille. Augustin Dupré, the 14th Graveur général des monnaies, was responsible for the engravings.

As with my assignat, while the tangible value is certainly insignificant, I am really fond of this acquisition, and I am glad to add it to my small (but expanding) collection of revolutionary “souvenirs”. While it is merely a simple coin, and, bearing the traces of usage and oxidation, it is not in the best condition, in my eyes, it is a piece, however small and unimportant, of the history of the French Revolution. 

What do you think, citizens? Have a nice day!

Revolutionary Buttons

As an addition to my humble collection of revolutionary “souvenirs”, I purchased these military buttons that were created and used during the French Revolution. As far as I can judge, they are made of copper, and both have a diameter of 2.4 mm (0.95 inches). Due to Louis Fallou’s Le Bouton Uniforme français, I was able to find out more about these militaria.

On 4 October 1792, a letter from Servan, the Minister of War, was read out in the National Convention ; therein, he reported that the National Guards, as true republicans, had demanded new buttons for their uniforms, since the current ones still bore the caption “La Nation, la Loi et le Roi”. After the fall of the monarchy and the establishment of the Republic, this design was of course no longer appropriate, which is why Servan asked for the authorisation to issue new buttons bearing the words “La République française”, along with fasces crowned by a liberty cap, or any other design which the Convention would consider appropriate. Following an intervention by Pierre-Louis Manuel, the following decree was passed:

The National Convention decrees that the buttons of all troops of the Republic will in the future have these words as a caption: République Française ; in the middle, there will be fasces crowned by a Liberty cap.

The National Convention refers, for the execution, to the executive power, [which is] obliged to give a report on it.

The decree concerning new buttons was therefore not limited to the National Guard, but extended to all troops of the young Republic. Accordingly, many new designs were created for the various troops ; while most of them had the same overall design, characterised by common elements of revolutionary symbolism (fasces, liberty cap, civic crown etc), there were differences in the composition according to the troop types (the buttons of the artillery troops, for instance, included cannons in addition to the ordinary design), and, as the designs for the infanterie légere demonstrate, even the buttons for the same types of troops had numerous different variations:

My buttons can be found among these designs for the light infantry ; according to Louis Fallou’s Le Bouton Uniforme français, the colour of this model is unknown, but it is presumed that the buttons were either white or yellow. (Personally, I tend to believe that the latter is the case, as my buttons display residues of what appears to be gilding or yellow alloy.)  Buttons with these designs were produced and used from late 1792 onwards until 1803.

Personally, while I am in general not particularly fond of militaria or the military in general, I am happy to add these revolutionary buttos to my collection of revolutionary “souvenirs”. 

Good question, @adamsthecurlytop​!

I can’t say I have a definitive answer, although it is safe to say that Robespierre’s natural hair colour was not blonde. (Almost all primary sources affirm that his hair was light brown, with some attributing a reddish touch to it.) Furthermore, while Robespierre is known for wearing a powdered wig in public, I doubt that this lock stems from a wig. It is possible that the lock is powdered (although I do not see why that would be the case), or that it merely appears to be blonde due to the lighting of the photograph, or simply that the hair’s colour faded in the course of the last two centuries. 

The only academic reference to the lock I could find stems from chapter V of Hippolyte Buffenoir’s article Les portraits de Robespierre, which appeared in 1909 and can be found in the Annales révolutionnaires, vol. 2, p. 378. Listing the lock in the category curiosités diverses, Buffenoir writes:

The Musée Carnavalet possesses a lock of Robespierre’s hair: it seems [to be] of a dark blonde shade, under the glass of the oval medaillon which contains it. Tied in its mid, it surrounds [...] a small symbolic triangle, made of silver, I believe. On the left and right branches, one reads: Maximilien Robespierre ; on the lower branch: 10 Therm, an 2. Some affirm that this medaillon belonged to the sister of the great man.

Ultimately, I am afraid that there is no definitive answer as to why the lock appears blonde ; nonetheless, I hope that I have been able to help you. 

Hello! Thanks for your message. :)

Concerning Robespierre’s (alleged) visit to Marie-Thérèse Charlotte: her English Wikipedia page claims that Robespierre visited her in prison on 11 May 1794, although without giving any source. I suppose the origin of this myth lies in the memoirs of Marie-Thérèse herself:

One day, a man came, I believe that it was Robespierre ; the municipal officials had great respect for him. His visit was a secret for the people of the Tower, who did not know who he was, or who did not want to tell me. He watched me insolently, cast his eyes on my books, and, after having searched [them] along with the municipal officials, he left.

All of this sounds rather vague, and Marie-Thérèse herself admits not being sure that it was Robespierre at all. The date given in the aforementioned article, 11 May 1794, seems to trace back to M. de Beauchesne, who claims that, according to Marie-Thérèse, said visit took place on the day after Madame Élisabeth’s execution. Personally, I don’t think that there is any reason to assume that it was really Robespierre who visited Marie-Thérèse in prison ; I checked the major biographies of Robespierre, and they either contest its authenticity or omit the incident completely.

Now, as to the story that Robespierre intended to marry Marie-Thérèse, this is but a Thermidorian fabrication. The rumour was apparently already in circulation on 10 Thermidor, the implication being that Robespierre wanted to become the king of France ; there were numerous pamphlets dedicated to this story (such as Nouveaux et intéressants détails de l'horrible conspiration de Robespierre et ses complices. Pièces trouvées sous les scellés de ces scélérats. Complicité d'Hanriot pour seconder leurs infâmes desseins en faisant assassiner la Convention nationale et marier la fille Capet à Robespierre pour régner ensemble et faire mourir quatre-vingt mille citoyens), and in general, rumours about Robespierre’s alleged aspiration to become king were quite common (e.g. the story about the fleur-de-lys seal at the Hôtel de Ville), although, obviously, purely fabricated by the Thermidorians, as Vadier himself later conceded (“The danger of losing one’s head made one imaginative.”). In this context, it can be assumed that the rumour of Robespierre’s alleged visit to Marie-Thérèse was of service to the Thermidorians in attempting to establish the myth of Robespierre’s “royal aspirations”, which may account for its popularity.

The Thermidorians: Paul Barras

The Thermidorian Reaction is one of the most complex and controversial events of the French Revolution ; accordingly, its primary actors & initiators (commonly known as “Thermidorians”), coming from diverse social and political backgrounds, often had very different reasons & motives for participating in the events of Thermidor.

In order to elucidate the history of Thermidor, I intend to focus on prominent Thermidorians in the course of this research project, examining their political & ideological background, as well as their respective reasons for taking part in the Thermidorian Reaction.

In traditional historiography, Barras has commonly been portrayed as a staunch opponent of Robespierre ; according to this narrative, Barras, having been recalled from his mission with Fréron by Robespierre due to violent excesses in terms of repression, feared for his life and took part in the Thermidorian conspiracy in order to save himself. This account, however, particularly prominent in the historiography of the 19th century, has been called into question in more recent studies. [1]

First of all, clarifications concerning Barras’ mission to Toulon and Marseille are necessary. Contrary to what is commonly said, Barras and Fréron were not recalled because their measures were considered excessively violent or brutal by their colleagues in Paris ; rather, they were reproached primarily for their failure to cooperate with the revolutionary institutions of Marseille (Barras went as far as to have Maillet, the president of the Revolutionary Tribunal of Marseille, arrested ; Maillet, however, was ultimately acquitted by the Paris Tribunal), as well as for the débaptisation of Marseille (provisionally named “Sans-Nom”, in accordance with the order of 17 Nivôse Year II). [2] The latter measure, incidentally, caused particular outrage, as the city’s name was considered symbolic due to its connection to La Marseillaise and due to the role of the Marseillais fédérés in the events of 10 August 1792. [3] It is also important to remember that it was not Robespierre who recalled Barras and Fréron to Paris, but Billaud-Varenne, who signed the order of the Committee of Public Safety on 4 Pluviôse Year II along with Collot d’Herbois ; in said letter, Billaud and Collot openly challenge the representatives’ decision to change the name of Marseille: 

You have believed that Marseille had to change its name. And here, citizens colleagues, the Committee of Public Safety stops (s’arrête).

The name Marseille recalls immortal memories to the mind of free men ; criminals, under the mask of republicanism, have outraged it ; but the monsters who sought to ruin it have ceased to be Marseillais.

Has one not been forced, in order to lead it to federalism or monarchy, to incessantly present the sacred words of the Republic One and Indivisible to it? 

Could history, when writing our annals, not let a name escape which marches into posterity alongside the fall of kings? [4]

Returning to Paris in early March 1794, Barras and Fréron found themselves rather isolated and disoriented after having been absent for over a year. “Ce qui se passe ici est de l’hébreu pour nous”, Fréron is reported to have said [5] ; Barras, in turn, was met with distrust and hostility by the Committee of Public Safety. While his hostility towards several members of the CSP (such as Carnot, Billaud-Varenne and Collot d’Herbois) is well-known, there is no sign of Barras being opposed to Robespierre in particular, as post-Thermidorian historiography seeks to affirm ; on the contrary, there is circumstantial evidence suggesting a relationship of mutual respect between the two men. (On a side note, one could speculate if and how the confrontations between Barras and Augustin Robespierre on their mission to the Army of Italy impacted Barras’ relationship with Maximilien, although there is little historical data on this to begin with.) [6] Barras, in a handwritten note, mentions the following encounter with Robespierre:

Robespierre accosted me on the [day after Carnot had vainly tried to send Barras on a mission to the armies], and said to me, “You feel the necessity of remaining in the Convention ; it is time the Convention should take measures to free itself from the factious majority of the committees.” My reply was embodied in these few words: “Well, then, ascend the tribune, and disclose to the Convention its usurpation of power and the bloody measures it daily takes against good citizens.” Robespierre answered, “It might, perhaps, be dangerous to make these things public, but the time is not far off when it can be done.” [7]

While there is no historical evidence for the authenticity of this story, its atmosphere does certainly not seem to indicate hostility and suspicion. (It has to be considered that such passages only appear greatly altered in the Mémoires de Barras, as these have not been written by Barras himself, but by his friend and secretary Rousselin de Saint-Albin ; Rousselin, a former friend of Danton, took liberties when writing the memoirs based on notes and manuscripts of Barras, often misrepresenting the latter’s thoughts and attitudes on important issues, such as his relations to Robespierre). [8] Furthermore, in a later passage of this note, Barras describes Robespierre’s efforts of moderation in a quite sympathetic manner:

[L]astly, the committees […] decided upon making common cause with the Thermidorians […] and casting on Robespierre the odium of all the crimes committed by them. Robespierre was not an ordinary man. Swept away by the torrent of the Revolution, he had allowed himself to have recourse to extreme measures. He had become convinced that the system of terror and death carried out to the highest degree of bloody barbarity was devouring all men truly Republican ; he sought to put an end to these atrocious executions ; he opposed the arrest of several deputies, of a number of respectable citizens, paid homage to divinity, talked clemency, and ended by perishing […] through this very return to the principles of justice. [9]

These words, of course, were only written in hindsight long after Thermidor, and the experience of the Consulate and Empire may have altered Barras’ perception of Robespierre. Nonetheless, it can be concluded that the image of Barras being a staunch opponent of Robespierre is but a myth.

Based on this, and considering the relative political isolation of Barras after his return, it can be assumed that he was not involved in the preparation of the Thermidorian conspiracy (contrary to the traditional narrative of 19th century historiography, wherein he is depicted as one of its initiators). Indeed, by all accounts, it seems that, like the majority of the deputies, he was genuinely surprised by the Thermidorian Reaction. This would also explain his apparent hesitation in the face of the events: not once did he intervene during the stormy session of 9 Thermidor, and it was only reluctantly (according to his own account) that he accepted his appointment to commander of the Convention’s forces during the evening session. [10] His nomination was not based on political considerations, but rather due to technical reasons: the Convention was in need of a strategist to command the National Guard ; Barras, being a former officer and possessing considerable military experience due to his missions to the army, fulfilled these requirements perfectly. [11] (Incidentally, according to Courtois, it was Fréron who nominated Barras for this position.) [12]

Barras’ role in the military operation was considerable, albeit purely organisational: it was Léonard Bourdon who led the troops storming the Hôtel de Ville, whereas Barras only arrived on the scene afterwards. Yet, his contribution is not to be underestimated: intending to avoid direct combat, he suggested outlawing Robespierre and his allies in order to weaken their defence ; this caused a significant number of soldiers to defect from the Commune’s troops, which was a considerable factor in the victory of the Thermidorians. [13] Accordingly, Barras was afterwards celebrated as the “saviour of the Convention” ; he seized this opportunity and ultimately managed to secure himself an influential position in the new regime. [14]

In conclusion, while Barras certainly played a considerable role in the events of Thermidor and particularly in their aftermath, his motives were by no means comparable to the ones of leading Thermidorians such as Fouché. Barras was not, contrary to what is commonly said, a staunch adversary of Robespierre ; nor was he involved, in all probability, in the preparation of the Thermidorian conspiracy. Therefore, his status as a “Thermidorian” (in the classical sense) has to be reconsidered and reexamined critically.

What do you think, citizens? Feel free to add your thoughts.

Further reading

P. BARRAS: Memoirs of Barras, t. 1.

H. MONTEAGLE: Barras au Neuf thermidor, in: Annales historiques de la Révolution française, n° 229, p. 377-384.

J.-R. SURATTEAU: BARRAS Jean Nicolas François de Barras-Clumanc, in: ALBERT SOBOUL: Dictionnaire historique de la Révolution française, p. 80-83.

French Revolution: Research Kit

Hello, citizens! This is a collection of tools, archives and primary sources that can facilitate research on the French Revolution ; all of them are accessible online for free.

primary sources

Histoire parlementaire de la Révolution française (40 volumes): parliamentary history of the French Revolution ; includes primary sources such as records, speeches, decrees etc.

Histoire du tribunal révolutionnaire de Paris (6 volumes): history of the Revolutionary Tribunal of Paris ; includes primary sources such as records, writings, orders etc.

La Société des Jacobins (6 volumes): Aulard’s history of the Jacobin Club ; includes primary sources such as records, speeches, writings etc.

Collection complète des lois, décrets, ordonnances, règlemens et avis du Conseil d'État (34 volumes): collection of the laws, decrees and orders that were issued between 1788 and 1830.

Réimpression de l'ancien Moniteur (31 volumes): reprint of Le Moniteur Universel, which was one of the most prominent newspapers during the Revolution.

Papiers inédits trouvés chez Robespierre, Saint-Just, Payan, etc. supprimés ou omis par Courtois. précédés du Rapport de ce député à la Convention Nationale (3 volumes): collection of documents that were found in the course of Courtois’ investigation ; includes many notes, letters and manuscripts written by Robespierre, Saint-Just, Couthon etc.

Archives Parlementaires (101 volumes): collection of the procès-verbaux of the legislative sessions during the French Revolution.

Recueil des actes du Comité de salut public, avec la correspondance officielle des représentants en mission et le registre du conseil exécutif provisoire (30 volumes): collection of the orders and correspondences of the Committee of Public Safety.

Œuvres de Robespierre (11 volumes): collected writings, letters and speeches of Maximilien Robespierre.

Œuvres de Saint-Just (2 volumes): collected writings, letters and speeches of Louis Antoine Saint-Just.

Œuvres de Marat (1 volume): collected writings, letters and speeches of Jean-Paul Marat.

Œuvres de Danton (1 volume): collected writings and speeches of Georges Jacques Danton.

Œuvres de Desmoulins (2 volumes): collected writings, letters and speeches of Camille Desmoulins.

archives

French Revolution Digital Archive: project set up by the Stanford University Libraries and the Bibliothèque nationale de France ; offers free access to the Archives Parlementaires, as well as to an archive of images that were created during the French Revolution.

Gallica: digital archive of the Bibliothèque nationale de France ; offers free access to images, writings and documents of the French Revolution.

Gazetier révolutionnaire: digital archive of the revolutionary press.

Guillotinés de la Révolution Française: portal searching the index of the people that were guillotined during the French Revolution.

Condamnés à mort pendant la Révolution: portal searching the index of the people that were sentenced to death during the French Revolution.

Emigrés de la Révolution Française: portal searching the index of the people that emigrated during the French Revolution.

dictionaries

Dictionnaires d'autrefois: portal that searches Dictionaries from the 17th to the 20th century ; the fifth edition of the Dictionnaire de l'Académie française from 1798 is particularly helpful when researching terms in connection to primary sources of the Revolution.

Dictionnaire de la révolution française: dictionary of institutions, persons and events in connection to the French Revolution.

Dictionnaire des parlementaires français: dictionary of the French deputies from 1789 to 1889, offering brief biographical sketches of the representatives ; particularly useful when researching relatively obscure deputies.