#sambat

Physical Appearance of Topino-Lebrun

Under the Consulate, at the time of his arrest for the so-called “Dagger Conspiracy,” which would seal his fate, a description of his physical appearance was recorded. It comes from his interrogation by the Préfecture de police on 14 November 1800:

“We, the undersigned commissioners, have brought before us the individual named below, who appeared to us to be approximately one meter seventy centimeters tall; brown hair; eyebrows of the same color; a broad forehead; a long nose; grey-blue eyes; a medium-sized mouth; a round chin; and an oval face.”

The Life of Topino-Lebrun before the French Revolution

Jean-Baptiste François Topino-Lebrun was born on 11 April 1764 in Marseille, described as the “natural and legitimate son” of Jean-Baptiste Topino Lebrun and Marie-Anne-Thérèse Rolland.

In 1782, Topino-Lebrun left to attend courses at the Académie de Marseille. Ironically, the painter Jacques-Louis David had previously exhibited a painting completed in 1780 in Rome, Saint Roch, at an office of the Lazaret of Marseille.

However, it was not until 1784 that François Topino-Lebrun first met David in Rome, where the latter was then working on a new painting, The Oath of the Horatii. It was at that moment that David offered him the opportunity to join his pupils.

In 1787, Topino-Lebrun enrolled at the Royal Academy in Paris, while also becoming a student in Jacques-Louis David’s studio. A deep friendship developed between the two men. In March 1789, Topino had a son named Raphaël Jean-Baptiste, whom he had baptized at Saint-Eustache. The child’s mother was Anne Geneviève Manser. He officially recognized his son in 1792 and married Anne Geneviève Manser on 4 December 1792.

Early Life during the French Revolution

In 1790, Jean-Baptiste François Topino-Lebrun traveled once again to Rome, where he remained for approximately two years. There, he met and became close to several French figures sympathetic to the French Revolution, including Wicar, who painted his portrait. He even began work on his painting The Death of Caius Gracchus, but, according to him, he was forced to interrupt it because of persecution by agents of the Papal government, who, he claimed, were targeting French nationals sympathetic to the Revolution.

Nevertheless, repression intensified against people like him. One notable example was the case of two men from Lyon: the sculptor Chinard and the architect Rater, who were arrested by the Roman authorities and imprisoned in Castel Sant’Angelo. In response, Topino-Lebrun wrote from Florence to Minister Lebrun and to Jacques-Louis David. In his letter, he explained that he had fled Rome on 24 October to escape surveillance by papal authorities and that, according to him, there had even been an attempt on his life.

Shortly afterward, he returned to Marseille.

Below is the letter in question:

Letter from Topino-Lebrun to David "Florence, 31 October 1792

Citizen,

I come to offer your zeal an opportunity to be useful to the fatherland, by having it respected abroad and by rescuing from the inquisitorial flames two French patriots .

Citizens Rater and Chinard, returning home on the night of 22 to 23 September, were set upon by henchmen who bound them and led them to the government prisons. A few days later, several models by Chinard were seized, as well as a hat adorned with a national cockade, which he wore only at home. The seized groups are: Liberty crowning the Genius of France, whose feet rest upon clouds and whose head, adorned with rays, indicates that he is the light of the world. Well then, the Abbati of the Government spread among the public that Chinard had insulted Religion, that it was trampled underfoot, etc. The two prisoners were transferred to the Castle of Saint Angelo, and there, rotting in filth, the Inquisition is conducting their trials.

No one speaks of anything but Chinard now, and rumor has it that Rater is dead. Both served in the National Guard of Lyon; Chinard was a captain; they were to depart at the first moment to resume their posts. That is surely their greatest crime in the eyes of their executioners.

M. Chazet, the friend of the two detainees, received the order to appear before the Inquisition on 16 October. He was threatened with the galleys if he did not testify like the other witnesses who were incriminating them. He showed this weakness, and he cannot leave Rome to lodge a complaint. He was asked nothing about Rater. You have long known that the French are insulted here; several have been ignominiously expelled, others imprisoned, etc. These are facts that support the latter case. The rumors that are beginning to be spread about Chinard, in order to prepare public opinion for an auto-da-fé, demand the greatest urgency in national protests. You will know better than I what must be done.

I am writing by the same courier to the president. I am requesting a report from the minister on this affair; he must be informed of it. Ah, if only we had in Rome a minister like the one in Tuscany! The activity of his patriotism would have spared many patriots much anguish.

You may find it surprising not to have received any letter about this affair, but watched by tyrants, one does not dare write from Rome, and I hastened my departure solely in order to make protests in the name of the patriots I left behind, groaning over the fate of their brothers".

Here is a reply from Jacques-Louis David to Topino-Lebrun, dated December 24, 1792:

"I have supported my dear friend in the impulses of your heart. I read your letter to the National Convention. It gave the greatest pleasure—or rather, to put it better, it produced the effect you expected, for it stirred people to indignation, and I immediately had it decreed that the Executive Council would be charged with taking the swiftest measures to stop the thunders of the Inquisition. You know the letter the ministers wrote to the Pope, that they sent couriers, and that the Pope hastened to release Chinard and Rater from prison. He was very fortunate to have a warm friend like you, and I would say, a lover of humanity like me. We both succeeded; so let us not exchange compliments.

As for your second letter, in which you told me that some pensioners wanted to communicate with me to complain about their director in Rome, I foresaw all this and acted accordingly. Here is the fact. I knew that Ménageot was leaving his position in Rome and that the minister in Paris, the 'virtuous' Roland, had told them to appoint someone else without the participation of all the artists. This measure seemed ministerial to me and did not surprise me coming from him. Based on that, I went to him and expressed my complaints about this method of appointment. I told him that he was giving weight to a dead body and that surely the Academy would appoint an aristocrat, but the most armored of aristocrats. My prediction came true. Who did they appoint? Who? Guess. Suvée, the horrible Suvée, the ignorant Suvée.

What did I do then? Since I am on the Committee of Public Instruction, and I am highly respected there, I used the pretext of your letter, which proved the necessity of sending a patriotic Director at a time when the French were being persecuted; that the Academy had appointed Suvée, the most aristocratic of its body; and I concluded that it would be more appropriate to abolish this position, which was only an insolent display, useless for the young men, and would save the nation’s funds; that it would be sufficient to charge the agent in this court with it, that the young men knew more than the Director, and that the best thing was a good cook.

Finally, the report was presented to the Convention. I did not want to take responsibility for supporting it when it would be pronounced, because everyone would have waited for me to express my opinion, which I did; and immediately, the Convention decreed that the position of Director in Rome would be abolished, and that the French agent in this city would be charged with supervising this house. I forgot to tell you that I had also included in the report that the Academies could henceforth make no replacements and appoint no one to any position. All this happened according to my wishes, to the great displeasure of the Academies, and especially the miserable Suvée, who had finished all his visits and said goodbye to all the boundaries of Paris. The public papers will have informed you of it.

Moreover, I have instructed the French agent in Rome to carry out an autodafé of all the portraits and figures of kings, princes, and princesses that are to be found in the French Academy; to have the throne torn down; and to ensure that all the Director’s fine apartments shall henceforth be used by the pensioners as studios. But, as one cannot think of everything, I forgot to have their stipends increased with the savings the Nation was making. But patience—I shall find another occasion, and I will seize it.

As for you, my good friend, if you can return here, I strongly advise you to do so, for in Marseille you cannot receive the encouragements you would have here. Besides, you know my friendship for you, and with what pleasure I would give you my advice.

Consult the state of your father’s fortune, to whom I ask you to convey many regards from me; moreover, I could also help you earn money here. You were in the process of acquiring merit—you already had some—and under my eyes you will profit all the more. You know the sincerity of my offers, and I shall not make any longer protestations.

Girodet has just written to me; it seems he has not received the letters I sent him, one among them containing a letter for you.

Farewell, my friend for life, my fellow citizen. David.

Come, my friend, for I have no friends left: Giroust is with the army and thinks no more of us; Gérard is aloof.”

After this letter, some time later, Topino lived with David at the Louvre. In Paris, he formed numerous friendships with revolutionaries, including Pierre-Antoine Antonelle, Sambat, and many others.

On 10 June 1793, Topino submitted a request to Garat, who was still serving as Minister of the Interior, asking for a specific mission: “the commission to go to the areas around Marseille to try to discover what is happening there.” After renewing his request on 16 June, it was approved.

Later, on 26 September 1793, he was appointed juror of the Revolutionary Tribunal, thanks to the recommendations of Jacques-Louis David and Antonelle.

On 15 November 1793, Topino-Lebrun was designated to be part of the “Jury of the Arts”, a body created at David’s initiative and approved by the Convention. This jury was tasked with awarding artistic prizes that had previously fallen under the Academy. Its members included, among others, Fragonard, Gérard, Taillasson, and others.

Here is one of his verbal statements made in his capacity as a member of the Jury of the Arts during the judgment of the Painting Prize in 1794:

"My memory recalls the annals of the freedom of nations; these annals attest to the greatness and energy of the defenders of human rights. Terrible to tyranny, these generous fighters also know how to enjoy the charms of sensitivity; devoted to the cause of humanity, there is no sentiment of theirs that is foreign to it. If one of their brothers falls beneath the enemy’s sword, their proud weapons are seized by grief, and if this victim is a hero of the homeland, a savior of the people, what torments, what anguish do they endure? What are its expressions? Oh, you who appreciated Marat, speak…!

It is with a heart moved by feelings of gratitude, affection, tenderness, vengeance, anger, rage, deep sorrow, and extreme affliction; it is with a mind occupied by all ideas of grandeur, energy, courage, audacity, devotion, and enthusiasm, that I fix my gaze on Brutus, victorious, dying while fighting for the freedom of his country, on the body of Brutus carried by his fellow soldiers and received by his fellow citizens.

These ideas, these feelings, I seek in these paintings submitted to my judgment, and I see them nowhere; yet I believe I catch some traces in the third work. — The group of young warriors who carry and accompany the body of the liberating hero, the eager senators who come to receive him, present, weakly it is true, the aspect of that character of affection, sadness, dejection, and grief that the subject demands.

But why does the fourth work offer me only small men, soulless, motionless, stiff and rigid, as if they were copied from certain painted wooden figures? Why did the author of the second painting use his talent to trace for us the attitudes, insignificant to the heart, awkward, cold, or forced, of a few men afflicted with consumption?

I turn my eyes away from the spectacle of misery that the fifth canvas portrays… Why remind us, out of place, of the pitiful existence of those unfortunate souls who, under despotism, lay painfully on the steps of Catholic temples?

I pause at the first work… I still do not recognize, in these men occupied with I know not what arrangement, the Romans I am seeking. The forms are swollen, and these so-called senators resemble toothless duenna, dressed in togas.

What are the causes of the mediocrity of these paintings? Could it be a lack of judgment, or, more unfortunately, an absence of feeling?

The degree of mechanical skill that I notice in the execution of each part proves to me sufficiently that the fault should not be attributed to the hand.

After having examined these works in their relation to the heart and to genius, let us assess them in their scientific aspects.

Already my mind traverses the monuments of the arts; it does not linger on these individual imitations: I prefer to admire good and simple nature; and if I suspend the emotion that always overwhelms me in contemplation, to turn my gaze to the works of men, I then demand that they speak to my imagination, that they depict for me the phenomena I cannot see, the sublime acts of sages and heroes, and their characteristic likenesses; that all the fleeting, isolated, yet harmonious beauties, which my original laziness prevents me from seeking, be united into a whole.

Ah! How well these ancient artists knew humanity! Wiser, more skilled than we, masters of their art, they compensated for its limitations by offering our senses the image of beauty. Their names became famous; they are immortal. The demonstrated sublimity of their masterpieces spares me from explaining the causes, and it suffices, for the opinion I express at this moment, to indicate this point of comparison.

In paintings, I know, I should not demand that elevated science which makes a man a creator; but I must require, to make the arts worthy of a free people, that at least the conscious intention to follow its principles be evident. Well! I discover this intention only in painting three… Observe these facial features, these legs, these feet; even despite their inaccuracies, notice the thought behind the ensemble of these figures. A trained eye will even see this intention in the execution itself; execution already far superior, apart from the inexperience of the artist, to the polished, affected, and lifeless style of painting two…

But this painting, lacking invention, poorly composed, without expression, drawn without character, first attracts all eyes and seems to capture some approval, a necessary effect of its chiaroscuro, its coloring, and the value of its tone. This generally dark tone, its rather melancholic color, and the play of light and shadow are well suited to the character of the subject. The eye delights in this softness; melancholy is also food for the heart, and the imagination finds some charm in this mysterious obscurity.

However, I reproach the artist for the uniformity of the value of his light masses and the lack of atmosphere, both in the overall composition and in each object, which are placed too close together; solely concerned with imitating each part, he has not subordinated them to the whole. This flaw would be more easily perceived if he had dared to emphasize his lights and to make all his local colors more pronounced; uniformity is not harmony.

In the secondary aspects of art, despite its diaphanous quality, the first painting has much merit: there is something agreeable, airy, and refined in its coloring. Yet… on one hand, Romans, Brutus killed in battle… and for the expression of all this, bastard colors! On the other hand, the scene illuminated by the sun… and indecisive shadows…

The general tone of painting three has a suitable character; its coloring is energetic, but uniform; the artist still does not know which colors are receding and which first strike our eyes. Its chiaroscuro, fairly well arranged, is not properly rendered; all its lights tire the eye.

The opaque, monotonous coloring, devoid of character, and the academic arrangement of light and shadow spare me from dwelling further on the fifth work.

It would be superfluous to demonstrate the lack of judgment in the distribution of light and shadow in the fourth painting. The artist seems to have used all his faculties to paint each part of his work in isolation, without thinking of the whole, as common sense prescribes.

Costume will not be the object of my observations at this moment, because it is less a part of art than a knowledge necessary for the historian, and in this regard, a simple object to imitate; the monuments that transmit them to us must be our models.

I will only say that the competitors, their minds still preoccupied with academic combinations—undoubtedly very learned, perhaps ridiculous—known as “adjustments,” have weakened the character of the Roman costumes, which, moreover, are not unknown to them.

Let us therefore never forget that, without simplicity, art is no longer art: let us make clever use of costume, but let us not encumber our figures with their garments.

The composition, the expression, the drawing, the sentiment of execution, and finally the general character of painting three demand that its author take precedence over the other competitors; yet its qualities are not of a sufficiently high degree of merit to justify a first prize.

Study will doubtless develop the fortunate seeds of his talents, and experience will show him the necessity of embracing all parts of his art.

I believe that the author of the second painting, whose talents deserve some praise, could become an artist useful to the fatherland; if he sought the principles of the great history painters—principles drawn from philosophy and the monuments of the Greeks, sublime imitations of nature. Until then, I have no vote to give regarding him.

I am severe in my judgment because I am convinced that it would be better to do without the arts than to allow oneself to be weakened by them; that the bad taste which governs them must be eradicated promptly if we wish to make them useful to liberty, and if we wish to transmit to posterity the noble deeds and virtues of regenerated France. Indeed, if the monuments of the arts have no grandeur, energy, or beauty, how can they express the actions born of liberty? How can these same monuments inspire the magnanimous soul of republicans if they are petty, timid, and insignificant?

It was the very chisel of the famous Greek artists that, by reviving the image of heroes, gave them numerous successors. Yet fanaticism, perceiving the profound impact of these works of genius on the imagination of men, directed Phidias’ chisel, and the Greeks trembled before the statue of Olympian Jupiter; before the colossus of the French people, slaves and tyrants must be struck with terror.

Republicans, let us seize the arts, or rather restore them to their original dignity. Only then will they merit the public’s gratitude. Servile and crawling under despotism, they will obey the all-powerful voice of a sovereign people; they will assume its sublime attitude.

I vote the second prize to the third painting.

Signed, Topino-Lebrun."(Procès-verbal de la première séance du Jury des Arts  ).This document would have been highlighted by J.A. Leith in The Idea of Art as Propaganda in France, 1750–1799.

His Accomplishments as a Juror of the Revolutionary Tribunal

It was in his role as a juror that he made the following reflections regarding the trial of Madame Du Barry (7 December 1793). Here is what he is said to have written:

"A revolutionary juror, a mixture of justice and rigor, whose ardent love of the fatherland makes him passionate. When an accused counter-revolutionary appears before him, he is then like a man in the presence of his personal enemy, and from that moment, he must guard against prejudice.

The virtues and talents of a man earn him the esteem and respect of his fellow citizens, but intrigue alone produces partisanship, infatuation, and fanaticism".

(Notes de Topino-Lebrun,...sur le procès de Danton et sur Fouquier-Tinville, published by Chardoillet in Paris, 1875).

He was among the jurors at the trials of the Hébertists from March 21 to 24, 1794. However, during the trial of the Indulgents—which included Georges-Jacques Danton, Camille Desmoulins, and others—according to Jouffroy, he was not on the list of the seven jurors; he was only an observer, having been dismissed by Fouquier-Tinville. He is said to have left notes on this trial in which he criticizes Fouquier-Tinville and Herman for pressuring the jurors, stating in his own words that "Fouquier served tyranny" and that Robespierre had "ambitious designs."

During the arrest of his friend Antonelle, Topino-Lebrun did everything he could to intercede on his behalf. Furthermore, Topino claimed that on July 6, 1794, he went to the Committee of General Security to speak with Moyse Bayle and Dubarran, and obtained from them a commitment to "put a brake on the barbarity," citing a witness to this scene, Petit-Tressin, who was also a juror.

A few days before 9 Thermidor, Topino requested the release of Antonelle , Dufourny and Réal.

Nevertheless, according to Alain Jouffroy, when Topino claimed in 1801 that he had been arrested on Robespierre’s orders because he advocated clemency, this was false.

It is therefore very clear that Topino-Lebrun genuinely disliked Maximilien Robespierre, unlike Jacques-Louis David, who admired the Incorruptible. Yet, when David was arrested on August 2, 1794, Topino did not hesitate to do everything he could to help free him, together with Robespierre’s other pupils, publicly at the Convention on November 30, 1794.

Perhaps it was his attitude during the trial of the Dantonists, or his general dislike of Maximilien Robespierre, that led to Topino-Lebrun being temporarily retained in his role as juror alongside Presselin and Sambat.

He would also be one of the jurors when it came to judging Carrier and his colleagues from the Nantes Committee. However, it should be noted that, in reality, one of the main reasons for Carrier’s execution was not so much the drownings themselves, but rather that he remained loyal to the Constitution of Year II, opposed Thermidorian policies, and resisted figures like Fréron and Tallien. As a result, he became a scapegoat for them, so that their own abuses could be forgotten and they could continue their reactionary policies.

In the turmoil of reactionary and Thermidorian politics

Nevertheless, Topino-Lebrun was among the revolutionaries who also opposed Thermidorian policies. On 28 December 1794, Jacques-Louis David was released, but two days later a warrant was issued against Topino-Lebrun for him to be imprisoned at the Plessis detention house. The members of the Committee of General Security who signed this order were Reubell, Monnayou, Mathieu, Bourdon de l’Oise, Garnier de l’Aube, Bentabole, and Harmand. It is not known whether he actually served time in prison afterwards.

He nevertheless continued to maintain political connections with the left, including some well-known figures such as Marc-Antoine Jullien and Gracchus Babeuf.

Indeed, in 1795, together with David and a friend of his, Bassal, he decided to subscribe to the newspaper the Tribun du Peuple. He strengthened these connections further by corresponding with Babeuf and Jullien.

Here is the letter that Jullien sent to Topino-Lebrun on 18 Vendémiaire from his prison at Plessis, five days after the failure of the royalist coup:

"I am sending you a manuscript whose printing could not be useless. You will judge it and reply to me, as well as to Baboeuf (sic), who is writing to you at the moment. In that case, I would need some advance payments for the printer, who would recover the rest of his expenses, since the title alone could ensure its sale. I judge this based on a poor Notice about 12 Germinal, which sold for a high price because the subject aroused curiosity. I dwell briefly on these details; the main obstacle is finding a printer and ensuring it can be printed safely.

You will understand well enough that, given the times we live in, a republican who wants to tell the truth cannot sign what he publishes. He would need to be in a cellar, safe from a siege and from arrest orders, like Marat. You will therefore be the only one to know the name associated with this letter.

At first, I wrote purely and simply to a friend of mine; Baboeuf and I thought we could discern some useful truths in the lines hastily written, but dictated by love for our country, and I have decided to send you my historical perspective on a day whose results alone will make it appreciated. If the patriots do not make use of it, it is almost disastrous for the Republic—or at least meaningless. What use is it to have destroyed the royalists in Paris if we are still persecuted and proscribed?

I embrace you and ask you to write to me. We know each other little, but we are made to unite. True friends of the people are so rare. I send my warmest regards to Bassal. I am not sending my manuscript to my father because he would have no means to get it printed. Perhaps his paternal affection would fear exposing me, and I have long suffered from not being able to dedicate myself to my country in any way.

It is possible that I will be released soon; then we shall see each other.

Jullien" (Paris, Archives de la Préfecture de Police , AA 270, dossier 4, pièce 131).

The letter from Gracchus Babeuf to Topino-Lebrun, sent on the same day, reads as follows:

“The marsh is rotten, the Gironde is rotten, the Thermidorians are rotten. All this rottenness—combine it as you please, at all possible degrees of their mutual fermentation—will ultimately produce nothing but more rot… We can only save the people through the people, and how could we make them heal their ills if we persist in hiding from them all the causes?”( Victor Daline, A.Saitta, Albert Soboul Inventaires des Manuscrits et Imprimés de Babeuf)

Topino would play a role in Babeuf’s newspaper, since at that time (late October 1795) he gave a printer Babeuf’s text, which would be included in issue number 34 of the Tribun du Peuple.

Nevertheless, this remained a very difficult period for activists. Months earlier, in addition to the White Terror, which put several Montagnards on trial, the policies of people like Boissy d’Anglas—who, refusing any challenge to liberalism and the Maximum—had caused a considerable number of deaths from famine (or suicide due to the situation) in Paris, combined with the failure of Prairial Year III and its repressive consequences, made life extremely dangerous for left-wing figures. Jacques-Louis David, arrested a second time on 28 May 1795, although released in August, temporarily sidelined Topino-Lebrun and other left-wing political personalities (according to what I have understood from the writings of Jean-Marc Schiappa).

His friend Bassal was assigned a mission in Switzerland and took him on as a secretary. Topino-Lebrun would return to France less than a year later. At that point, he had only about four years and three months left to live before facing the guillotine.

Sources :

Jean- Marc Schiappa

Daline

Soboul

Mazauric Claude