sieclesetcieux

[sieclesetcieux]

Saint Just's speech of November 13 analyzed in a few words by the famous lawyer Jacques Vergès

Jacques Vergès ( 1925-2013)

In a YouTube video, the famous lawyer Jacques Vergès is interviewed on an Algerian TV show. Vergès is well-known in Algeria because he was the lawyer for many members of the FLN (National Liberation Front) and, above all, fervently supported the cause of the Algerian revolutionaries. He not only defended them but also married one of the most famous Algerian revolutionaries, Djamila Bouhired. At the time, defending FLN members during the Algerian War was a huge risk. Lawyers could be assassinated by extremists, like Pierre Popie, who was killed by the OAS (Secret Army Organization), or Maître Ould Aoudia, who was allegedly assassinated by the French secret services, as claimed by Raymond Muelle (this is also mentioned in the video, among other things).

Where it becomes especially interesting for those of us passionate about the French Revolution (or experts, considering some Tumblr users ^^) is when, at one point in the video, Jacques Vergès is shown two images: one of Saint-Just and another of Louis XVI (specifically at 1:28:12). Vergès explains that Saint-Just’s speech to the Convention on November 13, 1792, is, in his view, an "indictment of rupture" (this holds significant meaning for Vergès, who excelled in defenses of rupture, having achieved the remarkable feat of never having a client executed, particularly in the highly rigged trials of colonial justice during the Algerian Revolution). This is rare, as prosecutors (or at least those leading the accusation at the time) typically invoked the law. Vergès then elaborates (I’ll quote him directly from here on): "In the king's trial, some argue that it was impossible to try Louis XVI because the monarch had immunity tied to his functions, while others argue that the moment Louis XVI betrayed that immunity, it no longer applied."

Vergès concludes by referencing Saint-Just’s speech: "One day, people will be astonished that in the 18th century, we were less advanced than in Caesar's time—there, the tyrant was slain in the Senate itself, with no other formality than twenty-three dagger blows, and no other law than Rome's freedom."

The video continues a bit further on the topic of Saint-Just. Vergès finishes by saying that Saint-Just serves as a fantastic example for youth, ending with the revolutionary’s quote: "I despise this dust that makes me up and that speaks to you; they may persecute it and kill this dust! But I defy anyone to take from me this independent life I have created for myself in the ages and in the heavens."

What truly intrigued me was the legal perspective of Vergès, a specialist in defenses of rupture, on Saint-Just’s speech—particularly the concept of the "indictment of rupture."

Here is the link to the video (but it is in French and there are no subtitles) as a reminder the part that interests us, that is to say the evocation of Saint-Just, is at 1:28:12

Here is the link to the video (but it's in French and there are no subtitles). Just as a reminder, the part that interests us—the mention of Saint-Just—is at 1:28:12: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZsK9975YoA&ab_channel=allkhadra.

[sieclesetcieux]

Do you think Robespierre had a list of people he was going to execute?

Sorry for taking ages to reply- I'm very busy atm and sporadically getting through different messages when I can 😅

Uhhh tbh I don't know! I'm not aware of any evidence that he had a list. But, I'm aware a few different people running up to Robespierre's execution were going around telling people he had a list, but I've always assumed this was made up in order to scare ppl into taking down Robespierre (but I'm foggy on the details cos its been a while since I read about Thermidor specifically, if anyone has any elaborations or corrections pls give them.)

I watched a interesting lecture from Colin Jones last year about 'Robespierre's lists'- referring to the lists found in Robespierre's notebook. But Jones emphasised that they were all based around people he trusted/people he thought would be useful in government positions, and never mentioned anything about ppl he wanted to execute- I dont think Jones is a huge Robespierre fan, so I feel like he mightve shared if there was a dramatic list like this!

I have read Robespierre's notebooks, and he did have lists of people he disliked 😂 But they come off more as just like, observations/reflections as opposed to 'here's the people I want to execute and why'. But the majority of lists in his notebooks are lots of boring things about what matters to prioritise, infastructure etc. Robespierre's notebooks are solid proof that he was, at the end of the day, mostly just a giant nerd lmao

And of course, I'll end the ask by being pedantic (I'm sorry 😂)- If I was to take your message in the completely literal sense, my answer would of course be: "No, because Robespierre wasn't in charge of executions, so it would've been impossible for him to have a 'going to execute' list. If he ever made a list of people *he hoped* would end up on trial and then be executed, it would depend entirely on the time/month such a list as made as to whether we could say it was one with that kind of purpose".

[sieclesetcieux]

Where can I find sources regarding to how many people died during the terror? Also, where do you find ur sources!!genq

The most accepted numbers for the amount of people dead in ”the terror” are presented in American historian Donald Greer’s book The Incidence of the Terror during the French Revolution; a statistical interpretation (1935). You can read it online for free here! In this old blog post you’ll find the tables used by Greer to illustrate the numbers neatly laid out.

Here is a discussion we had in regards to the numbers presented by Greer from way back when as well:

As for where I get my sources from, in my pinned post you’ll find those I use with the most frequency. Aside from that, I mainly use the sites BNF Gallica, Internet Archives and Google Books when I’m after something. 🙃

[sieclesetcieux]

“On social law”

—Posthumous text by Louis Antoine Saint Just.

(Personal translation project in TUMBLR format: French to English)

| Preface

Following Anne Quennedy's critical and philological reading of the posthumous writings of Louis Antoine Saint Just, I have deemed it pertinent to prepare an English edition of his manuscript "On social Law"—renamed by Quennedy (2008).

The flawed editions of his theoretical work, which have in most cases disregarded this text—as Alienard said in his 1976 edition—have diminished the interpretation of his philosophical thread, from which his political actions stem. That being said, the first version of the text, published by Sobboul (1951), was published alongside a bilingual edition in Italian. However, there is no English translation of the work.

My intention in rescuing these texts for a semi-serious translation into English—with my personal decision to publish it in this forum—is for more comprehensive dissemination within the community, benefiting not only our political constructions or philosophical reflections, but also our dialectical parameters with its author.

| HERMENEUTIC READING AS A PRELIMINARY

It is necessary to clarify some issues.

They exist in various texts, which, when encrypted in their own language, the meaning is not the induction to their first reading, that is, superficial. It would be necessary to determine the direction of the underlying meaning of the text. A philosophical science of interpretation, it helps us understand—in accordance with temporal and historical boundaries—the being of the author's text.

Saint Just is not a particular case in methodological hermeneutics. We can trace the readings of his theory of transmutation throughout history, based on the following biases when approaching his work:

The establishment of universal abstract will and the embodied contradiction of the social contract (Rousseau)—a trigger, so to speak, for the French terror. The critique is primarily of the "mythic" ethos of Saint Just as the "Archangel of Terror." Written in summary by Jules Michelet and Albert Camus in his essay "L'homme révolté."

The theoretical archaism of Saint Just, criticism established from two frameworks: the Thermidorian, characteristic of the commentary established by Edmund Courtois, and the second—therefore more extensive—established in the criticism of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their work "The Holy Family":

"Revolutionaries must be Romans." Robespierre, Saint Just and their party fell because they confused the ancient, realistic and democratic republic based on real slavery with the modern spiritualist democratic representative state which is based on emancipated slavery, on bourgeois society. What a terrible mistake it is to have to recognize and sanction in the Rights of Man modern bourgeois society, the society of industry, of universal competition, of private interest freely following its aims, of anarchy, of the self-alienated natural and spiritual individuality, and yet subsequently to annul the manifestations of the life of that society in separate individuals and at the same time to wish to model the political head of that society alter the fashion of the ancients! This mistake appears tragic when Saint Just, on the day of his execution, points to the large table of the Rights of Man hanging in the hall of the Conciergerie and says with proud dignity: "Yet it was I who made that." It was that very table that proclaimed the right of a man who cannot be the man of the ancient republic any more than his economic and industrial relations are those of the ancient times.

To close the circle of my proposals for a new reading, it is pertinent to establish a universal critical edition that is not cryptic in its reading.

Quennedy, from a philological revisionist perspective, has done incredible work editing "Republican Institutions" (ed. 2015) As far as I am concerned, this work is personal—due to my inexperience in the philological field—it may be inaccurate with the correct revision of the work; however, I will take it as an attempt to get more people to read it, since—repeating—the only decent editions that exist are only in French and with low circulation.

This is my decision to publish a more educational version on this blog, with my humble intention to edit and share his work.

FORMAT ESTABLISHMENT

System of Symbols:

Indications next to each line where these annotations exist

(X): crossed-out text and the number of times the correction was removed.

(Corrected word): Grammar corrections on the original text. Saint Just usually writes the names in lowercase

[Emphasis required]: A brief addition of mine for a more comprehensive or updated understanding.

Purple: Term to add to a glossary

The original text is not just a complete book, but three different texts scattered throughout its pages.

To do this, the editors have decided to assign 3 levels of depth to these works, more similar to a mapping of his philosophical reflections. Regarding the various thoughts, I will do my best to integrate it in order. (I will make an edition similar to Pascal's "diverse thoughts")

The colors to be assigned will be referred to in the text of each chapter:

First book [start of the notebook]—> Blue

Second book [back of the notebook]—> orange

Third book [in the middle of the notebook]—> Pink

I will soon be publishing chapter by chapter, as well as preparing a Spanish version for those who want to universalize the knowledge they have about Saint Just a bit more.

Book I.

Part One [Preface]

(Nature is a circle, whose order of things in this world is for us the center. Belonging to this circle, the individual becomes the central point, because the connections are [everywhere] and are equal; even from fate to the individual, or vice versa.)

These connections cannot be private or personal contracts; [if they are conceived as such], nature itself ends. Thus, social state, [in essence], is the homogeneous connections that unite through the eternal principle of conservation.

The [natural] social state does not, therefore, derive from the contract; the art of establishing a society through a contract or, [in other words], by the modifications of force, is the very art of overthrowing society.

Because of the physical order, if things could be governed for the moment by a positive contract, everything would dissolve into the moral order: it would be diffuse, because man has put the contract in place of nature.

In the social state, man was supposed to be dispassionate, because he lived according to his nature. In the current state, [the passions are detached from the state of force]

The feelings of the soul should not be confused with the passions: the feelings of the soul are the [gift] of nature and the [very] principle of social life, while the passions are the fruit of the usurpation and the [establishment] of the principles of wild life.

Men are civilized as long as they follow their inclinations (which push them to unite and love one another). [The savage state of man] is when political laws take the place of these inclinations and are added through domination and slavery.

In this sense, the earth is now populated only by savages, and the most tender heart—with the help of the most vivid imagination—can scarcely conceive of primitive society. Such is the great alteration of the human spirit. Whatever the origin of the present order of things, it is the work of darkness; for the world is unhappy.

Therefore, I have little faith in religions; they have engendered many crimes, bad laws, and impieties. There's no need to talk about them.

(All the arts have produced wonders. The art of governing has only produced monsters, because we have sought the image of art in nature and principles in our pride.)

I am no more austere than is my duty; I do not condemn a strong and sensitive soul that does not desire evil. I truly pay to nature and to my fellow human beings the tribute of love I owe them.

(I wanted to know the principles of the social or natural state and the path that could easily lead us to it. From our perspective, such is the subject of this book, which I titled "On Social Right.")

[sieclesetcieux]

Mega post of some politics sources about Saint Just.

I’ll be updating if I found more essays. But, here are my most recent sources I’ve been consulting.

1. Théorie politique par Louis Saint Just

2. Fragments sur les institutions republicaines par Saint Just

3. La rhétorique des conventionnels à travers une étude d'ensemble: les discours et rapports de Saint-Just par Jean-François Dominé

4. La philosophie politique de Saint-Just. Problématique et cadres sociaux par Miguel Abensour

5. Économie et politique chez Saint-Just. L’exemple de l’inflation par Charles Albert Michalet

6. Saint-Just critique de Rousseau par Jean Christophe Goddard

7. Pintura y terror: Jacques Louis David en 1793-1794 por Miguel Ángel García Hernández

8. El bolcheviquismo y el jacobinismo por Albert Mathiez

9. Saint Just sur la education par Maurice Dommanget

10. Constitución Francesa de 1793

11. Le social et le politique: un bilan de l’Essai sur la Révolution d’Hannah Arendt par Stéphanie Roza

12. L’amitié dans la pensée et les pratiques politiques de Saint-Just par Marisa Linton

13. L’Spirit de la révolution et de la constitution française par Saint Just

14. El pensamiento jacobino de Louis Antoine de Saint-Just y su influencia en el nacimiento del europeísmo. XV Jornadas de la Sociedad de Filosofía de Castilla La-Mancha por Jesús Pedro Payo de Lucas

15. Saint-Just y la República confiscada (entrevista con Yannick Bosc y Marc Belissa)

16. The character of happiness understood as a political factor and the initial postulates of classical psychiatry by Fabian Allego

17. En defensa de Saint-Just… en relación con Che Guevara por Isis Wirth

18. Le style de Saint-Just : essai de microlecture

19. "La vie indépendante que je me suis donnée dans les siècles et dans les cieux" : Saint-Just et le souci de soi

20. Révolution, constitution, institutions : comment fonder la République selon Saint-Just ?

[sieclesetcieux]

Robespierre family timeline

Below is a timeline over the life of Robespierre’s closest relatives between the marriage of his parents up until their deaths because people seemed to drop like flies around him his entire childhood and I felt the need to put some things in order. Most of it is based on information found in La famille de Robespierre et ses origines. Documents inédits sur le séjour des Robespierre à Vaudricourt, Béthune, Harnes, Hénin-Liétard, Carvin et Arras. (1452-1790) (1914) by A. Lavoine, La Jeunesse de Robespierre et la convocation des Etats génétaux en Artois (1870) by J.-A. Paris, Robespierre: a revolutionary life (2010) by Peter McPhee, Robespierre (2014) by Hervé Leuwers, as well as this family tree that I found. If I’m basing something below on anything that’s not in one of these sources, I will include a link to it.

Keep reading

[sieclesetcieux]

"no man has the right to build up mountains of wheat beside his fellow man dying of hunger. What is the first object of society? It is to maintain the inalienable rights of man. What is the first of those rights? That of existence.

The first law of society therefore is that which guarantees all members of society the means of existence; all the rest are subordinate to that one..."

—Maximilien Robespierre, December 2, 1792, Robespierre: a Revolutionary Life by Peter McPhee

[sieclesetcieux]

the terror was so weird and random and inexplicable, you guys 

x x

[sieclesetcieux]

Did st-just actually say that "I'll make [camille desmoulins] carry his [head] like st-denis" thing

Thank you for your question, Anon. I assume you’re asking in relation to the supposed exchange between Saint-Just and Camille Desmoulins.

In short: Desmoulins, with his usual bite, is reported to have quipped that Saint-Just carried his head "like a Holy Sacrament." Saint-Just, in turn, is said to have replied: "I’ll make him carry his like Saint Denis" (Et moi, je lui ferai porter la sienne comme un Saint-Denis) (1).

But did it happen? Let's break it down.

Camille Desmoulins’ Jibe: "Il porte sa tête comme un Saint-Sacrement."

Yes. No debate there. Camille wrote it himself, in his Lettre au général Dillon (2). In that pamphlet, true to form, he takes the piss out of several figures in the Convention, including Saint-Just.

Here’s the bit:

"After Legendre (3), the member of the Convention who has the highest opinion of himself is Saint-Just. One sees in his gait and bearing that he regards his head as the cornerstone of the Republic, and that he carries it with reverence, like a Holy Sacrament." (4)

No ambiguity there. It’s in print. Camille’s tone is mocking, as usual. Saint-Just was not known for his sense of humour, so the odds of him enjoying this were low. It wouldn’t have been surprising if he replied. In fact, you’d expect it. But did he?

Saint-Just’s Alleged Reply: "Et moi, je lui ferai porter la sienne comme un Saint-Denis."

I’ll spare you the suspense: no, he probably didn’t.

Unlike Camille, Saint-Just never wrote this down. It’s nowhere in his Œuvres complètes, and the quote doesn’t appear in any Convention minutes or known correspondence.

So where did this supposed retort come from?

Early Attributions and Édouard Fleury

The earliest source I can find is Biographie moderne (1816) by Étienne Psaume. In a very unfriendly write-up on Saint-Just, Psaume claims:

"It is said that, beyond party hatred, Saint-Just also bore a personal grudge against Camille Desmoulins, who had written in Le Vieux Cordelier that Saint-Just carried his head like a Blessed Sacrament; to which the proud decemvir replied: 'I’ll make him carry his like Saint Denis.'" (5)

Note the classic dodge: “it is said.” Also, Psaume claims the line appeared in Le Vieux Cordelier, which it didn’t. It was in the Lettre à Dillon. So much for rigorous sourcing.

Still, the line got picked up. Most notably by Édouard Fleury, in his 1852 two-volume Saint-Just et la Terreur. Like Psaume, he provides no source. Which is on-brand for Fleury, who, in true 19th-century historian (and I use the term loosely) fashion, was allergic to citations.Nor was he particularly restrained when it came to building a dramatic narrative.

Seven years later, Ernest Hamel, in Histoire de Saint-Just, called nonsense on the whole thing and rightly pointed out that no primary sources back it. Even the sources Fleury does quote, such as Joachim Vilate’s (6) ridiculous Thermidor-era libel screeds , don’t mention the exchange. Didn’t matter. The quote was catchy, dramatic, and vaguely plausible, so it spread.

By the early 20th century, it had hardened into “fact.” Both the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and Samuel Arthur Bent’s Familiar Short Sayings of Great Men repeat it without a second thought. In fact, Bent’s version goes further, by having Camille directly attribute his death to this jest: 

“Camille Desmoulins gained the implacable hatred of the stern and haughty St. Just by saying jocosely of him, “He carries his head like the Host” (comme un saint sacrement), to which St. Just retorted, “I will make him carry his like a St. Denis.” Desmoulins soon afterwards accompanied Danton to the guillotine, saying, “My pleasantry has killed me” (C’est ma plaisanterie qui m’a tué).”

Modern biographies are more careful. Bernard Vinot’s 1985 Saint-Just confirms Camille’s “Saint-Sacrement” remark and details how much Saint-Just came to despise him."Penetrated his soul," "never wanted to see him again," and so on, make that what you will. But no Saint-Denis line.

Albert Ollivier’s Saint-Just et la force des choses notes the jibe too, but again no trace of the comeback. Antoine Boulant’s L’Archange de la Révolution doesn’t mention it at all.

Would it have been a good line? Yes. A clean mic drop, particularly considering what happened to Camille later. And yes, 19th-century historians did love their dramatic one-liners, whether or not they ever happened.

Is it plausible he said it? (Speculative zone ahead)

There’s no document, no record, no contemporary witness. But sure, it’s plausible. I mean, Saint-Just was human. Maybe Saint-Just grumbled to Le Bas about Desmoulins over a drink.  He probably said a lot of random, petty things about a lot of people to his friends. We all do. 

Still, I don’t think it happened. And here’s why.

Because if it had, Camille would have written about it. Not Saint-Just, Camille. The man had a well-read journal and a persecution complex. A public death threat from a man in the Committee of Public Safety helping draft your indictment? Desmoulins would not have let that pass. He’d have used it. Repeatedly.

And yet, silence.

He never mentions it. Not in his trial. Not in Le Vieux Cordelier. Not even in passing. And there’s no way Camille Desmoulins would have kept his mouth shut about something like that.

Which tells you everything you need to know.

Notes

(1) Saint Denis is a 3rd-century Christian martyr and the patron saint of Paris, often depicted carrying his decapitated head after being executed.

(2) General Arthur Dillon was a monarchist general arrested for suspected counter-revolutionary ties in 1973. 

(3) Legendre was a butcher turned Montagnard deputy in the National Convention, known for his bluster.

(4) Original Quote in French: Apr��s Legendre, le membre de la Convention qui a la plus grande idée de lui -même, c'est Saint  Just. On voit dans sa démarche et dans son maintien qu′il regarde sa tête comme la pierre angulaire de la République, et qu'il la porte sur ses épaules avec respect et comme un Saint−Sacrement."

(5) Original text in French: On prétend qu’outre la haine de parti, Saint-Just nourrissait encore un ressentiment particulier contre Camille Desmoulins,  qui avait dit, dans un des numéros du Vieux Cordelier,  que Saint-Just portait sa tête comme un saint sacrement ;  à quoi l’orgueilleux décemvir avait répondu : « Je lui ferai porter la sienne comme saint Denis. »

(6) Joachim Vilate was a former juror of the Revolutionary Tribunal and author of a number of scandalous Thermidorian pamphlets accusing leading Jacobins of corruption and tyranny. 

[sieclesetcieux]

Manuscripts of Robespierre

Written between September 1791 and July 1794, these drafts of manuscripts of Robespierre, crossed out, struck through, corrected feverishly by the hand of the most famous of the Revolutionaries, remained preserved for over two centuries by the descendants of his friend Lebas; they have been bought by the State during a prestigious public sale in April 2011. 

Manuscript of Robespierre on the finances of France / Unpublished manuscript, written during the last days of the Constituent Assembly (September 1791)

Unpublished letter of Robespierre to an unknown receiver on happiness and virtue, undated [1792]

Speech of Robespierre on war, delivered at the session of the Friends of the Constitution or Jacobins (fragment), 25 January 1792

[Robespierre acquiesces to war]. Speech at the Jacobins on the current circumstances (fragment), 26 March 1792. […]

[Against Brissot]. Robespierre’s considerations on one of the principal causes of our troubles. Footnote. The Defender of the Constitution, #3, May 1792. 

[Against the Girondins]. Three fragments of a speech of Robespierre: On the influence of calumny on the Revolution, speech at the Jacobins on 28 October 1792, and two unpublished manuscripts.

[Against Pétion]. Answer of Maximilien Robespierre to Jérôme Pétion (fragment), 30 November 1792. / Lettre à ses commettans. Seventh letter of the first series. Draft, numerous crossed out passages, corrections.

[Against the indulgence for Louis XVI]. Opinion of Robespierre on the proposition […] to ban all the Capets. Followed by: Report of the sessions of the Convention from 10 to 13 December (fragment), December 1792. / Lettre à ses commettans. Eleventh letter of the first series. Draft, numerous crossed out passages, corrections.

[Robespierre at the process of Louis XVI, against the appeal to the people]. Letter to MM. Vergniaud, Gensonné, Brissot and Guadet, on the sovereignty of the people and on the system of the appeal of the judgement of Louis Capet (fragment), January 1793. / Lettre à ses commettans. First letter of the second series. Draft, numerous crossed out passages ad corrected words.

[Robespierre calls to war]. Response of the National Convention to the kings that are leagued against the Republic (fragment), 15 Frimaire, Year II (5 December 1793). Important struck out passages.

[The preparation of the Festival of the Supreme Being]. Report of the Committee of Public Safety to the Convention on the rapports of the religious and moral ideas with the republican principles, and on the national festivals (fragment), 18 Floréal Year II (7 May 1794). Important struck out passage.

[Robespierre’s last speech]. Speech of 8 Thermidor Year II (26 July 1794), fragment.

[sieclesetcieux]

Manuscripts of Robespierre

Written between September 1791 and July 1794, these drafts of manuscripts of Robespierre, crossed out, struck through, corrected feverishly by the hand of the most famous of the Revolutionaries, remained preserved for over two centuries by the descendants of his friend Lebas; they have been bought by the State during a prestigious public sale in April 2011. 

Manuscript of Robespierre on the finances of France / Unpublished manuscript, written during the last days of the Constituent Assembly (September 1791)

Unpublished letter of Robespierre to an unknown receiver on happiness and virtue, undated [1792]

Speech of Robespierre on war, delivered at the session of the Friends of the Constitution or Jacobins (fragment), 25 January 1792

[Robespierre acquiesces to war]. Speech at the Jacobins on the current circumstances (fragment), 26 March 1792. […]

[Against Brissot]. Robespierre’s considerations on one of the principal causes of our troubles. Footnote. The Defender of the Constitution, #3, May 1792. 

[Against the Girondins]. Three fragments of a speech of Robespierre: On the influence of calumny on the Revolution, speech at the Jacobins on 28 October 1792, and two unpublished manuscripts.

[Against Pétion]. Answer of Maximilien Robespierre to Jérôme Pétion (fragment), 30 November 1792. / Lettre à ses commettans. Seventh letter of the first series. Draft, numerous crossed out passages, corrections.

[Against the indulgence for Louis XVI]. Opinion of Robespierre on the proposition […] to ban all the Capets. Followed by: Report of the sessions of the Convention from 10 to 13 December (fragment), December 1792. / Lettre à ses commettans. Eleventh letter of the first series. Draft, numerous crossed out passages, corrections.

[Robespierre at the process of Louis XVI, against the appeal to the people]. Letter to MM. Vergniaud, Gensonné, Brissot and Guadet, on the sovereignty of the people and on the system of the appeal of the judgement of Louis Capet (fragment), January 1793. / Lettre à ses commettans. First letter of the second series. Draft, numerous crossed out passages ad corrected words.

[Robespierre calls to war]. Response of the National Convention to the kings that are leagued against the Republic (fragment), 15 Frimaire, Year II (5 December 1793). Important struck out passages.

[The preparation of the Festival of the Supreme Being]. Report of the Committee of Public Safety to the Convention on the rapports of the religious and moral ideas with the republican principles, and on the national festivals (fragment), 18 Floréal Year II (7 May 1794). Important struck out passage.

[Robespierre’s last speech]. Speech of 8 Thermidor Year II (26 July 1794), fragment.

[sieclesetcieux]

hi! i wanted to know if your depictions of couthon standing with mobility aids (cane, crutches) are historically accurate? i've always thought that he was fully paralysed by adulthood. lmk, please! :3

Hello!

(Firstly, if you see some grammatical errors I apologize, English is my second language)

A lot of records and books about Couthon are just in French so I might be missing some info from those (since i can't speak french)

As far as my knowledge on Couthon goes, it´s surprisingly hard to point out when exactly he started using the wheelchair. (Most sources don´t even agree on his medical condition that left him paralyzed although meningitis comes up a lot). Couthon blamed his paralysis on the frequent sexual experiences of his youth. Some sources say he was hiding behind a girl’s window as the father of the girl caught the pair. Others that, he spent the entire night hiding in cold water up to his neck. His family had apparently denied this claim and offer a different story.

„As the revolution approached, Couthon was fast becoming a cripple, so that by 1793 he was unable to walk. Doctors in 1792 gave a diagnosis of meningitis, in which modern consultants, reexamining the evidence, have concurred. Couthon told his doctors that from an early age he had freely indulged in sexual proclivities. He thought his paralysis might be due to such excesses. He lost the use of one leg shortly after an amorous adventure, in which, surprised by the girl´s father, he caught a severe chill while hiding outside her window. He took mineral baths and electric treatments, but the trouble grew worse, spreading into the other leg. In 1793 he was happily married, but so helpless that he had to be carried from place to place“

R.R. Palmer- Twelve who ruled, page 13-14

Disturbed by a jealous husband whilst he was engaged in a gallant escapade, he had passed an entire night in a cesspool up to his neck in water. He escaped at dawn, cured of a love of adventure, but crippled for life.

Lenotre G. Romances of the French revolution

On the other hand, Couthon's family, denying this version, stated that his disability appeared after a very hot prolonged bath at a French spa where he had sought to relieve his pains. This would rather point to meningitis or myelitis, of viral, bacterial, syphilitic or tubercular origin; or to multiple sclerosis. He may also have suffered from a combination of trauma and disease.

This post talks more about Couthons early illnesses

The illness seems to start as early as 1782 but progressing slowly with the breaking point in 1792/93

In 1787, before he was paralyzed, he had married Marie Brunel

Lenotre G. Romances of the French revolution, page 178

Sources seem to agree that while he may have had some pains, he was still capable of walking by the time he married Mary Brunet in 1787 when he was 32 years old. But even here are some disagreements, although my findings lead me to believe that describing Couthon completely paralyzed and fully using his wheelchair before the year 1792 is rare.

Couthon was 32 when he married a childhood friend in 1787 and his first son was born in that same year. It appears that he started having pains around that time. A year or two later his legs became paralysed. His second son was born at least 1 year later. Couthon required to be carried or to use a wheelchair. He suffered from weakness, pain, and had a gibbous deformity. Despite his worsening condition Couthon's sexual and reproductive functions remained unimpaired. His disability did not prevent him from work, political activity, travels and family life to the end.

(May 1792)

„…and a new friend Georges Couthon, confined to a wheelchair, probably as a result of meningitis, and with whom Robespierre frequently worked in the evenings in his room in the Duplays house“

Peter McPhee, Robespierre a revolutionary life, page 119

He himself believed that he could walk some distances with crutches or cane. However, it’s interesting to note that he doesn’t say anything about a wheelchair in the year 1792 and instead talks about being carried. I think even though social norms were changing at that time and the revolution wanted the public to be enlightened, I don´t think any of the options were optimal for Couthon as there must have been a lot of ableism targeted towards him. If he chose the wheelchair he would be seen as not physically fit enough to lead the revolution. If he chose to be carried it would seem like he was making himself superior (by having someone carrying him) and again not physically fit enough AND relying on other people to help him? But out of the two of these wheelchair sounds like more of a comfortable option so why would he not choose it if it would be available to him in 1792?

This residence, he wrote in October 1791, “will be very convenient for me, inasmuch as it is quite near the Assembly, and will enable me to walk there.” “With the aid of a stick or two crutches,” he could still walk at that time. But soon his sufferings increased, and his legs refused to carry him any longer. “When my pains allow me to go to the Convention,” he recorded in May 1792, “I am obliged to have myself carried right into the sanctuary.”

Lenotre G. Romances of the French revolution

Georges Couthon suffered joint problems from childhood, however it wasn't until 1782 that his condition significantly worsened, necessitating the use of a cane by 1791 and complete reliance on a wheelchair by 1793

Geoffrey Brunn, "The Evolution of a Terrorist: Georges Auguste Couthon.

The wheelchair itself wasn’t apparently that hard to operate and didn’t require much of Couthons strength

There you have a solution of the problem – Couthon propelled himself in this arm-chair upholstered in lemon colored velvet, now very much faded. He set it in motion by means of two cranks fitted to the arms, a gearing arrangement transmitting movement to the wheels. Without being as light as a tricycle, the machine which is still intact, can attain, with little effort, a fairly high speed. We can now imagine the inform Couthon-suffering from extremely violent headache, shaken by nausea and almost perpetual hiccoughs, enervated by frequent baths, fed almost exclusively on veal-broth, prostrated by pain and undermined by caries- being placed in his mechanical arm-chair, and, by a prodigious effort of his will, his hands grasping the cranks like those of two coffee-mills, setting off alone in the direction of the Convention, outdistancing able-bodied men and maneuvering among the traffic in the Rue Saint-Honoré and over the large paving-stones of the Carrousel. It must indeed have been a terrible sight to witness this wreck of a man rolling along with the noise of a rattle, his arms in perpetual horizontal rotary movement, his body bent forward, and his lifeless legs covered with wraps, perspiring and shouting „Look out there! “

Lenotre G. Romances of the French revolution, page 174

Some have said that he was carried in a back basket, whilst others have supposed that he travelled on a man’s back, and a few reports, when mentioning Couthon name do, in fact, speak of „his gendarme“ in such a way as to lead one to believe that this soldier was the cripples vehicle.

Lenotre G. Romances of the French revolution, page 173

The mentions of his almost exclusive wheelchair use seem to come around the year 1793. But it seems he could still stand up.

(On june 2 1793)

Then Georges Couthon rose to speak, physically a broken man, paralytic and ailing, who propelled himself through noisy crowds in a wheelchair, and had to be bodily carried where his wheelchair would not go.

R.R. Palmer- Twelve who ruled page 32

Couthon hobbled to the rostrum (30 brumaire 1793)

R.R. Palmer- Twelve who ruled page 147

Although he was by then confined to a wheelchair, he was sent on several important missions to the French provinces…In August 1793, he was sent to supervise the military operations against the rebellious city of Lyons, which not only proves his strong political status at the time, but also shows that his disability was not considered to be an obstacle by himself or by those surrounding him

Famously, on 26th October (1793) Couthon had himself carried "in an armchair" around the Place de Bellecour where he struck the houses with a silver hammer to symbolise their imminent demolition

The description on the plaque at Carnavalet Museum (where the wheelchair is on display) just tells us who Couthon was and that he used it. But not when he started using it. We do know that it was given to him from Versailles.

No relie presents a character of more absolute authencity than this bath-chair. It originally came from the Chateau de Versailles, where it was used by the „wife of Charles Philip Capet“- otherwise known as the Comtesse d´Artois: and it was lent to Couthon by the administrators of the national furniture warehouse.

Lenotre G. Romances of the french revolution, page 180

Now comes the year 1794 and Thermidor. By this time Couthon is completely relying on the wheelchair and others to transport him. However, there are still questions about where he could use it since CPS offices were blocked to him by a flight of stairs as was Robespierre’s room at Duplays that he often visited. So, they had to carry him up the stairs. Did they also take the chair with them? At this point it’s kind of nitpicking, but it’s noteworthy to talk about because of Robespierre’s (and Couthons) arrest.

But let’s start at the Convention on Thermidor. He most definitely sat in it while Robespierre was trying to make his speech.

Leaving Couthon in his wheelchair trailing behind, the group rushes out down the corridors towards the Convention Hall.

Colin Jones, The fall of Robespierre, 24 hours in revolutionary Paris, page 187

„Couthon“ said Fréron „is a tiger thirsting for the blood of the national representation… He wanted to make of our corpses so many steps to mount the throne. „Oh yes, I wanted to get a throne“ answered Couthon wryly looking at his withered legs.

R.R. Palmer- Twelve who ruled page 377-378

Maximilien Robespierre, Augustin Robespierre, Saint Just, Couthon and Le Bas are arrested and taken to different prisons. All of them are slowly one by one busted out of these prisons and taken to Maison Commune. (If I remember correctly Couthon was one of the last ones to arrive) Couthon was carried there.

It must be shortly after this chat that Cn. Paris perks up, to witness and join the applause for Couthon who is being carried into the Council chambre by one of his duty gendarmes.

Colin Jones, The fall of Robespierre, 24 hours in revolutionary Paris, page 368-369

Dulac was able to inveigle himself into the Maison Commune and then follow Couthon and his gendarme escort into the council chambre where he found both Robespierre and Le Bas present.

Colin Jones, The fall of Robespierre, 24 hours in revolutionary Paris, page 370

Jones also refers to them as „trusted gendamre carriers“ and the book Romances of the French revolution mentions an official report where two of these gendarme carriers are named Muron and Javoir.

On arriving he was embraced by Robespierre,… who also took the gendarme´s hand, saying to him: Worthy gendarme, I have ever loved and esteemed your body. Get to the door and continue to incense the people against the factionists. The advice was doubtless good, but Robespierre thereby did Couthon a bad turn, for, deprived of his bearer, he was at the mercy of the first comer

Lenotre G. Romances of the French revolution, page 177

Now most accounts say that Couthon fell down the stairs and injured himself in the head. The question is whether he had the wheelchair with him. Significant amount of the French revolution movies do show Couthon in his wheelchair in the Maison Commune, but it’s not very likely. Taking the wheelchair would slow down the people that were carrying Couthon to the Maison Commune from prison and that’s not very ideal when you can be arrested at any corner. Moreover, why would the Convention let Couthon keep his wheelchair when they sent him to prison? He most certainly won’t need it there.

He did indeed fell down those stairs. But without the wheelchair.

The helpless Couthon, trying to move, plunged down a staircase and injured himself in the head.

R.R. Palmer- Twelve who ruled page 379

Couthon was found at the bottom of a staircase with blood streaming from a headwound. Had he fallen, been pushed, or were he and his gendarme carrier merely seeking a way out?

Colin Jones, The fall of Robespierre, 24 hours in revolutionary Paris, page 383

Ochrnutý Couthon se zřejmě vyplazil ze zasedací místnosti až na schodiště, kde sjel po zábradlí dolů. Tam ho útočníci objevili, paralyzovaného až po nějaké době.

Translation: The paralyzed Couthon apparently crawled out of the meeting room to the staircase, where he slid down the railing. There, his attackers discovered him, paralyzed, sometime later.

Vladimír Vokál, Saint-Just, krvavý démon Francouzské revoluce, page 256

Couthon, without weapons or assistance, and incapable of even rising from the seat on which he had been placed, let himself slide to the floor, and, using his hands as crutches, succeeded in dragging himself under a table. Someone, however, discovered him in his hiding-place, and he was pitched like a bundle on to the landing at the very edge of the topmost step. A movement which he made caused him to roll to the bottom of the stone staircase and he was found the next morning, with a deep cut in his forehead, stretched in a small back courtyard to which he had crept. Motionless and his face pressed to the wall, he „feigned death“, but when the men shook him to make him stand up he tried to stab himself with a pen-knife which he held open in his hand.

Lenotre G. Romances of the French revolution, page 177

Do we really envisage him trundling to the Convention?  In the Tuileries both the hall of the Convention and the notorious green room where the Committee of Public Safety met had inconvenient flights of steps.  Historians unravelling the confused events of 9th/10th Thermidor often have Couthon toppling or throwing himself from his wheelchair down the steps of the Hôtel de Ville at the same time as Robespierre's suicide attempt, but the idea that he was moved around Paris in this contraption seems improbable.  If it was really with him at the end, how come it turned up eventually not in the official depository but among the family furniture?

His execution overall summarizes the stage of his condition towards the end of his life.

Couthon died the first, under circumstances of particular ghastliness, for the executioner took fifteen minutes to force the twisted body on to the straight plank of the guillotine, during which the screams of the tortured man mingled with the frenzied howls of the audience.

R.R. Palmer- Twelve who ruled page 381

So, in conclusion I think that up until 1791 he was using a cane or crutches. In 1792 he had himself carried but could still stand up for short periods of time and walk some distance with canes and crutches. By 1793 he started using the wheelchair but could still stand up. By 1794 he was completely paralyzed and was using his wheelchair when the surroundings allowed him to, or he had to be carried by someone.

I tried to find some paintings or engravings of Couthon in the wheelchair made during this life but every single one I found was made after his death + Couthon doesn't have that many paintings or engravings compared to Robespierre or Saint Just. Some of his paintings were burned after his death.

I reccomend looking at this account for more info about Couthon:

So because of this historical uncertainty/confusion I draw him with crutches, canes and the wheelchair : )

If I missed something or said something wrong please say so in the comments. I love learning about Couthon and will take every piece of info I can.

[sieclesetcieux]

The Collaboration and Eventual Break Between Guffroy and the Babeuf Family

Context: We are in the Thermidorian period. On July 18, 1794, Babeuf was imprisoned for the fourth time in his life. At that point, although he approved of the Thermidorian reaction, he still sought to defend the principles of the social revolution—placing him in line with other revolutionary figures such as Charles Gilbert Romme. Babeuf briefly alleviated his family’s poverty by returning to his position at the Paris Food Commission (a role he had also held in 1793), but this income was insufficient to sustain his revolutionary ambitions.

On September 3, 1794, he launched Le Journal de la Liberté de la Presse. His printer was none other than Guffroy, the proprietor of a large and well-known press located at 35 Rue Honoré, close to where Babeuf lived. Notably, this was the same press that had previously published Méhée de la Touche’s pamphlet against “Robespierre’s clique” (to borrow the phrasing of historian Jean-Marc Schiappa).

Babeuf and Guffroy entered into an agreement, and Gracchus (Babeuf) reportedly wrote: “When I launched my paper, I made no secret to him of the principles by which I intended to guide it.” At the same time, Babeuf was one of the leading figures in the Club Électoral. Following the 9th of Thermidor, this club took over the political role once held by the Cordeliers. Many active participants in the Prairial insurrection emerged from this club. Historian Tomasso referred to them as “left-wing Thermidorians,” while others dubbed them néo-hébertistes (even though Varlet was not affiliated with the exagérés faction).

The club’s most influential members included Legray, Joseph Bodson (a staunch Hébertist, close to Chaumette and Hébert, and a fervent opponent of Robespierre), and Varlet, who had emerged from the enragés movement. Bodson would later become one of the leading figures in the Babouvist conspiracy and later a prominent neo-Jacobin— even if I can no longer find any trace of him after the the Brumaire coup d'état- .

A close friendship developed among these four committed militants, even though Babeuf’s fame would only peak after being denounced by Tallien. But what was Guffroy’s role in all this? For a while, he remained aware of their activities, did not openly oppose them, and continued to serve as Babeuf’s printer. Perhaps the small size of the group and the unofficial nature of the club made it seem less threatening. Even when the Convention ordered the arrest of Varlet and Bodson and eliminated the 40-sou payment for poor citizens attending sectional assemblies, Guffroy did not immediately sever ties with Babeuf.

Meanwhile, while Babeuf led the Club Électoral, the Journal continued to be published every three days—thanks to the tireless work of his wife, Marie-Anne Babeuf, and their nine-year-old son, Émile. An August 1794 excerpt captures the family’s dedication:

“My wife (Marie-Anne) and my son, aged 9—both as devoted and republican as their husband and father—assist me in every possible way. They make the same sacrifices. They spend day and night at Guffroy’s print shop, folding, distributing, and dispatching the newspaper. Our home is abandoned. Two younger children, one only three years old (likely Camille and Sophie, the latter having died of malnutrition), are left alone, locked inside for a month. This neglect causes them to wither, yet they utter no complaints; they already seem filled with patriotic love and prepared to make all sacrifices. No meals are cooked anymore; during the publication period, we lived on bread, grapes, and nuts.”

However, tensions soon arose between the Babeufs and Guffroy. Gracchus accused the printer of theft, and Marie-Anne directly confronted him. In issue 27, Babeuf wrote:

“Guffroy shamelessly steals from me. He reaps all the rewards of my labor. My earliest issues were printed in duplicate; he sold many copies, kept all the revenue, accepted all subscriptions—and I never saw a single penny.”

Evidence of Guffroy’s guilt may lie in a letter Babeuf sent on the 21st of Vendémiaire, which included this postscript:

“The previous issues are our joint property. However, your wife (Marie-Anne) took them against my wishes. They will all be yours if you pay me for the printing.”

No subscription register existed, adding further ambiguity.So I can't know to what extent there was theft on Guffroy's part or not.

Clearly, the relationship between the Babeufs and Guffroy soured rapidly. On the 22nd of Fructidor, Roger Ducos convinced the Convention that the Club Électoral was no longer meeting in the hall of the former Archbishop’s Palace. Then, on the 7th of Vendémiaire, Year III, the club submitted a petition requesting the release of Bodson and Varlet and for the reassignment of their meeting hall. But the next day, two hundred workers and an architect were sent to demolish the hall, sparking protests and altercations. Nevertheless, on October 1, the club presented a new meeting address to the Convention. Its president, André Dumont, responded: “The revolutionary government exists, and the National Convention has sworn to preserve it in peace.” According to historian Jean-Marc Schiappa, this address was forwarded to the Committee of General Safety—where Guffroy sat—as a denunciation.

This marked the beginning of the final rift. In issue 25 (17 Vendémiaire / October 8), Babeuf declared:

“All friends of liberty seek to overthrow the revolutionary government—because it undermines all freedoms.”

In the following issue, he attacked Dumont and Fréron, both allies of Guffroy.

The break occurred shortly after. Guffroy sent Babeuf a long letter dated 21 Vendémiaire, which appeared intended for publication due to its formal, political tone. In it, he also stated he would no longer serve as Babeuf’s printer. Unfortunately, I don't find the full letter , but one notable line remains:

“You reject and you approve of the revolutionary government.”

Gracchus later claimed the break had been violent. According to him:

“Guffroy, deputy and my printer, halted the printing of issue No. 26 yesterday. He also stopped its sale, seized around thirty thousand copies of my previous issues, expelled my wife and son, and told them he intended to denounce me to the Committee of General Safety.”

If this is true, one can only imagine how intense the confrontation was for Guffroy to make such a statement in front of a nine-year-old child. The situation likely escalated gradually, especially since Marie-Anne had previously defied Guffroy by taking printed materials against his will.

Ultimately, Guffroy did denounce his former ally to the Committee of General Safety, whether to protect himself or out of ideological conviction. On the same day, Legray was arrested.

However, Babeuf soon received support from two prominent revolutionaries: Simone Evrard and especially Albertine Marat. This is unsurprising, given the longstanding correspondence and mutual admiration between Babeuf and Jean-Paul Marat. Marat had even once intervened to secure Babeuf’s release (as evidenced in this link).

Babeuf later wrote:

“I sought refuge in the home of the Friend of the People’s family. In my distress, I felt an instinctive pull toward this sanctuary of liberty. I told Marat’s widow and sister what had just happened to the one who tried to follow in his footsteps.”

Albertine, a subscriber to Babeuf’s paper, wrote a letter denouncing Fréron (available in the same link about the relationship between Marat and Babeuf ). Babeuf published it in his journal, particularly in relation to Legray’s arrest. It is notable that in issue No. 27, Babeuf publicly accuses Guffroy of theft, still referring to him as “my printer” rather than “former printer”—raising the question of whether Babeuf was attempting to pressure or shame Guffroy into cooperating.

Interestingly, Albertine’s letter, while directed at Fréron, could also be read as an implicit critique of Guffroy, especially considering the political context.

One might assume the story ends here, but from February 7 to October 18, 1795, Babeuf was once again imprisoned. According to Jean-Marc Schiappa, Marie-Anne advised her husband to use cunning—to feign submission and attempt reconciliation with his former adversaries to secure his release and resume his revolutionary work.

In a letter to his friend Thibaudeau, Babeuf explained:

“(...) My wife and son’s advice is driven by conjugal, maternal, and filial love—by their circumstances. Naturally, they urge me to do what might restore hope of my return. So I am not unaware of one of the greatest challenges: appearing as a supplicant before men I despise. In my letter to Guffroy—after which I sent my wife to him—I pretended to be humble, even apostate. I strained my imagination to craft specious arguments justifying the current regime. You’ll see it, and no doubt you’ll laugh in private. But I ask myself: will these people allow themselves to be fooled? Haven’t I shown too austere a virtue to be believed corruptible? Rougiff’s reception of my wife confirms my doubts, although he may have had his own motives…”

Thus, months after their dramatic falling-out, Marie-Anne returned to Guffroy, acting as if nothing had happened, with the clear intent to deceive him. However, it appears Guffroy was not fooled, as evidenced by Babeuf’s pessimistic reflections. One could argue that Guffroy, unlike Fouché (who did fall for the Babeufs’ deception and later paid for it in reputation), was shrewder—and perhaps more politically perceptive.

Or maybe, as speculated, Guffroy respected the political agency of women and thus never underestimated them. Perhaps that is what truly distinguished him.

P.S.: Rougyff is, in fact, Guffroy. This might partly explain why Albertine Marat reportedly disliked Charlotte Robespierre—not just for her alleged pension from Bonapartist and Bourbon regimes (which Albertine considered enemies), but also because Charlotte remained friendly with Guffroy, who opposed the Club Électoral.

As for Guffroy’s phrase, “You reject and you approve of the revolutionary government,” I’m also unsure what he meant. Perhaps it referred to Babeuf’s stance on Robespierre—whom he had come to harshly criticize, calling him wrongly a tyrant even if months laters he will become a Robespierrist again. But many anti-Thermidorians—like Albertine Marat or Bodson—also opposed Robespierre, so if Guffroy’s accusation rests solely on that, it seems illogical—unless it was a calculated political maneuver.

Sources:

Babeuf’s full letter to Thibaudeau: Read here

Tomasso: Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française

Jean-Marc Schiappa

Galina Tchertkova

[sieclesetcieux]

The Incidence of the Terror during the French Revolution (Donald Greer): Statistics

[sieclesetcieux]

The second page:

And the reference:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41919035

Finally got my hands on the Chinese bio of Saint-Just, published in 1957 by Yang Renbian! Flipped through it and it's looking really well researched.

Also it comes with what is now my favorite portrait of SJ, omg

[sieclesetcieux]

A table over Robespierre’s activity at the Convention, Jacobin club and Committee of Public Safety from his election to this last body up until his death, as given by volume 10 of Oeuvres complètes de Robespierre, volume 5-15 of Recueil des actes du comité de salut public, Correspondance de Maximilien et Augustin Robespierre (1910) and Rapport au nom de la Commission des vingt-un, crée par décret du 7 nivôse, an III, pour l’examen de la conduite des Représentans du Peuple Billaud-Varennes, Collot d’Herbois et Barère, membres de l’ancien Comité de Salut Public, et Vadier, membre de l’ancien comité de Sûreté générale (1795):

Red - amount of interventions made at the National Convention. Green - amount of interventions made at the Jacobin club. Blue - amount of decrees signed at the Committee of Public Safety. — - Robespierre is recorded to have been present at the CPS, but without signing any documents there.

Out of the 83 interventions made by Robespierre at the Convention during this period, seven were bigger reports/speeches written by him (November 17, December 5, December 25 1793, February 5, May 7, June 8, July 26 1794). As can be seen, these speeches are often preceded by a rather long period of silence.

Out of the 607 CPS decrees signed by Robespierre, 83 were also drafted by him, while 40 have his signature only on them.* The subject which these decrees appear to occupy themselves the most with is arrests (20 drafted himself [1], 19 signed alone [2]) and liberations (11 drafted himself [3]). Another 19 of the decrees Robespierre had drafted himself were letters to different representatives on mission. [4]

*I’ve here reached a different conclusion than Peter McPhee, who on page 193 of his Robespierre: a revolutionary life (2010) writes: ”Of the 542 decrees of the Committee of Public Safety signed by Robespierre, 124 were written in his own hand, and these along with the 47 others that he signed first were largely to do with policing and arrests.”

[1] On August 22, August 28, September 7, September 27, October 4, October 12, October 22, November 2, November 4, November 27, December 15, December 29, December 31, March 17 (two arrests), March 18, March 29 (two arrests), April 14, May 22.

[2] On September 9, June 19 (seven arrests), June 24 (two arrests), June 25 (four arrests), June 29 (three arrests), June 30 (two arrests)

[3] On October 29, November 4, November 22, December 16, January 18, February 7, March 18, March 25, April 14, April 15, May 7.

[4] On October 12, October 13 (four letters), October 27, October 28, November 2, November 3, November 4 (two letters), undated November, December 10, December 31, January 8 (three letters), May 14, May 25.

[sieclesetcieux]

Resources on Prieur de la Côte-d'Or

I decided it was about time to compile a convenient list with all the information and resources I could find about Claude-Antoine Prieur, also known as Prieur de la Côte-d'Or.

It's very much a work in progress: some posts, those without a link, are yet to be written. The list will be updated and edited with time.

♢ Biographies

Full books

Paul Gaffarel - Prieur de la Côte-d'Or, Librairie Noury, Dijon (1900).

Georges Bouchard - Prieur de la Côte-d'Or, un organisateur de la victoire, Librairie Historique R. Claveruil, Paris (1946).

(Not only I plan to transcribe both of them in a lighter, more readable format, but also to write a post comparing the two, though this should wait until I finish reading them fully. For now, from what I could see, none of the two could be considered a definitive Prieur biography: Paul Gaffarel didn't have access to Prieur's personal papers, resulting in a very incomplete work and inaccuracies; as far as Bouchard is concerned, he was no historian but a chemist and it shows both in his very superficial interpretation of the historical period in which Prieur lived and in the uncritical way in which he analyses primary accounts and sources about the latter.

For anyone interested in Prieur's life, I would recommend you to start from the 1946 one: despite the many criticism I personally have towards it, it's more complete, since Bouchard was granted access to Claude-Antoine's papers.)

Summaries

Timeline for Prieur's life

"Profile card" by @saintjustitude.

Translation of Gainot's entry on Prieur mentioned in Dictionnaire des membres du Comité de Salut Public

♢ Primary Sources

Correspondence and personal writings

Prieur's letter to Louis XVI on the importance of having a unified metric system in France

Prieur's letter to Guyton dated 10 Thermidor an II (28 July 1794)

Prieur's speech of 3 Germinal an III

Prieur's last written letter (to Simonne Frilley)

C.A. Prieur - Révelations sur le Comité de Salut Public (I plan to translate them all into English eventually)

Modern transcription of Prieur's first work on the metric system: Mémoire sur la nécessité et les moyens de rendre uniformes, dans le royaume, toutes les mesures d’étendue et de pesanteur

PNG Vector of Prieur's signature (by @senechalum)

Some excerpts from Prieur's first work on the metric system: 1. On the benefit of using the decimal scale 2. Conclusion of the memoir (summary of Prieur’s proposal)

Prieur's speech on the occasion of his admission to Dijon's Academy of Science

CSP decrees written and/or signed by him

Copy of the Letter of the Committee of Public Safety to the Directory of the District of Valence dated 19 Pluviôse [Year II]

♢ Secondary Sources

Camille Richard - Le Comité de Salut Public et les fabrications de guerre sous la Terreur, Rieder Ed., Paris, (1922) (A very interesting book on the warfare during the Terror (93-94), explaining Prieur, Carnot and Lindet's duties and contributions.)

Bertrand Barère on Prieur

Paul Arbelet on Prieur

Paul Arbelet - La jeunesse de Prieur de la Côte-d'Or, Revue du dix-huitième siècle (1916)

Bulletin de la Sabix - n°8 (décembre 1991) (it's a small journal written in French with some articles about the founding of the Polytechnic School and Prieur's role in it)

♢ Posts

Prieur's personality: an introduction by @saintjustitude

Various portraits

Quotes (by him and on him)

Prieur's baptism certificate

Prieur's family crest

On Prieur's family

On Prieur's daughter (some additions by @nesiacha)

On Prieur's disability

Charles Bossut on Prieur's school perfomance at the École de Mézières

On Carnot and Prieur’s friendship (1, 2, 3, 4)

Prieur was never named Compte de l'Empire by Napoléon

On the mutual dislike between Prieur and Bonaparte

Historical inaccuracies in Arte's documentary Un mètre pour mesurer le monde

Prieur's contributions to the establishment of a new unified metric system

How Prieur and Carnot were elected members of the Committee of Public safety

Prieur's duties and contributions as member of the CSP

Prieur's contributions in the foundation and political defense of the École Polytechnique

Prieur's attendance at the CSP

Prieur's depiction in media

The bizarre legend about Prieur knowing that Louis-Charles Capet was freed from the Temple and substituted with another child