The difference in treatment between the Indulgents and the Cordeliers or Hébertistes
I have an opinion that will seem unpopular, no worries I am open to any criticism or to being corrected in the event of an error so do not hesitate to correct me. I have much more sympathy for the Hébertist faction, the exaggerators or the Cordeliers than that of Danton's Indulgents. Indeed if we exclude the Hebert case who is an indefensible man, mediocre in my eyes (I don't think I need to explain why) this is not the case for so many others. I mean Ronsin was a competent and honest administrator.
Despite his mysoginism (horribly reprehensible, just look at the speech he gave concerning the execution of Gouges and Manon Roland) Chaumette could be as competent as procureur syndicale de Paris and had also generous ideas (such as banning whipping in schools, equalization of funeral rites for all, protective measures for the elderly and hospitalized).
One of the most impressive cases is Momoro. Even the historian Mathiez, who nevertheless has little sympathy for the revolutionaries who were against the Committee of Public Safety in the spring of 1794, had practically nothing but praise for Momoro. He voluntarily lived in poverty and when he was tried he said he had given everything for the revolution. It was true in my eyes.
Of course I understand in a certain way the repression exercised by the Committee of Public Safety (more precisely the Convention since an arrest cannot be made without its agreement, it is not a dictatorship either) when Cordeliers wanted to launch a new insurrection against the Convention ( like Momoro for example). The fact of wanting to persecute the priests did not help, not to mention the fact that they wanted stronger repression of the enemies at the risk of making the Revolution even harsher. But when we analyze, I can understand where come frome their anger. Their hatred about religion was due to the fact that not long ago, a lot of religious fanatics infantilized the people, constantly made prohibitions against them (we must NEVER accept infantilization or loss of free will for religious reasons) and atrocious repressions without counting the their wealth that they monopolized (in terms of absurd repression there is nothing but to see the Calas affair, or that of the case of Chevalier de la Barre etc…), even if there were a lot of priest and believers weren't like that . Although the Cordeliers were wrong to respond to religious intolerance by intolerance, I can agree. The same goes for the Terror. At that time France was threatened by enemies from within and without and quite a few of their enemies carried out atrocious tortures (although rotten people like Fouché, Carrier, were not to be outdone in atrocities to the point that the Committee of Public Safety recalled them immediately). Prices were increasing because of the war, so without excusing them once again I can understand their minds when they demanded ever greater repression of the Terror (even if once again it was a serious error ,a mistake and even a fault).
Let's compare to the indulgent (or Dantonists) who are caught up in financial scandals (according to for a lot of historians like Jean Marc Schiappa). Danton moved only because of the financial scandals which were beginning to erupt and did not dare to attack head-on in this period of factional clashes, he let his friends do so. Moreover, according to certain historians like Decaux if I am not mistaken, he only came back against the Hebertists because they attacked them (and they did not only have them as enemies). He is not a clean character. Let's not talk about Fabre d'Eglantine. For Desmoulins I have an unpopular opinion of him. I find him very overrated and no matter how much I tried to appreciate his historical figure (by reading the very good biography of Leuwers or the book by Joseph Andras) I cannot. I don't think that despite the fact that he is very cultured, a man who rightly think that women must have the right of vote and even a republican before his time, he is not capable of assuming an important position unlike Saint Just or Ronsin who he made fun of. And worst of all I find him hypocritical, he who demanded clemency applauded the execution of the Hebertists following a parody of justice (yes I like the Montagnards of this period but this kind of thing should never be tolerated) . He didn't say anything when the wives of Momoro and Hebert were arrested which was very serious (afterwards I don't know well if they were arrested at the same time as Lucile Desmoulins), but he didn't realize that it was going well back in his face.
The Dantonists were irresponsible in my eyes. I completely agree that it was necessary to examine each prisoner on a case-by-case basis because there were surely a large number who had nothing to do there by creating as many commissions as possible as quickly as possible and getting down to business. job right away because prison is a horrible place, even more so for innocent people. But releasing everyone without distinction immediately would have been dangerous because there were also dangerous counter-revolutionaries or spies. I mean have they forgotten that the fall of Toulon to the English was due to betrayal? The betrayal of Dumouriez, the assassinations of some deputies, etc…
Where did this idea of making peace with foreign armies still occupying France come from when the French army was beginning to be victorious? Opposing a war of conquest I completely agree, but allowing one's own territory to be annexed is something else.
And how dangerous would it be to leave corrupt people like Danton in power. Sooner or later, he could perhaps have given in to blackmail in view of the evidence of corruption that contemporaries have today, which would have been very dangerous for France.
As a result, I never understood why the “good” indulgent ones were portrayed against the “bad” Cordeliers and Hébertists.
Whatever happens for all these factions, no matter my great admiration for revolutionaries like Le Bas, Saint Just, Couthon, the fact that I am sorry like many people that Robespierre is demonized, the fact that they allowed a parody of justice against these factions is an unforgivable fault and to have allowed the execution of Marie Françoise Goupil and Lucile Desmoulins among others to consolidate this parody of justice is unacceptable. Even if I understand their states of mind because they could not afford to lose especially in this period against these different factions and contrary to what the Thermidorians put forward, the majority of the Convention was just as guilty as them, there is no excuse for this kind of behavior.
Did Saint Just realize this when he said that the Revolution was frozen (even he spoke more about the consequences of this repression and that the revolution is weakened on this point) ? It would later fall on them and Elisabeth Le Bas was threatened with being guillotined for having been Le Bas' wife (some wanted to force her into a marriage with one of the Termidorians). If they had not allowed the fate of Goupil or Lucile Desmoulins earlier perhaps it would have been more difficult for the Thermidorians to threaten her.
For more information in the form of a movie , I invite you to see" Saint Just ou la Force des Choses" and " la Camera explore le temps Danton, la terreur et la vertue" in English sub. These are good movies about this period.
La terreur et la vertu Part 1: Danton is now subbed! (Both French and English, commissioned by me and done by Lune_Lys)
This is a tentative upload and I'm taking any community suggestions for sub fixes!
And I saw someone else did Part 2: Robespierre as well! Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNAMjdIEeP0, though I've asked them if they want my upscaled higher quality footage of the 2nd movie. Honestly an incredible coincidence that we uploaded within a week of each other. We were not in contact at all.
Anyone up for a watch party this weekend? Put in your availability: https://www.when2meet.com/?20722390-Hxjef
I made a playlist of songs that I'm listening to while reading frev biographies! Some song choices were inspired by the revolution. Please give it a listen!!! Hope you guys enjoy it!!! :D
Under the cut are a few transparent pngs used in the album cover!
There are still a few ones left and I'll post them on their own later!
Have a good night, dear citizens, im signing out! :D
Maximilien Robespierre – the Incorruptible (first used by Fréron, and then Desmoulins, in 1790).
Augustin Robespierre – Bonbon, by Antoine Buissart (1, 2), Régis Deshorties and Élisabeth Lebas. Élisabeth confirmed this nickname came from Augustin’s middlename Bon.
Charlotte Robespierre – Charlotte Carraut (hid under said name at the time of her arrest, also kept it afterwards according to Élisabeth Lebas). Caroline Delaroche (according to Laignelot in 1825, an anonymous doctor in 1849 and Pierre Joigneaux in 1908).
Louis Antoine Saint-Just – Florelle (by himself), Monsieur le Chevalier de Saint-Just (by Salle and Desmoulins)
Jean-Paul Marat – the Friend of the People (l’Ami du Peuple) (self-given since 1789, when he started his journal with the same name)
Georges-Jacques Danton – Marius (by Fréron and Lucile Desmoulins).
Éléonore Duplay – Cornélie (according to the memoirs of Charlotte Robespierre and Paul Barras. Barras also adds that Danton jokingly called Éléonore “Cornelie Copeau, the Cornelie that is not the mother of Gracchus”)
Élisabeth Duplay – Babet (by Robespierre and Philippe Lebas in her memoirs)
Jacques Maurice Duplay – my little friend (by Robespierre), our little patriot (by Robespierre)
Camille Desmoulins – Camille (given by contemporaries since 1790. Most likely a play on the Roman emperor Camillus who saved Rome from Brennus in the 4th century like Camille saved the revolution on July 12, and not a reference to Camille behaving like a manchild to the people around him like is commonly stated.) Loup (wolf) by Fréron and Lucile (1, 2), Loup-loup by Fréron (1, 2), Monsieur Hon by Lucile.
Lucile Desmoulins – Loulou (by Camille 1, 2), Loup by Camille, Lolotte (by Camille (1, 2), Rouleau by Fréron (1, 2) and Camille, the chaste Diana (by Fréron), Bouli-Boula by Fréron (1, 2).
Horace Desmoulins – little lizard (Camille), little wolf (Ricord), baby bunny (Fréron).
Stanislas Fréron – Lapin (bunny) (by himself (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and Lucile. According to Marcellin Matton, publisher of the Desmoulins correspondence and friend of Lucile’s mother and sister, Fréron obtained this nickname from playing with the bunnies at Lucile’s parents country house everytime he visited there, and Lucile was the one who came up with it). Martin by Camille and himself (likely a reference to the drawing ”Martin Fréron mobbed by Voltaire” which depicts Fréron’s father Élie Fréron as a donkey called ”Martin F”.)
Manon Roland — Sophie (by herself in a letter to Buzot).
Charles Barbaroux — Nysus by Manon Roland
François Buzot — Euryale by Manon Roland
Pierre Jacques Duplain — Saturne (by Fréron)
Guillaume Brune — Patagon (by Fréron)
Antoine Buissart (Robespierre’s pretend dad from Arras) — Baromètre (due to his interest in science)
A List of Relatable Things Stanisława Przybyszewska has done/written:
Studied philosophy at a university for one semester until "nervous exhaustion forced her to abandon her course"
Dated her letters by the French Revolutionary Calendar
Was known to often be humming La Marseillaise
Called Camille a twink in her play (okay, to be fair she used the word 'ephebe', but I'd argue that is as close to twink as you can get in the 1920s)
Worked at a leftist bookstore (and was subsequently arrested for it)
Took a stray cat from the street which at one point "was the only creature keeping her company"
Complained in at least two letters spanning over 3 paragraphs about a group of loud people playing football near her windows ("For the past forty-five minutes they have not been roaring, they have not been howling, they have been simply shrieking (...) like animals being slaughtered. Screams of that sort must be frightfully tiring for the vocal chords.")
When she wrote "I must write in order to be able to think. As a matter of fact, I am a remarkably unthinking person. Well, of course, that holds true too when I'm talking. But if I don't have either paper, or a human ear to listen to me, then I'm no more of a philosopher than a cat is."
1 + 8 - since I study philosophy at uni & am currently working on my thesis, these felt particularly relatable. I'm not more of a philosopher than a cat is definitely hits. Kind of want to put it in the preface.
2 + 3 are things I may have done myself before (okay, not letters but a diary, but it counts, right?)
7 - as someone who struggles with misophonia, I felt s e e n.
4- I'm sorry guys, I had to. But as someone who frequently asks herself "Are you really calling 30-somethings who have been dead for more than 200 hundred years twinks?", this felt like a vindication of sorts.
Also- I feel kind of conflicted about making this types of Tumblr posts about her since her work is really profound and serious and I have a sneaking suspicion she would have not appreciate them. At the same time, she has been living in my mind rent-free for the past week and this is a way to cope I guess?
SOURCES:
1. A LIFE OF SOLITUDE: STANISŁAWA PRZYBYSZEWSKA
Author(s): JADWIGA KOSICKA and DANIEL C. GEROULD
Source: The Polish Review , 1984, Vol. 29, No. 1/2 (1984), pp. 47-69
2. BBC Reith Lecture Three: Silence Grips the Town. Dame Hilary Mantel, 2017
3. Stanisława Przybyszewska: A Brilliant Playwright Preoccupied With Revolution. Alexis Angulo. Retrieved from: https://culture.pl/en/article/stanislawa-przybyszewska-a-brilliant-playwright-preoccupied-with-revolution
4. Przybyszewska, Stanisława. 1930. The Danton Case.
Analysis of the French Revolution film by Robert Enrico and Richard T. Heffron
One of the (many) problems with films about the French Revolution is that in 1989, anyone wanting to make films about this period was required to adhere to the government's line, which dictated that the revolution could only be portrayed as leading to horrors, under threat of censorship. We can see this in the struggles Hervé Pernot faced. Even during de Gaulle's time, filmmakers who tried to make films as honest as possible about the revolution faced obstacles. Thus, there are inevitably significant historical inaccuracies in these films. Ironically, the leader of the country at the time of this cinematography, Mitterrand, who endorsed such thinking, had guillotined many Algerian revolutionaries, including some who never intended to harm anyone, like Fernand Iveton, or Algerians who were falsely accused. He endorsed parody trials of Algerians, far more significant and flagrant than those of 1794 regarding the Hebertists, Enraged, and Indulgents, when he was Minister of Justice in 1957, solely to please colonialist lobbying and secure a good political position. Therefore, he has no moral ground to lecture the Montagnards, who only abandoned their restraint once France's position was untenable both internally and externally. Most of them, along with other non-Montagnard members, courageously sided with the colonized.
I'll try to avoid delving too much into the absurd black legends unless it's unavoidable, such as when the film seems to endorse Brissot's statement that the "Revolutionary Tribunal is the Spanish Inquisition a hundred times worse." I know the Revolutionary Tribunal committed unforgivable acts in some of its parodies of justice, but the stupidity of this statement speaks for itself.
In the film, the "good guys" are Danton, Lafayette, and Mirabeau. It doesn't matter that they were all corrupt to the core, although Danton should not necessarily be lumped in with Mirabeau, as Danton may have accepted bribes but didn't necessarily fulfill his end of the bargain, and Lafayette, in my opinion, demonstrated more bloodthirstiness. Marat is depicted merely as a madman instead of showing that he was a man ahead of his time, an honest revolutionnary and brillant, sometimes , used inappropriate language due to the injustices he and the people faced. There's an interesting parallel here with the Algerian revolutionary Abane Ramdane, who shares many similarities on these points for me. Instead, we attribute this talent to Danton and potentially Desmoulins.
In the film, the French revolutionaries are portrayed as defeated, but victory is ultimately achieved, solely credited to Danton, which is false, reductionist, and even insulting to all revolutions. If revolutions succeed, it's certainly partly due to intellectual leaders, including figures like Saint Just, Le Bas, Lindet, Charlier, Billaud Varennes, Robespierre, and Hanriot, but it's primarily thanks to the people who supported them—the soldiers who held the line, the sans-culottes who persuaded the Convention to enact or repeal certain laws necessary to sustain the revolution, and the people who endured necessary but harsh taxes, who gave their shoes, sheltered revolutionaries—something most revolutionaries acknowledge.
The film reduces the Hebertists, Enraged, and Cordeliers to madmen united behind Hebert, portraying them without charisma, failing to show why they were popular, and omitting the split between Chaumette and the rest because Chaumette refused to join the insurrection against the Mountain after the Ventôse law.
On the other hand, during Danton's trial, the indulgents are cheered by the people. I know Danton delivered excellent speeches during his trial, but so did other factions, and there's no evidence of this particular scene. I've already discussed the differential treatment between indulgents, Hebertists, and Cordeliers in one of my previous posts. Apart from Hebert, virtually all Hebertists were executed with great dignity.
Marie Antoinette, to better exonerate Louis XVI, is portrayed as helpless during the trial, appearing scared before the scaffold. In reality, she showed courage and dignity that even her adversaries admired, which isn't depicted because she might come across better than Danton.
The Girondins sing the Marseillaise as they mount the scaffold. Regardless of whether one likes them or not, they showed great courage, which isn't shown because they might come across better than Danton on the scaffold.
Lucile Desmoulins and Marie Françoise Goupil, along with Chaumette, Gobel, and others, die with great dignity, but this isn't shown either. For Danton glorification the is the only except Louis XVI to face his death in dignity.
Robespierre is depicted as a coward fleeing his arrest with Saint Just and Couthon, whereas in reality, the gendarmes didn't want to arrest him, and he willingly offered his hands for arrest. The uprising of 17 out of 49 communes was spontaneous, but most revolutionaries hesitated because they didn't know whether to remain lawful or not, resulting in their losses (a Napoleon would have fewer scruples than them and for the wrong reasons) . Again because it will make them better than Danton ( let' s not talk about the glorification of Barras in this scene).
Morality: Only corrupt men act. The most selfless are depicted as grave fanatics who will execute you. It's no wonder the government approves of such films promoting these messages.
Not to mention the women erased from the revolutionary period—Manon Roland, Lucile Desmoulins portrayed as gentle without the political acumen of the real Lucile Desmoulins. Similarly tratment for Simone. Evrard Eleonore Duplay is depicted as personality-less fanatic , far from the real Eleonore Duplay. Louis Reine Audu, Pauline Léon, Olympe de Gouges, Marie Anne Babeuf, Albertine Marat, Charlotte Robespierre, and Elisabeth Le Bas, among many others, will not be shown.
I might write a second part soon if I have the time or in one month for a better analysis of the characters.