#jean-baptiste carrier | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anotherhumaninthisworld · 2 years

Text

Robespierre — ”horrified” by excessive Representatives on Mission?

A thesis I’ve seen underlined by many historians (both old, recent, hostile and sympathetic ones) is that Robespierre disapproved of, or even was appalled by, the violence and bloodshed caused by certain representatives on mission sent out to punish counter-revolutionaries in the departments (those most commonly listed are Carrier in Nantes, Fréron and Barras in Toulon and Marseilles, Lebon in Arras and Fouché and Collot d’Herbois in Lyon. There are a few others that occasionally get named as well, but here I will limit myself to these six since this thing would get way too big otherwise.) Following this idea is often the claim that Maximilien’s strong reaction was the origin of the representatives being recalled to Paris. Indeed, the idea that he was particularly vigilant when it came to putting a stop to the activities of these ”bloodthirsty proconsuls” has been hinted at so much that the recalling of the representatives is one of few instances where I’ve seen historians describe an action of the Committee of Public Safety as an action of exclusively Robespierre.

”On 14 Ventôse (4 March) the deputy Carrier, whom Robespierre had recalled to Paris because of reports of atrocities in Lyons and Nantes… […] It is true that he (Robespierre) was personally repelled by violence and horrified by the behaviour of Carrier, Fouché and others. […] Robespierre’s name became anathema in the town (Arras) for generations: he was assumed to have given Lebon his orders, even though he had in fact been horrified by his excesses. […] Fréron had been chilled by Robespierre’s disapproval of the violence of his repression in Marseilles and Toulon in 1793, and was in fear for his life.” Robespierre: a revolutionary life by Peter Mcphee (2010) page 188, 193, 228 and 262

”Another reason (for why Robespierre didn’t want to end ”the terror” after the victory at Fleurus), much closer to home, stemmed from Robespierre’s horrified reaction to news of the atrocities committed in the name of the Convention by certain members of the Jacobins en mission. These included Collot d’Herbois and Fouché in Lyon, and Fréron and Barras in Marseille and Toulon. […] When Fréron and Barras (two deputies he had recalled for their excessive actions when en mission) evaded Éléonore Duplay and her mother and cornered him one morning, Robespierre was reduced to refusing to acknowledge their presence.” Choosing Terror (2014) by Marisa Linton, page 230 and 242

”Robespierre showed his disapproval of the terrorist policy of Fouché at Lyon, and Carrier at Nantes. […] Robespierre had not answered his (Collot’s) letter, and was only prevented from showing his open disapproval of the massacres by fear of playing into the hands of the Indulgents, who were using the excesses at Lyon as a weapon against the government.” Robespierre by J.M Thompson (1935) chapter 13 and 14

”On the other hand, however, he (Robespierre) rejects the excess of repression […] the violence of certain representatives largely caused their recalls.” Robespierre by Hervé Leuwers (2014) page 616

”While the rebels of the Vendée and the federalists of Lyon are subjected to an increasingly violent repression, Robespierre expresses his disapproval towards the men who are responsible for it, Ronsin, Collot d'Herbois and Fouché in Lyon, and Carrier in Nantes, about whom his special envoy, the young Marc-Antoine Jullien, sends alarming news.” Robespierre: la fabrication d’un monstre by Jean-Clement Martin (2016) page 245

”Among other atrocities, he (Carrier) had instituted a new version of republican marriage, which involved tying a naked man and woman together and drowning them. When he heard of this, Robespierre, appalled, insisted on recalling Carrier to the capital.” Fatal Purity — Robespierre and the French Revolution by Ruth Scurr (2007) page 277

”After recieving this letter, Robespierre recalled Carrier. He also recalled Barras and Fréron who were soiled with blood and plunder from their mission in Midi […] He recalled Lebon who behaved like a madman in Artois. He recalled Fouché. Robespierre Terroriste by Albert Mathiez (1921) page 22

”In the summer of 1794, the ultra-terrorists feared Robespierre. He had already recalled many of them in the spring. Robespierre was appalled by the actions of certain representatives on mission, especially Jean-Baptiste Carrier, Fouché, Paul Barras, Louis-Marie-Stanislaus-Fréron, Tallien and Edmond-Louis Dubois-Crancé.” The Making of a Terrorist: Alexandre Rousselin and the French Revolution by Jeff Horn (2020) page 86

But how well is this entire narrative actually backed up?

From Robespierre’s own pen and mouth there are a few things that fall in line with this alleged reaction. We can begin by pointing out several decrees and speeches where he insists on punishing only (or at least namely) the leaders of a conspiracy or counterrevolution.

”The representatives of the people near the army of Italy and the department of Bouches-du-Rhône are in charge of these measures: they will have the leaders of the royalist and federalist faction severely punished.” [1] Decree from the CPS regarding Marseilles written by Robespierre November 4

“Citizens, one wants to ruin the Revolution by excesses. Beware of all inconsiderate proposals, with which one tries to throw you into error. In denouncing an error to you, I did not claim to make you proscribe the one who had committed it; but to remind him that he has strayed from the straight and narrow. Do not seek to multiply the culprits; strike the head of the widow of the tyrant and of the leaders of the conspiracy; but after these necessary examples, let us be stingy with blood. They will accuse me of moderation, but know that one must always act according to whether it is useful to the Revolution.” [2] Robespierre at the Jacobins October 14

”I see the world full of fools and rascals; but the number of rascals is the smallest; it is those whom one has to punish for the crimes and troubles of the world. Therefore, I do not attribute the felonies of Brissot and of the Gironde to the men of good faith who have been misled sometimes, I do not attribute to all those who believed in Danton the crimes of this conspirator; I do not attribute the ones of Hébert to the citizens whose sincere patriotism was sometimes led beyond the exact limits of reason.” [3] Robespierre’s speech on 8 Thermidor

There’s also some speeches in which he complains about representatives being too severe towards patriots (although I’ll return to those later).

”The rigor of the republican government comes from charity. Therefore, woe to those who would dare to turn against the people the terror which ought to be felt only by its enemies! Woe to those who, confusing the inevitable errors of civic conduct with the calculated errors of perfidy, or with conspirators' criminal attempts, leave the dangerous schemer to pursue the peaceful citizen! Perish the scoundrel who ventures to abuse the sacred name of liberty, or the redoubtable arms which liberty has entrusted to him, in order to bring mourning or death into patriots' hearts! This abuse has existed, one cannot doubt it. It has been exaggerated, no doubt, by the aristocracy. But if in all the Republic there existed only one virtuous man persecuted by the enemies of liberty, the government's duty would be to seek him out vigorously and give him a dazzling revenge…” [4] Robespierre’s speech on political morality, held February 5 1794

”All the scroundels have abused the law that saved the fatherland and the French people. They pretended to ignore it was supreme justice the Convention made the order of the day, that’s to say, the duty to confuse the hypocrites, comfort the unhappy and the oppressed and fight the tyrants, they forgot these duties and made an instrument to torment the people and patriots. […] We had foreseen that one would abuse it, but at the same time we had thought that this decree, carried out against the oppressors, would impose on public officials the duty to exercise virtue and to never step away from the obligations that tied them to the patrie: but these obligations didn’t force them to focus, with a severe inquisition, on the good citizens in order to look away from the sketches of the crimes of rascals: these rascals, who had stopped attracting their attention, are the same who oppress humanity and are the true tyrants. If the public officials had made these reflections, they would have found few guilty to punish, because the people are good and the league of villians to punish is the smallest.” [5] Robespierre at the Jacobins July 9

”Any word against that sort of men was regarded by them as criminal, and terror was the tool they used to force patriots into silence, they threw in prison those who were brave enough to break it, and that’s the crime I hold against Fouché.” [6] Robespierre denounces and expels Fouché from the Jacobins July 14

Then there are other, more dubious, sources to back this thesis up with, of which the most commonly cited probably is Charlotte Robespierre’s memoirs, in which she holds that her older brother was not in accordance with the more violent representatives.

”His enemies reproach him (Robespierre) with having sent bloodthirsty proconsuls into the departments, but, on the contrary, he was the one who had almost all those who abused their unlimited powers to exercise dreadful cruelties recalled; he was the one who wrote to the representatives of the people on mission without cease that they needed to sober in their rigors and make the revolution cherished rather than hated. Many times he asked, without success, for Carrier, whom Billaud-Varennes protected, to be recalled. More fortunate in regard to Fouché, he made him return to Paris. I was present for the interview Fouché had with Robespierre upon his return. My brother asked him to account for the bloodshed he had caused, and reproached him for his conduct with such energy of expression that Fouché was pale and trembling. He mumbled a few excuses and blamed the cruel measures he had taken on the gravity of the circumstances. Robespierre replied that nothing could justify the cruelties of which he had been guilty; that Lyon, it was true, had been in insurrection against the National Convention, but that that was no reason to have unarmed enemies gunned down en masse.” [7]

A memoir with a similar claim is Napoleon’s, who alleges to have seen long letters from Robespierre to his brother, in which he complains about the cruelties carried out in Marseilles by Barras and Fréron.

”The Emperor, for example, has told us, that while engaged in fortifying the coasts at Marseilles, he was a witness to the horrible condemnation of the merchant Hugues, a man of eighty-four years of age, deaf and nearly blind. In spite of his age and infirmities, his atrocious executioners pronounced him guilty of conspiracy: his real crime was him being worth eighteen millions. This he was himself aware of, and he offered to surrender his wealth to the tribunal, provided he might be allowed to retain five hundred thousand francs, which, he said, he could not live long to enjoy. But this proposition was rejected, and he was led to the scaffold. ”At this sight,” said Napoleon, "I thought the world was at an end" — an expression which lie was accustomed to employ on any extraordinary occasion. Barras and Fréron were the authors of these atrocities. The Emperor did Robespierre the justice to say, that he had seen long letters written by him to his brother, Robespierre the younger, who was then the Representative to the Army of the South, in which he warmly opposed and disavowed these excesses, declaring that they would disgrace and ruin the Revolution.” [8]

However, both memoirs were written more than twenty years after the fact — Charlotte’s in the 1820s and 30s and Napoleon’s during his exile on Saint Helena — and its authors were both neither unbiased towards Robespierre (Charlotte from being his sister, Napoleon from being friends with Augustin Robespierre) nor experts when it came to his political life. The memoirs were also not actually written down by Charlotte and Napoleon themselves. [9] When you add all these factors together, it gets hard to verify the above mentioned claims, as its authors both had time to forget and reason to distort.

Among Robespierre’s papers there exists a letter from Joseph Fernex, member of the judical tribunal in Lyon, in which he defends himself from accusations of cruelty during his work there that the receiver apparently made. [10] However, a closer study of the letter throws some doubt on whether said receiver actually was Robespierre. [11]

Finally, Robespierre’s postbag contains some letters from provincials complaining about the harchness of their respective representatives on mission, and other letters thanking him for having them recalled.

”There was a time when innocence was confounded with crime, not only through incarcerations, but by executions. […] If you forgive a small culprit, you will do justice to at least twenty innocent people who suffer from faults they did not commit. Ah! If the virtuous Couthon had remained at Commune-Affranchie, how many less injustices (would have been committed)! […] The culprit alone would have been punished, but Collot... It was not without reason that he ran off to Paris to support his friend Ronsin. It took well-bulbed sentences to cover up big crimes! [12] Undated letter from Cadillot to Robespierre

”I assure you that I felt reborn when the reliable and enlightened friend who had returned from Paris, and who had been able to study you in your offices, assured me that, far from being a close friend of Collot d'Herbois, you did not see him with pleasure in the Committee of Public Safety, but that, as he had a party in Paris, it would perhaps be dangerous for the committee to exclude him from its midst.”[13] Anonymous letter to Robespierre 8 July 1794

But seeing as Robespierre largely seems to have been viewed as the leader of the Committee of Public Saftey and thus contacted for almost everything, [14] this doesn’t have to mean they turned to him because he was said to disapprove of the terrorists, but because they believed him to wield more power than the others and thus more likely to be able to do something about their situation.

Those are all primary sources hinting at this thesis that I’ve so far been able to consult (and also all sources I’ve seen historians use to back it up with). But both the idea that Robespierre condemned the violence of the representatives, and the idea that he was instrumental in getting them recalled, seem to get more complicated when one starts taking a look at primary sources and documents.

Starting with Carrier, the general idea is often that it was his acts of cruelties in general, and his ”noyades” (mass drownings) in particular that signaled alarm bells and made the CPS and recall him. But if one takes a look at their correspondence, it would appear that the drownings, along with other of Carrier’s excesses, were well known in Paris long before Carrier’s return.

”An event of another kind seems to have wanted to reduce the number of priests; ninety of those which we designate under the name of refractory were locked up in a boat on the Loire. I learn at the moment, and it is very certain, that they all perished in the river.” [15] Letter from Carrier received on November 17. It was read aloud in front of the Convention on November 28

”Fifty-eight individuals designated under the denomination of refractory priests arrived to Nantes from Angers; immediately they were locked up in a boat on the Loire; last night they were all swallowed up by this river. The Loire is such a revolutionary torrent!” [16] Letter from Carrier December 10. It was read in front of the Convention.

”The defeat of the brigands is so complete that our posts kill them, take them and bring them by the hundreds; the guillotine cannot suffice; I decided to have them shot. [...] It is out of principle of humanity that I purge the earth of the freedom of these monsters.” [17] Letter from Carrier written on December 20

”He (Carrier) adds a word of the miracle of the Loire which has just swallowed up 360 counter-revolutionaries from Nantes; since they disappeared the brigandine armies have been beaten and lacked everything.” [18] Report on Carrier received on December 22

”Carrier has given his confidence to patriotically counter-revolutionary men who pillaged, killed and burned. […] Carrier has subdivided his agents into such a large number that one sees men delegated by the commissioners of the representatives, arresting patriotic administrators, even agreeing, in the report of the arrest, that there are no facts, nor papers against them.” [19] Letter from Marc-Antoine Jullien to Robespierre, written on January 3

If Robespierre and the CPS really were appalled by the acts of cruelty and mass executions, why not act against them here? Instead, Carrier was not recalled until February 8, by a decree that doesn’t bear Robespierre’s signature but instead those of Barère, Billuad-Varennes and Jean Bon-Saint-André. The tone of said decree isn’t that hostile either.

”Citizen Representative, You wanted to be called back. You deserve to rest for a few moments after your multiplied works in a city not very patriotic and close to the Vendée, and all your colleagues will see you again with pleasure in the bosom of the National Convention. Your health has been affected by your constant occupations. The intention of the Committee is to give you another mission, and it is necessary that you come to confer with the Committee. Salut et Fraternité.” [20]

Shortly before this decree was written, Robespierre had received two letters denouncing Carrier from the representative Marc-Antoine Jullien. Jullien often gets described as some sort of special agent/envoy of Robespierre, a claim which no firsthand source actually appears to back up. [21] These letters are most often seen as the reason Carrier was recalled. However, it is interesting to note that the denounciations in them are many, and the bloodshed just one of them (I’ve put in italics the complaints that are actually about the repression/executions).

”Carrier, who is said to be ill and in the countryside, when he is in good health in Nantes, lives far from business, in the midst of pleasures, surrounded by women and sycophantic epauletiers, who form a seraglio and a court for him; and Carrier is inaccessible to the deputations of popular society, who come to confer with him on the most important matters; and Carrier imprisoned the patriots who complained with reason of his conduct. […] Recall Carrier, send to Nantes a firm, hard-working and popular montagnard deputy. […] We must save Nantes, extinguish the Vendée, and repress the despotic impulses of Carrier.” [22] Letter from Jullien to Robespierre written on February 3

”They openly disdain the popular society, which they and Carrier rarely attend. Carrier makes himself invisible to the constituted bodies, club members and patriots. He gives out that he is ill, or away in the country, so as to avoid the exertions that circumstances require. No one is deceived by these lies; he is known to be well and in town, in a seraglio surrounded by insolent sultanesses and epauletted flunkeys who serve as eunuchs. We know that he is accessible only to staff members, who constantly flatter him and slander the patriots in his eyes, we know that he has spies on all sides who report to him what is said in the particular committees and public assemblies. […] A certain justice must be rendered to Carrier, for at one time he crushed negociantism and thundered forcefully against the mercantile, aristocratic and federalist spirit, but since then he has made terror the order of the day against the patriots themselves, by whom he wants to be feared. He has very bad men around him. He rewards a few courtiers with jobs, rebuffs the patriots, rejects their advice, and suppresses their enthusiasm. By an unheard of act he closed the meetings of a Montagnard society for three days. Finally, at night he stopped, abused with blows and threatened with death those who complained that there was an intermediary between the representative of the people and the club, organ of the people, or who, in the energetic impetus of republican frankness, demanded that Carrier be struck from the society if he no longer featernized with it. I was myself witness to these things. He is reproched with other things, one assures that he had all the prisoners at Nantes taken out indiscriminately, put on boats, and drowned in the Loire. He told me to my face that one could run a revolution only by using such measures, and he called Prieur de la Marne an imbecile for not knowing what to do with suspects except incarcerate them, etc… It was also Carrier who publicly refused to recognize one of his colleagues as a representative of the people. This action, of which I sent you a word, was, in the full force of the word, counterrevolutionary. It is neccesary to recall Carrier without delay, and send someone to Nantes who can revive the energy of the people.” [23] Letter from Jullien to Robespierre written on February 4

If the violence and bloodshed were already well known to Robespierre and the CPS, and accepted to the extent that they never wrote to call Carrier out on it, why would it be the reason Carrier was recalled after this? The only complaint from the CPS I have been able to register about Carrier after his return (drafted and signed on a day Robespierre was absent) is that:

”Carrier was perhaps surrounded by bad men, the intriguers are the scourge of representatives. Carrier employed hard forms which are not liked by national authority. […] To finish with what concerns Carrier, you will learn with surprise that he mistreated Jullien, our agent, whose gentle manners and republican energy you know; Jullien had to come out with precations that a Committee agent should not be obligated to take.” [24]

When it comes to Fréron and Barras, as far as the document recalling them tells us, the CPS didn’t fall out with them because of the bloodshed they inflicted in Toulon and Marseilles, but rather for their wish to rename the latter town.

”The Committee of Public Safety applauds the rigorous measures that you have enshrined in your decree on Marseilles. The committee found in it that republican energy which brought down the walls of infamous Toulon, and when national vengeance descends on a perjured city, it must not remain idle against its first accomplice. […] But there are perhaps considerations which the study of manners, science and localities command. The Committee of Public Safety believes it should consult your experience. […] Should the Revolutionary Tribunal of the department be located in Aix? Wouldn't that be confirming the ancient prejudice which for so long granted it judicial supremacy? Isn't it more useful, even more exemplary, to place it in Salon? […] You have believed that Marseille needed to change its name. And here, citizens colleagues, the Committee of Public Safety stops (you). The name Marseille recalls immortal memories to the mind of free men ; criminals, under the mask of republicanism, have outraged it ; but the monsters who sought to ruin it have ceased to be Marseillais. […] Marseilles still preserves patriots who bear with pride a name that history has often consecrated by its praises; many would rather perish than give it up. […] These are, fellow citizens, the observations which motivate the changes which we are proposing in the decree which you have taken, and of which you will find the indication attached to this letter. The more rigorous the vengeance must be, the more its justice must have the characteristics of ethics. Why treat Marseille like Toulon, handed over to the English by a unanimous wish of its inhabitants? Why treat this city more severely than Caen and Bordeaux, where revolutionary spirit counter was almost general? How beautiful it is to be able like you, after long labors and an immortal victory, how sweet it is to return under such auspices to the National Convention! Certainly, the rest is due to the winners of Toulon. Come and join your friends; there is not one who isn’t longing to embrace you. Salut et fraternité. [25]

Once again, Robespierre’s signature doesn’t feature on this document, it is instead in the hand of Billuad-Varennes and Collot d’Herbois, so the idea of him being extra important when it came to their recalling also doesn’t seem very well backed up.

Like with Carrier, we have multiple reports from Toulon and Marseilles about the repression that was carried out, so it hardly could have been a secret for Robespierre and the CPS.

”National justice is exercised daily and exemplary on the battlefield. Everyone that were in Toulon and had been employed in the marine, in the rebel armies or in the civil and military administrations, were shot among thousands of cries of Vive la République! […] An order taken by us, by which we pronounce the death penalty against any citizen or soldier caught looting has had the greatest effect.” [26] Letter from Toulon written on December 28, and read in the Convention January 3

”National vengance unfolds. We shoot by force. Almost all marine officiers have been exterminated.” [27] Letter from Toulon received January 3

”800 Toulonnais have already met death.” [28] Letter from Toulon written on January 5

When a deputition from Marseilles denounced Fréron and Barras (among other things for arresting many patriots) a fortnight after the drafting of the decree recalling them, Robespierre said that they should wait for more information before jumping to conclusions.

”The Society must wait, before pronouncing on the matter presented to it, until it has been discussed without haste […] What is certain is that the citizens of Marseilles accuse the representatives of rigor; and that, on the other hand, the representatives assure us that the public spirit has not changed in Marseilles, that indulgence has encouraged the Federalists and engendered a pride which is certainly not that of free men. […] These are claims on both sides: this will serve as the basis for the examination of the Committee. If the Marseillais are oppressed, they will have justice; the goal of the Convention and of the government is to do justice to innocence, and to make the sword of the law hover over all guilty heads; but the Convention is firmly determined to submit the moderates and all those who, like them, work for the overthrow of liberty. If it is true that the Marseillais are wrong, you feel that then federalism would resume its empire, and that national authority would be misunderstood; this reason should induce the Society to suspend its judgment, and not to take any impression for one side rather than the other. Let the deputies of Marseilles await with confidence the result of the discussion and of the explanations which the Committee is about to procure.” [29] Robespierre at the Jacobins February 6

A move that was supported by Fréron:

”You had displayed the usual sagacity, my dear friend, when, on the proposals of Loys, you closed the discussion at the Jacobins, observing that it was necessary to wait for the representatives. […] Already royalism is raising its head, an anonymous letter has been written to La Poype asking for a general amnesty and the release of all prisoners. […] One is already spreading the rumor that to prevent us from speaking, Moyse Bayle from the Committee of General Security will have us arrested on our arrival to Paris... We wanted to be preceded by this letter so that you parry the blows that could strike us. […] I'll see you and talk to you as soon as I arrive, you'll let me know and I'll give you some positive information about Marseilles and the real situation. The Committee of Public Safety is deceived by the deputation of Bouches-du-Rhône which has come together to support a guilty city... Farewell, my dear Robespierre, prevent innocence and patriotism from succumbing under the efforts of calumny, let us be heard and then we and our slanderers will be judged. Salut et fraternité.” [30] Letter from Fréron to Robespierre written on March 1

There is, however, no more talk about either Toulon, Marseilles, Fréron and Barras after this in Robespierre’s speeches, which makes it hard to figure out what he felt about all of it after receiving more information.

Joseph Lebon, the representative dealing with the repression in Robespierre’s hometown Arras, was responsible for around 400 executions. This time, Robespierre personal responsibility can be better established, as it was he who wrote the decree asking Lebon to return to the capital. However, it isn’t very hostile sounding.

”Dear Colleague, The Committee of Public Safety needs to confer with you important objects, it does justice to the energy with which you have suppressed the enemies of the revolution, and the result of our conference will be to direct it in an even more useful way. Come as soon as possible, to return promptly to the post where you currently are.” [31] Letter from Robespierre to Lebon written on May 14

This despite the fact that he would have already received reports of the executions carried out both from Lebon and from other representatives.

”The aristocrats of these surroundings have done so much harm, are so well known and have had such strong changes that the guillotine, if it continues on its same course, will gradually clear out our prisons.” [32] Letter from Lebon received on Mars 29

”Every day our colleague Lebon drops the guillotine on the necks of aristocrats here: the day after tomorrow 33 of them will be judged. Vive la République !” [33] Letter from Duquesnoy regarding Arras received April 17

”Since your decree from 30 Germinal, 32 counterrevolutionaries from these surroundings have disappeared from the soil of freedom, and the Baudets prison is still full.” [34] Letter from Lebon written on April 28

Just a few days after his return, Lebon went back to Arras, this time bringing with him Charlotte Robespierre. [35] A weird choice of escort if her brother had been ”horrified” by his actions.

In the days between Lebon leaving and returning to Arras Robespierre’s friend Charlotte Buissart penned down this letter:

”Allow an old friend to send you a feeble and slight picture of the evils with which the patrie is overwhelmed. You advocate virtue; we have been persecuted for six months, governed by all the vices; all kinds of seduction are used to mislead the people. Contempt for virtuous men; outrages against nature, justice, reason, divinity; lure of wealth, thirst for the blood of their brothers. […] Our ills are very great, but our fate rests in your hands; all virtuous souls claim you. Our rescue or death, here you have the general outcry.” [36] Letter from Charlotte Buissart written on May 15

When the letter didn’t give her the result she had hoped for, Charlotte traveled to Paris to see Robespierre in person [37], but this evidently didn’t change anything either.

Lebon was also denounced to Robespierre by Armond-Joseph Guffroy, whom he was on less friendly terms with but who nevertheless paints some pretty clear pictures of what was being carried out.

”You said the other day at the Jacobins that in wanting to make virtues reign we did not want to be persecutors. I think you mean what you say. Why then do you protect the persecuting priest Joseph Lebon, who killed patriotism in Arras, and who made scum and crime reign there? Quickly appoint a commission of three members, otherwise you will make yourself an accomplice in the atrocities of this horrible man, who deceives you and who makes the revolution detested by persecuting patriots. Hébert did no more harm than him. Robespierre, you must know my veracity, you must believe it; I’ve never lied to patriotism. Yes, the evils of our fellow citizens of this country will weigh on your heart. It is only politics that still keeps me from giving publicity to Lebon's conduct; but soon politics will make it my duty to print it. Salut.” [38] Letter from Guffroy to Robespierre written on May 19

”I must write to you to tell you that Lebon's conduct in Arras and elsewhere continues to weigh on the patriots, whose most weak in talent has rendered more services to public affairs than he has. I've written to you four or five times about his former conduct, you haven't answered me, and yet you have had freedom returned, I know you know that Lebon continues to vex them and that, in spite of the decree of the Committee of Public Safety, he has just had Gabriel Leblond, a merchant in Arras, with whom you were godfather, arrested again, on Prairial 28. I know he continues to make good citizens tremble. It is your duty, as well as mine, to work to end this oppressive conduct.” [39] Letter from Guffroy to Robespierre written on June 18

But despite all of this, Robespierre doesn’t appear to have done anything about the situation. By the time Lebon was recalled for the second time, he had withdrawn from the CPS. [40]

Finally, when it comes to the repression carried out by Fouché and Collot d’Herbois in Lyon, letters both to the CSP as a whole and Robespierre personally testify that he must have been well aware of the cruelties committed there.

”Convinced that there is nothing in this infamous city but he who was oppressed or put in irons by the assassins of the people, we are in defiance against the tears of repentance; nothing can disarm our severity: those who have just snatched a reprieve from you in favor of an inmate. We must tell you, fellow citizens, indulgence is a dangerous weakness, proper to rekindle criminal hopes at the moment when they must be destroyed: it has been provoked towards an individual, it will be provoked towards all those of his species, in order to render illusory the effect of your justice. We do not use asking you for the report of your first decree on the annihilation of the city of Lyon, but we have done almost nothing up to now to execute it. The demolitions are too slow, more rapid means are needed for republican impatience. Mine explosions, etc., the devouring activity of the flame can alone express the omnipotence of the people: its will cannot be stopped like that of tyrants; it must have the effect of thunder.” [41] Letter from Collot and Fouché to the Convention November 16

”We have created two new tribunals to judge traitors; they are active in Feurs. The two who are here have gained more strength and activity since our arrival. Several times twenty culprits have suffered the penalty for their crimes on the same day. This is still slow for the justice of an entire people who must strike down all their enemies at once, and we will occupy ourselves with forging the lightning.” [42] Letter from Collot d’Herbois to Robespierre written November 23

”We have revived the action "a republican justice, that is to say, prompt and terrible as the will of the people. It must strike traitors like lightning, and leave only ashes. By destroying an infamous and rebellious city, we consolidate all the others. By putting the villains to death, we assure the life of all generations of free men. These are our principles. We demolish with canon shots and mine explosions as much as possible. […] The popular axe made twenty heads of conspirators fall every day, and they were not afraid of it [...] Sixty-four of these conspirators were shot yesterday, on the same place where they fired on the patriots, two hundred and thirty will fall today into the ditches where those execrable redoubts were erected, which vomited death upon the republican army. […] Present the assurance of my frank, unalterable friendship to your republican family; shake, in my name, the hand of Robespierre.” [43] Collot d’Herbois in a letter to Robespierre’s lodger Maurice Duplay December 5

Collot d’Herbois was not recalled but returned on his own initiative in December 1793. [44] The document recalling Fouché, however, is in Robespierre’s hand, and it is actually rather hostile in tone.

”The Committee of Public Safety decides 1, that citizen Reverchon immediately travels to Ville-Affranchie to organise revolutionary government and that he, together with Méaulle, takes all the measures that the interests of the republic need. 2, that the representative Fouché immediately travels to Paris to give to the Committee of Public Safety the neccesary clarifications about the affairs in Ville-Affranchie 3, that all procedurs against the popular society in Ville-Affranchie, and especially against the patriots that were subjected to persecution under the reign of Précy and the federalistes, are suspended. The representative Reverchon and his colleges will severely persecute the enemies of the Republic, protect the true friends of the Republic, help the patriots in need and assure the triumph of liberty through a constant and inflexible energy.”

”The Committee of Public Safety, alarmed by the fate of patriots in Commune-Affranchie, considering that the oppression of a single one of them would be a triumph for the enemies of the Revolution and a mortal blow to freedom, orders that all proceedings against the Popular Society of Commune-Affranchie, and particularly against the patriots who were persecuted under the reign of the federalists and Precy, will be suspended: it further orders that the representative of people Fouché immediately travels to Paris to give to the Committee of Public Safety the neccesary clarifications about the affairs in Ville-Affranchie.” [45]

Although, this didn’t stop him from ”paying homage to the patriotism of this representative (Fouché)” two weeks later at the Jacobins, after the latter had read aloud his Rapport sur la situation de Commune-Affranchie (in which we among other things find the sentence ”Certainly, one is to cause the blood of conspirators to flow in great waves. Its outpouring can only bring tenderness to the souls of their accomplices or of the men ready to become one. The blood of crime contains, compresses the germs of the innocence of virtue; it must overflow on nature to give them a free rapid development.” [46]) Robespierre then added that ”the patriots, the friends of Chalier, and the companions of his sufferings have been too modest towards the intriguers who put themselves in their place, and who introduced themselves among the patriots sent from Paris.” [47]

It’s a bit similar to what he had to say about the conduct in Lyon three months later:

”Another cause of the impunity of the conspirators is that national justice has not been exercised with the degree of force and action which the interests of a great people demand and command. The temporary commission initially displayed energy but soon gave way to human weakness which too soon tires of serving the country. After having yielded to the insinuations of the perverse aristocrats, the persecution was turned against the patriots themselves: the cause of this change, so criminal, may be found in the seduction of certain women and it is to these frightful maneuvers that we can attribute the despair which led Gaillard to kill himself. Reduced to flight, the patriots come to give their complaints to the Committee of Public Safety, which rescues them from persecution, and crushes their odious persecutors with terror.” Robespierre at the Jacobins July 11 [48]

Which brings me to a new question. What exactly is Robespierre talking about when he complains about representatives ”making an instrument to torment the people and patriots” and ”bringing mourning and death into the hearts of patriots” in the the extracts listed at the beginning? At first glance it of course appears like he’s simply denouncing the representatives for being exessive with the amounts of executions carried out, but now we know that in some cases (Carrier, Barras and Fréron) he was aware about the wholesale repression without seemingly lifting a finger to do anything about it, while he in other cases (Lebon, Collot and Fouché) even seems to have been in accordance with the violence carried out. In the speech quoted just above he complains about ”persecution being turned against the patriots” literally a sentence after complaining about national justice not being exercised with the degree needed. He held this speech just two days after complaining about how public officials ”should have found few guilty to punish.” And in his speech on political morality (held at a time where only Barras and Fréron had been recalled) he says that ”N'existât-il dans toute la République qu'un seul homme vertueux persécuté par les ennemis de la liberté, le devoir du gouvernement seroit de le rechercher avec inquiétude, et de le venger avec éclat” which implies there currently exists no persecuted men in the republic, but that if there existed, the CPS would be fast to act on it. Can it thus really be believed that ”persecuting against patriots” means executing people in great numbers to Robespierre? At least in the case of Lyon, we see from the decree above that ”oppressed patriots” refers to members of the Popular Society (also known as the friends of Chalier [49]) in Lyon, and not to the people executed (in fact, when Fouché was recalled March 27 the number of executions in Lyon had already reduced quite a bit, with 161 between 19 February and 19 April compared to 416 between 20 January and 18 February. [50]) Robespierre went out to defend the friends of Chalier both before and after Fouché’s return.

”At Commune-Affranchie, the friends of Chalier and Gaillard are proscribed at the present moment. I have seen letters from some of them, from those who, having escaped from prison, had come to implore the aid of the Convention. They express the same despair as Gaillard, and if the most prompt remedy is not brought to their ills, they will find relief only in the recipe of Cato and Gaillard.” [51] Robespierre on March 21

”At Commune-Affranchie, the aristocrats slandered Chalier's friends, calling them Hebertists. The Temporary Commission, forgetting the aristocrats and counter-revolutionaries it had to punish, began proceedings against Chalier's friends. The Committee of Public Safety, having been informed of this, issued an order stating that it is forbidden to bring any proceedings against the Popular Society of Commune-Affranchie. It declared that the death of a patriot is a public calamity, it regarded as conspirators those who would pursue the friends of Chalier. An extraordinary courier has been dispatched; it must have happened before it was possible to put any patriot on trial and sacrifice him. If the decree of the Committee were not respected, I declare that the innocent blood of the patriots would be avenged.” [52] Robespierre on March 31

The persecution of the friends of Chalier, however, was not about executions, but rather about Fouché monitoring the society and its correspondence. On March 16 he arrested two of its members (could these be the men Robespierre refers to when he says ”Any word against that sort of men was regarded by them as criminal, and terror was the tool they used to force patriots into silence, they threw in prison those who were brave enough to break it, and that’s the crime I hold against Fouché.” on July 14?) and on March 26 he closed the club entirely. [53] The ”friends of Chalier” themselves were hardly moderates, as they openly denounced the lyonnais petition sent to Paris pleading for the imprisoned in December 1793. [54] Reverchon, the deputy Robespierre ordered sent to Lyon in place of Fouché, described them in a letter to Couthon as ”scroundels who want to crush and overrun everything.” [55]

To me, the rather strong consensus that Robespierre disapproved of these representatives on mission now appears quite strange. To say he was ”horrified” by them seems even stranger, it being a very strong emotion to attach to a person whose feelings we actually know very little about, especially if this is all the evidence we have. It seems equally strange to describe the recalling of the representatives as exclusively Robespierre’s doing (which is actually something he himself complains about being accused of in his speech on 8 Thermidor [56]) Is there someone who perhaps know more than me here, or has some better source to back these statements up?

[1] Recueil des actes du Comité du Salut Public volume 8 page 222

[2] Oeuvres complétes de Maximilien Robespierre volume 10 page 152

[3] Ibid volume 10 page 551

[4] Ibid volume 10 page 359

[5] Ibid volume 10 page 518-524

[6] Ibid volume 10 page 526-530

[7] Memoirs of Charlotte Robespierre

[8] Memorial de Sainte Helene page 83-84

[9] Ibid Preface, Charlotte Robespierre et ”ses mémoirs”

[10] Papiers inédits trouves chez Robespierre volyme page 193

[11] Une lettre de Fernex à Robespierre (1931) by Paul Vaillandet and Albert Mathiez

[12] Papiers inédits trouvés chez Robespierre volume 2 page 139-143

[13] Ibid volume 2 page 144-149

[14] Robespierre: a revolutionary life by Peter Mcphee (2010) page 164

[15] Recueil des actes du Comité du Salut Public volume 8 page 505

[16] Ibid volume 9 page 316

[17] Ibid volume 9 page 552

[18] Ibid volume 9 page 589

[19] Papiers inédits trouves chez Robespierre volume 3 page 51

[20] Recueil des actes du Comité du Salut Public volume 10 page 778

[21] Of Jullien’s known letters written during this period twenty-one were addressed to Robespierre, but eighteen were addressed to the CPS as a whole, and twenty-nine to four other members of the Committee. He also make references between the letters which implies they were meant to be read by more than the one person he sent them to. From Jacobin to Liberal: Marc Antoine Jullien 1775-1848 by R.R Palmer (1993) chapter 2, see also https://montagnarde1793.tumblr.com/post/177934816340/un-mot-sur-marc-antoine-jullien-fils-jullien-de

[22] Papiers inédits trouves chez Robespierre volume 3 page 49

[23] Ibid volume 3 page 44

[24] Recueil des actes du Comité du Salut Public volume 10 page 777

[25] Ibid volume 10 page 401

[26] Ibid volume 9 page 739

[27] Ibid volume 9 page 557

[28] Ibid volume 10 page 79. For all letters Fréron and Barras wrote during their mission, see Lettres de Barras et de Fréron en mission dans le midi

[29] Oeuvres complétes de Maximilien Robespierre volume 10 page 367-368

[30] Correspondance de Maximilien et Augustin Robespierre by Georges Michon (1926) page 263-265

[31] Ibid page 284-85, see also Recueil des actes du Comité du Salut Public volume 13 page 521

[32] Recueil des actes du Comité du Salut Public volume 12 page 157

[33] Ibid volume 12 page 542

[34] Ibid volume 13 page 119

[35] Papiers inédits trouves chez Robespierre volume 1 page 149

[36] Ibid volume 1 page 254

[37] Ibid volume 1 page 252

[38] Correspondance de Maximilien et Augustin Robespierre by George Michon (1926) page 286

[39] Ibid page 298-299

[40] Recueil des actes du Comité du Salut public volume 15 page 484

[41] Papiers inédits trouves chez Robespierre volume 1 page 316-317

[42] Ibid volume 1 page 318-322

[43] Ibid volume 1 page 313-315. For even more letters with descriptions of the executions in Lyon that reached the CPS, see chapter 3 of Collot d’Herbois - légendes noires et révolution (1995) by Michel Biard

[44] Collot d’Herbois - légendes noires et révolution chapter 5 (1995) by Michel Biard

[45] Recueil des actes de Comité du Salut Public volume 12 page 217-218

[46] Rapport de Fouché (de Nantes) sur la situation de Commune-Affranchie

[47] Oeuvres completés de Maximilien Robespierre volume 10 page 432

[48] Ibid volume 10 page 525

[49] Société populaire des Jacobins de Commune-Affranchie (Lyon), amis de Chalier et Gaillard, à ses concitoyens

[50] Tableau général des victimes et martyrs de la Révolution en Lyonnais, Forez et Beaujolais by Antonin Portallier (1911) page 13

[51] Oeuvres complétes de Maximilien Robespierre volume 10 page 410

[52] Ibid volume 10 page 420

[53] Fouché - les silences de la pieuvre by Emmanuel de Waresquiel (2014) chapter 9

[54] Le Peuple de Ville-Affranchie à la Convention Nationale page 16

[55] Papiers inédits trouves chez Robespierre volume 3 page 64

[56] ”On dit à chaque député revenu d'une mission dans les départements que moi seul avais provoqué son rappel. Je fus accusé par des hommes très officieux et très insinuants de tout le bien et de tout le mal qui avéit été fait.” Oeuvres complétes de Maximilien Robespierre volume 10 page 559

#robespierre #maximilien robespierre #fouché #joseph fouché #collot d’herbois #fréron #stanislaus fréron #paul barras #barras #jean-baptiste carrier #frev #french revolution #long post #god so long #in a few months I hope to have some more friends and not have time for this sort of stuff…

78 notes · View notes

otnesse · 3 years

Text

Rebel Rose and Belle’s Role in the French Revolution

So, I learned a few days ago that Disney made a book called “Rebel Rose” which involved Belle and the French Revolution. From what I heard, it goes into depth toward the French Revolution, and Belle at least had some sympathies towards the Jacobin cause (though that said, she also seemed to at least be smart enough to realize the violence was not good from what I heard).

I had a similar idea regarding a Beauty and the Beast sequel that dealt specifically with the French Revolution. However, I would have ultimately made Belle more into a villain, largely because I can’t help but get the nagging feeling that she ultimately would buy into Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, and Sade’s various books, drink the kool aid, and basically backstab Adam and... well, let’s just say she probably would end up doing essentially the same thing to her village that Sephiroth did upon reading research books into his origins at Nibelheim in Final Fantasy VII:

youtube

The main reason I think, actually, no, not even think or know this, I outright FEAR this is because that’s exactly what people of Belle’s intellectual caliber and even her outlook in life ended up doing during that time. Robespierre, before helming the Jacobin Club, was a lawyer, a man who was very well read, and most certainly had to have read the likes of Voltaire and Diderot, not to mention D’Alembert and especially Rousseau, and the last of whom was cited as his biggest influence. Jean Paul Marat likewise was an aspiring doctor, also read Voltaire and Rousseau, was primarily influenced by the latter, and he became a demagogue and orchestrating up and out lynch mobs via his pamphlets before being stabbed to death inside his own bathtub. And then we get into Jean-Baptiste Carrier, aka the guy responsible for the drownings and republican marriages. He was trained at a Jesuit school (before the Jesuits were expelled from France largely thanks to the Philosophes’ radical anti-Christian agendas), and became a clerk and lawyer, and eventually became enamored enough with Sade’s writings that he specifically referred to his republican marriage executions as being the torch of philosophy, a key phrase by Sade (and Sade, unlike Voltaire and the other Enlightenment philosophes, was very much active during the revolution. In fact, he arguably helped jumpstart it by inciting a mob via a makeshift megaphone at the Bastille). There’s also Joseph Le Bon, well known for his massacre at Arras, who taught rhetoric, literally, being a professor in the subject, and thus most certainly was well-read, and he also ended up drinking the kool-aid regarding the Philosophes. In particular Sade, whom his grisly murders at Arras were in fact partly modeled after Sade’s infamous book “120 Nights of Sodom”. Even stripped the freshly guillotined corpses of his victims naked and put them in poses mirroring that of Sade’s illustrations in that book. That’s just a few examples that come to mind right now. What’s worse? There’s sufficient evidence put forth by Timothy Dwight and Augustin de Barruel that the Philosophes, in particular Voltaire, D’Alembert, and Diderot, specifically counted on France’s huge amount of literacy specifically to engineer this horror, which they succeeded in post mortem. Even took over the French Academy during their lifetime. And don’t get me started on the Vendee massacres. Belle I fear will ultimately succumb to the exact same path ultimately, especially going by some of her behavior in the original film. Doesn’t help either that we don’t get an actual indication that she practiced discernment of literature (yes, she might be a huge bibliophile, but there’s a huge difference between being well-read and actually being able to discern what’s a good book and what’s bad), not to mention the villagers, who are compared unflatteringly to her throughout the film, are depicted as Christians based on some of their statements, which creates the implication that she’s an atheist and she’s better in that regard (well, at least in the original film and certain extension media. The remake fortunately fixed that bit by having her get books from a church, with the implication that she might have some respect for the church for that reason, plus her being born during the 1731 plague, meaning she’s probably dead by the time the revolution actually occurs). It doesn’t merely end there either. Marx admits he was directly inspired by the Philosophes and the Jacobins when creating Communism. And even Vladimir Lenin, aside from obviously basing his actions on Marx’s ideology, made it VERY clear he was inspired by the French Revolutionaries, the Jacobins in particular.

On that note, another reason I fear her future of becoming a Jacobin or at least buying wholesale the propaganda and parroting it is also related to her intellectual caliber in a different sort. Sartre, for example was praised as a very intelligent man in France, a philosophical giant, and he ended up spending his time singing praises for mass murderers and tyrants, including infamously stating that Che Guevara was the most complete human being of the century. And on that note, might as well cite Big Boss and Kazuhira Miller in Peace Walker and that game’s rather shameful praising of that monster as if he were the second coming of Christ (I’ll do a topic on THAT at another time, probably closer to his death day, or at least the anniversary of Peace Walker’s release):

youtube

Bear in mind, Big Boss already encountered someone like him in person, Colonel Volgin, didn’t like him at all, and was implied to not be fond of Communism at all in the games. Yet he sang praises who, given his CIA background, would have at least known about his more inhumane and evil nature, including his role in the CMC. If Big Boss could fall for that tripe, I don’t think Belle can stand any chance on that front.

I’ll give Emma Theriault credit in that she at least seemed to imply she didn’t support the Jacobin’s actual murderous actions, but on the other hand, I’m not sure if that’s what Linda Woolverton and/or Paige O’Hara thought either. For all I know, they probably support her becoming a mass murdering Jacobin. I would have asked Paige O’Hara during Comic Con Atlanta a couple of years back had her appearance been an actual meet and greet (settled for Jasmine’s voice actor instead as I mentioned in a prior post). As far as Linda Woolverton, I actually planned on tracking her down in California last year, using my cousin’s wedding as an opportunity to do so (as well as visit the Screenwriter’s Guild Association archives to research the BATB materials and to an extent Star Wars), but the COVID19 pandemic (or as I’d call it, scamdemic) killed those plans, and I suspect I probably won’t be able to do it this year either with what Biden’s pretty much doing in office. Until I actually verify it from them whether my view of Belle or Emma’s view of Belle is correct, I’m keeping Belle at arms length. If anything, I’d argue the triplets are more trustworthy than her at this point since they’re at least Christian and don’t show much signs of being swayed by the mob based on their absence in the climax of the original film (and incidentally, said fanfic would have had them as the main protagonists).

#beauty and the beast #belle #french revolution #reign of terror #peace walker #final fantasy vii #sephiroth

4 notes · View notes