#legray | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

nesiacha · 5 months ago

Text

Call to Clarify the Complex Political Relationships Between Albertine Marat and Simone Evrard, and Their Interactions with Various Revolutionary Figures

Albertine Marat seems to offer a more reliable account than other revolutionaries, such as Charlotte Robespierre in her testimonies

Nevertheless, some points still need clarification, especially Albertine's assertion that Marat had very good relations with Danton and would have saved him if her brother had not been assassinated. Personally, I doubt this. Indeed, Jean-Paul Marat publicly expressed his doubts about Danton when the latter began to fall into disgrace. However, I am willing to accept the idea that Albertine might be right when she says that, had Marat been alive, he would have saved Camille Desmoulins, although the matter concerning Danton is more complex than she suggests.

Simone Evrard, for her part, gave a speech in 1793 against several political figures, including Jacques Roux and Théophile Leclerc. This speech aligns with the political positions of Jean-Paul Marat, especially with respect to Roux, with whom he had a significant break (a crucial element to understand in this context). The relationships between Albertine Marat, Simone Evrard, and the Cordeliers Club are also complex, largely due to the difficult relations between Hébert Jacques-René, and Jean-Paul Marat. These tensions made Albertine and Simone attentive to the internal debates within the club.

The Marat women ( Simone Évrard and Albertine Marat) , involved in the writing and dissemination of Marat's works, did not want to carry out this task alone. They therefore requested the support of the Cordeliers Club, while insisting on having a voice in the decisions made. They occasionally attended meetings to follow the progress of the publication. On several occasions, the club expressed its support for a national edition of Marat’s works, with the proceeds going to his heirs.

On January 4, 1794, a club member expressed dissatisfaction with the continued neglect of Marat’s writings, which were essential to the consolidation of the Republic. Although Marat left great glory to his heirs, he did not leave them a fortune. He proposed reprinting his works and having the National Convention purchase many copies, with the profits going to Marat’s heirs.

During the debates, Hébert, expected to co-write a petition with Momoro, insisted on clarifying his past differences with Marat. Another member suggested appointing a commissioner to draft a petition requesting that the Republic cover the costs of publishing Marat’s works. However, Simone and Albertine insisted that nothing be decided before they had the chance to present their views. They were told that the Society had already decided they would come to an agreement with Hébert and Momoro. Nevertheless, the Marat women demanded a postponement, showing their desire to maintain control over this decision. Simone, in particular, being well-informed about the relationships between Marat and the Cordeliers, wanted to ensure that these relationships were respected. Eventually, a text was drafted and submitted to the National Convention on January 12.

Through these discussions, the Marat women sought to ensure that Marat’s intellectual and political legacy was preserved and that his heirs benefited from the revenue generated by the publication of his works.

Here is an interesting website that presents the struggle of Albertine Marat and Simone Evrard. Although it is still incomplete, it serves as a good starting point: Site on the Edition of Marat's Works

However, it seems that, at least at the beginning of 1794, Albertine Marat had some criticisms of the Cordeliers. Nevertheless, she could also have sympathies for certain figures close to the faction of the "exagérés" (the Hébertists) or the Enragés. For example, Albertine wrote a letter to Fréron protesting the imprisonment of Legray, as seen here: Legray’s Imprisonment ( in the end of these post). It appears that Legray was connected to Varlet (a figure of the Enragés) as well as to Joseph Bodson, a prominent Hébertist revolutionary who would later become one of Babeuf’s "lieutenants" in the Babouvist conspiracy ( one the most important). Bodson continued his revolutionary activities at least until 1800, associating with neo-Jacobins and remaining an influential figure in that movement, according to Jean Jaurès (I can no longer find any trace of Joseph Bodson after 1800) .

It is also worth noting that Bodson was closely associated with Hébert and Chaumette and he never forgave the Committee of Public Safety for their executions(to the point that even though Babeuf and he always respected each other deeply, they disagreed on Robespierre when Gracchus admired Robespierre again after he had criticized him as you can see here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/768074996296892416/relations-between-babeuf-and-robespierre?source=share ) . Here is an excerpt showing the relationship between Legray, Bodson, and Varlet: Source on Cairn.info

This raises several questions. First, Varlet was part of the Enragés, a faction that the Hébertists fought against while taking up their petitions. One element of their confrontation is discussed here: Conflict Between Enragés and Hébertists. It is thus legitimate to question why Varlet and Bodson continued their relationship despite their ideological differences.

Second, it must be remembered that Simone Evrard was very close to Albertine Marat. However, Simone delivered a speech at the Convention against Roux and Leclerc, two men whom Varlet followed. Moreover, Legray, a man linked to Varlet, was supported by Albertine Marat. It seems that Albertine sympathized with figures from factions that her brother Jean-Paul fought against during his lifetime, which does not seem entirely inconsistent, given Albertine’s admiration for Danton.

Another hypothesis could be proposed: when Albertine wrote this letter to Fréron, she was strongly associated with Gracchus Babeuf, who published it in his journal Le Tribun du Peuple, especially after her break with Guffroy. Babeuf and Jean-Paul Marat had a deep mutual respect, even when they disagreed. Babeuf, who was close to Bodson and Legray, might have led Albertine to believe that a political alliance with the remnants of the Hébertists and Enragés was necessary to face Fréron even if they disagree. After all, Albertine Marat could also have been a politician, just like her brother.

In the end, it would be worth exploring further the political divergences of Albertine Marat and her ambiguous relations with Simone Evrard, though both of these women remain undeniably figures of political integrity.

P.S.: Gracchus Babeuf personally met Simone Evrard and Albertine Marat (and by extension, Babeuf’s wife, Marie-Anne as well, it is clearly certain ). However, it would be interesting to know if, in addition to Babeuf’s extensive correspondence with Jean-Paul Marat during his lifetime, he met him in Paris.

#frev #french revolution #marat #albertine marat #jean paul marat #freron #simone evrard #bodson #varlet #legray #babeuf #france #history #women in history

30 notes · View notes

nesiacha · 2 months ago

Text

Mini Reflections on Jean-Marc Schiappa’s Biography of Babeuf (on the negative points that I found)

As I previously promised in an earlier post—before writing a new critique of the points on which I disagree with Emmanuel de Waresquiel in his biography of Fouché—I would like, in a gesture of good faith, to first outline the areas where I diverge from the work of the excellent historian Jean-Marc Schiappa regarding his biography of Gracchus Babeuf.

Let me be clear: Schiappa’s biography is overall a very strong and valuable contribution. It offers updated insights, challenges long-standing stereotypes (such as the idea that Babeuf was naïve—Schiappa convincingly shows that Babeuf sometimes feigned naivety strategically), and reveals Babeuf as intelligent, pragmatic, and politically shrewd. It traces his rise in popularity and finally gives political recognition to his wife, not merely as a collaborator but as his true political right hand. The biography also clarifies many of his key political relationships—with Darthé, René Lebois, François Réal, Buonarroti, Elisabeth Le Bon (widow of Joseph Le Bon), Charles Germain, Félix Le Peletier, Jean-Paul Marat, Chaumette, Pache, Amar, Vadier, Fournier l’Américain, Antonelle, Marc-Antoine Jullien, Dubois de Fosseux, Topino-Lebrun, Pache, Hesine, Guffroy, Rossignol, Joseph Fouché, Garin, Bodson, Legray, Varlet, Grisel (whom Schiappa convincingly shows only betrayed the movement when he realized there was nothing to gain from it), among others. Schiappa does not lay the blame solely on Carnot for the repression of the Babouvists, and he provides important evidence for why it is difficult—if not impossible—to classify Babeuf as a "pre-Marxist."

However, there are some points with which I respectfully disagree, and others where I found the information presented incomplete or unsatisfying.

Firstly, Schiappa appears, in my opinion, to be very Robespierrist/Babouvist (which is not a flaw—no historian is perfectly neutral, and everyone has their favorite figures from the Revolution; and I may be wrong about this). That said, he sometimes repeats the same bias as Buonarroti regarding the Hébertists, particularly in his treatment of Chaumette—a highly complex revolutionary figure (whom I’ve discussed here, and may one day write a short biography of). Schiappa calls Chaumette "well-meaning but clumsy," implying that the Hébertists were somehow inferior revolutionaries compared to Robespierre and thus justifying their political elimination. This interpretation seems to excuse Robespierre (who, to be fair, was not solely responsible for these events) and Babeuf for his harsh words about his former friend who had been guillotined, despite having tried to help Chaumette’s widow. In a letter to his friend Bodson, Babeuf wrote:

“I confess today, honestly, that I regret having once seen in black both the revolutionary government and Robespierre, Saint-Just, etc. I believe that these men were better than all the revolutionaries combined, and that their dictatorial government was devilishly well-imagined... I do not agree at all with you that they committed great crimes and caused the death of many republicans. Not so much, I believe... I do not enter into whether Hébert and Chaumette were innocent. If they were, I still justify Robespierre... My opinion is that he did well. The salvation of 25 million people must not be balanced against deference to a few ambiguous individuals… tough luck for them.”

This represents a shift from an extreme and false view of Robespierre and Saint-Just as monsters, to an equally extreme and incorrect idealization. The Hébertists, like any faction, had both strengths and flaws, but they were far from being "clumsy." They proposed impactful measures such as the Maximum, similar to the Enragés. Chaumette’s death was a tragic error in the factional power struggles. Though he had his flaws, he opposed the Hébertist insurrection plans from the outset, and his unjust execution alienated many sans-culottes. He carried out his duties as Prosecutor of the Commune with dedication and effectiveness. So no, Chaumette was not a "clumsy man."

Secondly, when Schiappa critiques Waresquiel’s portrayal of Babeuf’s relationship with Fouché—which he does very well, and I believe he offers the most accurate interpretation—he cannot resist describing Waresquiel as “very biased,” a term that feels unnecessarily pejorative. Schiappa typically maintains a more respectful tone when disagreeing with other historians, which makes this choice stand out. Here the exercpt Here is an excerpt from a text by Jean-Marc Schiappa:

At the beginning of Year III, following Tallien’s denunciation on January 29, 1795, Fouché responded with the following statement: "A republican is accountable for his associations only to the law; I am ready to disclose mine when the law requires it. There is not one that does not bring me honor. Many have ties with power and wealth; I believe it is not yet forbidden to have ties with the misfortune of the oppressed. Yes, I have relations with Babeuf, and since Tallien has just pointed one out to the National Convention, I must say that Babeuf indeed sent me a draft of a pamphlet refuting the various writings published against May 31—a pamphlet that was never published. My entire life is pure." That last sentence will be appreciated by the reader. After "published," the Journal des Hommes libres reports that Fouché allegedly added: "That is enough to indicate the advice I gave" (January 30), while Le Moniteur confirms this with a very similar formulation: "That is enough to tell you what my conduct was in this matter."

"Babeuf claims that the former Oratorian's diatribe was met with thunderous applause," writes the very biased Emmanuel de Waresquiel, Yet while the press is generally silent on the issue—as Babeuf himself notes ("this is to be expected")—Les Nouvelles Politiques, nationales et étrangères reports: "There was loud applause from one part of the hall" (January 30, 1795). This newspaper, the new name of the Gazette universelle, a notably moderate outlet, is all the less suspect of Babouvist sympathies, given that it spells his name as "Baboeuh."

Moreover, Schiappa states that Félix Le Peletier escaped repression solely because his brother was a republican martyr. That may be part of it, but the role of Carnot—despite being the spearhead of the Babouvist repression—was also crucial due to the complex relationships between them. I discuss this further here, a point Schiappa does not mention.

Regarding Babeuf’s character, Schiappa overlooks key flaws. While Babeuf was highly intelligent and skilled in clandestine activity (to the point that even Grisel struggled to learn the addresses of important conspirators), he could also be shockingly irresponsible. For example, at the time of his arrest, he had left over a hundred documents—including clandestine pamphlets, insurrection decrees, and instructions for rebellion—in one of his lodgings, as noted by Laura Mason. Though he had to memorize many operational details, he should have destroyed sensitive documents. His carelessness made it easier for the police to dismantle the conspiracy and justifiably angered his friend Antonelle.

This irresponsibility also appears in a rare moment of discord with his wife during their imprisonment in Floréal Year IV—the only time they didn’t exchange loving words. Marie-Anne expressed doubt, and Babeuf responded coldly, writing:

« Your state, my good friend, would have greatly saddened me in the past, when I had time to think about it. But today, being a good patriot as you know, love for the fatherland stifles all other love in me. Always frank, I will admit to you that we Jacobins and enraged ones are no longer tender at all, but, on the contrary, terribly hard. That’s why, when you tell me you are entirely resolved to die, I can only reply: Die, if that is your wish.”

Victor Advielle rightly noted that this was a moment when Babeuf lost sight of his familial duties in the heat of revolutionary fervor. Fortunately, he later softened and resumed expressing affection, but Schiappa omits this episode entirely.

On a smaller note, Schiappa often quotes Babeuf’s letters only partially or refers to them without elaboration. It remains unclear whether Babeuf corresponded politically with Chaumette’s widow or simply supported her as best he could.

Additionally, while Schiappa discusses the breakdown of Babeuf’s collaboration with Guffroy (see here), he does not include Guffroy’s detailed letter explaining his side of the split—something I would have appreciated seeing for balance.

As for Babeuf’s circle, Schiappa mentions that Babeuf and Marat corresponded, but doesn’t clarify whether they met in person. He references Albertine Marat’s protest letter on Legray’s imprisonment, but not Babeuf’s connection with Albertine and Simone Evrard, who hosted him after the Guffroy fallout:

“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.

This touching moment is omitted in these book . Similarly, though Schiappa highlights Babeuf’s feminism, he quotes Elisabeth Le Bon only mentions Sophie Lapierre, Marie-Adélaïde Lambert, or Agathe Hésine—key Babouvist womens. In fact, we learn far more about Babeuf’s relationships with male collaborators than his female ones, despite his egalitarian approach.

I also would have liked a deeper exploration of Babeuf’s relationship with Dubois de Fosseux, especially considering how close they were before their political break. Schiappa briefly addresses the Babouvist trial, but not with the detail Victor Advielle provides. We see only Babeuf’s defense strategy and a brief discussion of the mockery of justice.

Lastly, in the epilogue, Schiappa says very little about the fate of Babeuf’s companions. Buonarroti is mentioned,other implied in the Conjuration too , but not Antonelle, nor what became of Charles Germain’s child after his wife’s murder—though perhaps this was covered in another book by Schiappa on the Conspiracy of Equals, which I haven’t read yet.

One more clue that Gracchus was mocking Fouché is when Charles Germain rejoiced upon Fouché’s arrest(even though he escaped to his arrest and didn't go to prison ) , writing to Babeuf (who shares his joy of this news) : "Well! Fouché is arrested. Well done! Well done! Damn it! This is how we teach that scoundrel to live. What an example for the traitors!"

While Schiappa does show that Marie-Anne attempted multiple prison rescues for her husband, he neglects the fact that she even lobbied deputies. He also underplays her generosity toward others beyond her husband. For instance, on 25 Prairial, though gravely ill and with her children suffering in poverty, she praised a man named Daubeau, who fed them. When they could no longer help, she excused them, saying they were exhausted, and she dared not ask for more:

“Daube gave us a lot before I got sick, and for my illness, he gave even more, for me and our three children who also fell ill. His wife brought us butter and eggs multiple times. I think they are now quite drained. It’s been eight days since they gave anything. I told him yesterday that it cost three livres, but he said nothing. I didn’t dare ask for more.”

She never forgot her friends, remained in contact with them, and expressed her gratitude—particularly to Hésine and his wife Agathe, whom she befriended during the Vendôme trial. This friendship likely lasted until at least 1807, as evidenced by a letter from her son Émile, and perhaps even throughout their lives.

Schiappa rightly emphasizes Marie-Anne’s skill in clandestine life—deceiving police so effectively that even though they knew she was Gracchus’s main contact (and later their son Émile), they could not catch her. She refused to reveal his hiding place and was imprisoned for three weeks as a result. However, Schiappa fails to mention Babeuf’s request that she come to Vendôme to help secure a release—even though she was several months pregnant. This helps explain his insistence on her coming by foot, as quickly as possible. Indeed, there was a failed collective escape attempt involving other conspirators.

After Gracchus’s death, Schiappa does mention that Marie-Anne became a seller of toiletries and was supported by Félix Le Peletier and possibly Turreau, who adopted Camille Babeuf. He also notes three police procedures against her—in Year VII, in 1801, and in 1808 during the first Malet conspiracy—but provides very little detail. The exact date in Year VII remains unknown (possibly after the closing of the Manège, perhaps following the arrest of neo-Jacobin René Vatar, a known Babeuf ally). Details of her 1801 arrest are lacking—was she imprisoned for weeks or released quickly? In 1808, police described her as exercising “prudent discretion” in public.

However, it is now clear that this restraint was more a facade. We now know she pretended to act this way under the Directory, while actually maintaining underground ties. This makes it unwise to take her claims at face value. Besides, deceiving Napoleon’s police was no easy feat. She was clearly aware that her son Émile was reconnecting with his father’s former comrades, now legally tolerated under the Empire. One letter from Émile to the Hésines mentions that their mother sent greetings and affection.

He first visited Buonarroti—heavily monitored by police and an active member of the secret Philadelphes society opposing Bonaparte—as well as Antonelle, who shared similar political views. A police note even states that Émile asked for “Reverend Father Antonelle,” a rather suspicious title that suggests clandestine intent.

Was Marie-Anne also involved? She likely knew of these meetings, as suggested in Hésine’s letter. Perhaps she supported Émile or even participated in the project, while staying in Paris to care for her other two sons. Either these meetings were unrelated to anti-regime efforts, or mother and son resumed their revolutionary activities, especially given their contact with key Philadelphes figures. They may not have grasped the movement’s full depth but likely sought ways to contribute as militants—at a time when Émile Babeuf was not yet a Bonapartist.

She remained very close to Félix Le Peletier, who treated the Babeuf family like his own, even as he became one of Bonaparte’s prominent Jacobin opponents. Notably, Marie-Anne never betrayed him—not in 1801 during the brutal crackdown following the rue Saint-Nicaise bombing, nor in 1808, when she could have denounced her late husband’s comrades to ease Émile’s return to France (he only escaped arrest because he was working abroad at the time). Her loyalty mirrors the solidarity she shared with her husband and those who shared their political convictions or had fought alongside them.

Réal may have also protected her, although proof is scant, save for a letter Camille Babeuf wrote him in 1813 requesting employment and reminding him of his promise to Gracchus to look after his children. One year after the Malet conspiracy’s suppression, Émile was allowed to return to Lyon without any consequences, possibly thanks to Réal’s influence—though some historians like Dautry dispute this.

Which brings me to this question: why did Camille not appeal to Turreau, his adoptive father, but to Réal instead? I personally doubt Turreau supported the Babeuf family, possibly for two reasons:

Marie-Anne may have cut ties with him after his abusive treatment of his wife the widow Ronsin , who subscribed to Le Tribun du Peuple and lived in poverty following their divorce.

Turreau may have abandoned them out of political opportunism.

It remains theoretically possible he helped, but I don’t believe it likely.

All these insights come from other historians—I expected Schiappa to highlight them and provide hypotheses. Instead, we find nothing.

Moreover, I sometimes feel that Schiappa is too partial toward Babeuf. He does critique some of Babeuf’s faults, particularly initiating Émile into politics too early—by age nine he was helping print his father's journal, and by eleven he was acting as a messenger for the Conspiracy of Equals. Yet I don’t blame Babeuf for that alone. Many revolutionary parents introduced politics early, while still allowing their children freedom of thought.

Babeuf was clearly a loving father—his letters overflow with affection, nicknames like fanfinot or comrade, and concern for their education. He bought them toys, showed them tenderness, and never recovered from the loss of his two daughters.

But here lies my main criticism: to fully understand Gracchus, we must examine his childhood. He had thirteen siblings, nine of whom died young. He adored his parents, who loved him in return, but his father—a former soldier —imposed harsh discipline and physically abused him. Babeuf wrote:

“Education cost my shoulders dearly... To teach me what they didn’t know, they resorted to violence. I still remember the military tone and terrible beatings that didn’t merely discourage me—they tortured my childhood.”

Gracchus reproduced this model with Émile—not through violence or military regimentation, but with the same severe expectations. He would scold his son for innocent childhood distractions, demanding hours of violin practice rather than play. When Émile played stilts to cope with his father’s final imprisonment, Babeuf berated him for spelling mistakes rather than offering comfort. Here is the extract of the letter “Why do you not tell me about your stilts, my dear friend? It is said they make you look very tall and that you cross the river with them. That is quite brave, but I am not, however, dazzled with admiration. I fear that, with all this height from the stilts, you remain a very small man in terms of intelligence, and your letter from yesterday does not dispel this fear. You accuse me of having insulted you ( in french de faire des ingures, Emile made a spelling mistake). I guessed that this meant you were insulted ( des injures). I saw with regret that you did not understand the meaning of this word any better than how to spell it, and it is the stilts and other such things that are the cause [....]. I told you never to speak like a parrot; that you should be sure of the meaning of expressions before using them; that even the simplest words should be well understood before exposing them, because otherwise, one risks babbling nonsense. Try to remember this lesson. It is one of the first and most important.”

In response to Emile’s letter, expressing a desire to amend, Gracchus writes to his wife:

“I was not too displeased with Emile’s work yesterday. The copy was done with some precision. From what you tell me, I can hope that he will do well. However, he must realize that it is not enough to be sensitive, to cry, and to behave well for a day, but that he must make a lasting decision.”

Despite following Rousseau’s pedagogical ideals, Babeuf imposed tremendous pressure. As a result, I think Émile had little childhood joy, and some leisure was met with criticism (and the fact that he constantly saw his father and then his mother being arrested must not have helped, it should be noted that during Gracchus's first arrest he cried). Marie-Anne either approved or passively allowed this dynamic—her silence speaks volumes, as she was not the kind to refrain from expressing disagreement.

It is hard not to see some responsibility in both parents if Émile later made questionable political choices, earned Buonarroti’s cautious trust, wrote fictionalized memoirs that glorified his family and misrepresented fellow revolutionaries, before taking a reactionary turn. While this doesn’t absolve Émile, it highlights a flaw that Schiappa fails to address.

Finally, although Babeuf was among the most feminist revolutionaries of his time, he used appalling language toward Thérésia Tallien—calling her a “Messalina,” a “Pompadour,” an “Antoinette,” and a “Venus-Dubarry,” before proclaiming: “Frenchmen, you have returned under the reign of the courtesans” (Le Tribun du Peuple, no. 29). This was deeply sexist. While I personally dislike Theresia and can understand why Babeuf hate her ( such as watching his daughter starve which will eventually kill her) Babeuf would have done better to criticize her politically not by using theses terms . Still, this was clearly not one of his finest moments—and Schiappa fails to address this contradiction.

That said, Schiappa’s biography of Babeuf remains excellent and highly recommended. I only pointed out these flaws—however minor—because they deserve acknowledgment. And of course, this is just my perspective; I may very well be wrong.

Sources: Victor Advielle Galina Tchertkova Jean Dautry Maurice Dommanget Claude Mazauric Éric Walter Raymonde Monnier Pierre Serna Victor Daline (Some excerpts come from my own posts, especially my theories about Marie-Anne Babeuf’s personality: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/777915103545786368/the-personality-of-marie-anne-victoire-babeuf-n%C3%A9e?source=share)

If you want to know more about Turreau's shameful behavior towards his wife, it's here (two different links) https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/773151145604628480/turreau-marie-ang%C3%A9lique-and-the-tragedy-of?source=share and https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/766957071556067328/the-day-a-judge-finally-confronted-turreau-for-his?source=share and the complex relationship he had with Ronsin before he was executed, it's here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/766971097091538944/letter-from-turreau-to-ronsin-and-the-complex?source=share

#frev #french revolution #gracchus babeuf #history #france #critize historians #1790s

14 notes · View notes