theblackrook

[theblackrook]

Hello!

Here Fouché is often drawn having red hair and blue eyes. Are there any official sources on his physical appearance that confirm he really had these features?

Hello to you too! Thank you so much for this question and for giving me another opportunity to yap about my favourite man. ♥

Indeed, this description has become predominant and even inspired the most exquisite Fouché fanarts I know, starting with michel-feuilly's masterpieces, which are my personal favorites and deserve more visibility.

As for the historical sources, some people in the frevblr and napoblr pointed out the existence of this portrait (third image, with Carnot's) but no author or date is associated with it and as far as I know, it's nowhere to be found other than in this article, so I'd rather not state with certainty that Fouché is the one depicted here.

In fact, sources that describe Fouché as a redhead are… quite rare, actually.

First of all, there are Barras' Mémoires, and I believe it's here that this description of red hair was first noticed by the frev/napoleonic era fandom. It should be noted that they were published after his death, and we can't even be sure that it was actually him who even wrote them. And even if he did, we shouldn't necessarily trust everything he says, because, well… it's Barras. Anyway, when it comes to Fouché, he describes :

“[Fouché's] tiny red-rimmed eyes, which had given him for me the nickname of the Red Partridge, [which] were even redder, smaller and veiled than usual”

But he doesn't specify whether his eyes are blue or not. Further on, he mentions :

“[...] his ugly wife called the ‘virtuous woman’, her child red-haired and ugly like them”

The child to whom he refers here is not Nièvre, as I have read in some posts, but Evelina Fouché, his second daughter, born in January 1795 and deceased in July 1796, for Nièvre was no longer alive by the time of the Thermidorian Convention/early Directory, and it is at this point in his life that Fouché is described.

Of his many biographers, only Stefan Zweig describes him with “russet eyebrows”, and for many reasons, including his refusal to substantiate his biographies with a single damn source and his lack of mastery of the historical method, I don't give this author any credit.

And then… that's it. Or, well, I've found other physical descriptions of Fouché, but he appears more as… blondish?

For example, his biographer Emmanuel de Waresquiel pictures Fouché as follows: “He has a glabrous face half eaten with freckles, very pale, of a waxy and livid pallor, almost diaphanous, down to the hair of a bland blond, bleached as are those of albinos.” (Fouché, les silences de la pieuvre, Chapter 4: “Vous tremblez devant l'ombre d'un roi”)

Maxime du Camp, too young to have seen Fouché with his own eyes, describes him in the dusk of his life, in 1820 during his exile in Prague in Souvenirs d'un demi-siècle :

“Emaciated, wrapped in a blanket, with his yellow hair, his white eyebrows, his weak albino eyes, he looked like a ghost ready to disappear.”

Lastly, there's a description in the Mémoires of Mathieu Molé, who knew him during his lifetime and even met him at several occasions :

“His whole person reflects the passions that agitated his life; his height is tall, his limbs spindly, his fiber dry, his movements very swift, his physiognomy fiery, his features thin, his eyes scratched and piercing, his hair those of an albino; something fierce, elegant and agile makes him look like a panther”.

Then there's the problem of Fouché's pictorial representations. Most of those were probably not made during his lifetime. His two best-known paintings are currently part of the collections of the Versailles Castle (where they are not on display, much to my regret. And the curators refused to show them to me when I was begging on my knees. Rude people). The first, Claude Dubufe's painting of Fouché in 1809 dressed in his Duke of Otranto clothes, was allegedly commissioned by Fouché's children after his death, but we don't even know its date, and according to an article by the art historian Jérémie Benoît, it was painted by another artist, René Berthon, then recuperated and extensively retouched: “the whole background was repainted, hiding a drapery and some furniture”. Once again, I can't prove anything, even if it's true that this black background, as if something were hidden inside, gives this painting a rather strange mystery. We don't know either who painted this one, and for this one, we suspect the portraitist Marie-Thérèse de Noireterre, who even painted two representations of him.

Then there's my favorite of all: this engraving in Henri Buisson's biography of Fouché, which is said to have been made in 1798 and bears a striking resemblance to all the descriptions above, not to mention the fact that he looks like he has blond (or red!) hair :

Aaaaand, that's all I know about it. In conclusion, I can't assert anything with certainty when it comes to Chéché's hair and eyes colour. I am sorry if this long answer is a disappointment. :(

But I can give you my theory : maybe Barras doesn't describe Fouché as a redhead because he has red hair, but for more philosophical, more symbolic reasons, linked to the way in which the figure of the redhead was represented in art, literature and overall the public imagination :

“Certainly, throughout the Middle Ages, to be ginger was still, as in Antiquity, to be cruel, bloody, ugly, inferior or ridiculous; but over time it became primarily to be false, cunning, a liar, a deceiver, disloyal, perfidious or a renegade. To the traitors and felons of literature and iconography, already mentioned, are added the discredited gingers of didactic works, encyclopedias, books on manners and, above all, proverbs.” (Michel Pastoureau, Une Histoire Symbolique du Moyen-Âge)

This vision of things was particularly true in ancient and medieval times, but it's not implausible to suppose that it continued to exist in people's thoughts as well as in art (Cabanel's 1847 painting The Fallen Angel depicts Lucifer with red hair).

But again, this is just one of my theories, and unfortunately I can't read Barras' mind to verify the veracity of my hypotheses.

Still, I think it would be interesting to discuss it together, and ask if any of you have found other physical descriptions of Fouché that would help us shed more light on this mystery!

[theblackrook]

THAT TREND but it's Désirée Clary & Bernadotte propaganda

With a Napoléon cameo

[theblackrook]

« Mme Murat avait désiré long-temps, avoir deux Anglaises auprès de ses enfans. »

Madame Murat had long wished to have two Englishwomen at her children’s side. The eldest, Achille, was about four years old; the second, Lætitia, was two; and the third was only nine months old. Later, a daughter was born, who was named Louise. Mme Pulsdorf, my fellow countrywoman, and I were received with great kindness. The eldest of the little boys was entrusted to my care. We spent all our time in the apartments assigned to us; we rarely interacted with other staff in the household. The Italian and French servants showed us little sympathy and continually ganged up on us. Even those whose position ought to have placed them above such pettiness did not hesitate to organize little intrigues to discredit us in the eyes of our excellent mistress, because, being English, we belonged to the enemy’s side. But although their conduct caused us great distress, we nonetheless showed zeal in carrying out our duties, and we had the satisfaction of hearing Madame Murat express her desire to have more English people in her service. I rarely had the opportunity to see Bonaparte. The visits he paid to his sister were so secret that few in the household knew when he was there. However, he did learn that his sister had two Englishwomen in her service; and when he had resolved to attempt a landing in England, he wanted us to be sent away, saying that women could, like men, maintain correspondences. But the children were so attached to us that their mother tried to evade this order. For three months, we were not allowed to go to the palace or to appear in public.

Note: The source is a French translation of an English text which I then proceeded to translate back into English! How great! In any case, I will continue to analyze this source and make more posts about it, stay tuned ^_^

My Thoughts ↴

Caroline is described as having received the English governesses "with great kindness" and expressed a desire for more English staff despite England being at war with France at the time. This suggests she was more focused on practical and emotional needs (e.g. care for her children) than on ideological loyalty to the nation.

When Napoleon ordered the dismissal of the Englishwomen due to fears of espionage, Caroline tried to defy or at least delay the order, because her children were attached to their governesses. This shows that she was independent-minded and willing to (quietly) resist her brother's orders and that she most likely prioritized the well-being and stability of her children over that obedience.

Though the fact that the Englishwomen were mistreated by other servants but remained in Caroline's good graces suggests she may have been unaware or unable (or perhaps unwilling) to fully intervene in the pettiness within her staff.

But by embracing English staff, Caroline implicitly signals that ideology (in this case, loyalty to France in a war against England) was not her dominant guiding principle in domestic affairs. Instead, she prioritized practical considerations: childcare, household management, and her children's happiness. (.. Isn't that a repeat of what I just said ??? take a shot every time i repeat what I just said guys !!)

Murat himself is not mentioned directly in this passage by a woman who presumably spent a LOT of time around his children, which probably indicates the obvious; that Murat played little a role in household management or child-rearing and that he left the domestic sphere to Caroline, or even more likely, that he was occupied with his military/political duties. (Because as we know, Murat was very attached to his children, so I doubt he'd be at home and just not care about them and their upbringing.)

On a broader historical level, Caroline's choices reflect what is most likely wider patterns among the European aristocracy during times of war. Aristocratic families often employed foreign servants, tutors, and governesses regardless of national tensions, because education, language skills, and cultural refinement were highly valued. While nationalism existed, the aristocracy was often insulated from its harsher effects. The presence of English staff in a French household highlights how practical concerns often took precedence over political alignment.

[theblackrook]

Joachim Murat, by Pierre Charles Cior, around 1808.

(I’ve actually never seen this one before. It was posted on Facebook from an unnamed auction listing.)

[theblackrook]

ok fine i'll post art

Bernafem .. Femdotte???

[theblackrook]

« Peut-on se cacher trop soigneusement quand on a attaqué Robespierre ? »

The author of L'Ami des Lois had condemned himself for some months to voluntary reclusion to avoid the prison his enemies had in store for him, when a person who took a keen interest in him asked me to find out from the people in power whom I might know, whether Laya's days were threatened, and whether it was necessary for him to do himself more harm by depriving himself of his freedom than his enemies perhaps wanted to do him. In fact, there was no warrant out for him. One evening, at the (Théâtre?) Italiens, I ran into d'Églantine, who, as I said, had been obliging during my imprisonment. I approached him, and after congratulating him on having made himself the patron of the gens de lettres in the eyes of the government committees, I mentioned a few of them who feared for their safety, including Desfaucherets and Laya. F — “Desfaucherets,” he told me, “I don't see why he should be worried. He doesn't like us, but he hasn't proved it publicly. We don't think about him. Don't let him make us think about him; don't let him show himself; we won't go looking for him. If he's in trouble, come and tell me; I'll do what I can to get him out of it.” A — “Good, but what about Laya?” F — “Oh, Laya's another matter. Laya—who wrote L'Ami des Lois! Don't you just love laws? Laya—who attacked Robespierre!” A — “So you like Robespierre?” F — “Robespierre!” ( He looked at me with the most expressive eyes. ) F — “Do you know what it is to attack Robespierre? Can one hide too carefully when one has attacked Robespierre?” A — “Is it a crime of lèse-majesté to attack Robespierre? Is Robespierre a king?” F — “Robespierre… is Robespierre.” ( He replied, raising the index finger of his gesticulating right hand. ) F — “Attack Robespierre!” ( He repeated in a voice that grew more serious as he repeated the name. ) I couldn't get another answer. I drew two conclusions from this, both of which, it seemed to me, were quite accurate: 1. That poor Laya was infallibly lost if discovered - I sent him word of this. 2. That Robespierre had become an object of concern and jealousy for his malicious* colleagues; and that, not yet daring to accuse him as a usurper of authority, they were taking pains to designate him as such by the deference they paid to him, by the importance they pretended to attach to his person. It was clear to me from then on that discord was in Agramant's camp, and that before long it would erupt. Indeed, a few months later, Danton's faction, of which Fabre was a member, climbed the scaffold, where, a few months after that, Robespierre was dragged in his turn. Fabre, in our conversation, was preluding the accusation of the tyrant.

Original : Pages 39/40/41, Souvenirs d'un sexagénaire - Antoine-Vincent Arnault - Google Books

* The original French is "Que Robespierre était devenu un objet d’inquiétude et de jalousie pour ses noirs collègues"; the adjective "noirs" (literally black) is not referring to race or physical appearance. Instead, it’s a figurative, moral, or emotional descriptor—a common usage in 18th- and 19th-century French prose. This figurative use of noir was often applied to conspirators, corrupt officials, or treacherous characters—people who operated in the political shadows.

My Thoughts ↴

Arnault approaches Fabre because he had become known as:

“the patron saint of people of letters to government committees.”

This role — a mediator between writers and the revolutionary government — places Fabre in an uncomfortable position: he is responsible for protecting intellectuals, while also navigating the dangerous politics of the committees. It makes him a kind of double agent: loyal to his fellow men of letters, but bound by political allegiance.

When Fabre discusses Desfaucherets, he evaluates the situation pragmatically and dismisses concerns over him:

“He doesn’t like us, but he hasn’t said so publicly… Let him stay quiet and he’ll be fine.”

He is more or less telling Arnault that as long as Desfaucherets doesn’t provoke or attract attention, he’ll be left alone. He’s describing not morality, but optics — what one can get away with, not what is right. Fabre even offers help, suggesting some goodwill or at the very least neutrality.

But Jean-Louis Laya is different — because he’s already crossed the line by writing L’Ami des lois, which was seen as a thinly veiled critique of mob rule, featuring a characterization of Robespierre. Fabre understands that this kind of act is unforgivable in the current political climate (around the time of the execution of Louis XVI). He offers no defense of Laya’s right to free expression — only a reality that Arnault has to interpret: Laya is doomed if they find him.

Fabre is not cruel — but he is concerned, above all, with his own survival. Fabre doesn’t even try to offer hope. He doesn’t bother pretending there’s room for debate. Laya is already lost.

Throughout the conversation with Arnault, Fabre carefully avoids directly criticizing Robespierre, even when prompted. Instead of giving a clear answer about whether Laya is in danger for attacking Robespierre, he simply repeats:

“Robespierre… is Robespierre.”

This phrase becomes the centerpiece of Fabre’s words — a tautology that substitutes clarity with Fabre’s way of describing Maximilien. It is not a definition, but a gesture. He doesn’t define him — because he can’t or dares not. Fabre cloaks his meaning in ambiguity very intentionally, not taking a stance is itself a stance. To name power is to challenge it. This repetition, especially with changes in tone and gesture (raising his index finger like signaling that one must not say more, lowering his voice), suggests that Fabre is afraid to articulate Robespierre’s power aloud.

In Fabre’s world, names carry weight — and Robespierre’s name has become heavier than most. To define Robespierre would be to judge him — and in doing so, one risks the judgment of Robespierre in return. So, he speaks in code to ensure himself some plausible deniability. That fear is visible in his evasiveness.

“You know what he is. I cannot say it, but you know. And if you don’t, you are a fool.”

And while Fabre never explicitly criticizes Robespierre, there’s a subtle edge to how he talks about him:

“Do you know what it means to attack Robespierre?”

The question is rhetorical. It implies: “You must be foolish or suicidal to do such a thing.” His tone becomes darker with each repetition of the name — and this intensity suggests more than fear. It suggests that Robespierre’s name, rightly or wrongly, had come to represent a limit — not just to political action, but to speech itself.

In any case, there is a cruel irony in the fact that this happens inside a theater, with Fabre—a playwright and political actor—choosing his words very carefully.

[theblackrook]

That bitch Salicetti being FED UP with Bonbonaparte and overjoyed 9 Thermidor ended it

Source : "Chap. 5 : Le capitaine canon", Bonaparte, André Castelot

Salicetti, on whom the Army of Italy now also relies, took umbrage at the protection the Robespierre brothers granted Buonaparte. Perhaps the young general was somewhat clumsy in his dealings with his compatriot? Is it true that, as the Representative told the new Comité de Salut Public, he “barely looked at him from the height of his stature”? In any case, on August 6, Salicetti wrote to his colleague Berthier: “I learned of the death of the new tyrant and his accomplices, and I assure you that my heart expanded with pleasure. You know how despotically Ricord and Augustin Robespierre dominated the Army of Italy. How abuses reigned in finances...”

Buonaparte, “Robespierre's favourite”, was inevitably compromised. “I am convinced,” Salicetti added, “that when I arrive in Nice, I will find Ricord gone and perhaps Buonaparte too. If they are still in Nice, we have decided to have them arrested and sent to Paris immediately. There are strong grounds for suspicion, treason and squandering.” On the same August 6, representatives Albitte and Laporte, whom Salicetti had tracked down in Barcelonnette, called the young Robespierre's campaign plan - suggested by Buonaparte - “liberticide”.

“Buonaparte was their man,” they specify in their letter to the Committee, “their plan-maker whom we had to obey. A letter, anonymous but dated from Genoa, warned us that there was one million on the road to corrupt a general. Stay on your guard, we were told. Salicetti is on his way. He tells us that Buonaparte has gone to Genoa, authorized by Ricord. What was this general planning to do in a foreign country? All our suspicions are fixed on his head...” It is certain - Napoleon would later admit that his favor with the representatives on mission in place before Thermidor was high - that Augustin Robespierre hardly made any decisions concerning the Army of Italy before consulting the young general.

Without waiting for the Committee's orders, the three commissioners, “considering that General Buonaparte has totally lost their trust through the most suspicious conduct, and especially through the trip he recently made to Genoa”, decided as follows: “Brigadier General Buonaparte, commander-in-chief of the artillery of the Army of Italy, is temporarily suspended from duty. He will be arrested by and under the responsibility of the General-in-Chief of the aforementioned army, and taken to the Comité de Salut Public, in Paris, under safe escort. All papers and effects will be sealed...”.

[theblackrook]

Do you bite or just bark in 18th-century French?

I ought brandish my teeth as a hound does; this is not a simply threat. I am a mongrel! In truth, I am no pet!

[theblackrook]

Wwhatever this is. Take it ig.

[theblackrook]

Gulps. Shitty saintmoulins doodle srry

[theblackrook]

[theblackrook]

who even cares…. i sure don’t

[theblackrook]

Maximeee (maxiiimeee) u can't be anybody's friend

[theblackrook]

whoever invented the Robespierres , i just want to talk

[theblackrook]

their REAL dynamic

[theblackrook]

shout out @noiivis for giving me the brush pack, everybody say thank you chĩ !!!!!

[theblackrook]

fouche and collot?

they’re discussing the logistics of blowing people up