fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
French Revolution in five words
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
“”It was noticed lately, as a misfortune attached to the house where we were brought up together, that none of those who had distinguished themselves there fulfilled in the world the hopes that he had first given, that you alone seem happier at this time, and we rejoice in your many subscribers. Although the subscribers are your dear and beloved cousins, we can clearly see that you have not forgotten the rest of the family, nor lost sight of the mountain where we were the first to applaud you. The advantageous manner in which you have spoken of M. Robespiere has charmed us all; up to now, M. Jéhanne has missed only one opportunity to provide you with the occasion of doing him justice as well. The joy with which you gave well deserved praise to a comrade reproached me for my conduct towards you, and obliges me to retract. I make my confession here; although I have always been a good Parent, it was I who wrote this song, more cheerful, it is true, than wicked, inferred at the end of Lune d’Août.””
—
Letter from Desmoulins to Louis Abel Beffroy de Reigny published 1786 in the the twelfth number of the latter’s journal Les fameuses lunes du fameux cousin Jaques. Beffroy (who was more famous under his pseudonym Cousin Jaques) was born 1757 and attended Louis Le Grand together with Camille and Robespierre.
Could Camille be hinting at some kind of friend group at school where both he, Robespierre, Beffroy and this Jéhanne guy belonged? Here we at least see him showing some interest in Robespierre after Louis Le Grand but before the revolution.
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
Hérault all grown up and handsome
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
Oh my god it's Rake Day, best wishes Bonbon
revolution-and-football-deactiv
RAKE DAY
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
I’ve got a few “Wait, Robespierre wasn’t Horace Desmoulins’ godfather?” messages so I’ve made a quick search to see how widespread the idea was on the internet:
It’s bad there are websites that say “Robespierre was his godfather in one of the first Republican baptisms” without any source, but it’s absolutely WILD some claim as such then produce a copy of Horace’s civil baptism, in which there are no godparents, but two witnesses: Laurent Lecointre et Antoine Merlin de Thionville.
Said register where Camille clearly states he doesn’t want to bound Horace to any religion while he’s so young he can’t make his own choices, and that all he wants is the civil ceremony: So no godparents. Only the two witnesses.
Yeah, Robespierre wasn’t even one of the witnesses. I have no idea where the whole “he was his godfather” comes from, except that I do think it’s an oldish idea (19th century? Early 20th?) So, not a recent rumour.
I think this myth is highly connected to these letters where Lucile and her mother mention Robespierre holding Horace on his lap. Lucile even writes ”toi qui a souri à mon fils et que ses mains enfantines ont caressé tant de fois.” It’s not that hard to imagine some 19th century author read the letters, got swept up by how sentimental they are, and got into his head that Robespierre was Horace’s godfather, and then that got repeated over and over again until it became accepted as ”fact”. Maybe they also thought that since Robespierre stood witness to Lucile and Camille’s wedding, he also must have been a witness to Horace baptism. Wasn’t it popular back then to paint Robespierre and Desmoulins as total BFF’s (we also have that story about him being Camille’s best man when he was just a witness)
I honestly think Robespierre playing with Horace on multiple occasions provides better proof of the friendship he had with his parents than him being the godfather does. We know that while in Paris Robespierre agreed to stand as godfather to some kid in Arras he never even got to meet, so it probably wasn’t all about choosing a person close to you that you were certain would take care of the child in case anything happened to you.
Yeah, I think you’re spot on on the origin of the godfather myth!!
I’m curious about the kid from Arras you’ve mentionned, because I don’t think it was possible to be godfather without actually being there for the baptism?
I only know of one Robespierre godson: MaximilIen François-Deschamps, born in Paris around January 1792.
There’s also Guillaume Auguste Maximilien Robespierre Aigoin, son of a Protestant merchant of Montpellier, born on the 21st February 1792. He’s often cited as a godson of Robespierre (Mathiez does it too) but in reality the kid was baptised Prostestant on the 1st March and had a relative for Godfather. However Aigoin wrote to Robespierre, telling him he had named his son after him, and Robespierre apparently replied saying he was “adopting” the child. So I guess that makes him a “godfather” of some sort.
Haha, you’re right, I totally messed up the godsons.
There exists a letter from Armond-Joseph Guffroy to Robespierre where he complains about the conduct of Joseph Lebon, the representative on mission in Arras, and writes ”il vient de faire arrêter de nouveau, le 28 prairial, Gabriel Leblond, merchant à Arras chez qui tu as été parrain.” [1] I thought this was the Deschamps kid Robespierre was asked to stand as godfather for in 1792. But I suppose it’s more likely he became godfather to this kid before the revolution.
Still, I don’t know of any intimacy between Deschamps and Robespierre (the only known correspondence between them is the letter where Deschamps asks Robespierre to stand as godfather [2]) so it still seems like godfathers weren’t chosen based solely on the relationship with the parents/how suited they were for it.
[1] Correspondance de Maximilien et Augustin Robespierre by Georges Michon (1926) page 298-299
[2] Ibid page 138
Thanks, this is very interesting! I did some digging and I think I’ve found the Leblond kid! Again, this is a case of “not the godfather” Maximilien, but the baptism was on the 27th November 1791!! I don’t know the exact dates of Robespierre’s trip back to the Artois in autumn 1791, but it’s higly possible he was present at the baptism, hence the confusion?
“L’an mil sept cent quatre-vingt-onze, troisième de la Révolution française, le vingt-sept novembre est né et le même jour, du consentement de monsieur le curée de Saint Vaast, a été baptisé par le soussigné avec les cérémonies religieuses accoutumées et avec l’appareil civique François Régis Maximilien Robespierre LEBLOND, fils légitime d’Antoine Gabriel LEBLOND et d’Augustine Josèphe LEBLOND; ses parrain et marraine ont été le citoyen François Régis DESHORTIES et la citoyenne Augustine Angélique DEBRAY…” Oh, and the priest was Joseph Le Bon!!
source: the baptism record (bottom of the right page).
Robespierre isn’t the godfather of Gabriel Leblond’s son, but it’s highly possible he was present at the baptism? The date could match with his trip back home! The kid was named after him!! And idk about the Debrays, but Maximilien knew people from the Deshorties family: one of his aunt married a Deshorties, and according to Charlotte, Maximilien was flirting with (even engaged to) Anais Deshorties (not his cousin, a daughter of Deshorties from a previous marriage).
Anonymous asked:
I heard once that Camille added his wife's name to his own when he married, is there a truth to it?
Haha, no. Tbh, the only source for that was a Tumblr post going around here, with many other innacuracies about Camille. But I don't want to trash the OP, because they must have gotten that wrong info from somewhere (in the case of incorrect stuff of this kind, 9 out of 10 times, it's Mantel, but I am not sure about this one).
So yeah, the idea was that Camille added Lucile's name to his own when he married and that this is a reason behind his first name. But it's incorrect: his first name was Lucie and not Lucile, and - most importantly - he was baptized as such.
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
Desmoulins’ Notes on the Report of Saint-Just
Fragment of a note of Camille Desmoulins on Saint-Just’s report, found among Robespierre’s papers
If I could print in my turn; if one hadn’t hid me away completely, if one had let me my seals, and [if] I had the paper [that would be] necessary in order to establish my defense; if one had let me only two days [for] making a N° 7 [of the Viex Cordelier], how I would unmask Monsieur le chevalier de Saint-Just, how I would convict him of the most atrocious calumny! But he writes leisurely in a bath, in a boudoir; he contemplates my assassination since five days, and I, I have nowhere to put my inkwell, I only have some hours [left] for defending my life. What other thing is this than the duel of the emperor Commodus, who, armed with an excellent sword, forced his enemy to fight with a simple foil [that was] decorated with cork.
But there is a providence, a providence for the patriot, and I will already die happy. The Republic is saved: a foreign affair, but which had taken place in our midst in order to ruin us, by an event [that was] unexpected, unbelievable, has shed light on our so-called conspiracy and it remains proven, by several devisive facts, that those who accuse us of having conspired are themselves the conspirators.
First proven fact. It [was] the conspiracy of Hébert, which has erupted eight days ago; well! Chabot had denounced it at the committee five months ago. He had put down hundred thousand livres supporting his denunciation, in order to justify himself completely; he offered to the members of the Committee that they could have them arrested on the next day, him, Chabot and Bazire, at eight o'clock in the evening, at [the home of] the baron de Batz, and Benoît d'Angers, two principal agents of the conspiracy, who then were at his home. The Committee, instead of having the denounced [persons] and the dénonciateur arrested on eight o'clock in the evening, had the dénonciateur arrested at eight o'clock in the morning, and Batz, Benoît and Jullien de Toulouse escape[d]. First presumption of complicity.
Second fact. It [were] exactly the same members of the Committee who had received Chabots’ declaration, and the probative sum of 100,000 livres, who, on the next day, signed the order for … to arrest Chabot and Bazire at eight o'clock in the morning. Second presumption [that is] no less severe.
Third fact. The committee which had the declaration of Chabot in their hands, [a] declaration [that was proven right] point by point by Hébert’s trial, kept the deepest silence on this conspiracy for five months. Three times it came to tell the Convention that there was no proof against Vincent and Ronsin; that the people… But [it was] the Committee of General Security which held the proofs in their hands! The guilt of Vadier, Vouland etc., could it be more evident?
Since I am telling facts, let us continue…
This Vadier, president of the Committee of General Security, is the same Vadier whom Marat denounced in his issue of 17 July ‘91 as the vilest traitor and scoundrel; these are his expressions. It is the same Vadier who, on 10 July, supported the motion of Dandré, and demanded… [Cf. Marat’s issue from 17 July; cf. the Moniteur of the time.] It is this Vadier, who… ; and, not having been able to have us guillotined then, begged you not to make him miss his blow today. It is this same Vadier who also said, talking of Danton: We will soon see this turbot stuffed. What a fraternal intention!
This Vouland, secretary of the Committee, is the same Vouland who was secretary of the Feuillan[t]s, during the presidency of Barrère [sic]. [You can] see his name and his residence on the list of the club.
This Amar, rapporteur of the Committe, is the same Amar, shameless Brissotin, of which everyone recalls the famous play on words, in a certain nomination of the bureau in the first months of the Convention: Laloy, Charrey, Danton.
This David, member of the committee, is the same David, mad Brissotin, [who was an] enemy of Robespierre two days ago, and who is today saying: I can see clearly that we will not remain twenty Montagnards at the Convention.
I assert that two patriots, P. B. et R… told me that they had resigned from this Committe of General Security, and have left it in anger, not being able to stand the injustices that were committed there. These are the necessary witnesses; I demand them to be heard.
I assert that Guffroy told me that if he stayed at the Committee, it would be for correcting a lot of evil by some good; that he had heard that Héron, agent of the committee, had bribed false wittnesses in the prisons, in order to take him to the guillotine. I demand him to be heard.
I assert that Reverchon told me of Collot d'Herbois, that he had done everything on earth in order to render the Republic hideous, and to [carry out] the counter-revolution at Lyon. [I demand] Reverchon to be heard.
Does one no longer remember the proposals of Collotd'Herbois: It is necessary to place powder kegs beneath the prisons, and a permanent wick next to them. There are witnesses [stating] that Collot d'Herbois has said, regarding d'Églantine who had dismissed this proposal: Since he wants to ruin me, I will lead him to the guillotine by all possible means. There are witnesses [attesting] that the great republican Saint-Just has once said, temperamentally: Ah, they want the reublic; it will cost them dearly…! Will witnesses be necessary in order to prove that the hypocrite, that the scoundrel Barrère was president of the Feuillan[t]s and that he had proposed the Commission of Twelve…, forging proofs without probity, and that Vilate, [who is a] juror, and known well as a spy of Barrère [sic], and [who was] lodged by him in the pavilion of Flore, who came to my house [in order] to caress me, to flatter me, recently said to … : “It is necessary that we have the heads of Danton, Camille-Desmoulins [sic] , Philippeaux, etc. within eight days” ?
I come to what concerns me in this report. In the history of mankind there is no example of another calumny [that is] as atrocious as this piece. Firstly, there is no one in the Convention who doesn’t know that Monsieur the ci-devant chevalier Saint-Just has sworn me an implacable hatred, [because of] a mild joke I have allowed myself one month ago in my Memoirs. Bourdaloue said: «Molière put me in his comedy, I put him in my sermon.» I, I have put M. de Saint-Just in one of my issues; he, he put my in a report of [the] guillotine, in which there was no true word regarding me.
When Saint-Just accuses me of being an accomplice of Danton and of Dumouriez, he shows well that this is a patriot of yesterday. Who has denounced Dumouriez as the first, and the most rigorously? One cannot deny that this would be me… , whose accomplice he makes me [nonetheless]. Who doesn’t know that it is me who has denounced him as the first? The only writings against this section, which the Jacobins had printed, distributed, it is me who has written them. Does Saint-Just no longer remember my Histoire des Brissotins? could vengeance be more blind? I am the accomplice of Dumouriez, of … , and no one but me has denounced these two men. What [a] rascality! what [a] shamelessness! it is Barrère who accuses me of [belonging to] the faction of Orléans!
There was a faction, M. de Saint-Just, in order to place … on the throne; there was another in order to … The one which exists now is the one of the Feuillan[t]s, of the Brissotins, of the Hébertistes, all organized under the banner of Pitt against the republicans, the Vieux Cordelier and the Mountain. They already thought to be sure of their victims; they already come here to our funeral. But before perishing, I have to serve the republic once more; and everything I will say will be incontestable facts, I have good witnesses …
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
Anonymous asked:
what's your favorite picture of robespierre ever
The word ‘ever’ was meant to broaden my options, peruse fanart or other 21st century contributions to the history of Robespierre’s image, but even among stiffer competition: Adelaide Labille-Guiard’s Robespierre still ranks as my favorite.
To be fair, the surviving painting (above) is just a copy of the original, which appears to have been lost to us. As you can read on any number of art-analysis websites, the painting sharply contrasts with the popular image of Robespierre. A smiling fop and dandy; not a bloodthirsty tyrant. The dichotomy has naturally been employed by popular media, to reinforce Robespierre’s “enigmatic” qualities:
Personally, I found the cherub-faced tyrant intriguing and began chain-smoking the biographies I could then get my hands on. Eventually, this Jacobin serpent shed her Girondin skin and here we are today. So my interest in this painting stands in superficial ground: I like it because without it, I’m not certain if I would’ve paid Robespierre- or his Revolution - further attention. I like to think I’m not so flighty these days – but we all start somewhere, and I started thinking this Picture Was Weird (cue: Hey, don’t discourage girls from getting into history just because they’re intrigued by things Grumpy Old Academics Thinks Are Dumb rant here).
That aside, I enjoy the context of this painting as much as anything. In preparation for an upcoming salon, Labille-Guiard had wrote Robespierre a request for him to sit for her. Robespierre, being Robespierre, responded with a wordy-and-maybe-awkwardly-flirty letter of confirmation:
Paris February 13, 1791
I hear the graces wish to paint my portrait. I would be unworthy of the favour if I did not fully realize its value. Nevertheless, since an overwhelming press of business, or since some jealous god, has prevented me as yet from displaying my eagerness, my apologies must precede the homage I owe them. I pray them, therefore, graciously to accept the first and to make known to me the days and hours which I may tender the latter.
Robespierre
I mean, geeze.
At the salon itself, the portrait would be a big hit. Or maybe it was just a big hit comparatively: the artist Boze also exhibited a portrait of Robespierre which was deemed frigid. One critic even advised Robespierre to only allow his portrait to be painted by women.
I mean, it certainly doesn’t look like a dapper little dandy.
Adelaide Labille-Guiard’s portrait even has the questionable distinction of being – according to legend – the first instance of the moniker ‘Incorruptible’ being attached to Robespierre. Certainly parchment scribbled with the compliment was foisted beneath the portrait at the salon, warranting Hébert to complain in Le Père Duchesne about how politicians didn’t deserve to be praised for doing What They’re Supposed To Be Doing – a fair point, actually. However, there is some debate whether ‘Incorruptible’ was ever used synonymously, rather than complimentarily, with Robespierre in his lifetime.
But that’s neither here-nor-there. The point is I like Adelaide Labille-Guiard’s portrait of Robespierre a lot.
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
His was an unearthly beauty. His large deep-blue eyes reflected the firmament of an unknown universe. His fair curly hair fell over his rounded forehead, almost touching his eyebrows, whose delicate arches continued the curve of his nose. His mouth was finely moulded and almost unnaturally pure, as if formed by the spatula of an artist. Whence came the almost delirious charm of this physiognomy? Perhaps from the ability to inspire both tenderness and icy fear. If one felt inclined to lay one’s hand on those golden locks thickly covering the childlike head, one also wished to flee to the end of the world from the enigmatic hardness of that look. Had another mouth ever touched those perfect lips? What did that face look like asleep: were the cheeks flushed, the mouth open? Did he ever sleep? Was he alive? Was he dead?
~ Friedrich Sieburg describing Saint-Just (Robespierre the Incorruptible; full book here).
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
“”We will then regret all the more an error of this kind: to fuel the portrait of Robespierre as a parliamentary laborer entirely subjected to the bloody game of the Terror, one dates to February 19, year II of the Republic, his letter condolencing Danton for his widowerhood. One presents this letter as having been written some days before the trial of Danton! It is well known that Danton’s first wife died in 1793, during his mission to Belgium. […] If one insisted on describing the sensitivity of Robespierre, one could say something else by pointing out the letter he wrote to Camille Desmoulins to warn him, this time in year II. ”I once loved you because I thought you were a republican; I still love you as though in spite of myself; but I fear a jealous love, a furious love which will not forgive you if you dare to step further.” The reasoning would have been quite different then.””
—
Me: What!? There exists a letter where Robespierre writes ”love you” to Camille and I’ve never heard about it before???
*Goes to find the letter among Robespierre’s papers and finds the above cited phrase only in an anonomous letter written TO Robespierre, accusing him of becoming a dictator.*
Rapport fait au nom de la commission chargée de l’examen des papiers trouvés chez Robespierre et ses complices page 220-223
Me: …did you just complain about others misquoting letters, after which you yourself misquoted a letter?
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
Fabre, his wife Marie Nicole Godin, and their son, Jules Louis Théodore Vincent. Clear family resemblance!
(Though we are not sure that the portrait is really of Marie Nicole Godin; could be a random woman. So idk what to say about family resemblance. But he sure looks like his dad.)
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
I found a supposed portrait of Saint-Just attributed to Jean-Louis Laneuville and dated in 1794 (I have some doubts about it; the portrait is now in a Paris collection and I need to know where is it exactly).
Laneuville represented his model in the costume of a representative on mission so that’s why he appears with the military clothes here (and the papers).
I’m deeply shocked.
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
“”He then attacks Camille, whom he accuses of living a life of ”trouble” and ”anarchy”. In these first days of war, the hope for national unity helps the speaker to convince. Camille feels it, and, without waiting for the end of the speech, goes to sit behind Robespierre, pulls him by the tailcoat, and whispers a few words in his ear. In the stands, the complicity between the two men does not go unnoticed.””
—
Camille et Lucile Desmoulins: Un rêve de république (2018) by Hervé Leuwers chapter 12
“goes to sit behind Robespierre, pulls him by the tailcoat, and whispers a few words in his ear.” ❤️🔥
24 germinal
Oh Robespierre, if there is still time, save the most innocent of creatures, save Camille’s unfortunate wife from death! It’s a mother in despair that adresses herself to you, my daughter is close to succomb under the feet of the most infamous of calomnies. It’s today that she will be judged, tell the judges to suspend their judgement, tell them to save the innocence, candor and all the virtues combined. Robespierre, forgive me for my importunes, but my heart is broken and (I can’t read what it says next) and it is only you in the world to whom I can speak with confidence, because I know the greatness of your soul and I am ready to succumb under the weight of misfortune.
Letter to Robespierre from Lucile Desmoulins’ mother Annette on the last day of her daughter’s trial (and later execution). It’s unknown if he ever recieved it.
revolution-and-football
#cookie to whoever figures out what it says on the place i can’t read
The part you couldn’t read says “il est en proye à toutes les douleurs” (the author omitted the accent on à). That is, “it [my heart] is prey to all sorrows”.
I hereby claim my cookie 😁
BTW is there not some controversy as to whether this letter is genuine?
Here you go 🍪🍪🍪🍪 You can have four instead of one, you completely deserve it!
To answer your question regarding the authenticity, it is not this letter but this one that is sketchy. It is clearly meant to be written by Annette later the same day, after the final verdict has been pronounced. What makes the authenticity of that letter questionable (according to Camille and Lucile Desmoulins - un rêve de république) is that it A, uses tutoiment when this earlier one uses vouvoiement, and B, refers to Robespierre as a ”tigre à face humaine”, which was an expression that became popular during the thermidorian reaction. Also, unlike this one, the other letter can’t be found in any public archives today (although we know that Marcellin Matton, the guy in possession of Camille and Lucile’s papers after the death of Annette, gave away many of their letters as gifts to friends, so this isn’t that suspect. Maybe the letter is still exists in a private collection.)
If the other letter actually is apocryptical there’s of course the question of why someone would want to forge it. There’s some pretty sensible things in it — both that there were marriage plans between Robespierre and Lucile’s little sister Adéle, and that Robespierre used to hold Horace on his lap. The only reason someone would make such things up that I can think of is to dramatize the dantonist purge and/or underline what an evil guy Robespierre was. That Annette, who actually is the only person I can think of to have written it, would hate Robespierre is of course understandable, but then it would be rather illogical (not to mention unethical) of her to pretend her youngest daughter used to date a guy responsible for the death of her eldest. Not to mention that Adéle lived with her mother for her whole life, and thus would have been well aware she was being made into Robespierre girlfriend.
Maybe the content of the other letter is still authentic, but simply not written at the time it would want us to believe. Perhaps Annette found her first letter way after the fact and cursed herself for not being harder on Robespierre, so she wrote the other letter as wish thinking of what she thinks she should have told him instead (that could explain why she in the other letter tells Robespierre that he might as well come and kill her, Adéle and Horace as well, is that really something she would dare to do if she wrote it in 1794?) Or maybe the letter actually is completely authentic and Annette just switched to tutoiment in the hopes of better touching Robespierre’s heart and just happened to use an expression that would be popularized after Thermidor. Pick what you consider most likely, I guess.
Thoughts?
revolution-and-football
#probably a way longer explanation than you expected
#i should really stop overthinking this kind of stuff shouldn’t i
No! I love and want this kind of detail! Thank you for it. And for my quadruple cookie treat.
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
He [Fabre] was a prisoner, unarmed, and that glory which he had dreamed of for so long, and of which he had tasted only the first sweetness, was no doubt about to be stolen from him. What admirable works he still felt capable of writing! What subjects, so dramatic, so exciting, still haunted him! And at certain hours, when he had the strength to forget his present situation; when his soul, momentarily freed, escaped from his dungeon, he saw the theaters where his plays were played, he heard the sound of applause.
Fabre d'Églantine in prison, from Fabre d'Églantine by d'Alméras
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
Goofy ahh collage students
fuckyeahcamilledesmoulins reblogged
Robespierre drinking coffee would indeed be the most peaceful being on earth but I won't dare to imagine what would happen to Desmoulins after one (1) shot of espresso
revolution-and-football-deactiv