Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution (52 page)

53.
Ibid., p. 143.

54.
Ibid., p. 146.

55.
Ibid., p. 147.

56.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 6, p. 58.

57.
Ibid., p. 59.

58.
Ibid., p. 61.

59.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 6, p. 66.

60.
Tour du Pin (1979), p. 100.

61.
Robespierre, (1910–67), vol. 6, p. 107.

62.
Tour du Pin (1979), p. 104.

63.
Ibid., p. 103.

64.
Roudinesco (1991), p. 27.

65.
L’ami du peuple
, vol. 1, p. 249.

66.
Révolutions de France et de Brabant
, vol. 5, p. 369. Desmoulins’s account of Marat’s involvement in the march to Versailles was retrospective and possibly exaggerated.

67.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 6, pp. 108–9.

68.
Ibid., pp. 110–15.

69.
Villiers (1802), p. 5.

5: The National Assembly in Paris

1.
The house no longer exists. In his correspondence, Robespierre gives the address as No. 30, but for a summary of the dispute about how the house was numbered and where it was in the street, see Thompson (1939), p. 65, and Michon (1924).

2.
Villiers entrusted a friend with publishing his haphazard memoirs in 1802. On the dubious status of his evidence, see R. Garmy in Soboul (1967), pp. 19–33.

3.
Villiers (1802), p. 1.

4.
Ibid.

5.
Ibid., p. 2.

6.
Ibid., p. 5.

7.
Ibid., p. 3.

8.
Ibid., p. 2.

9.
One other scrap of possible evidence turned up in 1909 in the form of a drawing of a woman by Claude Hoin, inscribed
La dévouée Hortense Delannoye, maîtresse du traître Robespierre
; see Thompson (1939), p. 66.

10.
On Robespierre’s relations with women, see Fleischmann (1908) and Mantel (2000).

11.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 3a, p. 57.

12.
Ibid.

13.
Dumont (1832), p. 280.

14.
Doyle (1990), p. 123.

15.
Villiers (1802), p. 3.

16.
Hufton (1974), p. 23.

17.
Thompson (1939), pp. 82–83.

18.
Sieyès (1989), vol. 2, sec. 13, pp. 1–2.

19.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 6, pp. 349–50.

20.
Sieyès (1989), vol. 2, sec. 11, p. 41.

21.
Ibid., sec. 16, pp. 14–15.

22.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 6, p. 319.

23.
Ibid., p. 193.

24.
Ibid., pp. 386–87.

25.
Walter (1989), pp. 144–45.

26.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 3a, p. 82.

27.
Villiers (1802), p. 4.

28.
Hampson (1974), p. 35.

29.
English historians differ over whether to describe this building as a convent or monastery, but since the occupants were male, the latter seems more appropriate, even though the French word is
couvent
.

30.
Initially, Robespierre resisted officially adopting the name Jacobins, because he thought it more pejoratively suggestive of factionalism than “The Society of the Friends of the Constitution”; see Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 8, pp. 206–8.

31.
Ibid., vol. 3a, p. 73.

32.
Ibid., pp. 73–74.

33.
Ibid., p. 82.

34.
Ibid., p. 68.

35.
Ibid., p. 69.

36.
Ibid., p. 71.

37.
Chronique de Paris
, 11 October 1790.

38.
Archives parlementaires
, vol. 15, p. 517.

39.
Croker (1857), p. 107.

40.
Révolutions de France et de Brabant
, vol. 4, p. 191.

41.
Ibid., pp. 192–93.

42.
The identity of the priest is disputed: some say it was Denis Bérardier from Louis-le-Grand, others that it was M. de Pancemont of Saint-Sulpice. One account of the wedding claims that Camille was moved to tears by the religious ceremony and that Robespierre said nastily, “Cry then, hypocrite!” See Paris (1870), p. 26, and
Le vieux Cordelier,
pp. 4–6.

43.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 3a, pp. 87–88.

44.
Ibid., p. 83.

45.
Schama (1989), p. 509.

46.
McManners (1998), p. 8.

47.
Thompson (1989), p. 43.

48.
Ibid., p. 52.

49.
L’ami du peuple
, vol. 2, p. 1121.

50.
Thompson (1989), p. 171.

51.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 6, p. 497.

52.
Ibid., p. 489.

53.
Hampson (1974), p. 64.

54.
The deputy was Duquesnoy.

55.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 6, p. 490.

56.
Dumont (1832), p. 283.

57.
Thompson (1989), p. 219.

58.
Ibid., p. 29.

59.
Ibid., p. 33.

6: The Constitution

1.
Dumont (1832), pp. 266–67.

2.
L’ami du peuple
, vol. 3, p. 1826.

3.
Dumont (1832), pp. 22–23.

4.
Cabanis (1791), p. 11.

5.
Dumont (1832), p. 310.

6.
Cabanis (1791), p. 60.

7.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 7, p. 178.

8.
Mirabeau (1835–36), p. 216.

9.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 7, p. 235.

10.
Ibid., vol. 3a, p. 99.

11.
Dumont (1832), p. 290.

12.
Jones (2002), p. 226.

13.
Foucault (1979), p. 4.

14.
Archives parlementaires
, vol. 26, p. 332.

15.
Croker (1857), p. 525.

16.
Ibid.

17.
Ibid.

18.
The last execution with the Halifax gibbet was in 1648.

19.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 7, p. 433.

20.
Croker (1857), p. 318.

21.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 7, p. 325.

22.
Ibid., p. 138.

23.
The advertisement appeared in
L’orateur du peuple
, vol. 6, no. 18; see Thompson (1939), p. 138. There is no record of the speech’s being found.

24.
Andress (2000), p. 64.

25.
Ibid., p. 48.

26.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 6, p. 611.

27.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 3a, p. 100.

28.
Ibid., vol. 6, p. 622.

29.
Ibid., vol. 7, p. 266.

30.
Wrigley (2002), pp. 135–86.

31.
Ibid., p. 151.

32.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 7, p. 268.

33.
L’ami du peuple
, vol. 5, pp. 2745–51.

34.
Blanning (1986), pp. 69–96.

35.
Archives parlementaires
, vol. 25, p. 201.

36.
Croker (1857), p. 121.

37.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 7, p. 514.

38.
Thompson (1989), p. 74.

39.
Shuckburch (1989), pp. 170–71.

40.
Ibid., p. 82.

41.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 7, p. 519.

42.
Croker (1857), p. 150.

43.
Tackett (2003), pp. 116–18.

44.
L’ami du peuple
, vol. 3, p. 1870.

45.
Archives parlementaires
, vol. 27, pp. 602–60. Tackett (2003), p. 134.

46.
By one count, seventeen petitions of this kind were drawn up between 21 June and 17 July and rejected out of hand by the assembly; see Tackett (2003), p. 113.

47.
Thompson (1939), p. 162.

48.
Laponneraye (2002), p. 73.

49.
Robespierre still gave his address as rue Saintonge on 9 August, which suggests a brief period of transition between the two lodgings; see Thompson (1939), p. 178.

50.
The fact that the assembly voted to exonerate Louis XVI after the flight to Varennes is difficult to explain, given both the fierce opposition of radical deputies like Robespierre and hostile public opinion. The final vote on this issue was not recorded. See Tackett (2003), p. 141.

51.
There is dispute about the exact date of the premature welcome party; see Walter (1989), p. 204.

7: War

1.
Robespierre had already demanded a serious discussion of the émigré problem earlier in the Revolution; see Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 7, pp. 87–88.

2.
Ibid., vol. 3a, p. 127.

3.
Burke (1989), p. 469.

4.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 3a, pp. 127–28.

5.
Ibid., pp. 129–30.

6.
Ibid., p. 130.

7.
Ibid., vol. 8, p. 26.

8.
Walter (1989), p. 257. By this point, the circulation of major speeches had become customary, so the long debate provoked by Robespierre suggests the Parisian Jacobins were deeply divided over Brissot’s speech.

9.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 8, pp. 47–48.

10.
Ibid., pp. 128–32.

11.
Doyle (1990), p. 179.

12.
Thompson (1939), p. 209; Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 8, p. 151.

13.
Robespierre resigned his job as Public Prosecutor on 10 April 1792. The court to which he had been appointed only came into existence in February 1792, and he resigned before its first formal session. See Thompson (1939), p. 225.

14.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 8, p. 248.

15.
Hardman (1999), p. 43.

16.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 8, p. 157.

17.
Ibid., pp. 160–61.

18.
Ibid., p. 165.

19.
Ibid.

20.
Guillaume Tell
, a drama set to music by A. E. M Gréty, was performed for the first time at the Comédie italienne, Paris, on 9 April 1791. Voltaire’s
Brutus
, first staged in 1730, was popular during the Revolution. M. J. Chénier’s
Caius Gracchus
opened at the Théâtre de la République on 9 February 1792.

21.
Robespierre (1910–67), vol. 8, pp. 179–80.