Witness to the Revolution: Jean-Baptiste Louvet, 1760-1797 1793618542, 9781793618542

Citation preview

Witness to the Revolution

Witness to the Revolution Jean-Baptiste Louvet, 1760–1797 Bette W. Oliver

LEXINGTON BOOKS Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Jean-Baptiste Louvet

Published by Lexington Books An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www rowman.com 6 Tinworth Street, London SE11 5AL, United Kingdom Copyright © 2020 by The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. Frontispiece: Image of Jean-Baptiste Louvet from ‘Histoire de France populaire, depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’à nos jours’ 1867 – “MARTIN Bon Louis Henri.” All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress Control Number: 2020944046 ISBN: 978-1-7936-1853-5 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN: 978-1-7936-1854-2 (electronic) TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Contents

Acknowledgments

vii

Introduction

ix

1 2 3 4 5 6

Before the Storm: 1760–1790 Dawn of a New Day: 1791–1792 Division and Disillusionment : 1792–1793 From Deputies to Fugitives : 1793–1794 From St. Émilion to Paris: 1794–1795 After the Storm: 1795–1797

Conclusion

1 11 29 49 67 83 97

Bibliography

101

Index

105

About the Author

117

v

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the staffs of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Départment des Manuscrits, for making possible my research on the Girondin fugitives. My friends and colleagues who specialize in the French Revolution have also been helpful with comments on papers presented at the Consortium on Revolutionary Europe and the Western Society for French History. As an independent historian, I especially value these contacts in the ongoing development of my work. In addition, I am grateful for Terry Sherrell’s assistance and expertise in the electronic formatting of this book, and Dr. Hermina Anghelescu’s professional indexing. Thanks are also due to my non-historian friends, who have listened patiently while I talked about my interest in documenting the lives of the Girondins. They served as an attentive audience and sometimes offered suggestions, which I have often found useful.

vii

Introduction

“The men, the republicans of the eighteenth century, do not belong to it. They belong to the centuries that follow. The memory of virtue does not produce virtue, but at the very least it is to be hoped that in the eternal struggle between republicans and tyranny, free men shall not always fail.” 1

Jean-Baptiste Louvet, a witness to the Revolution of 1789 and the man who wrote these hopeful words in 1795, could have been describing himself just as much as his friends who had perished during the Terror. An unlikely survivor of the destructive factional disputes between the Girondins and the Montagnards, Louvet managed to live long enough to return to serve in the National Convention and to extend some belated justice to his fallen comrades and their families. In addition, as the publisher of Madame Roland’s dramatic prison memoir, he provided the posthumous glory that she had intended. Louvet was not typical in any way of the majority of the deputies who served in the National Assembly. At least two-thirds of them, men such as Brissot, Buzot, Pétion, Guadet, and Robespierre, shared similar educational backgrounds and had been members of the provincial, professional bourgeoisie with training in the law. Louvet’s early life in Paris, as the sickly child of a stationer, one who read voraciously and later became a clerk in a bookshop, hardly matched the backgrounds of his friends in the assembly. Before his political involvement in the revolution, Louvet had been better known as the author of the popular romantic novel Les Amours du Chevalier de Faublas, published in seven volumes in 1786. An immediate success, the adventures chronicled in Faublas provided an entertaining view of Ancien Régime France. The success of the novel enabled Louvet, at only twenty-six years of age, to move from Paris to the more peaceful outskirts in 1789. Had ix

x

Introduction

the revolution not intervened, it is likely that Louvet’s literary career would have followed a predictable course. Unlike most of his closest friends and fellow Girondins, Louvet managed to survive the deputies’ expulsion from the National Assembly in June of 1793; life as a fugitive, from Paris to Caen to Quimper to St. Émilion in 1793–1794; a journey in disguise from St. Émilion to Paris during the Terror, and flight from Paris to Switzerland in 1794; and an eventual return to Paris to complete his term in the National Convention and win election to the Directory’s Council of Five Hundred in 1794–1795. This tumultuous period is documented in Louvet’s memoir, Récit de Mes Périls, which was written while he was on the run as a fugitive. 2 Integral to Louvet’s success and eventual survival was his beloved companion and wife, Marguerite Denvelle, who was better known as “Lodoiska,” after a character in one of Louvet’s plays. Although she and Louvet had been close friends since childhood, Lodoiska had been forced at sixteen to marry an older, richer man. With the new divorce laws in effect during the revolution, however, she was able to leave her husband and marry Louvet, which she did in the summer of 1793, while he was hiding as a fugitive in Brittany. Her resourcefulness, combined with ample amounts of luck, contributed greatly to Louvet’s success. After Louvet and a group of his Girondin friends had found temporary refuge in St. Émilion, Lodoiska returned to Paris. It was his desire to reunite with Lodoiska that spurred Louvet to leave his refuge in St. Émilion and to undertake the journey to Paris. If he had been discovered, in that perilous year of the Terror, he would have met certain death. Instead, after a brief reunion in Paris, he escaped to Switzerland, where he remained until the fall of Robespierre in July of 1794. From contemporary reports, Louvet assuredly did not look the part of a hero or a survivor. He even described himself as “a thin little man,” with neither a robust physique nor an attractive face. Madame Roland, his close friend, described him as “an unhealthy-looking little man, weakly, shortsighted, and slovenly.” She added, however, that he was also “as courageous as a lion, simple as a child, a good citizen, and a vigorous writer.” 3 In addition, he was possessed of a lively imagination, a quick wit, and an apparent talent for role-playing. Louvet did not fear taking the initiative, even when it appeared that the odds were against him. He dared to stand in the assembly and confront Robespierre and his associates, greatly surprising everyone present. Therefore, although Louvet did not look the part of a traditional hero, except perhaps to Lodoiska, he nevertheless managed to overcome every obstacle that he encountered, and to serve as an eloquent witness of much that transpired between 1789 and 1795. Louvet’s unusual story was most recently documented in England in 1910 by John Rivers, the author of Louvet: Revolutionist & Romance-Writer. 4

Introduction

xi

Although contemporary historians have included information on Louvet’s role during the Revolution, no one since Rivers has focused on the personal accomplishments of his brief and adventure-filled life. This book is based on Louvet’s memoir, written in two parts while he was a fugitive from 1793 to 1794, as well as the memoirs and correspondence of his Girondin friends and associates, notably François Buzot, Jacques-Pierre Brissot, and Madame Roland, as well as other documentation available in the Bibliothèque Nationale and the Archives Nationales. The works of various French, English, and American historians also have been consulted in the creation of this modern treatment of Louvet, the first one provided since 1910. It is hoped that this book will provide a useful and entertaining addition to the numerous works dealing with the participants in the French Revolution and their legacies. NOTES 1. Jean-Baptiste Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, Tome 1, N.A.F. 1730 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits), 137–38. 2. Jean-Baptiste Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, membre de la Convention, etc., de la journée de 31 Mai suivis de Quelques Notices pour L’Histoire et le Récit de Mes Périls Depuis Cette Époque Jusqu’à la Rentrée des Députés Proscrits dans l’Assemblée Nationale (Paris: A la Librairie Historique, 1821). 3. John Rivers, Louvet: Revolutionist & Romance-Writer (London: Hurst and Blackett Ltd., Paternoster House, E.C., 1910), 330. 4. Rivers explained that Louvet was also known as “Louvet de Couvrai.” Louvet claimed to have added “de Couvrai” to his name to distinguish himself from “another public man.” Rivers noted that it was common practice in large families for each son to adopt a second name to distinguish himself from his brothers. Rivers, Louvet: Revolutionist & Romance-Writer, 13.

Chapter One

Before the Storm 1760–1790

Before Jean-Baptiste Louvet became a revolutionary, he was well known as a romance writer. Appropriately enough, he had been born on the rue des Écrivains (street of writers) in Paris on June 12, 1760, and by the age of twenty-six, he had achieved his goal of becoming a man of letters. Had the great revolution of 1789 not intervened, Louvet undoubtedly would have continued his successful career as a writer of novels and plays. As his first biographer, John Rivers, wrote, “Louvet was an artist before he was a philosopher.” 1 The youngest son of Louis Louvet, a stationer, and his wife Louise, JeanBaptiste was a frail and sickly child for whom literature became a refuge. A voracious reader, he was largely self-educated as a result. Unlike most of the other revolutionary leaders of his generation, Louvet did not enjoy the benefits of a classical education with its emphasis on Latin, ancient history, rhetoric, and philosophy, taught in a school overseen by the religious establishment. His family, unlike that of many of his associates, did not belong to the bourgeoisie. By all accounts, his father was “an ignorant shopkeeper,” who showed little interest in his youngest son. Fortunately, Louvet’s mother was possessed of a more sympathetic nature and tended to regard him as her “favorite.” 2 Perhaps the most important influence in Louvet’s youth, however, was the presence of the Denvelle family, friends of his parents who lived nearby. Monsieur Denvelle, so unlike Louvet’s father, encouraged the boy’s growing interest in literature as well as introducing him to eighteenth-century philosophy and republican ideals. It also happened that the Denvelles had a daughter, Marguerite, only eight days younger than Louvet, who became his best 1

2

Chapter One

friend and companion in those early years. Even as a very young girl, her sweet but determined nature and firm will had charmed Louvet, who later claimed that he had loved her for as long as he could remember. Luckily for him, Marguerite reciprocated his feelings. Thus, as the years passed, they had begun to imagine their lives unfolding peacefully together. Alas, that was not to be the case. When a much older man, Monsieur Cholet, a jeweler in the Palais Royal, asked to marry the sixteen-year-old Marguerite, her father agreed. Despite her fervent pleas that she was already betrothed to Louvet, Marguerite was forced to marry Cholet. Despairing of a future without his beloved Marguerite, Louvet tried to distract himself by reading Rousseau, a writer greatly admired by that generation of future revolutionaries. Rousseau’s emphasis on the rights of man and the virtues to be found in the state of nature enthralled Louvet as well as his future compatriots. François Buzot from Évreux, who would become one of Louvet’s best friends and a fellow deputy during the revolutionary period, wrote in his memoir about reading the works of Rousseau and the profound impression they made on him in his youth. Recalling his solitary walks in the hills and forests around Évreux, Buzot described the “delight” he experienced when he paused to read the works of Rousseau. Another friend and associate, Jacques-Pierre Brissot, was said to have read Rousseau’s Confessions six times. 3 Louvet, however, did not enjoy being a solitary wanderer like his friend Buzot. He also found that Marguerite’s absence could not be filled by simply reading, and he disliked being alone without her company. At the age of seventeen, he found employment as a secretary to P. F. de Dietrich, a wellknown mineralogist, who would become the mayor of Strasbourg during the revolution. Energized by his new status, Louvet proceeded to make his “debut as a man of letters” by writing a memoir about a poor servant girl helping to support her employer, who had fallen into poverty. As it happened, only a few weeks previously, the Baron de Montyon had created a “prize for virtue” to be awarded by the Académie Française. Louvet became the first recipient of this coveted prize, which in no small way convinced him that he had made the right choice in deciding to pursue a literary career. 4 During the next few years, Louvet worked for a Monsieur Prault, who published many books considered to be light, or even pornographic, forms of literature. Despite his less than robust constitution, Louvet worked hard to learn the details of book production, and he even managed to find time to read for the law during these years. Thus, by the time he had reached twentysix, Louvet could afford to move to the countryside near Paris. His living expenses at that time amounted to 800 livres a year. 5 Under such improved circumstances, Louvet began writing his bestknown work, Les Amours du Chevalier de Faublas. Louvet himself had said

Before the Storm: 1760–1790

3

that a writer should be “the faithful historian of his age,” and that he had set out to do with Faublas. The timing for the appearance of this tale of prerevolutionary Paris, which epitomized the manners of the Ancien Régime, proved fortuitous, and Faublas was acclaimed a great success. The heroine of Faublas, named Lodoiska, had been modeled on his beloved Marguerite, who would later be known by that fanciful name herself. In addition to appearing in Faublas, Lodoiska also became the subject of two operas performed in Paris later in 1791. In the first part of his memoir, Louvet explained that he had worked on Faublas “far from the activities of the world, that is to say absolutely alone,” surrounded by his imaginary world. Referring to his romance as “frivolous work,” he nevertheless noted that it was important, because it would give him independence and the means to provide a home for Lodoiska (Marguerite). Fortunately, Louvet wrote with “the greatest rapidity,” finishing the first part of Faublas in the autumn of 1788, and the remainder in the spring of 1789. 6 Faublas has been described as “witty, vivacious, and as free from cant and superfluous fig-leaves as the brilliant society it portrays; but like that society, it had its serious moments too.” Louvet himself, in the preface, wrote: “If I am sometimes too gay, forgive me. I have yawned so much over so many romances.” The female characters in Faublas “are spirited to the verge of indiscretion,” but warm, sympathetic, and courageous when necessary. While the male characters may be “careless epicureans,” these are some of the same men who appeared as patriots in 1789. The novel opens in 1783 when Faublas visits Paris for the first time. Looking for “that superb city” about which he had read, the young man found instead “high and squalid tenements, long, narrow streets, poor wretches everywhere clothed in rags; a dense population and appalling poverty.” Louvet succeeds in creating a contrast between “the poor wretches” and the more fortunate residents of the capital. Faublas and his father have come to Paris to visit the convent where his sister Adelaide is a pensionnaire. The plot follows their visit and introduction to Adelaide’s best friend, Mlle. De Pontis, described as “Venus at fourteen.” Further adventures include meeting the Comte de Rosambert, “a handsome young rake,” who “early initiated him into the elegant iniquities of that polite society.” A certain “Marquise de B_____” plays an important role in the novel, “the incarnation of those fascinating women, with an extraordinary aptitude for affairs . . . who have played such a great part throughout the history of France.” John Rivers, Louvet’s early biographer, alludes to Mme. Robert, who “must be regarded as the founder of the republican party in France.” Faublas, despite his various follies, retains a good and pure heart, and “his sentiments are above reproach,” according to Rivers, who found that the

4

Chapter One

actual novel was superior to its reputation. He writes: “Louvet, unconsciously it may be, makes his characters suffer the logical consequences, both moral and physical, of their conduct.” Thus, a book often described as frivolous actually contained some elements of a tragedy, accompanied by great wit and “delicacy of feeling.” 7 Louvet had moved to a country house loaned to him by a friend at the beginning of 1789. Located six miles from Paris, he had found the solitude necessary to complete Faublas, which would augment his income when Lodoiska joined him. She had not yet been able to obtain a divorce, but she had nevertheless determined to leave her husband and live with Louvet. 8 Much to his benefit, it would not be the last time that Lodoiska’s strong will prevailed. By the time that Louvet returned to Paris later in 1789, the EstatesGeneral had already been in session for six weeks. While he had been absorbed in writing about the frivolities of the Ancien Régime, the newly elected representatives from all over France had been meeting in Versailles, where they debated the formation of a new government and a constitution. He wrote that he was filled with curiosity and set out for Versailles on the fourteenth or fifteenth of June to see for himself. Louvet found that “a new world” awaited him, one that he welcomed with great enthusiasm. When he entered the assembly hall, Jean-Baptiste Target was speaking about the rights of the people, a topic not normally discussed in public. Louvet wrote that his “heart was seized” with strong feelings, and he determined to serve the revolutionary cause by starting a journal. 9 In 1788 Louis XVI had called for the Estates-General to meet in May 1789 at Versailles, because the kingdom was in desperate financial straits and new sources of revenue must be found. The three traditional orders— clergy, nobility, and commons—had elected more than 1,200 deputies and alternates to attend the opening session on May 5. While approximately 98 percent of the French population belonged to the commons, or Third Estate, the clergy and nobility, with only 2 percent of the population, benefitted from numerous rights and privileges and were not subject to taxes. 10 This imbalance would soon lead to sweeping changes in the government of France. Many of Louvet’s future friends and associates would be involved in the process, since they had been elected to serve in the Constituent Assembly. At this particular time, however, Louvet decided that it was necessary to visit Lodoiska, who had separated from her husband and was living in Nemours, over fifty miles from Paris. He justified his decision by writing that “even if the love of the revolution had blazed up suddenly in my heart, another and older love burnt there nonetheless ardently.” Thus Louvet “left the revolution and all things behind” to retire to Lodoiska’s house outside Paris, temporarily putting aside his plan to begin a journal. 11 While Louvet and Lodoiska rejoiced in their reunion in Nemours, they were not completely oblivious of events in Versailles and Paris. When it was

Before the Storm: 1760–1790

5

discovered that the three estates were expected to meet separately, which would benefit the clergy and nobility, the liberal deputies had objected strenuously. Their refusal to comply had led to the Tennis Court Oath, immortalized by Jacques-Louis David in his painting “Le Serrement du Jeu de Paume.” The deputies pledged to meet until “the constitution of the kingdom is established,” and they planned to create a document for what they expected to be a constitutional monarchy. The king had even agreed on matters involving equal taxation, liberty of the press, and the creation of provincial assemblies. 12 The most surprising news for Louvet, as well as for the entire population of France, concerned the fall of the Bastille on July 14. Following the king’s dismissal of his popular finance minister, Jacques Necker, on June 11, many Parisians had gathered on the streets and at the Palais Royal, a center of opposition to royal authority, presided over by the Duc d’Orléans, the king’s cousin. While the crowds were urged to arm themselves and to defend the National Assembly, notably by the orator Camille Desmoulins, the Parisian deputies met at the Hôtel de Ville to form a militia to maintain order. They had waited too long, however; by July 13, the crowds in Paris had already taken control, arming themselves and stealing wine from the monastery of Saint-Lazare. Thousands seeking additional arms had surged toward the ancient fortress of the Bastille on the morning of July 14. The fortress, which held only seven prisoners at the time, was poorly defended by eighty-two soldiers unfit for regular duty and thirty Swiss mercenaries. Orders to defend the Bastille had not reached its commander, the comte de Launay, who surrendered to the angry mob outside. Then violence broke out in full force: three officers and three veterans were killed, while the hapless de Launay was killed and dismembered at the Hôtel de Ville, after which his head was hoisted on a pike and paraded through the streets. 13 In the days ahead, Parisians would become accustomed to facing such gruesome spectacles. In an attempt to maintain order, the National Guard, under the authority of the marquis de Lafayette, was established in Paris, while organizations of municipal guards were formed throughout France. Louvet reported in his memoir that he and Lodoiska were almost overcome with joy at the news of the popular uprising. Lodoiska, he wrote, had found blue, white, and red ribbons in her sewing basket, which she had cut and formed into a tricolor cockade. He described promenading in the town sporting his cockade. Some onlookers had even applauded upon seeing the colors affixed to his hat. At this time, he wrote, there existed “a mélange of patriotism and love, an audacious “newness in the air.” It was impossible to see at that time the “calumnies to come” and how “the bonheur of this class would turn odious in the future.” On a more somber note, Louvet even speculated that ultimately the revolution “would cost not less than 100,000 men.” 14

6

Chapter One

As events continued to escalate, Louvet decided to return to Paris and engage in political activities within his municipal section, the Lombards. At that time, he wrote, “the grand question of the veto” was uppermost, and he resented the fact that “a supposed free nation” still had to contend with this matter. At this point, he wrote, the “aristocrats” in the National Assembly favored a royal veto and dominated the situation. This measure quite naturally faced extreme opposition from members of the popular party, which included Antoine Barnave, the Lameth brothers, Charles and Alexandre, Jérôme Pétion, Maximilien Robespierre, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, and the abbé Sieyès. Still others, including Jacques Necker, wanted the king to hold a suspensive veto. Louvet found himself, for the first time in his life, moved sufficiently to speak publicly in his section on the matter of the veto, which he did with great success, according to his memoir. “I spoke during five hours, and finally I carried the decree that proscribed the veto, the decree to which most of the sections adhered.” Feeling more republican than ever, Louvet wrote that if royalty persisted in France, it could only be due to its seizure of too much power. 15 Certainly the decision made on August 4 of that year proved even more momentous for the future direction of France than the fall of the Bastille. In an all-night session, the more liberal members of the Constituent Assembly moved to abolish feudal rights, thus dealing a decisive blow to the inequalities that had defined the Ancien Régime. Reactions to this radical decree ranged from great joy, even euphoria, to shock, anger, and fear. The future, once so predictable for the privileged, suddenly began to appear uncertain, leading some members of the nobility to hide their valuables and conserve cash. 16 As it turned out, the factions in the Constituent Assembly had finally compromised on the matter of the veto by allowing the king a three-year suspensive veto and a unicameral legislature. This decision did not satisfy Louis XVI, however, who reacted by ordering a regiment from Flanders to Versailles. That might have been the end of it had not the king and queen provided a court banquet on October 1 to honor the newly arrived officers. The reports of this event reached Paris the next day, serving to further arouse the populace, already angry over high prices and food shortages. By October 5, the women of Paris took charge of the situation by deciding to march to Versailles and demand bread. During the twelve-mile journey, they were joined by thousands of others, and they gathered food, arms, horses, and wagons along the way. The March of the Women, as it became known, would have serious consequences for the future of the royal family. Faced with so many angry citizens, Louis XVI attempted to pacify them by agreeing to meet with a delegation of fifteen women and fifteen deputies on the night of their arrival at Versailles. The king not only declared that he would increase grain supplies for Paris, but he also notified the assembly that

Before the Storm: 1760–1790

7

he would accept the veto measure as well as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. Meanwhile, Lafayette and the National Guard monitored the crowd outside the palace, while the king’s troops guarded the royal inhabitants inside. The situation appeared to be under control, but two men had slipped inside and killed two royal guards near the queen’s apartment. The crowd erupted, even managing to parade the head of one of the unfortunate guards on a pike. Energized by their success, they next demanded that the royal family accompany them back to Paris. Although the king undoubtedly realized that such a move would amount to a virtual house arrest, he and the queen agreed to go, fearing that otherwise more violence would follow. Accompanied by the jubilant crowd, the National Guard, and sixty members of the assembly, the royal family departed from Versailles on October 6. Although they did not know it then, Louis XVI and his family would never see their home again. They would take up residence at first in the Tuileries Palace adjacent to the Louvre; later they would be moved and imprisoned in the Temple. As for the Constituent Assembly, they would also move from Versailles to Paris, where they would hold their sessions in the Manège, an old riding school near the Tuileries Palace and what is now the rue de Rivoli. Louvet found that he was becoming ever more involved in revolutionary matters, and he chose to use his skills as a writer to express populist opinions. When Jean Joseph Mounier, one of the moderates in the assembly, published a manifesto protesting against the Parisian mobs and the disorders that had ensued, Louvet replied with what he referred to as “my first political work,” which he entitled Paris justifié contre M. Mounier. While Louvet and Lodoiska had actually been in Versailles the day of the march back to Paris, there is no evidence that they participated, other than to cheer the event taking place before them. 17 In Paris justifié, Louvet defended the rights of the people to counter Mounier’s accusations against them. Calling it a “success” in his memoir, Louvet also warned against the machinations of the “faction d’Orléans,” and the “ambitious prince” who wished to replace Louis XVI by “pretending to embrace the cause of the people.” He feared that “the people and those who worked sincerely for their rights” might be outwitted by their enemies in the various factions. 18 The success of Louvet’s Paris justifié led to his election to the Society of the Jacobins, which had only been in existence in Paris for several months. The qualifications for membership at that time were genuine “civisme” and some talent. The society, which established clubs all over France, aimed to spread revolutionary ideas and to counter the monarchist representatives in the assembly. In his biography of Louvet, John Rivers described the Jacobins as “the Jesuits of the Revolution.” 19

8

Chapter One

In the early days of the revolution, the Jacobins attracted many who would become Louvet’s closest friends, such as François Buzot, JacquesPierre Brissot, and Jérôme Pétion, as well as some who would later turn into his enemies, notably Maximilien Robespierre. According to his memoir, Louvet seldom spoke at the early meetings of the Jacobins, because he was there to observe and to learn from the leaders of the popular party. He wrote that “there were enough other orators at the tribune,” and he was content at that time to speak at the meetings of his municipal section. 20 In early November of 1789, administrative control shifted from the center, Paris, to the newly instituted eighty-three departments of France. First proposed by the Committee on the Constitution, this decree resulted in awarding local officials greater power, in effect, lessening the long-standing domination of Paris over the provinces. Under the new system, voters would choose electors in each department, and they, in turn, would appoint local officials. The eighty-three departments had been divided into districts, cantons, and communes; district electors chose department officials as well as the representatives to the national assembly. 21 Another long-reaching decision in November of that decisive year concerned the riches inherent in church properties. The assembly voted to place such properties “at the disposal of the nation,” which at that time was greatly in need of income. Such properties included land, industries, commercial buildings, and houses, in addition to stocks, bonds, and other investments. When monastic orders were abolished early in 1790, their confiscated property would also be added to the “Biens Nationaux,” or National Properties. The revolutionary government sought to regulate the church by enacting the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in July of 1790. Instead of taking a loyalty oath to the Pope, priests were instructed to pledge their fealty to the king, the law, and the constitution. In addition, members of the clergy would be elected to serve in the eighty-three authorized dioceses, and the number of bishops greatly reduced. Bishops would henceforth be chosen by departmental electors, while priests would be elected by taxpaying citizens in the districts. These changes did not please many of the faithful throughout France, who preferred to receive the sacraments from the non-juring or refractory priests, many of whom either went into hiding or emigrated. 22 Louvet’s enthusiasm for the popular causes set in motion by the revolution resulted in a new publication about what he considered to be the greatly needed changes in the Catholic Church. He reported that he had printed in 1790 “a little tale” entitled Emilie de Varmont, ou le Divorce Nécessaire: et les Amours de Curé Sévin. The moral of the work, according to Louvet, was the necessity of divorce, a matter that concerned him personally, as well as the possible marriage of priests. 23 The three small volumes of Emilie de Varmont, written in epistolary form, enjoyed great success with the public. According to Louvet’s biogra-

Before the Storm: 1760–1790

9

pher, however, “from the artistic point of view, it will not bear comparison with that incomparable romance [Faublas].” Rivers also noted that Robespierre, in the assembly in May of 1790, moved to allow for the marriage of priests, a notion that became popular with many members of the clergy. 24 Louvet’s last literary efforts appeared in 1791. These included a drama, La Grande Revue des Armées Noire et Blanche, a satire about the emigrant nobility and clergy gathered in Coblenz, and another play, L’Anobli conspirateur, ou le Bourgeois Gentilhomme du XVIIIe siècle, which ridiculed the nobility. He also wrote an additional play entitled L’Élection et l’audience du Grand Lama Sispi, a wild extravaganza on the court of Rome and the political situation. Only La Grande Revue achieved modest success, managing to run for twenty-five nights at the Comédie-Française. 25 NOTES 1. John Rivers, Louvet: Revolutionist & Romance-Writer (London: Hurst and Blackett Ltd., Paternoster House, E.C., 1910), 10. 2. Rivers, Louvet, 4, 5. He quotes Louis-Sebastien Mercier, Nouveau Paris, ii, 473. 3. François-Nicolas-Louis Buzot, Mémoires de F.-N.-L. Buzot, Membre de l’Assemblée Constituante et Député de la Convention Nationale par le Département de L’Eure, Année 1793. N.A.F. 1730 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits). 4. Rivers, Louvet, 10–11. 5. Rivers, Louvet, 11. 6. Jean-Baptiste Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, l’un des Représentants Proscrits en 1793. N.A.F. 1730 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits), 138–39. 7. Rivers, Louvet, 18–29. 8. Rivers, Louvet, 16. 9. Rivers, Louvet, 30. 10. Owen Connelly, French Revolution/Napoleonic Era (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979), 40–52. 11. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, N.A.F. 1730, 139. 12. Connelly, French Revolution, 69–73. 13. Connelly, French Revolution, 75, 78–82. 14. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, N.A.F. 1730, 140. 15. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, N.A.F. 1730, 140, 141. 16. Marquis de Férrieres, Correspondance Inédite (Paris: Armand Colin, 1932), 110–11. 17. Rivers, Louvet, 40–43. 18. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, N.A.F. 1730, 143. 19. Rivers, Louvet, 43. 20. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, N.A.F. 1730, 144. 21. Connelly, French Revolution, 101. 22. Connelly, French Revolution, 101, 96–98. 23. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, N.A.F. 1730, 144. 24. Rivers, Louvet, 46–47. 25. Rivers, Louvet, 48–49.

Chapter Two

Dawn of a New Day 1791–1792

By the spring of 1791, the deputies in the assembly and many French citizens had begun to believe that a workable constitutional monarchy might soon become a reality. Some considered that the revolution was already behind them, even envisioning a government that functioned somewhat like the American republic that they so admired and tried to emulate. The king had sworn to uphold the constitution despite the limitations on his powers, and while he could still appoint ministers, they would be answerable to the National Assembly. In September of 1791, a new Legislative Assembly with 745 deputies chosen from the eighty-three departments and French colonies, was scheduled to replace the Constituent Assembly. Members of that first assembly would not be eligible to serve in the new assembly due to their passage of a self-denying ordinance, which eliminated the Constituent deputies as candidates. The new deputies, chosen by electors, who themselves had been voted on only by “active citizens,” planned to meet every two years. 1 In addition to the work of the Constituent Assembly, other groups in Paris also had become active in the management of civic affairs. The forty-eight “sections,” which had been created in 1790 to replace the old “districts,” were intended to function as electoral units, but they met “almost continuously” by early 1791 in an effort to oversee neighborhood issues. Like the various political associations in Paris, notably the Cordeliers Club, the sections’ influence had grown independently of the legislature and the city government, led by Sylvain Bailly. By 1791 the leaders of the Parisian sections were especially concerned about the numerous strikes and various problems involving the labor force that affected city neighborhoods. 2 In addition, 11

12

Chapter Two

the National Guard, led by Lafayette, had been occupied dealing with disputes ranging from worker protests to conspiracy plots. Thus, while it appeared to some citizens that great progress had been made, others remained unconvinced. For example, Nicolas Ruault, a Parisian publisher, held a decidedly negative view of the situation. In a letter dated April 18, 1791, to his brother in Évreux, he wrote: “The king is lost . . . in the opinion of the majority of the French, because it is certain now that three quarters of France wants a revolution.” 3 As for Louis XVI, he and his family had become increasingly dissatisfied living in Paris, surrounded on every side by the new government and the restless citizens of the capital. By June of 1791, the king finally had decided to follow the escape plan devised by Count Axel Fersen, a member of the Royal Swedish Regiment and, more importantly, a confidant of Marie Antoinette. Thus, on the night of June 20, the royal family, in disguise, left the Tuileries Palace and the city of Paris in a large coach, headed for the city of Varennes, located on what was then the border of the Austrian Netherlands and is now Belgium. Fersen’s escape plan might have succeeded had the king followed it carefully. Instead, he chose to make frequent stops along the route as though he were on a tour of his scenic kingdom. Not surprisingly, at one such unscheduled stop, Louis XVI and his family (referred to in popular tales as “the baker and the baker’s wife”) were recognized and prevented from reaching their destination. They would be escorted back to Paris in a state of humiliation, accompanied by representatives of the National Assembly and the National Guard. The king’s attempted flight dealt a blow to those who had believed that a constitutional monarchy was possible. By fleeing from the capital, he had shown both the deputies and the public that he could not be trusted to follow the almost completed constitution nor to support the moderate revolution. In addition, he had added even more fuel to the numerous conspiracy theories circulating throughout France. In effect, he had guaranteed his own subsequent downfall. 4 In his memoir of 1793–1794, François Buzot, who served in both the Constituent Assembly and the National Convention, and who would become a close friend of Louvet, wrote that it had been a mistake to leave Louis XVI on the throne. “The Constitution of 1791 had offered only that the two parties, the state and the prince, would be continually at war.” This was true, according to Buzot, because “the Constitution provided a state of necessary discord, which could finish only by the destruction of one or the other.” In addition, he found that the Constitution of 1791 lacked the necessary safeguards to protect the government. 5 The king’s attempted escape that June led to increased discussion in the assembly about the possibility of establishing a republic rather than a consti-

Dawn of a New Day: 1791–1792

13

tutional monarchy. First, however, the deputies chose to conduct an investigation in order to hear from the king himself before making a decision as to his status within the government. Three representatives—Tronchet, d’André, and Duport—were appointed on June 25 to hear declarations and to present a report to the assembly. For three days, beginning on July 13, the fate of the monarchy was debated, with nine deputies speaking in support of exoneration and eight opposing it. The moderates held the advantage, since they were “masters of parliamentary rhetoric and maneuver,” but those members from the extreme Left argued for prosecuting the king in terms “more personal and sometimes conflicting.” 6 The publisher Ruault wrote in a letter of July 15: “The people are furious,” describing the atmosphere in Paris as being akin to “an hour before a storm strikes.” 7 As it turned out, the moderate deputies, who blamed the king’s advisors for his flight, won the argument, thus saving Louis XVI for the moment. His executive powers, however, had been suspended, and would remain so until the constitution had been completed and he had officially signed it. Should he choose not to do so, he would be deposed and replaced by his son under a regent. 8 Many deputies remained unconvinced, however, that the king could be trusted to abide by a constitution. A number of radicals, including Marat, Desmoulins, and Danton, posted a petition on the speaker’s platform at the Champ de Mars on July 16, which demanded that Louis XVI be tried. Hundreds of Parisians signed the petition, intended for the National Assembly. The following day, however, two men were found hiding beneath the speaker’s platform. A crowd gathered, accused the men of being royal spies, and then proceeded to hang them on the spot. Soon the National Guard, led by Lafayette, appeared and attempted to restore order. Some of the Guardsmen, after being attacked, fired into the crowd, killing twenty and wounding more in the process. This unfortunate incident, popularly known as “the massacre of the Champ de Mars,” caused many of the moderate deputies to withdraw from the Jacobin Club, which at that time was led by the abbé Grégoire, Jérôme Pétion, Jacques-Pierre Brissot, and their friends. Later that August, Pétion would defeat Lafayette for the position of mayor of Paris. Meanwhile, the moderates, who still favored a constitutional monarchy, formed their own political club, known as the Feuillants. 9 By August 16 the final drafting of the constitution had been completed, and by the end of the month, the new deputies had been named for the Legislative Assembly. Many of them, as in the Constituent Assembly, had been lawyers or officials at the municipal, district, or department level, and the majority initially were monarchists. Most were inexperienced in parliamentary practice, and they were somewhat less idealistic and more factional than the earlier deputies. 10

14

Chapter Two

Louis XVI accepted the “acte constitutionnel” by September 13, on the same day that the decree of pacification had been accepted; that decree amnestied acts relative to the revolution since June 1, 1789, thus freeing many political prisoners. These included counter-revolutionary nobles, nonjuring priests, and those involved in the king’s attempted flight. Some hurriedly left France and joined émigré armies based in the Rhineland, while others headed for the United States. 11 The Constituent Assembly gathered for the last time on September 30, 1791, and the newly elected members of the Legislative Assembly met for the first time the next day. While they may have felt relief that the constitution finally had been completed, many doubted that the days ahead would proceed peacefully. The national government faced a number of problems, which included food shortages, high prices, and a lack of employment opportunities aggravated by the issuance of assignats, or paper money. Taxes on necessities, such as grain and iron, led the poor to begin pillaging, which in turn led to violence and arrests. In addition, the threat of war with the remaining European monarchies added to the factional differences already present in the new assembly as well as in the departments. As for Louvet, he would soon become intimately involved with the faction that was known at first as the Brissotins, after their leader Jacques-Pierre Brissot, and later as the Girondins, because many of them came from the area known as the Gironde in southwest France. Unlike the royalists, and the Feuillants on the Right, or the majority in the center known as the “Plain,” the Brissotins were composed of those who might be termed the “moderate Jacobins” of the Left. In his memoir, Louvet explained the divisions within the Legislative Assembly as follows. The first group was “that of the Feuillants led by Lafayette, named general in chief. He consented to let the Austrians penetrate French territory, thinking that with their help to crush the Jacobins and obtain an English constitution.” The second group, according to Louvet, was “the Cordeliers, working to replace Louis XVI with Philippe d’Orléans on the throne, led by Danton and Robespierre and the secret chief, Marat.” The third party, “fewer in number but considerable by their talents, among those that distinguish Condorcet, Roland, and Brissot, was that of the true Jacobins who wanted a republic.” Louvet added that differences regarding the war with Austria had split the Jacobins into two separate groups later in 1792, one of which would become known as the Brissotins. The fourth and final faction Louvet identified as that of the Court, which wanted “neither the constitution of 1789 nor an English constitution, nor a republic,” but rather preferred “l’Ancien Régime with all of its oppressions, rather augmented than sweetened.” 12 Beginning in December of 1791, Louvet worked with Brissot and his associates, François Lanthenas and Louis Bosc, on the Correspondence Com-

Dawn of a New Day: 1791–1792

15

mittee of the Jacobin Society. After Louvet had made a speech at the Jacobins in January of 1792, he was befriended by Marguerite-Elie Guadet, then the acting president of the society. Lanthenas also introduced Louvet to Jean and Manon Roland in March of that year, after which they arranged for him to edit a new political publication, La Sentinelle. Through his association with the Rolands, Louvet would also meet the deputies François Buzot and Charles Barbaroux, with whom he became close friends. 13 The key figure in this network of associates, however, was Brissot, a journalist and the editor of Le Patriote Français, a man with numerous connections through his diverse interests. His journal, first published in May of 1789, supported radical causes but not in a slanderous manner, such as that found in Marat’s L’Ami du Peuple or Hébert’s Le Père Duchesne. Brissot, an enthusiastic Americanist, had not only traveled to the United States early in 1788 and written a book about his experiences, but he also had organized an anti-slavery organization, the Société des Amis des Noirs, patterned after a similar group in England. Studious by nature and extremely idealistic, Brissot moved in a number of progressive social and political circles, thus integrating his interests with the more radical causes in the revolution and attracting a like-minded group of associates. These included his friend and financial benefactor Étienne Clavière; the abbé Grégoire; the radical mayor of Paris, Jérôme Pétion, who had been a childhood friend in Chartres; another childhood friend, Charles Blot, a radical leader in Lyon; the radical pamphleteer Thomas Paine; and the Rolands and their circle. The Rolands’ associates, who contributed to Brissot’s journal, included Blot, François Lanthenas, a physician who wrote political pamphlets; Louis Bosc, a naturalist; and Jean Henri Bancal des Issarts, a lawyer representing Auvergne in the National Assembly. The Rolands’ salon, which met several times a week, included not only Brissot, Pétion, and the others, but also two provincial lawyers who served in the Constituent Assembly, François Buzot from Évreux and Maximilien Robespierre from Arras. Soon to include Louvet, and exclude Robespierre, this group would profoundly affect the course of Louvet’s life from that time forward. 14 By the autumn of 1791, those émigrés who had left France earlier, including both of the king’s brothers, were reported to be conspiring with foreign powers against France. The German princes along the Rhine River had apparently been helping the émigrés in their efforts to establish a counterrevolution. That summer Leopold II, the Holy Roman Emperor, had been involved in the creation of an alliance to restore the Bourbon monarchy in France. He had joined William II of Prussia in a defensive alliance, and on August 27, 1791 in the Declaration of Pillnitz, they had asked for the restoration of the French monarchy “in the common interest of all the European powers.” When Louis XVI accepted the new constitution, however, their

16

Chapter Two

plans were temporarily delayed, but eventual hostilities still appeared likely. 15 Brissot in his Patriote Français had often been critical of the French foreign policy, and in a speech before the Legislative Assembly on October 20, he attempted to formulate a clear policy regarding the émigrés. Maintaining that the laws against the émigrés had been confused with the laws against revolt, Brissot suggested that all of the émigrés should be returned to France, at which time their punishment could be decided. Princes and public officials, for example, should be judged differently than ordinary citizens. He also urged military action against those foreign princes unless they agreed to cease their encouragement and aid to émigrés. Brissot favored an offensive war in which France attacked first, arguing that a prolonged and undeclared conflict would be more dangerous for France. 16 Bissot’s speech, loudly applauded in the assembly and covered widely in the press, led to a decree on émigrés by November 9. Severe penalties were reserved for princes, public officials, and persons who had taken up arms against France. If they did not return, émigrés were threatened with government confiscation of their property. In addition, the king’s brother next in line, the Comte de Provence, would be deprived of his right of succession if he decided not to return to France by the end of 1791. The decree also instructed Louis XVI to write to the German princes and to demand an end of their assistance to the French émigrés. 17 While Leopold II tried to comply, the émigrés continued to find sympathy and aid within the German states; in Worms the Prince de Condé had even managed to gather a force of 2,000 men. Brissot spoke again in favor of war on December 16 at the Jacobin Club, arguing that war was necessary for the French to establish their newfound freedom on a firm basis. He also reasoned that if France did not attack her enemies, other nations might attribute it to a weak government. He cited the “American example,” both in his speeches and in his articles in the Patriote Français. 18 Louvet counted himself among those in the assembly and at the Jacobin Club who favored a declaration of war against the enemies of France. These included many who would later become known as Girondins, such as Guadet, Gensonné, Vergniaud, Carra, and Lasource. Robespierre, on the other hand, cautioned against such a declaration, warning that France was not prepared to wage war against better-prepared armies. In addition, following the events of 1789, many of the French officers had chosen to emigrate; thus, the revolutionary troops were not only ill prepared, but also lacking experienced and disciplined leaders. In any case, Louvet had decided that he must speak his mind on this divisive subject, and on December 25, 1791, as a representative of the Lombards section, he presented a petition to the assembly. His petition demanded

Dawn of a New Day: 1791–1792

17

that the fugitive princes be formally accused and held accountable. Perhaps to the surprise of those who had expected little in the way of convincing oratory, Louvet delivered his remarks with strength and enthusiasm, receiving sustained applause as he finished. This occasion marked the beginning of the sharp division that would develop between himself and Robespierre. 19 According to Louvet in his memoir, “only a prompt war could make possible a republic at this time”; otherwise Louis XVI or an Orléans would continue to reign as a despot. It was his strong belief in such a course of action that had motivated him to speak for the first time in front of the National Assembly. Louvet seemed to relish the reaction of Robespierre to his remarks, at that time and in the days that followed. He wrote: “My first discourse produced a great effect, but in the second, one of the best pieces that I have composed, I overwhelmed Robespierre. He felt it, he was not able to respond that day, and stammered five or six responses the following days.” Consequently, Louvet would soon discover that Robespierre had begun spreading lies about him and generally disparaging his talents. 20 On December 30 Brissot argued for war again at the Jacobins, exhorting the members to imagine what might be possible rather than the dangers inherent in such a decisive course of action. Again, Robespierre disputed that optimistic view, declaring that “reason is against it,” and pointing out that “America’s example . . . is worthless, because the circumstances are different.” He very sensibly suggested that the important thing at this time was “to set our own affairs in order and to acquire liberty for ourselves before offering it to others.” 21 By January of 1792 the Legislative Assembly had insisted that Louis XVI send an ultimatum to Leopold II, demanding that he “renounce all antiFrench treaties or face dire consequences.” Blaming the Jacobins for such an outrageous demand, Leopold refused. He died two months later, to be succeeded by his son, Francis II, a nephew of the French queen, Marie Antoinette. 22 As it happened, Louis XVI had just appointed a Brissotin-led ministry in March, and they were pushing for military action against those foreign powers which had chosen to protect the émigrés. The new ministry, known subsequently as the first Girondin or the Patriot Ministry, included Gen. Charles Dumouriez (Foreign Affairs), Jean Roland (Interior), Étienne Clavière (Finance), and Antoine Duranthon (Justice). Both Clavière and Roland were long-time personal friends of Brissot. As the historian Marisa Linton has pointed out, the “friendship networks” supported both the political activities of the Girondins, and somewhat less so, the associates of Robespierre. 23 Louvet had been proposed as the Minister of Justice, but according to Rivers, Robespierre “brought all his sinister influence to bear against his nomination.” 24 Louvet was subsequently denounced as a traitor at the Jacobin Club, whereupon he defended himself against such charges and emerged

18

Chapter Two

unscathed. As he explained in his memoir, “I rendered an account of my life since ’89, citing accomplishments, places, persons. My justification was such a success that the tribunes finished by applauding me.” He added: “The next day Robespierre accused me of having denounced myself, so that I would have the occasion to deliver my panéygyrique, because I wanted to be minister of justice.” 25 It had become only too apparent that Robespierre was determined to end Louvet’s political career one way or the other. Shortly after the new ministry took office, Lanthenas had introduced Louvet and Lodoiska to Jean and Manon Roland. The two couples established a warm and supportive friendship that would last until the Rolands’ untimely deaths. Roland asked Louvet to take charge of a placard-journal, La Sentinelle, printed twice weekly and paid for by the interior minister. Some editions of La Sentinelle, which were posted on the walls of Paris, attracted as many as 20,000 readers. According to Rivers, the journal featured “the most ardent Republicanism,” while its pages were filled with “wit, humor, and pathos.” Louvet was “a master of ridicule, the weapon of all others most dreaded by Frenchmen, and he wielded it mercilessly against the bloodyminded scoundrels who daily incited the people to murder.” 26 In his memoir Louvet praises the Rolands, his “virtue” and her “charms and talents,” even referring to Mme. Roland as “a greater man” than her husband, an opinion shared by many of their associates. Louvet appreciated the opportunity he had been given with La Sentinelle, viewing it as an opportunity to serve France and its allies. 27 Louvet was not the only one whose publication was financially backed by Roland at this time, making it possible to spread their political views throughout France. Others whose newspapers were supported by Roland included Brissot, Gorsas, Condorcet, Dulaure, Lemaire, and Ginguené. The printing and distribution of speeches made by Louvet and Pétion against Robespierre were also paid for by Roland. According to the historian Leigh Whaley, the eighty-three departments in France were “inundated” with these newspapers, in addition to various political pamphlets. 28 The calls for war, meanwhile, became ever louder, and not only among republicans. Even the queen and her supporters saw it as an opportunity to keep Louis XVI on the throne. If French forces won, the king would also gain strength, whereas if they lost, Marie Antoinette’s nephew, Francis II, would restore him to the throne. General Lafayette also argued in favor of war, for France most certainly would win, and that would strengthen the constitutional monarchy. Among the influential leaders, only Robespierre and Marat, editor of L’Ami du Peuple, believed that the French troops would not be able to defeat the foreign enemies. Finally, bowing to unrelenting pressure, Louis XVI addressed the Legislative Assembly on April 20, 1792, asking for a declaration of war against Austria. Only seven deputies voted against the decree.

Dawn of a New Day: 1791–1792

19

As it turned out, those who had clamored for war were disappointed when the French army met defeat in the Austrian Netherlands. Even worse, the army appeared to be in a state of complete disorder. General Dillon was murdered by his own men, while Biron’s troops fled across the border. Lafayette, Luckner, and Rochambeau, the three foremost commanders, consequently urged the Legislative Assembly to negotiate for peace. Such an unfortunate situation had resulted from the absence of royalist officers, many of whom had emigrated or resigned in 1789. The current officers, from the middle class, were inexperienced in the art of commanding troops as well as reluctant to take orders from aristocratic leaders such as Lafayette or Rochambeau. In addition, the soldiers did not entirely trust the revolutionary government in Paris. 29 As might be expected, Brissot and his associates were widely criticized in the press and in the assembly. They responded by warning again about the “Austrian Committee,” those advisors to the king who favored the interests of Austria rather than those of France. The Brissotin faction singled out the king’s former ministers—Duport, Bertrande de Molleville, and Montmorin—for special condemnation. 30 Despite the disagreements concerning the war, the Brissotin or Girondin ministry succeeded in passing one decree in the assembly that aimed to limit the king’s power. It abolished his constitutional guard, composed of 1,200 infantry and 600 cavalry, leaving Louis XVI with only 900 Swiss Guards to protect the royal family. Although he did approve that decree, he vetoed two others, one that ordered non-juring priests to be deported, and the other asking for 20,000 provincial National Guard, or fédérés, to be sent to the capital to protect the assembly. The Brissotin members of the assembly did not trust the Parisian National Guard, because many of its members were radicals from the forty-eight sections. 31 The call for provincial troops, however, led to increasing disorder in the capital, causing the publisher Ruault to warn: “We are on a volcano ready to explode.” 32 In response to the king’s veto of the two decrees, the interior minister, Jean Roland, sent an open letter to Louis XVI, urging him to sign the decrees and warning that if he did not do so, violence would surely follow. The letter, widely believed to have been written by Manon Roland, had asked the king to uphold the constitution, “to pacify the nation by uniting with it.” 33 Louis XVI reacted to that letter by dismissing the Girondin ministers, with the exception of Dumouriez, on June 16, and replacing them with constitutional monarchists, or Feuillants. Meanwhile, the Parisians in the sections had begun to arm themselves, and on June 20 they were joined by large crowds from the faubourgs St.-Antoine and St.-Marcel for a march to the Tuileries palace to confront the king. Although Louis XVI was not physically harmed, he did experience great humiliation as he was forced to don a “Phrygian bonnet,” the red liberty cap of the revolutionaries. In addition, the king

20

Chapter Two

blamed Mayor Pétion, who had only arrived at six o’clock that evening to restore order. Pétion attempted to convince the king that calm prevailed, but Louis considered the rude intrusion to have been nothing less than “a grand scandal.” 34 For his part, Pétion claimed that he would not have been able to stop those determined citizens; therefore, as mayor he and the General Council of Paris had chosen to allow the march to proceed, and they had authorized the National Guard to join it. He insisted that “it was not in anyone’s power to stop the march of such an immense crowd of citizens.” 35 The role of General Lafayette became more divisive after he had written a letter to the Legislative Assembly on June 16, urging the dissolution of the Jacobin Club, perceived by him as a negative influence on the assembly. He also had opposed the king’s dismissal of the Brissotin ministry. Finally, on June 28, Lafayette took it upon himself to leave his troops and return to Paris, where he proclaimed that those who had instigated the march on the Tuileries should be punished. The assembly responded by ordering Lafayette to return to Metz, even threatening to put him on trial for deserting his troops. 36 Brissot, for his part, accused the general of treason and signed a declaration on July 29 concerning evidence of Lafayette’s plan to march on Paris. Despite Brissot’s efforts, however, the assembly failed to pass a decree of censure against Lafayette. 37 According to Louvet, at that time the majority of the Jacobins had turned against Lafayette, who was suspected of wanting to aid the royal family. “I am going to say,” he wrote, “that most of the Jacobins no longer doubted that Lafayette was a traitor, but the war became the only important matter at the time.” However, he continued, if Lafayette were the enemy of the republic, he was even more “the mortal enemy of Orléans and his wicked league.” Louvet implied that the republicans wanted Lafayette to crush the Orléanists, after which the Cordeliers would crush Lafayette. 38 In early July the situation in Paris grew even more combustible, when the fédérés from the departments began to arrive, despite the king’s veto. Charles Barbaroux, a Girondin deputy from Marseille, had persuaded the mayor of that city to send 600 guards to Paris, where their presence had an energizing effect. They arrived in the capital singing a chant de guerre, better known as “La Marseillaise,” which would later become the French national anthem. 39 At first the Girondins welcomed the fédérés as the protectors of the Legislative Assembly, but they were soon to be disappointed. The presence of the fédérés, ongoing food shortages, and news of military defeats contributed to the growing unrest in the capital. At a meeting of the assembly on July 3, one of its foremost orators, Pierre Vergniaud, presented a “call to arms” against hostile European monarchies, proclaiming: “The country is in danger.” He called for “an extraordinary effort” and for the deputies to “imitate the ancient, brave heroes of Rome.” Vergniaud blamed the ministers and proposed sending a message to the king, inviting him to address the

Dawn of a New Day: 1791–1792

21

French people about taking the necessary measures at this time; the departments would be notified as well. Finally, Vergniaud asked for a “prompt report on the conduct of General Lafayette,” suspected of favoring the monarchy and working against the republic. On July 11, the Legislative Assembly officially decreed: “The country is in danger.” 40 Reports that the Prussian and Austrian armies, led by the Duke of Brunswick, were approaching Paris added substance to Vergniaud’s warning. Various courses of action were proposed by the assembly, but no decisive action was taken until the arrival of the Brunswick Manifesto on August 1. The Duke stated his intention clearly: he planned to rescue the royal family, and he threatened, furthermore, to destroy the city of Paris “by fire and sword” if the royal family were harmed. Such a terrifying threat served to stir the Paris sections to take action; by August 3, 47 of the 48 sections had urged the dismissal of the king. The assembly was warned by the sections to address the matter by August 9, or “to face the wrath of Paris.” Following that bold announcement, the sections each elected three representatives to form a Commune, and they began to prepare for an insurrection on August 10. 41 Louvet, who had been elected in early August to serve as vice-president of the Lombards section, supported the decision to remove the king, as is evident in a letter sent to Brissot on August 3. He urged his friend to wake up, to cease his “constant delaying tactics.” This was no time for being overly prudent, he warned, because “your measures aggravate the danger to the country; the enemy is prepared. Vote, without delay, for the suspension . . . and we are saved.” That advice, however, did not match that given to readers of La Sentinelle, for whom Louvet suggested caution before taking any decisive action. 42 There was no explanation given for this apparent contradiction, but it is likely that Louvet expressed himself more honestly in his letter to a personal friend than he chose to do in a journal underwritten by Roland. On the night of August 9–10, the new Commune turned their words into decisive action at the Hôtel de Ville, where the former Commune sat in session. The new members disrupted the meeting and dismissed all of the officials except Pétion, Manuel, and Danton. They placed Mandat, a royalist, under arrest, but when he was taken outside, he was killed. Meanwhile, Santerre, the popular chief organizer of the sections, took command of the National Guard and decided to withdraw those stationed around the Tuileries palace. The royal family, protected only by Swiss Guards and volunteers from the Order of the Chevaliers de St. Louis, made the decision to leave the palace and seek safety in the quarters occupied by the Legislative Assembly. 43 That proved to be a wise move on their part, if only temporarily. The Swiss Guards remaining at the Tuileries had not been given any specific orders; consequently, they were soon overwhelmed by the armed crowds surrounding the palace on the morning of August 6. Only 300 of the

22

Chapter Two

900 guards present managed to escape to safety. The angry mob invaded all of the rooms in the palace, but it was reported that the fédérés from Marseille and some of the Bretons had tried to save as many Swiss Guards as possible. According to the Girondin deputy Barbaroux, “many were killed, not only the Swiss Guards, but also the chevaliers, the valets, all those who populated the palace.” 44 Louvet reported that he had helped to save some of the Swiss Guards who were still alive after the “massacre” was over. “I opened the corridors to the assembly, and led them into the chamber of the diplomatic committee, where they were concealed by Brissot and Gensonné.” Louvet also noted that both Danton and Robespierre had remained out of sight during the insurrection, Danton only “appearing after the victory . . . and marching at the head of a battalion of the Marseillais, as if he were the hero of the day.” 45 Those who had stormed the Tuileries soon surrounded the assembly in the nearby Manège. The deputies had little choice but to follow the orders issued by the new Commune; if they did not, their fate would soon be determined by the furious crowd who supported the new leaders. Thus the deputies, presided over successively by Guadet, Vergniaud, and Gensonné, remained calm despite the “grand commotion,” agreeing to suspend the king from office and to confine him and the royal family in the Temple. They also agreed to call a national convention to replace the Legislative Assembly as well as to write a new constitution. The insurrection of August 10 decisively altered the course of the revolution. The power of the Parisian sections had increased dramatically, while that of the monarchy had been reduced almost to nothing. As a result, the deputies in the assembly appeared to be situated in an untenable situation: while the moderates wished to proceed in a methodical and legal manner to decide the fate of the monarchy, others, along with the radical political sections, favored decisive action on the matter. By the end of 1792, however, the factional differences within the assembly itself would make governing even more fractious and difficult. The events of August 10 had the effect of motivating those aristocrats who had not already left France. They wasted little time in heading toward friendlier monarchies, with many choosing England as their temporary home. Lafayette joined the exodus, but he was intercepted en route by the Austrians and subsequently imprisoned at Olmitz, where he would remain until 1797. Imprisonment probably saved his life, for by August 19, 1792, a group of Girondin deputies in the Legislative Assembly had pushed through a decree accusing Lafayette of high treason. 46 The mayor of Paris also found himself less popular due to his lack of enthusiasm in supporting the new Commune. Marat, in his radical journal, L’Ami du Peuple, railed against Pétion’s moderation, writing that he was “an indecisive man, faint-hearted, a declared enemy of the vigorous measures

Dawn of a New Day: 1791–1792

23

demanded by the danger facing the country.” Pétion responded by pointing out that people had not yet had a chance to prove themselves “worthy of liberty,” because “perverse men who urged violence had misled them.” 47 Pétion, soon to be elected as a Girondin deputy in the National Convention, would encounter much more negative criticism from the radicals in the days ahead. With the king’s executive powers suspended, the Legislative Assembly appointed a provisional executive council to direct the national government. Meanwhile, Roland, Clavière, and Servan were recalled to their former ministerial positions, while two of Roland’s friends, Gaspard Monge and Pierre Lebrun, were appointed as ministers of Marine and Foreign Affairs. In addition, Danton filled the ministry of Justice, an appointment aimed toward gaining the support of Parisians, who saw him as a man of the people. Danton was everything that Roland was not, as Mme. Roland made clear when she described Danton as “this half-Hercules of gross form, whose amplitude announced his voracity.” 48 Despite the restoration of the Girondin ministers and their influence in the assembly, the Commune’s increased strength and the Parisian sections’ support made governing more difficult. In addition, elections for the National Convention, which would convene on September 21, made the period following the August 10 insurrection especially disputatious, as evidenced in opposing journals. Marat’s L’Ami du Peuple supported the new Commune’s aims, while Brissot’s Patriote Français backed the Girondins in the assembly. Jean-Marie Girey-Dupré, Brissot’s assistant, was ordered to appear before the Commune to defend the journal’s “negative” statements. The assembly objected to such blatant interference, but their efforts made no difference. The Commune continued to “dictate terms” to the assembly, and the war of words continued. 49 It was during this unsettled period, following the events of August 10, that Louvet was offered the position of editor of the Journal des Débats et des Décrets. Surprisingly, he initially declined the offer, but finally agreed after Brissot, Guadet, and Condorcet urged him to take advantage of such a useful opportunity to further their cause. He would be assisted in his new position by Lodoiska, who possessed “considerable literary ability” herself. 50 According to Louvet, Baudoin, the owner of the journal, had paid the former editor 6,000 livres a year, but Louvet asked for 10,000 livres, and Baudoin agreed. Louvet wrote that the owner “had made an excellent deal, because soon the subscriptions tripled.” He added that he also employed two collaborators, as well as Lodoiska. 51 There was no shortage of news at this time! The Commune had assumed the authority not only to grant certificates de civisme, but also to make visites domiciliaires and to arrest suspects in the process. On August 17, Hérault de Séchelles, one of the radical deputies,

24

Chapter Two

proposed the formation of a tribunal criminel to judge “the crimes committed on August 10 and other crimes relative to circumstances and dependances.” This tribunal would have two sections, each with four judges, and various other officials, but the “exceptional character” of this new jurisdiction meant that the accused could not make an appeal, once condemned, to the Tribunal de cassation. 52 As with most other matters, the Girondin and Montagnard deputies would disagree regarding the powers of the new tribunal, whose first victims were mostly common criminals. The first man to be convicted and executed for political reasons was Louis Collenot d’Angremont, who was guillotined on the place du Carrousel on August 21, 1792. A royalist and lawyer of the Parlement, who had become secretary of the administration of the National Guard, he was accused of working in concert with the Court to obstruct the insurrection of August 10. Several others were found guilty of political crimes later in August and September, but the majority continued to be convicted for reasons of homicide or robbery. 53 Greatly increasing the anxiety in the capital late in August were rumors of a Prussian invasion as well as of “enemies” already hiding inside of the city. L’Ami du Peuple had suggested that nobles and priests were waiting for an uprising within the prisons, which then held approximately 3,000 criminals, non-juring priests, and political prisoners. When news spread on September 1 that the Prussians were threatening Verdun, the last fortress remaining before the capital, the crowds turned violent and headed toward the prisons. The “September massacres” had begun, and the bloodshed would continue for five days, during which as many as 1,100 “enemies,” many of whom were innocent of any crime, were dispatched. Following this hysterical reaction, the Commune agreed that perhaps some innocents may have lost their lives, but at least they could now be certain that only “good Republicans” remained. 54 Brissot and his friends were quick to blame Danton, Marat, and Robespierre for having incited the people to carry out such murderous attacks. Louvet accused Robespierre of intrigue and of dominating the assembly with his “virtue.” He went so far as to publish his accusations against Robespierre, in an effort to warn his fellow citizens that such a man could be a threat to the success of the new republic. In addition, Louvet called Marat “the vainest of men,” while he considered Danton to be “the most heinous and bloody.” 55 Brissot claimed that he had urged Danton to end the massacres, but no decisive action had been taken to prevent them. It was not until October 29 that Roland, in his role as Minister of the Interior, presented a report to the assembly, which indicted the Commune for its usurpation of power and acts of terrorism, even accusing Robespierre of trying to become a dictator. 56 On September 20, 1792, the Legislative Assembly dissolved itself, to be replaced by the 749 newly elected members of the National Convention. The

Dawn of a New Day: 1791–1792

25

majority were members of the middle class (lawyers or office holders), and eighty-one of them had served in previous assemblies. Despite the emigration of so many nobles and aristocrats, twenty-three nobles had been elected, including the Duc d’Orléans, who now called himself Philippe Egalité. The new assembly also included two foreign deputies, the English/American revolutionary leader Thomas Paine, and a German baron residing in France, Anacharsis Cloots. 57 Both Brissot and Louvet, along with many of their Girondin friends, were elected to serve in the National Convention. Louvet, who had been nominated by Brissot, would serve as a representative of the department of the Loiret. He was among those who had been rejected by his fellow Parisians, but made welcome to represent the other departments. In his memoir Louvet explained that he, as well as “Pétion, Sieyès, Paine, Condorcet, and Guadet, were elected by the people of the departments.” He noted that he had “no particular friends” in the Loiret, “no correspondence, and had not even appeared there,” but nevertheless the people had voted for him. 58 The deputies still had to convene in their old cramped quarters, since the new venue in the Tuileries palace would not be fully renovated until May of the following year. Meanwhile, the semi-circular seating arrangement in the Manège, with its steep rows of chairs and sixty-foot ceilings, led to the use of the political designations of Left and Right, terms still in use today. The high seats to the left of the speaker’s rostrum were occupied by approximately 145 radicals, who referred to themselves as the Montagnards (the Mountain). On the right sat the 165 Girondins, considered the more moderate radicals; while the non-committed deputies, known as the Plain, took the seats in the center. 59 The opening day of the National Convention, September 21, was filled with sweeping changes. First and foremost, they abolished the monarchy. The following day the deputies designated 1792 as Year 1 of the Republic, thereby daring to alter chronological time; in 1793 a new calendar would be devised to reflect this alteration. On September 25 the republic was announced as “one and indivisible.” Later in October, a committee would be appointed to begin work on a new constitution. 60 At this point, the Girondins still maintained enough influence to make a difference in the assembly, but the radical deputies, led by Robespierre, represented the people of Paris and the Commune, and they had the support of the Paris sections. By the end of September, the serious divisions within the assembly would begin to manifest themselves in increasingly acrimonious forms.

26

Chapter Two

NOTES 1. Active citizens were defined as male, twenty-five years of age or older, who paid a tax equal to three days’ wages of a common laborer. These requirements were intended to eliminate unqualified citizens, such as women, criminals, etc. 2. Timothy Tackett, When the King Took Flight (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 93–94. 3. Nicolas Ruault, Gazette d’un Parisien sous la Révolution: Lettres à son frère, 1783–1796 (Paris: Librairie Académique Perrin, 1975), 231. 4. Tackett, When the King Took Flight, 221–23. 5. François-Nicolas-Louis Buzot, Mémoires de F.-N.-L. Buzot, Membre de l’Assemblée Constituante et Député à la Convention Nationale par le département de L’Eure, Année 1793. N.A.F. 1730 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits), 74–76. 6. Tackett, When the King Took Flight, 137. 7. Ruault, Gazette d’un Parisien, 249. 8. Tackett, When the King Took Flight, 141. 9. Owen Connelly, French Revolution/Napoleonic Era (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979), 107. 10. Connelly, French Revolution, 112–13. 11. Tackett, When the King Took Flight, 209–10. 12. Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, Auteur de Faublas, Membre de la Convention, etc., de la Journée de 31 Mai, Suivis de Quelques Notices pour L’Histoire et Le Récit de Mes Périls depuis Cette Époque Jusqu’à La Rentrée des Deputés Proscrits Dans L’Asemblée Nationale (Paris: A la Librairie Historique, 1821), 20–22. 13. M. J. Sydenham, The Girondins (London: University of London [Athlone Press], 1961), 67. See also, Louvet, Mémoires, 21. 14. Bette W. Oliver, Jacques Pierre Brissot in America and France, 1788–1793: In Search of Better Worlds (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2016), 73–75. Brissot’s book was entitled Nouveau Voyage dans les États-Unis de L’Amérique Septentrionale, 1788 (Paris: Chez Buisson, 1791). The book was translated by Mara Soceanu Vamos and Durand Echeverria as New Travels in the United States of America, 1788 (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1964). 15. Connelly, French Revolution, 114. 16. Eloise Ellery, Brissot de Warville: A Study in the History of the French Revolution (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1915; reprint New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), 228. 17. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 229–30 (Moniteur, December 1, 1791). 18. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 232–33, “Discours sur la nécessité de déclarer la guerre,” Jacobin Club, December 16, 1791, and Patriote Français, December 17, 1791. 19. Rivers, Louvet, 67–68. 20. Louvet, Mémoires, 23–24. 21. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 238. “Discours de Maximilien Robespierre sur la guerre,” January 2, 1792. 22. Connelly, French Revolution, 112–15. 23. Marisa Linton, “Fatal Friendships: The Politics of Jacobin Friendship,” French Historical Studies, vol. 31, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 52–76; and Choosing Terror: Virtue, Friendship, and Authenticity in the French Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 24. Rivers, Louvet, 75–77. 25. Louvet, Mémoires, 28–29. 26. Rivers, Louvet, 77–78. 27. Louvet, Mémoires, 31–32. 28. Leigh Whaley, Radicals: Politics and Republicanism in the French Revolution (London: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 2000), 111. 29. Oliver, Jacques Pierre Brissot, 103–04. 30. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 277–78; Patriote Français, March 15, 1792. 31. Bette W. Oliver, Provincial Patriot of the French Revolution: François Buzot, 1760–1794 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015), 49.

Dawn of a New Day: 1791–1792

27

32. Ruault, Gazette d’un Parisien, 285. 33. Cl. Perroud, ed., Mémoires de Madame Roland (Paris: Henri Plon, 1905), I:76, 241; C. A. Dauban, Etude sur Madame Roland et Son Temps Suivie des Lettres de Madame Roland à Buzot et d’Autres Documents Inédits (Paris: Henri Plon, 1864), cxi, cxii. 34. Connelly, French Revolution, 119. 35. John M. Burney, “Jérôme Pétion and the Practical Problems for the Mayor of Paris in 1792,” Proceedings, Western Society for French History, vol. 22 (1995): 33–44. 36. Connelly, French Revolution, 119. 37. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 289–90; Patriote Français, August 10, 1792. 38. Jean-Baptiste Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, l’un des Représentants Proscrits en 1793. N.A.F. 1730 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits), 44, 47–48. 39. Connelly, French Revolution, 120. 40. Philippe Paraire and Michael Paraire, Au Coeur de la Révolution Française (Noisy-leSec: Les éditions de l’Epervier, 2012), 110–12. 41. Connelly, French Revolution, 120–21. 42. Leigh Whaley, “Political Factions and the Second Revolution: The Insurrection of 10 August 1792,” French History, vol. 7, no. 2 (June 1993): 215–16. 43. Connelly, French Revolution, 121. 44. C. A. Dauban, ed., Mémoires Inédits de Pétion et Mémoires de Buzot et de Barbaroux accompagnés de Notes Inédites de Buzot et de Nombreux Documents Inédits sur Barbaroux, Buzot, Brissot, etc. (Paris: Henri Plon, 1866), 366–68. 45. Louvet, Mémoires, 33. 46. Connelly, French Revolution, 121–22. 47. John M. Burney, “Jérôme Pétion and the Practical Problems for the Mayor of Paris in 1792,” Proceedings, Western Society for French History, vol. 22 (1995): 37–38. He cites “Révoution de Paris,” no. 157, July 7–14, 1792, and L’Ami du Peuple, no. 685, September 21, 1792. 48. Papiers Roland II: Madame Roland. N.A.F. 9533 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits), 39–46. 49. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 298–99; Patriote Français, August 30, 1792. 50. Rivers, Louvet, 84–85. 51. Louvet, Mémoires, B. N. 1730, 40, 41. 52. Antoine Boulant, Le Tribunal Révolutionnaire: Punir les Ennemis du People (Paris: Perrin, 2018), 20–24. 53. Boulant, Le Tribunal Révolutionnaire, 27–29. 54. Connelly, French Revolution, 123–24. 55. Louvet, Mémoires, B. N. 1730, 156. 56. Cl. Perroud, ed., J. P. Brissot, Mémoires 1753–1793 (Paris: Librairie Alphonse Picard & Fils, 1910), II: 247. 57. Connelly, French Revolution, 126. 58. Louvet, Mémoires, B. N. 1730, 39, 40. 59. Connelly, French Revolution, 126. 60. Sydenham, The Girondins, 124–25. C178 (26).

Chapter Three

Division and Disillusionment 1792–1793

The opening of the National Convention in September of 1792 coincided with some welcome news from the military front. The French armies, under Dumouriez and Kellerman, had managed to defeat the Duke of Brunswick’s troops at Valmy, near the French border with the Austrian Netherlands (Belgium) on September 20. This long-sought victory of French citizen-soldiers over the well-trained Prussians served to raise the morale of the French populace, who had feared for the safety of Paris. While the French soldiers would continue to win more battles in the autumn of that year, their progress did nothing to counter the growing animosity within the new assembly. 1 A decree was proposed on September 24 by Armand Kersaint, a Girondin deputy, to appoint four commissioners to investigate conditions in Paris as well as in the other departments. Intended to prevent mob violence such as had erupted earlier in September, the proposal was enlarged upon by Buzot, who favored appointing six commissioners. The resulting decree also included the recruitment of a provincial armed force to protect the assembly as well as “a law against incitement to assassination.” Despite objections from some of the Montagnard deputies, the proposals were quickly passed. Those opposing the measures perceived them as obvious attacks against the Paris sections and the Commune, to which Buzot responded: “What! Do you suppose we are to be enslaved by certain deputies of Paris?” 2 It was obvious to everyone that the Girondins were more popular in the departments outside of the capital, while the Montagnards’ power was centered in Paris. Thus, the Girondins were often accused of the crime of federalism, that is, of destroying the “unity” of the revolution and the nation. Brissot at this time tended to use his journal, the Patriote Français, to focus 29

30

Chapter Three

more on factional differences than on national unity, a practice that only reinforced the accusations of federalism aimed at the Girondin deputies. For example, Brissot was quick to praise Louvet’s speeches against Robespierre, calling them eloquent, and even comparing Louvet’s words to those of the Roman senator, Cicero. Brissot would then contrast Louvet’s speeches with those of Robespierre, which he criticized as “beneath contempt.” Not surprisingly, Brissot was expelled from the Jacobin Club later in October. 3 He blamed his expulsion from the club on the “perfidious men” who had chosen to elevate Paris above all the departments, “the party of disorganizers.” His words, in a pamphlet entitled A tous les réepublicains de France sur la Société des Jacobins de Paris, only added to the divisive atmosphere within the assembly and elsewhere. 4 As expected, Roland as Minister of the Interior addressed the assembly on current conditions in Paris. In addition, he announced that he had papers in his possession that provided evidence of a plan to assassinate some of his friends: Brissot, Buzot, Barbaroux, Vergniaud, Lasource, and Guadet, as well as Roland himself. He also dared to declare that Robespierre was in the process of establishing a dictatorship. 5 As president of the assembly, Guadet tried to prevent Robespierre from presenting a lengthy defense of his position, but he was not successful. Robespierre continued, declaring: “A system of calumny is established,” and asking: “Against whom is it directed? Against a zealous patriot. Yet who is there among you who dares rise and accuse me to my face?” After a period of “profound silence,” one voice answered, saying “Moi.” It was Louvet who now dared to accuse Robespierre. Danton tried to prevent him from speaking, but failed to do so, and Louvet went on to pronounce what has been referred to as his “Robespierride.” Standing at the rostrum in the assembly, Louvet launched into a lengthy diatribe in which he criticized Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, even daring to call for the impeachment of Robespierre. He blamed all three men for inciting the September massacres, and he denounced Robespierre for acting as an “insolent demagogue” in the Legislative Assembly, “for having long calumniated the best and purest patriots.” Louvet also accused Robespierre of “having tyrannized the Electoral Assembly of Paris, by every ruse of intrigue and intimidation,” and finally of “aiming openly at the supreme power.” Louvet wrote in his memoir that his accusations had produced “a great effect” on Robespierre, seeming to render him almost speechless. 6 There is no doubt that Louvet’s attack had surprised many of the deputies, coming as it did from this inexperienced legislator, who had heretofore been known primarily for his novels. It would not be the last time that Louvet did something brave and unexpected. Louvet, of course, was eager to hear Robespierre’s immediate response to his accusations, but the Convention instead allowed Robespierre eight days

Division and Disillusionment: 1792–1793

31

to prepare his defense. Moreso than most of his Girondin friends, Louvet perceived Robespierre, Danton, and Marat as dangerous men, who could not be trusted to lead the nation in the proper direction. He despaired of the lack of unity within the Girondin ranks, foreseeing it as a sign of weakness against the more strongly unified Montagnard faction. Among those within his inner circle, however, only Madame Roland, Salle, Guadet, and Barbaroux seemed to agree with him. On November 5, Robespierre spoke before the Convention and defended himself against all of Louvet’s charges. The galleries were “crowded to suffocation,” the majority of them women, many of whom apparently found his eloquence appealing. He began by reminding the assembly that he had proposed the creation of a national convention to save the country. He disputed accusations that he had the power to control the eighty-three departments or the army. He also denied having close connections with Marat or that he had controlled opinions in the Jacobin Club. In addition, Robespierre defended the Commune of Paris and attempted to excuse the violence of the people in the September massacres, although he did admit that a few innocents may have perished. Robespierre’s defense was favorably received by his audience, but Louvet was not satisfied and demanded time to respond. At that point, many deputies rushed toward the tribune, hoping for the opportunity to either defend or counter Robespierre’s words. Finally, the assembly decided to proceed to the order of the day, disappointing all those who had tried to speak at once. Louvet, however, did not relinquish his desire to refute Robespierre and decided to produce a pamphlet. Entitled L’Accusation contre Maximilien Robespierre, par Citoyen Louvet, his words were thus able to reach a much wider audience outside of the assembly. 7 Louvet gave himself credit for predicting much that was to follow from Robespierre’s dictatorial tendencies. In his pamphlet he described “all the maneuvers of Robespierre at the Jacobins in 1792, the factions of the Cordeliers, the turpitude of the electoral corps of 1792, the designs of the Orléans faction, the ambitious projects of different leaders.” He referred to Robespierre as très médiocre, a “detestable auteur,” and très mince écrivain. Louvet noted that Roland had sent a great number of his pamphlets to the various departments. 8 The intense opposition between Louvet and Robespierre apparently was based more on personal friendships than on actual divisive issues. Louvet held the Rolands in high regard, and he felt that he should defend them from scurrilous attacks by not only Robespierre, but Danton and Marat as well. In this matter, as in so many others, his Girondin friends were not of one mind. Condorcet, for example, suggested that personal quarrels should be secondary to saving the nation. Vergniaud and Gensonné felt that Louvet’s speech

32

Chapter Three

against Robespierre had only served to further erode the unity of the assembly, while Pétion urged a greater focus on issues of public importance. 9 For his part, Pétion wrote a letter on November 7, addressed to the Jacobin Club, in which he tried to justify his past actions as mayor of Paris, while at the same time showing support for members of the club. As mayor Pétion had often found that he filled an increasingly uncomfortable position, which he addressed three days later in a speech before the assembly. While he noted that the position of the mayor, which he called “a useless title,” had lost influence, he found that Robespierre’s position had gained in influence. Pétion blamed the Commune for attempting to compete with the Convention as a power base rather than concentrating on the business of the city of Paris. He told the assembly that his personal position had become untenable, and therefore, he had decided that he must support either Brissot or Robespierre. He explained that henceforth he would support his old friend Brissot, whom he had known since their early years in Chartres. 10 Several weeks later, Pétion tried to better explain the divisions within the Convention by writing: “Jealousy is the principal passion which devours mediocre men and the most active of all divisions, of all disorders. It is necessary that those who deserve to be truly free men, those who have perfected their reason, who have acquired useful knowledge, unite to show an untiring zeal to enlighten their fellow citizens.” 11 The discovery of the king’s armoire de fer, his secret iron safe, on November 20, contributed to the increasing acrimony among the deputies. The location of the safe in the Tuileries palace had been revealed by the locksmith who had installed it, and its contents, 650 pages in total, would provide damning evidence. Among other things, these papers indicated that Louis XVI had approved the 1791 Champ de Mars assault as well as attempted to prevent the August 10 attack on the Tuileries by bribing city officials. 12 Other papers concerned his discussions with Mirabeau and foreign governments. Unfortunately for the cause of national unity, Roland as interior minister had opened the safe and examined its contents without the benefit of witnesses. Thus he was accused by his enemies of having removed any papers that might have compromised his Girondin associates. Some even suspected him of secretly negotiating with England, since both he and his wife were known as Anglophiles. 13 Before the assembly had made a final decision regarding the king’s treason, Louvet produced the last edition (the 73rd) of La Sentinelle. The headline was not subtle: “La Sentinelle sur Louis le Dernier.” Dated November 21, Year I of the French Republic, the issue was addressed to “Republicans.” Louvet began by declaring: “It is to Louis the Last that the writing here refers. God hath numbered thy reign . . . let us see what this man hath done? On ascending the throne, he recalled the parlements, those eternal oppressors of people. He surrounded himself with rascally, ignorant, and fraudulent

Division and Disillusionment: 1792–1793

33

ministers.” He then listed each one—Maurepas, Miromesnil, Calonne, Necker, etc.—summing them up as “a gang of flatterers, intriguers, and sharpers, beginning with his brothers and ending with his meanest valets; he agreed to their swindles by day and tolerated their outrage by night.” Louvet then answered the question “What has this man done?” by listing his sins. “Avaricious, he has multiplied the taxes; ferocious and intemperate, he passed his mornings in shedding the blood of wild animals and his evenings in the mire of gluttony; ignorant, he despised art, talent, and knowledge; superstitious, he would have refused burial to Voltaire and Rousseau; a prosecutor, he signed millions of lettres-de-cachet; etc.” Next, Louvet turned to the solution. “That, then, is what this man has done. Is he incorrigible? Let us see. Let the people rise! And the people rose: the Revolution came about. Since then, what has this man done? He has sworn fidelity to his country, and has done all he could to betray her; he has fawned on the enemies of France; he has cringed before the priests who have rent her; welcomed the nobles who burnt her; subsidized the foreigners who laid her waste. It is time to check his criminal career. God has numbered his kingdom. Let the people rise again! They rose, and the reign is brought to an end.” Finally, Louvet asked who shall prevail. “Then, Louis the Last, thou art placed in the one scale, and the people in the other; who shall prevail, they or thou? No, thou art weighed in the balance, and art found wanting.” 14 After this diatribe against Louis XVI, Louvet added an explanatory note regarding La Sentinelle. “The author of the journal, La Sentinelle, wishing to avoid all outside influences, has determined to unite his work with the Bulletin des Amis de la vérité, published by the free citizens, directors of the printing works of the Cercle social. Subscribers are hereby informed that they will receive the latter journal for the rest of their subscriptions which have not yet expired.” 15 While Louvet’s style is not nearly as inflammatory as that of some of the more radical editors, such as Marat or Hébert, it remains far from objective. In the late eighteenth century, the goal was not to simply state the facts, but to load them in favor of a point of view, and often to replace facts with personal opinions. Such a practice is not unknown in today’s journalism. As for putting Louis XVI on trial, even before the discovery of the king’s safe, the Convention had established a committee to weigh the legal alternatives. According to the constitution of 1791, the king could be tried only if he had abdicated, had led an army against France, or had condoned such an attack. The Convention, however, unlike the preceding Legislative Assembly, did not consider itself bound by the 1791 constitution; thus, the deputies proceeded to discuss which charges and penalties might be addressed. As with most other matters before the assembly, the Girondins and Montagnards strongly disagreed on the treatment of Louis XVI. The Girondins proposed a

34

Chapter Three

public referendum, while the Montagnards called for execution without a trial. According to Robespierre, a trial was not necessary, because the insurrection of August 10 had served as a public judgment of the king’s actions. The Convention chose to reject Robespierre’s argument, and instead decided to address four major questions: Was Louis XVI guilty of conspiracy against the nation? Should there be a public referendum? If found guilty, how should he be punished? Should a reprieve be permitted? The majority (693) of the deputies voted “yes” on the matter of the king’s guilt. Allowing a public referendum, however, aroused strong feelings and persuasive arguments from both those in favor and those opposed. The Girondins knew that the French people outside of Paris would be more likely to favor lenient treatment for the king. Brissot argued for the appeal, because he knew that the other European monarchies would favor it, whereas if the king were denied such a referendum, the monarchies would unite in opposition to France. Not surprisingly, the Montagnards opposed the appeal, since their power remained in the capital. The referendum ultimately failed to pass, with 424 deputies (out of 767) voting against it. 16 Louvet, along with many other Girondin leaders, voted with the minority, believing that all French citizens should be allowed a voice in such a momentous decision. During the arguments on the referendum, Danton had tried to speak without gaining the permission of the presiding president, who happened to be Vergniaud. Louvet reportedly reprimanded him by declaring: “Thou art not yet king, Danton!” 17 As 1792 was drawing to a close, the Montagnards had increased their accusations of royalism against Roland, Brissot, and other Girondin spokesmen. They argued that those who sought less severe treatment of the king were acting as counter-revolutionaries and should not be trusted. The Girondins realized that they faced a difficult course, trying to speak as true republicans, while at the same time opposing Robespierre and his cohorts. On December 4 Buzot attempted to counter the charges of royalism by demanding that any attempt to re-establish the monarchy should be declared a capital offense. 18 Louvet rose to speak in support of Buzot’s proposal. He carried a volume of Livy, ever aware of the value of theatrics as a means of persuasion. He told the assembly: “It is not I who am about to support Buzot’s proposal; it is the immortal founder of a famous republic; it is the father of Roman liberty, Brutus.” Louvet then explained that Brutus’s words, though spoken nearly 2,000 years before, could easily apply to the current situation, citing the parallels between Tarquinius Collatinus and Philippe Égalité. As Brutus urged Collatinus to “submit to voluntary banishment for the good of the Republic,” Louvet expressed the same thoughts about the Bourbons. As he wrote in his memoir: “We asked and we obtained the decree of expulsion of

Division and Disillusionment: 1792–1793

35

the Bourbons.” 19 The decree did indeed pass unopposed, but the attacks against Roland and his “royalist faction” did not abate. On December 10 Louis XVI was formally indicted, and on the following day, he appeared before the Convention for questioning. François Tronchet, a former member of the Parlement, and Lamoignon de Malesherbes, a former minister and philosophe, had planned the king’s defense, while the case was presented by the Count de Sèze, who had been appointed by the Convention. For three hours Louis XVI submitted to questioning and denied the charges against him, including counter-revolutionary plots with Mirabeau in 1790 and offers of bribes before the insurrection of August 10. Although Tronchet and Malesherbes argued persuasively, the deputies had already decided their verdict, and the king was declared guilty on January 15, 1793, by a vote of 683 to 39. Justice meant different things to the opposing sides; indeed, the very nature of justice had been altered by the events that had transpired since 1789. The voting on the question of the king’s punishment was especially contentious, with arguments stretching throughout the next day and into the night. The death penalty was finally decided by a voice vote of 387 to 334. One-third of the Girondins voted for death, despite their earlier proposal for a public referendum. Two hundred and eighty-four deputies had voted for imprisonment or exile, while forty-six others had favored reprieve or delay of the sentence. Three hundred and sixty-one had voted for death, and twentysix others for death with delay. Only three of the 200 Girondin deputies— Brissot, Louvet, and Valazé—consistently voted for moderation; others, including Barbaroux, Gensonné, and Vergniaud, had favored a harsher penalty. Louvet had voted for death, but only if the sentence was carried out after the completion of the constitution had been ratified by the people. After participating in a long discussion on the matter, he also voted for the reprieve. 20 As the late historian M. J. Sydenham has pointed out in his detailed study of the Girondins’ voting patterns, the disunity evident during the king’s trial disputes the evidence of a distinct Brissotin or Girondin party within the National Convention. While thirteen of the seventeen deputies closest to Brissot had voted for the referendum, only seven voted for the reprieve, while seven opposed it. Regarding the vote for punishment, the division among the seventeen was nine to eight in favor of execution. The three deputies who had voted consistently for moderation—Brissot, Louvet, and Valazé—were also those who had most strongly opposed Robespierre. Thus, according to Sydenham, Louis XVI died “because the majority of the assembly was disunited.” 21 The king faced the executioner with calmness and dignity, according to those who witnessed the event on the Place de la Révolution on the morning of January 21, 1793. Known at this time in his life simply as Citizen Louis Capet, he had proceeded by carriage to the place of execution, accompanied

36

Chapter Three

by his priest, Edgeworth de Firmont, and 1,200 troops. Thousands of National Guardsmen lined the route from the Temple to the Place, and artillery had been mounted at various locations to thwart any rescue attempts. The windows and shutters of the buildings along the route had been ordered to remain closed, while the throngs of Parisian spectators appeared more subdued than usual. The gravity of the occasion was clear to all, whether opposed to the king or in sympathy with him. At ten o’clock that morning, the former Louis XVI mounted the scaffold and spoke his last words to those waiting to witness the regicide. Although he once again declared himself to be innocent, he also chose to pardon those responsible for his death. Following the execution, it was reported that some onlookers rushed forward to dip their handkerchiefs in the blood from his severed head, while others sought to buy locks of the king’s hair from the executioner. 22 Several days later, Gouverneur Morris, the American representative in Paris, described the singular event in a letter to Thomas Jefferson. He too reported that the king had “died in a manner becoming his dignity,” despite the fact that the executioner had “mangled” his neck. In an earlier letter to Jefferson, Morris had defended Louis XVI, writing: “It would seem strange that the mildest monarch who ever filled the French throne, one who is precipitated from it precisely because he would not adopt the harsh measures of his predecessors, a man whom none can charge with a criminal or cruel act, should be prosecuted as one of the most nefarious tyrants that ever disgraced the annals of human nature.” Looking ahead, Morris predicted that the king’s execution would be a “forerunner of their own destruction,” a reference to those who had been responsible for his death. 23 Those who had voted for moderation in the punishment of the king had argued that French political interests would suffer if Louis XVI were executed before the new constitution had been ratified. Brissot, who had earlier advocated for war as the best means of defense, foresaw that a matter as important as the king’s life or death should be decided by the nation, not simply by the assembly. He condemned those deputies who had voted against a referendum, declaring that they “had prepared incalculable misfortunes for France.” Following the king’s execution on January 21, just as Brissot had predicted, Britain, Holland, and Spain recalled their ambassadors. France declared war on England on February 1. 24 These events did not provide an auspicious beginning for the year 1793, one that would be remembered as the most decisive year of the great revolution. The factions had already become bitterly opposed before the king’s execution, but once the issue of royal power had been eliminated, their animosity toward each other increased markedly. The Girondins’ hold on power within the assembly had weakened following the defeat of their motion for a referendum on the king’s punishment.

Division and Disillusionment: 1792–1793

37

Consequently, Roland was forced to resign as interior minister on January 22, leaving only Clavière and Lebrun as Girondin ministers. Before he left office, however, Roland arranged to have a large handbill printed for public distribution. In it he defended his decisions as interior minister and claimed that “false and atrocious” rumors had been circulated about his actions. He also explained that he had furnished his records to the Convention, because he had nothing to hide. In addition, he asked to be judged fairly and promised to refute any false accusations, a reference to Robespierre’s insinuation about his treasonous activities. 25 It did not help Roland’s cause that his wife, Manon, had been accused earlier in December of involvement in a royalist conspiracy, a charge that was never proved. Manon Roland perceived the Girondins’ weakened position within the Convention perhaps more accurately than her husband and his associates. As she wrote to her friend Lanthenas: “To be sure, the outcome of the revolution is not very clear, and what people call ‘parties’ will be judged by posterity; but I am convinced that it will grant my husband the recognition that is due him, and I have the foreboding that we will pay for this with our lives.” 26 While the situation within the assembly remained tense early in 1793, the international situation also grew more threatening, just as Brissot had predicted. In response to the recall of the British, Dutch, and Spanish ambassadors, the Convention had declared war on Britain and Holland on February 1, and on Spain early in March. The enlarged forces of the European coalition, however, greatly outnumbered the 300,000 soldiers in the French army. In addition, the French economy had begun to suffer from the depreciation of the currency, caused by the issuance of assignats. This in turn affected the supplies needed for the army, since foreign markets were no longer available for French purchases. Inflation also contributed to popular discontent, which led to disorders in Paris as well as in some other departments. 27 In an effort to increase the efficiency of both the military and the executive, on February 15 the Girondin deputy Condorcet presented a “republican and superficially democratic” proposal to the Convention. As expected, the Girondins approved, while the Montagnards opposed the proposal, which would have restored some power to the Girondins and to the departments, thereby helping to decentralize the government’s power. As was often the case, the Montagnards found federalist tendencies in the proposal, which led to its failure to be accepted by the assembly. 28 Earlier in February the Paris sections had twice submitted petitions demanding price controls, known as the “Maximum,” but their petitions had not been addressed. On February 15 the sections finally resorted to rioting. Shops were opened and their goods were sold at lower prices to the waiting crowds. While some of the deputies appeared to be surprised by the success

38

Chapter Three

of this popular demonstration, the Montagnards saw its potential as a force they might harness and use to accomplish their political objectives. 29 By the first week in March, the worsening military situation in Belgium had monopolized the government’s attention. When General Dumouriez, a Girondin sympathizer, began to move his troops into Holland, the Austrians under General Coburg attacked those French troops still remaining in Belgium, forcing a retreat to the River Dyle. Consequently, the Belgians began a revolt against those French forces occupying their territory. As rumors about the uprising circulated in Paris, Danton called for volunteers from the sections. Crowds soon joined them, pushing their way into the assembly hall as well as the Jacobin Club, where they demanded a purge of the Convention. Next they moved on, planning to destroy the printing presses of Brissot and Gorsas. 30 For some reason, the angry demonstrators did not smash Brissot’s Patriote Français, but they did attack Gorsas’s Courrier des 83 départements, as well as the Journal Français and the Chronique de Paris. A few days earlier in the assembly, the Montagnards had verbally attacked the Girondin journals, accusing them of “misleading public opinion,” an accusation that could more aptly be applied to Marat’s L’Ami du Peuple or Hébert’s Père Duchesne. As a result of such criticism, it was decreed on March 9 that “members of the Convention who conduct newspapers must choose between the profession of journalist and that of representative of the people.” Thus, GireyDupré replaced Brissot as editor of the Patriote Françai, but Marat did not choose to relinquish his position as the editor of L’Ami du Peuple. 31 The night of 9 March found many of the Girondin deputies fearing for their lives. Rather than return to their homes, some chose to remain in the assembly hall; they reasoned that if they were attacked, they would at least be seen as dying at their posts. The next night proved even more dangerous, as Louvet would recount in his memoir. He and Lodoiska had recently rented rooms located on the rue de SaintHonoré, near the Jacobin Club and Convention. On the night of March 10, when she heard loud cries in the street below, Lodoiska realized that passions were running high, but instead of hiding, she proceeded to slip unobserved into the crowd around the Jacobin Club. She heard one of the deputies, Desfieux, denounce the Girondin leaders, naming them one by one, while another deputy, Dubois-Crancé, urged moderation. The crowd decided to split into two groups, one heading for the assembly hall, while the other went to the Cordelier Club for reinforcements. Lodoiska departed unnoticed and headed toward home, where she found Louvet waiting for her. After she warned him of the impending danger, he went quickly to Pétion’s home, where he found several of his friends discussing proposals to be submitted to the Convention. “God alone knows what difficulty I had to arouse them to a sense of danger,” he wrote. Finally he did

Division and Disillusionment: 1792–1793

39

manage to persuade them not to return to the assembly, and to meet again later that night at a safe location. Louvet then hurried to the assembly hall to warn his colleagues there that they must leave immediately. The deputy from Finistère, Kervélégan, rushed away to alert the volunteers of the Brest battalion, who returned to the assembly hall to defend the deputies. Louvet, meanwhile, had gone to the homes of other colleagues to warn them of the danger, before he finally joined his friends at their secret meeting place. Some of them had already arrived, including Buzot, Valazé, Brissot, Vergniaud, Barbaroux, and Salle; a patrol of volunteers guarded the door. Pétion had not arrived; therefore, Louvet left to find and persuade him to join the group already assembled. Pétion, however, declined, according to Louvet, who quoted him as saying: “It is raining, and they won’t do anything tonight.” As it turned out, Pétion was correct; the rain had indeed discouraged the crowd from carrying out its objectives. Acting as the mayor of Paris, the next day Pétion proceeded to report news of the failed insurrection to the assembly. 32 This would not be the last time that Lodoiska’s intelligence and courage would make a difference in the course of Louvet’s life, or in the lives of his closest friends. Faced with the increasing public disorder and the military losses in Belgium, the Convention early in March passed emergency legislation that extended the taxation on wealth and sent representatives-on-mission to the eighty-three departments. Most of those representatives favored the Montagnard faction, and many would find themselves unwelcome as they spread their doctrine throughout the country. In addition, the assembly also voted to create a Revolutionary Tribunal as part of the court system, a decision that many would come to regret in the aftermath of the Terror. 33 Meanwhile, General Dumouriez had dealt with the disorder in Belgium in a manner that made him even more unpopular in France. Writing to the Convention on March 12, he made clear that he did not approve of the government’s policies and stated that he was not willing to act in accord with them. By March 17 Dumouriez and his troops met defeat by Austrian forces at the battle of Neerwinden, and Louvain had fallen as well. Dumouriez reacted by informing the Austrian General Coburg that he was ready to join forces with him, in effect, that he was willing to fight against the French government in Paris. An agreement of March 27 between Dumouriez and the Austrians called for the restoration of the 1791 constitution and the monarchy; the son of Louis XVI would serve as king, becoming Louis XVII. Dumouriez, not content with having committed treason, next ordered the arrest of Beurnonville, the Minister of War, and the four French deputies who had been sent to Belgium to restore order; they were turned over to the Austrians as prisoners. Although Dumouriez attempted to persuade his own French troops to join him and march against Paris, they refused, after which

40

Chapter Three

he fled into Austrian territory. Dumouriez had managed to save himself, but his betrayal would result in tragic consequences for his former Girondin associates. 34 On March 13 Vergniaud delivered a speech to the assembly that outlined the dangers ahead. Law and justice were being threatened by disorder, he declared, due to counter-revolutionary activities. He accused the Montagnards of encouraging civil unrest as an aid to national defeat, the end point of which would be despotism. “We are marching from crimes to amnesties, and from amnesties to crimes. A great many citizens have now come to confound these ever-recurring seditions with the grand march of liberty, to mistake the violence of brigands for the efforts of energetic minds, and to regard even robbery and destruction as necessary to public safety. On this account, citizens, there is reason to fear that the revolution, like Saturn, will devour all her children, and end by giving birth to despots.” Urging unity within the Convention, Vergniaud proposed an order to arrest the “revolutionary committee” and to investigate the political organizations in Paris. 35 Vergniaud had been eloquent in his denunciation of the disorders of early March, in which a number of Girondin deputies had been threatened by members of the Paris sections. Louvet, however, sought to criticize Vergniaud’s oratory, finding it “too moderate” in tone and failing to lay the blame on specific deputies. In order to clarify his position on the matter, Louvet wrote a pamphlet entitled À la Convention nationale et à mes Commettans sur la Convention du 10 Mars et la faction d’Orléans. Six thousand copies were printed and distributed in Paris, while several departments also reprinted the pamphlet. In this persuasive publication, Louvet attacked Marat and Robespierre, as he often did, but he reserved special criticism for Dominique Garat, the Minister of Justice. Writing that the Montagnard faction had been fully aware of the conspiracy against the Girondins, he repeated after each accusation: “Yet the Minister of Justice cannot find a trace of the Committee of Insurrection.” Louvet’s repetition of the phrase emphasized his suspicion that the Montagnards were much more dangerous than many of his friends believed. “The brigands,” he wrote, “do not change their role, only the theatre. It’s always in the name of the law that they assassinate.” Louvet also claimed that Danton and others had been more closely allied with the traitorous Dumouriez than the Girondins. He even offered some prescient words to his friends and associates, declaring that “they often heard without understanding” the dangerous words of their opponents, and he feared that they would only understand when it was too late to make a difference. 36 In the midst of the unstable atmosphere created by Dumouriez’s betrayal, a particularly unwise decree was introduced in the assembly and voted on after very little discussion. This decree of accusation served to remove the deputies from parliamentary immunity, thus making them liable to be ac-

Division and Disillusionment: 1792–1793

41

cused and presumed guilty of complicity with the enemies of liberty and sent before the Revolutionary Tribunal. As a result, almost one-third of the legislators would be prosecuted for treason within the next two years. 37 News of Dumouriez’s desertion to the enemy did not reach Paris until later in the month, but petitioners from the Section Poissonière were already demanding his impeachment. Their demands had initially been rejected by the Convention, but as the details of his betrayal became more widely known, the Montagnards moved to ally themselves with the angry citizens and to publicize Dumouriez’s connections with the Girondin faction. There was some truth to their accusations. Brissot had earlier defended Dumouriez’s policies in the Patriote Français, and he had even written several letters to him in November and December of 1792, to which Dumouriez had not replied. In the letter of December 9, Brissot had assured Dumouriez that “your enemies are ours, the enemies of order.” 38 Such evidence worked to the Montagnard’s advantage in the assembly, where they increased their attacks on the Girondins. Robespierre accused them on April 3 of conspiring to restore the monarchy and of working to destroy the republic. He declared: “The first measure of public safety is to indict all those who are accused of complicity with Dumouriez and notably Brissot.” Responding to Robespierre, Brissot reminded the assembly that he no longer directed the editorial policy of the Patriote Français, even if the journal had at one time praised Dumouriez. 39 The Girondins were rapidly losing power in the assembly. Nominations at the end of March for new members of the Committee of Public Safety included only nine Girondins out of a total of 124 members. By the beginning of April, the factions hardly agreed on anything; rather than being engaged in writing a new constitution, the avowed purpose of the Convention, they seemed instead to be mostly occupied with their ongoing quarrels. In addition, the Paris sections continued to push for action against the Girondins. On April 8 the Bonconseil section sent delegations to both the Jacobin Club and to the Convention with demands that Brissot, Buzot, Guadet, Gensonné, Barbaroux, and others be tried. Two other sections, Finistère and Nord, joined in petitioning in support of Bonconseil. On the following day, the Halle au blé section petitioned in favor of a trial for the former interior minister Roland and a recall for the deputies who had voted for a national referendum during the king’s trial. In response, Pétion urged that severe measures be taken against the leaders of that section, but Danton called for further discussion of the section’s demands. 40 Some evidence points to a possible meeting of the minds between Danton and the Girondins, if they had been willing to consider his position and motivations. The Girondins, however, according to Rivers, showed little interest in such an alliance and continued to blame him for the September prison massacres. They continued also to place Danton in the same category

42

Chapter Three

as Robespierre and Marat, thus lessening an opportunity for agreements of any kind. Dumouriez wrote later in his memoir that Danton could have saved the Girondins, but they had alienated him by their accusations of involvement in Dumouriez’s treason and Danton had responded accordingly. 41 The dissonant atmosphere that pervaded the assembly grew even darker on April 10, when Robespierre denounced the Girondin deputies in a particularly inflammatory speech. Referring to them as “the faction,” he cited their many errors of mismanagement and complicity, naming “Brissot, Guadet, Vergniaud, Gensonné, and other hypocritical agents of the same coalition” in a “criminal and treasonable conspiracy.” He continued by labeling them “a profoundly corrupt coalition . . . links in a chain connecting all the hostile chancelleries in Europe.” Finally, Robespierre called on the Revolutionary Tribunal to institute proceedings against Brissot, Vergniaud, Guadet, and Gensonné, as well as against Marie Antoinette, the followers of the Duc d’Orléans, and Dumouriez. 42 The next day the Girondins struck back against Robespierre’s accusations. Guadet, a deputy from the Bordeaux area, began by defending himself against Robespierre’s attacks, before he changed course and attacked Marat. He cited a slanderous circular signed by Marat on April 5 that had been distributed to the Jacobins in Paris. Guadet particularly objected to Marat’s reference to the Girondins as “a sacrilegious cabal” in the Convention, engaged in counter-revolutionary activities. Then he broadened his attack by implicating the Jacobins in an earlier insurrection that had failed, Dumouriez’s treasonous activities, and intriguing to place the Duc d’Orléans on the throne. In his defense, Marat declared that he had indeed signed the circular, but he claimed that he had not read it thoroughly before doing so. The next day a majority of the deputies voted to impeach Marat. Of the 360 present, 220 voted for and ninety-two opposed impeachment; forty-eight abstained. Of the 200 deputies designated as Girondin, only 131 were present, and of those, 110 voted with the majority; three opposed; and eighteen abstained. Louvet, along with Buzot, Guadet, and Pétion, had abstained, while Brissot, Vergniaud, and Condorcet were not present for the vote. Five Girondins, including Barbaroux, voted against Marat. It appeared that the principal Girondins continued to suffer from a lack of unity, as they had demonstrated earlier during the king’s trial. 43 On April 23 the Revolutionary Tribunal acquitted Marat of all charges, allowing him to return to the Convention, cheered on by throngs of his followers. Even during his brief imprisonment, however, Marat had continued to influence the Parisian sections, and on April 15 a deputation submitted a document asking for the exclusion of twenty-two Girondin deputies. The list, which included Louvet, Brissot, Buzot, Barbaroux, Gensonné, Guadet, Pétion, and Vergniaud, had been approved by thrity-three sections, the Jacobin

Division and Disillusionment: 1792–1793

43

Society, and the Commune. The document suggested that the twenty-two deputies named should retire as soon as a majority of the departments had given their approval. Possibly foreseeing provincial unrest as a result, Robespierre advised against such a course of action, after which the Commune withdrew its support. 44 The Girondin deputies in the assembly found their influence steadily weakened in the face of the alliance between radical deputies and those from the political sections. On May 1, 8,000 men from the faubourg St-Antoine surrounded the assembly, threatening immediate insurrection if their demands were not met. They called for greater taxation of wealth, conscription of the rich, and acceptance of the “maximum”; the following day the Convention enacted price controls and compulsory corn sales. Few deputies objected, since they felt that their words would make little difference at that time. 45 The unrest in Paris had spread to other areas of the country, notably to the Vendée in the west, where additional troops were needed. The Commune in Paris, therefore, issued a decree on May 1 calling for the enlistment of 12,000 men. Two methods were available for filling this quota: “free enlistment” and selection by local representatives. In this case, “conscription continued to be arranged in Sectional assemblies, where the middle-class opposition was overcome by the illicit transfer of radical voters from one Section to another.” 46 The Girondins’ opposition to the Paris Commune led Robespierre on May 8 to declare: “There are now only two parties in France, the people and the enemies of the people.” These so-called “enemies” included not only the Girondin deputies, but their supporters in the departments as well, who had not offered warm welcomes to many of the Montagnard representatives-onmission. They often resented the representatives’ attempts to recruit more men for the army and to levy increased taxes, voicing their complaints in department petitions sent to Paris. The Girondin deputies encouraged such actions; Vergniaud, for example, called on the men of the Gironde to arm themselves “in defense of their own representatives.” 47 Rather than seeking to compromise with their opponents, the Girondins pushed for the dissolution of the Commune. Guadet suggested on May 18 that substitute delegates to the Convention could be called to meet at Bourges. The assembly chose instead to accept Barère’s motion for the appointment of a special Commission of Twelve to examine conditions in Paris. Its members, primarily Girondins, were elected by the assembly on May 20. 48 Guadet’s call for a meeting at Bourges had also increased the charges of federalism against the Girondins. Camille Desmoulins blamed Brissot primarily, claiming that his purpose was to divide France into smaller republics ruled by the Duc d’Orléans. Desmoulins’ often-cited pamphlet, Histoire des

44

Chapter Three

Brissotins, focused on Brissot as “the heart of the conspiracy.” Brissot responded with a pamphlet of his own entitled “The Anarchy and Horrors of France displayed by a Member of the Convention,” in which he emphasized the Girondins’ efforts to uphold the law. He called for the establishment of an orderly government, one that would be respected by other nations, and the formation of a new National Convention, citing the United States as an example. 49 Following the discovery of a planned insurrection by the Paris sections, the recently appointed Commission of Twelve took its first preventive measures on May 24. A 10:00 p.m. curfew was imposed and the number of National Guards around the Convention was increased. In addition, the Commission issued warrants for the arrests of Hébert, Varlet, and other local leaders, who were conducted to L’Abbaye prison. Hébert, the editor of the virulently anti-Girondin journal, Le Père Duchesne, also served as one of the Commune’s officials, and his arrest caused a number of protests in the assembly. In response to such protests, the Girondin deputy Maximin Isnard issued an especially inflammatory warning: “I tell you in the name of the whole of France,” he thundered, “that if these perpetually recurring insurrections ever lead to harm to the parliament chosen by the nation, Paris will be annihilated, and men will search the banks of the Seine for traces of the city!” 50 Isnard’s words further angered the citizens of Paris, and on May 26 sixteen sections protested in the Convention, after which the Commission of Twelve ordered the arrest of Dobsen, a civil official who served as president of the Citi section. Consequently, a delegation from his section addressed the assembly and demanded that members of the Commission of Twelve be sent before the Revolutionary Tribunal. At that point, shouting matches erupted among the deputies, and sans-culottes entered the assembly hall, but they were quickly ordered outside by the Commission. Late that same night, after many of the Girondin deputies had already left, the remaining Montagnard deputies voted to dissolve the Commission. They also issued orders to release those who had been arrested earlier on May 24. 51 The atmosphere inside of the assembly had reached explosive levels by May 28, when the Girondin deputy Jean-Denis Lanjuinais disputed the Minutes of the May 26 session by suggesting that some members in the crowd had chosen to vote with the Montagnard deputies. As a result, the Commission of Twelve was reinstated by a vote of 279 to 238, with 135 Girondins out of 200 voting in favor, and only nine opposed. 52 This time the Montagnards disputed the decision on the Commission of Twelve. On May 28 Robespierre warned that “the chicanery of the right” would lead to a royalist reaction. Both Robespierre and Danton insisted on unity within the government, taking advantage of the popular will in order to attain their goals. While those who supported the Commission of Twelve

Division and Disillusionment: 1792–1793

45

concentrated on validating their legal position within the Convention, the members of the sections were intent on preparing a decisive insurrection planned for May 31 to take advantage of the anti-Girondin riots of the previous day. Filled with feelings of uncertainty and fear, on the night of May 30–31, Louvet and five of his friends—Buzot, Guadet, Barbaroux, Bergoeing, and Rabaut Saint-Étienne—had decided to sleep away from their usual residences. They found a room “well situated from a defensive point of view” outside of central Paris, and there they passed the night. The ringing of the tocsin awakened them at three o’clock, and by six o’clock they decided to rise and prepared to walk to the Convention. Arming themselves with swords and pistols, they set forth, encountering a crowd of sans-culottes along the way. Despite some verbal attacks, they were allowed to pass unharmed and reached the assembly hall safely. There they found several Montagnard deputies had already arrived, Danton among them. Reportedly, Louvet turned to Guadet and said: “See what a horrible hope shines on that hideous face!” Guadet supposedly answered: “It is no doubt today that Clodius drives Cicero into exile!” 53 Crowds surrounded the assembly hall on May 31. The Montagnard deputies moved to formally abolish the Commission of Twelve, after which Buzot, Vergniaud, and Valazé called for an investigation of the threatening situation outside of the hall. Meanwhile, disorder reigned inside. Finally that evening Vergniaud dared to interrupt Robespierre’s seemingly endless speech by exclaiming: “Well, come to some conclusion!” To which Robespierre replied: “Yes, I will conclude, and against you!” He then demanded the impeachment of the Girondin deputies and their subsequent arrest, which united the Commune, the sans-culottes, and the Jacobins with the Montagnard deputies. The stage had been set for actions that would irrevocably alter the course of the revolution. 54 Armed men surrounded the assembly hall for the meeting of June 2, while inside the deputies considered the possible impeachment of twenty-four Girondin deputies. They finally agreed to the provisional arrest of twenty-nine deputies, including Louvet and his friends, some of whom had chosen not to be present on that fateful day. In addition, ten members of the Commission of Twelve were included in the impeachment, as well as the ministers Clavière and Lebrun. 55 Pétion described in his memoir the dramatic day of the Girondins’ expulsion from the Convention. “The dismal sound of the tocsin, the drums beating the alarm, the orders to stop the mail . . . the bloodthirsty motions made in the tribune of the popular societies . . . everything announced a grand catastrophe. The clouds surrounded our heads and the storm was ready to break. . . . The victims fell under the iron of the assassins.” 56

46

Chapter Three

Those Girondin deputies who had been impeached were placed under house arrest. Some of them, as mentioned earlier, however, were no longer to be found in their residences, choosing instead to sleep in “safe houses.” On June 1 Louvet and his friends had gathered for dinner at the home of ArnaudJean Meillan, on the rue des Moulins. On this momentous occasion, they decided that it was time to consider what possible options remained for them, admitting in effect that they could only continue to speak out if they left Paris. Louvet emphasized the necessity of leaving the Convention, since its integrity had been violated and the Girondin deputies could be seized and held as hostages. “Since the Mountain and the ruffians in the galleries are determined to prevent us from speaking in our own defense, there is no useful purpose to be served by our attendance at the Convention. Why give our enemies the opportunity of seizing their prey at one stroke? Nor can we hope to do anything in Paris,” Louvet added, “dominated as it is by the terror inspired by the conspirators, who have usurped the constitutional authority and made themselves masters of the forces of the State. France can be saved only by a departmental insurrection,” he declared. 57 The Girondins knew that they could find support in the departments outside of Paris, especially in the cities of Caen, Lyon, Bordeaux, and Marseille, where many of the citizens that they represented had become disillusioned with the central government in Paris. These citizens had complained that the departments were neglected, while the contracts for equipment and provisioning of armies were awarded to Paris, and large amounts of money were spent to feed its poor citizens and to provide work for its unemployed. Provincial citizens had told their representatives that they were tired of starving themselves so that Paris might be fed. Those deputies gathered at Meillan’s home that night knew that these same people would be outraged when they learned about the expulsion of the Girondins from the assembly. 58 All of those present did not agree with Louvet’s proposal to leave Paris; these included Vergniaud, Gensonné, Valazé, Brissot, and Mainvielle, but the others favored escaping as soon as possible, one at a time, so as not to arouse the suspicion of those guarding their homes. 59 While those Girondins who had been expelled from the Convention were officially under house arrest, they were not carefully guarded. Thus it became possible for twenty-one of the deputies to escape from the capital and head toward the city of Caen, in Normandy, where they would be assured of a warm welcome. Buzot, accompanied by his friend Grivel, was one of the first to escape on the night of June 2, heading for his hometown of Évreux on the route to Caen. Brissot, with his friend Souque, left Paris at the same time, but he decided to make a detour to visit his hometown of Chartres; that detour would later prove fatal. Gorsas arrived in Caen by June 9, while Barbaroux joined Buzot in Évreux before leaving for Caen. By June 23, Guadet, Pétion,

Division and Disillusionment: 1792–1793

47

and Lanjuinais had left Paris, followed by Louvet on June 24. A deputy from Évreux, Jacques-Nicolas Valleé, remained in Paris to serve as a conduit between the deputies who had fled and those who had chosen to remain. 60 Brissot and Souque, meanwhile, had been recognized and arrested on June 10 in Moulins. They were subsequently transported back to Paris, where they were imprisoned, along with those other Girondin deputies who had decided to remain in the capital. 61 Their experiences and trials between June and October of 1793 will be documented in a later chapter. NOTES 1. Owen Connelly, French Revolution/Napoleonic Era (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979), 124–25. 2. M. J. Sydenham, The Girondins (London: University of London [The Athlone Press], 1961), 125–26; Moniteur, September 26, 1792. 3. Eloise Ellery, Brissot de Warville: A Study in the History of the French Revolution (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1915), 306–7; Patriote Français, October 13 and November 6, 1792. 4. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 307–08, note #2. On October 10 Pétion was replaced by Danton as president. See also Jonathan Israel, Revolutionary Ideas: An Intellectual History of the French Revolution from the Rights of Man to Robespierre (Oxford and Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), 282. 5. Sydenham, The Girondins, 130, note #2. 6. Jean-Bartiste Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, membre de la Convention, etc., de la journée de 31 Mai suivis de Quelques Notices pour L’Histoire et le Récit de Mes Périls Depuis Cette Époque Jusqu’à la Rentrée des Députés Proscrits dans l’Assemblée Nationale (Paris: A la Librairie Historique, 1821), 42–43. See also John Rivers, Louvet: Revolutionist & Romance-Writer (London: Hurst and Blackett Ltd., Paternoster House, E.C., 1910), 104–11. 7. Rivers, Louvet, 114–20, 123. 8. Louvet, Mémoires, 48–49. 9. Leigh Whaley, Radicals: Politics and Republicanism in the French Revolution (London: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 2000), 101. 10. Whaley, Radicals, 103. 11. Whaley, Radicals, 103. She cites a letter of November 29, 1792, that Condorcet had printed. 12. Connelly, French Revolution, 129. 13. Sydenham, The Girondins, 135. 14. Rivers, Louvet, 123–26. 15. Rivers, Louvet, 126–27. 16. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 322. See also Moniteur, January 19, 20, 24, 1793. 17. Rivers, Louvet, 140–41. 18. Sydenham, Girondins, 136–37. 19. Rivers, Louvet, 140–41; Louvet, Mémoires, 49–50. 20. Sydenham, Girondins, 143 (see Appendix C, 228–30, for an analysis of voting records of deputies associated with Brissot). 21. Sydenham, Girondins, 143. 22. David Andress, The Terror: The Merciless War for Freedom in Revolutionary France (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005), 145–48. 23. William Howard Adams, Gouverneur Morris: An Independent Life (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 2003), 242–43. 24. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 323–24, note #1; Moniteur, January 24, 1793.

48

Chapter Three

25. Papiers Roland (1732–1793). N.A.F. 9532 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits), 334. 26. Cl. Perroud, Correspondance, Lettres de Mme. Roland (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1900–1902), II: 457. 27. Sydenham, Girondins, 150–51. 28. Sydenham, Girondins, 149. 29. Sydenham, Girondins, 151–52. 30. Sydenham, Girondins, 152–53. 31. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 329; Moniteur, March 10, 11, 1793; Patriote Français, March 12, 1793. 32. Rivers, Louvet, 153–58; Louvet, Mémoires, 63–67. 33. Sydenham, Girondins, 155–56. 34. Sydenham, Girondins, 158. 35. Sydenham, Girondins, 157. 36. Rivers, Louvet, 161–63; Louvet, Mémoires, 71–75. 37. Decree of April 1, 1793, Minute, signed Birotteau, Archives Nationales C251, no. 418. See Mette Herder, “Habitual Terror and the Legislative Body in the Revolution,” H-France Salon, vol. 2, no. 16 (2019): 7–8. 38. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 309–10; “Patriote Français, October 4 and December 3, 1792, and March 1, 1793. See also Marisa Linton, “Fatal Friendships: The Politics of Jacobin Friendship,” French Historical Studies, vol. 31, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 51–76. 39. Whaley, Radicals, 133; Patriote Français, April 2, 1793. 40. Whaley, Radicals, 138. 41. Rivers, Louvet, 165–66. 42. Sydenham, Girondins, 162–63; Moniteur, xvi, 87, 100–9. 43. Sydenham, Girondins, 164–65. 44. Whaley, Radicals, 143; Sydenham, Girondins, 166. The other fourteen deputies included Birotteau, Chambon, Doulcet, Fauchet, Gorsas, Grangneuve, Hardy, Lanjuinais, Lanthenas, Lasource, Lehardi, Salle, Valady, and Valazé. 45. Sydenham, Girondins, 168–69; Whaley, Radicals, 147–48. 46. Whaley, Radicals, 149; Sydenham, Girondins, 170–71. 47. Sydenham, Girondins, 171–72. 48. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 336; Sydenham, Girondins, 174. 49. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 338–40; Brissot, Correspondance, 338. 50. Sydenham, Girondins, 174–75. 51. Sydenham, Girondins, 175. 52. Sydenham, Girondins, 175–76, 231. 53. Rivers, Louvet, 179–80. 54. Sydenham, Girondins, 176–78. 55. Sydenham, Girondins, 215, 179. 56. Jérôme Pétion, Mémoires de Jérôme Pétion. N.A.F. 1730 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits), 83. 57. Rivers, Louvet, 183–84. 58. Rivers, Louvet, 184–85. 59. Rivers, Louvet, 185. 60. Whaley, Radicals, 160 61. Bette W. Oliver, Jacques Pierre Brissot in America and France, 1788–1793: In Search of Better Worlds (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2016), 142–43.

Chapter Four

From Deputies to Fugitives 1793–1794

As might be expected, the absence of the proscribed deputies did not go unnoticed in the Convention. When the assembly met on June 13, discussion centered on “the army of Buzot” and his earlier proposal for a departmental force. The deputies then discussed three decrees: a formal accusation against Buzot; an accusation against the department of Calvados; and an annulment of orders issued by the department of the Eure, which Buzot had represented in the Convention. For its part, the Conseil général in Évreux, the capital of the department of the Eure, met on June 14 and chose to repudiate the decree, arguing that the Convention’s orders could no longer be regarded as “acts of a legitimate authority,” since it was no longer “free.” 1 This defiance of authority by the northern departments had been evident as early as May 27, when the city, district, and departmental officials and delegates from the sectional assemblies had voted for a resolution to create a departmental force. By June 9 the Caen assembly had voted to cease recognition of those Convention decrees issued after May 27. Next they decided to name sixteen commissioners to visit sixteen nearby departments to enlist support for a departmental force to march against Paris. 2 As a result, the expelled Girondin deputies had chosen Caen as the logical place to meet and plan their next moves. Louvet, accompanied by Lodoiska, had been one of the last of the expelled deputies to escape from Paris. When they changed carriages at Meulan, they had been obliged to listen to the driver, who railed against “the rascally deputies who were attempting to set the province in flames.” The driver was especially critical of Buzot, accusing him of having deceived the citizens of Évreux. As for Louvet, he was relieved when they finally reached 49

50

Chapter Four

Évreux, where he found the people sympathetic to the Girondin cause. They also met Guadet in Évreux, who was passing the night there before continuing to Caen. Lodoiska was unpleasantly surprised by his insistence that she return to Paris rather than be exposed to the “perils” awaiting the fugitives. Guadet managed to convince Louvet, however, and Lodoiska was finally persuaded to follow their advice, if only temporarily. 3 After the expelled deputies had arrived in Caen, the Conseil général of the department of Calvados provided them with an honor guard and better than average housing. In fact, the former Hôtel de l’Intendance, a fine old mansion on the rue de Carmes, became their official residence. Surrounded on three sides by buildings from the time of Louis XIV, the Hôtel that had once housed noble officials became in the summer of 1793 the temporary home of the Girondin fugitives. 4 The expelled deputies worked every day to organize meetings and influence local officials in Caen. Pétion, who presided over these meetings, observed that the women outnumbered the men, most of whom were older and seemed to be less enthusiastic. In his memoir, Pétion noted that the deputies had enjoyed a warm reception at first, but he suspected that the good bourgeois citizens might be “royalists in disguise.” Some aristocrats, he guessed, might have imagined that the Girondins were also royalists, because they had opposed the radical faction. He reported, however, that the deputies had been invited to meetings of the local Carabot Society, composed primarily of artisans and small shopkeepers; its motto was “execution of the law, or death.” 5 According to historian Paul Hanson, the Carabot Society existed as “a client group of the departmental administration and probably of the Caen merchant elite.” 6 In addition to holding meetings, making speeches, and attending social events, the fugitives also wrote pamphlets, news-sheets, manifestos, and even songs. Louvet was responsible for a pamphlet entitled “Observations sur le rapport de St. Just contre les députés détenus.” According to Lodoiska, who was serving as a conduit between those in Paris and the fugitives, Madame Roland had praised the pamphlet: “I recognize the style, the finesse, and the gaiety of Louvet . . . his use of ridicule without losing his force or dignity.” 7 Mme. Roland, who had been arrested at the time of the Girondins’ expulsion from the Convention, was imprisoned at L’Abbaye in Paris, while Jean Roland had remained in hiding near Rouen since shortly after his resignation as interior minister. As the month of June progressed, the deputies noticed one particularly attentive listener at their speeches in Caen, a young woman named Charlotte Corday. She lived in the home of Mme. de Brètteville, located across from the deputies’ official residence, and she had become an ardent supporter of the Girondin cause. On July 7 she had appeared as an enthusiastic witness to a public parade, which featured the volunteer battalions under General

From Deputies to Fugitives: 1793–1794

51

Wimpffen. Although the parade had been staged to attract more volunteers for the departmental force, only seventeen young men came forward to enlist. Shocked by the tepid response, Corday decided that she would take action herself; if the men of Caen lacked the courage to oppose the radical government in Paris, the same would not be said of her. Two days later she departed from Caen in a carriage headed toward Paris, and by July 13, she felt that she was adequately prepared to take action. After purchasing a knife at a shop in the Palais Royal, Corday asked for directions to Marat’s apartment. She had heard enough from the fugitives about Marat’s slanderous attacks in L’Ami du Peuple and had decided to silence his pen. Proceeding to his residence, she was only allowed to enter after indicating that she had brought information about the fugitives. Certainly this welldressed young woman, who held a note in one hand, did not present a fearsome appearance to Marat, who was seated in his bath to alleviate a persistent and irritating skin condition. When Marat beckoned her to approach, however, Corday suddenly pulled out a knife from the folds of her dress and plunged it into his side. She had accomplished her mission: Marat died in his bath, the dramatic scene later memorialized in a painting by the artist Jacques-Louis David, who also served as a radical deputy in the Convention. “The Death of Marat” ensured that future generations would remember both Marat and his assassin Charlotte Corday. Unfortunately, Corday’s strike against their enemy did not help the Girondin fugitives. She had carried with her a letter from Barbaroux, which she hoped to use as an introduction to the deputy, Claude Lauze-Deperret. The letter could now be used as evidence of her connections to the federalist plot in Caen; thus, her efforts to help the fugitives would only lead to more reprisals against them. 8 Charlotte Corday, meanwhile, made no attempt to escape, and she soon found herself under arrest by the authorities. The letter from Barbaroux had been intended to help her obtain some papers for her friend, Mlle. de Forbin, a canoness of Troyes, who was seeking “certain tithes and dues to which she was entitled.” Mlle. de Forbin was a native of the department of Bouches-du Rhône, which was Barbaroux’s department as well. 9 The fugitives in Caen had no knowledge beforehand about Corday’s secret mission in Paris, and they were very much surprised by her courageous, if foolhardy, actions. Louvet had earlier castigated Marat for being “the most despicable, hateful, slanderous, and bloodthirsty of men.” Later, after Corday’s execution, when he was writing his memoir, Louvet expressed his gratitude by praising her as “the idol of the Republicans.” He asked her to make known to God that his greatest wish now was to protect Lodoiska, “to save her, so that they might be accorded some years of love and good for-

52

Chapter Four

tune.” He wrote that if his prayers were not answered, if Lodoiska “should fall under the blade,” then he would only wish to join her in heaven. 10 If the fugitives’ response to Corday’s attack on Marat had been one of surprise and appreciation, the response from the radicals of Paris was unrestrained. The city “went wild” with anger, and “enemies” were seen everywhere. Most importantly, Robespierre responded by calling for a “Government of Terror, death to enemies of the Republic, and a nation in arms.” Consequently, the Convention voted to make terror the “order of the day,” and to suspend the constitution of 1793. A new Law of the Maximum was decreed, and the Committee of Public Security was reactivated. Overseen by André Amar and Marc Vadier, the purpose of the committee was to organize a national network to find and arrest traitors, such as the Girondin fugitives. In addition, the Revolutionary Tribunal, with two of its four sections to be in session twenty-four hours a day, became the means of dispensing “people’s justice” to any citizens suspected of threatening public safety. With Antoine Fouquier-Tinville as prosecutor, there would be no appeal from the Tribunal’s decisions, while the property of those judged guilty was to be confiscated. 11 Corday’s assassination of Marat, therefore, had served to increase the danger surrounding the Girondin fugitives. Their situation became even worse following the failure of the departmental force to perform in an effective manner. On July 13 the military leaders in Calvados and the nearby Norman and Breton departments decided that it was time to march toward Paris. An inadequate force of approximately 2,000 men (volunteers, National Guard, and regular soldiers) set off to meet the enemy. At the chateau of Brécourt, near Vernon, they encountered a group of volunteers from Paris, who had orders to “pacify” the departmental force. When the two groups actually met each other, only a few shots were fired before the “battle” came to an abrupt end. Several explanations for the failure of the departmental force were offered by those who had been involved to one extent or another. The Girondin deputies at one time had considered leading the troops, but they had decided to delegate the leadership of the force to military officers. General Wimpffen then had delegated command to his aide-de-camp, the Comte Joseph de Puisaye; both men were considered royalists. Pétion in his memoir blamed the failure of the departmental force on its leadership. He had advised that a force of at least 60,000 men was needed in order to be effective. Pétion described the “battle” near Vernon as badly mismanaged, because the general had not waited for all of his troops to arrive from Évreux. “Often the smallest cause produces the greatest effect,” Pétion wrote. 12 The historian Paul Hanson has described the federalist revolt as “one of leaders without followers.” While the lower classes may have been willing to follow the local

From Deputies to Fugitives: 1793–1794

53

leaders in a passive manner, they were not eager to participate in national politics themselves. 13 Even if the government in Paris had now been assured that they had nothing to fear from the fugitives, they nevertheless intended to punish them. By July 15 substitute deputies had been chosen to fill the vacancies left by Buzot, Pétion, Louvet, Barbaroux, Gorsas, Guadet, and Brissot. By July 16 the Montagnard deputies Robert Lindet and Jean-Michel Duroy had arrived in Évreux, and by July 21 the Ebroiciens had sworn their loyalty to the constitution and had denounced “the infamous Buzot.” Earlier, on July 17, the Convention had decreed that Buzot’s home in Évreux was to be demolished and its contents to be auctioned. The fugitives found that they were no longer welcome in Caen: a decree of “authority” had been posted on the door of their residence after the departmental administration in Calvados had turned against them. 14 Fortunately for the Girondin fugitives, a group of Breton volunteers, who had participated in the “battle” at Vernon, offered to escort them to Quimper on the western coast of Brittany. They also provided uniforms for disguise as well as arms, all of which were gratefully accepted. Thus, the fugitives were able to escape from Caen dressed as volunteers from three Breton regiments—Île-et-Vilaine, Mayenne, and Finistère. The group included the seventeen former deputies, Buzot’s domestic servant Joseph, and Gorsas’s daughter. 15 The first town they reached was Vire, where the fugitives learned that the radical government in Paris had already ordered numerous arrests. Louvet immediately thought of Lodoiska, becoming so worried about her safety that he was unable to sleep. At midnight, however, a servant knocked on his door, informing him that a lady was waiting to see him downstairs; Lodoiska had managed somehow to escape from Paris and find Louvet in Vire. Upon hearing about the failure of the departmental force, the ever-practical Lodoiska had decided to sell her jewelry and leave the capital, so that she could join Louvet in his wanderings. Since she was now free to marry, due to a divorce granted some months ago, they arranged to marry in the unlikely location of Vire. With the help of a non-juring priest, the wedding took place the next day, as their friends—Buzot, Pétion, Salle, and Guadet—served as witnesses. 16 Before Lodoiska had left Paris, she had visited Mme. Roland in her prison cell at St-Pélagie, where she had been given a letter addressed to Buzot. It would be one of six letters that he received from Manon Roland that summer, and it was appropriate that Lodoiska served as one of their go-betweens. At that time Louvet was one of only two of Buzot’s friends who knew about his love for Mme. Roland, the other being his longtime friend, Jérôme LeTellier, from Évreux. While Manon always conveyed a sense of calm acceptance in her letters, she cautioned Buzot and his friends not to attempt any sort of a

54

Chapter Four

daring rescue plan, but instead to be careful. She had, of course, already heard about the failure of the departmental force. 17 According to the Rolands’ recent biographer, Siân Reynolds, Mme. Roland received many visitors, who brought her writing materials, letters, and even flowers. Her letters and sections of her memoir were smuggled out regularly by the members of various Girondin deputies’ families, including Lodoiska, Vallée, and Brissot’s wife and sister. Thus she passed that uncertain summer of 1793 reading, writing, and visiting with her friends. 18 Once Lodoiska had arrived in Vire, she hoped to persuade Louvet and his friends to plan an escape to America. Her husband, however, noted that the federalist centers of Lyon, Bordeaux, and Marseille were supporting their cause, and he felt that it was his duty to participate in their efforts against the government in Paris. Lodoiska reluctantly agreed, but she vowed that they should never be separated again. Along with several other wives, she planned to follow the fugitives by carriage, wherever they decided to go. 19 Guadet, whose family lived in the St. Émilion area near Bordeaux, suggested that the best plan would be to sail from Quimper in Brittany down the coast to Bordeaux, and then to proceed inland. The other fugitives agreed, and thus they continued traveling with the Finistère battalion from Vire to Fougères to Dol, and then to Dinan for the night. Some of the authorities along the route had been less than welcoming, however, even threatening to arrest the “traitor deputies” dispersed among the Finistère troops. Not wanting to cause more problems for those volunteers, the fugitives decided that the best course to follow would be to leave the battalion and try to reach Quimper without their assistance. The volunteers, who found the plan unwise, nevertheless generously provided each of the fugitives with a uniform and a weapon, while the commander signed their “discharge” papers and provided guides for their journey. The group of fugitives at this time included Louvet, Buzot, Pétion, Barbaroux, Salle, Lesage, Bergoeing, Cussy, Giroux, Meillan, Girey-Dupré, Riouffe (a journalist), and Joseph, who had refused to leave Buzot. Lesage and Giroux remained behind, due to ill health, while Guadet would rejoin his friends in Quimper. Larivière was in hiding in Falaise, and Duchâstel and Kervélégan had already left for Quimper to make preparations for the rest of the journey. Gorsas had been staying with friends in Rennes, but decided to return to Paris, which turned out to be an unwise decision. 20 It would take three days and nights for the fugitives to reach Quimper. Without their false identity papers, it is doubtful that they would have succeeded, for they met with a number of potentially dangerous encounters along the way, and they often heard reports concerning “the flight of the Girondins.” Progressing under miserable conditions, they suffered from bouts of drenching rain, cold winds, hunger, lack of sleep, and the disappearance of several of their guides. Finally, nearing their destination of Quimper,

From Deputies to Fugitives: 1793–1794

55

one of the remaining guides went ahead and brought back with him a Monsieur Abgral, a Girondin supporter who served as a district magistrate. He informed Louvet that Lodoiska had been arrested briefly in St. Brieux, but then she had been allowed to proceed on her way to Quimper, where she would meet the fugitives the next day. 21 The exhausted fugitives were taken first to a peasant’s cottage nearby, where they were given refreshments of brown bread and brandy before they were conducted to the home of a constitutional priest. Abgral told the priest that the men were soldiers, who had been in pursuit of non-juring, or refractory, priests. Whether or not he believed that story, he nevertheless hid the fugitives until nightfall, when they departed. At that point, they decided that it would be safer for all of them if they separated while waiting in Quimper. Louvet, Barbaroux, and Riouffe stayed in the home of a M. de la Hubaudière, while Kervélégan welcomed Salle, Bergeoing, Meillan, Cussy, and GireyDupré. Buzot found shelter in “a worthy man’s home” in Quimper, and Pétion, Guadet, Valady, and Marchena, who had just joined them, stayed in nearby homes. To add to the danger of their current situation, Barbaroux became very ill, reportedly with smallpox. 22 Louvet was more fortunate. The enterprising Lodoiska visited him the next day, bringing news that she had found “a charming little country house in the Commune of Penhars,” only one mile from Quimper, where they might spend a few days alone together. Lodoiska’s “harbor of refuge” would provide a safe retreat in case of attack; she had a talent for finding such havens and for making them even safer, as Louvet would discover in the days ahead. 23 Buzot was not so fortunate. While he was hiding in Quimper, he received the last letter from Manon Roland imprisoned in Paris; it was dated August 31, 1793. The letter was addressed to her convent friend, Sophie Cannet, but it was disguised as a business communication about a consignment of merchandise to America. Also included in the letter was news concerning “your Sophie.” Manon Roland not only managed to convey her deeply felt sentiments, but even news about her husband, Jean Roland, still hiding near Rouen. “This illness,” she wrote, “has become deadly since your absence”; she held out no hope of recovery. The “old uncle” had declined greatly and “fallen into a terrible depression,” she wrote, but added that she had been able to obtain a copy of his “testament” (a diatribe against Buzot), and she had burned it. Manon advised Buzot to seek business opportunities in America, before she closed the letter with declarations of love from “Sophie.” 24 Despite Barbaroux’s illness and Buzot’s melancholy, the fugitives knew that they had been fortunate so far, hiding in a conservative area of France that was sympathetic to their cause. By the end of August, however, they had discovered that the central government’s agents had been informed of their

56

Chapter Four

presence in Quimper. This news led several of the fugitives to leave for Bordeaux earlier than originally planned. Soon after their arrival, Riouffe, Marchena, Duchâstel, and Girey-Dupré were arrested and transported to Paris; only Riouffe and Marchena would live to write about their experiences. 25 Louvet’s presence in the area, where he was hiding with Lodoiska, had also been made known to the locals. Thus he was forced to find another refuge in a house located about four miles outside of Penhars. Separated from Lodoiska once more, he became almost as melancholy as Buzot, to judge from a lengthy poem that he composed at that time. Louvet intended to sing his “Hymne de Mort,” dramatic in the extreme, on the way to the scaffold, should he be captured by his enemies. He began his “hymn” by addressing “the vile oppressors of France,” denouncing their attacks, and calling on “Liberty” to receive his last “homage.” Every one of the eight stanzas ended by declaring that “death” is preferable to various terrible conditions—“slavery, crime, the Mountain.” He warned the “tyrants” to “tremble,” reminding them “Marat is dead,” while “Corday lives close to Brutus.” Despite his preparations, Louvet would not have to sing his “Hymne de Mort” at that time. Instead he was provided refuge with the family of a National Guardsman, who had offered shelter to Lodoiska. The young man who had invited Louvet to share his home turned out to be skilled in many areas, including medicine, carpentry, and swordsmanship. Consequently, he was able to help the other fugitives as well as Louvet and Lodoiska. 26 Finally, on September 20, a messenger appeared at their benefactor’s home with welcome news: a suitable vessel had been located to transport the fugitives to Bordeaux. Told that including a woman on board would jeopardize the safety of all, Louvet protested that he would not leave without his wife. Lodoiska, however, managed to convince him that she would join him later in Bordeaux, after first going to Paris to collect “the remains of their modest fortune.” In addition, the family who had been hiding them also promised to help her. Louvet finally agreed, but not without a great deal of agonizing about their separation. 27 He then proceeded to join Buzot, Guadet, Pétion, and Barbaroux (apparently recovered) at a location five miles outside of Quimper. The fugitives had been advised to gather on the coast before eleven o’clock that night, since their ship, the Industrie, would be sailing as part of a convoy. Constructed in 1790, the Industrie was small, armed with a cannon, and able to sail rapidly when required. Commanded by Captain Jean-Jacques Grangier, an experienced sailor, the voyage to Bordeaux promised to be an uneventful one, barring problems with the weather or the presence of hostile ships. After hours of anxious waiting for the Industrie to appear, the fugitives finally were able to board around dawn. They were pleasantly surprised to be greeted by Valady and a friend, Aubert, who had boarded earlier at Brest.

From Deputies to Fugitives: 1793–1794

57

Even at sea, however, the fugitives did not feel entirely safe, since they knew that the captains of the other French vessels had been authorized to board and search any ship that they encountered. When the other thirty ships in the convoy were sighted on September 22, the fugitives feared the worst and prepared to defend themselves. They lay down on the floor of their cabin, prepared to fire their guns if necessary. Captain Grangier, however, proved to be a convincing liar, managing to persuade his interrogators from the flagship that he carried no passengers on board. The Industrie was allowed to sail on, catching up with the rest of the convoy later that night. When they came in sight of the port of La Rochelle, the crew tried to convince the captain to stop, so that they could enjoy some time ashore, but he steadfastly refused. Reportedly, he was able to mollify the crew “assisted by a generous distribution of paper money by the Deputies.” The convoy sailed into the Gironde estuary the next day. With the help of four sailors, Captain Grangier lowered the ship’s boat just before dawn and rowed the seven fugitives to shore. Despite being sighted by the watch on the flagship, they were eventually allowed to pass, reaching shore at the low point of the Bec d’Ambes between the Dordogne and Garonne Rivers. Overjoyed to finally have reached what they considered safe territory, the fugitives rewarded Captain Grangier for his heroic efforts with “a sum of about eighty pounds” and bid him farewell. 28 The Gironde was an area where the fugitives expected to find support. Guadet, who had represented the department in the National Assembly, had chosen to come ashore near his father-in-law Dupeyrat’s house, but they found it locked and apparently empty. They next walked to a nearby inn, where Guadet found a cooper named Blanc, whom he asked to open the lock on Dupeyrat’s house and identified himself in the process. Guadet’s admission of his identity, however, would prove to have been a mistake, for it announced the “traitors’” presence in the area. That vital information would, in turn, be passed to the representatives-on-mission, who had the power from the Committee of Public Safety to pacify rebellious areas by any means necessary. The first representatives-on-mission sent to Bordeaux in August 1793 had been Claude-Alexandre Ysabeau and Marc-Antoine Baudot. Two thousand troops followed in October, accompanied by Guillaume Chandron-Rousseau and Jean Lambert Tallien. The representatives-on-mission threatened to execute anyone “who would make of Bordeaux a new Lyon,” a reference to Lyon’s resistance and the violence and destruction that occurred as a result. The siege of Lyon had begun on August 8, only five days after the mostly peaceful surrender of Caen. The siege would lead to nine weeks of resistance, after which 1,900 of the citizens of Lyon were executed and a number of its fine homes destroyed by bombardment. 29

58

Chapter Four

The fugitives were disheartened to learn that the Montagnards now controlled Bordeaux just as they did Caen and Lyon. Guadet especially had difficulty believing that such a change had occurred; consequently he and Pétion decided to go to Bordeaux themselves to survey the situation. After confirming the reports of radical control, they managed to return to their waiting friends the next night. It had become obvious to all of them that they must quickly find a safe retreat. Thus Guadet volunteered to go to the town of St. Émilion, his birthplace as well as the home of many of his relatives. The other fugitives remained at Dupeyrat’s house, anxious that they might be discovered at any time. Meanwhile, Captain Grangier had been asked to contact Dupeyrat; he was paid for his efforts, but his good deed would soon cost him dearly. Although the fugitives were unaware of it, the innkeeper’s husband had recognized them earlier, when they had accompanied Guadet to the inn, and he had gone to Bordeaux himself to denounce them to the authorities. Fortunately, a messenger had alerted the fugitives, causing them to leave Dupeyrat’s house on September 27; the house was searched the next day. By that time, however, the fugitives were on their way to St. Émilion. They had received a message from Guadet, reporting that he had found a hiding place for at least two members of the group. 30 They headed toward the Garonne and found a boat to take them up the river to St. Émilion. Some miles below Libourne, however, their boat was delayed by an ebb tide, but the fugitives did not have time to wait. They continued their journey on foot, reaching Libourne the next night. After crossing the Dordogne River by ferry, they learned that the representativeon-mission Baudot and fifty troops were searching for them. Determined to avoid capture, the fugitives hid in one of the many abandoned stone quarries in the area. They somehow sent word of their perilous situation to Guadet, who arrived soon thereafter, accompanied by Salle. Although relieved to see their friends again, they were disappointed to hear that no one in the area was willing to provide shelter for the former deputies. They were not surprised, however, for they were aware that harboring “traitors” could result in imprisonment and execution. 31 Since all members of the group had been identified, they determined that it would be safer to separate, at least temporarily. For the next two weeks, they hid during the daylight hours, only wandering about the countryside at night. There are conflicting accounts of this period. Rivers wrote that Buzot and Pétion moved around the area seeking shelter, while Buzot’s biographer, Jean Bariller, reported that Pétion, Buzot, Salle, Guadet, and his brother St. Brice Guadet, walked toward St. Émilion together. 32 Rivers, however, claimed that Guadet and Salle walked south toward the department of the Landes, while Louvet, Barbaroux, Valady, and his friend Aubert headed in the direction of Paris. Apparently they at least found some protection at the

From Deputies to Fugitives: 1793–1794

59

home of a sympathetic priest, who hid them for several days. Although Louvet had told the priest that they were “travelers who had lost their way,” the priest was not fooled, but he welcomed them warmly. “Confess that you are good men flying from your persecutors,” he said, “and as such I heartily welcome you to rest for twenty-four hours in my house. Would I could oftener and longer protect the victims of injustice!” 33 We can only imagine the fugitives’ reaction to such unexpected kindness. The priest dared not keep the fugitives under his roof longer than several days, but he did help them to hide in a hayloft of a nearby farm. Of the sixteen members of the farm family, the priest only trusted two of them to keep the secret of their guests’ identities. The hayloft, hot and stuffy, with no ventilation except for one small window, proved to be a less than desirable place to hide. Their protectors, who had agreed to provide food and water, did so, but not on a reliable schedule, even forgetting about their “guests” periodically. The fugitives suffered from headaches and thirst to such an extent that Louvet and Barbaroux even considered using their pistols to end the misery of their confinement. Valady, however, found the appropriate words to stop them, reminding Louvet: “Lodoiska is waiting for you.” That was enough of a reminder to cause Louvet to consider leaving for Paris immediately, but he had forgotten about his injured leg. Before they had found shelter with the priest, he had slipped and fallen into a ditch, injuring the cartilage of one of his legs. Hiding in the hayloft had only caused his condition to worsen, so that standing became painful. 34 The following night they became alarmed when they heard footsteps mounting the ladder, but it turned out to be one of the residents who knew of their concealment. He told them that they must come down and leave the farm, because one of the priest’s relatives had sent a warning. Apparently a farmhand had heard their voices and alerted the owner of the farm, who then complained to the priest. Louvet, Barbaroux, and Valady left immediately, passing the night in the forest, where they huddled miserably as they were drenched by torrents of rain. Shortly before dawn the priest appeared and offered them shelter once more, despite the danger that such an act involved. At last the fugitives heard some good news from Guadet and Salle, who were in St. Émilion. It seems that Dupeyrat, Guadet’s father-in-law, had written to his daughter Thérèse Bouquey, then living in Fontainebleau with her husband. He told her about the miserable situation of the outlawed deputies hiding in the vicinity of St. Émilion. Consequently, she felt such compassion for these men, who had been turned away by almost everyone, that she left immediately for St. Émilion, where she owned a country home. Thérèse Bouquey then sent word to Guadet that the fugitives were welcome to hide in her house. 35

60

Chapter Four

Louvet, Barbaroux, and Valady arrived the next night, according to Rivers, while Buzot and Pétion, who reportedly had hidden in seven different places, reached her house several days later. Thus, by sometime in October— the 12th according to Rivers, and the 22nd according to Bariller—the fugitives were united again, surprised and pleased that this brave woman had dared to welcome them. 36 Thérèse Dupeyrat, thirty-one years old and possessed of a strong and sympathetic character, had married Robert Bouquey, procureur du roi, at St. Émilion in 1781. The deputy Guadet, who had married her sister, used his influence with Roland, at that time the Minister of the Interior, to help Bouquey become the Registrar of the National Domains. Thus, he and Thérèse were living in the apartments at Fontainebleau at the time of the Girondin deputies’ expulsion from the Convention. The location of Mme. Bouquey’s house in St. Émilion turned out to be ideal for the purpose of concealing the fugitives. St. Émilion, positioned on a hill, had been criss-crossed for centuries by large, abandoned quarries, which had provided the building stones for both St. Émilion and Bordeaux. The house itself, situated near a church, was surrounded by these quarries, which served as an ideal hiding place during daylight hours. The fugitives could descend directly by two different routes. The easier one involved climbing down an old water pipe by using a ladder, but this method exposed them to the inhabitants of nearby houses, if anyone happened to be looking out of the windows. The more difficult but safer route required that they climb into a hundred-foot-deep well located in the garden, and then descend by footholds cut on opposite sides. After descending twenty feet, they were able to access an opening into a large cavern, which concealed an even deeper cave underneath, accessed by crawling through a hole. This arduous process would be repeated every day by the fugitives, with the exception of Louvet. His less than robust health made it impossible for him to tolerate the cold and damp conditions in the quarries; instead, he remained hidden inside of the house both day and night. Mme. Bouquey made those hiding underground as comfortable as possible, however, providing them with blankets, a table and chairs, a lantern, pen and paper, and cutlery. It was under these unusual conditions that the fugitives began to write their memoirs. When night fell, they climbed out of their hiding place and into the house, where they shared a meal with their generous protector. Mme. Bouquey somehow managed to procure enough rations for her guests while still remaining within her allotted daily limit of one pound of bread. The garden vegetables, as well as eggs, supplemented the rations, at least until the chickens had also been consumed. Her cheerful presence coupled with such generosity provided some relief and hope for the desperate men under her protection.

From Deputies to Fugitives: 1793–1794

61

Louvet reported that in order to limit their consumption of food (for Mme. Bouquey was counted officially as living alone in the house), the men were given a tureen of strong vegetable soup at midday. She managed to lower it into the cavern by using a kind of hooked cord. At the evening meal, Louvet wrote, “she sat in our midst, like a mother surrounded by her children, for whom she delighted to sacrifice herself.” She was unfailingly cheerful, according to reports, and “always bore herself as one without a care in the world.” Thérèse Bouquey was aware, as they all were, that danger could intrude at any moment, but she pretended that she was not afraid, even declaring on one occasion: “Let them come and search the house. . . . The only thing I dread is lest they should arrest me, for what would become of you!” 37 Mme. Bouquey’s house is today used as a religious school, according to Bariller, who provided a description of it in his biography of Buzot. He wrote that he was able to visit the fugitives’ hiding place in 1993, under the direction of the Société Libre de L’Eure. The façade of the house is broad, with six windows on the first floor, and a tile roof, as is customary in the St. Émilion region. The well used by the fugitives, located to the right of the house on rue Guadet, is covered over now, while the Bouquey garden has been replaced by a courtyard, which in turn covers the subterranean shelter. While the public is prohibited from visiting the so-called “grotto of the Girondins,” due to the danger of a structural collapse, Bariller and his group were granted access by the Société historique de Saint-Émilion. He described the descent into the cavern as “a veritable Alpine exercise,” even with the nineteenth-century addition of a staircase and the use of a flashlight. He wrote that the descent still remained “difficult and perilous,” and he emerged covered with dust. 38 We can be certain that the experience was considerably more hazardous in 1793. While these former deputies were safer in St. Émilion, as long as they remained hidden, than they would have been in Paris, distance could not spare them from the reports of trials and executions underway in the capital. Mme. Bouquey kept them well informed about events occurring in the autumn of 1793. Thus, they were not surprised to hear that their friends, the twenty-one expelled Girondin deputies imprisoned for months, had been called before the Revolutionary Tribunal on October 24. They did not expect that the deputies would receive a fair trial under the circumstances, but nevertheless they were greatly saddened by the verdict of “guilty.” Assuming that all of the Girondins, whether they had fled from Paris or not, had acted against the national government, the Tribunal judged that all were guilty. “For the revolutionary, all opposition is necessarily counter-revolutionary, and preconcerted, and if all can be accused as conspirators, all could be convicted on a single capital charge.” In addition, only hostile witnesses had been called before the Tribunal, and the prisoners were not allowed to

62

Chapter Four

present their own written defenses. Thus, on October 30, all were declared guilty and sentenced to death on the following day. 39 If Vergniaud himself had prophesied earlier that “the revolution devours its children,” the executions of these former deputies would signal the truth of his pronouncement. The officials in charge of the trial of the Girondins were eager to proceed as quickly as possible, fearing that if they delayed, the plight of the prisoners might arouse too much sympathy. On the morning of October 29, Fouquier-Tinville wrote to the National Convention complaining about the slowness involved in the procedure of judgment. He declared that sufficient proof already existed to condemn the former deputies, and that it was time to end the debates and the trial. By reducing the time allowed for oral arguments, those in charge would be able to limit the skillful oratorical maneuvers of the most educated and persuasive prisoners. The National Convention subsequently authorized the jurors to act. This, in turn, interrupted the process of hearing witnesses and allowed the jurors to deliberate on whether the Girondin prisoners had acted as “conspirators against the unity, the indivisibility of the republic, against the liberty and the safety of the French people.” 40 On October 30, at ten o’clock that night, the Tribunal announced that no further evidence was required. By unanimous decision, all of the accused were declared guilty. According to contemporary witnesses, the verdict of guilt with “punishment of death” occasioned exclamations of shock and disbelief as well as cries of innocence from many of those present. Brissot was almost overcome, one witness reported, while Valazé withdrew a dagger hidden inside of his coat and stabbed himself in the heart. Some said that the former deputies threw assignats to the crowd in an effort to help their cause and to promote a rescue effort. The crowded courtroom filled with flickering torchlight, and the distraught prisoners and their accusers, presented a dramatic spectacle, an unforgettable image of the excesses of the Terror. 41 The condemned prisoners would pass their last night of life in the Conciergerie, that infamous prison where the condemned were transported before their judgments and executions. Located on the Quai de l’Horloge in the heart of historic Paris, this structure held more than 2,700 prisoners over a two-year period during the Revolution. The twenty-one Girondins sentenced to death in 1793 have been memorialized in the “Girondins Chapel,” a small room in the prison that had been used as a royal chapel in medieval times. Although few details remain about the last hours of the Girondin prisoners, one witness, the journalist Honoré Riouffe, recorded his impressions in Mémoires d’un Détenu, published following his release from prison. Riouffe reported that the prisoners remained courageous, passing their last hours in song. They wrote “last letters” and availed themselves of confessors, if desired. While some like Brissot equated the Catholic Church with the monar-

From Deputies to Fugitives: 1793–1794

63

chy, and so rejected its sacraments, they nonetheless professed to believe in God and in an eternal life. 42 On the morning of October 31, the former deputies were packed into an open cart and driven to the Place de la Révolution. According to legend, they sang the “Marseillaise” as they were transported along the city streets, displaying their courage and belief in the original aims of the revolution for the large crowd of spectators. Contemporary reports indicated that Sillery was the first to be guillotined, while Brissot was the last. Valazé, who had committed suicide earlier in the courtroom, was nevertheless guillotined along with his friends. Altogether, the macabre process lasted twenty-six minutes, after which the executed deputies were buried in the cemetery of the Madeleine. 43 The descriptions of what had befallen their friends in Paris devastated the fugitives in St. Émilion. They were “overwhelmed with grief,” and forced to accept the fact that they could not ever expect to receive fair trials should they be captured. It appeared that the only sensible course was to remain hidden where they were for as long as possible. The fugitives also realized that if their Girondin friends had been executed, there was little hope that Madame Roland would be spared. She had been imprisoned since early June, first in L’Abbaye and then in St. Pélagie, and she was waiting for her turn in the Conciergerie. The transfer occurred on October 31, and she no longer expected to be spared. Appearing before the Revolutionary Tribunal on November 8, she prepared to present an eloquent defense of her actions, and to deny her involvement in any sort of “secret bureau.” Nevertheless, her close association with the Girondins was widely known. According to Jacques Beugnot, who saw Mme. Roland at the trial, she “had a smile on her lips” as she stood before her accuser. Jean-Baptiste Lescot-Fleuriot was serving in place of Fouquier-Tinville, and he accused Mme. Roland of conspiracy against the republic. He wasted no time in sentencing her to die within twenty-four hours. 44 Accepting the role of martyrdom courageously, Mme. Roland intended to make a profound and lasting statement in the process. She thanked the judge who had sentenced her for “having allowed me to share the same fate as the great men you have assassinated.” She even wrote a note to Robespierre, who had once participated in those early meetings of le petit comité held in the Rolands’ apartment. She warned the “Incorruptible” to be careful, reminding him that “fortune is fleeting and so is the favor of the people.” 45 Riouffe wrote in his memoir that on the day of her execution, Mme. Roland had dressed in white, “a symbol of the purity of her soul.” Contemporary reports described her as composed and dignified as she prepared to ascend the ladder to the platform that held the guillotine. She paused dramatically to turn her gaze toward the large statue of Liberty near the Place de la

64

Chapter Four

Révolution, and then pronounced her last prophetic words: “O, Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!” 46 The reports of Manon Roland’s death, coming so soon after that of their friends, plunged the fugitives into a deep depression. Buzot, of course, especially became distraught, according to Louvet, who wrote that his friend’s “anguish was greater than he could bear,” but he tried to hide it from the others. 47 Buzot’s suffering was expressed instead in a long, desperate letter to his old friend in Évreux, Jérôme LeTellier: “Consider if there is anything left for me to regret on earth,” he wrote. 48 As for Jean Roland, when he heard the news of his wife’s execution, he destroyed all incriminating papers, bid farewell to his protectors in Rouen, and walked several miles outside of town. There by the side of the road, he stabbed himself and died. Discovered by a passerby the next morning, Roland’s body was buried where it had been found. 49 Very soon after learning about the loss of their friends in Paris, the fugitives received more discouraging news. When they gathered for supper on the night of November 13, they were very much surprised to find the normally cheerful Mme. Bouquey in tears. She told them that she had been warned by her husband and others that her situation had become much too dangerous, and that she must no longer allow the fugitives to hide in her home or in the adjoining quarry. They had been accused of treason, after all, and anyone who assisted them would likewise be accused. Although all of them, except Louvet, had no idea of what to do next, they realized that they must leave their benefactor as soon as possible. Before they left, however, they gave her their partially completed memoirs and other documents for safekeeping. They had also determined that it would be safer to separate once again and to seek shelter wherever possible. 50 Buzot, Pétion, and Barbaroux set off in the direction of Castillon; from there they hoped to reach the coast and sail to America as so many others had done. As for Louvet, he had already decided that his future, if he was to have one, would be with Lodoiska in Paris. He accompanied Guadet, Salle, and Valady for a short distance on the road to Périgueux; there Valady left them to seek shelter in the home of a relative. The others passed one day in an abandoned quarry before leaving that night for a twelve-mile, rain-drenched trek to the home of one of Guadet’s former clients, whom he had saved from a criminal prosecution some years earlier. By the time they reached her home, they were wet, cold, and fatigued, but they were turned away by a servant, who warned them about a nearby vigilance committee. It was at that point that Louvet decided to leave his friends and try by any means available to reach Paris and Lodoiska. He told them: “I know I have a very poor chance of getting there, but it is my duty to attempt it. My Lodoiska shall find that when I fell, my face was turned toward her.” Shocked that he would undertake such a foolhardy journey, Guadet and Salle begged

From Deputies to Fugitives: 1793–1794

65

Louvet to remain, but he refused. He gave some of his paper money to Salle, and then he embraced his companions with whom he had shared so much in the preceding three years. They parted about four miles from the town of Montpont, and Louvet began his perilous journey. 51 NOTES 1. Jean Bariller, François Buzot: Un Girondin Norman, 1760–1794 (Évreux: Société Libre de L’Eure, 1993), 237–41. 2. Paul R. Hanson, The Jacobin Republic under Fire: The Federalist Revolt in the French Revolution (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), 66–69. 3. John Rivers, Louvet: Revolutionist & Romance-Writer (London: Hurst and Blackett Ltd., Paternoster House, E.C., 1910), 203–4. 4. Jacques Hérissay, Un Girondin, François Buzot, Député de l’Eure à l’Assemblée Constituante et à la Convention, 1760–1794 (Paris: Librairie Academique, Perrin et Cie., 1907), 316–17. 5. Jérôme Pétion, Mémoires de Jérôme Pétion, Député à l’Assemblée Constituante, ensuite Maire de Paris et enfin député à la Convention Nationale, composé après le 31 Mai 1793. N.A.F. 1730 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits), 111–14. 6. Paul R. Hanson, Provincial Politics in the French Revolution: Caen and Limoges, 1789–1793 (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1989), 51–53. 7. Rivers, Louvet, 207. 8. Hanson, The Jacobin Republic under Fire, 25–26, 196–97. 9. Rivers, Louvet, 209–10. 10. Jean-Baptiste Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, l’un des Représentants Proscrits en 1793. N.A.F. 1730 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits), 156. 11. Owen Connelly, French Revolution/Napoleonic Era (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979), 135–37. 12. Pétion, Mémoires, 115–25. 13. Hanson, Provincial Politics in the French Revolution, 189. 14. C. A. Dauban, ed., Mémoires Inédits de Pétion et Mémoires de Buzot et de Barbaroux (Paris: Henri Plon, 1866), 149–61. 15. Rivers, Louvet, 221–22. 16. Rivers, Louvet, 221–22. 17. Rivers, Louvet, 221–22; Louvet, Mémoires, 144. 18. Siân Reynolds, Marriage and Revolution: Monsieur and Madame Roland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. 19. Rivers, Louvet, 222–23. 20. Rivers, Louvet, 223–26. See also Pétion, Mémoires, 136. 21. Rivers, Louvet, 238–41. 22. Rivers, Louvet, 243. 23. Rivers, Louvet, 243–44. 24. Bette W. Oliver, Provincial Patriot of the French Revolution: François Buzot, 1760–1794 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015), 105–6. 25. Rivers, Louvet, 245; Honoré Riouffe, Mémoires d’un Détenu, pour servir à l’histoire de la tyrannie de Robespierre, 2nd ed., revue et augmentée (Paris: De l’Imprimerie d’Anjubault, L’An III de la République Française). 26. Rivers, Louvet, 245–48. 27. Rivers, Louvet, 249. 28. Rivers, Louvet, 250–56; Bariller, François Buzot, 305–10. 29. Rivers, Louvet, 257. See also W. D. Edmonds, Jacobinism and the Revolt of Lyon: 1789–1793 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 267–71. 30. Bariller, François Buzot, 310–14. (Capt. Grangier was taken to the Revolutionary Tribunal in Bordeaux, condemned, and executed on November 28, 1793.)

66

Chapter Four

31. Rivers, Louvet, 260–61. 32. Bariller, François Buzot, 317. 33. Rivers, Louvet, 261–63. 34. Rivers, Louvet, 263–64. 35. Rivers, Louvet, 265–67. 36. Bariller, François Buzot, 317. 37. Rivers, Louvet, 267–71. 38. Bariller, François Buzot, 320. 39. M. J. Sydenham, The Girondins (London: University of London [Athlone Press], 1961), 27–30, 218. (The twenty-one men judged guilty were Antiboul, Boilleau, Boyer-Fonfrède, Brissot, Carra, Deperret, Duchâstel, Ducos, Duprat, Fauchet, Gardien, Gensonné, Lacaze, Lasource, Lesterp-Beauvois, Lehardi, Minvielle, Sillery, Valazé, Vergniaud, and Viger.) 40. Antoine Boulant, Le Tribunal révolutionnaire: Punir les ennemis du peuple (Paris: Perrin, 2018), 149–51. See also Carla Hesse, “Terror and the Revolutionary Tribunals,” HFrance Salon, vol. 2, no. 16 (2019): 7–8. 41. Boulant, Le Tribunal révolutionnaire, 151–52. 42. Riouffe, Mémoires d’un Détenu, 57–65. 43. Olivier Blanc, Last Letters: Prisons and Prisoners of the French Revolution, 1793–1794, translated by Alan Sheridan (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Michael di Capua Books, 1987), 65. 44. Gita May, Madame Roland and the Age of Revolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 282. 45. Mme. Roland, Papiers Roland II, N.A.F. 9532, 371 and N.A.F. 9533, 296. 46. Mme. Roland, Papiers Roland II, N.A.F. 9533, 296. 47. Rivers, Louvet, 272. 48. Buzot, Mémoires, 117. 49. Reynolds, Marriage and Revolution, 287–88. 50. Rivers, Louvet, 273. 51. Rivers, Louvet, 275–78.

Chapter Five

From St. Émilion to Paris 1794–1795

Louvet provided a detailed account of his journey to Paris and the many dangers encountered along the way in his memoir written in 1794. 1 An earlier memoir had covered the days of the revolution through the spring of 1793, while the 1794 version included the journey from St. Émilion to Paris, and then from Paris to Switzerland, and finally his return to Paris following the executions of Robespierre and his associates in July 1794. 2 Louvet had left Guadet and Salle near Montpont, the major town of the district, and he planned to pass by it during the night, reasoning that it would be more dangerous during the daylight hours. Suffering from pain and swelling in his legs, however, had slowed his progress and necessitated stopping to rest at frequent intervals. Therefore, it was sunrise by the time he reached Montpont. He saw a sentry leaning against a wall near the gate and prepared to present his forged passport, which affirmed his identity as Monsieur Larcher, a sans-culotte from Rennes. The passport, fabricated by a friend of the priest who had sheltered Louvet and his friends, would not pass close inspection, since it lacked the official seals from the various districts on the route to Paris. 3 By the time Louvet had reached the gate, he could see that the guard was sleeping, with his gun propped up in front of him. Louvet quickly stepped over the weapon and proceeded on his way. Once again, luck had saved him. In addition to the false passport, Louvet had also managed a disguise of sorts, which included “une petite perruque jacobite,” or a Jacobin wig. With his disguise and acting skills, he hoped to be able to convince strangers that he was one of them, a dedicated Jacobin. 4 67

68

Chapter Five

After passing safely through Montpont, Louvet was forced to slow down due to a sharp pain in his left foot as well as to satisfy his hunger. He stopped at the nearest roadside inn, where he consumed an excellent breakfast and attempted to improve his passport. Since the last place listed on the passport was Bordeaux, he added the name of the president of the Committee of Surveillance at Libourne. While the passport still lacked official seals, Louvet thought it sufficiently impressive to allow him passage through the villages along the route. 5 That afternoon, feeling somewhat rested, Louvet set out for Mussidan six miles distant. He had planned to stop for the night at a nearby village, but found that the “rheumatism” in his legs altered his plan. In addition, heavy rain made the road almost impassable, further adding to his misery. Thus, he was obliged to stop every few minutes to rest, so that by nightfall he found that he was still one mile away from Mussidan. He had no choice but to stop for the night at a nearby inn, where a kind couple welcomed him. 6 Noting that “a band of noisy revolutionists” were enjoying themselves in the public room, Louvet was relieved that the hostess offered him a private room, where he could rest and dine in peace. Louvet passed two nights with his agreeable hosts, who seemed well aware that he was not akin to any of the “noisy revolutionists.” It was with regret that he forced himself to take to the road again, so that he would be able to reach Mussidan by dusk. 7 Louvet realized that he must somehow manage to move at a faster pace in order to reach Paris safely. He arrived at Mussidan at dusk, as he had planned, avoiding the guardhouse by moving behind some wagons. His leg then began to cause him “extreme pain”; as a result, it took him two hours to walk a mile and a half. He began to fear that, at the rate he was moving, he would be forced “to stop in sixty inns and remain two long months” on his journey to Paris. He lamented the “cruel destiny” that had separated him from Lodoiska and asked Providence to “pardon his weaknesses.” 8 He stopped at the first village he saw, but it was neither as clean nor as welcoming as the previous one. In fact, the surly innkeeper, who spoke in a patois that Louvet could understand, eyed him suspiciously, while the man’s wife fired questions at him and bemoaned the fate of those poor noblemen and priests taken to the guillotine. For his part, Louvet transformed himself into a “furious sans-culotte” and threatened to have the woman arrested. His threats had no effect on her, however, and she continued to chatter even as she prepared an omelette for him. Louvet was finally allowed to retire to his room at midnight, and he did so with relief and caution. He realized that he would be sleeping among enemies, who hoped to collect the hundred livres offered by the government for information leading to the arrest of émigrés and others. Therefore, he slept in his clothes and placed his two pistols, along with the blunderbuss given to him by Lodoiska, under the pillow. In addition, he had hidden on his body a sufficient quantity of opium, in case all means of

From St. Émilion to Paris: 1794–1795

69

protection failed. The opium had been a “precious gift” from his friend in Quimper, and its presence offered Louvet enough comfort to enable him to sleep. 9 When he was awakened by the landlady the next morning at nine o’clock, Louvet was surprised to find that the night had passed without incident. In her usual brusque manner, she asked him if he was ready to leave. Louvet replied that he wanted to dine with her before departing. While he was eating, she left the inn, but soon returned with a gros paysan, or country yokel, who turned out to be the mayor. The landlady informed Louvet that the mayor had come to look at his passport, which was quickly produced for inspection. The mayor handled it awkwardly, turning it one way and another, indicating to Louvet that the official might not be completely literate. He was thus able to convince the mayor that the stamp on the document was as good as a seal, all the while engaging him with humorous anecdotes accompanied by generous servings of wine. According to Louvet, the Citizen Mayor was soon enjoying the conversation so much that he forgot about the passport. The suspicious landlady, however, left to find another official, the Citoyen Procureur Syndic, who, she said, would be able to properly decipher the passport. Louvet, in turn, bought more wine and, at the mayor’s urging, began repeating his stories for the benefit of the newcomer. Louvet made it a point to produce the passport from time to time, but no one made a serious effort to examine it. Finally, despite the obvious fury of the landlady, Louvet ordered more wine for the officials, paid his bill, and hastened to leave for the relative safety of the open road. 10 From the crest of a hill the following day, Louvet could see that he was approaching Périgueux, which he knew to be a “dangerous passage.” Valady’s friend had been stopped and arrested there, and Valady himself would soon meet the same fate, although Louvet would not be aware of it until later. He decided to take the road to Limoges, since it passed through a suburb of Périgueux. By the time that he had reached the village of Les Tavernes, two miles beyond Périgueux, he found that he could proceed no farther in the darkness, and he stopped at an inn. When the innkeeper saw that Louvet’s passport was missing a seal from Périgueux, he informed the weary traveler that he would have to return and obtain the official seal. Fortunately for Louvet, another customer in the public room came to his rescue, supporting his argument that “it was barbarous to make a sick man return” just because he had forgotten to obtain the proper seal for his passport. He even offered to take Louvet with him the next day, as he was heading to Limoges with a wagon full of merchandise. As for nourishment, the innkeeper offered Louvet only brown bread and a cup of wine, but his new acquaintance offered to share the chicken he had been eating. The landlady, meanwhile, demanded that Louvet pay in advance (ten sou) for his meager supper and bed. By the time that he retired for the

70

Chapter Five

night, he was so worried about being betrayed to the authorities that he could not sleep. 11 His luck held, however, and the next day he was able to luxuriate in the merchant’s wagon, riding instead of walking, and talking to a man who offered not only help but his understanding along the way. Grateful for his new circumstances, Louvet was almost able to enjoy the journey to Limoges despite unexpected dangers. He confided to the driver that he was a merchant from Bordeaux, threatened by Maratists, otherwise known as anarchists, who had been chasing him because he had exposed their crimes. 12 After stopping for the night at an inn, they passed through Thiviers, the chief town of the district, the next morning around daybreak. Louvet hid underneath the various goods inside the wagon, although he had been riding in plain sight with his sore leg wrapped and propped up. Such openness and daring, however, had almost resulted in his discovery a few miles outside of Limoges. They had ridden into the small town of Aixe-sur-Vienne, and the driver had reported no guard in sight, but then they had turned a corner and were suddenly confronted by a sentry and twenty “comrades” standing in front of a new guardhouse. When the sentry called for his passport, Louvet lifted his lame leg instead and exclaimed: “Here it is! If you go where I’ve been and get wounded by those thieves in La Vendée, your smashed leg will be a passport, which will take you wherever you want to go!” At those words, the sentry and his friends broke into smiles, yelling “Bravo, bravo, comrade,” while the driver hurried his horse along with a whip, which he had not previously used. 13 They reached Limoges that same evening, and the driver chose to take Louvet to his own home rather than to an inn, where he might have been suspected and questioned again. Taking advantage of this unexpected opportunity to rest, Louvet wrote that he scarcely left his bed for two days. Meanwhile, the driver contacted an acquaintance to find someone who might be willing to take his passenger toward Paris. On the night of the third day, when the driver did not return at his usual hour, Louvet began to suspect that something was amiss. His suspicion deepened when the man’s wife began relating a confusing message from her husband about moving to a particular inn, where some drivers were waiting to take Louvet to Orléans. Louvet doubted her words, for he well knew that such drivers never started their journeys at that time of night. He told her, for good measure: “Besides, there is a guard-house close to the inn, which my good friend, your husband, has already told me to avoid. He will get me out of this difficulty. He has sworn to do so, and I trust him implicitly.” Hearing those words, the driver’s wife began to cry and confessed that she had been frightened and had made up the story, so that Louvet would leave their home. Her husband returned soon thereafter with welcome news:

From St. Émilion to Paris: 1794–1795

71

he had found a good young man who agreed to “smuggle” Louvet in his wagon all the way to Paris, despite the fact that his passenger was “marchandise de contrabande.” 14 The driver awakened Louvet at two o’clock the next morning, so that he would be able to enjoy a substantial breakfast and “drink a farewell glass” before continuing his journey. He explained that his wife had been too frightened to sleep at home, but he was glad, nevertheless, to have had “the opportunity to save a good man’s life.” He appeared sad to see Louvet depart, and he insisted on filling his pockets with bread, meat, and fruit before taking him a mile from town and introducing him to the new conductor. 15 Louvet found his new driver to be “a good fellow” willing to risk the presence of a wanted man among the other seven passengers, who appeared to be outspoken Jacobins. Although they seemed to be disagreeable companions at first, Louvet managed to charm them into hiding him under their coats and baggage in the wagon whenever passports were to be checked. They thought that Louvet was a “deserter,” and he saw no reason to enlighten them. He reported that by the second day, his good humor had cheered the other passengers, and he began to feel more secure. He even dared to get out of the wagon and walk a bit on the afternoon of the third day. As they passed through Bois-Belmont, “a miserable little village composed of five or six cottages,” they came face to face with a National Guardsman. Not one to be intimidated, Louvet approached him and asked: “What are you doing here, comrade? Keeping yourself warm?” The guard laughed in reply: “If you would have me warmer, you have only to bring me a glass of wine.” Louvet agreed to accommodate the half-frozen guard, and accompanied the other passengers to a nearby inn. He sent one of them back with the wine for the guard, who was busy checking passports, but had forgotten to ask Louvet to produce one. Meanwhile, the innkeeper informed them that guards had been posted at every village on the route to Paris due to the near presence of rebels from La Vendée. 16 Although the driver of the wagon appeared worried by the news, he nevertheless drew Louvet aside and praised him for the way he had managed the situation. “I’d carry you through were you the devil himself!” the driver assured Louvet, who promised to make such efforts worth his while. 17 At dusk the next evening they stopped at Argenton, where a great disturbance was in progress. It seemed that two volunteers had been arrested when they were found traveling without passports. One of them had jumped into the river and subsequently drowned, while the other man had been placed in prison to await trial and probable execution. At this time, Louvet, who was hidden in the wagon, feared that the two arrested men had been his friends Guadet and Salle, but he did not learn of their actual fate until a later time. 18

72

Chapter Five

John Rivers, Louvet’s earlier biographer, wrote that the man who had drowned was “probably Rebecqui, the Girondist deputy from Marseille.” 19 The next day’s journey took the passengers through Chateauroux, the chief city of the department. Louvet reported that he remained hidden under the coats, cloaks, petticoats, and bandboxes piled in a corner of the wagon, while the Jacobin agent inspected the passports of the other passengers. He feared discovery, however, when the agent began to search inside the wagon to make sure that “no Girondist might escape him.” For his part, Louvet wrote that he held his breath and lay completely still, while his heart pounded rapidly in fear. He noted that, despite the Jacobin’s diligence, he had indeed “allowed a proud Girondist to escape.” 20 Louvet wrote that it was while they were in Chateauroux that he learned the news of Mme. Roland’s execution. Other sources indicate that the fugitives hiding in St. Émilion heard about her death before they left Mme. Bouquey’s house. 21 Whenever he heard the news, Louvet left no doubt that it caused him to feel distraught. He described Mme. Roland as “a courageous woman, whose immortal words against the assassins would be remembered.” She was a woman, according to Louvet, “of rare talents, and male virtues, to be honored among the great men.” He also wrote that Lodoiska would greatly lament the loss of her dear friend. Meanwhile, Louvet managed to mask his feelings and hold back his tears by appearing calm in the midst of the other passengers’ “cruel joy.” 22 As they neared Paris, Louvet knew that his position would become even more dangerous. Not only were all travelers stopped and examined several times each day, but a former deputy risked being recognized in one of the inns where passengers stopped to dine or to sleep. Adding to his fears, he increasingly heard reports about friends who had died by one means or another. In his memoir he mentions Cussy, Kersaint, and Manuel, and the suicide of Roland after hearing of his wife’s execution. Louvet wrote about “the tragic end of Lidon,” who had escaped from the Gironde only to be betrayed by a close friend who alerted the authorities. Instead of sending him a horse, as requested, the “monster” sent two brigades to arrest him. Although Lidon fought bravely and even managed to kill two of his tormentors, he finally shot himself and died. Louvet wrote that he had been obliged to listen to these disheartening tales about his friends “without changing the expression on my face,” and he found himself worrying more and more about the fate of Lodoiska. 23 When they entered Orléans, the capital of the department that had elected Louvet a deputy, he became even more beset with worry and fear of recognition. The city was filled with his “triumphant enemies” and he noted that the guillotine had been erected in the marketplace, where the so-called “Louvetins” that filled the prison were executed. He realized that he would surely be among them if even one person recognized him and alerted the guards. 24

From St. Émilion to Paris: 1794–1795

73

Under such circumstances it was unfortunate that the driver had an unusually large number of packets to deliver and to collect; Louvet was thus compelled to hide in the wagon for at least four hours. Finally they departed, reaching the barrier to Orléans unchallenged. At that point, however, the wagon was stopped and the passengers were required to descend. The driver explained that everyone’s passport had already been examined, but the official replied that he wanted to see faces, not passports. He insisted especially that the women descend, because it was known that some men tried to disguise themselves by dressing as a woman. He told the passengers that he wanted to examine the wagon himself, to make sure that no one escaped. Upon hearing those words, Louvet feared the worst possible outcome, but he could do nothing except to lie perfectly still. He did, however, ready his pistol just in case, reasoning that it would be better to end his own life than to be taken prisoner in Orléans. As he waited underneath the coats and other belongings, Louvet felt the officer’s boot kick his thigh and press against his head, but miraculously his presence was not discovered, and the wagon was allowed to proceed. 25 The following day, as the wagon entered the town of Étampes, Louvet had another frightening experience. He reported that “an inquisitive Jacobin” seemed to suspect that there were more passengers than passports produced, and he checked several times. Louvet, as before, remained concealed “at the bottom of the cart, with two women sitting on my legs and thighs, a girl seated on my chest, and my head crushed under a soldier’s knapsack, upon which the Jacobin leaned to balance himself. 26 When they entered the town, the route was decorated with the national colors, and it appeared that all of the inhabitants had turned out to welcome a representative-on-mission, who was returning to Paris. The crowd cheered: “Long live the Citizen Representative” and “Down with the Federalists.” Louvet felt greatly saddened to witness this spectacle of Jacobin victory, while he and his friends, the original leaders of the revolution, had been treated so miserably. He described the Jacobin representative as “an exterminator, one of the most cruel,” comparing him unfavorably to himself and his friends, who had sacrificed all for the good of their fellow citizens. 27 As they drew closer to Paris, all of the inns along the route seemed to be busy with customers. They stopped for the night at Arpajon, only to discover that the “Citizen-Representative” would be arriving later that same night. Louvet insisted on a garret room, reasoning that an important official would not choose to stay in such a small, cramped room. Nevertheless, he prepared his pistols and kept his opium close at hand, should he need to defend himself. All of his precautions, while not needed, did make it possible for him to pass the night undisturbed. 28 As they neared Paris, Louvet grew more and more anxious. He had never enjoyed robust health, and the strain of his journey in disguise had set his

74

Chapter Five

nerves on edge, resulting in frequent headaches and fatigue. When they stopped at Longjumeau, Louvet’s fear of discovery came dangerously close to being realized. Seated with many other travelers at a long table in the public room at La Croix-de-Bernis, Louvet became aware that one of the guests was paying particular attention to him. The man then turned to the landlord and commented loudly enough for Louvet to hear him: “Do you take me for a song-writer. For my part, I don’t deal in that line.” He next appeared to murmur something to the person sitting next to him, who began to hum verses of one of Louvet’s best-known songs from an early romance: “Is it fear or indifference? I wish I could guess.” Louvet quite understandably lost whatever appetite he had and left the table at the earliest opportunity. 29 Relieved finally to be approaching Paris, the driver made sure that all appeared to be in order in case they might be searched at the barrier. Much to everyone’s surprise, however, they were “allowed to pass without a word.” When they reached the rue d’Enfer, Louvet prepared to leave his fellow passengers, but not before thanking them profusely for having protected him so diligently. As for the driver, Louvet praised him as a “brave man,” one whom God would surely favor for his actions on the fugitive’s behalf. He gave the driver 100 assignats, all of the paper money he had left, and a gold watch “worth six times that,” and assured him that he wished he could reward him even more generously. The two men embraced and parted; the carriage pulled away, leaving Louvet alone on the street. 30 It was two o’clock on the afternoon of December 6, 1793, in the heart of Paris during the Reign of Terror. Louvet knew that the most dangerous part of his journey had just begun. He walked to a nearby inn and waited for a coach to take him to the last known address of his beloved Lodoiska. She had been staying with their good friends, the Brémonts, but when Louvet knocked at their door, a young boy answered. Louvet recognized him as the son of another deputy, who had sometimes accompanied his father to the assembly. When the boy left to call his father, Louvet ran as quickly as he could away from the house and into the street. There he encountered a servant, who directed him to the Brémonts’ current residence. Amazingly, the first sound he heard coming from that house was Lodoiska’s voice! Overcome with emotion, Louvet rushed in without knocking, surprising Lodoiska, who rushed to embrace him. Louvet wrote that his entire being was “delirious with joy,” and we can well imagine the overwhelming relief they both felt at this moment, after the months of separation and the rumors that circulated about the fate of the Girondin traitors. Mme. Brémont, along with several nephews and nieces, soon appeared and greeted Louvet. She offered him whatever he might need in the way of food or clothing, and then left him alone with Lodoiska. 31 Exhausted by his long journey and the accompanying anxiety, Louvet soon fell asleep. Lodoiska awakened him at ten-thirty that night to report that

From St. Émilion to Paris: 1794–1795

75

they were alone in the house, but that Brémont had returned briefly with a fearsome message: Louvet had one half-hour to leave the house. His trusted friend of more than twenty years refused to help the fugitive, because he feared for his own safety and that of his family. If the officials discovered that he was harboring a Girondist, they might all be arrested and executed. Louvet could hardly believe what he had heard, but surprise soon turned to indignation. Lodoiska, in true heroine mode, hastened to reassure him: “My only hope is in your courage. If we must die, it will be together.” Death was indeed a possibility, for during the period of the Terror, citizens were expected to remain at home after ten o’clock at night. Anyone seen later on the streets of Paris would be taken to the nearest guardhouse and asked to produce his certificate of citizenship. This document certified name and address, the section to which the individual belonged, and a detailed physical description. Louvet, of course, would not be able to produce such a certificate and would certainly face arrest. Once his identity was verified, there is no doubt that he would have been judged by the Tribunal and executed. 32 Louvet directed Lodoiska to inform Brémont that under no condition would he leave the house that night, but he would be glad to depart the next evening at seven o’clock. Apparently Louvet felt little sympathy for Brémont’s awkward position; at that moment, he could only think of himself and Lodoiska and the necessity to find a place of safety, however briefly they might be able to inhabit it. Brémont left his house in silence after hearing Louvet’s terms, while Mme. Brémont sympathized and criticized the “inhumanity” of her husband. Louvet, however, suspected that her protests were not sincere, a suspicion that was later confirmed. 33 Lodoiska once more came to the rescue with a carefully thought out plan that she would carry out the next morning. She would rent an apartment away from the center of the city, using her maiden name; after she had moved, Louvet would join her for as long as possible, even for one month, before devising a new escape route out of the country. In the meantime, Louvet could hide with another friend for a few days. 34 Such a plan greatly appealed to Louvet, whose romantic nature had survived, perhaps even strengthened, during this tumultuous period. He perceived his wife as an “extraordinary woman,” and Lodoiska appeared more than willing to play such a role in her husband’s life. In addition, her practical nature had enabled her to complement Louvet’s more theatrical tendencies, as she had proven throughout their relationship. 35 They managed somehow to contact another friend of Louvet’s, the same young man who had helped him before he had fled to Caen the previous spring. He came to Brémont’s house as promised at seven o’clock the next evening, agreeing to hide the fugitive for three days in his own home. He cautioned, however, that some sans-culottes lived on the same floor, and the

76

Chapter Five

dividing wall was not thick enough to block out sounds. A friend of the young man’s wife also offered to hide Louvet, but she became so frightened that Lodoiska was summoned, despite the fact that she had not finished preparing the hiding place in the new apartment she had rented. What she had accomplished, however, served its purpose admirably. Using a saw, plane, and trowel, Lodoiska had constructed a secret chamber in the wall of one of the rooms. Louvet admitted that his myopia made it difficult for him to construct anything, and therefore, he appreciated Lodoiska’s skills all the more. 36 His wife had provided a safe hiding place into which he could retreat at the first sign of danger. It was furnished with a bench, matches and a candle to read by, writing materials, some provisions in case of accident, and even a “kind of valve for renewing the air.” 37 Altogether, Lodoiska had done an excellent job, allowing Louvet to make good use of his secret chamber whenever anyone knocked on the door. Since there were neighbors on the floor beneath, as well as on the same floor, and the walls were thin, they covered the floor with a thick carpet and hung tapestries on the walls. Practical as always, Lodoiska made her husband a pair of “coarse woolen slippers with strong horsehair soles to enable him to take exercise without noise.” It seems that she had thought of everything necessary to protect a fugitive, and they were comfortable and happy to be together even under these circumstances. They did, however, fear a house-tohouse search for “suspected persons,” because Lodoiska would have been recognized by the authorities. To prevent being unduly surprised in the event of such a “domiciliary visit,” therefore, they kept the doors locked and bolted, and they slept in the last of their three rooms. They would still have time to aim their pistols and swallow their opium, thus preventing their enemies from surprising and arresting them. 38 Meanwhile, they treasured the days they had together. Louvet worried whenever Lodoiska left the apartment to buy food and other supplies, because due to rationing, she could only buy enough for one person. According to his memoir, a “little girl” came to their apartment every morning to help Lodoiska and to buy more provisions. They passed their days reading and playing chess. They spoke often of their friends, those who had turned against them—“From such friends, the Lord deliver us!”—as well as those who were no longer alive. 39 Searching the journals for news of his friends and associates, Louvet often enough found accounts of their arrests, trials, or executions. He mentioned Lebrun, the former minister of Foreign Affairs, who was discovered in an attic dressed as a laborer, and subsequently interrogated and executed. Bougon, the former administrator of Calvados, had sought refuge in Fougères, “where the tyrants found him” and published lies that he had been involved with the rebels in the Vendée. The former finance minister,

From St. Émilion to Paris: 1794–1795

77

Clavière, had been brought before the Revolutionary Tribunal and pronounced guilty, after which his wife swallowed poison “to be reunited with her husband.” Louvet blamed “the vile libelists” for attacking not only their public lives, but their private lives as well. 40 Rabaut (Saint-Étienne) had been well hidden in Paris, but according to Louvet, he had been betrayed by a longtime servant girl in his household. Brissot’s friend, Girey-Dupré, who had taken over the editorial duties of the Patriote Français, had been accused of complicity and arrested in Bordeaux, along with Bois-Guyon, Duchâstel, and Cussy. Denounced by an aide-decamp of General Wimpffen, Mahon by name, these four Girondins, along with Marchena and Riouffe, had been arrested and imprisoned. 41 Riouffe, who had managed to survive the Terror, wrote an account of his months behind bars entitled Mémoires d’un Détenu. 42 Riouffe, Marchena, and Duchâstel had accompanied the Girondin fugitives to Brittany, departing for Bordeaux ahead of the others; they had subsequently been captured there. Duchâstel was later executed, while Riouffe and Marchena were imprisoned in Paris on October 16, 1793. They were somehow overlooked when the other Girondin prisoners were executed at the end of October. Riouffe’s descriptions of life inside the Conciergerie provide an emotionally charged and fascinating account of his experience. 43 Louvet noted in his memoir that his friend Valady, whom he had parted from in the Gironde, had been arrested in Périgueux, where Louvet himself had faced danger. He mourned the loss of this good friend, who had begged him not to set off on the road to Paris, comparing him to the “faithless” Brémont, who had refused to shelter him. He also reported that Mazuyer had been arrested as the result of an unwise remark to a city official; he had, in effect, “lost his head by a witty remark.” 44 As the days passed, Louvet became more anxious, fearing that it was only a matter of time before he and Lodoiska would be discovered, and then meet the same unfortunate end as many of their friends. He needed assistance, however, in order to escape from Paris; therefore, he contacted a man that he had helped with a personal matter some ten years earlier. This time he was not turned away, and the response was warm and immediate. This man, who was not identified in Louvet’s memoir, was engaged in a business requiring him to travel between Paris and Switzerland. Together with Lodoiska, they worked out a plan for Louvet’s escape to the Jura Mountains of Switzerland, including a proper disguise, false passport, and conveyance. 45 The night before he was scheduled to leave, Lodoiska went out to check on the final arrangements for the escape. While she was gone, Louvet hid in his secret compartment and wrote her an affectionate letter, which she would discover only after he had left for Switzerland. True to his former calling as a romance novelist, Louvet’s affecting letter to his beloved wife is filled with praise for “the most lovable of wives,” who is at the same time “a man of

78

Chapter Five

courage.” He assured Lodoiska that, without her, he would have perished and told her that he has cherished the short time they have shared together in Paris. “What strange good fortune! Each day, each night, surrounded by imminent dangers,” they had lived, prepared to defend themselves if necessary with their pistols. They had lived, he wrote, with “one foot in the tomb, but with hearts filled with our love.” Louvet gave his wife all the credit, due to her bravery, for “punishing our oppressors” by managing to survive. Louvet realized, he wrote, that this state of happiness could not last, surrounded as they were by enemies. Despite all of their precautions, one careless step could lead to their discovery and death. He thanked Providence, but especially Lodoiska, for making their happiness possible, writing that he left behind “the most cherished half of myself.” He asked her to be careful and to remember that they would be reunited in six weeks, when she planned to join him in Switzerland. 46 At six o’clock on the morning of February 7, Louvet left the apartment as planned, and Lodoiska accompanied him across the city until they reached rue Charenton. At that point, Louvet descended from the carriage and strode briskly toward the barrier, while his wife waited anxiously until she saw that he had been allowed to continue past the sentry, after which she returned to her apartment. As Louvet headed toward Charenton to meet his friend, he reported that he was already beginning to miss Lodoiska. “The cruel absence began,” he wrote, as he realized that they would not be together for the next six weeks, or if other problems arose, even longer. He found his “brave friend” waiting, as promised, at Charenton, and together they proceeded to walk to the next stop at Villenueve St. George. Their papers were hurriedly checked by a guard, who waved them on, because he had been fooled by their military disguises. According to his description, Louvet had grown a ferocious moustache, and he had dressed as an “ultra-Jacobin,” sporting “a short, black woolen jacket, with trousers to match, a tricolored waistband, and a wig of straight black hair . . . surmounted by a red liberty cap of the approved style.” He also carried a large sword for good measure. The two months’ rest in Paris had contributed to better health and less “rheumatism,” and consequently, Louvet felt better prepared for whatever awaited him. He hardly resembled “the frail little man” who had served in the National Convention! 47 When the two travelers were twenty miles from Paris, they took passage on a stagecoach that passed regularly between Paris and Dol. The following day all of the passengers were required to submit their papers to an official of the local Committee of Surveillance. After examining all of the passports, the official sent all of the other passengers on ahead, but he continued to hold Louvet’s passport. “Are you going to rejoin your regiment?” he asked.

From St. Émilion to Paris: 1794–1795

79

“No, not at all,” Louvet replied. “You have read my passport carefully enough; I am going on business.” The official noticed that Louvet seemed to be in a hurry, but he still continued to hold his passport. “I shall miss the coach if you detain me any longer,” Louvet announced angrily, but the official indicated that there was something he wished to say. “Sacrebleu! Then say it and have done with it!” Louvet retorted in true Jacobin fashion. As he returned the passport, the official grasped one of Louvet’s hands, and said: “I wish you a safe journey with all my heart.” Greatly surprised, Louvet nevertheless merely bid the man “Goodbye” and ran toward the coach, where all of the other passengers were already seated. He never found out the identity of the official, but he suspected that he had been recognized despite his disguise as one sympathetic to the Girondin cause. 48 Louvet wrote in his memoir that he could not relate all of the “bizarre adventures” of the journey without compromising the identity of his friend. He did, however, note that they encountered “abundant rain” and snow as they made their way on foot to the place in the Jura Mountains where the two men parted, his friend to return to Paris to inform Lodoiska that he had delivered her husband safely, and Louvet to his new abode alone in the mountains. It was there, inside of a cavern “within easy reach of neutral territory” but actually still on French soil, that Louvet was to pass the longest weeks of his life, alone and longing for Lodoiska. It was there as well that he set about re-writing the memoir that he had begun, in what seemed a very long time ago, in the home of Mme. Bouquey in St. Émilion. 49 As much as he had suffered, Louvet wrote, he also “nourished his independence.” He rejoiced in his freedom, while despairing about the condition of his beloved country. “Here, far from men and before God, notwithstanding all the revolutions, in spite of all the tyrants, I am still me, I am free!” Nevertheless, as might be expected, Louvet could not forget those he had left behind, foremost among them Lodoiska, whose initials he carved “into the bark of a thousand trees.” He turned to “the sublime and virtuous Rousseau” for comfort, even comparing his fate to that of his “master.” Both had tried to act as “the friend of the people,” but they had been “misunderstood, detested, and ill-treated by them.” 50 When six weeks had passed and Lodoiska still had not arrived, Louvet grew distraught and began to imagine all manner of calamities that might have befallen her. Ever at the mercy of his active imagination, he considered that she might have been arrested and even executed; anything was possible, and the news from Paris in the spring of 1794 was not encouraging! Louvet thought of returning to Paris to address Robespierre in person, threatening him with a pistol if he did not free Lodoiska. He also considered writing a letter to Robespierre in which he offered to give himself up in place of his

80

Chapter Five

wife, who at that time was carrying their child. Such a letter was actually written, but fortunately was never sent to Paris. 51 Finally, on May 21, 1794, Louvet’s misery came to an end. He had been out walking with another exile that he had befriended, and they had a wide view of the valley below them. His friend pointed out a cart in the distance carrying two persons, a driver and a woman passenger, but Louvet was so near-sighted that he could not see it. As the cart drew closer, he heard a woman’s voice cry “Stop!” and he realized that Lodoiska had truly arrived. Louvet’s great relief was somewhat lessened, however, when Lodoiska told him that she needed to return to Paris in three days to take care of some important business. He wrote in his memoir that he could not explain “at this time” the nature of her business in Paris, only that it was “necessary.” At any rate, Lodoiska returned to their mountain retreat after nine days, and together they awaited the birth of their child. 52 They needed first to find an appropriate place for the event, but many villagers refused to allow the fugitives to rent a room. Louvet’s first biographer explained that Switzerland at this time was “divided by factions”; thus Louvet and Lodoiska were not necessarily welcomed by all they encountered. After traveling to several nearby villages, they found a farmer at Saint Barthelemy who agreed to let them stay in a cottage. First, however, he needed the consent of the Commune. When the village elders refused, Louvet asked permission to speak, and he managed to win them over by his “eloquence.” According to Lodoiska, who later related the story to Riouffe, the village elders had been “moved to tears” by her husband’s words, so much so that they allowed the couple to remain. 53 Their son would be born there several days later. As Louvet approached the end of his memoir, he thanked God for protecting his wife and allowing her to return to him. He remembered his dear friends, “our lost springtime, lost without return,” and those tyrants who still remained. Then, addressing his readers, Louvet wrote that he intended to add a few words of explanation regarding some missing information that the attentive reader would have noticed. He explained that he had not written about the obstacles faced by Lodoiska when she returned from Finistère (in Brittany) to Paris, or about her journey from Paris to Switzerland. Instead, he reported, Lodoiska had written about these matters “in her own enchanting style.” He added that all of her correspondence and much of his own as well, remained in the hands of a loyal friend in France. One day, according to Louvet, this “precious material” would be published. In addition, he indicated that Lodoiska would also write about her recent mysterious visit to Paris, but “at a later time.” Louvet closed his memoir on July 22, 1794 by asking God’s protection for Lodoiska and their child, and to “save my country.” His last words were:

From St. Émilion to Paris: 1794–1795

81

“Fini dans nos cavernes, le 22 juillet 1794, quelque jours avant la chute de Robespiere.” 54 NOTES 1. Jean-Baptiste Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, membre de la Convention, etc., de la journée de 31 Mai suivis de Quelques Notices pour L’Histoire et le Récit de Mes Périls Depuis Cette Époque Jusqu’à la Rentrée des Députés Proscrits dans l’Assemblée Nationale (Paris: A la Librairie Historique, 1821 [written in 1794]). 2. Jean-Baptiste Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, l’un des Representans proscrits en 1793. N.A.F. 1730 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits (written in 1793). 3. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 78–84. 4. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 77. 5. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 82–83. 6. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 84–88. 7. John Rivers, Louvet: Revolutionist & Romance-Writer (London: Hurst and Blackett Ltd., Paternoster House, E.C., 1910), 285–86. 8. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 88–89. 9. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 90–92. 10. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 93–99. 11. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 99–102. 12. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 109–12. 13. Rivers, Louvet, 295–96. 14. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 115–17. 15. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 118–19. 16. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 120–27. 17. Rivers, Louvet, 298–300. 18. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 128–30. 19. Rivers, Louvet, 300. 20. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 130–31. 21. F. N. L. Buzot, Mémoires de F. N. L. Buzot, N.A.F. 1730 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits), 16. 22. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 131–35. 23. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 135–37. 24. Rivers, Louvet, 302-04. 25. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 138–144. 26. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 147. 27. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 147–49. 28. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 154. 29. Rivers, Louvet, 307. 30. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 158–60. 31. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 160–62. 32. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 163–68. 33. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 168–73. 34. Rivers, Louvet, 312–13. 35. Rivers, Louvet, 314. 36. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 174–77. 37. Rivers, Louvet, 315. 38. Rivers, Louvet, 315–16. 39. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 181–83. 40. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 184–85. 41. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 185–88.

82

Chapter Five

42. Honoré Riouffe, Mémoires d’un Détenu, Pour servir à l’histoire de la tyrannie de Robespierre, 2nd ed., revue et augmentée (Paris: De l’Imprimerie d’Anjubault, L’An III de la République Française). 43. Riouffe, Mémoires d’un Détenu. 44. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 189–90. 45. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 193–97. 46. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 198–204. 47. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 204–07. 48. Rivers, Louvet, 320–21. 49. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 210–13. 50. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 214–15. 51. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 216–19. 52. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 219–22. 53. Rivers, Louvet, 323–24. 54. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, 228–32.

Chapter Six

After the Storm 1795–1797

Louvet’s prayers were soon answered. Robespierre and his associates would be arrested on July 27 (9 Thermidor) and executed the following day. The Terror had come to an end, and with it the radical course of the revolution. A conservative, or Thermidorian, reaction would follow, during which many changes would be set into motion. Louvet and the other seventy-two surviving Girondins would be readmitted to the National Convention in March of 1795. Until that time, however, Louvet would be occupied with re-establishing his publishing business. Following his return to Paris in the summer of 1794, he found that he was desperately short of funds, and he blamed the loss on “piratical publishers,” who had taken advantage of his absence. In the first edition of his memoirs, he even added a note blaming those who had robbed him of his property while he was hiding as a fugitive. By early February of 1795, Louvet had published announcements in journals about his plans to open a “bookseller’s and publisher’s establishment at Number 24, Galerie Neuve, in the Palais Egalité,” the former Palais Royal. Lodoiska would assist him in this new venture, and her presence attracted many customers, who were curious to see this “heroine” of the revolution. 1 One of those who had read about Louvet’s wife was the Irish patriot Wolfe Tone. In his autobiography he wrote about a visit to Louvet’s establishment, leaving his readers with an apt description of the “heroic” Lodoiska. According to Tone, she was “not handsome, but very interesting.” She had “conducted herself like a heroine,” he wrote, “and I am glad I have seen Lodoiska.” 83

84

Chapter Six

Louvet’s biographer reported that many Parisians were curious to see both Louvet and Lodoiska, who were “invited everywhere,” certainly a new role for both of them. Some of the curious were disappointed to find that Louvet did not resemble the Chevalier de Faublas, while Lodoiska, the heroine of that romance, was not as beautiful as they had imagined. Others, however, were impressed by the “noble” character of this man and his wife, who had met so many challenges and survived. 2 Louvet’s new enterprise, meanwhile, became quite successful. He published not only his own memoir, Récit de Mes Périls, but also Mémoires d’un Détenu by Riouffe, and Appel à l’impartiale Postérité, Mme. Roland’s prison memoir. Instead of keeping the profits from this popular and riveting memoir, which attracted numerous customers to his shop, Louvet awarded them to the Rolands’ orphaned daughter, Eudora. 3 As noted earlier, the seventy-three surviving Girondin deputies were readmitted to the National Convention in March of 1795. Determined that his deceased friends would not be forgotten, Louvet proposed a decree on March 11, declaring: “All republicans who had taken up arms in protest of June 2 [the expulsion of the Girondins from the assembly] had served their country well.” The decree did not pass. 4 Such a decree could not pass, according to Rivers, “without completely disavowing its past.” By suggesting such a decree honoring his friends, however, Louvet had made clear to all present that he had not changed his principles or his views. 5 A few months later Louvet again reminded the legislators about his missing friends when he read aloud the “last letters” of Buzot, Pétion, and Barbaroux. These “last letters” had been entrusted to Citoyen Troquart, the last person to hide the fugitives in St. Émilion, and he, in turn, had entrusted them to Louvet. The letters were published in Le Moniteur of July 12, 1795 (24 Messidor, An III) after Louvet had read them aloud in the National Convention. Pleased that the letters had produced the emotional effects that he had anticipated, Louvet also read a petition by Troquart, who had addressed the “citoyens représentants” as a victim of tyranny, an inhabitant of St. Émilion, where “your unfortunate colleagues—Guadet, Buzot, Pétion, Barabroux, and Salle, perished.” Troquart declared that he had hidden and fed Buzot, Pétion, and Barbaroux for five months; he also had been imprisoned, and had escaped execution only because of an illness. He wrote that he had always been poor and had depleted his resources by providing for the fugitives. He closed the petition with these words: “I leave it to your discretion to accord me that which appears just to you.” After he had read the “last letters” and Troquart’s petition to the members of the assembly, Louvet proposed a payment of 1,500 livres to Troquart, and the deposit of the letters in the national library. Subsequently, however, Troquart received only a small portion of the suggested amount. 6

After the Storm: 1795–1797

85

The matter of restitution posed a number of problems for the legislators, not only in determining to whom, but also how much should be awarded. Some members of the National Convention opposed restitution of any kind, arguing that the nation’s finances could not support it; others saw it as retrogressive and injurious to the public good. Louvet became an active participant in the debates on restitution. He had been appointed to the commission charged “to prepare the organic laws of the Constitution,” which would be in force three months later. On May 2, 1795, he proposed the restitution of the possessions of all persons who had been sentenced by the Revolutionary Tribunal; his proposal was strongly opposed as being “reactionary,” even by the Girondins. Disappointed by such a response, Louvet exclaimed: “I tell you that nobody was tried by the tribunals of 22 Prairial or by those of May 31st; everybody was assassinated!” A decree was passed which restored the goods of all those who had been condemned since March 10, 1793, with the exclusion of émigrés, counterfeiters, conspirators, and Bourbons. 7 Louvet participated further during the debates on restitution as a representative of those Girondins who had been purged or executed. The families who would benefit from redress included those of his friends, and he did not hesitate to point out the differences between their property and that of the émigrés. He held that, as far as the émigrés were concerned, they had “broken the social pact. Their property is the just fruit of victory.” On the other hand, those like his friends and himself, who had been expelled from the National Convention during the Terror, had been part of society; therefore, according to Louvet, “there can be no conquest among members of the same society.” 8 Finally, in June of 1795, the National Convention adopted a law to address the restoration of property to the widows and heirs of victims of the Terror. Divided into two sections, the law first determined those who would benefit and those who would be excluded, then indicated by what means such restitution would be made. “All confiscations of the goods, which have been ordered by revolutionary tribunals as well as revolutionary, military, or popular commissions, since March, 10, 1793 and until 8 Nivose, Year III, are considered null and void. The surviving spouses will gain full possession of them, in conformity with the laws.” In other words, the period covered by the law began with the creation of the Revolutionary Tribunal in Paris and ended with the reorganization of the tribunal several months after Robespierre’s execution. The law was intended to help those who had suffered as a result of the law of suspects or from the repression of the federalist revolt in several French cities, as well as those affected by the expulsion of the Girondin deputies and their subsequent punishments. In the matter of returning property, the legisla-

86

Chapter Six

tors strongly favored those victims as opposed to the émigrés, who, as Louvet declared, “had broken the social pact.” 9 By the autumn of 1795, the general opinion regarding the expelled Girondin deputies had shifted in their favor, and the government followed through on their vows to assist the widows and children of those martyred deputies. An official decree of April 1796 stated: “Considering that Valazé, Pétion, Carra, Buzot, Gorsas, Brissot, members of the National Convention, are of those representatives of the people who, having cooperated to establish liberty and to found the Republic, sealed it with their blood, and died victims of their devotion to the country and of their respect for the rights of the nation,” each of their widows should have a pension of 2,000 francs a year for herself, and the same amount for each of her children until they reach the age of fifteen. 10 The widows of those Girondin deputies had suffered both from poverty and from disgrace following their husbands’ expulsions from the National Convention in 1793. The wife of François Buzot had lost not only her husband but also her home in Évreux, after the authorities chose to destroy everything belonging to the “Girondin traitor.” She received a pension of 666 livres, as did Mme. Pétion, who had spent time in prison; her mother, accused of royalism, had been guillotined. 11 Mme. Brissot and her youngest son had been imprisoned for several months. When they returned to their apartment in Paris, she found that many items, estimated to be worth 80,510 francs, had been stolen. She asked the government to reimburse her, but only received 55,000 francs “for the property which had been taken from her during the imprisonment of her husband.” With the 1796 decree, she and her three sons were awarded a pension, but they continued to experience financial difficulties. 12 The economic problems facing the republic did not diminish with the end of the Terror. Production and distribution became unregulated, while the hoarding of grain increased. The unstable weather also added to the shortage of available supplies, as the very dry summer of 1794 was followed by the bitterly cold winter of 1794–1795, reportedly the coldest in one hundred years. The National Convention repealed the Law of the Maximum in order to encourage the importation of grain, but economic conditions did not improve. Many merchants and farmers refused to accept assignats in payment, although such paper money had worked well enough under the earlier regulations. The new Thermidorian government, however, did not demand that merchants accept assignats, which caused them to become practically worthless by October 1795. 13 The economic and financial problems were exacerbated by political upheaval during this period between the end of the Terror and the beginning of the Directory later in 1795. In Paris two hundred former radicals in the

After the Storm: 1795–1797

87

section assemblies were indicted by the Commune. The sans-culottes, who had been agitated by Gracchus Babeuf, a future Communist leader, responded, and on April 1, 1795 (12 Germinal in the new revolutionary calendar), a group from the faubourg St. Antoine marched into the Convention demanding “Bread and the Constitution of 1793!” Although the National Guards from the western sections of Paris finally managed to take control of the situation, General Pichegru restored order by placing the city under martial law. The “Thermidorians” rose in defiance again on May 20, better known as 1 Prairial. This time the uprising had more serious consequences. The crowd marched from the eastern St. Antoine and St. Marcel neighborhoods to the Tuileries palace, where they managed to break in and kill a deputy, JeanBertrand Féraud. They then placed his head on a pike and paraded it in front of the assembly, forcing the deputies to pay attention to their demands for an emergency food committee and the release from prison of specific so-called “Patriots.” Urged on by Montagnards, the Convention “passed” such legislation to pacify the crowd. That night, however, those same Montagnards were arrested, and general Menou brought in troops to keep the peace. The general faced a crowd 20,000 strong in front of the National Convention the following morning. The crowd had been strengthened by the presence of radical National Guards from the eastern sections. Demands were submitted once more for “Bread and the Constitution of ’93,” this time peacefully. By May 23, General Menou and his greatly augmented forces had gained control of the situation. They had invaded the disorderly sections, disarmed the rebellious National Guards, and arrested the leaders, thus putting an end to the last popularly led uprising of the French Revolution. 14 According to a painting of the dramatic event that had occurred on 1 Prairial, Boissy d’Anglas was serving as the president of the National Convention. Reports indicated that, despite the pistols, bayonets, and pikes aimed at him, he had remained calm and did not appear to be intimidated. After six hours of presiding, he had turned the presidency over to Vernier, who was then forced to allow the votes on the rioters’ demands. It was at that pivotal moment, according to reports, that Louvet had felt compelled to approach the tribune to protest the illegality of the proceedings. If Louvet had managed to address the crowd, according to his biographer, he certainly would have lost his head as well. Instead, according to the same source, he was prevented from reaching the tribune by none other than the fearless Lodoiska. “Without a word, she drew a knife from her bosom, and fixing her eyes upon him, pressed the point against her heart. Louvet, knowing that she was quite capable of carrying out her implied threat, wisely held his tongue.” Rivers acknowledges that this incident was “pure melodrama,” but he also reminds us that so also were many events of the French Revolu-

88

Chapter Six

tion. One wonders, however, why Lodoiska was even present in the assembly at this particular time. 15 While many sans-culottes had appeared ready to rally again the next day, their efforts failed due to a lack of leadership to coordinate the reprisals against the Thermidorians. A number of them were detained and arrested in the eastern faubourgs; among the militants were a number of Montagnards, who had sympathized with the insurrectionists. Six of these unfortunates were sentenced to death by a special commission on June 17; several committed suicide before they could be executed. They would be remembered as the “Martyrs of Prairial.” 16 Louvet would finally have an opportunity to speak to the assembly on June 2, 1795 (14 Prairial). He had been chosen to give the funeral oration for the unfortunate Féraud at a special meeting of the National Convention. The solemnity of the occasion called for elaborate preparations, with all of the deputies dressed “in full costume, each wearing a crepe band around the left arm.” In addition, a section of the assembly hall was reserved for the municipal officers of Paris, while foreign ambassadors were seated facing the president, and a large orchestra occupied the left section of the hall. Garlands and oak leaves decorated the walls of the assembly, and “black funeral urns, ornamented with golden stars and patriotic inscriptions,” were situated on both sides of the president. A white marble tomb, “surmounted by a bust of Brutus and the arms, uniform, and tricolored scarf of Féraud” marked the spot where he had been murdered. 17 This was indeed a dramatic occasion and Louvet intended to make the best possible use of the opportunity to address his fellow deputies. Rivers reported that Louvet had received loud applause when he appeared before the tribune. His speech was dramatic, in the style of the period, with which Louvet was well-acquainted, since he himself had contributed so much to it. The speech was “chiefly remarkable,” Rivers wrote, “as an eloquent entreaty to all patriots to forget their mutual enmities, and to join hands over the grave of Féraud.” This message was the same one that Louvet had tried to convey ever since his return to Paris, for he realized that nothing positive could be accomplished by continuing to pursue old quarrels. In addition, and of special importance to Louvet, this tribute to Féraud was being celebrated on the second anniversary of the 1793 insurrection against the Girondins. He took full advantage of the fortuitous timing by evoking the many contributions of his departed friends. By extolling their characters and achievements, he intended to emphasize how much the nation had lost when they had been expelled from the assembly. Louvet’s speech achieved the desired effect, elevating his status both politically and socially. On June 19 (1 Messidor), he was elected president of the National Convention; after his term had expired, he was appointed a member of the Committee of Public Safety. Louvet had arrived at “the culmi-

After the Storm: 1795–1797

89

nation of his political career,” according to Rivers. He had become one of the most popular men in Paris, a welcome guest in every salon.” 18 Although the Terror might have ended, memories of its excesses and the uprising of 1 Prairial led the legislators to consider creating a new constitution. In addition, they feared a royalist resurgence in the provinces and sought to create safeguards against it. 19 The émigrés also continued to present a threat, although not to the extent seen earlier in 1793. French military victories had contributed to weakening their strength outside of national borders. The economic situation, however, had not improved enough to help the average citizen. Prices remained high and goods scarce, with the bread ratio reduced to only a few ounces. Throughout 1795 the prices of other goods increased up to 500 percent, while payment with the practically worthless assignats made conditions worse. 20 This then was the background for the celebration of the first anniversary of 9 Thermidor, which had marked the end of rule by Terror. A great celebration took place in the National Convention’s assembly hall, where the deputies appeared in full regalia. The orchestra of the National Institute of Music performed Chenier’s patriotic songs; the “Hymn to Humanity” with music by Gossec and words by Bauer-Lormian; and the “Conspiracy of Robespierre and the Revolution of Thermidor,” with words by Rouget de Lisle. Those assembled also sang the “Marseillaise,” kneeling as they did so, as that was the custom at the time. Larevellière-Lépaux, a future member of the Directory, made a speech hailing the reign of justice as well as the recent victory in the battle of Quiberon in the Vendée, and praising both Generals Hoche and Tallien. A great banquet followed the festivities in the assembly, presided over by Thérèse Tallien, popularly known as Notre Dame de Thermidor for her efforts in saving many victims from execution. Noted for her beauty and grace, Mme. Tallien assumed the character of Wisdom at the banquet. “Everybody who was anybody was present at the fête,” according to the former Girondin deputy Lanjuinais. As toast followed toast, from “the Seventy-Three” to “victims of the Terror,” and the “victors of Quiberon,” the diverse guests became more and more argumentative. Mme. Tallien saved the occasion from certain mayhem, however, by proposing her own toast: “To the forgiveness of all errors, to the pardon of all injuries, and to the reconciliation of all Frenchmen!” 21 The “reign of justice” had already encountered a number of obstacles before it could even begin, including the arrests, executions, or deportations of a number of former Jacobin leaders, such as Carrier, Collot d’Herbois, Billaud-Barère, Fouquier-Tinville, and Vadier; the royalist-Catholic movement in the Vendée; and the ever present economic crisis.

90

Chapter Six

The legislators, meanwhile, endeavored to create a new constitution that would serve to counteract the centralization of power, such as that enacted during the Terror. They also sought to counteract the growing threat of royalism by requiring that two-thirds of the members of the new assemblies must be former members of the National Convention. They reasoned that such a requirement could work against a much-feared royalist coup as they prepared to form a new republican government. The Constitution of the Year III, published on August 22, 1795, was “in theory a model of liberal pluralism.” One-third of the legislators were to be replaced each year in elections, and voting was to be by secret ballot. The legislature would consist of two chambers, while a five-man “Directory” was to comprise the executive branch, to be elected by a legislative ballot. 22 The Corps Législatif consisted of the Council of Elders (Anciens) and the Council of Five Hundred (Cinq Cents). The 250 Elders must be over forty years of age, while the 500 deputies must be over thirty. Beginning in 1797, one-third of both houses were to be replaced annually by elections. The fiveman Directory was to be selected by the Council of Elders from names submitted by the Council of Five Hundred. The chair of the executive branch would rotate every three months as “a further safeguard against tyranny.” The judicial branch hardly differed from its form under the Constitution of 1791; it remained an elective and independent branch of the government. The wording of the Bill of Rights in this new constitution, however, differed from its earlier version. In 1789 the Bill had stated: “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.” While the 1795 Bill did declare that men were free and equal, it emphasized the duties of citizens, such as obeying the law and safeguarding property. The “general will” was lawful if “expressed by the majority of citizens or their representatives.” Not surprisingly, the right to revolution was not included, nor were the rights to work, to public assistance, or to education. The deputies in both houses of the legislature were to be named by electors, chosen by male voters, who were twenty-one years of age or older and paid taxes. The property qualification for electors was high enough that it limited those who were eligible to approximately 30,000. These electors also chose the five-man departmental directories and the local executive committees in the various municipalities and cantons. 23 The National Convention had decreed that two-thirds of the new legislators must be chosen by the Convention, a measure submitted for referendum with the new constitution. Voting results indicated that such a decree was not popular; only 167,758 approved the measure, and 95,373 voted against it. Of the 950,000 citizens voting on the constitution, 914,000 approved it. 24 The new constitution, however, had not provided the necessary procedures to resolve major differences between the legislative and executive branches. This, in turn, would lead to change by means of coup d’état rather

After the Storm: 1795–1797

91

than by an orderly process. Another problem involved the city of Paris, where forty-seven out of the forty-eight sections had voted to reject the two/ thirds decree, and eighteen sections had even demanded a recount of the vote on the constitution. The atmosphere in the capital, already agitated by the economic situation, continued to deteriorate, even as the National Convention prepared to turn legislative matters over to the Directory. 25 In early October the Convention prepared once again to defend itself from any violence caused by angry crowds from the sections by arming a special force comprised of 1,500 volunteers. On October 5 a crowd of approximately 8,000 from the sections around the Palais Royal proceeded toward the Tuileries. Led by Barras, a leader of the coup on 9 Thermidor, five thousand regular troops and some volunteers attacked the men from the sections and drove them off, with both sides suffering casualties. The Tuileries palace, meanwhile, had been ably protected by General Napoleon Bonaparte, whose “whiff of grapeshot” served to increase his popularity. Thanks to the efforts of Barras and Bonaparte, the Directory was able to take over from the National Convention to become the new government of the republic. 26 Louvet had been elected to the Council of Five Hundred to serve as a deputy from the department of Haute-Vienne. At this time he had also begun to publish his journal La Sentinelle again, as a means to disseminate his ideas on government. While Louvet consistently urged peace and reconciliation among republicans, there were those who continued to promote discord. The so-called Thermidorian reaction worked to discredit Louvet, Tallien, and others who had opposed Robespierre and the radical faction in the National Convention. The royalist journals attacked them with a vengeance. In retaliation, Louvet chose to attack Isidore Langlais, the editor of the Messager du Roi, accusing him of being “one of the authors of the assassinations of the 13 Vendemiare, Year IV, a counter-revolutionist, covered from head to foot with blood.” Consequently, Louvet was found guilty of libel and ordered to pay 500 livres damages with costs. 27 The judgment against Louvet inspired the jeunesse dorée (gilded youth), a Thermidorian group numbering two to three thousand. This group of young men had been encouraged by Fréron, a former “terrorist who had boasted of killing everything that moves in the rivers of Federalist Toulon.” Fréron’s journal, People’s Orator, worked to legitimate the anti-terrorist actions perpetrated by these disaffected young men in Paris, who sported dandyish costumes but acted like “political thugs.” 28 One evening a group of these “gilded youth” marched to Louvet’s place of business, intent on causing a disruption. They began by insulting Lodoiska, who quickly retreated to the back of the shop. Alarmed by such a brazen provocation, Louvet appeared to confront the young men. One of them yelled at him to sing the “Marseillaise,” whereupon Louvet responded contemptuously: “What does this horde of slaves want?”

92

Chapter Six

Just as they were preparing to attack Louvet, a patrol of National Guards that had been summoned by his neighbors appeared, and they soon had brought the noisy group under control. This would not be the last of such unpleasant encounters, however, finally causing Louvet to move his shop to a less central location, on the rue Grenelle-Germain, “opposite the Rue de Bourgogne, formerly the Hotel de Sens.” 29 Although Louvet was only thirty-seven years old, at this point in his life he found that he had become exhausted. The need to constantly struggle against opponents had undermined his health, which had never been robust. He “almost welcomed his exclusion” from the Council of Five Hundred, when it was partially renewed in May of 1797. Louvet not only felt older than his years, but he also appeared older as well. In addition to failing health, his optimistic spirit had become disillusioned by the seemingly endless obstacles that appeared in his path. He found himself reflecting on the many sacrifices that he and his friends had made for the sake of this republic, and more than ever regretting their absence, he wondered if it had all been in vain. He began to feel more and more alone even among his surviving Girondin associates, who appeared to disavow those earlier principles for which they had all worked so earnestly in the early days of the revolution. The young man who had written Faublas and spoken so convincingly and dramatically in the National Convention seemed to have disappeared. Thus, at the end of August 1797, Louvet claimed to be greatly relieved to find that, on the recommendation of Barras, he had been appointed as the French Consul at Palermo. 30 Such relief, however, had not arrived soon enough to make a difference. Already too sick to work in his shop, Louvet had taken to bed, while Lodoiska and a close friend of hers looked after him. He died suddenly at one o’clock in the morning on August 25, 1797. Lodoiska appeared to be calm and asked her friend to summon a certain M. Lamarque. When she was alone with Louvet, however, Lodoiska did what she had long ago decided she must do if her husband died before her: she swallowed the opium that she had always carried with her. When her friend returned with Lamarque, Lodoiska confessed what she had done and provided some money to help care for her son, promising “they would be quite comfortable,” since her son would inherit “his parents’ fortune.” Lamarque left the room suddenly, and when he returned, he was carrying Lodoiska’s young son. He begged Lodoiska at least to try to live for her son, since she refused to live for herself. He suggested that the poor little boy would be unhappy enough with the loss of his father, and he asked if she truly wanted to deprive him of his mother as well. That encounter produced the desired effect, and Lamarque rushed away to find a doctor who might be able to save Lodoiska. Finally, after two days had passed, she did begin to recover, but perhaps not altogether willingly. 31

After the Storm: 1795–1797

93

The entire episode was as dramatic as any romance novel that Louvet might have written in his younger days. Judging by her actions, Lodoiska herself could not be said to lack a robust romantic imagination. It would seem apparent that these two had been unusually well suited to each other, both in their attitudes and their actions. Each had complemented the other, and it is easy to imagine that Louvet might also have attempted to end his life if his beloved Lodoiska had preceded him in death. Louvet’s funeral oration was pronounced by the journalist and author, Honoré Riouffe, one of the few former Girondin fugitives still living at this time. He had been imprisoned at the same time as Brissot and the other deputies, but had been overlooked during the last days of the Terror, and finally was freed. In his prison memoir, Riouffe had provided dramatic details about their days in the Conciergerie. When he had been released following Robespierre’s execution, he had noted that “those in the outside world had no idea, and apparently little interest,” in hearing about what he had endured. 32 It was fitting that one who had shared the fugitives’ journey from Paris to Caen and then to the Bordeaux area should pronounce the final words at Louvet’s funeral service. Lodoiska, for her part, would live until 1814, occupied with managing the publishing business that her husband had established. According to Rivers, she continued to correspond with the surviving relatives of the martyred Girondin deputies. In addition, he claimed that “it was owing to her indefatigable zeal, seconded by the efforts of the Rolands’ friend Bosc, that the manuscripts of the memoirs left by the fugitive deputies at St. Émilion were at length discovered.” 33 When Lodoiska died in 1814, she was buried next to Louvet on the small family estate of Chancy in the commune of Prenoy in the department of the Loiret. In 1847 the estate “passed out of the hands of the Louvets,” at which time their bodies were moved to the cemetery of Montargis in the Loiret. Their final resting place is marked by a plain marble slab inscribed with their names. Little is known about the life and career of the Louvets’ son, who lived in strict retirement at Montargis. Unlike his parents, he avoided the public spotlight. He even wrote a letter in a “democratic journal, complaining of the mysterious and persistent abusive persecution to which, on account of the name he bore, he had for many years been subjected.” He died suddenly in 1846, after which a judicial inquiry followed. His son, in turn, published a book in 1854, which Rivers attempted to read. He concluded, however, that while Louvet’s grandson was “a man of wide reading and some originality of thought,” his writing style certainly could not measure up to Faublas or his grandfather’s other creations. 34

94

Chapter Six

NOTES 1. John Rivers, Louvet: Revolutionist & Romance-Writer (London: Hurst and Blackett Ltd., Paternoster House, E.C., 1910), 325–26. 2. Rivers, Louvet, 326–30. 3. Rivers, Louvet, 326. 4. Paul R. Hanson, The Jacobin Republic under Fire: The Federalist Revolt in the French Revolution (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), 233. 5. Rivers, Louvet, 330–31. 6. C. A. Dauban, Mémoires Inédits de Pétion et Mémoires de Buzot & de Barbaroux, Accompagnés de Notes Inédits de Buzot et de Nombreux Documents Inédits sur Barbaroux, Buzot, Brissot, etc. (Paris: Henri Plon, 1866), 510–12. For a detailed discussion of the last letters of the fugitives, see Bette W. Oliver, Orphans on the Earth: Girondin Fugitives from the Terror, 1793–1794 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009), 98–99. 7. Rivers, Louvet, 332–33. Rivers maintained that the Girondin legislators had opposed the measure, because they “desired that their party alone should profit by any such act of clemency.” 8. Ronen Steinberg, The Afterlives of the Terror: Facing the Legacies of Mass Violence in Postrevolutionary France (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2019), 87 (Moniteur, 17 Floreal, An III [May 6, 1795], no. 227). 9. Steinberg, The Afterlives of the Terror, 86–87 (Moniteur 24 Prairial, An III (June 12, 1795), no. 264). 10. Eloise Ellery, Brissot de Warville: A Study in the History of the French Revolution (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1915; reprint New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), 407 (“Resolution du conseil des Cinq-Cents, 7 Floreal, An IV”). 11. Dauban, Mémoires Inedits, lxx–lxxiii, xlix. 12. Ellery, Brissot de Warville, 405–06. The contents included furniture, books, clothing, wine, and household furnishings. 13. Owen Connelly, French Revolution/Napoleonic Era (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979), 175. 14. Connelly, French Revolution, 176–77. 15. Rivers, Louvet, 335–36. 16. David Andress, The Terror: The Merciless War for Freedom in Revolutionary France (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005), 359–60. 17. Rivers, Louvet, 337–38. 18. Rivers, Louvet, 338–39. 19. Connelly, French Revolution, 179. 20. Andress, The Terror, 364. 21. Rivers, Louvet, 339–42. 22. Andress, The Terror, 365. 23. Connelly, French Revolution, 180–81. 24. Andress, The Terror, 365. 25. Connelly, French Revolution, 181–82. 26. Andress, The Terror, 366–67. 27. Rivers, Louvet, 342–43. 28. Andress, The Terror, 350. 29. Rivers, Louvet, 343–44. 30. Rivers, Louvet, 344. 31. Rivers, Louvet, 345–46. 32. Honoré Riouffe, Mémoires d’un Détenu, pour servir à l’histoire de la tyrannie de Robespierre, 2nd ed., revue et augumentee (Paris: De l’Imprimerie d’Anjubault, L’An III de la République Française), 164–68. 33. Rivers, Louvet, 346. According to C. A. Dauban, in Mémoires Inédits de Pétion (xliv, 505), the fugitives’ memoirs had been discovered in a tin box placed in the latrine at Mme. Bouquey’s house, and the contents were turned over to the representative-on-mission Jullien, who saved the materials for the Bibliothèque Nationale and the Archives Nationales.

After the Storm: 1795–1797 34. Rivers, Louvet, 347–48.

95

Conclusion

Louvet’s thirty-seven years had been filled with more dramatic events than those of any of the characters in his pre-revolutionary creations. He continued to defy expectations as he met goals that appeared unlikely to others, from becoming a successful author to surviving the revolution and achieving high office. And he could not have found a better partner for such endeavors than the real-life heroine, his wife Lodoiska. In fact, it seems unlikely that Louvet could have survived without the practical skills and enduring love of Lodoiska to assist him. Her presence in his life, and a great amount of luck, proved to be indispensable to Louvet’s survival and success. In retrospect, his life might actually be viewed as an eighteenth-century romance, complete with his wife’s attempted suicide following his early death. It might seem unlikely that a romance novelist such as Louvet could transform himself into a political leader, although it does occur from time to time. He benefitted greatly from his choice of friends and associates, the Girondin deputies and the Rolands. Manon Roland, that most discriminating of critics, blamed many of the Girondins for their lack of unity and determination, but she praised Louvet for his courage and character, his talent and loyalty. And François Buzot, often considered somewhat austere and reserved, chose to confide in Louvet about his love for Manon Roland. Despite the obvious differences in family backgrounds and educations, Louvet was able to form lasting friendships with many of the Girondin deputies, finally serving as their witness before the National Convention in 1795. They shared the same values, notably that of the rule of law as opposed to rule by terror, and they were idealistic to a degree almost unimaginable today. The Girondins, often criticized as bourgeois, distrusted the centralized control of the government and the power of “the people,” especially those in Paris, to influence political decisions. While the republican cause was no less 97

98

Conclusion

important for the Girondins than for the Jacobins, Louvet and his friends deplored the violence that often resulted from the various protests and insurrections from 1789 to 1794. The factional divisions that finally destroyed the ideals of the revolution grew out of personal animosities as well as differing political opinions among the deputies, many of whom had once been friends. Robespierre had participated in the gatherings hosted by the Rolands in the early optimistic days of the Constitutional Assembly. Yet he came to see Roland and his Girondin associates as compromising with royalism, and even serving the cause of counter-revolution by promoting federalism. While Roland accused Danton of embezzling funds, Louvet accused Robespierre of becoming a dictator. By the spring of 1794, the deputies found it almost impossible to agree on anything, and the National Convention was overwhelmed by factional hostilities. As the historian Paul Hanson pointed out in his book about the federalist revolt, the sharp divisions among the deputies were the result of “heartfelt disagreements over the most fundamental of political questions: Who were the sovereign people and how were they to exercise that sovereignty in the first French republic?” 1 While Robespierre and his associates favored a centrist, ideological approach, the Girondins advocated for a more inclusive approach, federalism of a particular sort, which diffused the government’s power more equally across France. The radicals welcomed, at first, the support of the Paris commune and the political sections, as opposed to support from a departmental force representing citizens from all regions of the country. It soon became evident, however, that “the people” could not always be trusted to proceed in a lawful or orderly manner. Thus, by the late spring of 1793, the Girondin deputies were expelled from the National Convention. Robespierre’s faction had won the day, but their victory would be short-lived. Following their expulsion, a group of the Girondin deputies decided to take their chances as fugitives, rather than to accept arrest and probable execution by remaining in Paris. Louvet joined those who headed first for Caen and then for Quimper in Brittany, and finally to St. Émilion in the Bordeaux area, before finally returning to Paris in the summer of 1794. His experiences as a fugitive provide evidence of his nimble imagination, as well as the role of chance in his unlikely survival. He could have been arrested any number of times from the summer of 1793 until his final return to Paris with Lodoiska in 1794. Yet he managed to complete his mission, despite poor health, diligent officials, and the vicissitudes of daily life during this turbulent period. Louvet was among the fortunate ones, and he appreciated the opportunity to serve again in the government. He soon became disillusioned, however, at the lack of harmony within the National Convention. It became obvious to

Conclusion

99

him that there were those who wished to continue engaging in the quarrels that had separated the deputies in 1793, but he no longer wished to participate in the struggle. Pehaps his death at thirty-seven years of age should not have surprised any of his associates. He had completed his tasks, and he felt exhausted, declaring that he “almost welcomed his exclusion” from the new Directory’s Council of 500 in the spring of 1797. 2 It is fitting to close this book about the life of Louvet by echoing the words he had written in 1793 in the first part of his memoir: “The men, the republicans of the eighteenth century, do not belong to it. They belong to the centuries that follow. . . . The memory of virtue does not produce virtue, but at the very least it is to be hoped that in the eternal struggle between republicans and tyranny, free men shall not always fail.” 3 NOTES 1. Paul R. Hanson, The Jacobin Republic under Fire: The Federalist Revolt in the French Revolution (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), 235. 2. John Rivers, Louvet: Revolutionist & Romance-Writer (London: Hurst and Blackett Ltd., Paternoster House, E.C., 1910), 344. 3. J.-B. Louvet, Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, Tome 1, N.A.F. 1730 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits), 137–38.

Bibliography

Adams, William Howard. Gouverneur Morris: An Independent Life. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 2003. Andress, David. The Terror: The Merciless War for Freedom in Revolutionary France. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005. Archives parlementaires. Première série, 1789–1799. Paris, 1867–1914. Aulard, F. A. Histoire Politique de la Révolution Française. 2 vols. Paris, 1905. Biard, Michel. La Liberté oú la Mort: Mourir en Deputé, 1792–1795. Paris: Tallandier, 2015. Blanc, Olivier. Last Letters: Prisons and Prisoners of the French Revolution, 1793–1794. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Michael di Capua Books, 1987. Boulant, Antoine. Le Tribunal Révolutionnaire: Punir Les Ennemis du Peuple. Paris: Perrin, 2018. Brissot, Jacques Pierre. Correspondance et Papiers. Paris: Alphonse Picard & Fils, 1911. ———. New Travels in the United States of America, 1788. Translated by Mara Soceanu Vamos and Durand Echeverria. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1964. Buchez, P.-J.-B. and P. C. Roux, eds. Histoire Parlementaire de la Révolution Française depuis 1789 jusqu’à l’empire. Paris: Paulin, 1833–1838. Burney, John M. “Jérôme Pétion and the Practical Problems for the Mayor of Paris in 1792.” Proceedings, Western Society for French History, vol. 22 (1995): 33–44. Buzot, François-Nicolas-Louis. Mémoires de F.-N.-L. Buzot, Membre de l’Assemblée Constituante et Député à la Convention Nationale par le Département de l’Eure, Année 1793. N.A.F. 1730. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits Connelly, Owen. French Revolution/Napoleonic Era. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979. Charvin, Robert. Justice et Politique. Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1968. Dauban, C. A. Étude sur Madame Roland et Son Temps: Suivie des lettres de Madame Roland à Buzot et d’autres documents inédits. Paris: Henri Plon, 1864. ———, ed. Mémoires Inédits de Pétion et Mémoires de Buzot & de Barbaroux accompagnés de Notes Inédites de Buzot et de nombreux documents inédits sur Barbaroux, Buzot, Brissot, etc. Paris: Henri Plon, 1866. Daunou, Pierre-Claude. Suite de Mémoires du Général Dumouriez, Mémoires de Louvet et Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de la Convention Nationale, par Daunou. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1848.

101

102

Bibliography

Doyle, William. The Oxford History of the French Revolution. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Duval, Georges-Louis. Souvenirs de la Terreur de 1788 à 1793. 4 vols. Paris: Werdet, 1841–1842. Edmonds, W. D. Jacobinism and the Revolt of Lyon, 1789–1793. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Ellery, Eloise. Brissot De Warville: A Study in the History of the French Revolution. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1915; reprint New York: Burt Franklin, 1970. Ferrières, Charles-Elie, marquis de. Correspondance Inédite 1789, 1790, 1791. Ed. Henri Carré. Paris: Armand Collin, 1932. Furet, François. Interpreting the French Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Guadet, M. Mémoires sur la Révolution Française par Buzot, Député à la Convention Nationale, précédés d’un précis de sa vie et de recherches historiques sur les Girondins. Paris: Pichon et Didier, 1828. Hanson, Paul R. Provincial Politics in the French Revolution: Caen and Limoges, 1789–1793. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1989. ———. The Jacobin Republic under Fire: The Federalist Revolt in the French Revolution. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003. Hérissay, Jacques. Un Girondin, Francois Buzot, Député de l’Eure à l’Assemblée Constituante et de la Convention, 1760–1794. Paris: Libraire Academique, Perrin et Cie., 1907. Herder, Mette. “Habitual Terror and the Legislative Body in the French Revolution,” in HFrance Salon, vol. II, issue 16, 2019, What the Revolution Means Today: Rethinking the Revolutionary Terror. Hesse, Carla. “Terror and the Revolutionary Tribunals.” H-France Salon, vol. 2, no. 16 (2019). Israel, Jonathan. Revolutionary Ideas: An Intellectural History of the French Revolution from the Rights of Man to Robespierre. Oxford and Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014. Jordan, David P. The King’s Trial: Louis XVI vs. the French Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. Kates, Gary. The “Cercle Social,” the Girondins, and the French Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985. Lamartine, M. L. A. Histoire Des Girondins, 5 vols. Paris, 1870. Lefebvre, Georges. The Coming of the French Revolution. Trans. R. R. Palmer. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1947. Legacey, Erin-Marie. Making Space for the Dead: Catacombs, Cemeteries, and the Reimagining of Paris, 1780–1830. Ithaca and London: Cornell university Press, 2019. Linton, Marisa. Choosing Terror: Virtue, Friendship, and Authenticity in the French Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. ———. “Fatal Friendships: The Politics of Jacobin Friendship.” French Historical Studies, vol. 31, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 51–76. Louvet, Jean-Baptiste. Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, l’un des Représentans Proscrits en 1793. N.A.F. 1730. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits. ———. Mémoires de J.-B. Louvet, auteur de Faublas, membre de la Convention, etc., de la journée de 31 Mai suivis de Quelques Notices pour L’Histoire et le Récit de Mes Périls Depuis Cette Époque Jusqu’à la Rentrée des Députés Proscrits dans l’Assemblée Nationale. Paris: A la Libraire Historique, 1821. Martin, Jean-Clement. Robespierre: La Fabrication d’un Monstre. Paris: Perrin, 2018. Mathiez, Albert. Girondins et Montagnards. Paris,1930. May, Gita. Madame Roland and the Age of Revolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. Mazeau, Guillaume. “Le Procès Corday. Retour aux sources,” in Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française, no. 343, 2006: 51-71. Mercier, Louis-Sebastien. Paris Pendant La Révolution. 2 vols. Paris: Poulet-Malassis, 1862. ———. Panorama of Paris. Ed. Jeremy D. Popkin. University Park, Penn: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999.

Bibliography

103

Michelet, Jules. Histoire de la Révolution Française. 2 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1952. McPhee, Peter. Liberty or Death: The French Revolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016. Oliver, Bette W. Jacques Pierre Brissot in America and France, 1788–1793: In Search of Better Worlds. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2016. ———. Orphans On the Earth: Girondin Fugitives from the Terror, 1793–1794. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009. ———. Provincial Patriot of the French Revolution: François Buzot, 1760–1794. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015. ———. Surviving the French Revolution: A Bridge across Time. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013. Palmer, R. R. Twelve Who Ruled: The Year of the Terror in the French Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1941. Paraire, Philippe et Michael, eds. Au Coeur de la Révolution Française. Paris: Les editions de l’Épervier, 2012. Perroud, Cl. Correspondance, Lettres de Madame Roland. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 19001902. ———, ed. Mémoires de Madame Roland. Paris: Plon, 1905. Pétion, Jérôme. Lettres du Maîre de Paris. Deuxième Municipalité, Section de la Butte des Moulins VIII (1 aout 1792-18 sept. 1792). N.A.F. 2672. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits. ———. Mémoires de Jérôme Pétion. N.A.F. 1730. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits. Quinet, E. La Révolution. 2 vols. Paris, 1865. Reynolds, Sian. Marriage and Revolution: Monsieur and Madame Roland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Riouffe, Honoré. Mémoires d’un Détenu, pour servir à l’histoire de la tyrannie de Robespierre. 2nd ed., revue et augmentee. Paris: De l’Imprimerie d’Anjubault, L’An III de la République Française. Rivers, John. Louvet: Revolutionist & Romance-Writer. London: Hurst and Blackett Ltd. Paternoster House, E.C., 1910. Roberts, J. M., and John Hardman, eds. French Revolutionary Documents, vol. 2: 1792–1795. Oxford: Blackwells, 1973. Roland, Mme. Correspondance 1793. N.A.F. 1730. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits. ———. Papiers Roland (1732–1793). N.A.F. 9532. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits. ———. Papiers Roland II: Madame Roland. N.A.F. 9533. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Dept. des Manuscrits. Ruault, Nicolas. Gazette d’un Parisien sous la Révolution: Lettres à son frère, 1783–1796. Paris: Libraire Académique, 1975. Rude, George. The Crowd in the French Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959. Shapiro, Barry. Traumatic Politics: The Deputies and the King in the Early French Revolution. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009. Slavin, Morris. The Making of an Insurrection: Parisian Sections and the Gironde. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. Sonenscher, Michael. Sans-Culottes: An Eighteenth-Century Emblem in the French Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008. Sydenham, M. J. The First French Republic. London: Batsford, 1974. ———. The Girondins. London: University of London (Athlone Press), 1961. Steinberg, Ronen. The Afterlives of the Terror: Facing the Legacies of Mass Violence in Postrevolutionary France. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2019. Tackett, Timothy. Becoming a Revolutionary: The Deputies of the French National Assembly and the Emergence of a Revolutionary Culture (1789–1790). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. ———. When the King Took Flight. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.

104

Bibliography

Vatel, Charles. Charlotte de Corday et les Girondins. Paris: Henri Plon, 1864. Wallon, Henri. La Révolution du 31 mai et le Féderalisme en 1793. 2 vols. Paris, 1886. Walter, Gérard. Les actes du tribunal révolutionnaire. Paris: Mercure de France, 1986. Whaley, Leigh. “Political Factions and the Second Revolution: The Insurrection of 10 August 1792.” French History, vol. 7, no. 2 (June 1993): 205–24. ———. Radicals: Politics and Republicanism in the French Revolution. London: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 2000.

Index

abbé Grégoire: and J-P Brissot, 15; as leader of Jacobin Club, 13 abbé Sieyès: as member of the National Convention, 25; as member of the popular party, 6 Ancien Régime: Constituent Assembly abolishing feudal rights, 6; preferred instead of Constitution of 1789, 14 army: decree on recruitment of provincial forces to protect the National Convention, 29; under Duke of Brunswick’s leadership, 21, 29; France declaring war on Britain and Holland, 37; under General Coburg’s leadership, 38, 39; under General Dumouriez’ leadership, 29, 38, 39–40; under General Wimpffen’s leadership, 50, 52; impact of inflation on, 37; officers, 19; Paris Commune’s decree on enlistment, 43; of Prussia against France, 24, 29, 38; recruitment of men, 43; soldiers, 19; during war with Austrian Netherlands, 18–19, 22, 29, 39. See also departmental force; Lafayette, Gilbert du Motier, marquis de; National Guard; Swiss Guards Austrian Netherlands (Belgium): army under Duke of Brunswick’s leadership, 21, 29; army under General Coburg’s leadership, 38, 39; army under General Dumouriez’ leadership, 29, 38, 39;

Louis XVI’s declaration of war against, 18; war with France, 14, 18–19, 21, 22, 29, 38, 39 Bailly, Sylvain, 11 Barbaroux, Charles: call for trial of, 41; considering suicide, 59; death, 84; expelled from the National Convention, 42, 53; fleeing Paris, 46; as fugitive, 39, 45, 46, 51, 54–55, 55, 56, 56–57, 58, 58–60, 59, 60, 64, 84; as Girondin member of the National Convention, 21, 30, 35, 42, 53; and J-B Louvet, 14, 30, 84; as Jacobin, 14, 20, 41; last letter, 84 Barnave, Antoine: as member of the popular party, 6 Bastille: comte de Launay as governor, 5; fall of, 5; popular uprising, 5 Bergoeing, François: as fugitive, 45, 54–55 Bill of Rights: and Constitution of the Year III (1795), 90 Blot, Charles, 15 Bois-Guyon: as fugitive, 77 Bonaparte, Napoleon: and Directory taking over from the National Convention, 90–91 Bosc, Louis: effort to locate manuscripts of fugitives’ memoirs, 93; as friend of the Rolands, 15, 93; member of the Jacobin Society Correspondence Committee, 14

105

106

Index

Bouquey, Thérèse: sheltering Girondin fugitives, 59, 60–61, 61, 64, 72, 79 Bourbon monarchy: expulsion, 34; not eligible for restoration of poperty, 85; Prince de Condé, 16; restoration, 15 the Brémonts: hosting J-P Louvet, 74–75, 77 Brissot, Jacques-Pierre: accused of royalism, 34; accusing General Lafayette of treason, 20; admiring American society, 15, 16, 17, 43; The Anarchy and Horrors of France displayed by a Member of the Convention, 43; and anti-slavery organization Société des Amis des Noirs, 15; arrested, 47; call for trial of, 41, 42; calling for a new National Convention, 43; Camille Desmoulins’ accusations, 43; and Charles Blot, 15; critical of France’s foreign policy, 16; death sentence, 62–63; denouncing Robespierre’s dictatorship, 24; as editor of Le Patriote Français, 15, 16, 23, 29, 38, 40, 41; and Étienne Clavière, 15, 17; expelled from the National Convention, 42, 53; fleeing Paris, 46; as founder of the Republic, 86; on Georges Danton, 24; guillotined, 63; and J-B Louvet, 23, 25; and Jean Roland, 17, 18; on Jean-Paul Marat, 24; and Jérôme Pétion, 15; letters to General Dumouriez, 41; on Louis XVI’s trial, 34; as member of the National Assembly, ix; as member of the National Convention, 25; political and social views, 15; on Robespierre, 24; and the Rolands, 15; sons receiving pension, 86; speech at the Legislative Assembly, 16; speech on war, 16; on Spetember massacres, 42; and Thomas Paine, 15, 24; A tous les républicains de France sur la Société des Jacobins de Paris, 29; views on Paris Commune, 23; views on émigrés, 16; views on war, 16, 17, 19; widow receiving pension, 86; wife imprisoned, 86 the Brissotins: as Girondins, 14; Histoire des Brissotins (Desmoulins), 43; as Jacobins, 14; ministers appointed by

Louis XVI, 17; ministers dismissed by Louis XVI, 19–20; views on war with Austria, 19 Britain: France’s war declaration on, 36, 37; recalling ambassadors from France, 36, 37 Brunswick, Duke of: intention to rescue the royal family, 21; as leader of Prussian and Austrian armies, 21, 29 Buzot, François: accused of royalism, 34; call for trial of, 41; death, 84; as deputy, 2; education, ix; expelled from the National Convention, 42, 53; fleeing Paris, 46; as founder of the Republic, 86; friendship with J-B Louvet, 14, 53, 97; as fugitive, 45, 54–55, 55, 56–57, 60; as Jacobin, 8, 14; last letter, 84; letters from Manon Roland, 53, 55; love for Manon Roland, 53, 55, 64, 97; as member in the Constituent Assembly, 12; as member of the National Assembly, ix; as member of the National Convention, 29; National Convention decree on assets of, 53; National Convention formal accusation against, 49; proposal for a departmental force, 49; proposal to appoint 6 commissioners for Paris, 29, 34, 49; widow receiving pension, 86 Carabot Society, 50 Carra, Jean-Louis: as founder of the Republic, 86; as Girondin, 16; as member of the Jacobin Club, 16; views on war, 16 Catholic Church: abolishment of monastic orders, 8; Civil Constitution of the Clergy, 8; confiscation of assets, 8; J-B Louvet’s views on, 8; Robespierre in favor of marriage of priests, 8; status of priests and bishops, 8 Civil Constitution of the Clergy, 8 Clavière, Étienne: impeached, 45; and J-P Brissot, 15, 17; as minister of Finance, 17, 23, 36, 45, 76 clergy: abolishment of monastic orders, 8; and the decree of pacification, 14; and deportation decree, 19; imprisoned, 24; marriage of priests, 8

Index Coburg, Albert de Saxe (General), 38, 39 Comédie-Française: La Grande Revue (Louvet) show, 9 Commission of Twelve, 43, 44, 45 Committee of Public Safety: Girondins as members, 41; J-B Louvet as member, 88; during the Terror, 52, 57 Committee on the Constitution: power transfer to local departments, 8 Commune. See Paris Commune Comte de Provence: as émigré, 16 Condorcet, marquis de: in favor of republic, 14; and J-B Louvet, 23; as Jacobin, 14, 18; as member of the National Convention, 25, 31; as publisher, 18 confiscations: of church property, 8; of émigrés’ property, 16, 85; ordered by Revolutionary Tribunals, 52, 85 Constituent Assembly: and abolishment of feudal rights, 6; allowing Louis XVI’s suspensive veto, 6; and constitutional monarchy, 11, 12, 13–14; factional divisions, 13, 14, 22; François Buzot as member, 12; Girondin members, 4; moving from Versailles to Paris, 7; replaced by the Legislative Assembly, 11; sections of, 11 Constitution of 1789: Ancien Régime preferred instead, 14 Constitution of 1791: drafting of, 13, 14, 22, 25, 41; judicial branch, 90; and Louis XVI, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 33; ratification of, 36; restoration of, 39; stipulations, 12 Constitution of 1793: Ebroiciens loyal to, 53; favored by group from faubourg St. Antoine, 86, 87; suspension of, 52 Constitution of the Year III (1795): and Bill of Rights, 90; the Corps Législatif, 90; the Council of Elders, 90; the Council of Five Hundred, 90; deputies to houses, 90; and differences between legislative and executive branches, 90; judicial branch, 90; as model of liberal pluralism, 90; stipulations, 90 Constitutional Assembly: factional divisions, 98; Robespierre as member, 98

107

constitutional monarchy: as form of government, 4, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 Corday, Charlotte: arrested, 51; and Marat’s assassination, 51, 52; supporting the Girondin cause, 50–51 Cordeliers Club, 11, 14, 20, 31 Council of Elders: Constitution of the Year III (1795), 90 Council of Five Hundred: Constitution of the Year III (1795), 90; J-B Louvet as deputy, x, 91, 92, 98 counter-revolution: and émigrés, 15; and Robespierre, 98 Cussy, Gabriel: arrested, 77; as fugitive, 54–55, 72 Danton, Georges: calling for government unity, 44; calling for help during social unrest, 38; described by Manon Roland, 23; in favor of replacing Louis XVI with Philippe d’Orléans, 14, 23; and Girondins, 24, 41; during the insurrection, 22; and J-P Brissot, 24; JP Louvet’s views on, 30, 31, 34, 40, 45; and Jean Roland’s accusations of embezzlement, 98; as leader of the Cordeliers, 14; as minister of Justice, 23; petition for Louis XVI’s trial, 13; as radical, 13; and Robespierre, 30 David, Jacques-Louis: “The Death of Marat,” 51; “Le Serrement du Jeu de Paume,” 4; as radical deputy in the National Convention, 51 Declaration of the Rights of the Man and the Citizen: accepted by Louis XVI, 6 decree of pacification: and freeing of political prisoniers, 14 Denvelle, Marguerite. See Lodoiska departmental force: to march against, Paris 49, 50, 52, 53, 98 Desmoulins, Camille: blaming Brissot for dividing France, 43; Histoire des Brissotins, 43; petition for Louis XVI’s trial, 13; and popular uprising, 5; as radical, 13; urging crowds to defend the National Assembly, 5 Directory: becoming new government of the Republic, 90

108

Index

Duc d’Orléans: J-B Louvet’s views on, 7, 17; as member of the National Convention, 24; and popular uprising, 5, 7 Duchâstel, Gaspar: arrested, 55, 77; executed, 77; as fugitive, 54–55, 77 Dumouriez, Charles: as army general, 29, 38, 39; call for impeachment of, 41; call for trial of, 42; desertion, 39, 40–41, 42; as Foreign Affairs minister, 17, 19; as Girondin sympathyzer, 38, 41; J-P Brissot as acomplice of, 41; memoir, 41 Duport, Adrien: as former minister, 19; as representative, 12 Duranthon, Antoine: as Justice minister, 17 émigrés: arrested, 68; comte de Provence, 16; confiscations of property, 16, 85; as continued threat, 89; and counterrevolution, 15; J-P Brissot’s views on, 16; joined by freed political prisoners, 14; Legislative Assembly decree on, 16; Louis XVI’s brothers as, 15; officers as, 14, 16; protected by foreign powers, 17

37, 86; food shortages, 14, 20; foreign policy, 16; impact of inflation on army, 37; inflation, 37; labor force, 11; law of the “Maximum,” 37, 43, 52, 86; legislation on taxation on wealth, 39, 43; management of civic affairs in Paris, 1790–1791, 11; management of civic affairs, 1790–1791, 11; Paris under martial law, 86; social unrest, 20, 21, 21–22, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45; taxation, 14, 43; war declaration on Britain, 36, 37; war declaration on Holland, 37; war with Austrian Netherlands, 14, 18–19, 21, 22, 29, 38, 39; worker protests, 11 Francis II: as Marie Antoinette’s nephew, 17, 18; as successor of Leopold II, 17 French Revolution: food shortages during, 6; the March of the Women to Versailles, 6; National Assembly deputies forming a militia, 5; and popular uprising, 5, 19. See also National Guard fugitives. See specific names

Estates General: composition, 4; session of 1789, 4; Third Estate rights and privileges, 4

Garat, Dominique: J-B Louvet’s views on, 40; as Minister of Justice, 40 Gensonné, Armand: call for trial of, 41, 42; exclusion from the National Convention, 42; in favor of Louis XVI’s suspension, 22; as Girondin, 16; on J-B Louvet’s speech against Robespierre, 31; as member of the Jacobin Club, 16; views on war, 16 Girey-Dupré, Jean-Marie, 23, 38; arrested, 55, 77; as fugitive, 54–55, 56–57 Girondins: accused of federalism, 29, 43, 98; accusing General Lafayette of high treason, 22; Armand Kersaint as deputy to the National Convention, 29, 72; assassination plot against, 30; Brissotin ministers appointed by Louis XVI, 17; Brissotins as, 14; and Commission of Twelve, 43, 44, 45; death sentence, 61; declared guilty by the Revolutionary Tribunal, 61; deputies arrested, 45; disputes with Montagnards, ix, 24, 29, 30, 33–34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 98; exclusion of 22 deputies, 42, 98; expulsion from the National

factions: Brissotins, 14, 19; the Court, 14; d’Orléans, 7, 31, 40; Girondins, 41, 42; Montagnards, 30, 39, 40; radicals, 50, 91; royalists, 34 federalism: Girondins accused of, 29, 43, 98 federalist centers: Montagnards views on, 37; revolt, 51, 52, 85, 91, 98; supporting Girondins, 54 Féraud, Bertrand: death, 87; J-B Louvet’s funeral oration for, 88 Fersen, Axel Count: and Louis XVI’s escape from Paris plan, 12; and Marie Antoinette, 12 feudal rights: abolished by the Constituent Assembly, 6 Fouquier-Tinville, Antoine: as prosecutor, 52, 62, 63, 89 France: administrative organization, 8, 11; Britain, Holland, and Spain recalling ambassadors from, 36, 37; economy,

Index Convention, 45–46, 46, 49, 61, 84; in favor of federalism, 98; fleeing Paris, 46; as fugitives, x, 49–50, 51–53, 54–55, 55–57, 58–60, 60–62, 63, 64, 98; General Charles Dumouriez as sympathizer, 38, 41; and Georges Danton, 41; Guadet critical of, 43; guillotined, 63; under house arrest, 46; imprisoned, 61–63; J-B Louvet proposing decree on restitution of property of, 84–86; Jean-Denis Lanjuinais as deputy, 44; last night, 62–63; Manon Roland’s views on, 37, 63, 97; as members of the Committee of Public Safety, 41; as members of the Constituent Assembly, 4; as members of the National Assembly, ix, x; as members of the National Convention, 25, 29, 30, 31, 33–34, 35, 37; ministers dismissed by Louis XVI, 19; newspapers, 38; opposition to the Paris Commune, 43; Pierre Vergniaud as member, 16; prisoners’ last hours, 62; readmitted to the National Convention, 83, 84; and republican cause, 41, 52, 62, 97; and restitution of property of fugitives, 84–86; Robespierre’s accusation of monarchy restoration, 41; Robespierre’s speech against, 42; sentenced to death, 61; during social unrest, 38; supported by federalist centers, 54; views on war, 16; vote on JP Marat’s impeachment, 42; widows of receiving pensions, 86; wives following refugee husbands, 54; writing pamphlets, 50. See also specific names Gorsas, Antoine Joseph: Courrier des 83 départements, 38; death, 86; expelled from the National Convention, 53; fleeing Paris, 46; as founder of the Republic, 86; as fugitive, 46, 53, 54–55; and Jean Roland, 18; as publisher, 18, 38 Guadet, Marguerite-Elie: attacking Marat, 42; call for trial of, 41, 42; death, 84; defending himself against Robespierre’s accusations, 42; education, ix; expelled from the National Convention, 42, 53; in favor of

109 Louis XVI’s suspension, 22; fleeing Paris, 46; friendship with J-B Louvet, 23, 30, 53, 64; as fugitive, 45, 46, 49, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 67, 71, 84; as Girondin, 16, 25, 30, 41, 42, 43; as member of the Jacobin Club, 16; as member of the National Assembly, ix; as president of the Jacobin Society, 14; as president of the National Assembly, ix, 30; as president of the National Convention, 25, 30, 88; proposal to leave Paris, 46; proposed as Minister of Justice, 17; proposing decree on restitution of property of deceased Girondins, 84–86; providing for the fugitives, 84; as publisher and bookseller, 83–84; as publisher of Appel à l’impartiale Postérité (Manon Roland), ix, 54, 84; as publisher of fugitives’ last letters, 84; as publisher of Mémoires d’un Détenu (Riouffe), 84; reaction to popular uprising, 5; reading J-J Rousseau, 2, 79; readmitted at the National Convention, 83, 84; as recipient of the Académie Française prize, 2; Récit de Mes Périls (memoir), x, xi, 2, 5, 7, 17, 25, 30, 38, 67, 72, 79, 79–80, 84; refuge to Switzerland, x, 67, 77–80; and the Republic, ix, 6, 17, 20, 24, 32, 34, 86, 92, 99; and Robespierre, x, 16–17, 17, 24, 30, 30–32, 31, 40, 79, 98; and the Rolands, 15, 31, 97; as secretary of PF de Dietrich, 2; during social unrest, 38–39; son, 1, 92, 93; speech at the Jacobin Society, 14; starting a journal, 4; Thermidorian reaction’s attempt at discrediting, 91–92; as vice-presidet of the Lombards section at the Legislative Assembly, 21; viewed as traitor by Jacobins, 17; views on aristocrats as members of the National Assembly, 6; views on Catholic Church, 8; views on Dominique Garat, 40; views on Duc d’Orléans, 7, 17; views on Girondins, 43; views on Louis XVI, 17; views on Montagnards, 40; views on the Legislative Assembly, 14; views on war, 16, 16–17; warning friends of

110

Index

danger, 38–39; as writer, ix, x, 2, 4, 7, 8–9

de Kervélégan, Augustin Bernard François Le Goazre: as fugitive, 38, 54–55

Hébert, Jacques: arrest warrant against, 44; as editor of Le Père Duchesne, 15, 33, 38, 44 Holland: France’s war declaration on, 37; recalling ambassadors from France, 36, 37

Lafayette, Gilbert du Motier, marquis de: accused of high treason by Girondins, 22; attempting exile, 22; as head of the National Guard, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18–19, 20; imprisoned, 22 Lameth, Alexandre: as member of the popular party, 6 Lameth, Charles: as member of the popular party, 6 Langlais, Isidore: as editor of Messager du Roi, 91 Lanjuinais, Jean-Denis: fleeing Paris, 46; as Girondin deputy, 44, 89 Lanthenas, Francis: as contributor to Le Patriote Français , 15; introducing Louvet and Lodoiska to the Rolands, 18; member of the Jacobin Society Correspondence Committee, 14 Larivière, Pierre: as fugitive, 54, 54–55 Lasource, Marc-David Alba: as Girondin, 16, 30; as member of the Jacobin Club, 16; views on war, 16 de Launay, Bernard René Jourdan (Comte): death, 5; as governor of the Bastille, 5; and popular uprising, 5 Law of the Maximum, 37, 43, 52, 86 Lebrun, Pierre: impeached, 45; as minister of Foreign Affairs, 23, 36, 76 Legislative Assembly: appointing provisional executive council, 23; the Cordeliers group, 14; debates on war, 16; decree on émigrés, 16; decree on limiting Louis XVI’s power, 19; divisions within, 14; the Feuillants group, 14; General Lafayette’s letter to, 20; J-B Louvet’s petition on fugitive princes, 16; J-B Louvet’s views on, 14; J-P Brissot’s speech on émigrés, 16; the Jacobins group, 14; Lombards section, 21; Louis XVI’s address to, 18; and Louis XVI’s ultimatum to Leopold II, 17; members of, 11, 13, 14; protected by the fédérés, 20; replaced by the National Convention, 22, 24; replacing the Constituent Assembly, 11, 13; selfdissolution, 24; urged to negotiate

Isnard, Maximin, 44 Jacobin Club: abbé Grégoire as leader of, 13; Armand Gensonné as member, 16; assaulted by crowds, 38; General Lafayette in favor of dissolution of, 20; J-P Brissot as member, 8, 29; J-P Brissot in favor of war, 16, 17; J-P Louvet as member, 8, 16; J-P Louvet denounced as traitor, 17; J-P Louvet in favor of war, 16; Jean-Louis Carra as member, 16; Jérôme Pétion as member, 32; M Robespierre as member, 31; Marc-David Alba Lasource as member, 16; Marguerite-Elie Guadet as member, 16; moderate deputies’ withdrawal from, 13; Pierre Vergniaud as member, 16 Jacobin Society: Correspondence Committee, 14; J-B Louvet’s election to, 7; J-B Louvet’s speech, 14; Marguerite-Elie Guadet as president, 14; A tous les républicains de France sur la Société des Jacobins de Paris (Brissot), 29 Jacobins: in favor of a republic, 14, 97; against General Lafayette, 20; J-B Louvet election to Society of Jacobins, 7; J-P Marat’s views on, 42; marquis de Condorcet, 14; as members of the Legislative Assembly, 14, 16; and moderate Brissotins, 14; and revolutionary ideas, 7, 98; views on war, 16, 18. See also Jacobin Club; Jacobin Society Kersaint, Armand: as deputy to the National Convention, 29, 72; as fugitive, 72

Index peace, 19 Leopold II: and the Bourbon monarchy, 15; death, 17; and émigrés, 16; ultimatum from Louis XVI, 17 LeTellier, Jérôme, 53, 64 Lidon, Bernard-François: death, 72; as fugitive, 72 Lodoiska: assisting Louvet as publisher and bookseller, 83–84, 93; attempted suicide, 92–93, 97; childhood friendship with J-B Louvet, x, 1–2, 2; as conduit between Girondins in Paris and fugitives, 50, 53; death, 93; divorce, x, 4; escaping Paris, 49; as fugitive, 49, 51; and J-B Louvet after the Revolution, 83–84, 91; and J-B Louvet as fugitives, 4, 49, 50, 51, 53–54, 55, 56, 59, 64, 74, 74–75, 75–76, 77–78, 80, 97, 98; and J-B Louvet expecting child, 80; and J-B Louvet in Switzerland, 80; J-B Louvet worried about, 79–80; as Louvet’s assistant of the Journal des Débats et des Décrets, 23; marriage to J-B Louvet, x, 4, 53; marriage to older man, x; plan to escape to America, 54; during popular uprising, 5, 38–39; visiting Manon Roland, 53 Louis XVI: accepting the Constitution, 14, 15; accepting the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and the Citizen, 6; accused of treason, 32–34; addressing the Legislative Assembly, 18; agreeing on creation of provincial assemblies, 4; agreeing on equal taxation, 4; agreeing on liberty of the press, 4; appointing Brissotin ministries, 17; appointing constitutional monarchists as ministries, 19; brother Comte de Provence as émigré, 16; brothers as émigrés, 15; calling for the Estates General to meet, 4; Constituent Assembly in favor of suspensive veto, 6; and constitution, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 33; Danton, Robespierre and Marat’s supporting replacement with Philippe d’Orléans, 14; declaration of war against Austrian Netherlands, 18; decree on deportation of priests, 19; defense before the

111

National Convention, 35; defense during trial, 35; dismissing Girondin ministers, 19; dismissing Jacques Necker, 5; escape from Paris plan, 12; on establishing a republic, 12; execution, 35–36; former ministers, 19; François Buzot’s views on, 12; J-B Louvet against suspensive veto, 6; J-B Louvet’s views on, 17; Jacques Necker in favor of suspensive veto, 6; Jean Roland’s open letter to, 19; leaving Versailles, 7; Legislative Assembly decree on limiting power of, 19; limitations on power of, 11, 13; limited guard protection, 19; living in Paris, 12; meeting with representatives of the March of the Women, 6; ordering regiment from Flanders to Versailles, 6; petition for trial of, 13; reaction to popular uprising, 19; replacement of with Philippe d’Orléans, 14; secret documents at the Tuileries Palace, 32; status within the government, 12–13; trial, 32–35; ultimatum to Leopold II, 17; and veto rights, 19 Louvet, Jean-Baptiste: À la Convention nationale et à mes Commettans sur la Convention du 10 Mars et la faction d’Orléans, 40; arrested, 45; birth, 1; and Charles Barbaroux, 14, 30, 84; and Charles Danton, 24, 30, 31, 40; childhood friendship with Lodoiska, x, 1–2, 2; and circle of friends, ix, xi, 38–39, 45, 46, 64, 97; considering suicide, 59, 68, 73, 76; death, 92; denounced as traitor, 17; and the Denvelle family, 1; as deputy to the Council of Five Hundred, x, 89, 92, 98; description of by Madame Roland, x; early life, ix; as editor of La Sentinelle, 14, 18, 21, 32, 33, 91; as editor of the Journal des Débats et des Décrets, 23; education, ix, 1, 97; election to the Society of Jacobins, 7; Emilie de Varmont, ou le Divorce Nécessaire, 8; employed by Monsieur Pruault, 2; engaging in political activities, 6, 7; expelled from the National Convention, 42, 53; failing health, 92, 98; family, 1;

112

Index

in favor of removing Louis XVI, 21, 22; in favor of war, 16; fleeing Paris, 46; forged passport, 67–68, 69, 70, 73, 77, 78–79; and François Buzot, 2, 12, 14, 97; as French Consul to Palermo, 92; as fugitive, x, 49, 51, 54, 54–55, 56–57, 58–60, 60–62, 67–80, 98; funeral oration by Honoré Riouffe, 93; funeral oration for Bertrand Féraud, 88; hosted by the Brémonts, 74–75, 77; Hymne de Mort, 56; imprisoned, 84; as Jacobin, 7–8, 16, 17; and Jacobin friends, 8, 14; and Jean Roland, 14, 18; and Jean-Paul Marat, 24, 30, 31, 40, 51; against king’s suspensive veto, 6; L’Anobli conspirateur, ou Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme du XVIIIe siècle, 9; L’Election et l’audience du Grand Lama Sispi, 9; L’Accusation contre Maximilien Robespierre, par Citoyen Louvet, 31; La Grande Revue des Armées Noire et Blanche, 9; on last popular uprising, 87; on leaving the National Convention, 46; Les Amours du Chevalier de Faublas, ix, 2–4, 8, 84, 93; letter to Brissot about removing Louis XVI, 21; living expenses, 2; and Lodoiska after the Revolution, 83–84, 91; and Lodoiska as fugitives, 4, 49, 50, 51, 53–54, 55, 56, 59, 64, 72, 74–75, 75–76, 77–78, 79–80, 80, 97, 98; and Lodoiska expecting child, 80; and Lodoiska in Switzerland, 80; and the Lombards section of the National Assembly, 6, 21; and Louis XVI’s trial, 32–34; and Manon Roland, ix, 14, 18, 50, 72, 97; and Marguerite-Elie Guadet, 30, 53, 64; marriage to Lodoiska, x, 53; as member of Brissotins, 14; as member of Committee of Public Safety, 88; member of the Jacobin Society Correspondence Committee, 14; as member of the National Assembly, ix, x, 17; as member of the National Convention, ix, x; moving near Paris, ix, 2, 4; Observations sur le rapport de St. Just contre les députés détenus, 50; Paris justifié contre M. Mounier, 7; parting with Girondin fugitives, 64;

petition on fugitive princes, 16; speech at the Jacobin Society, 14 de Malesherbes, Lamoignon: and Louis XVI’s defense, 35 Marat, Jean-Paul: acquitted by the Revolutionary Tribunal, 42; assassination, 51, 52, 56; call for impeachment of, 42; circular distributed to Jacobins, 42; as editor of L’Ami du Peuple, 15, 18, 22, 23, 24, 33, 38, 51; education, ix; in favor of Louis XVI’s trial, 13; in favor of replacing Louis XVI with Philippe d’Orléans, 14; in favor of republic, 14; in favor of war, 16; imprisonment, 42; J-B Louvet’s views on, 51; as Jacobin, 8, 14, 16, 29; Jacques-Louis David’s painting The Death of Marat, 51; on Jérôme Pétion, 22; and Louvet, 30, 40, 42; and Marguerite-Elie Guadet’s attack, 42; petition for Louis XVI’s trial, 13; as radical, 13; supporting radical causes, 13, 15, 22; supporting the Paris Commune, 22, 23; views on Jacobins, 42 March of the Women, 6 March on Paris: and departmental force, 52 March on the Tuileries, 19–12, 22, 32, 87, 91 Marchena, José: arrested, 55; executed, 77 Marie Antoinette: and Count Axel Fersen, 12; in favor of war, 18; and nephew Francis II, 17, 18; Robespierre’s call for trial of, 42 Martyrs of Prairial, 85, 87–88, 88 massacre of the Champ de Mars, 13, 32 Mazuyer, Jean Pierre: arrested, 77 Meillan, Arnauld-Jean: as fugitive, 54–55; as member of J-B Louvet’s circle of friends, 46 Menou, Jacques-François (General): and popular uprising, 87 Monge, Gaspard: as minister of Marine, 23 Montagnards: accused of encouraging civil unrest, 40; arrested, 87, 88; call for impeachment of General Dumouriez, 41; controlling Bordeaux, 57–58;

Index disputes with Girondins, ix, 24, 29, 30, 33–34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 98; J-B Louvet’s views on, 40; as members of the National Convention, 25, 29, 30, 34, 37, 87 Morris, Gouverneur: on Louis XVI’s execution, 36 Mounier, Jean Joseph: J-B Louvet views on manifesto against Parisian mobs, 7; manifesto against Parisian mobs, 7 National Assembly: aristocrats as members, 6; Camille Desmoulins urging for defense of, 5; deputies’ expulsion from, x; deputies forming a militia, 5; Girondins as members, ix, x, 57; Lombards section, 6, 21; members, 8, 13, 15, 57; and ministries, 11; petition for Louis XVI’s trial, 13; and radicals, 13 National Convention: absence of proscribed deputies, 49; Armand Kersaint as deputy, 29, 72; Boissy d’Anglas as president, 87; celebration of the end of Terror, 89; and creation of Revolutionary Tribunal, 39; declaring terror the order of the day, 52; decree on appointing commissioners, 29; decree on Bourbons’ expulsion, 34; decree on Buzot’s assets, 53; decree on new legislators, 90; decree on recruitment of provincial armed forces for protection, 29; decree to remove deputies from parliamentary immunity, 40; Directory taking over from, 90–91, 91; discussion on departmental force, 49; discussion on formal accusation against Buzot, 49; Duc d’Orléans as member, 24; elections, 23, 24–25; establishment of the Republic, 25; factional divisions, ix, 25, 29, 98; and factional hostilities, 98; François Buzot as member, 12, 29; and Girondins, 25, 29, 53, 84, 97; and Girondins’ expulsion, 42, 45–46, 46; J-B Louvet as member, ix, x, 25, 97; J-B Louvet as president, 88; J-B Louvet proposing decree on restitution of property of deceased Girondins, 84–86; J-B

113

Louvet’s funeral oration for Féraud, 88; J-P Brissot as member, 25; JacquesLouis David as radical deputy, 51; Jérôme Pétion as deputy, 22; law of the “Maximum,” 37, 43, 52, 86; legislation on taxation on wealth, 39, 43; Louis XVI’s defense, 35; Louis XVI’s trial, 32–35, 36; meeting venue, 25; membership, 24; Montagnards as members, 29; and new constitution, 25; opening day, 25, 29; and Pierre Vergniaud, 34, 40; readmitting Girondins, 83; replacing the Legislative Assembly, 22, 24; restoration of Girondin ministers, 23; Robespierre as radical deputy, 25; seating arrangement, 25; suspending the Constitution of 1793, 52; Théodore Vernier as president, 87 National Guard: call for provincial troops, 19; and formation of municipal guards, 5; marquis de Lafayette as head of, 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 18–19, 20, 22; and popular uprising, 5, 7, 19; protecting the Legislative Assembly, 19; during war with Austrian Netherlands, 19 Necker, Jacques: dismissal of by Louis XVI, 5; in favor of king’s veto, 6; as Finance minister, 5, 32 newspapers: publication of supported by Jean Roland, 18. See also specific names nobility: and abolishment of feudal rights, 6; and the decree of pacification, 14; ridiculed in J-B Louvet’s writings, 9 Paine, Thomas, 15, 24–25 Paris Commune: decree on enlistment, 43; and establishment of Tribunal de cassation , 23; François Buzot’s views on, 29; insurrection in Paris, 21, 21–22, 23, 24; issuing orders, 22, 23; Jean Roland’s views on, 24; Jean-Paul Marat’s support, 23; Jérôme Pétion’s views on, 22, 32; and killing of Swiss Guards, 21–22; new members taking power, 21; radicals’ support, 98; and republicans, 24; Robespierre’s defense of, 31, 42, 43, 45

114

Index

Pétion, Jérôme: death, 84; education, ix; expelled from the National Convention, 42, 53; fleeing Paris, 46; as founder of the Republic, 86; friendship with J-B Louvet, 53; friendship with J-P Brissot, 15, 32, 53; as fugitive, 50, 54–55, 60; as Jacobin, 8, 32; on J-B Louvet’s speech against Robespierre, 31; last letter, 84; as mayor of Paris, 15, 19, 22, 32, 39; as member of the National Assembly, ix; as member of the National Convention, 22, 25, 32; as member of the popular party, 6; memoir, 50, 52; and the Rolands, 15, 18; views on departmental force, 52; views on the Paris Commune, 22, 32; widow receiving pension, 86; as witness at Louvet’s marriage to Lodoiska, 53 Philippe d’Orléans: as replacement of Louis XVI, 14 Pichegru, Charles (General): placing Paris under martial law, 86 Prince de Condé, Louis Joseph: gathering army, 16 Prussia: armies against France, 24, 29, 38 Rabaut, Saint-Étienne: as fugitive, 45 radicals: Camille Desmoulins, 13; Georges Danton, 13; indicted by the Paris Commune, 86; Jean-Paul Marat, 13; Maximilien Robespierre, 25; as members of the National Convention, 22, 25; members of the Parisian National Guards, 19; reaction to JeanPaul Marat’s assassination, 52 Republic: American republic admired by the French, 11; and the Paris Commune, 24; establishment of, 25, 32; favored by Jacobins, 14, 98; as form of government, 18, 90, 91; General Lafayette against, 20; Girondins and republican cause, 37, 41, 62, 86, 97; ideals, 1, 18; and J-B Louvet, ix, 6, 17, 20, 24, 32, 34, 86, 92, 99; Jacobins and republican cause, 14, 97; Louis XVI on establishing a republic, 12; Manon Roland accused of conspiracy against, 63; and republican party, 3; views on war, 18

restitutions: of property to fugitive Girondins, 84–86. See also confiscations Revolutionary Tribunal: acquitting Marat, 42; approved by the National Convention, 39; and confiscations of goods, 52, 85; Girondins’ death sentence, 61; Girondins’ trial, 61–62; Manon Roland’s trial, 63; and National Convention’s decree to remove deputies from parliamentary immunity, 40; reorganization after the Terror, 85; during the Terror, 52 Riouffe, Honoré: arrested, 55, 77; as fugitive, 54–55, 77; and J-B Louvet’s funeral oration, 93; as journalist, 93; on Manon Roland’s execution, 63; Mémoires d’un Détenu, 62, 63, 77, 93; surviving the Terror, 77 Robespierre, Maximilien: accused of dictatorship, 24, 30, 31, 98; accusing Girondins of monarchy restoration, 41; arrested, 83; call for government unity, 44; calling for a Government of Terror, 52; calling for impeachment of Girondin deputies, 45; calling men to arm themselves, 43; centrist ideological approach, 98; and counter-revolution, 98; defending the Paris Commune, 31, 43; defense speech at the National Convention, 30–31; education, ix; exclusion from the National Convention, 42; against the exclusion of the 22 Girondins from the National Convention, 42; execution, 67, 83, 85, 93; fall of, x; in favor of marriage of priests, 8; in favor of replacing Louis XVI with Philippe d’Orléans, 14, 23; and Girondins, 34, 42; on government unity, 44; ideological approach, 98; during the insurrection, 22; and J-B Louvet, x, 8, 15, 16–17, 17, 24, 30–32, 40, 79, 91, 98; against J-B Louvet’s nomination as Minister of Justice, 17; as Jacobin, 8, 31; Jean Roland denouncing dictatorship of, 24, 30; Jean Roland supporting printing and distribution of speeches against, 18; L’Accusation contre Maximilien

Index Robespierre, par Citoyen Louvet, 31; as leader of the Cordeliers, 14; as leader of the Paris Commune, 43; on Louis XVI’s trial, 33, 35; as member of the Constituent Assembly, 15; as member of the Constitutional Assembly, 98; as member of the Jacobin Club, 31; as member of the National Assembly, ix; as member of the National Convention, 12, 25, 30–31; as member of the popular party, 6; memoir, 2, 8, 12; note from Manon Roland, 63; and Pierre Vergniaud, 42, 45; promoting federalism, 98; as radical, 25; reaction to Jean-Paul Marat’s assassination, 52; reading J-J Rousseau, 2; and republican cause, 14, 41; and the Rolands, 15, 98; speech denouncing the Girondins, 42; views on Louis XVI, 12, 33, 35; views on war, 16, 16–17, 18 Roland, Eudora, 84 Roland, Jean: accused of royalism, 34; addressing the National Convention, 30; and Antoine Joseph Gorsas, 18; and Brissot, 17, 18; committing suicide, 64, 72; denouncing assassination plot against Girondins, 30; denouncing Robespierre’s dictatorship, 24, 30; in favor of republic, 14; and Georges Danton, 98; in hiding, 50, 55; as Interior minister, 23, 30, 32, 36, 60; and J-B Louvet, 14, 18; as Jacobin, 14, 18; and Jérôme Pétion, 18; and Manon Roland’s execution, 64, 72; and marquis de Condorcet, 18; open letter to Louis XVI, 19; and Pierre Vergniaud, 30; resignation as Interior minister, 36, 50; and Robespierre, 36, 98; supporting publication of newspapers, 18; urging Louis XVI to sign decrees, 19; views on the Paris Commune, 24 Roland, Manon: accused of royalist conspiracy, 37; Appel à l’impartiale Postérité, ix, 54, 84; arrested, 50; and Buzot’s love for, 53, 55, 64, 97; correspondence with Girondin friends, xi; description of Danton, 23; guillotined, 63, 72; Honoré Riouffe on

115

execution of, 63; imprisoned, 50, 53, 54, 63; and J-B Louvet, x, 30, 72, 97; JB Louvet as memoir publisher, ix, 54, 84; Jean Roland on execution of, 64, 72; letters to Buzot, 53, 55; Lodoiska’s visits, 53, 54; on Louvet’s pamphlet, 50; memoir (Appel à l’impartiale Postérité), ix, 54, 84; note to Robespierre, 63; reports on death of, 64; supposed letter to Louis XVI, 19; trial of, 63; views on Girondins, 37, 63, 97 the Rolands: as Anglophiles, 32; and J-B Louvet, 15, 31, 97; J-B Louvet and Lodoiska introduced to, 18; Louis Bosc as friend of, 15, 93; orphaned daughter, 84; and Robespierre, 15, 98; salon meetings, 15, 98 royal family: Duke of Brunswick’s support, 21; escape from Paris plan, 12; imprisoned in the Temple, 7, 22; leaving the Tuileries Palace, 12, 21; leaving Versailles, 7; limited guard protection, 19; living in Paris, 12, 32; Louis XVI’s brothers, 15; restoration of the Bourbon monarchy, 15 Rualt, Nicolas: views on pre-revolutionary situation, 12, 19 Salle, Jean-Baptiste: death, 84; friendship with J-B Louvet, 30, 39, 53, 64; as fugitive, 54–55, 55, 58, 59, 64, 67, 71, 77, 84; as witness at Louvet’s marriage to Lodoiska, 53 sans-culottes, 44, 45, 67, 68, 76, 86, 88 September massacres, 24, 30, 31, 41 Servan, Joseph Marie: as minister of War, 23 Souque, Joseph: arrested, 47; fleeing Paris, 46 Spain: recalling ambassadors from France, 36, 37 Swiss Guards, 5, 19, 21–17 de Talleyrand-Périgord, Charles Maurice: as member of the popular party, 6 Tallien, Jean Lambert (General): praised at the National Convention, 89; as representative-on-mission, 57;

116

Index

Thermidorian reaction’s attempt at discrediting, 91 Tallien, Thérèse: efforts to save victims from execution, 89 Tennis Court Oath, 4 The Terror: Committee of Public Safety during, 52; curfew during, 75; economic situation during, 86, 89; end of, 83, 89, 93; Girondins during, ix, x, 52, 89; Honoré Riouffe’s account on, 77; J-B Louvet’s views on, 46, 74; National Convention during, 85, 90; Revolutionary Tribunal during, 39; Robespierre calling for a Government of Terror, 52 Thermidorian government: economic issues during, 86; and end of Terror, 83; uprising during, 87 Thermidorian reaction: attempt at discrediting J-B Louvet, 91; attempt at discrediting J-L Tallien, 91; and social change, 83 Third Estate: deputies on constitutional monarchy, 4; rights and privileges, 4; separate meeting, 4 Tronchet, François: and Louis XVI’s defense, 35; as representative, 12 Troquart (Citoyen): compensation, 84; hiding the fugitives, 84 Vadier, Marc, 52, 89 Valady, Xavier: arrested, 77; as fugitive, 56–57, 60, 69

Valazé, Charles: committing suicide, 63; as founder of the Republic, 86; guillotined, 63 Vallée, Jacques-Nicolas, 46 Varlet, Jean-François: arrest warrant against, 44 Vergniaud, Pierre Victurnien: accusing Montagnards of encouraging civil unrest, 40; call for trial of, 42; call to arms against foreign monarchies, 20–21; expelled from the National Convention, 42; in favor of Louis XVI’s suspension, 22; as Girondin, 16, 22, 30, 31, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46; on J-B Louvet’s speech against Robespierre, 31; J-B Louvet’s view on speech, 40; and Jean Roland, 30; on Louis XVI’s punishment, 35; as member of the Jacobin Club, 16; as president of the National Convention, 34; questioning General Lafayette’s conduct, 20; and Robespierre, 42, 45; speech at the National Convention, 40; views on war, 16, 20–21 Vernier, Théodore: as president of the National Convention, 87 William II of Prussia: and the Bourbon monarchy, 15 Wimpffen, Emmanuel Félix (General): army under leadership of, 50, 52

About the Author

Bette W. Oliver of Austin, Texas, is an independent scholar with a PhD in Modern European History from the University of Texas at Austin. A specialist in late eighteenth-century France, she is the author of From Royal to National: The Louvre Museum and the Bibliothèque Nationale (2007), Orphans on the Earth: Girondin Fugitives from the Terror, 1793–1794 (2009), Surviving the French Revolution: A Bridge across Time (2013), Provincial Patriot of the French Revolution: François Buzot, 1760–1794 (2015), Jacques Pierre Brissot in America and France, 1788–1793: In Search of Better Worlds (2016), and Jean-Baptiste Pierre LeBrun: In Pursuit of Art, 1748–1813 (2018). With an educational background in both journalism and history, she served as the associate editor of Libraries & Culture from 1986 to 2005. She currently works as an editorial consultant. In addition to her work as a historian, she is the author of twelve volumes of poetry, much of it about France.

117