when someone calls the Jacobins “reactionary” and I just
this is a thing?
Sure, just ask Daniel Guérin. Or Proudhon, if you want the 19th century version.
Er, what’s the outline here? Is the phrase meant to be taken at its most superficial? Like, Jacobins reacted to things? They reacted to the circumstances of their country instead of the Girondins who acted as though constitutional and revolutionary regimes could function in an identical fashion?
Or am I giving them too much rope?
Nah, not reactionary in that sense - I mean, at least I commented under that assumption - reactionary in the sense of being bourgeois bureaucrats who repressed the proto-proletarian Enragés and occasionally Hébertistes. Often with backward and inquisitorial religiosity. You know, as you do.
I mean, I don’t think anyone used the term ‘reactionary’ in the literal, superficial sense when discussing political parties. I just wanted to go for the more literal, less politically oriented assumption.
Cuz a gal’s gotta dream.
|proudhon called himself an anarchist so i think anything that isn't as radical as him must be seen as reactionary|
babeuf or gtfo
(no, thanks helpful anon! I didn’t consider that perspective!)
did you wake up this morning wanting an iphone cover of Gracchus Babeuf stabbing himself
Is it meant to honor his sacrifice or dishonor his death? It’s a mystery. It goes either way. You could peacefully frolic among a Communist Rally or a GOP Convention.
Ironically, this depiction of Babeuf is the accessory of today’s Talleyrand!
a few months ago I found a page of a play I started writing when I was sixteen with vague Robespierre/Camille subtext but even sixteen-year-old me writing a very serious one act fanfiction play could not ascend to the heights of Przybyszewska
Reblog if you actually want to be friends with your followers.
My only opinions of the recent drama that went around the peeps:
1: I’m not paid to blog about history. I’m not here to tutor you. If you want serious history, continue to read your history books. Tumblr is not a substitute for academia.
2: If it stops being fun, I move on.
3: Whether I write a thesis about the history of the national debt or draw a picture of a naked Andrew Jackson riding a wrecking ball, it’s still more accurate than the History Channel.
It’s you whom I adore. I curse you for it, I should like to spit and tread on you. It’s you, you alone… whom I adore in this huge, lousy world, you… hero. Oh, I will not let you go. I have let you in on the secret of myself; I will bind you tighter still. I’ll force you to take the right road. And I will serve you… I am standing before you like a man naked. I, who have lied to kings and ministers… I will keep faith with you, and with you only. Do you hear me? [leans intently towards him] Look into my eyes… Incorruptible… I have violated your secret… there’s no need to hide yourself from me anymore.
In which Danton’s monologue in The Danton Case reads like bad fanfiction (via organt) —
[In 1794, the restrictions on the imprisonment of Louis Charles had relaxed. But] no one had told Louis-Charles about the fate of his mother. With the greater freedom he now had to move around the prison, he was able to walk past the locked door of his mother’s former room, where he had been separated from her over a year previously. According to one account, once when he went for a walk up to the top of the Tower he saw some yellow flowers clinging to some crumbling stonework in the parapet wall. He picked them, and on his way down he left them outside her room on the third floor…
-The Lost King of France by Deborah Cadbury
|may I offer a nitpick? Zamore wasn't purchased by DuBarry, he was "gifted" to her by Louis XV. She treated him like a pet to spoil until his teens, when she took him into her employ as a paid servant. I think betrayal is the right term to use, because DuBarry expected she could trust him, having (from her POV) raised him as a child, encouraged his education well beyond the norm, and kept him in secure employment. It doesn't mean that the betrayal isn't understandable from his POV, of course.|
You’re probably right; I’m no expert on Zamore and just reblogged the post for the commentary.
I guess ‘betrayal’ is a phrase with a negative connotation. We could argue Zamore ‘betrayed’ DuBarry in the same way the Revolutionaries ‘betrayed’ the monarchy. King Louis had reason to expect that he could trust those rascally members of the Third Estate. I mean, he had been less-terrible to them than he could have been!
But now we’re in a hitch. Did Robespierre betray Louis XVI when he rallied for his death or was he just loyal to the Revolution? Did Marie-Antoinette betray the Revolution or was she just loyal to the monarchy? Did Zamare betray Dubarry or was he just loyal to the Republic?
When she was in London, Madame Dubarry met Pitt. She was a generous person (and really, she is my favorite courtier at Versailles), but it still seems extravagant of her to have lent the cardianal de la Rochefoucauld 200,000 livres. The Committee of General Security certainly thought her activities enough to justify having her followed by two agents, one in England and one in France. One newspaper, le Batave, reported that Chabot was accused of having protected her.
The CSG has been called many things, but incompetent ain’t one of them, and you don’t hire two agents to keep tabs on someone you want to behead for novelty’s sake unless you’re incompetent.
There’s more to her decapitation than “Zamore was in a pissy mood that day.” If she got betrayed, he only betrayed her betrayal to that treacherous French Republic which had betrayed Louis XVI who had betrayed the People who had —-
Oh, treason is just a matter of dates, isn’t it?