10 10 347 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document The crimes of Louis XVI are unhappily all too real; they are consistent; they are notorious. Do we even have to ask the question of whether a nation has the right to judge, and execute, its highest ranking public official . . . when, to more securely plot against the nation, he concealed himself behind a mask of hypocrisy? Or when, instead of using the authority confided to him to protect his countrymen, he used it to oppress them? Or when he turned the laws into an instrument of violence to crush the supporters of the Revolution? Or when he robbed the citizens of their gold in order to subsidize their foes, and robbed them of their subsistence in order to feed the barbarian hordes who came to slaughter them? Or when he created monopolies in order to create famine by drying up the sources of abundance so that the people might die in misery and hunger? Or when he declared himself the leader of the traitors and conspirators, and when he turned against the nation those arms he had received to defend it? Or when he hatched the plot to have the defenders of liberty slaughtered, and enchain the people once again? To even ask this question is an insult to reason, an outrage to justice, a perversion of nature. To doubt if a despot sullied with all possible crimes, or if a monster still covered with the blood of those friends of France whose slaughter he had commanded, can be brought to judgment and executed? To doubt this is to mock humanity and to abandon all sense of shame. . . . The committee on legislation has made clear, by a series of arguments drawn from natural law, from the law of nations, and from civil law, that Louis Capet should be brought to judgment. That step was necessary to instruct the people; for it is important that all members of the Republic be brought to this conviction by those different routes that are suitable to their different spirits. The representatives of the sovereign people can only see the question though the lens of politics. Among the speakers who preceded me to this rostrum, those who saw the question from this point of view, referring to the supposed initial contract and arguing for the reciprocity of the conditions stipulated between people and prince, have inferred from this fact that Louis Capet, having broken his contract by his crimes, has fallen from the throne and can be considered only as a simple citizen. This is an erroneous conclusion, laboriously deduced from a futile sophism—because there was never a contract between the people and their agents, although there was a binding one between the sovereign and its members. A nation which delegates its powers to representatives does not contract with them, it assigns them various duties in the general interest. The representatives may very well, on occasion, refuse these duties, yet they always remain accountable to the nation which can withdraw these duties at any time and without the representatives' consent. Thus, regardless of whatever pomp may be associated with these duties, they should never be considered as anything but an honorable duty. Gentlemen, such are the true bonds which exist between the sovereign and his representatives. The original contract which has been cited as the basis for these bonds is completely imaginary. If such a contract exists, it is only among conquering nations; and even then, it can have no effect except when the head of the army has become the head of state and has found a means to inspire fear, or when he is in open war with a nation he has forced to surrender. What! Shall we turn away from the crimes of a usurper in order to establish his prerogatives, and shall we accept the usurpation of sovereignty by our highest representative as a legitimate and sacred right? Nonetheless, such is the odious contract which existed between the French and their princes: an iniquitous contract which the representatives of the French people renewed with Louis Capet, heir to the power usurped by his ancestors, after his excessive squandering had forced him to assemble the Estates-General in order to fill the abyss which he had dug. And after his last attacks that caused the nation to rise against the tyranny, he was forced to humble himself and ask for mercy. Such a contract is totally null and void, not only because it offends the most beloved interests and most sacred rights of the people, but because the people have not ratified it. . . . The constitution states that the person of the King is inviolable and sacred. But that inviolability, which the legislators were careful to avoid defining clearly and which is invoked today for the benefit of Louis the traitor as a certificate of impunity, applied only to the legal acts of the monarch. It was therefore merely the privilege not to be called to account for the choice of means by which the laws were executed. As such, inviolability was only aimed at smoothing the workings of the political process by preventing constant hindrance to him who was supposed to give it movement and life. . . . If the Constitution was completed and liberty consolidated, if the wounds of the state were healed, if peace reigned among us, if abundance, flowing through its various channels, had once again begun to bring life to the Empire, if the nation could rest at last in the shadow of wise laws and look forward to happy times . . . perhaps then the scourge of the monarchy would be nothing more than a painful memory. Perhaps then we might be able to abandon the tyrant to his regrets, to the long punishment of life for the ills he has done us, or rather, for the liberty which followed his attacks. But, gentlemen, if you were ever able to lend an ear to the sophisms of those who wish to spare his life while yet subjecting him to the rule of law, concern for the public safety alone should force you to reject any penalty short of death. For as long as the former monarch draws breath and an unforeseen event may free him, he will be the center of all the conspiracies of France's enemies. And if his prison does not become the home of their endless plots, it will become their rallying point. Consequently, unless the tyrant loses his head, there will be no liberty, no security, no peace, no rest, no happiness for the French, and no hope for other peoples of breaking their yokes. Must I speak to you of the bloody scenes, the disasters, the dissolution of the state, the slaughter of all the friends of liberty, of your own suffering, which would be the result of his dreadful vengeance if he were ever to escape and place himself at the head of enemy armies who even now ready themselves to return against us? What pen could describe them, what heart so hard that it could bear the thought? Gentlemen, Louis Capet was not alone in plotting the nation's ruin. Once on trial, he will denounce his accomplices, his ministers, his agents, the people's disloyal deputies, the administrators, the judges, and the generals who conspired with him against public safety. The preparation of his case is therefore the surest means to finally deliver the nation from its most formidable enemies, to strike fear into the traitors, to cut off their plots at the root, and finally, to assure liberty, peace, and public bliss. Without these, your efforts to reestablish order and prepare for the reign of law will be in vain. "The former monarch must be judged; that is beyond doubt; but by whom shall he be judged?" I would reply: by an ordinary state tribunal, composed of the people's direct delegates—if one could confide so important a case to an ordinary tribunal and if a prompt decision were not so important for the public safety. Let there be no more doubt: Louis Capet is still the rallying point for the enemies of liberty, just as he is the source of their hopes. Therefore, he can only be judged by the National Convention which represents the nation itself. Let no one object, in order to invoke for the accused the title of born-representative of the people, that this convention will not have jurisdiction; it is a false and misleading title conferred upon him by baseness, shrewdness, and treachery in order to raise him above the law. The monarch was merely the highest public official, and for that title he can claim no prerogative. A final question remains to be examined. How should the former monarch be judged? With pomp and with severity. We are far from those mistaken ideas of clemency and generosity by which the national vanity is flattered! How could they listen to us without laying upon us the blame of the nation and all the ills which would befall the land if we left the former monarch the possibility of plotting again? To grant a pardon would therefore not be merely weakness, but treason, villainy, and treachery. Gentlemen, France's safety and the establishment of the Republic depends on the course you choose. I conclude that the tyrant be judged by the Convention and that his punishment be death. Sortable Date 1792-12-03 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived M. J. Mavidal and M. E. Laurent, eds., Archives parlementaires de 1787 à 1860, première série (1787 à 1799), 2d ed., 82 vols. (Paris: Dupont, 1879–1913), 53–56:246–49. Description An account of the resource As a journalist, Marat had for the first few years of the Revolution supported the monarchy as an institution. Yet he opposed Louis personally; in this text, published in his newspaper, Journal of the Republic (but not delivered before the Convention), he argued for a trial of "Louis Capet," as a man not the King. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 323 Title A name given to the resource Marat (3 December 1792) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/323/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource December 3, 1792 Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Citizens, without realizing it the Assembly has been lead far from the true question. There is no trial to be conducted here. Louis is not accused and you are not judges. You are, as you can only be, the nation's statesmen and representatives. No verdict is required, either for or against a man. Rather, a step aimed at the public safety needs to be taken, an act of salvation for the nation. In a Republic a deposed king is good for only one of two things: He either disrupts the peace of the state and weakens its freedom, or he strengthens both simultaneously. I assert that the nature of the deliberations to date are directly at odds with this latter goal. In fact, what rational course of action is called for to solidify a newborn Republic? Is it not to etch an eternal contempt for royalty into everyone's soul and mute the King's supporters? . . . Louis was the King, and the Republic is established. The vital question that occupies you here is resolved by these few words: Louis has been deposed by his crimes. He denounced the French people as rebels, and to punish them he called upon the arms of his fellow tyrants. Victory and the people have decided that he alone was the rebel. Consequently, Louis cannot be judged. Either he is already condemned, or else the Republic is not absolved. To suggest that Louis XVI be tried in any way whatsoever is to regress toward royal and constitutional despotism. A proposal such as this, since it would question the legitimacy of the Revolution itself, is counterrevolutionary. In actuality, if Louis can still be brought to trial, he might yet be acquitted. In truth, he is presumed innocent until he has been found guilty. If Louis is acquitted, what then becomes of the Revolution? If Louis is innocent, all defenders of liberty are then slanderers. . . . Citizens, defend yourselves against [tyranny]! False ideas have deceived you. . . . You are confusing the state of a people in the midst of a revolution with the state of a people whose government is firmly established. You are confusing a nation that punishes a public official while maintaining its form of government with a nation that destroys the government itself. . . . When a nation has been forced to resort to its right of insurrection, its relationship with the tyrant is then determined by the law of nature. By what right does the tyrant invoke the social contract? He abolished it! The nation, if it deems proper, may preserve the contract insofar as it concerns the relations between citizens. But the end result of tyranny and insurrection is to completely break all ties with the tyrant and to reestablish the state of war between the tyrant and the people. Tribunals and judiciary procedure are designed only for citizens. . . . Insurrection is the real trial of a tyrant. His sentence is the end of his power, and his sentence is whatever the People's liberty requires. The trial of Louis XVI? What is this trial if not an appeal from the insurrection to some tribunal or assembly? When the people have dethroned a king, who has the right to revive him, thereby creating a new pretext for riot and rebellionÑand what else could result from such actions? By giving a platform to those championing Louis XVI, you rekindle the dispute between despotism and liberty and sanction blasphemy of the Republic and the people . . . for the right to defend the former despot includes the right to say anything that sustains his cause. You reawaken all the factions, reviving and encouraging a dormant royalism. One could easily take a position for or against. What could be more legitimate or more natural than to everywhere spread the maxims that his defenders could openly profess in the courtroom, and within your very forum? What manner of Republic is it whose founders solicit its adversaries from all quarters to attack it in its cradle? . . . Representatives, what is important to the people, what is important to yourselves, is that you fulfill the duties with which the people have entrusted you. The Republic has been proclaimed, but have you delivered it to us. You have yet to pass a single law deserving of that title. You have yet to reform a single abuse of despotism. Remove but the name and we have tyranny still, with even more vile factions and even more immoral charlatans, while there is new tumultuous unrest and civil war. The Republic! And Louis still lives! And you continue to place the King between us and liberty! Our scruples risk turning us into criminals. Our indulgence for the guilty risks our joining him in his guilt. . . . Regretfully I speak this fatal truthÑLouis must die because the nation must live. Among a peaceful people, free and respected both within their country and from without, it would be possible to listen to the counsel of generosity which you have received. But a people that is still fighting for its freedom after so much sacrifice and so many battles; a people for whom the laws are not yet irrevocable except for the needy; a people for whom tyranny is still a crime subject to disputeÑsuch a people should want to be avenged. The generosity which you are encouraged to show would more closely resemble that of a gang of brigands dividing their spoils. I propose that you take immediate legal action on the fate of Louis XVI. . . . I ask that the National Convention state that from this moment on he is a traitor to the French nation and a criminal against humanity. I ask that for these reasons, that in the very place where the martyrs of liberty gave their lives on the tenth of August, he be made an example for the world. And I ask that this memorable event be consecrated by a monument that will nurture in the hearts of all people a sense of their own rights and a horror of tyrants, as well as nurture in any tyrant's soul the salutary terror of the people's justice. Sortable Date 1792-12-03 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived M. J. Mavidal and M. E. Laurent, eds., Archives parlementaires de 1787 à 1860, première série (1787 à 1799), 2d ed., 82 vols. (Paris: Dupont, 18791913), 5356:32426. Description An account of the resource Maximillien Robespierre, a leading Jacobin deputy in the Convention, had originally opposed the trial, believing that to try the King was to imply the possibility of his innocence. Nevertheless, once it was under way, Robespierre took the lead in arguing that on trial was not "the man Louis Capet" but the institution of the monarchy . He argued that since the Revolution essentially concerned the sovereignty of the people, a Revolution could not coexist with a king, and thus, he reached his famous conclusion that Louis must die, so that the Revolution could live. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 324 Title A name given to the resource Robespierre (3 December 1792) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/324/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource December 3, 1792 Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Any sensitive man on earth would respect our courage. What people ever made greater sacrifices for liberty! What people was more betrayed! What people less avenged! Let the King himself look into his heart and ask how he has treated this People who today are no more than just, no less than great? Citizens, when first you deliberated the question of this trial, I told you that a king was outside the state, and by nature above the law. This is why whatever covenant may have been agreed upon between the People and the King (in this case an illegitimate covenant), it did not bind him. Nonetheless, you formed a tribunal, and the sovereign stands at the bar with the King who is before you pleading his case and defending himself. You permitted that insult to the dignity of the people. Louis has cast the blame for his crimes on the ministers whom he oppressed and deceived. "Sire," wrote de Morgue to the King on 16 June 1792, "I hereby resign. The particular orders Your Majesty has given me prevent me from executing the laws." On another occasion, de Morgue tries to clear himself from having advised the King to approve the writ against fanatical priests. What sort of prince is it, before whom a minister needs to defend his integrity? And that man is supposed to be inviolable! Such is the circle in which you are placed: you are the judges, Louis the prosecutor, and the People the accused. I do not know where this travesty of the most basic principles of justice will lead you. Had Louis refused your jurisdiction, the trap might not have been sprung. The denial of the sovereignty of the People would have been the final proof of his tyranny. But since the Revolution Louis has tended noticeably less towards open resistance. Supplely, seemingly unrefined and simplistic, he has shown his skill in dividing men. His unflagging policy was to remain motionless or to move in step with all patriots, just as today he seems even to work with his judges in order to make the insurrection appear to be but the rising of a lawless mob. Defenders of the King, what would you require of us? If he is innocent, the nation is guilty. We must finish answering, for the very act of deliberating accuses the People. I have heard talk of an appeal to the People of the verdict which the People itself will pronounce through us. Citizens, if you permit an appeal to the People, you will be saying to them, "the guilt of your murderer is in doubt." Do you not see that such an appeal would tend to divide the People and the legislature, would tend to weaken representation, to restore monarchy, to destroy liberty? And if plotting succeeds in altering your verdict, I ask you gentlemen if you would be left with any option besides renouncing the Republic and returning the tyrant to his throne. There is but a small step from the King's exoneration to his triumph, and from there to the triumph of monarchy. Yet should the accusing people, the ravaged people, the oppressed people, be the judge? Did they not decline that responsibility after the tenth of August? Nobler, more scrupulous, less cruel than those who would send the accused before them, the People wanted a council to decide his fate. That tribunal has already shown too much weakness, and that weakness has already softened public opinion. If the tyrant appeals to his accusers, he does what Charles I never dared. In a functioning monarchy, it is not you who judge the King, for you are nothing by yourselves, but the People judge and speak through you. Today will decide the fate of the Republic. It is doomed if the tyrant goes unpunished. The enemies of the common good will reappear, meet, and hope. The forces of tyranny will pick up their pieces like a reptile renewing its lost tail. All evil men are for the King. Who here then can join him? False pity is on the lips of some, anger on the lips of others. Everything serves to either corrupt us or frighten us down to our souls. Be steadfast in your severity and rest assured of the People's gratitude in time to come. Be more attuned to the true interests of the People than to the empty concerns and empty clamor by which the schemers seek to play upon the respect you have for the rights of the People, the better to destroy those rights and deceive the People. You called for war on all the tyrants of the world, and you would respect your own! Are bloody laws enforced only against the oppressed, and is the oppressor to be spared? . . . We have shown an odd scorn towards the principles and character of this situation. Louis wishes to be King, to speak as King even while denying it. But a man unjustly placed above the law can present the judge only with his innocence or his guilt. Louis can only challenge us by proving his innocence and innocence has no need to challenge its judges for it has nothing to fear. Let Louis explain how the papers you have seen may favor liberty, let him show his wounds, and let us judge the People. Some will say that the Revolution is over, that we have nothing more to fear from the tyrant, and that the law now calls for the death of a usurper. But, citizens, tyranny is like a reed which bends with the wind and which rises again. What do you call a Revolution? The fall of a throne, a few blows levied at a few abuses? Moral order is like physical order: abuses disappear for an instant, just as the morning dew dries, and then just as it falls again with the night, so the abuses reappear. The Revolution begins when the tyrant ends. I have attempted to show the conduct of the King. It is now for you to be just. You must put aside all considerations but those of justice and the common good. Above all, you must not compromise your liberty which was acquired at so high a price. You must pronounce a verdict which allows for no appeal. If you do not, the greatest of criminals, and a King, will have been the first to enjoy a right refused to citizens, and the tyrant will once again be above the law, even after his trial. Nor should you permit the verdict to be challenged, for it reflects the wishes and opinions of all. If those who spoke of the King are challenged, we will challenge, in the name of France, those who said nothing for our country or those who deceived it. France is amongst us; let each man choose between her and the King, between the exercise of justice by the People and the exercise of your own weaknesses. Weigh, if you will, the example which you owe the world, the impetus you owe liberty and the unflagging justice you owe the People, against criminal pity for one who never felt such a sentiment. Say to Europe as it bears witness: Unite your kings against us for we have rebelled against kings. Have the courage to speak the truth, for it seems to me that there are those here who fear sincerity. Truth burns silently in all hearts, like a lamp burning over a tomb. Yet if there be someone among you unconcerned by the fate of the Republic, let him fall at the feet of the tyrant, let him return the knife with which he slaughtered your fellow citizens, let him forget all crimes of the King and tell the people that we have been corrupted, and that we have been less interested in their well-being than in the fate of an assassin. Sortable Date 1792-12-27 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived M. J. Mavidal and M. E. Laurent, eds., Archives parlementaires de 1787 à 1860, première série (1787 à 1799), 2d ed., 82 vols. (Paris: Dupont, 1879–1913), 53–56:706–10. Description An account of the resource By late December, the Convention was in the process of trying the King. Louis agreed to testify in his own defense. He justified the decisions of 1789–91 by pointing out that he had still been King and that he had consistently tried to rule within the parameters of the constitution. The next day, Saint–Just spoke for the second time, reproaching the deputies for allowing the proceedings to drag on during the war crisis. Finally he urged them to act decisively for liberty and against tyranny by condemning Louis. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 325 Title A name given to the resource Saint–Just’s Speech on the King’s Fate (27 December 1792) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/325/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource December 27, 1792 Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Citizens, I remind you of the vital importance of the nation's salvation. On what grounds do you feel obligated to deal with Louis? Punishing a tyrant is not the nation's disgraceful thirst for vengeance, it is the need to consolidate the state's liberty and peace of mind. Any way of judging him, any system of delays that compromises the state's serenity, is in direct opposition to your aims. And it would be better if you had totally forgotten about punishing him, rather than allow his trial to feed the unrest and start a civil war. Each moment we delay allows a new threat to emerge. Every delay stirs guilty hopes and encourages the audacity of the enemies of Liberty. These delays nurture an absolute distrust and terrible suspicions at the heart of this assembly. Citizens, it is the voice of an alarmed nation that urges you to reassure it by hastening your decision. What scruples still shackle your zeal? . . . To try to delay your judgment, you were told about the nation's honor and the dignity of the Assembly. The honor of nations consists of being free and virtuous, of striking down tyrants and avenging the people who have been debased. The glory of the National Convention consists of displaying strength of character and of sacrificing self-serving prejudices in the name of the sublime principles of reason and philosophy. It consists of saving the nation and ensuring liberty by setting an example for all the world. I can see its dignity slipping away as we forget the strength of republican maxims, instead becoming lost in a maze of useless and ridiculous bickering as our speakers in the galleries teach the nation another lesson in monarchy. Posterity will either admire or scorn you by the degree of vigor you demonstrate on this occasion, and that vigor will also be the measure of the daring or the grace which foreign despots will show you. It will be the promise of our servitude or our liberty, our prosperity or our destitution. Citizens, victory will decide if you are rebels or humanity's benefactors, and your strength of character will decide that victory. Citizens, to betray the cause of the people and our own conscience, to hand over the nation to the chaos that the slow pace of such a trial would cause, that is the only danger we have to fear. It is time to break through that deadly obstacle that for so long has stopped us at the very beginning of our path. Then we will march together toward our common goal of public bliss. Then the hateful passions that too often roar in this shrine of liberty will yield to the love of the public good and to the holy emulation of this nation's friends. Then all the plots of the enemies of public order will be confounded. But it is that strange conviction, which at first we could hardly have dared imagine, but which we then suspected, and which was finally openly suggested that shows how far we still are from this goal. For me, it was at that moment that I saw all my fears and suspicions confirmed. At first we seemed troubled by the consequences that a series of delays in the progress of this case might bring. Now we risk rendering it interminable. We feared the unrest that each moment of delay might bring, and here we are, guaranteeing the upheaval of the Republic. What does it matter to us that a dastardly plot is being hidden under a veil of caution, or even under the pretext of respect for the People's sovereignty? Such was the art of all tyrants who disguised themselves under the mask of patriotism, and who have, until now, destroyed liberty and caused of all our problems. These are not artificial rantings, but rather the results that must be weighed. Yes, I say openly that I no longer see the trial of the tyrant as anything other than a means for anarchy to bring us back to despotism. Citizens, I call on you to bear witness. Suppose that from the first moment when the question of judging the last Louis was raised, when the National Convention was convened expressly to judge him, when you left your departments enflamed with the love of liberty, filled with that noble enthusiasm which was inspired by the recent votes of confidence of a magnanimous people and which no foreign influence had changed . . . or even more, suppose that from the very first moment when the question of opening this case arose, someone had said to you: "Do you think that you will be finished with the trial of the tyrant in a week, in two weeks, in three months? You are mistaken. It will not even be you who will pronounce his sentence or who will finally judge him. I propose that you return this case to the twenty or thirty thousand sections that divide France so that they may each give their opinion on this matter. And suppose you adopted this proposal." You would have laughed at the self-confidence of the man who made such a motion. You would have rejected such a motion as incendiary, designed to kindle civil war. Dare I say it? We are assured that the mood has changed. For many among us, this has been due to the influence of a plague-ridden atmosphere, where the simplest and most natural of ideas are often stifled by the most dangerous of sophisms. . . . I admit that today it is no longer a question of absolving Louis for 10 August; the day when monarchy was abolished is still too close. It is a question of adjourning the end of his trial at a time when foreign powers threaten to descend upon us, and to deal with him carefully about the possibility of civil war. Today, we do not want to declare him inviolable, but only make sure that he remains unpunished. It is not a question of returning him to the throne, but rather wait to see what happens. Today, Louis still has the advantage over the defenders of liberty in that they are pursued with more vigor than is he. No one can doubt that greater attention is being paid to slandering the defenders of liberty, and at a greater cost, than in July 1791. And to be sure, the Jacobins were not more disparaged in the Constituent Assembly then than they are now. Then, we were seditious. Today, we are the agitators and the anarchists. Then, Lafayette and his accomplices neglected to have us murdered. We have to hope for the same clemency from his successors. These great friends of peace, these illustrious defenders of the law, have since been declared traitors. But we have gained nothing from that because their old friends, even several members of the then majority, are here to avenge them by persecuting us. But there is something that no one has mentioned and that will nevertheless arouse your curiosity. After a preliminary lampoon which was distributed to all members as usual, the speaker who proposed and elaborated the scheme of taking Louis's case to the court of primary assemblies with such eloquence and feeling, sprinkling his speech with the usual rantings against patriotism, is precisely the same man who, in the Constituent Assembly, lent his voice to the ruling cabal to defend the doctrine of absolute inviolability. It was also he who banished us for having dared to defend the principles of Liberty. . . . In a word, and it must be said, it is the same man who, two days after the massacre on the Champ de Mars, dared to propose a decree which would have established a commission to judge, as quickly as possible and without appeal, the patriots who had escaped the assassins' swords. Since then, I do not know if the ardent friends of Liberty, who are still pressing today for the condemnation of Louis, have become monarchists. But I strongly doubt that the men of whom I speak have changed their principles. It has been well-demonstrated that with only slightly different circumstances, the same passions and vices are driving us, almost irresistibly, toward the same end. Then, plotting gave us an ephemeral and perverted constitution. Today, plotting prevents us from writing a new one, and leads us toward the dissolution of the State. . . . What is sure is that whatever the result of this fatal measure, it has to be to the advantage of their own particular views. To result in civil war, the resolution need not even be totally completed. They are counting on the unrest that this stormy and endless deliberation will stir in us. Those who do not wish to see Louis fall beneath the sword of justice would perhaps not be upset to see him sacrificed to a popular uprising, and will do everything they can to bring it about. . . . Yes, there is no doubt a scheme to bring down the Convention and perhaps to use this interminable affair as an excuse to dissolve it. This scheme is not found among the people who energetically call for the principles of Liberty, nor among those who have sacrificed everything for it. It is not found among the majority of the National Convention who seek goodness and truth. It is not even found among those who are nothing more than the plotters' dupes, and the blind instruments of foreign passions. This scheme exists among twenty or so rascals who hold the reins, who remain silent about this nation's greatest concerns and who, above all, abstain from pronouncing on the question of the last king. It is their silent and pernicious activities which are the cause of all the ills that trouble us, and are readying all the evils that await us. How can we escape this abyss if not by returning to our principles and to the source of our problems? What kind of peace can exist between the oppressor and his oppressed? What kind of harmony can reign where not even the right to vote is respected? Any such violation of freedom is an attack on the nation. A representative of the people does not allow himself to be stripped of the right to defend the interests of the people, and only by taking his life can some force take this right from him. Already, to drag out the dissension and control the deliberations, some conceived the idea of dividing the assembly into majority and minority, a new way to insult and silence those who were designated as the latter. I recognize neither majority nor minority here. The majority is composed of good citizens, and is not permanent since it belongs to no party. It is renewed during every open deliberation since it belongs to the common cause and to eternal reason. And when the Assembly recognizes an error, the fruit of surprise, haste, and intrigue (which occasionally happens), then the minority becomes the majority. The general will is not formed in secret meetings or around ministerial tables. Everywhere and always, the minority has the right to make the voice of truth heard, or what it perceives as such. On this earth, virtue is always in the minority. Without virtue, would the earth not be peopled by tyrants and slaves? Hampden and Sidney were of the minority, for they died on the scaffold. Critiases, Anituses, Caesars, Claudiuses, were all of the majority, but Socrates belonged to the minority, for he swallowed the hemlock. Cato was of the minority, for he ripped out his bowels. I know many men here who, if need be, will serve liberty as Sidney did. . . . This thought alone must send shivers up the spine of the cowardly plotters who wish to mislead or corrupt the majority. Until then, I ask that at least the tyrant take priority. Let us unite to save the nation, and let our deliberations at last assume a character more worthy of us and of the cause which we defend. Let us at least banish the deplorable incidents which do us dishonor. Let us not spend more time in self-persecution than would be needed to judge Louis, and let us learn the source of our problems. Everything seems to conspire against public happiness. The nature of our debates stirs up and embitters public opinion, and that opinion has a terrible effect on us. The mistrust of the representatives seems to grow with the alarm of the citizens. A proposal which we ought to hear with more composure, irritates us. Daily malice exaggerates, imagines, or creates stories designed to strengthen prejudice, and the smallest of causes can lead us to the most terrible of results. The mere expression of the publics' feeling, although sometimes too animated and which should be easy to control, becomes the pretext for the most dangerous measures and for propositions which are the most prejudicial to our principles. People, spare us at least this kind of disgrace. Save your applause for the day when we have passed one law that is of use to humanity. Do you not see that you give them pretexts to slander the sacred cause which we defend? Rather than violate these strict rules, avoid the spectacle of our debates. Remember the ribbon which your hand recently held as an insurmountable barrier around the fatal dwelling of our tyrant, then still on the throne. Remember that order has been maintained thus far without bayonets, by the virtue of the people alone. Far from your view, we will not struggle any less for it. It is now up to us alone to defend your cause. When the last of your defenders has perished, avenge them if you wish, and see to liberty's victory. Citizens, whoever you are, watch over the Temple [where the King is being held]. If necessary; arrest treacherous malice, even patriotism that has been mislead, and confound the plots of our enemies. Fateful place! Was it not enough that the tyrant's despotism weighed so long on this immortal city? Must his very safekeeping be a new calamity for it? Is this trial to be eternal only to perpetuate the means of slandering those people who removed him from the throne? I have proven that the proposal to submit Louis's case to the primary assemblies aimed at civil war. If I am not allowed to help save my country, I would like at least to be acknowledged, at this moment, for the attempts I have made to warn of the calamities that threaten it. I ask that the National Convention declare Louis guilty and deserving of death. Sortable Date 1792-12-28 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived M. J. Mavidal and M. E. Laurent, eds., Archives parlementaires de 1787 à 1860, première série (1787 à 1799), 1st ed., 82 vols. (Paris: 1862–96), 56:17–23. Description An account of the resource As part of his defense, Louis’s lawyers had suggested the King should be judged not by the representatives of the people in the Convention but by the people themselves through a referendum. The Jacobins opposed this idea, fearing it would undermine the Convention’s position as embodying the will of the people. In his second speech of the trial, Robespierre attacks the idea of a referendum as a plot to save the King and thus undermine the Revolution. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 326 Title A name given to the resource Robespierre’s Second Speech (28 December 1792) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/326/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource December 28, 1792 Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document I doubt not that the King's death will be described in different ways, as the partisan spirit dictates, and that garbled versions of this great event will appear in the newspapers and be noised abroad in such a manner as to distort the truth. As an eyewitness, who has always been far removed from the prejudice of parties, and who is but too well acquainted with the worthlessness of the aura popularis, I am going to give you a faithful account of what happened. I greatly regret that I was obliged to attend the execution bearing arms with the other citizens of the section and I write to you now with my heart filled with grief and my whole being stunned by the shock of this dreadful experience. Louis, who, fortified by the principles of religion, seemed completely resigned to meet death, left his prison in the Temple about nine in the morning and was taken to the place of execution in the mayor's carriage with his confessor and two gendarmes, the curtains being drawn. When he arrived at his destination he looked at the scaffold without flinching. The executioner at once proceeded to perform the customary rite by cutting off the King's hair which he put in his pocket. Louis then walked up onto the scaffold. The air was filled with the roll of numerous drums, seemingly intended to prevent the people from demanding grace. The drumbeats were hushed for a moment by a gesture from Louis himself, but at a signal from the adjutant of the General of the National Guard, they recommenced with such force that Louis's voice was drowned and it was only possible to catch a few stray words like "I forgive my enemies." At the same time he took a few steps round the fatal plank to which he was drawn by a feeling of horror natural to any man on the brink of death or, maybe, he conceived that the people might appeal for grace, for what man does not cling to hope even in his last moments? The adjutant ordered the executioner to do his duty and in a trice Louis was fastened onto the deadly plank of the machine they call the guillotine and his head was cut off so quickly that he could hardly have suffered. This at least is a merit belonging to the murderous instrument which bears the name of the doctor who invented it. The executioner immediately lifted the head from the sack into which it fell automatically and displayed it to the people. As soon as the execution had taken place, the expression on the faces of many spectators changed and, from having worn an air of somber consternation, they shifted to another mood and fell to crying, "Vive la Nation!" At least one can say this of the cavalry who witnessed the execution and who waved their helmets on the point of their sabers. Some of the citizens followed suit, but a great number withdrew, their spirits racked with pain, to shed tears in the bosom of their families. As decapitation could not be performed without spilling blood on the scaffold many persons hurried to the spot to dip the end of their handkerchief or a piece of paper in it, to have a reminder of this memorable event, for one need not have recourse to odious interpretations of such actions. The body was carried to the cemetery of Ste. Marguerite, after the Commissioners of the Municipality, the Security Department and the Criminal Court had drawn up the minutes. His son, the former Dauphin, in an access of childish simplicity, which attracted much sympathy, had in his last conversation with his father urgently begged to be allowed to go with him to the scaffold to ask the people to pardon him. Sortable Date 1793-01-21 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Georges Pernoud and Sabine Flaissier, The French Revolution, translated by Richard Graves (New York: Capricorn Books, 1960), 201–3. Description An account of the resource After voting unanimously to find the King guilty, the deputies held a separate vote on his punishment. By a single vote, Louis was sentenced to death, "within twenty–four hours." Thus, on 21 January 1793, Louis Capet, formerly King of France was beheaded by the guillotine. For the first time in a thousand years, the French people were not ruled by a monarch. The passage below, from a letter by Philippe Pinel, describes the execution—and shows great admiration for Louis’s serenity in the face of a humiliating, public death. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 327 Title A name given to the resource Execution of the King (21 January 1793) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/327/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource January 21, 1793 Monarchy Text The Terror Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Characters: Louis XVI The Queen The Count of Artois The Duchess of Polignac Bodyguards The action takes place in the apartments. FIRST SCENE Bodyguards Choir, drinking Let's vary our pleasures between Bacchus and the God of the Ton, the example we are shown here, increases our desires. A GUARD To arms, there comes Her Majesty. ANOTHER GUARD There will be an orgy tonight. The female Ganimede is with the Queen. ANOTHER GUARD Artois, the beloved one, there he is between vice and virtue. Guess who the vice is. A GUARD You do not need to guess. I can only see that this God is multiplying. SCENE II The Count of Artois, the Queen, Madame de Polignac THE QUEEN, to Madame de Polignac who steps aside to let the Queen go Come, come in my good friend. THE COUNT OF ARTOIS, slightly pushing the Queen, and pinching her buttocks Come in too (whispering to the Queen) What a nice bottom! So firm! THE QUEEN, whispering to the Count of Artois If my heart was as hard, wouldn't we be good together? THE COUNT OF ARTOIS Be quiet you crazy woman, or else my brother will have another son tonight. THE QUEEN Oh, no! Let's have some pleasure, but no more fruits. THE COUNT OF ARTOIS All right. I will be careful, if I can. THE QUEEN Let's sit down. MADAME DE POLIGNAC Where is the King? THE QUEEN What do you worry about? Soon he will be here to annoy us. Trio: the Queen, the Count of Artois, Madame de Polignac THE QUEEN When I see around me pleasure, love and Graces, fixing me on their tracks, what happiness it is to obey the law. THE COUNT OF ARTOIS, to the Queen O supreme good! I am next to what I love; My heart full of pleasures, Does not have any more desires. MADAME DE POLIGNAC Friendly Princess, what exhilaration it is for me, whenever I can to plunge your senses in the softest drunkenness! Together When I see around me pleasure, love and Graces, fixing me on their tracks, what happiness it is to obey the law. MADAME DE POLIGNAC Here comes the King. Sortable Date 1789-00-00 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Anonymous, L'Autrichienne en Goguettes ou l'Orgie Royale; Opera Proverbe (n.p., n.d. [1789]). Description An account of the resource In 1789, with the collapse of old regime censorship as well as a sense of liberation from traditional moral constraints, printed libels against the Queen became both more common and more intense. An example of this greater intensity is this light opera, with raunchy lyrics set to popular tunes. Not intended to be performed, the pamphlet spoofs the Queen’s great interest in opera and her supposedly even greater interest in the sexual prowess of some of her courtiers. As with the pornographic libels of the old regime, the printed accounts of her trysts with the Count of Artois and the Duchess of Polignac had no basis in fact, but they were consistent with the popularly held view of Marie Antoinette as out of touch with her people, self–interested, and a hindrance to the proper government of France, because of her uncontrollable lusts for power, luxury, and sex. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 328 Title A name given to the resource "The Royal Orgy" (1789) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/328/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1789 Monarchy Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document A very curious menagerie has been living in Henri IV's castle for a while. A very curious menagerie because of the rare animals living in there, and because it costs such an excessive fortune to the French nation to maintain these animals. The public has examined the fierce animals who were in the cages of the Versailles park. It is possible for the same public to observe some quadrupeds gathered at the Louvre, without going too far. We are going to mention the most remarkable ones. We will indicate their habits, their tendencies, the way they eat, and finally their properties. I—THE ROYAL VETO This animal measures about five feet and five inches. He walks on his back feet, like the humans do. His hairs are fawn. His eyes are like the ones of a beast, his mouth is well cut, and he has a red muzzle and big ears. He does not have much hair. He screams like a pig, and HE DOES NOT HAVE A TAIL. He is naturally voracious. He eats. Rather, he devours in a dirty way everything people throw at him. He is a drunkard and does not stop drinking, from the time he gets up until he goes to bed. The royal veto is as shy as a hare, and as stupid as an ostrich. Finally he represents a big animal nature created with regret. His food costs around twenty-five to thirty millions [livres] a year, and he is not grateful for it. On the contrary, he only tries to harm. His deceitful and rude genius often leads him against the walls of the national terrace, where he sometimes breaks his nose. He is thirty-four or thirty-six years old. He was born in Versailles and he was given the nickname Louis XVI. II—THE ROYAL VETO FEMALE The female of the royal veto is a monster who was found in Vienna, Austria, in the Empress Maria-Theresa's wardrobe. This female monkey with a crown probably had a craving against nature. She probably had sex with a tiger or with a bear and gave birth to Marie Antoinette. This thirty-three-year-old monster was brought to France when the incestuous Louis XV was King. From her country she brought duplicity, and she also added treachery to it, which represents a natural feature of people like her. First she behaved like a very soft person in front of the people. They were screaming: LONG LIVE THE QUEEN! When she was assured she could appear friendly with a few fake smiles, she lifted her mask and was known for what she exactly was. Her marriage to a boor was a political treaty. Her husband was spending all his time making locks and bolts. Like Denis of Syracuse, she soon manages the ways to have fun at the expense of the people. Parc-au-Cerf, Bagatelle, Trianon, Decampativos, and the famous parties were the centers of all attention. During these parties the royal veto was always the chamber pot. The Artois and the Polignac females, the Vaudreuil and the bodyguards, the King and his chipmunk, the Cardinal and Cagliostro, the necklace and the unfortunate Oliva, who was poisoned, represented the main subjects of discussions. The Austrian was being punished for her crimes and the horrors she had committed. But she did not care about it and about the Nation. The people rise up, and the Austrian Siren carries in her arms a child (it is the Prince), and she runs away. Then the Versailles Menagerie is transferred to Paris. . . . The female of the Royal Veto hatches a trip to the frontier with an animal named Lafayette. The chameleon lets the Baronne of Korff go, as well as Louis XVI, King of France and his valet. . . . Then the group is arrested and escorted back to Paris. This is the way Marie Antoinette of Austria takes pleasure in disturbing the peace of a free France. Lately a prostitute was condemned to six months in jail for having insulted a citizen. . . . If Marie Antoinette was being judged the way she deserves it, she would meet good friends at the Salpetrière. The female of the Royal Veto is tall, ugly, wrinkled, used, faded, hideous, awful. As the Nation wrongly promotes its tyrants, she eats the French money in the hope of devouring French people the one after the other. Sortable Date 1789-00-00 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Anonymous, Déscription de la Menagerie Royale d'Animaux Vivants (n.p., n.d.). Description An account of the resource A common theme in libels was to compare the royal family to animals. This pamphlet parodies the Queen and her entourage as animals in a zoo, emphasizing how the courtly way of life at Versailles seemed bizarre to the rest of the French people. (The references to "royal veto" refer to the debate that took place over the power that the King should have under the new constitution to veto laws passed by the Legislative Assembly; by referring to all members of the royal family members, the pamphlet mocks the reduced powers of the crown under the new form of government.) Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 329 Title A name given to the resource Description of the Royal Menagerie (1789) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/329/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1789 Monarchy Public Opinion Text Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document A number of French aristocrats and malcontents are currently said to be in Barcelona, where they are working against their country's glorious revolution, and to persuade the Court Madrid to redouble precautions against French pamphlets. They are wasting their time, however, for sooner or later, liberty will come to France. There is, however, a large amount of information being exchanged between Paris and Madrid through numerous courtiers who travel back and forth. Among those who arrived in Paris from Spain is a great Spanish lord who travels incognito, but is well known and a close watch is kept on his movements. There is talk of two Spanish squadrons, one of which is reportedly to appear off the coast at Gascony, the other off the coast of Languedoc and Provence. The King of Sardinia has placed troops on alert whose suspected use shall be to invade France. The King of Naples is making preparations as if he were going to bombard Algiers. According to all reports, it would appear that the actions of these various powers are all aimed at helping the French ministry in their well-known plans of overturning the constitution and bringing about a counterrevolution. These enemies of the State intend to create a stronghold for the final stand of a dying aristocracy. Besides, it is known that the ambassadors of Naples, Spain, and Sardinia go to the Tuileries almost daily. They arrive at ten in the morning and leave only at midnight, or often even later. This naturally leads one to believe that there are important negotiations in progress between our court and theirs, the aim of which is certainly not to help the new regime but rather to restore the old one. It is also certain that in the quarters of the King's wife at the Tuileries, a committee meets, made up of the Keeper of the Seals, Monsieur de Saint-Priest, and the Count of Reuss, a secret agent, but one who is well known to the Viennese court. The ambassadors of Naples, Spain, and Sardinia are also said to be summoned occasionally to this committee. This committee could be called the "Austrian Committee," because it reportedly was there that, against the best interests of France, the decision was taken to renew the alliance with the Court of Vienna, and to try to return the Low Countries to Austrian domination. Sortable Date 1791-06-00 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Les Révolutions de France et de Brabant, no. 18 (June 1791), 137–40. Description An account of the resource This article appeared in the newspaper Revolutions of France and Brabant, under the headline: "Horrible maneuvers of the Austrians at the Tuileries Palace to bring civil war to France . . ." and discusses various rumors making the rounds that the King would soon flee France and initiate an invasion led by former aristocrats to undo the evolution. Camile Desmoulins’s reference to the "Austrian Committee" implied that Marie Antoinette was conspiring with other members of her Habsburg family who ruled in Austria. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 330 Title A name given to the resource Desmoulins Attacks the Queen (June 1791) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/330/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource June 1791 Monarchy Text The Terror Women Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Only the Emperor can put an end to the troubles caused by the French Revolution. There is no longer any possibility of reconciliation. The armed forces have destroyed everything—only armed forces can repair the situation. The King has done everything to avoid civil war, and he is still very much convinced that civil war cannot correct anything, and that it shall, in the end, destroy everything. The leaders of the Revolution correctly feel that their constitution cannot last, that it is being sustained by the personal interests of all those who dominate the departments, municipalities, and clubs. A portion of the People have been deceived and follow the opinions of these leaders. However, all educated people, the peaceful bourgeois, and, in general, a majority of the citizens from all walks of life, are fearful and discontented. If opposition to the [armies of the great] powers was to arise, if the language of the powers was reasonable, if their assembled forces were imposing, and if there was no civil war, it would be risky to assume that a general revolution would occur in the cities. There would be, rather, no difficulty in returning things to order. But if there is a civil war, the forces of the powers will only prevail in the areas where their armies are located. The distant provinces will be divided—those that have been oppressed will want to avenge themselves, those that have dominated will certainly feel that they must risk everything. There will be massacres in the name of revenge. There will be massacres to gain twenty-four hours in order to have time to escape. Everyone is armed. Things will be in a deplorable state, and crime and murder will enter into people's houses and no citizen will be assured of surviving from one day to the next. . . . The united powers must take into account the position of the King, his powers and his dignity, and the relationships that depend on them. He cannot be firmly reestablished if factions are allowed to dictate laws which, on the pretext of deciding how he can exercise his authority, deprive him of those powers he requires. The united powers must ensure, in accordance with the principles and fundamental laws of the French monarchy, that no law or constitution may be reestablished in France that does not call for the free, full and entire concurrence of the King, and that no possibility exists of stipulating a limit on the free declaration of his will. The united powers cannot view without concern the spreading of the principles of anarchy and confusion within a large European state . . . principles destructive to all governments. More than any argument, excess, or danger, it is the deplorable state of France that clearly demonstrates what these principles give rise to. The powers must recognize that this is a question of vital interest not only for all sovereigns, but for all orders, states, and classes of citizens in all countries and in republics as well as monarchies. . . . It seems impossible that the nation should be without misgivings, and ready to lose all its resources because an immoderate and improvident assembly has destroyed, at a stroke, both the King's authority and its own. The Assembly is not the nation. Different forms of government can be disturbed or suspended. The nation remains, and, being more aware of the dangers, it can see where its true interests lie. It was the time-honored method of the kings of France to appeal to the good cities. It is probable that the cities, in order to redeem themselves from the misfortunes of the war, will entreat the King to take back his power and play a mediating role. The desire for public safety can restore to him the love of the people. All the anxieties, all the fears will rally to his authority. Upon his head will rest all hopes. His sufferings will be recalled, and those of the Queen, and their courage in the terrible days of October 5th and 6th. All the crimes of the Revolution will be remembered. It is possible that there will arise a terrible cry against their authors, against all the violent men who have been placed in office. Those frightened men will try to save themselves by flight, and the communal assemblies will no longer be composed of the same members, dominated by the same force, and governed by the same sentiments. The Revolution will be effected in the interior of each city; it will be effected by the approach of the war and not by the war itself. The King, his powers restored, will be entrusted with negotiations with the foreign powers, and the princes will return, in the general tranquillity, to reassume their ranks at his court and in the nation. Sortable Date 1791-09-08 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Maxime de la Rocheterie and the Marquis de Beaucourt, Marie-Antoinette, Lettres; réceuil des lettres authentiques de la reine, vol. 2 (Paris: Société d'histoire contemporaine, 1896), 284–304. Description An account of the resource Fears about Marie Antoinette’s intentions and actions were not baseless. Although inexperienced in the new style of politics, Marie Antoinette did see a need for help from abroad if the monarchy was to stop or reverse the course of the Revolution, which she thought to be getting out of control. She wrote this letter to her brother Leopold II, Emperor of the large Habsburg Empire in central Europe, describing the Revolution as she saw it and asking for his help to end it. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 331 Title A name given to the resource Marie Antoinette’s View of the Revolution (8 September 1791) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/331/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource September 8, 1791 Counterrevolution Monarchy Text Women Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document After the 20th of June, the people who wished well to the King and Queen were desirous that her Majesty should sometimes appear in public, accompanied by the Dauphin, a most interesting, beautiful child, and her charming daughter, Madame Royale. In consequence of this she went to the Comédie Italienne with her children, Madame Elisabeth, the King's sister, and Madame Tourzelle, governess to the royal children. This was the very last time on which her Majesty appeared in public. I was there in my own box, nearly opposite the Queen's; and as she was so much more interesting than the play, I never took my eyes off her and her family. The opera which was given was Les Evénemens Imprévus, and Madame Dugazon played the soubrette [female servant]]. Her Majesty, from her first entering the house, seemed distressed. She was overcome even by the applause, and I saw her several times wipe the tears from her eyes. The little Dauphin, who sat on her knee the whole night, seemed anxious to know the cause of his unfortunate mother's tears. She seemed to soothe him, and the audience appeared well disposed, and to feel for the cruel situation of their beautiful Queen. In one of the acts a duet is sung by the soubrette and the valet, where Madame Dugazon says: Ah! Comme j'aime ma maîtresse [Ah! How I love my mistress]. As she looked particularly at the Queen at the moment she said this, some Jacobins, who had come into the playhouse, leapt upon the stage, and if the actors had not hid Madame Dugazon, they would have murdered her. They hurried the poor Queen and family out of the house, and it was all the Guards could do to get them safe into their carriages. Grace Elliott. [July 1792.] Sortable Date 1792-07-00 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Grace Dalyrmple Elliot, Journal of my life during the French Revolution (London, R. Bentley, 1859), 65–66. Description An account of the resource Since the seventeenth century, French monarchs had been great patrons of the theater and opera, which they regularly attended in Versailles and Paris. Such performances had been occasions to appear before their subjects, aristocratic and common, and to receive public acclaim. Although Louis XVI showed much less interest in theater–going than his predecessors, his Queen had been an enthusiast, especially of light opera. This text describes a visit by Marie Antoinette to the Italian theater, at which she was poorly received by the audience. The account is written by Grace Dalrymple, an English nobleman in Paris during the Revolution, as a report to the king of England. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 332 Title A name given to the resource The Queen at the Opera (July 1792) Relation A related resource https://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/332/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource July 1792 Monarchy Text Women