The truth is, then, that the only men who attributed the massacres of September to the people of Paris were the men who themselves had devised and ordered them. With consummate hypocrisy the Commune declared that it had sent emissaries to the prisons to oppose disorders, but that they could not succeed in calming the people. Apart, however, from the evidence of eyewitnesses, who unanimously asserted that the emissaries of the Commune incited the assassins to greater violence, we have further documentary proof of the Commune’s guilt in the atrocious proclamation publicly sent out by it on the 3rd of September to the provinces, urging them to carry out the same butchery all over France, and passing on to them the same word of command that had served in Paris as a pretext for the massacres.
“ The Commune of Paris hastens to inform its brothers in all the departments that a portion of the ferocious conspirators detained in the prisons have been put to death by the people acts of justice which seemed to it indispensable in order to restrain by terror the legions of traitors concealed within its walls at the moment when it was about to march on the enemy ; and without doubt the whole nation, after the http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_06.html (41 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:30
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 6
long series of treacheries which have led it to the edge of the abyss, will hasten to adopt this measure so necessary to public safety, and all the French will cry like the Parisians, ‘ We will march on the enemy, but we will not leave behind us brigands to murder our wives and children.’
“ Signed—DUPLAIN, PANIS, SERGENT, LENFANT,
JOURDEUIL, MARAT, l’ami du peuple, DEFORGUES, DUFFORT, CALLY.” That Marat was the principal author of the proclamation cannot be doubted, but it was sent forth under the countersign of Danton, the Minister of Justice. To Danton, then, attaches the greater blame, for Marat cannot be regarded as a responsible human being, whilst Danton throughout the Revolution retained full possession of his faculties. “ That Marat,” says Mortimer Ternaux, “ the most shameless liar and the most daring forger who ever existed (we make use of the exact expressions that MM. Michelet and Louis Blanc employ with regard to this man), that Marat, we say, should have drawn up this frightful circular, and on his own authority should have appended to it the signatures of his colleagues, is strictly possible. But the two men who can never clear themselves of having cooperated in the propagation of this bloody work are Danton and Fabre d’Églantine, the Minister of justice and his secretary.” [138]
It is doubtful, indeed, whether Danton wished to clear himself of the responsibility of the massacres of September, or of the proposal to repeat them in the provinces. Now that the monarchy was overthrown, Danton knew that he had nothing to fear in avowing his share in the crimes of the Revolution ; securely encamped on the strongest side he was able to win that reputation for audacity which has aureoled him in the eyes of posterity.
The massacres of September were, therefore, primarily the work of the Anarchists, but they were condoned, if not actually assisted, by the other intrigues, as we shall now see.
RÔLE OF THE ORLÉANISTES
On this point little remains to be said, for by September of 1792 the Orléanistes had ceased to be a distinct party, and had become indistinguishable from the Anarchists.
According to many contemporaries, Danton and Marat, in promoting anarchy, were working solely in the interests of the Duc d’Orléans ; Montjoie believes that it was in order to effect the change of dynasty the massacres were devised.
But apart from these vague charges, there can be no doubt that the Duc d’Orléans had some secret connection with the leaders ; of this the murder of the Princesse de http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_06.html (42 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:30
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 6
Lamballe by his agents is sufficient proof. Moreover, it was precisely at this moment—on the 2nd of September—that Marat publicly demanded 15,000 francs from the duke for the printing of several of his pamphlets,[140] and apparently obtained it, for
henceforth we shall find him always favourably disposed to “ the citizen Égalité ” [141]—the name the Duc d’Orléans soon after assumed when seeking election as deputy
to the Convention.
But whatever were the ultimate intentions of these men who devised the massacres—and on this point no one can speak with certainty—their immediate purpose can be expressed in one word only—anarchy.
RÔLE OF THE GIRONDINS
The part played by the Girondins in the massacres of September was merely one of criminal connivance. With the exception of Pétion, whose sympathies were undoubtedly Orléaniste, no member of this faction seems to have taken an active part in the movement. Vergniaud, indeed, loudly denounced the arbitrary arrests that preceded the massacres, but since by this time the walls of Paris were already placarded by Marat with invectives against the deputies of the Gironde,[142] this was perhaps less an act of
courage than a measure of self-defence. At any rate, from the moment the massacres began, not one member of this faction attempted to interfere.
On the 5th of September, whilst the third day of the massacre at La Force was in progress, Duhem afterwards related, he dined at Pétion’s house with Brissot, Gensonné, and several other deputies. “ Towards the end of dinner the folding doors opened, and I was surprised to see two cut-throats enter, their hands dripping with blood. They came to ask the orders of the mayor concerning the eighty prisoners who still remained to be massacred at La Force ; Pétion gave them drinks and sent them away, telling them to do everything for the best.” [143]
As to Madame Roland, who afterwards cursed the people of Paris for their non-intervention, how was she employed ? On the evening of September 2, she relates, when the butchery had begun, “ a crowd of about 200 men, violently agitated,” came to the Ministry of the Interior to ask for arms ; we know from other sources that they were the massacrers,[144] who, imagining Roland to be one of their employers, asked also for the
payment of their salary, and, according to Felhémési, they received it. But Felhémési as a Dantoniste need not be believed. At any rate, after this frightful scene, whilst the massacres were in full swing next day at La Force, the Abbaye, and the Tour Saint-http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_06.html (43 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:30
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 6
Bernard, Madame Roland saw fit to give a luncheon-party—or, as the two o’clock meal in those days was called, a “ dinner ”—to a number of her friends and acquaintances, amongst whom “ the events of the day formed the topic of conversation.” One of the guests (afterwards disowned by Madame Roland) was the Prussian Baron Clootz, whom we shall meet later on as the apostle of “ universal brotherhood,” and who distinguished himself during the massacres of September by inventing the word “ to septemberize ”—it was a matter of regret, he afterwards declared, that they had not “ septemberized ” enough.[145]
The same day, however, the virtuous Roland ventured to utter a feeble protest against the continuance of the massacres. Beginning with a lengthy dissertation on the necessity for controlling the irrepressible indignation of the people—who, according to Madame Roland’s later writings, he well knew were not the authors of these crimes,—amidst redundant eulogies of his own courage and disinterestedness, Roland thus described the massacres of September 2 : “ Yesterday was a day over the events of which we should perhaps draw a veil ; I know that the people, terrible in their vengeance, yet bring to it a sort of justice,” but now the moment had come for “ the legislators to speak, for the people to listen, and for the reign of law to be re-established.” [146]
The fact is that something had happened the evening before which made it highly desirable, from the Girondins’ point of view, that the activities of the Commune should be restrained. Robespierre had been thwarted by Danton in his plan of including Roland and Brissot in the lists of proscriptions made out for the massacrers, but he had not abandoned all hope of his prey. Under cover of the general confusion that reigned in Paris on the 2nd of September the tigercat had seized the opportunity to spring.
Supported by his ally Billaud-Varenne, Robespierre presented himself at the evening meeting held by the Council-General of the Commune, and openly accused Brissot and a powerful party of conspiring to place the Duke of Brunswick on the throne of France.
[147] This accusation has been represented by the antagonists of Robespierre as a mere
fable invented by him to bring about the downfall of Brissot, but, as we have already seen, the intrigue in favour of Brunswick was by no means fabulous—on the contrary, it was a matter of common knowledge. Had not Carra publicly proclaimed it six weeks earlier in his journal ? And was not Carra still the trusted confidant of Brissot and the Rolands ? Robespierre, then, was perfectly just in accusing Brissot ; two days later, in private conversation with Pétion—whose own intrigues he was apparently far from suspecting—he repeated his conviction that Brissot was on the side of Brunswick.[148]
That by his timely denunciation he hoped to envelop the Brissotins in the massacres we cannot doubt, yet we must admit that in this he showed himself more logical than the other members of the Commune. For if any people were to be put to death on the http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_06.html (44 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:30
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 6
suspicion of collusion with the Prussians, should they not be the members of the party still at liberty who had definitely proposed to hand the country over to the head of the invading armies, rather than a defenceless crowd of priests, unarmed men, women, and children safely imprisoned behind bolts and bars ?
Brissot’s reply to this accusation of Robespierre was characteristic of the ostrich policy displayed by the Girondins.
“ Yesterday, Sunday,” he wrote to his fellow-citizens, “ I was denounced at the Commune of Paris, as also a part of the deputies of the Gironde, and other men equally virtuous. We were accused of wishing to give France over to the Duke of Brunswick, and to have received millions from him, and to have planned to escape to England. I, the eternal enemy of kings, who did not wait till 1789 to manifest my hatred towards them ; I the partisan of a duke ! Better perish a thousand times than acknowledge such a despot ! ” etc. [149]
But considering that before 1789 Brissot had violently denounced in print “ the abominable crime of attacking monarchy,” that he had described Ravaillac and Damiens as “ monsters vomited by hell,” [150] and that only six weeks before the massacres of September—on July 25, 1792—he had declared that the blade of the law should strike any one who attempted to establish a Republic ; considering, moreover, that he had never disassociated himself from Carra, the avowed partisan of Brunswick, Brissot’s defence was far from convincing.
The Brissotins, then, constituted a very real danger to the country at the moment when it was threatened by foreign invasion, but we should admire Robespierre’s courage and patriotism in attacking them more if he had not waited so long to shoot his bolt. The intrigue with Prussia had been going on for at least eighteen months—why had he not exposed it earlier ? Why on the publication of Carra’s preposterous plea for Brunswick, did not Robespierre arise and denounce him as a traitor, or at least demand his expulsion from the ranks of “ patriots ” at the Jacobin Club ? But no, Robespierre had hitherto maintained complete silence with regard to all three intrigues—the Orléanistes, English Jacobins, and Prussians—and had even, as we have seen, joined in ridiculing Ribes for denouncing them. The explanation lies undoubtedly in Robespierre’s natural timidity ; it was never his way to fight his opponents, but always to remain quiescent until an opportunity offered for killing them outright—the tigercat knew better than to show his claws before the moment came to spring. The massacres of September had appeared to be the propitious moment, but Danton barred the way ; next time he was to say with tears, “ I cannot save them ! ”
The Girondins well realized the danger that had threatened them, and therefore, after http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/webster/frenchrev/fr_rev_06.html (45 of 61)5.4.2006 10:40:30
Nesta Webster, The French Revolution, ch 6
condoning the massacres, ended by denouncing them. But if they now deprecated the reign of anarchy, it was principally because they saw the movement they had helped to produce turning against themselves, and the abyss into which they had precipitated the monarchy yawning beneath their own feet.