Desmoulins vs. Brissot: an episode in the History of French Revolutionary journalism

Gotovtseva Anastasiya Gennad'evna Doctor of Philology Professor; Department of Journalism and Television Technologies; Kosygin Russian State University Leading Researcher; Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences 125993, Russia, Moscow, Sadovnicheskaya str., 33, building 1 brunhilda@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

One of the most striking phenomena in journalism during the second period of the Revolution was the polemic of the Girondist leader Jacques-Pierre Brissot de Warville (1754-1793) and lawyer Camille Desmoulins (Lucie-Simplice-Camille-Benoît Desmoulins, 1760-1794), who expressed the views of the Montagnards or Jacobins, who have been legitimately called that since they ousted the Girondins from the Jacobin Club.

Methodology, relevance, novelty

The methodology of the research is complex, which uses general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, the biographical method, comparative historical and descriptive methods, as well as the method of discursive analysis, which combines the study of linguistic features of the source text and various extralinguistic aspects. This article can be considered not only the first experience of a detailed presentation in the Russian science of journalism of the history of the notorious Brissot and Desmoulins controversy, but also the initial approach to analyzing the linguistic personality and image of the authors ^{[1; 2]}, that is, Brissot and Desmoulins as revolutionaries and journalists. The figures of crucial, fateful epochs, which is, of course, the era of the French Revolution, are of undoubted interest in this sense, since their linguistic personality and its thesaurus are formed in extraordinary rapidly changing circumstances ^[3]. However, the article does not pretend to provide a comprehensive analysis of the linguistic personalities of Brissot and Desmoulins, as it examines only a limited set of their texts. In addition, the author's research optics focused on the historical aspect of journalistic creativity rather than media linguistics issues.

"I've noticed the ill will towards me for a long time"

The confrontation between the two successful politicians and journalists began in the last months of the first period of the Revolution, on the eve of the fall of the monarchy, when the situation on the external circuit, where European monarchs were preparing an invasion of France, on the one hand, and on the internal arena, where antagonism between supporters of the king and his opponents was growing, became increasingly alarming.

Belonging to the same radical camp in the first period of the Revolution, who had not just good, but friendly relations — Brissot was one of the witnesses at Desmoulins' wedding — the two journalists in early 1792 reached mutual insults and hostility, which resulted in printed pages.

The first polemical clashes occurred in the spring of 1791, when the newspaper "Revolutions of France and Brabant" (fr. Révolutions de France et de Brabant) Desmoulins, an aspiring journalist, young and daring, attacked Brissot for moderation, once even stating that he "constantly opposes the Jacobins," and received a response to on the pages of "The French Patriot" (fr. Le Patriote français), the leader of the Girondists ^{[4, pp. 327-330]}.

At the beginning of 1792, a completely private situation gave rise to the controversy between the two journalists. By that time, Desmoulins had already stopped publishing his "Revolutions..." and resumed his law practice. Financial difficulties forced him to participate in the judicial defense of the owners of a gambling house operating on Radziwill Street in Paris. A certain Mr. Dithurbide and Madame Beffroy were sentenced by the court to several months in prison and sent to prison, despite the appeal. Desmoulins put up large red posters on the walls of houses in which he protested against the unfair verdict and attacked the judges: "The innocence of the two accused will be shown; this poster is intended only to show the crime of the judges. The newspapers wrote that they had cracked down on gambling dens, but is there a gambling den more heinous than a court where individual freedom is violated?" He argued that the convicts should have been released on bail on appeal, and also raised the issue of distinguishing between vice and crime, gambling and theft. Proving that the passion for gambling has deep historical roots, Desmoulins stated that it has all the more right to be realized now that "the Declaration of Rights proclaimed the freedom to do everything that harms only oneself, without harming others." The text of the posters was titled "Violation of the law" (French: Violation de la loi) and signed "Camille Desmoulins, lawyer" (French: Camille Desmoulins, homme de loi).

The questions posed in the Demulenov text did have their own logic, which was supported by the Court of Appeal: the outcome of the case was the complete release of the accused and the dismissal of all charges against them. However, the tone of the poster was harsh, the attacks on judges seemed too immoral, and it seemed unacceptable that morality itself was declared optional: "Our freedom would come to an end if it were based on morality. It has a more solid foundation: a common interest" ^{[5, p. 184, 185]}.

All this led to the fact that the "French patriot" Brissot, through the mouth of his closest associate Joseph Girey-Dupre (fr. Joseph-Marie Girey-Dupre, 1769-1793), launched harsh attacks against Desmoulins: "All the walls are covered with a red poster signed by Camille Desmoulins, in which, after the sophistical justification of several bankers and gambling owners After gross insults were hurled at judges who performed their duty, we find disgusting invectives against morality and scandalous apologies for gambling. This man calls himself a patriot only in order to slander patriotism" (1792, 31 janvier, No. 904, p. 122).

However, the newspaper did not stop there. In February 1792 The same Gireret-Dupre published two open letters to Desmoulins. In his first letter on February 6, he accused the lawyer of being willing to pervert the interpretation of the law for the sake of the money paid to him by his clients, and repeated the thesis that all his intentions in defense of the accused were "sophistry" and not a correct interpretation of the laws, both old and new. "I have proved," wrote Giret-Dupre sarcastically, "that as a lawyer you have justified, through sophistry, the businessmen in whom you take such a tender interest, an interest that is undoubtedly very disinterested." The court that Desmoulins accused was defended by the "French Patriot", and Desmoulins himself was subtly accused of not respecting the law and humiliating citizens: "As a lawyer (homme de loi), you also considered it shameful to insult judges against whom you had nothing; you called a vile gambling a court that is guilty only of harassing gambling dens with courageous persistence; you made it clear that it applied such severity only because it hoped to intimidate the perpetrators. I do not know if this is the tone of a lawyer; but I know that it is not the tone of a lawyer who loves laws, a man who respects them in his person, a man who knows how to point out their shortcomings, but who is careful not to humiliate citizens who need public respect, who believes in the need for reputation and the necessity of morality" (1792, 6 février, No. 910, p. 149).

The second open letter was even more harsh. Gireret-Dupre criticized not only the text of Desmoulins' poster, but also offended him: "The fact that you, being a lawyer, took up a bad cause, that you defended it for bad reasons, will not surprise anyone, but the fact that you, as a citizen, as a patriot, tried to prove that Morality is an excess <...> has the right to surprise, especially those who decorated you with a municipal scarf (décorer (ceindre) de l'écharpe municipale (fr. dosl.: decorate (girdle) with a municipal scarf) is a phraseologeme meaning getting a particular position. Desmoulins was a lawyer for the Paris Parliament, having taken the oath as such back in 1785.) You say that this would be the end of our freedom if it were based on morality. You may have your reasons for saying that; let me tell you the ones that make me think otherwise. Under a free regime, there is a continuous struggle between the general interest and private interests; between the general interest, always based on justice and reason, and private interests, often erroneous, often vicious. So, the less morality there is in a nation, the more interests diverge from the common interest, the more enemies freedom has."

At the end of the second letter, Giroux-Dupre announced that neither he nor Brissot would participate in a personal attack controversy, distracting the public from it, since they were "devoted to the cause of freedom" and did not want to respond to speeches or buy the silence of their opponent (1792, No. 915, 11 février, p. 169).

Desmoulins, who did not have his own newspaper at that time, responded with a caustic pamphlet, the pamphlet "Jean—Pierre Brissot Unmasked" (fr. Jean-Pierre Brissot Démasqué, in the title of the pamphlet Brissot's name is indicated as follows). The journalist was motivated to write it, among other things, by the fact that his closest friend Robespierre was no longer a member of the new Legislative Assembly, but Brissot, who was elected there, on the contrary, was gaining popularity, gaining more and more supporters, which undoubtedly worried the Robespierreists. "There is no need to say," Desmoulins said, "that the diatribe is not yours, that it is recognized and signed by Giroux—Dupre. The master is responsible for the servant's misdeeds, and the ruler is responsible for those under his authority. It is convenient for a journalist to put Mr. Giraud on his rump to cover his back. But I'm grabbing the reins because you're the one holding them and the one who brought this blow down on me. I have long noticed this malevolence towards me" ^{[6, p. 5]}.

Offended, Desmoulins plunged headlong into the polemic pool. Personal insults began with the epigraph. The turbulent youth of the Girondist leader gave many reasons for criticism, in particular, there were rumors that he had once announced a subscription to publish a book, but had never published anything, and appropriated the money he had collected, provoking even the appearance of the neologism "brissoter", which means a fraud. His rival took advantage of this by putting an epigraph to his pamphlet with a biblical quotation containing a very transparent and malicious hint: “Factus sum in proverbium" [“I have become a proverb"]. Desmoulins marks this quote as taken from the book of Psalms of King David. In fact, this Latin phrase was contained in Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Psalm 29, in which he, in turn, quoted from the book of Job (Job 30:9).

Desmoulins categorically threw a cruel accusation in Brissot's face: "Among all the revolutionary writers, you were the most treacherous, true Tartuffe of patriotism and a traitor to the fatherland, according to the definition given to this by Demosthenes" ^{[6, p. 22]}. Treason against the fatherland is the gravest crime for a politician. And then the author of the pamphlet, deftly matching facts and quotations from the French Patriot to one another, exposes his opponent as a traitor who serves Lafayette, who became almost the main enemy of the revolutionaries after the events on the Champ de Mars. Actually, the name of Lafayette is used in the text of the pamphlet only a little less often than Brissot.: "I've never praised Lafayette," Brissot once told us at the Jacobin Club, as cowardly as he was brazen. You never praised him! Deny that a few weeks before the massacre on the Champ de Mars, you wrote in your leaflet: “Mr. Lafayette's resignation is a real disaster.” <...> Deny that in the same issue of your newspaper you added: “Mr. Lafayette, despite the unpopularity that some of his weaknesses have brought upon him, enjoys almost universal respect.” You remember how on this occasion I cruelly flogged you in my No. 74 (newspaper "Revolutions of France and Brabant" — A.G.), hence your anger. You, who are so verbose, did not utter a word in response; then you cautiously waited for me to stop writing in order to take revenge on me" ^{[6, p. 24]}.

This defense of Lafayette (at least that's how Brissot's speeches were interpreted by his opponents) cost the Girondist leader dearly. Desmoulins gave him only one dubious alternative.: "If you are not a traitor, then you are the stupidest of people."

And he further elaborated on his attack: "At the moment when Lafayette was dismissed, when part of the capital demanded his expulsion, when soldiers abandoned their armies and even turned against their generals, instead of obeying his obviously counter-revolutionary and parricidal orders, who can doubt that we would have succeeded in overthrowing the idol?" if you had joined us to undermine a pedestal that has already been shaken from all sides; if, instead of shaming yourself forever with this Jeremiad about the dismissal of Bouyer's accomplice, you would have supported our efforts to open the eyes of all who do not pretend to be blind, if you had redeemed two years of sycophancy and flattery by reuniting, finally. with Loustalo, Robert, Orator of the People, Friend of the People, Carr, Odoen and all truly patriotic writers <...> It is you, Brissot, who cover Lafayette with your surety, your responsibility and your reputation, which you have surrounded such a hardworking life with, the rigor of your principles and your puritanism" ^{[6, p. 27-29]}.

Brissot is also accused of being one of the founders of the Society of Friends of Blacks, too hastily raising the issue of the status of the population of the colonies, which allegedly provoked the bloody uprisings in Saint-Domingue, which led to the deaths of many people. The Girondists insisted on the inseparability of the colonial territories from France and on the need to reform the political system there. In March 1792, by a special decree, after long discussions, representatives of the white and free colored population were equalized in rights. Nevertheless, the discrepancy between the legislation of the colonies and the metropolis made it possible to maintain slavery there up to a certain point, but the spread of human rights adopted by the Revolution to the colonial population caused opposition from supporters of the traditional way of life and slave labor. On the other hand, slaves who received information about the Revolution and the Declaration of Human Rights raised uprisings, demanding liberation. In March 1792, the Girondist government adopted a special decree on this subject ^{[7, pp. 274-276]}. To prevent riots that had already taken place in the colonies by that time, special commissioners appointed by the metropolis were given the right to "resort to the help of public order forces when they deem it necessary." The Montagnards, while eventually insisting on the emancipation of slaves, did not consider the issue of the colonies to be of primary importance, believing that if the white colonists resisted equalizing their rights with free people of color, the metropolis should not interfere in these issues at all. Robespierre declared as early as 1791. "Let the colonies perish, but not the principle!" [see appendix: 8].

In his pamphlet, Desmoulins resorted to a transparent allusion — he called his opponent Sinon, i.e. gave him the name of the ancient Greek hero, Odysseus' brother, who convinced the Trojans to drag a horse into the city and thus ensured the fall of Troy. He asked his readers a rhetorical question that already contained the answer: "Was J. P. Brissot's policy good?" <...> persistently putting on the agenda issues on which, without a doubt, it could not be denied that he was right, but the very interest of freedom obliged him to postpone until quieter times the issues of the status of people of color and blacks? I know the role played by the executive branch, Spain, and the counter-revolution in the fires, massacres, and devastation of Saint-Domingue; but wasn't Brissot the first to set fire to these beautiful lands? Yes, Brissot, you cannot deny it; for we predicted these disasters to you before they occurred; we asked you if you were not trembling from the terrible responsibility with which your haste burdened you. We have shown you the flames of Port-au-Prince and Cape, and you cannot excuse ignorance. Yes, if so many houses turned to ashes, if women were gutted, if the child who was carried at the end of a pike served as a banner for Negroes, if Negroes themselves died by the thousands, then you, scoundrel, were the root cause of such a great evil" ^{[6, p. 38-39]}.

The reason for such zealous advocacy of the rights of blacks, according to Desmoulins, was not at all compassion for the plight of slaves, but a desire to divert attention from the murders on the Champ de Mars. Turning back to Brissot, Desmoulins asked: "Don't you find enough objects around you to show your sensitivity, which was silent about the victims of Lafayette and was completely focused across the sea? Who doesn't see that you cry for blacks to save yourself from lamenting about the French Guards, Chatovier and many others (meaning the French Guards Regiment, which took an active part in the revolutionary events of 1789 and was disbanded by the king after the storming of the Bastille, and the Swiss regiment of Chatovier, which participated in the riots in Nancy — AG)".

Under the pen of Desmoulins, Brissot was very convincingly turned into a provocateur who brought trouble on the heads of his colleagues by the frequent and inappropriate use of the words "republican" and "republic": "Was it good policy when France was proclaimed a monarchy, when the name of the republic frightened 9 tenths of the nation, when those who were considered the most ardent democrats, Loustalo, Robespierre, Carra, Freron, Danton, and I, Marat himself, forbade myself to pronounce this word. Was it good policy for you, Brissot, to adorn yourself with the name of a Republican, to print the word republic on all your pages, to make people believe that this was the opinion of the Jacobins, and to allow slander and hatred to all their enemies?" ^{[6, pp. 41-42]}.

The massacre on the Champ de Mars, according to Desmoulins, is also the result of a provocation by Brissot. The author of "The Unmasked Brissot" bases his accusations only on the fact that the leader of the Girondists was not persecuted after these bloody events: "How did it happen that you were the one who drafted the famous petition (for the deposition of King A.G.) on the Champ de Mars? What do we think when it occurs to us that we are all being persecuted for republicanism, and as signatories of this petition, we were put on the wanted list and forced to flee, while you, the editor of the petition, you, the leader of the Republicans, are the only one who has accepted this title for six months, as if taking permission from despite his exposure, did you walk around Paris calmly?" ^{[6, p. 43]}.

This accusation was more than controversial. Desmoulins himself took an active part in the events on the Field of Mars, bringing the most radical citizens there who did not want to disperse and did not listen to any exhortations, which eventually led to the shooting and murders.

In the spring of 1792, the discord between the Girondins and the Montagnards continued. At the center of it were all the same questions, purely political, first of all, about the war with the European "crowned tyrants", which Brissot's supporters demanded to declare. Robespierre, Danton and Desmoulins opposed this.

In the first issue of his new newspaper, published jointly with L.M. Fréron under the name "Tribune des Patriotes" (fr. Tribune des Patriotes) Desmoulins remarked about the declaration of war on the King of Hungary and Bohemia: "In my opinion, the nation has just been dragged into a war for freedom, as endless in victories as in defeats of generals" (1792, 30 avr., No. 1, p. 16). It was a stone in Brissot's garden.

In the same issue, Desmoulins habitually attacked Lafayette, whose "creature" under his pen turns out to be Brissot. Lafayette placed loyal people in all, even the smallest positions, one of whom, according to Desmoulins, was the leader of the Girondists, who received his seat in the Legislative Assembly thanks to the general. However, this favor was granted on a reciprocal basis. According to Desmoulins, it is not political ideas or moral qualities that are important for Life, but the personal dedication of the people around him. Therefore, his entourage consists of adjutants and friends, corrupt writers and judges, informers and thugs. Presenting Brissot as a creature of Lafayette, at whose instigation the latter made important appointments in the provinces, entrusting the newly-minted "list of benefits" (1792, 30 avr., No. 1, p. 19-20), Desmoulins publicly accused not only Brissot of political betrayal, but also all the revolutionaries included in this list. The list of benefices (French: feuille des bénéfices) under the Old Regime was a list of candidates for ecclesiastical positions, presented to the king for further appointment. Reasoning about him had a dual function. On the one hand, it equated Lafayette with supporters of the Old Regime and at the same time pointed out to the members of the National Assembly the traitors in their ranks.

"The Party of disorganizers"

The last act of the controversy between Brissot and Desmoulins took place against the backdrop of a fierce confrontation between the Girondists and the Jacobins in the newly elected National Convention. The change of the political system — the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of the Republic — the war on the borders, the struggle for power between different political forces provoked a new stage of conflict, which went beyond the personal and had tragic consequences. The Girondins dominated the Convention and therefore formed the government, while the Montagnards dominated the Jacobin Club. The former considered themselves entitled to determine the policy of the newly established French Republic, while the latter did not agree with this. At the same time, there was no unity within each conditional "party", each political group sought its own benefit.

Brissot, as one of the leaders of the Girondists, on the pages of his newspaper "French Patriot" on the third day after the start of the meetings of the Convention, expressed the following opinion about the alignment of political forces: "For the first time during these debates, we noticed two systems that could one day divide the Convention if two and a half thirds of the assembly had not already spoken decidedly in favor of order. One tends to destroy all existing institutions, to universal equalization, an equalization that it was forced to tighten under the article of property because it angered the whole of France; the other tends to temporarily preserve what exists and consistently reform, without suddenly disorganizing it. One always praises the sovereignty of the people, but thereby tends to anarchy, which kills the people; the other does not flatter the people, but serves them better, striving for an order in which the people can only exist. Again, this division cannot cause alarm, because the anarchist system has few supporters, because all the true friends of freedom are now friends of order, so order will prevail, because order is the salvation of the people" (1792, 23 sept., dimanche, No. 1140, p. 339).

Here he opposed the radical measures preached by the extreme left, the Paris Commune and its supporting deputies. This publication caused consequences that, perhaps, the author himself did not expect. Already on the day of the issue's publication, that is, on September 23, 1792, at a meeting of the Jacobin Club, the deputy of the Convention, in whose person the most extreme ideas always had support, Francois Chabot (fr. François Chabot, 1756-1794), demanded that Brissot come to the Club and explain who he meant by this party of "disorganizers". He accused Brissot of scheming, of trying to turn the population of the departments away from the Jacobins, and bluntly stated that it was his political enemies that the Girondist leader meant by a "disorganizing party." If this "brutal slander" is not explained, then Brissot is "the greatest of scoundrels," Chabot argued ^{[9, p. 327-328]}.

At the next meeting on September 24, Chabot continued his attacks, accusing those whom Brissot counted among the "two thirds" of wanting to create a "federal government" and thereby restore the monarchy ^{[9, p. 329]}. This very "federality" would soon be one of the main charges against the Girondins, which allowed them to be charged with attempted dismemberment of the country, and consequently with high treason ^{[10, p. 2008-2009]}.

Brissot then wrote a conciliatory letter to the Society of Friends of Liberty and Equality (as the Jacobins called themselves), in which he stated that he would appear at its meetings as soon as his employment in the Convention allowed him to do so. However, the leader of the Gironde did not fulfill this promise, and this, against the background of growing discontent among the members of the Jacobin Club, eventually led to his expulsion from there ^{[9, p. 330, 376, 378]}.

But the exclusion of the Jacobins for Brissot and his supporters did not end, but only began. As the author of the classic work on the French Revolution, Jules Michelet, noted, expulsion from the Society of Friends of Freedom and Equality "became a step towards the guillotine, the first step of the scaffold" ^{[10, p. 2665]}. A few days later, the Jacobin Club adopted and sent out a special appeal to all provincial clubs, which declared the existence of a faction of Brissotines, "vile intriguers" who always hindered real patriots, and whose writings were "in the same spirit as the writings of royalists, Feuillants, moderates, who expounded equally cowardly, as well as those insulting diatribes against Jacobins and incorruptible patriots" and who "wanted to establish themselves on the ruins of the throne under the shadow of the Republic" ^{[9, p. 394-399]}. The same Michelet noted about this appeal: "Sent to two or three thousand provincial clubs, read from their stands, repeated from mouth to mouth, spread exponentially in a week, brought to the attention of a million people, it gained irresistible persuasive power and irrevocably inspired the idea that if the Incorruptible considered the case solved, then the verdict it is necessary, without reasoning, to accept on faith such words of Cato" ^{[11, p. 1807]}.

Brissot responded to all these attacks two weeks after the circular was published by publishing a pamphlet entitled "On the Parisian Society of Jacobins" (fr. J.-P. Brissot, député a la Convention nationale, a tous les republicains de France, sur la société des Jacobins de Paris). Here he accused the friends of freedom and equality of creating a "system of persecution" that was supposed to "prepare for the triumph of the disorganizers," that they had arbitrarily appropriated the powers of supervision of the Convention and censorship. Brissot then moved on to direct accusations. His text was supposed to be something like an indictment, a caustic pamphlet, a rebuke to the "party of disorganizers," by which he meant the Jacobins, and a direct response to the circular sent to the departments.: "I'm going straight to the essence of the accusation; or rather, from the accused, I myself become the accuser, so I say and repeat that there is a disorganizing party, small in number and, in truth, insignificant." He accused supporters of radical measures of trying to overthrow the legitimate government, of seeking to sow anarchy, and ultimately of tyranny, introduced by abusing the phrase "people's sovereignty" and instilling in part of the people that "they are the people, the only sovereign" who "can overthrow everything, that there is no power greater than that of The government "does not need municipalities, administrative bodies, executive authorities, courts, or the armed forces." Representatives of this party "who want to eliminate even talents, knowledge, and virtues, because they have none of these things." "Disorganizers," Brissot declares, "are those who want to destroy everything and build nothing; who want a society without a government or a government without power; who do not want a constitution, but revolutions, that is, periodic robberies and mass murders." "What should result from this disorganizing system? Scoundrels rule, good people die or flee; society is nothing but a desert; the working part of the people have neither work nor bread... This is the abyss into which the disorganizers lead. Therefore, they are the most cruel enemies of the people," concludes Brissot ^{[12, p. 4-7]}.

Further, he consistently examines and rejects all the accusations made against him by the Jacobins — of friendly relations with Lafayette, of slandering the September murders (which the Jacobins considered a sacred continuation of the overthrow of the monarchy, and Brissot called a conspiracy against the National Assembly), of starting a war, of plans to "federalize" the Republic, of royalism, of provoking bloodshed. in the colony of Saint-Domingue, in an effort to put his friends in ministerial posts.

In the last part of his pamphlet, Brissot calls for the reform of the Jacobin Club, enslaved by "despicable, vile people," a society "where freedom of speech is prohibited, where a small but noisy minority shackles a wise but weak majority; where this rebellious minority, with the help of tribunes led by the same tactics, drowns out the voice of those who he wants to fight it; where the most ridiculous and false denunciations are enthusiastically accepted, while their justification is fiercely rejected! <...> where legislators are constantly ridiculed, where the National Convention is constantly criticized, where decrees are constantly thwarted! <...> where, by arbitrarily ostracizing several energetic deputies, they hope to intimidate the rest and bring them back under the yoke, showering them with bitterness and insults! <...> from which legislators who respect each other are forced to exclude themselves in order not to witness the blatant contempt shown for the decrees and the spirit of rebellion that is preached there!" ^{[12, p. 30-31]}.

He insisted that the Society of Freedom and Equality must continue to exist, "the public good requires this; but it also requires that it finally be useful, that it finally fulfill the purpose of its institution." "It will fulfill it," Brissot reasoned, "when, instead of being an eternal theater of false denunciations, a center of ferment, an arena where gladiators tear each other apart under the guise of patriotism, it will become, like many societies in our departments, a center of education for its members and for the many people present at its meetings.". It will fulfill it when the issues on the agenda of the Convention are discussed here, when its decrees are criticized here with decency, when the people's executive power is censored here with prudence and truthfulness, when impartiality prevails in debates, when opinions are free here, when people are not forced to make an idol of a man, when, finally, the preachers of the riots will be looked at only with horror" ^{[12, p. 34]}.

Brissot named several names of "disorganizers", among which the main one was the name of Robespierre, "a monster, or an imbecile tool of monsters" ^{[12, p. 18]}.

The incorruptible pamphlet "On the Society of Jacobins" may have become known earlier than it was published on October 29, because on October 28 he delivered a speech at the Jacobin Club "On the influence of slander on the Revolution," a number of excerpts of which refer to passages by Brissot, in particular, such a fragment stigmatizing the Girondists: "I witnessed how The delegates of the great people, despicable puppets of treacherous charlatans who betrayed the fatherland, were afraid of the people, slandered them, declared war on those representatives of the people who wanted to remain faithful to their cause, imputed to them the crime of respect for their fellow citizens, and the spontaneous expressions of popular indignation caused by tyranny. They stupidly believed all the fantastic nonsense about conspiracies, robberies, and dictatorship that they were afraid of. They applauded their own wisdom, their own moderation and civic valor, crushing with their own hands the sacred foundations of freedom they had erected" ^{[13, p. 60]}.

In his speech, Robespierre first attacks Lafayette and his "clique," accusing them of establishing an unworthy Constitution that has become "an instrument of tyranny and persecution," of the Nancy and Champ de Mars massacres, and much more. The heirs of this "clique" in the mouth of Robespierre are the supporters of Brissot, who in the new conditions, after the establishment of the Republic, "perfect the criminal policy of Lafayette" and whom Incorruptible calls "intriguers of the Republic": "After the July 14th revolution, have you ever heard the aristocrats yelling about anarchy <...>You witnessed how Lafayette and his accomplices repeated the same words in their manner, imbued with the same spirit.

How does the new clique act after the revolution on August 10? She screams about anarchy, incessantly talks about a certain disorganizing party of violent demagogues who mislead and indulge the people. <...> She only replaced the word “rebels”, worn by her predecessors, with the less trivial word “troublemakers” <...> To whom does she bring her accusations? Aristocrats, emigrants, royalists? No. The Felians? Moderate hypocrites? To the patriots, whose Republican zeal dates back to August 10th? No, her reproaches are directed at those patriots who are alien to all kinds of cliques and unwaveringly committed to the public good, who since the beginning of the revolution have chosen a path leading to the sole goal of any constitution of freedom — to the kingdom of justice and equality. <…>

Aristocrats and feuillants have always found an excuse to encroach on the rights of the people and humiliate their dignity. The intriguers of the republic slavishly copy them in this" ^{[13, p. 63]}.

In principle, there was almost nothing new in these accusations. Brissot portrayed Lafayette as a loyal follower in his texts even before the overthrow of the Desmoulins monarchy. The difference was caused by changes in the external context. Desmoulins Brissot proved to be Lafayette's faithful assistant in all his endeavors. Robespierre's text was created when Lafayette had already fled France. Therefore, the leader of the Girondists, along with his supporters, turns out to be a follower of the fugitive general's cause.

"Disgusting lampoon"

Brissot's pamphlet, which was not devoid of reasonable arguments, could not stop the flywheel of confrontation. He was getting stronger and stronger, and Robespierre periodically launched his philippics at the Girondins throughout the rest of autumn, winter and spring. It is in the context of Robespierre's speeches that Desmoulins' latest attack on Brissot should be considered — his pamphlet entitled "The History of the Brissotins or a fragment of the secret history of the Revolution and the first six months of the Republic" (fr. Histoire des Brissotins, ou, Fragment de l'histoire secrète de la révolution, et des six premiers mois de la Republique).

Desmoulins created this text in the spring of 1793, it was approved at the meeting of the Jacobin Club, so the assumption made by J. is not without logic. Zhores said that this was an action of the whole Club, and not personally of Desmoulins: "They (the Jacobins — AG) released a pamphlet by Camille Desmoulins, as if they had thrown a torch" ^{[14, p. 531]}. But another thing is also true: The lantern Prosecutor, nursing his long-standing grudge, clearly "went overboard." Jean Michelet stated in this regard: "Rightly condemned by Brissot for helping various unworthy people, intriguers and gamblers, Camille turned to Robespierre for support and, wanting to do him a favor, wrote a terrible pamphlet. His “History of the Brissotines” Like nothing else, it contributed to the death of the Girondins. A disgusting lampoon, a cruel game of an angry child who does not understand that he is playing with a guillotine..." ^{[10, p. 2153]}.

Further, the historian noted one important feature of Desmoulins' text: "If you carefully read The History of the Brissotines, it is an ardent, inspired, satirical interpretation of Robespierre's speeches against the Gironde. In everything that concerns the logical sequence of thoughts, the inventive search for dubious parallels, sarcastic satire carefully, sometimes slavishly copied a serious work" ^{[10, p. 2154]}. Indeed, Robespierre's "serious" speeches could not have such a stunning emotional impact on the crowd, and they were not delivered in front of it or for it. Desmoulins, on the other hand, could set a crowd in motion with just a few phrases, and he had been doing it habitually and unmistakably since July 12, 1789, when his speech from a table in the Palais Royal garden forced the storming of the Bastille.

The essence of the pamphlet was that Brissot and his supporters were agents of British Prime Minister William Pitt. They first helped England provoke a revolution in France so that the British government could "obtain from Louis XVI a bill of exchange issued by Richelieu in 1641 for Charles I," and then embarked on the path of national betrayal, forming a terrible conspiracy against the young Republic: "I assert as a fact that the right side of the Convention and especially its leaders — almost all supporters of the royal power, accomplices of Dumouriez's treason <...>, led by agents of Pitt, Orléans, and Prussia, that they wanted to divide France into twenty or thirty republics bound by the bonds of federation, or rather, destroy it so that there would be no republic at all. I maintain that there has never been a conspiracy in history more obviously proven, through many stronger presumptions, than the conspiracy that I call the Brissot conspiracy, because Brissot was his soul, and which is directed against the French Republic" ^{[15, p. 5; translated from: 14, p. 532]}.

At the same time, Desmoulins exempted himself from presenting any facts to the public in advance, referring to the fact that the Girondists themselves did not present any facts when revealing the conspiracy of the Austrian Committee of Marie Antoinette: "it would be unfair to demand from us facts proving the existence of a conspiracy. The only thing that I remember from the notorious speeches of Brissot and Jansonnet, who proved the existence of the Austrian committee, is how they stated, quite thoroughly, that when it comes to conspiracy, it is absurd to demand visual evidence, judicial evidence, they never existed, even in the conspiracy of Catilina, because conspirators do not act openly." ^{[15, p. 4-5; translated from: 14, p. 532]}.

Here we are dealing with the juxtaposition of facts, which are the basis of the old legal norms, and the "revolutionary consciousness", which is capable of unmistakably identifying the enemies of the people without a thorough investigation of the case. Behind this contrast lies the identification of the Jacobins, as the most consistent bearers of revolutionary consciousness, and the Republic. From this point of view, it is not the judges and investigators who determine the guilt of the suspect, but how the Republic itself clearly sees its friends and enemies.

Desmoulins, in the heat of a deadly polemic, said of his pamphlet: "Whoever listens to him will immediately ask: Where is the scaffold?"^{[14, p. 534]}, it probably did not occur to him that such "revolutionary legality" would turn not only against the Girondists, sending them to the guillotine in the autumn of 1793 — as he noted J. Michelet, "in October 93, Camille mourned this pamphlet with tears of blood" ^{[10, p. 2153]} - but also in the very near future against himself. He would cruelly repent of this, exclaiming during the sentencing of the Brissotines: "It is my 'Exposed Brissot' who is killing them!" ^{[16, p. 116]}. But it will be too late.…