Journalist in the Terror Scenery: Camille Desmoulins and the Old Cordelier

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

Introduction

After the expulsion of the Girondists from the Convention and the assassination of Marat (French Jean-Paul Marat, 1743-1793), contradictions began to manifest themselves in the ranks of the Jacobins. By the autumn of 1793, the revolutionary government of Robespierre was opposed by two currents. Moderates, led by Georges Danton (fr. Georges Jacques Danton, 1759-1794) and Camille Desmoulins (fr. Lucie-Simplice-Camille-Benoît Desmoulins, 1760-1794), called for the renunciation of terror. Danton is credited with the catch phrase: "Whoever makes a revolution for too long risks not using its fruits." The radical left, led by Jacques-René Hebert (fr. Jacques-Réné Hébert, 1757-1794), believed that repression was insufficient and the gains of the Revolution were in danger.

Each group had its own printing press. Desmoulins' newspaper was called The Old Cordelier. Hebert continued to publish the unchanging "Papa Duchesne" (French: Le Père Duchesne), born at the very beginning of the Revolution. In late 1793 — early 1794, a struggle developed between the publications, which eventually led to the death of both authors.

The all-powerful announcer Robespierre (French Maximilien Marie Isidore de Robespierre, 1758-1794) stood as if above the fight, maneuvering between currents and trying to use opponents against each other, which, however, did not save him from the guillotine.

His newspaper "Old Cordelier" (French: Le Vieux Cordelier) Desmoulins began publishing in December 1793. The name itself had an anti-Eberian connotation: in the eyes of Desmoulins, the Cordelier Club was valuable only in its "old" incarnation, that is, before the Ebertists began to penetrate there from the beginning of 1791. Initially, the newspaper was supposed to be published every five days (twice a decade). But in December, instead of six, five issues were released. The sixth, although it was marked on December 25, 1793. (5 nivoz II year), was released only in early February 1794. The last one, the seventh, marked on February 3, 1794 (15 pluviosis II), typed and ready for printing, was never published during the author's lifetime. Desmoulins was arrested, and the issue was first published by his printer Victor Desenne (before 1752 – after 1815) in June 1795 with the removal of text fragments objectionable to the Thermidorian Convention containing criticism of Robespierre.

The page numbering for all the numbers was end-to-end with several failures. Each issue contained one essay on a particular topic, so the newspaper was more of a periodical pamphlet than a newspaper in the modern sense of the word, which, however, was by no means uncommon in that era. But the sharpness of the materials, their topicality and the unique style of Desmoulins made the sheets stand out among their fellows. Literary historian Eugene Maron argued that "The Old Cordelier, which ruined Camille Desmoulins and put him on the guillotine, is perhaps the most eloquent work produced by the revolution, without a doubt, before and after journalism did not give anything that could be compared with it" ^{[1, p. 265]}.

Desmoulins decided to return to journalism a year and a half after the closure of his newspaper Revolutions de France et de Brabant (French: Revolutions de France et de Brabant), stating: "We no longer have a newspaper that would tell the truth, at least the whole truth. I enter the arena with all the frankness and courage that I am known for" ^{[2, p. 4-5]}. This decision was, so to speak, a "party decision" made jointly with Danton.

Desmoulins chose the famous motto of the Jacobin Club "To live free or die" (French Vivre libre ou mourir) as the epigraph of his publication, which was introduced into the text of the Constitution of 1791. This maxim turned out to be prophetic for Desmoulins: having failed to weaken the terror, he died on the guillotine.

Methodology, relevance, novelty

The methodology of the conducted research has a complex character, in which 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 the linguistic features of the source text and various extralinguistic aspects, were used.

This article can be considered not only the first experience of a detailed presentation in the national science of journalism of the history of the magazine "Old Cordillera", but also the initial approach to the analysis of the linguistic personality and image of the author ^{[3; 4]}, that is, Desmoulins, as a revolutionary and journalist. 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 ^[5]. However, the article does not pretend to a comprehensive analysis of Demoulin's linguistic personality, since it considers only a limited set of Demoulin's texts — one of his periodicals. In addition, the author's research optics focused more on the historical aspect of journalistic creativity than on issues of media linguistics.

Number One: The Ebertists and Pitt

In the first issue, the publication warned about the dangers for France coming from European countries, especially England, the main enemy of the French Revolution. Desmoulins argued that the disagreements among the revolutionaries were the work of the British government and personally of First Minister William Pitt the Younger (eng. William Pitt the Younger, 1759-1806). Here, without naming names, he spoke of a certain "foreign party" (French: le parti de l'étranger), whose members attack Danton, "our eternal chairman of the old Cordeliers," for which they receive "guineas from Pitt" ^{[2, P. 2-3]}. The hero of the passage appears to be Robespierre, who defended Danton in his speech at the Jacobin Club, where he was accused on many counts, including of the same cooperation with foreign powers (see speech variants: ^{[6, p. 219-225]}). The issue of The Old Cordelier came out just two days after Robespierre's speech. In it, Desmoulins uses the classic argument of appeal to personality argumentum ad hominem tu quoque (and you too), which is why a "foreign party" consisting of Ebertist rivals appears in the text.

The mention of Pitt led Desmoulins to talk about freedom of the press in two countries and made him bitterly remark: "A year ago, we were justifiably ridiculing the so-called freedom of the British, who do not have unlimited freedom of the press; and yet what conscientious person would dare to compare today's France with England on the issue of freedom of the press? See how boldly the Morning Chronicle attacks Pitt and the war effort! What journalist in France dared to point out the mistakes of our committees, and generals, and Jacobins, and ministers, and communes, as the opposition points out the mistakes of the British ministry? And I, a Frenchman, I am Camille Desmoulins, I am not as free as an English journalist!" ^{[2, p. 5]}.

But it is not Robespierre, whom Desmoulins praises, who is to blame for the restrictions on press freedom, but the same ebertists paid by Pitt, who demand tougher terror.

Robespierre liked the new periodical: it fit perfectly into his rhetoric and into his immediate intentions — to deal with the Ebertists. He turned to his youth friend Desmoulins with a request to take part in the publication. And the second issue, published on 20 Fremer II (December 10, 1793), is marked by all signs of direct participation of the Jacobin leader ^{[7, p. 547]}. It was a propaganda of the cult of the Supreme Being and an attack on the Ebertist cult of Reason, which Robespierre was actively engaged in discrediting at that time.

Number two: Anacharsis, Anaxagoras and Frederick William II

Anacharsis (real name Jean-Baptiste) becomes almost the main object of attacks of the second issue Cloots (fr. Anacharsis (Jean-Baptiste) Cloots, 1755-1794), Dutch by birth, who spent his childhood and youth in Prussia and had the title of Prussian baron. This gave Desmoulins the rhetorical opportunity to see the Prussian King Frederick William II (German Friedrich Wilhelm II) at the head of the conspiracy against the French Republic. von Preußen, 1744-1797), as before the English Prime Minister Mr. Pitt. Another antihero of the issue was Pierre-Gaspard Chaumette, who took the ancient name Anaxagoras (fr. Pierre-Gaspard (Anaxagoras) Chaumette, 1763-1794), prosecutor-syndic of the Paris Commune. Both of them were accused of counterrevolution: "Anacharsis and Anaxagoras will think that they are turning the wheel of reason while it will be the wheel of counterrevolution" ^{[8, p. 2]}.

While Desmoulins aimed at Hebert and other ultra-revolutionaries who wanted to take power into their own hands, introducing their own ideology and trying to oust the rest, Robespierre had nothing against the newspaper, his goals were quite consistent with what she wrote about. But gradually the newspaper's focus began to change.

The third number: "Suspicious!"

In the third issue, published 5 days after the second, on the 25th of Fremer II, the "Old Cordelier" questioned the very system of terror and the fundamental necessity of a revolutionary government. Quoting and interpreting, freely placing and retelling Tacitus, as well as Sallust, Suetonius and Cicero, Desmoulins brought portraits of political figures of the revolutionary era under the masks of Roman tyrant emperors. The victims of the era of Octavian, Claudius, Nero and Caligula were projected onto the victims of terror under the Jacobin Convention. The arguments about ancient Roman "suspicion" were very reminiscent of modernity: "Everything aroused the tyrant's anxiety. Was the citizen popular? He was a rival of the ruler, who could provoke a civil war. <...> Suspicious.

On the contrary, did you hide from popularity and stay at home? This solitary life made you noticeable and attracted attention. <...> Suspicious.

Were you rich? There was a danger that the people would be corrupted by your generosity. <...> Suspicious.

Were you poor? As if not so! Invincible Emperor, you need to keep a closer eye on this man, there is no one more enterprising than someone who has nothing. <...> Suspicious.

Do you have a gloomy, melancholic character or a sloppy toilet? What depresses you the most is that public affairs are going well. <...> Suspicious.

If, on the contrary, a citizen indulged in idleness and satiety, he amused himself only because the emperor had an attack of gout, which, fortunately, cost him, it was necessary to make him feel that the emperor was still in the prime of life. <...> Suspicious.

Was he of a virtuous and strict disposition? Perfectly! The new Brutus, who, with his pallor and Jacobin wig, claimed the right to condemn the amiable and well-curled court. <...> Suspicious.

Was he a philosopher, an orator, or a poet? He was quite willing to have more glory than the glory of those who ruled! Is it possible to tolerate that from the fourth tier more attention is paid to the author than to the emperor in his lattice (here, probably, a play on words: fr. grillé — lattice, at the same time means failed, compromised — A. G.) A bed? <...> Suspicious.

Finally, has a good name been acquired in the war? You are even more dangerous with your talent. With an incapable gener, there is still a way out of the situation. If he is a traitor, he will not be able to surrender the army to the enemy so well that someone will not return. But an officer of the level of Corbulo or Agricola (Corbulo Gnaeus Domitius Corbulus; c. 7-67) was an ancient Roman military commander who became famous during the Eastern Campaign of Emperor Nero; Agricola Gnaeus Julius (lat. Gnaeus Julius Agricola, 40-93) was an outstanding ancient Roman commander of the era of Emperor Vespasian, father—in-law of the historian Tacitus. - A. G.) If he had betrayed, none would have escaped. The best thing was to get rid of him, at least, my lord, you cannot avoid removing him from the army as soon as possible. <...> Suspicious" ^{[9, p. 32-34]}.

For Desmoulins, Tacitus turned out to be a real storehouse of stories from political life that could be extrapolated to modern France, where the crime of "counterrevolution" played the same role as the crime of "insulting majesty" in Ancient Rome. Speaking of suspicion, Desmoulins was directly aiming at the "Law on Suspicious Persons" adopted by the Convention in September 1794. However, opposition to it soon arose in the same Convention: some deputies insisted on the need for a written justification of the arrests, after which a corresponding directive was adopted. The main executors of the "Law on Suspects" were the revolutionary authorities on the ground, who protested its mitigation. They were supported by Robespierre and the directive was canceled.

On December 14 (24 freemasons), an emergency meeting was held at the Jacobin Club, at which Desmoulins was discussed, it was about his expulsion from the Club. The journalist was accused of indifference to the Revolution and defending General Arthur Dillon (French Arthur de Dillon, 1750-1794), who was arrested for counterrevolutionary activities. Robespierre defended his old comrade, saying that despite the friendship attributed to him with Mirabeau, connections with moderates and admiration for the courage of the Girondists, he is a true Republican, and he was such "when some of today's great patriots trembled, perhaps even groveled before the tyrant. <...> He rendered great services to the Revolution. His energetic and light pen can still serve her well, but, more circumspect in choosing friends, he must break all contracts with impiety, that is, with the aristocracy. Under these conditions, I ask to admit Camille Desmoulins" ^{[6, p. 253-255; 10, p. 560]}.

Number four: "Freedom is happiness."

A few days later, on December 20 (Fremer's 30th), the next, fourth issue of the Demulenov leaflets was published. Here he not only discussed the illegality of "suspicion", but also stated that restrictions on freedom should not take place, that the "state of patience" in anticipation of freedom, which his critics talk about, cannot be an excuse for its restriction: "Some, apparently, think that freedom, like childhood, must go through screams and tears to reach adulthood. On the contrary, freedom is such that in order to enjoy it, it is enough to want it. The people are free as long as they want to be. <...> Freedom has neither old age nor childhood. She has only one age — the age of strength and energy. <...> The freedom that I adore is not an unknown God. We are fighting to protect the benefits that she immediately transfers into the possession of those who call upon her. These benefits are the declaration of rights, the softness of republican rules, fraternity, holy equality, and the inviolability of principles. These are the steps of the goddess; these are the features by which I distinguish the people among whom she lives. And by what other sign do they want me to know this divine freedom? Is this freedom an empty name? <...> Freedom is happiness, it is reason, it is equality, it is justice, it is a declaration of rights, it is your majestic constitution!" ^{[11, p. 50-51]}.

The main idea that Desmoulins approaches after his reflections on freedom is the idea that mercy is needed to achieve freedom instead of terror: "Do you want me to recognize her, fall at her feet, shed all my blood for her? open prisons for those two hundred thousand citizens whom you call suspects; for there are no suspicious houses in the declaration of rights; there are only houses of pre-trial detention. Suspicion does not have a prison, but there is a public prosecutor; there are no suspicious people; there are only those accused of crimes established by law. And do not believe that this measure will be disastrous for the republic. This will be the most revolutionary step you have ever taken.

You want to exterminate all your enemies with a guillotine. But has there ever been a greater madness? Will you be able to execute at least one on the scaffold without making ten enemies from his family and friends? Do you believe that it is these women, these old men, these lowlifes, these egoists, these laggards from the revolution whom you lock up, who are dangerous? Of your enemies, only cowards and the sick remain among you. The brave and strong emigrated. They died in Lyon or in Vendee; everything else does not deserve your anger" ^{[11, p. 51-53]}.

Antique and other historical analogies, which, just as in the previous issue, are abundantly filled with newspaper pages, this time no longer evasively hint, but directly point to the political situation in revolutionary France and call for mercy: "So many examples prove what I just said, that mercy, distributed Reasonably, it is the most revolutionary, the most effective measure, whereas terror is just a mentor for one day, as Cicero aptly calls it" ^{[11, p. 58]}.

Formulating a clear antithesis to the bloody Committees of General Security and Public salvation, Desmoulins proposes to establish a mercy committee that "will complete the revolution; because mercy is also a revolutionary measure, and the most effective of all" ^{[11, p. 56]}. For support, he communicates to an "old friend", "dear Robespierre", convincing him that "love is stronger and more durable than fear", and, trying to bring the positions closer, declares that the special commission proposed by the latter from representatives of both Committees to consider the demands of relatives of the arrested "suspicious" for their release, in fact, is the proposed the very committee of mercy. Although, according to Desmoulins, the Robespierre commission should rather be called the committee of justice.

Despite the conciliatory and even intimate tone of the "Old Cordelier," Incorruptible could not be satisfied with the general direction of his friend's newspaper.

The third and fourth issues provoked a lively reaction and became the subject of discussion in Clubs, Committees and in the Convention. Thus, the juror of the Revolutionary Tribunal and the head of its printing house, a member of the Committee of Public Safety, Charles-Leopold Nicolas (fr. Charles-Leopold Nicolas, 1757?-1794), at a meeting of the Jacobin Club on December 21, accused Desmoulins of counterrevolutionary activities, said that he "has long been approaching the guillotine" and demanded to be expelled from the Club. Heber joined this demand, adding that the author of the "Old Cordelier", "since he married a rich woman, has spent more time with aristocrats, whom he often patronized," and taking up the pen again, "is engaged in ridiculing patriots." After that, it was decided to invite Desmoulins to the next meeting of the Club to answer the charges against him. A special commission was set up to investigate all issues concerning him and several other suspects in the counterrevolution ^{[10, p. 569-573]}. The attacks continued on December 23, when the radical deputy of the Convention Jean Collot d'Herbois (French Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois, 1749-1796), without naming Desmoulins, said that translating "ancient historians" to "offer you a picture of the time in which you live" is unpatriotic, and such a person will never catch up The Revolution, and on December 26, when Heber demanded an examination of the "last two" issues of the Old Cordelier, the third and fourth ^{[10, p. 577, 584]}.

The fifth number: "Be careful; we're going to touch the extreme."

Meanwhile, Desmoulins released the fifth issue of the newspaper, which was marked 5 nivoz (December 25). On this day, Robespierre delivered a speech at the Convention "On the principles of a revolutionary Government," in which terror was actually officially proclaimed and its main postulates formulated. We indicate in parentheses that the fifth issue was published eleven days later than both its date and this speech: January 5, 1794: at a meeting of the Jacobin Club, Desmoulins announced its release by a special letter ^{[7, p. 592]}.

The material of the fifth issue was constructed in the form of a "Great vindication speech" to the Jacobins. Desmoulins, using the Robespierre image of a ship from the above speech, passing between two reefs in a stormy sea, explained why he began to adhere to the "sandbank of moderation." The word modérantisme (moderantism), used in the revolutionary thesaurus and translated as moderation, exists in Russian as a term. "The Ship of the Republic <...> sailing between two reefs: moderation and extreme. Desmoulins wrote, "I started my newspaper with a political confession of faith that was supposed to disarm slander. I said together with Danton that it is less dangerous and even better to go beyond the revolution than to stay in it (italics in the text of the source — A. G.); that on the way taken by ship, it is still more necessary to approach the rock of extremity than the sandbank of moderation. But seeing that Papa Duchene and almost all the patriotic sentries were standing on the upper deck with their telescopes and were busy only calling out: "Careful, you touch moderation," I, an old Cordelier and an elder of the Jacobins, was forced to take responsibility for a difficult faction, which none of the young people wanted, fearing to become unpopular, the faction of the appeal: "Be careful, you risk touching the extreme"; and this is the cause for which all my colleagues in the Convention owe me — the cause of sacrificing even their popularity in order to save a ship on which my cargo was not more significant than their cargo. <...> It will be easy for me to prove that I was forced to appeal to the helmsmen of the state ship: "Be careful; we are going to touch the extreme." Robespierre and even Billaud-Varenne (French Jacques-Nicolas Billaud-Varenne; 1756-1819), a revolutionary, an influential member of the "great" Committee of Public Safety, an active participant in the Thermidorian coup), have already realized this danger. It remained for the journalist to prepare an opinion, to clearly show the reef: that's exactly what I did in the first four issues" ^{[12, p. 59-60]}.

In his defense, Desmoulins referred to Robespierre's speech, in which Robespierre called him a "real Republican" who had rendered "great services to the Revolution" and emphasized that it was actually thanks to him, his speech in the Palais Royal garden, that the Bastille was taken, and then the Revolution itself. Responding to Nicolas, Desmoulins wrote: "You, Nicolas, who have the influence of a comrade, a friend of Robespierre among the Jacobins; you, who know that my intentions are not counter-revolutionary, how did you believe the gossip uttered in some offices? how did you believe them more than the speeches of Robespierre, who followed me almost from childhood and who a few days before gave me such a testimony that I oppose to slander: that he didn't know a better Republican than me; that I was him by instinct, by feeling, not by choice, and that it was impossible for me to even be someone else. Tell me about someone who would be spoken of with more praise?

However, the tapdurs believed Nicolas rather than Robespierre; and already groups are calling me a conspirator. It's true, citizens. For five years now, I have been plotting to create a republican France, happy and prosperous.

I plotted for your freedom long before July 12th. <…> I plotted on July 12, when, with a pistol in my hand, I called the nation to arms and freedom, and I was the first to take this national cockade, which cannot be attached to a hat without remembering me ^{[12, p. 64-65]}.

Tapdura (from French tape — cotton, slap and dur — hard, hard, harsh, rude) is a gang of thugs, secret agents of the far-left revolutionary Stanislas-Marie Maillard (fr. Stanislas-Marie Maillard, 1763-1794). These people, who carried with them a bag, a rope and a gnarled club, which was mockingly given the name "Constitution", arrested "suspicious people" without any evidence, terrifying Parisians (see, for example: ^{[13, p. 6-7]}; ^{[14, p. 3]}). Tape-Dur is often translated as a Strong Fist, calling Maillard himself that way.

Desmoulins then responds to his other opponents — Collot d'Herbois, Bertrand Barrere (fr. Bertrand Barère de Vieuzac, 1755-1841), with whom he is quite restrained, calling the conflict with them "just a domestic quarrel with my patriot friends", and Hebert, to whom he releases harsh phrases, stating, however, that Only facts are going to be used for the attack, not insults ^{[12, p. 74]}.

"The ray of hope with which I shone in the depths of prisons to the imprisoned patriots," Desmoulins pathetically remarked, "the image of the future happiness of the French Republic, which I presented to my readers in advance and before the deadline, and one name of the committee of mercy, which I uttered, if you like, in vain for this moment, this one word made an impression on you, Eber, the effect of the whip of the furies? Couldn't you come to terms with the idea that one day the nation will be happy and the people will be brothers? After all, this word alone is mercy, <...> it's enough for you to boil with rage, fall into a damn rage, lose your senses, and go insane so as to report me to the Jacobins for marrying, as you say, a rich woman" ^{[12, p. 75]}.

Desmoulins argued that, for all the time of his popularity and even his tenure in a high position in the revolutionary government, he had not made any fortune except what his wife brought him as a dowry, unlike Hebert, who, having started as an usher at the Variety theater, now lives in a big way. The main argument for proving the counterrevolutionism of "Papa Duchene" was a table published at the end of the fifth issue of the Old Cordelier, allegedly allocated from the treasury for the publication of the Heber newspaper by Minister of War Jean-Baptiste Bouchotte (French Jean-Baptiste Noël Bouchotte, 1754-1840), whom Desmoulins attacked in the third issue ^{[9, p. 48]}, and whom Heber, in turn, defended at meetings of the Jacobin Club ^{[10, p. 571]}. These amounts were several times higher than the cost of the declared circulation.

"What will be the contempt of the citizens for this impudent papa Duchene when, at the end of this issue 5, they learn from an extract taken from the treasury books that the hypocrite who reproaches me for distributing a newspaper for free, which all Paris is running to buy, received 60 thousand francs in one day last October from the Patron Bouchotte for 600 thousands of copies, and that, by easy addition, the reader will see that the scoundrel Hebert stole 40,000 francs from the nation just that day," Desmoulins declared and then claimed that Hebert's leaflets sow "fertile seeds of rebellion and murder all over France." The fifth issue of the Old Cordelier ended with praise for Robespierre, who in his speech "On the principles of revolutionary government" "consolidated the basic principles of our revolution, on which only freedom can be strengthened and the efforts of the current tyrants can be challenged" ^{[12, p. 77-711, 911, 99]}.

The next, sixth issue of the newspaper was supposed to be published on December 10, that is, on December 30, but since the fifth issue had not yet been published at that time, the sixth issue was also delayed, and the situation around Desmoulins and his publication continued to heat up. On January 5, Collot d'Herbois proposed to ban the release of the "Old Cordelier" ^{[10, p. 593]}.

The culmination of all the events surrounding the newspaper was on January 7, when the Jacobin Club reconvened and Robespierre took the floor. Arguing that the "Old Cordelier" is a dangerous and politically unreliable work, which is a weapon in the hands of aristocrats and Feyans, he stated: "Camille's writings are undoubtedly reprehensible; nevertheless, we must clearly distinguish a person from his works. Camille is a spoiled child of happy talents, led astray by bad company. It is necessary to take strict measures to his numbers, which Brissot himself (Brissot Jacques-Pierre (fr. Jacques-Pierre Brissot de Warville, 1754-1793) was the leader of the Girondist party in the second period of the Revolution. Accused of an agreement with the aristocrats, he was executed by guillotine along with 20 of his supporters on October 31, 1793) would not have dared to approve, and leave Desmoulins among us. For edification, I demand that Kamil's rooms be burned in the Society (friends of freedom and equality, i.e. in the Jacobin Club — A. G.)" ^{[6, p. 308-310]}.

This proposal infuriated Desmoulins, who was present at the meeting. He uttered a catch phrase that he attributed to Rousseau (the great Genevese allegedly said it when he learned about the appointment to burn his treatise "Emile or on education"): "To burn does not mean to answer" (fr. BrûLer n'est pas repondre). The mention of Rousseau particularly stung the Incorruptible. It turned out that he was accused of speaking out against Roussoist freedom, which he himself always preached ^{[15, p. 152]}. Robespierre retorted harshly, saying that he was withdrawing his proposal to burn the rooms, but instead demanded "that Camille's rooms should not be burned, but that responsibility be borne for them. If he wants it, let him be covered with shame!" Postulating that the quote from Rousseau could not be applied in this case, Incorruptible edifiedly concluded: "Know, Camille, that if you were not Camille, we would not have such leniency towards you. You are being treated like a lost child, you dare to complain. Well, then! I ask that the numbers be read out in full session, and the Society, with its wisdom, will discuss the decision it must make." Desmoulins reasonably objected, saying that everyone had read his leaflets, both the Convention and the Mountain, and in this case, following Robespierre's thought, they should all consist only of aristocrats. Finally, Robespierre himself was involved in the publication: "You're judging me here, but haven't I been to your house? Didn't I read out my numbers to you, begging you in the name of friendship to be kind enough to help me with your advice and show me the way I should go?" But these arguments were not heard by the Jacobins, as well as Danton's calls to be careful not to inflict a "fatal blow to freedom of the press" by condemning Desmoulins. Robespierre replied in the spirit that he had not read the issues except for the first two and did not want to know what was in them at all, because he would not like to support the feud and take sides in it ^{[10, p. 599-600; 6, p. 308-311]}.

The fourth issue of the "Old Cordelier" was read out immediately at the same meeting, under general disapproval, with the indication that the third and fifth would be read out at the next one. From that moment on, the friendship of the two revolutionaries was completely destroyed.

The discussion of the identity of Desmoulins and his leaflets continued at the meetings of the Jacobin Club on January 11, 10 and 12. Heber denounced his opponent in every possible way, claiming that he was "so stained with dirt that he could no longer compare with a real patriot." Robespierre, true to his tactics of skilful maneuvering between the opposing camps, created an ambivalent portrait of his former friend: "In his works you see the most revolutionary principles along with the maxims of the most pernicious moderation. Here he strengthens the courage of patriotism, there he feeds the hope of the aristocracy. <...> With the help of his formidable club, he deals our enemies the most terrible blow; with the help of the most piquant sarcasm, he tears apart the best patriots. Desmoulins is a bizarre mix of truth and lies, politics and absurdity, healthy views and strange chimerical projects. <...> I don't support anyone's arguments here. Camille and Heber are equally wrong in my eyes. Heber cares too much about himself, he wants everyone to look at him, he does not think enough about the national interests" ^{[10, p. 601; 6, p. 312]}.

On January 10 and 11, 1794, two successive political clubs, the Cordeliers and the Jacobins, expelled Desmoulins from their membership ^{[10, p. 607, 610]}. The ring of repression was tightening around him.

Meanwhile, the controversy between Desmoulins and Hebert from the printed pages spilled out not only into the meeting rooms of political clubs, but at the tables of outdoor cafes. Some supported Desmoulins and condemned Heber, others, on the contrary, considered Heber a true patriot, and Desmoulins, if not a traitor, then at least an unworthy person. Some called the author of "Papa Duchene" a "real Republican sans—culottes," others - "an intriguer who seeks to destroy in the minds of the people its best defenders and true patriots." Some said about Desmoulins and the Dantonists that they could not be trusted, others argued that Hebert, who called in his leaflets to send Desmoulins to the guillotine ^{[16, p. 4-5]}, had no right to "sentence to death a representative of the people." Secret police agents reported that after Desmoulins published in the fifth issue of the Old Cordelier an estimate of the funds allocated by Bouchotte for the publication of "Papa Duchene", the Heber newspaper suffered "serious harm" and "a deep wound", the number of its readers began to decrease every day, and the publisher himself "paralyzed the language" ^{[17, p. 185-190]}.

Number six: freedom under the veil.

The sixth issue of the newspaper Desmoulins, or rather his typographer Desenne (French Victor Desenne, 175...-18 ...), did not dare to publish for a long time. It appeared only on January 25, although it was marked on January 10 of the year II, i.e. December 30, 1793. In it, the rebellious journalist stated that he was going to set out the "political creed of the Old Cordelier," denying connections with aristocrats and receiving money from Pitt, of which his opponents accused him.

Whether ironically, or really wanting to smooth over the conflict, Desmoulins also stated that he repented of the idea of the "committee of mercy" put forward by him, because "the Jacobins, the Cordeliers and the whole mountain criticized him." But it is necessary for the policy of the Republic to distinguish between crimes and mistakes. To establish freedom, Desmoulins wrote, two conditions must be fulfilled: freedom of the press and "an economical guillotine that punishes all leaders and suppresses conspiracies without striking at mistakes." As for freedom of the press, if it can be limited to "save the people at the moment of revolution," but it is impossible to limit freedom of expression for a deputy and he should be allowed to make mistakes. Here, Desmoulins, a deputy of the National Convention, certainly speaks primarily about himself ^{[18, p. 102-104]}.

Freedom is the main theme of the entire sixth issue. Speaking about her, Desmoulins uses his previous judgments from No. 4: "I continue to believe that our freedom is the inviolability of the principles of the declaration of rights; this is fraternity, holy equality, the return to the world, or at least to France, of all patriarchal virtues, this is the gentleness of republican maxims, this is res sacra miser (The full Latin phrase reads as res est sacra miser (the unfortunate one is a shrine) and is attributed to Seneca. It is contained in his epigram "De custodia sepulcri" ("On the preservation of the grave") — A. G.), this is respect for misfortune, which our majestic constitution prescribes. I believe that freedom, after all, is happiness; and, of course, you will not convince any patriot who thinks in any way that to paint a charming portrait of freedom in my rooms would be a conspiracy against freedom" ^{[18, p. 108]}.

And then the "Old Cordelier" draws a very interesting image: "At the same time, I believe, as I have already publicly admitted, that at the time of the revolution, a reasonable policy should have forced the Committee of Public Safety to throw a veil over the Statue of Liberty, not to pour out on us at once that cornucopia that the goddess holds in her hand, but to suspend the emission of some of its benefits in order to ensure that we then enjoy all of them. I believe that it was right to put terror on the agenda and use the recipe of the holy Spirit, that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; according to the recipe of the good Jesus–sans-culottes, who said: "Half by will, half by force, always convert them, compelle intrare" (Compelle intrare (from Latin. make me enter) is a quote from the Gospel of Luke (17, 23-24), which was used as a formula justifying the forced conversion of Gentiles to Christianity. Italics in the text of the source — A. G.). No one proved the need for revolutionary measures with stronger arguments than I did, even in my "Old Cordelier", which they did not want to hear about" ^{[18, p. 108-109]}.

Freedom hidden by a veil, incomplete and infringed is a terrorist "freedom" preached by the Robespierre government and correlated with the concealment of the truth (see appendix: ^{[15, p. 159]}). Desmoulins agreed with her only as a cover. Immediately, he gives an image of real freedom as he saw it, while repeating the thoughts already expressed earlier. Defending his views on this most important concept of Revolution, he wrote: "I believe that freedom is not suffering; that it does not consist in wearing shabby clothes with holes in the elbows <..On the contrary, I believe that one of the things that most distinguishes free peoples from enslaved ones is that where there is freedom, there is no poverty, there are no rags. I still believe, as I said in the last three lines of my story about the Brissotins, which you praised so much: that only the Republic can keep to France the promise that the monarchy gave it in vain 200 years ago: A chicken in a pot for everyone (highlighted in the text of the "Old Cordelier" — A. G.)" ^{[18, p. 109]}.

In May 1793, at the height of the political confrontation with the Girondists, Desmoulins published a scathing pamphlet "The History of the Brissotins or a fragment of the secret history of the Revolution and the first six months of the Republic" (French L'Histoire des Brissotins ou Fragment de l'histoire secrète de la Révolution et des six premiers mois de la République). He himself later believed that it was his work that contributed to the downfall and execution of Brissot's supporters.

The famous phrase about chicken in a pot, a traditional dish of French cuisine, according to legend, once uttered by King Henry IV, can be considered a kind of slogan of the entire sixth issue. The reference to the "History of the Brissotins", an acute anti—Girondist pamphlet written by Desmoulins in the previous period of the Revolution under completely different circumstances, allowed him to further assert that he had not changed his principles, and those who accuse him of "apostasy" and submission to someone else's influence, "do not know the unbridled independence of my pen, which belongs only to To the Republic and maybe a little bit to my imagination and its deviations, if you like, but not to anyone's domination and influence." Then he continued: "Therefore, those who condemn the Old Cordelier have not read the Revolutions of France and Brabant. They would remember that I am being reproached precisely for the very dreams of my philanthropy that powerfully served the revolution in my numbers 815, 90 and 91. They would have seen that I had not changed at all, that it was the patriots themselves who had rooted these misconceptions in my head with their applause, and that this system of republicanism, which they wanted me to transcribe at once, was not at all apostasy in me, but final unrepentance. <...> it is impossible for the society, even at the opening of the session, to dismiss me for professing in the "Old Cordelier" the same doctrine that it applauded so many times in my "Revolutions of Brabant" and because of which it appointed me Attorney General of the Lantern four years before my position was transferred to “Papa Duchene". We see that what is called moderation in my articles today (the italics in the text of the source are A. G.) is my old Utopia system. We see that my whole fault is that I remained at my height on July 12, 1789. <...> My whole fault is that I kept the old misconceptions of "Free France", "Lantern", "Revolutions of Brabant", "Tribune of Patriots" and could not give up the charms of my Republic of Plenty" ^{[18, p. 111-114]}.

Desmoulins is referring here to his first newspaper project, The Revolutions of France and Brabant (French: Révolutions de France et de Brabant), as well as the pamphlet "Speech of the Lantern to the Parisians" (French: Le Discours de la Lanterne aux Parisiens), after which he received the playful nickname Prosecutor of the Lantern.

The passage about freedom, that it is not suffering, but happiness, is a polemic with Hebert, who painted in his leaflets "Papa Duchene" the image of "the glorious Jesus—sans-culottes", "the best Jacobin who existed in the world", who "preached mercy, brotherhood, freedom, equality, contempt for wealth" and thanks to which "all the lying priests have reduced their arrogance" ^{[19, p. 7]}. That is, the poor sans—Culottes is a model of a true revolutionary and Republican. Desmoulins strongly disagrees that Republicans should be poor. He is ironic about Heber, who "converted", that is, suddenly started talking about Jesus, although he always preached atheism and the Cult of Reason, not recognizing anything at all that was written in the Gospel. And although Eber denies the divine essence of Christ, stating that the priests made a "bloody god" of him, using him "for their own tricks" and distorting his Gospel,"but the very fact of the appearance of Jesus' name on the pages of "Papa Duchene" allowed Desmoulins to sarcastically remark, defending himself from Eber's attacks: "A miracle! The great conversion of Papa Duchene! <...> Go on, Hebert; the divine sansculot whom you quote said: "There will be more joy in heaven for the converted papa Duchene than for the ninety-nine old Cordeliers who do not need repentance." But remember what you read in the same book: "Do not tell your brother 'Cancer', that is, 'Stupid'" ^{[18, p. 116]}.

Eber called Desmoulins a dullard (un viédase, from the French visage d'âne — donkey's face) in No. 328 of his newspaper "Papa Duchene". Desmoulins ironically paraphrases the evangelical statements of Christ: "Whoever says to his brother, 'cancer,' is subject to the Sanhedrin" (Matthew 5:22) and "There will be more joy in heaven for one sinner who repents than for ninety-nine righteous people who do not need to repent" (Luke 15:7). Cancer is a word used by the Jews in the first century AD to express deep dislike for anyone. "Cancer" comes from Aramaic and Hebrew words meaning "empty" or "useless". It literally translates as "empty-headed".

In general, the sixth issue carried a twofold ideology. On the one hand, Desmoulins demonstratively repented of his idea of the committee of mercy, as if recognizing the need for terror in certain historical periods, that is, using conciliatory rhetoric against Robespierre, on the other hand, he fiercely defended himself against accusations of ties with aristocrats brought against him by the Jacobins. But despite all the veiled and restrained publications. The sixth issue overwhelmed Robespierre's patience and became the impetus for the arrest of Desmoulins, which occurred at the end of March.

Number seven: "The gods are thirsty!"

The story of the seventh issue of the Old Cordelier is dramatic. The issue was marked on the 15th of January II (February 3, 1794), that is, it was originally planned that it would be released nine days after the previous one. However, Desmoulins was still editing the proofs when on March 30, 1794, soldiers came to his house to arrest him. The proofs were sealed and taken away along with his other papers. A number of historians have suggested that someone from Robespierre's camp stole several pages of the issue from Desmoulins' house on the eve of March 30, which served as the final decision on the arrest ^{[15, p. 162]}. One way or another, but in the seventh issue, Desmoulins no longer hid his accusations against the terrorist Committee of Public Safety and Robespierre personally.

The issue was called "For and against or A Conversation between two old Cordeliers", embodying Desmoulins' ambivalent position regarding restrictions on freedom of speech and the press. His text was constructed in the form of a dialogue between Desmoulins himself and his interlocutor, the Old Cordelier. At the same time, the Old Cordelier defended the complete, unrestricted freedom of speech, writing and printing. Moreover, he argued that there is no republic without freedom of speech, and with it any state can become such: "What distinguishes a republic from a monarchy? Only one thing: freedom to speak and write. Have freedom of the press in Moscow, and tomorrow Moscow will be a republic. That's how, against the will of Louis XVI <...> and the entire government, conspiratorial and royalist, the freedom of the press alone led us by the hand until August 10 and overthrew the fifteen-century-old monarchy, almost without bloodshed" ^{[20, p. 123-124]}.

His counterpart, whom Desmoulins brought out under his own name, on the contrary, defended a conciliatory position, arguing that complete freedom of speech and writing is an unattainable ideal: "I do not know if human nature allows for the perfection that unlimited freedom to speak and write presupposes. I doubt that in any country, in republics, as well as in monarchies, those who rule have ever been able to allow this unlimited freedom" ^{[20, p. 154]}.

In some historical situations, Desmoulins argued, unrestricted freedom of speech can even be harmful. As an example, among others, he cited Cicero with his dislike of Mark Antony: "Antony abolished the dictator's name after Caesar's death; he made peace with the tyrannicides. While the cowardly Octavian, who had been hiding behind the wagons all the battle, and who had won thanks to the sublime courage of Antony, cowardly insulted the corpse of Brutus, who had pierced himself with a sword, Antony shed tears over the last of the Romans, and covered him with his armor; and the prisoners, approaching Antony, greeted him with the name of the emperor, instead of having only insults and contempt for this cowardly and cruel Octavian. But old Cicero, by his speeches, made Antony an implacable enemy of the republic and the government, which by its very nature was such a vivid depiction of his vices and this unlimited freedom to write. Cicero assures us that he irrevocably abandoned Antony and, like all people, with the exception of Cato, so rare in the human race, he sacrificed everything without politics for his own salvation, and not for the sake of saving his homeland, that he considered himself obliged to caress Octavian in order to oppose him to Antony and thus make himself a shield more dangerous than a sword. Cicero's popularity and eloquence were the bridge over which Octavian passed to command the armies, and upon arriving there, he broke the bridge. Thus the intemperance of Cicero's language and the freedom of the press ruined the affairs of the republic as well as the virtue of Cato <...> I recognize that when virtue and freedom of the press become untimely, harmful to freedom, a republic protected by vices is like a young maiden whose honor is protected only by ambition and intrigue, and the sentry is soon corrupted ^{[20, p. 159-161]}.

The historian of the Revolution J. Michelet interprets this passage in the way that in the image of the valiant Anthony Desmoulins brought out Danton, and in the image of the cowardly Octavian — Robespierre ^{[21, p. 2813]}.

At the same time, it is impossible to understand from the dialogue itself which side the author is on. It's as if he doesn't give preference to any of the interlocutors. Here, both, in fact, opposite points of view, as in the previous issue, harmoniously coexist, although the coexistence is not without anxiety due to the historical background of the creation of the text.

Agreeing with the Old Cordelier that freedom of the press should be unlimited and that republics have it as their basis, but at the same time expressing doubts that there are governments capable of allowing such freedom, "Desmoulins" returns to the image of terrorist "freedom" from the sixth issue, which She is covered with a black veil. And here again there are accusations against the Ebertists, who lower this veil with "clean hands" and thereby contribute to the British Prime Minister Pitt, being in some kind of "indirect coalition" with him. The dialogue ends with a disguised call for the mitigation of terror, the strengthening of which was demanded, as is well known, by the Ebertists: "Would you now envy this freedom of the French, would you love this blood-thirsty goddess, whose high priest Hebert, Momoro (French Antoine-François Momoro, 1756-1794) — a French publisher and bookseller, a radical revolutionary. Convicted and executed in the case of the Ebertists.— A. G.) and their like dare to demand that the temple be built, like a temple in Mexico, from the bones of three million citizens, and incessantly tell the Jacobins, the commune, the Cordeliers what the Spanish priests told Montezuma? The gods are thirsty! ^{[20, p. 156, 163–164]}.

Desennes, the publisher of the Old Cordelier, when, after the Thermidorian coup, he was finally able to publish the seventh issue, withdrew or reduced everything related to the accusations against Robespierre, despite the fact that Robespierre himself had already been executed. For example, a passage of dialogue put into the mouth of an Old Cordelier and addressed to "Desmoulins" was subjected to self-censorship: "It would be better to make mistakes like Papa Duchene in his revelations, which he makes indiscriminately, but with the energy that characterizes Republican souls, than to see this horror that freezes and shackles writings and thought <...> Robespierre showed great character a few years ago on the Jacobin tribune, when one day, in a moment of cruel disgrace, he grabbed the podium and shouted that he should be killed there or listened to, but you, you were a slave, and he was a despot, on the day when you resigned yourself to the fact that he cut off so abruptly you at your first word: to burn does not mean to answer! and when you didn't continue to persistently speak in your own defense" ^{[22, p. 188-189]}.

The old Cordelier expresses those thoughts that Desmoulins did not dare to express on his own behalf and which were crossed out by Desnes at the time of publication. And as if to confirm this, through all the excised fragments, the Old Cordelier's rhetorical question to "Desmoulins" runs like a refrain: "do you dare?" (fr. oserais-tu) to say something, do something, express yourself in some way, address someone. In particular, accusing Robespierre of brissotism for calling for war against England. Cordelier says: "Robespierre, in his speech to the Jacobins (See Robespierre's speech at the Jacobin Club of 1 Pluviosa II (January 28, 1794): ^{[23, pp. 105-106]}), without realizing it, took on the role of Brissot, who gave the war a national character! <...> And it was Robespierre who thus forgot the deeply diplomatic, fascinating, irrefutable speech that he delivered in December 1791, when almost alone with you he spoke so decisively against the war. It is Robespierre who forgets the energetic words he said then: "When there is a fire in our house, we need to go and put it out in other people's houses!" It is he who forgets this great truth, which he then proclaimed and developed so well, that war has always been a source of despotism, which by its nature has power only in weapons and can achieve nothing but with the edge of the sword Whereas freedom does not need guns and never makes conquests with anything more than peace, since it reigns not by terror, but by its charms; it does not need to hide in trenches to take cities; but as soon as we see it, we fall in love with it and run towards it. But will you dare to make such comparisons and with these counter-criticisms return to Robespierre the ridicule that he has been pouring out on you for some time?" ^{[22, p. 203-205]}.

Desennes excluded from the text of Desmoulins entirely the "Continuation of the political creed", which was supposed to open the seventh issue and which was supposed to be a development of the concept of the sixth. It was this "Continuation" that sounded on behalf of the journalist himself. In it, Desmoulins again called for the weakening of terror, and argued that true republicanism and freedom did not imply those tyrannical gestures that the current government, the Committee of Public Safety, usurped power, was making. Against this background, even the cruel Roman emperors Nero, Tiberius and Caligula seem more humane. Desmoulins wrote: "The Committee already appoints to all positions and even to the committees of the Convention, even commissars, whom it sends to departments and to the army. He holds in his hands one of the greatest sources of politics — hope, with which the government attracts all ambitions, all interests. What does he lack in order to subjugate or, rather, destroy the Convention and realize the fullness of the decemvirate"? ^{[22, p. 173-174]}.

Desmoulins here compares the Jacobin Committee of Public Safety (12 people) with the decemvirate (10 people) in Ancient Rome, which replaced for two years in the middle of the fifth century BC with its power the power of two consuls to draw up laws. Under the decemvirate, a number of key civil liberties were abolished, and harsh tyranny was introduced under the second decemvirate.

This political creed was to be continued in the eighth issue, of which only a small passage has been preserved, in which Desmoulins opposes tyranny and calls for the introduction of a Constitution in France. If this is not done, then, the journalist argues, a new revolution is needed ^{[22, p. 244]}.

But Desmoulins saw neither a new revolution, which can be considered the Thermidorian coup of the end of July 1794, which sent the all-powerful dictator Robespierre to the guillotine, nor the introduction of the Constitution: he was executed on April 5. His eternal opponent in magazine disputes, Jacques-Rene Hebert, appeared on the scaffold a little earlier — on March 24.

Conclusions

Over the course of the Revolution, Desmoulins' views, which were quite radical at the beginning, underwent a significant evolution against the background of terror. It was in order to influence events that he returned to journalism and began publishing his own newspaper again, an occupation that he left when he moved away from publishing the periodical pamphlet "The Revolutions of France and Brabant."

A talented journalist, Desmoulins arranged the texts of his issues using the "Aesopian" language and allegorical images, which, however, were quite understandable to contemporaries. Desmoulins' political position became increasingly irreconcilable with the government's terrorist policy. In the end, an irreconcilable struggle with Robespierre from the newspaper pages led to the fact that Desmoulins ended up on the guillotine.