Allison Huber
Madame Campan, lady-in-waiting to Marie Antoinette, described the horrific day of the
massacre at Tuileries on August 10, 1792 with detailed precision, declaring it forever engraved
in her memory. After the royal family was escorted out, rebels attacked and massacred the
remaining residents of Tuileries. Gathered among other desperate and sobbing women in the
drawing room, Madame Campan seriously considered her own death as the insurgents beat up
and harassed all those around her. She heard cries of anguish, screams of pain and the
unforgettable thump of a man struck dead over and over. The ladies were found by a group of
armed men who only spared them from death because they of their gender. Shortly afterward,
however, a “horrible man from Marseilles” seized Madame Campan, shoved her down on her
knees and prepared to kill her. Luckily, his comrade came and ordered the man to stop,
reminding him women were off limits. Begrudgingly, the man pushed her, called her a dirty slut,
and left her on the ground. She wrote that she experienced “an indescribable feeling which came
almost as much from love of life as from the idea that I was going to see my son again and
everything that was dear to me…One rarely sees death so closely without experiencing it.”1
Dramatic scenes like this were a result of one of the most spectacular uprisings in history,
the French Revolution of 1789 to 1799. The movement started on 4 August 1789 when the
National Assembly voted to abolish all estate-based privileges, with the exception of noble titles,
ranks and honors. This monumental decision signifies the overthrow of the Old Regime’s social–
legal system and represents the first or moderate phase of the French Revolution. After the arrest
of King Louis XVI in 1792, the second or radical phase began with the Jacobin rise to power in
government.2 France was at war and in a time of “emergency” so the radical Jacobins sought out
counterrevolutionaries. Because of revolts such as the famous uprising in the Vendée that
1
involved nobles, the aristocracy was targeted and tried as enemies of the Revolution.3 This led to
the punitive Reign of Terror from September 1793 to July 1794 that resulted in the arrest,
imprisonment and death of about 30,000 citizens including many aristocrats. The third phase,
called the Thermidorian Reaction, was highly influenced by the nobles and represents the revolt
against the Terror.
Throughout the first two phases of the Revolution, the nobles went through a dramatic
change of lifestyle, beginning as privileged members of society and ending as social pariahs
accused of counterrevolution. This transformation led to several economic, political, social and
personal consequences for the nobles. Aristocratic accounts, as recorded in their diaries, letters,
and memoirs, allow us to understand how they viewed and reacted to the changes of the French
Revolution. Specifically, these same sources show nobles’ attitudes towards their loss of
privilege, the growing power of the Jacobins, and the Reign of Terror. Nobles’ attitudes and
varying responses towards their loss of privilege help us understand their growing resentment
and fear of the government in the Revolution’s second phase. Although the sources reveal certain
differences unique to the authors and their individual experiences, the subjective experiences
elucidate trends in the opinions and reactions of the Second Estate during the Revolution. Many
nobles in France were initially supportive of the Revolution, but discontent and fear of the
government grew starting with the abolition of privileges in 1789, further advanced by the
increasingly anti-aristocratic government and was finalized by the Reign of Terror.
Historians have vigorously debated the causes and significance of the French Revolution
since the late 1700s. There are two general understandings of the French Revolution, the
Marxist-influenced interpretation dominated by historians Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul
and the Revisionist interpretation formulated by Alfred Cobban.4 Until the 1960s, historians
2
accepted Lefebvre and Soboul’s explanation which argued that the Revolution was essentially a
bourgeois revolution driven by class conflict and the rise of capitalism.5 The traditional classbased structure of France was not conducive to the bourgeoisie’s economic development and this
was what perpetuated the conflict. Other historians have expanded on this general interpretation,
including Albert Mathiez, Douglas Johnson and Henry Heller.6 Conversely, revisionist historian
Cobban contended that the Revolution was not about a social class struggle, it was merely a
political movement with social consequences.7 Inspired by these two interpretations, other
historians including George Rudé, Earl Leroy Higgins, Keith Michael Baker, Emmet Kennedy
and Lynn Hunt have brought new insights from a cultural and social perspective.8
Despite the large concentration of research on the Third Estate, historians have analyzed
the role of the nobility during the French Revolution. Georges Lefebvre wrote that although the
Revolution can be defined as a revolution of the bourgeois, they were only able to popularize
their demands and revolt as a result of the initial noble uprising. Several historians have
interpreted the nobles’ motivations for their consent to eliminate privilege, as well as their
general response to the event. According to Lefebvre, the nobles had no intentions of losing their
privileges and that they “entered the struggle for absolutism in the name of the nation but with
the firm intention of governing the nation and especially of not being absorbed into it.”9
Therefore, they either reluctantly accepted the decision on the Fourth of August or refused it.
Keith Michael Baker argued that many nobles only agreed to the decision to gain respect and
power in the National Assembly, they did not think that it would have such lasting effects on
their daily lives.10 Others argued that the nobles resigned their privileges with the hope that it
would stop the violence in the countryside caused by the Great Fear. Douglas Johnson contended
that because the aristocracy transformed considerably over the preceding few decades, they were
3
more accepting of a life without privilege.11 Contrary to Johnson, most historians agree that the
lives of the nobility changed drastically during the Revolution, especially after the abolition of
privilege and Reign of Terror. In The French Exiles, Margery Weiner stated that very few nobles
were able to “weather all storms,” and even the notable Charles Maurice de Talleyrand was
forced to emigrate for an extended time.12
This paper provides an examination of the personal experiences of the nobility compared
to the objective results of the Revolution and the historiography. Many of the secondary sources
that examine the cultural and social aspects of the Revolution have differing arguments about
how the lives of nobles were affected, especially after the abolition of privilege. Through the
analysis of the elite’s subjective understanding of the effects of the first and second phase on the
nobles, we can test these historians’ arguments. This can help us understand nobles’ politics, and
in particular noble resistance to the government from 1789-1794.
After examining nobles’ letters, journals, diaries, and memoirs, the sources reveal several
different trends regarding elite attitudes in the Revolution’s first and second phases. To
demonstrate what these sources show, this paper first describes individual nobles’ responses to
their loss of privilege in 1789, and then examines their reaction to the growing anti-aristocratic
tone of the Revolution in its first phase. Finally, the essay describes the impact of the Jacobin
Reign of Terror on individual nobles. However, there are limits to what published, translated and
edited sources reveal about the nobles’ experience. Moreover, using first person accounts places
the historian at the mercy of the authors; the information attained is restricted by what the
authors remember or want to include.
The privileges of the aristocracy were a crucial aspect of the system of legally-defined
social estates that existed during the Old Regime in France. The clergy made up the First Estate,
4
who held significant influence and owned about a tenth of the land in France, despite the fact that
they represented only a small minority of the population. They profited from their privilege
through the collection of the tithe and payments from their land. The Second Estate consisted of
the nobility. They enjoyed privileges with regard to jobs, land, the court and military, and
exemption from the taille and other taxes.13 Their “social roles, prestigious and non-prestigious
alike, remain[ed] in the same families from generation to generation.”14 The commoners—the
bourgeoisie, craftsmen, shopkeepers, wage earners, peasants and beggars—made up the Third
Estate, the largest of the three, which totaled about 96 percent of France. 15 They paid all of the
taxes and did the planting, buying, selling, trading, manufacturing and manual labor necessary to
keep France prosperous. Abbé Sieyes, a very influential clergyman who represented the Third
Estate in the Estates General, wrote that “Nothing [would] go well without the Third Estate;
everything would go considerably better without the two [other Estates].”16 Many in this estate,
especially the bourgeoisie, viewed privilege as a hindrance to the success of France as a whole.
In the years preceding 1789, the fortunes of the nobility changed drastically due to
economic turmoil, bad harvests, wars and their expensive lifestyles. To make up for this, many
of the elite participated in the capitalist economy and some of the social distinctions between the
bourgeoisie and nobles became blurred. To blur the lines of status even further, the monarchy
attempted to replenish the national treasury by selling titles and high-ranking offices to
commoners. The sale of royal privileges gave some wealthy members of the Third Estate
opportunities for upward social mobility; by 1789, roughly 25% of noble families rose from the
bourgeoisie in this fashion.17 The aristocracy opposed the crown’s policy because they thought it
cheapened the status of noble privilege.
5
After the crown declared bankruptcy in August 1788 due to the four great wars France
fought from 1733 to 1783, privilege became an increasingly pressing issue in France. The
economic and financial crisis reached its peak, along with distrust towards the monarchy and
frustration over social privileges. When the King raised taxes, the burden fell primarily on the
Third Estate because privilege prevented the state from effectively taxing the wealth of the
nobility. As a result, more members of the Third Estate viewed the social and political inequality
amongst the estates as a threat to the common good of France, a major stumbling block to
reform.18
The royal government also attempted to eliminate some elements of noble privilege as
part of its fiscal reform plan. In opposition, the nobles attempted to use their privilege and
influence to fight against the reforms. To pacify all of the aggression, King Louis XVI
summoned the Estates General on 5 May 1789 to work out France’s financial problems. In
preparation for the meeting of the Estates General, the nobles and the other two estates wrote the
Cahiers de Doleances, a list of grievances that was addressed to the King in March 1789 and
outlined the shortcomings of the Old Regime.
It can be concluded from the debates of the Estates General and the Cahiers de
Doleances that few members of the Third Estate actually sought to abolish all privileges to
rectify the financial situation. Instead, their goal was to have “consideration and respect for the
law and before the law be equal for all.”19 The elimination of privilege was a sensitive subject
because some nobles refused to give up the most important element of their elite social status.
After several months of meetings, conflict arose in the Estates General and led the Third Estate
to establish the National Assembly on 20 June 1789. Soon after, the clergy and nobles joined.
6
A member of the Third Estate at the Assembly said “we will always respect distinctions
founded on social order, and they are necessary to the glory and security of the state. The
ministers of the altars will always have our respect; the heads of the armies will always have our
gratitude and our consideration; the Clergy and the Nobility will not cease to be distinct and
separate orders. Honorific privileges, more worthy of them than pecuniary privileges, will
forever class them in a rank properly superior to that of the Third Estate.”20 The Third Estate
pushed for this reform because “the very irregularities of the Old Regime created abuses and
injustices,” meaning that the exemptions, privileges and inconsistencies of the Old Regime were
irrational and contradictory to ideas of natural law. This idea of eliminating privilege in the name
of justice was dominant in about one sixth of the National Assembly’s General Cahiers of
1789.21 This desire for reform is also evident in The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen, written by the Assembly in August 1789. The document reiterated the necessity for the
abolition of privilege in the first article that stated, “Men are born and remain free and equal in
rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”22
The abolition of both privilege and the social structure of traditional France had drastic
effects on the lives and opinions of the aristocracy. After voting on the Fourth of August, many
nobles gained more power and respect in the National Assembly because they proved their
commitment to the revolutionary cause. On the other hand, many nobles experienced a great
decrease of income because they had to pay taxes and no longer profited from the seigneurial
system. One noble, Marquise de la Tour du Pin, said “we never recovered from the blow to our
fortune delivered on that night.”23 She was referring to the taxation and the fact that many
wealthy nobles were also called upon by the National Assembly to contribute to the finances of
the “patriotic gift.”24 In addition, many nobles lost a significant amount of land because the
7
government expropriated and sold it to create more revenue. Douglas Johnson was right to
conclude that “whoever won the revolution, the noble landlord lost.”25
The loss of revenue eroded other aspects of nobles’ social status, such as their ability to
sustain aristocratic culture. Because of the loss of income, they could not participate in their
customary events and activities and some worried that “France would cease to lead the world in
culture, taste, art, and princely entertainment” and that it would be run by “knaves and clowns.”26
These aristocrats were forced to change and adapt their lifestyles; it was like “the ground [was]
unexpectedly unsure beneath [their] feet.”27
An English poet, Helen Maria Williams, spoke with many French noblewomen about
their attitudes and opinions regarding privilege shortly after the meeting. She came to the
conclusion that most noble women gladly sacrificed their privileges to help the revolutionary
cause, those reluctant to renounce them only represented a small minority of the nobles. Many
nobles responded enthusiastically and were willing to relinquish their privileges, especially those
directly involved in the National Assembly. One noble in the Assembly believed that all citizens
of France were sacrificing for the general good and declared that “one wants to be French and
nothing more.”28 Several were caught up in the excitement of change and hope for a more
prosperous nation. Madame Roland, a noted Girondist, wrote that “the nation [was] under way”
and “the Revolution, imperfect though it may be, has changed the fate of France” for the better.29
Madame de Genlis declared that the decisions of the Fourth of August were “the dawn of a
brilliant future, opening up an ear of liberty, abundance, peace and happiness.”30 Overall, nobles
were often proud to sacrifice their “titles, fortune, and even personal ornaments, so dear to
female vanity, for the common cause.”31
8
On the other hand, some nobles at the meeting were reluctant to surrender their beloved
privileges and several saw it as an unnecessary consequence of the Revolution. There was some
opposition at the meeting. Noble Louis Marquis de Foucauld de Lardimalie offered the
possibility that the Second Estate could still aid the revolutionary cause without eliminating the
honorific distinctions of the nobility.32 In addition to this failed request, the National Assembly
debated over the elimination of hunting rights as well.
After the initial excitement, several noble members of the National Assembly argued that
the elimination of all privileges was unnecessary and excessive. A significant number of
aristocrats voted to abolish privilege because they felt pressured by the peasant revolts or were
frustrated with the King. Many nobles were swayed by the speeches and emotion at the meeting
and later regretted their decision. Michael Fitzsimmons wrote that “many that were present at the
meeting could not offer an explanation for the sudden change of heart for the nobles…They
claim[ed] that only those who were at the meeting truly understood the reasoning for the
change.”33 After the meeting, a son of a skilled artisan and writer during the Revolution, LouisSébastien Mercier, wrote in the Nouveau Tableau de Paris about his generalization of nobles in
the Revolution. He described the attempt of some nobles to retain their social distinctions and
power through the mistreatment of the commoners, despite the fact that they were no longer
privileged.34 These sources further demonstrate the reluctance of some nobles to accept the
repercussions of the loss of privilege.
The changes brought about by the meeting on 4 August 1789 were unexpected and
monumental because privilege was such an integral part of society. The evidence reveals that
although a few rejected the idea on August 4th, most aristocrats willingly accepted the loss of all
privileges. None of the sources agree with Keith Michael Baker’s conclusion that most nobles
9
voted not for the revolutionary cause, but to gain respect and power in the National Assembly.
Douglas Johnson contended that because the elite transformed so drastically over the preceding
few decades, they were more accepting of a life without privilege. On the contrary, nobles’
accounts show that they had to change their lives considerably due to their decrease in income.
In congruence with Georges Lefebvre’s work, the sources reveal that many nobles accepted the
loss of privilege without truly understanding how much it would adversely affect their daily lives
and that some had misgivings once they realized the true ramifications of the decision. The
primary sources are also consistent with the conclusions made by Michael Fitzsimmons, who
argued that the nobility had mixed reactions after the meeting, but more accepted the abolition of
their privileges initially and regretted it as an afterthought, rather than objecting to it right away.
In 1789, most nobles did not see the elimination of privilege as a threat to their wellbeing,
which is why a majority voted in favor of the decision. After a few years, however, several elite
became progressively concerned with the situation in France. Oliver Blanc described the
mounting anxiety of many nobles as a direct response to the Jacobin takeover in 1792. They
implemented an increasingly anti-aristocratic and anti-monarchical regime to protect the
Revolution. The nobles experienced a transformation from a life of privilege to one of public
scrutiny and mistrust. It was common for nobles to secure allies, go into hiding, change their
names or disguise their identities for their own safety. They sought refuge with family and
friends and would even fake a different nationality to avoid being tracked down or suspected of
sowing anarchy.35 As the Revolution progressed, the aristocratic views and opinions varied from
person to person, but many sourced this discrimination and ostracism back to their loss of
privilege.
10
As the Revolution became more radical, many nobles expressed their unhappiness and
anger with the Jacobin government. Some nobles tried to hold onto the dwindling power of the
monarchy for protection and support. Gouverneur Morris, an American statesman, said that “The
Time approaches when all good Men must cling to the throne” and that the “Thing they call a
constitution which the Assembly [has] framed is good for Nothing.” According to Morris, France
was slowly spinning out of control and it was necessary to restore the nobility because having a
class-based system was the only way a country like France could function.36 Similarly, the last
governess of the royal children, Madame de Tourzel, wrote about her anger with the National
Assembly for not addressing the violence and chaos of France due to its single-minded focus to
delegitimize and dismantle the power of the monarchy. She believed that the revolutionaries
were letting France fall apart and was bitter towards any type of reform. She viewed the nation in
two separate factions: those that wanted to destroy the Old Regime and the monarchy and those
like her that wanted to protect them. She said that “the only criterion for judging good and evil
was loyalty to the Crown.”37 Madame de Tourzel was appalled at the sale of church property and
the abolition of privilege; she saw it as the downfall of her nation.
At this stage in the Revolution, very few nobles felt threatened by the government and
took action to protect themselves. Madame Elliott recalled the sorrow she felt for her friends in
hiding, but was confident in her own safety due to her connections to the Duke of Orleans. Many
of these nobles came to her with hopes that the Duke of Orleans could smuggle them out of
France. He refused and said “you must forget that we ever met before” and severed ties with
them to protect his own safety.38 A less prominent noblewoman, Madame la Comtesse de
Perigoid, approached Madame Elliott and declared that she was the “most miserable woman on
earth” because her husband was arrested and taken away while she and her children had nowhere
11
to go. After Madame la Comtesse de Perigold, several of Elliot’s fellow aristocrats also came to
her and the Duke for help. It was not until late 1792 that nobles like Madame Elliott started to
worry about their own safety and she attempted to secure transportation back to England.
Exercising caution became essential as the government started to target loyalists and
counterrevolutionaries, many of which were the nobles. The storming of the Palace of Tuileries
on August 10, 1792, and resulting death of about 800 royalists and nobles, serves as a good
example of how the treatment of the aristocracy had changed.39 On the day of the insurrection, a
noble in hiding, Marie-Victoire, was disguised as a peasant to avoid the crowd. She recalled the
appalling treatment of nobles because they were thought to be associated with the royal family.
She said “on that day in the neighborhood it was enough…for one to have been a little welldressed to be suspected of aristocracy, and to be arrested, assassinated, and then robbed.”40
Another instance of aggression against nobles is the September Massacres, in which about one
half of all the prisoners in Paris died.41 Many nobles described how horrifying it was to watch
women triumphantly step on the faces of dead aristocrats in the street. Madame Roland
condemned the Parisians for carrying out massacres by stating that “All of Paris was witness to
those horrible scenes…All of Paris allowed them to happen, all of Paris is cursed in my eyes.”42
After witnessing the carnage of the September Massacres, Madame Campan wrote that “my
mind is still so agitated, my dreams so painful, and my sleep so interrupted, I know now whether
I shall have the strength to trace the piteous scenes which I have lately witnessed.”43 She, among
other nobles, worried that the carnage was just the beginning of the extremist vision the Jacobins
had regarding the Revolution.
For those closest to the royal family, this violence led many nobles to defy the
government and reinforce their loyalty to the King. Madame de Tourzel, the last governess of
12
Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette’s children, traveled with the royal family in their attempted
escape from Paris to Varennes. She was so dedicated to the royal family that she allowed her
daughter, Pauline, to go into captivity with her and be subjected to the awfulness of an
imprisoned life upon Marie Antoinette’s request.44 Likewise, Madame Campan actually offered
to stay in captivity with the Queen, but it unallowed.45 Marquise de la Tour du Pin explained
how dedicated royalists met and spoke of counterrevolutionary plots to restore the monarchy or
smuggle out the royal family in secret salons around France. Many of these nobles could be
identified because they wore specific things like a cape made of black velvet or the
inconspicuous knot at the corner of the handkerchief. She said she saw a lot less of these as time
passed because so many were caught, fled, or were too afraid to speak out. The goal for several
nobles when emigrating was to get help for the monarchy from foreigners and to plot a coup,
most notably Comte d’Artois. Some actually came back to France in attempts to carry out these
plots, like Madame Montesson. She risked her safety to host a dinner of deputies that supported
their cause. She wrote that although her stay in America was pleasant, she longed to return to the
France that she loved, with the restoration of the King.46
The King’s trial and death in January 1793 had a profound effect on loyalist resistance
and the lives of many nobles because the execution occurred only six months before the
beginning of the Reign of Terror. Madame Elisabeth viewed the trial of the King as the end of
France’s last hope for peace and felt sorry for the misguided revolutionaries.47 Charles FrancoisGabriel Morisson thought that although the King did wrong, eliminating the monarchy in France
was preposterous. Morisson spoke in the King’s defense at his trial and declared that no action
by a monarch could possibly be construed as a crime. The people of France had no right to
undermine his authority and judge him under his own laws.48 Madame Elliott was probably one
13
of the most extreme; she begged several members of the jury to vote the King innocent and
called the trial “the most abominable, cruel event ever heard of.”49 After the execution she wrote
that she wept more than she would have for a family calamity. Madame de Lafayette described
how after the execution, many nobles who were close with the royal family began to hide and
travel together for their safety. She said that a common worry for their collective protection and
safety united even those that had not been previously acquainted with one another.50 It was
understood that for those close to the royal family, as the monarchy was targeted by the
government, they would be too by association.
After the death of the King, prisoners were accepted daily. Madame Elliott could not
obtain transportation back to England and like many others, an investigation of her home was
carried out and she was arrested. Despite her great connections, she found herself in an
examination room for the Revolutionary Tribunal, surprised to see that there were over two
hundred high-ranking women just like her sitting in despair, fatigue, and misery. She wrote
incessantly of how she never thought nobles would be subjected to this kind of treatment and she
was terrified her life would end in this wretchedness.51
Overall, the attitudes of many nobles towards the government grew more disapproving
and fearful as the Jacobins gained power and enforced extremist policies. Generally, their
opinions began with support for the Revolution in 1789 because they believed that France would
benefit from a constitutional monarchy. This is evident from the near unanimous voting for the
abolition of privilege and the many letters written by nobles that described their hopes for a
better and more efficient France, like the one from Madame Roland.52 Then, as the government
started to target aristocrats who were believed to be detrimental or opposed to the goals of the
Revolution in 1792, nobles became progressively concerned and commented on their shock and
14
outrage at the Revolutionary Tribunal and the justice system. Many nobles went into hiding as a
precaution, fearful for their own protection and safety. Madame Campan ran and hid constantly
because every house she took refuge in was searched throughout the year of 1793.53 Similarly,
Madame Roland’s experience is another example of how dangerous life had become for nobles.
For months, she and her closest family and friends were being tracked as they fled from hiding
place to hiding place. Eventually, guards demanded her arrest and forcibly led her to the Abbaye
and Saint Pelagie, where she stayed for six months.54
The Reign of Terror, beginning in September 1793, brought a fierce change to the lives
of many nobles and they reacted to the government in a variety of ways. Many rebelled against
the treatment they received by the Jacobins. Several commented on the corruption and unfairness
of the trials, searches, imprisonment and executions of their friends and fellow aristocrats.
Madame Roland wrote that “the persons sent before the Revolutionary Tribunal are not criminals
referred thither to be judged, but victims whom it is ordered to immolate.”55 Most of the nobles
jailed had been arrested under the suspicion that they were involved in anti-revolutionary
conspiracies. There were only a few that were arrested for “incriminating evidence,” which was
usually faulty or obtained illegally. Madame Lavet wrote, “I cannot be condemned for a
conspiracy which I have never heard of; I shall defend my cause before the judges in such a
manner that they will be obliged to acquit me.”56 In addition, Madame Campan said “no one can
hope for salvation when attacked by people who are as clever as they are wicked, and defended
by people who are doubtless very estimable but have no idea of our real position.”57 This anger
against injustice and corruption was common among nobles on the run or in prison.
Although nobles held differing opinions about life in prison during the Terror, most
letters, memoirs and diaries included portrayals of cruel, unjust and miserable conditions. For
15
example, Madame Lavet described how she arrived at prison—cold, thirsty and hungry—and
wrote that she remained that way for the duration of her imprisonment due to the horrible
provisions and strict rules concerning eating after dark.58 In a letter written by Madame de
Tourzel, she complained about the “abominable remarks and detestable songs” of the prostitutes
that they were kept with in jail.59 Madame Elliott was also appalled at the conditions of prison.
She remarked that “the poorest beggars in England would not eat the things which we were
forced to do.” She said she “prayed fervently for death” because the food made her sick; there
was suspicion that it was made of human flesh or the flesh of horses.60
Madame Elliott, like many other nobles, was dissatisfied with the harsh treatment she
received from the guards in prison. She described most as rude, greedy and corrupt, especially to
foreigners like her.61 The guards abused their power through spontaneous and erroneous arrests,
theft and breaking and entering into nobles’ homes without warrants. Madame Williams was
astonished that there was “as much pity to be found as would fill the eye of a wren.”62 Some
guards actually went far enough to confiscate and burn some of Madame Roland’s personal
writings.63
Many aristocrats could not deal with the fact that several of their friends and family were
in danger or already dead. Madame Roland always put on a strong front when around the
authorities or other prisoners, but when alone her composure fell and her attendant often caught
Roland “racked with anguish.”64 Dejected, she wrote, “I know not any longer how to guide my
pen amidst the horrors that devour my country: I cannot live above its ruins; I choose rather to
bury myself under them. Nature, open thy bosom!”65 This demonstration of bravery and
vulnerability was common among other nobles; prison life had an effect on the morale of many
inmates.
16
On any given day, the prisoners could be visited by a clerk from the Revolutionary
Tribunal, who came to call out names of those headed to the scaffolds. All of the men and
women were placed in a line and stood silently “without betraying any trace of weakness.” One
prisoner commented that “this was the most painful moment, fear for oneself and for those
dearest to one,” which was followed by mixed feelings of relief and pity for the nobles that were
selected to die.66 Madame de Tourzel described the misery of having to watch all of her
companions die and how much she mourned for the loss of her daughter who had been taken
from her.67
On the other hand, some nobles described their experiences and the conditions in prison
as tolerable despite the horrors of the Terror. In his book, Last Letters: Prisons and Prisoners of
the French Revolution, Oliver Blanc explained what life was like for those captured and
imprisoned by the Assembly in 1793 and 1794. He wrote that although many aristocrats were
unaccustomed to such a life and feared death, they were still thankful to be alive. Despite the fact
that many ended their lives in captivity, he argued that there were few who thought it was more
bearable than previously described, maybe even enjoyable at times. Many of the inmates knew
each other and lived with good company, in clean prisons, and with less restrictions and more
comfortable rooms. Numerous families were able to bribe officers so that they could remain
together or so they could keep their servants. Some even received food and services from outside
the prisons.68
Especially for the high-ranking nobles, like councilors from the National Assembly,
royalist writers and administrators, their stay in prison was bearable. At the prison of Port-Libew,
there was harp playing, reading time, and for dinner everyone “joyfully set about laying the
table, forgetting that they were in a prison.” One noble described it as almost like living as a
17
family in a huge chateau, because there were no locks, bars and the doors closed with one latch.
“The inmates were well-bred, excellent company, showed consideration for one another, and
were most attentive to the women.”69
According to Madame Elliott, everyone had a job in her prison, the poor ate well,
strangers became friends, and everyone sang and prayed together. Some were permitted to see
their friends and all were allowed a certain amount of time to stroll around the near-by garden.
At the same time that she commented on the unity and pleasantness of the prisoners, she
mourned for the injustices and predicaments of her fellow prisoners. Both Elliot and Roland
feared execution and for the safety of their families, but also reflected that their time in captivity
could have been a lot worse.70 Roland observed the kindness of the jailers and the special
privileges she received while locked up. It was allowable for her to visit the garden, and a room
full of flowers and books within the prison. She was even allowed a female attendant to assist her
in anything she needed.71
The Terror transformed the lives of many nobles irrevocably even though their
experiences differed depending on the individual and the prison. Generally, although several
received accommodations or made the best of their bleak situations, life became a lot worse for
most aristocrats who were targeted, on the run, in prison, or up for execution. Under the constant
threat of being arrested, imprisoned and executed, nobles reacted very differently to the Terror
that impacted their lives so dramatically. Many nobles fought against their imprisonment and the
government by refusing to show weakness and performing acts of defiance. Others did anything
to escape capture and death by paying off guards or emigrating for their safety. Few even
renounced their connections to the King or nobility entirely and begged for mercy.
18
There were many that valiantly fought against their mistreatment by the government and
several died for the counterrevolutionary cause. Several police reports of the executions all
conveyed the extraordinary courage of those condemned to execution. They described the
carriage rides to the guillotine, during which many nobles laughed in defiance of the new
government. Williams described the trial and execution of Charlotte Corday, the woman who
murdered Marat, a leader of the Revolution. She portrayed the Girondin sympathizer as modest,
dignified and eloquent throughout all her dealings with the court, guards, and executioners.
Corday boldly pronounced that the death of Marat was her duty to the country and mankind; she
believed that he was responsible for the September Massacres and the Reign of Terror. Many
other prisoners respected her sacrifice and bravery towards execution. She was notorious for
walking enthusiastically towards the scaffold as if it was a pleasant experience.72 Some nobles
thought it was a privilege to die on the same scaffold as the unforgettable Charlotte Corday.73
Simple gestures of defiance against the injustices of prison and corruption of government
were common among many nobles. One woman, Comtesse de Therese, faced death because she
burned the list of the several hundred members of the Parlement of Brittany, sacrificing herself
for the safety of others.74 Additionally, when on trial and up for execution, Madame Roland did
not beg for survival, plead, or weep. She bravely said goodbye to her friends at the prison and
went on the journey to the guillotine “standing erect and calm in the tumbrel…her eyes shining,
her color fresh and brilliant, with a smile on her lips, as she tried to cheer her companion, an old
man overcome by the gear of approaching death.”75 Others described her by writing that “she
went to the guillotine with all the serenity of a lofty mind superior to the idea of death, and
possessing sufficient powers to overcome the natural horror of dissolution”…her death was “an
act of political vengeance, pure and simple.” Her last words were “O liberté, comme on t'a
19
jouée!”(meaning, “O Liberty, how thou hast been played with!”). Her husband, upon hearing of
her death, said “I do not choose to remain longer in a land polluted with crimes,” and committed
suicides.76
The Terror and the threat of death also provoked feelings of desperation and a willingness
to do anything to survive. In order to evade execution, many nobles bribed prison guards,
donated money to the Republic, and emigrated from France. Madame Roland described the first,
where many nobles attempted to buy their way out of prison or pay off guards to avoid
execution.77 This deceitful corruption was not uncommon; many of the prison guards took
advantage of their position to exploit the prisoners. Madame Lavet wrote that when she arrived at
prison she and her daughter were living with four other women in the same room with only two
beds. The guards declared that they would find another bed, but only if they paid forty five
francs.78 Some nobles paid their way out of danger by donating to the Republic. “It was a game
of hide and seek between the possessors of large fortunes, who were trying to preserve their
safety, and the Republic, which needed money to finance the state.”79 There was a lot of
corruption within the Revolutionary Tribunals; Madame Roland wrote that two nobles by the
names of Dillon and Castellane were able to avoid death by paying 30,000 livres each to the
Deputy of Chabot. 80 This shows the sheer desperation of the inmates to avoid execution at all
costs.
Another fearful and desperate reaction to the Terror was illustrated by the great mass of
“emigrants of fear” who attempted to leave France for their safety. Those who tried to flee the
country included officers of the royal army, some upper class bourgeoisie, members of the clergy
and a majority of nobles. Towards the end of the Terror, one noble described the notion of “two
Frances”: the one within the country’s borders and another comprised of those who fled to
20
England, Belgium, Germany and Italy and supported the counterrevolution.81 Around 21 percent
of all male nobles left France during or after the Revolution, at least 10,000 noble families were
affected by the emigration and 12,500 families lost land.82 Most nobles that emigrated did it to
secure their safety or to maintain the honors of the family by joining other aristocrats abroad.83
Many aristocrats viewed emigration as the only way to retain their lifestyle and respect.
Comtesse de Stephanie Felicite Genlis said “one must leave or be dishonored.”84
In the later months of the Reign of Terror, emigration became more desirable and even
less achievable as a way to escape. One noblewoman, Marquise de Larochejacquelin, wrote that
when she was in the process of leaving France there were soldiers and crowds of people
screaming and insulting her, some crying “massacre the émigrés! Kill them!”85 Because they
were highly coveted, passports cost as much as ten thousand livres and the few that actually got
them had to then risk being arrested by the guards, who were suspicious of antirevolutionary
plots. Felix Schaedelin wrote that it only “the most important families of the purely feudal
nobility,” managed to successfully secure transportation. If they managed to escape, many
experienced a very rough transition from their life back in France because they had no idea how
to survive in poverty, without servants, food, a home, or skills to work basic jobs.86
There were few nobles who reacted to the Terror by resorting to certain acts of
desperation to avoid death; some nobles actually begged for mercy, lied about their connections
and correspondences and sold out others to protect themselves. In a letter by Cecile Quevrain,
servant to Madame de Narbonne, she described how she wept and begged for mercy after
receiving her death sentence. In addition, she faked a pregnancy in order to be moved to hospice
and avoid death. While on trial, Quevrain rejected being the confidante of her mistress, Madame
de Narbonne, and denied all accusations of attempted revolt, emigration or participation in any
21
antirevolutionary plans. She concluded the letter by exclaiming to the guards that she was not
and never was a loyalist, despite previous letters to her mistress that were sympathetic to the
King.87 This woman serves as a great example of how the threat of death could drive people to
do anything.
The experience of the Reign of Terror was different for each individual, but there are
some underlying themes prevalent among the sources. Whether they were in hiding, prison, or on
the way to the scaffolds, most nobles experienced feelings of anger at the government and fear
for their lives and safety. Although many acted out of their own self-interest, by bribing guards,
fleeing for England or pleading with the Revolutionary Tribunal, more of the sources described
cases of defiance to the Jacobin government either because they were loyalists or unhappy with
the cruelty and despotism of the Jacobins.
There is a lot of variation of opinion depending on the differing experiences and
backgrounds of the nobles. Many of the sources differ because some were written earlier than
others. Most of the available texts were those of very distinguished aristocrats and almost all are
written by women. When comparing their experiences, it seems that those who were closer to the
royal family, like Madame de Tourzel and Madame Campan, were often targeted earlier than
others. Madame Elliott and Helen Maria Williams, two noblewomen who were not loyalists,
were not imprisoned until the later months of the Reign of Terror.
Another trend was that the higher-ranking nobles were able to evade capture and keep out
of prison longer than others. This tendency could be due to several different factors. First, these
nobles could have had more connections and therefore more places to hide and better protection.
For example, Madame Elliott’s close relationship with the Duke of Orleans kept her from being
arrested and almost secured her escape to England, while some of her friends like the Comtesse
22
de Perigoid were not as successful. Another reason for their advantage was that they still had
influence from their former titles and money. Many very rich nobles donated to the National
Assembly so that they would not be accused of sowing anarchy and targeted by the
Revolutionary Tribunal. These aristocrats also paid off guards so that they could be released
from prison or spared from the guillotine for another day.
When considering all of the different sources and experiences of these nobles, there are
certain underlying similarities when comparing their opinions and reactions. For the most part,
the aristocrats in France went through a collective transformation of attitude. Many of the elite
supported the revolutionary cause on the night of August 4, 1789 for a variety of reasons, but
then regretted this decision after faced the consequences of a life without privilege. At this time
they were supportive of the constitutional monarchy because the powers of the King were limited
and there was hope that their own power would expand. As the Revolution progressed and the
Jacobins rose to power in the Assembly, many nobles began to disapprove of the increasingly
anti-aristocratic regime as they were singled out and accused of counterrevolution. Their
dissatisfaction turned into worry and fear for their safety because the Reign of Terror led to the
arrest, imprisonment, and death of many elite. Overall, the subjective accounts of nobles
demonstrate that there was a general change of noble opinion which began with support for the
Revolution and slowly transformed into dissatisfaction and resentment as the government
became more radical. By the Jacobin period, the noble experience became characterized by fear
and concern for their safety in the face of the Terror.
These reflections contribute to the growing knowledge about the nobles in the French
Revolution. Because of the emphasis on the bourgeoisie in the historiography, the experiences
and opinions of nobles are often overlooked and their experiences have not been studied as
23
thoroughly. This study provides an in depth analysis of how the Revolution impacted the nobles’
daily lives, safety, opinions and reactions to the government. The trends in the sources are
consistent with Georges Lefebvre, Douglas Johnson, Alfred Mathiez and Albert Soboul. This
analysis can further aid historians in pursuit of knowledge of the opinions and reactions of the
aristocracy during the events of the French Revolution.
1
Marilyn Yalom, Blood Sisters: The French Revolution in Women’s Memory (New York, NY: Harper Collins
Publishers, 1993), 49.
2
Paul H. Beik, The French Revolution Seen From The Right (New York, NY: Howard Fertig, 1970), 107.
3
Charles Tilly, The Vendée (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964).
5
Albert Soboul, “Classes and Class Struggles during the French Revolution” Science & Society 17, no. 3 (1953).
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40400197 [Accessed on September 16, 2012], 241.
6
Henry Heller, The Bourgeois Revolution in France: 1789-1815 (Oxford, NY: Berghahn Books, 2006);
Albert Mathiez, The French Revolution, trans. Alison Phillips (New York, NY: Russell & Russell Inc., 1962);
Douglas Johnson, French Society and the Revolution (Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 88.
According to Mathiez, the Revolution was caused primarily by the rising power of the bourgeoisie, and the
Revolution was also a conflict between the bourgeoisie and the peasantry. Johnson also boiled down the
complexities of the Revolution to a basic “conflict between the progressive capitalist-oriented classes and the
retrograde aristocratic classes.”
7
Alfred Cobban, The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1964). In this book, Cobban disproved the social approach by arguing that French society was divided into so many
different groups, each diverse and always changing, therefore clear social classifications were impossible to uphold.
8
George Rudé, The Crowd in the French Revolution (Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1959); Lynn
Hunt, Family Romance of the French Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992); Politics, Culture
and Class in the French Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); Emmet Kennedy, A Cultural
History of the French Revolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).
9
Georges Lefebvre, The Coming of the French Revolution, trans. R. R. Palmer (New York: Random House Inc.,
1947), 36.
10
Keith Michael Baker, The Old Regime and the French Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).
11
Johnson, French Society,130.
12
Margery Weiner, The French Exiles 1789-1815 (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1960).
13
C. B. A. Behrens, “Nobles, Privileges, and Taxes in France at the end of the Ancien Regime 15. The Economic
History Review. no. 3. 1962, Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2592919 (Accessed on November 5, 2012),
455.
14
Elinor G. Barber, The Bourgeoisie in 18th Century France (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
1955), 5.
15
Joe H. Kirchberger, The French Revolution and Napoleon: An Eyewitness History, (New York, NY: Facts On File
Inc., 1989), xvi.
16
Abbé Sieyes, “What is the Third Estate?” Modern History Sourcebook. Retrieved from
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/sieyes.asp (Accessed October 6, 2012), 119.
17
Behrens, “Nobles, Privileges, and Taxes,” 455, 457; Gwynne Lewis, The French Revolution: Rethinking the
Debate (New York: Routledge,1993), 13.
18
Michael P. Fitzsimmons, The Night the Old Regime Ended: August 4th, 1789 and the French Revolution
(University Press: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1949), 3.
24
19
Beatrice Fry Hyslop, French Nationalism in 1789 According to the General Cahiers (New York: Octagon Books
Inc., 1968), 83.
20
Fitzsimmons, Night the Old Regime Ended, 3.
21
Hyslop, French Nationalism in 1789, 53, 55.
22
“Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789.” The Avalon Project Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy
Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp . [Accessed on
December 4, 2012].
23
Marquise de la Tour du Pin, Journal of a Woman of Fifty Years (1778–1815) (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1925), 45,
138, 199-200, quoted in French Society and the Revolution, ed. Douglas Johnson, (Cambridge, London: Cambridge
University Press, 1976), 134.
24
Johnson, French Society,135.
25
Johnson, French Society,147.
26
John Mills Whitham, Men and Women of the French Revolution (Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press,
Inc., 1933), 34.
27
Beik, The French Revolution, 14.
28
Fitzsimmons, Night the Old Regime Ended, 18.
29
Gita May, Madame Roland and the Age of Revolution (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1970), 171.
30
Jean Robiquet, Daily Life in the French Revolution., trans. James Kirkup (New York, NY: The Macmilliam
Company, 1938), 7.
31
Helen Maria Williams, Letters Written in France, 1790, (Oxford: Woodstock Books, 1989), 37.
Fitzsimmons, Night the Old Regime Ended, 56-57.
33
Fitzsimmons, Night the Old Regime Ended, 16-17.
34
Peter Vansittart, Voices of the Revolution. (London, England: Collins, 1989), 63.
35
Oliver Blanc, Last Letters: Prisons and Prisoners of the French Revolution, trans. Alan Sheridan (London: Andre
Deutsch Limited, 1987), 3.
36
Gouverneur Morris, A Diary of the French Revolution. Vol. 2, ed. Beatrix Cary Davenport. (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1939), 71-72.
37
Yalom, Blood Sisters, 37.
38
Grace Dalrymple Elliott, Journal of My Life During the French Revolution (Emmaus, Pennsylvania: The Rodale
Press, 1990), 76.
39
Lewis, The French Revolution, 36.
32
40
Yalom, Blood Sisters, 50.
Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1989), 636.
42
Yalom, Blood Sisters, 89.
43
Montagu, The Celebrated Madame Campan, 96-97.
44
Yalom, Blood Sisters, 51.
45
Montagu, The Celebrated Madame Campan, 180.
46
Tour du Pin, Journal of a Woman, 134.
41
47
Duchesse Marie-Therese Charlotte Angouleme, The Ruin of a Princess, trans. Katherine Prescott Wormeley (New
York, NY: The Lamb Publishing Company, 1912), 32.
48
Regicide and Revolution: Speeches at the Trial of Louis XIV, ed. Michael Walzer, trans. Marian Rothstein (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1992), 35.
49
Elliott, Journal of My Life, 80.
Mary Macdermot Crawford, Madame de Lafayette and Her Family (New York: James Pott & Company, 1907),
231.
51
Elliott, Journal of My Life, 102.
52
Gita May, Madame Roland and the Age of Revolution (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1970), 171.
53
Montagu, Celebrated Madame Campan, 180.
54
Johnson, Private Memoirs of Madame Roland, 8-20.
50
25
55
Edward Gilpin Johnson, The Private Memoirs of Madame Roland (Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Company, 1901),
115.
56
Johnson, Private Memoirs of Madame Roland, 229.
57
Montagu, Celebrated Madame Campan, 108.
58
Crawford, Madame de Lafayette, 228.
59
Yalom, Blood Sisters, 82.
60
Elliot, Journal of My Life, 129.
61
Elliot, Journal of My Life, 130.
62
Helen Maria Williams, 1762-1827: Letters Containing a Sketch of the Politics of France, From the Thirty-First of
May 1793, Till the Twenty-Eighth of July 1794; and of the Scenes Which Have Passed in the Prisons of Paris
(London: G. G. and J. Robinson, 1795), 13.
63
Johnson, Private Memoirs of Madame Roland, 25.
64
Johnson, Private Memoirs of Madame Roland, 27.
65
Johnson, Private Memoirs of Madame Roland, 365.
66
Blanc, Last Letters, 66.
67
Yalom, Blood Sisters, 82.
68
Blanc, Last Letters, 65.
69
Blanc, Last Letters, 14-15.
70
Elliott, Journal of My Life, 24-26.
71
Johnson, Private Memoirs of Madame Roland, 21-23.
72
Blanc, Last Letters, 64-65.
73
Williams, 1762-1827: Letters Containing a Sketch, 126-132.
74
75
76
Blanc, Last Letters, 99.
Johnson, Private Memoirs of Madame Roland, 32.
Johnson, Private Memoirs of Madame Roland, 372-373.
77
Johnson, Private Memoirs of Madame Roland, 8.
Johnson, Private Memoirs of Madame Roland, 228.
79
Blanc, Last Letters, 73.
80
Johnson, Private Memoirs of Madame Roland, 9.
81
Johnson, French Society, 22-24.
82
Donald Greer, The Incidence of Emigration During the French Revolution (Harvard, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1966), 84, 85, 112.
83
Johnson, French Society,136.
84
Comtesse de Stephanie Felicite Genlis, Memoirs (Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, 1856), 285, quoted in
Douglas Johnson, French Society and the Revolution (Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 137.
85
Weiner, The French Exiles, 10-11.
86
Weiner, The French Exiles, 108.
87
Blanc, Last Letters, 69.
78
26