Contenu du sommaire

From the beginning of the Revolution, numerous journalists and political leaders supported the practice of denunciation before the “tribunal of public opinion” as a necessary and salutary act for preserving the achievements of 1789 from the threat of counterrevolution. But in fact, if historians know a good about the theory of denunciation, the reality and scope of such activities before the year II are poorly known. The present article is based on a dossier of more than 200 denunciatory letters addressed to the Society of the Friends of the Constitution in Bordeaux between the spring of 1791 and the spring of 1793. Such letters provide insight into the emergence and nature of suspicion, fear, and internal conflict among the Bordeaux population on the eve of the Terror. One can thus identify a veritable “climate of opinion” of suspicion and mistrust, already visible before the Flight to Varennes and the onset of the war, which may well have been one important element, though not the sole element, in the origins of a “psychology of the Terror.”(abstract fourni par l'auteur)

When the Ideologues referred to animals, they seemed to hesitate between a conception of the “l'animal-sensible”, associated to Condillac, and a theory of the “l'animal-machine” traceable to Descartes. To understand this paradox, this article aims to clarify the position of the Ideologues by the notion of “naturalism” such as it is defined by Philippe Descola. The first part of the article shows that Cabanis, Destutt de Tracy, Roederer et Jean-Baptiste Say sought to renew the conception of the “l'animal-machine” in light of the chemistry of Lavoisier. Their concern of putting the former in the service of a republic of small property owners distinguishes them from the approach of Chaptal, when he was minister of the Interior. The second part of the article demonstrates that the Ideologues deepened the Condillacien theory of “animal-sensible.” The project of “comparative ideology” of the naturalist Montpellier Draparnaud illustrates their concern about an animal ethics.

On February 17, 1800, the Consulate promulgated a new law of local administration in France, the law of 28 pluviose an VIII. From then on, each rural community was again to have a mayor. According to this law, the mayors were at once representatives of their communes and agents of the State. They played a vital role between the central power and the communes. Yet historians have still not appreciated the actual value of the mayors of this period. Who were they ? How did they react to the demands of superior authorities ? Conversely, how did the superior authorities respond to the problems of the mayors ? To answer these questions, we will examine the case of the Hautes-Pyrénées where the political culture took hold according to the logic of the Nation State. We will try to determine the political relationship between the central power and the communes in the phase of national integration.

It is generally accepted that Napoleon was considered as an enemy by Russian society at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Moreover, some historians explain the active participation of Russia in the War of the Third Coalition by the reputed hatred that the Russian aristocracy had towards the First Consul, and later, the Emperor. However, a study of sources before 1812 yields entirely different results ; these show that the opinion of the Russian elites held of Napoleon was highly diversified during this period: animosity was far from unanimous, and in the period from 1801 to 1805, positive opinions predominated. Napoleon Bonaparte was regarded by the educated portion of Russian society as a man of genius who managed to defeat anarchy and reestablish order, while preserving the accomplishments of the Revolution. Thus Alexander 1 began the war of 1805 not because of the opinion of Russian society, but rather in spite of it.

This study is based on an analysis of nine political caricatures published in 1819. By comparing these with the press to which they make explicit allusion, this article deciphers their meaning, underlining some of the major debates stemming from conflicts among liberals, ministers, and ultras. The lithographic caricature, highly diverse in its production, was perceived by all participants as a means of influencing public opinion. It was the printed image that participated in social practices, partly collective, but also of an oral culture. In the domain of political caricature, 1819 constitutes a laboratory that prefigured the explosion of this mode of expression between 1830 and 1835.