Submitted by Cristiane de Melo Shirayama (cristiane.shirayama@unifesp.br) on 2018-04-13T20:55:05Z No. of bitstreams: 1 guilherme-tadeu-de-paula.pdf: 699804 bytes, checksum: 3d098adb3ca4895cf32a9c546b301250 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Diogo Misoguti (diogo.misoguti@gmail.com) on 2018-04-17T18:06:07Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 guilherme-tadeu-de-paula.pdf: 699804 bytes, checksum: 3d098adb3ca4895cf32a9c546b301250 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-04-17T18:06:07Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 guilherme-tadeu-de-paula.pdf: 699804 bytes, checksum: 3d098adb3ca4895cf32a9c546b301250 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-02-05 / Este trabalho pretende analisar o conceito de terrorismo a partir de uma perspectiva crítica. O desenvolvimento dos argumentos nele encontrados se dará através de uma análise histórica, especialmente voltada para quatro períodos que mereceram especial atenção: o Terror Jacobino da Revolução Francesa, os atentados praticados por anarquistas na virada do século XIX, a imprecisão conceitual do século XX e o pós 11 de setembro e as políticas estadunidenses da época, essencialmente a Guerra ao Terror. Partindo de um pressuposto metodológico de que é a história social e as relações de poder que os homens estabelecem em sociedade que pautam e determinam os conceitos, esta pesquisa ainda dialogará com outras noções de terrorismo que apareceram no debate de nosso tempo, com o intuito de, a partir desta síntese, fundamentar uma melhor percepção que ajude a explicar as principais inquietações que motivaram este esforço analítico. O argumento central que conduzirá toda a abordagem se fundamenta no caráter político da conceituação de terrorismo, que não é um conceito límpido, científico e frio, mas sim um dispositivo de poder político em disputa em cada determinada sociedade. / This research aims to exam the concept of terrorism in a critical perspective. The development of these arguments will be found through a historical analysis, especially focused on four eras that deserve special attention: the “Reign of Terror” of the French Revolution, the attacks perpetrated by anarchists in the last decade of the nineteenth century, the broad concept of terrorism in the twentieth century and post September 11 and the U.S. policies in the age of War on Terror. Our methodological assumption is that the social history and power relations among people whitin societies that determine and rule the concepts. This research will dialogue with different ideas of terrorism that emerged in the debate of our days, and from that, to create a basis for a better perception that helps explain the main concerns that motivated this analytical effort. The main argument that lead our whole approach is based on the political aspect of terrorism concept, which is not a cloudless, pure and scientific but a kind of device of political power that can be found in each particular society.

La présente thèse vise à déterminer les ressorts de l’ascension sociale des Cibiel, entre 1754 et 1914, organisée durant quatre générations sur un mode collectif, au cours de laquelle ils passent du colportage local entre montagne du Cantal et plaines, au négoce et à la finance au niveau national puis international : ils édifient, à partir du textile et du Sud-ouest, un empire financier et industriel dans tous les domaines de la Révolution industrielle – transports, secteur minier et métallurgique et dérivés, modernisation urbaine – complété par un patrimoine foncier de premier ordre. L’analyse de cette mutation progressive permet de comprendre quelles sont les stratégies et les logiques mises en œuvre par les différents « acteurs » de la famille, mettant en synergie jeux communs et jeux individuels pour conquérir un pouvoir économique et sociopolitique majeur au sein des réseaux d’élites, à partir d’un réseau familial insolite implanté dans une logique de comptoirs à l’image de celui des Rothschild. La mobilisation de la méthodologie d’analyse des réseaux et de la sociologie des organisations, notamment la théorie de « l’acteur stratégique » de Michel Crozier et Erhard Friedberg, pour étudier la dynamique des Cibiel, permet de mesurer à quelles conditions « l’union fait la force ». Alors que la succession d’un « acteur-clé » aux trois premières générations joue un rôle moteur pour le collectif familial, la rupture introduite par une « stratégie d’affrontement » intrafamiliale à la dernière génération marque la fin de la « bonne fortune » prodigieuse de la famille Cibiel et de sa success story singulière. / The present thesis aims at determining the origins and forces of the social climbing of the French family Cibiel, between 1754 and 1914, through four generations. Within these 160 years, the family rose from local peddling to international trade and finance. Starting from textile trading in the Southwest of France, the Cibiels gradually built a financial and industrial empire which stretched over all the fields impacted by the Industrial Revolution — transports, mining, metallurgy, urban modernizing —, and accumulated a considerable estate. The analysis of this gradual transformation enables the understanding of the strategies and logics implemented by the various "players" of the family. They forged synergistic common games and individual games to conquer a major economic and socio-political power within elite networks. Their social climbing hinges on an unusual family network, that developed itself through a counters approach, similar to the Rothschilds network. The network analysis and the sociology of organizations methodologies have been used, particularly the "strategic player" theory of Michel Crozier and Erhard Friedberg, to study the Cibiels’ dynamics. They support the assessment of what makes unity a strength. The emergence of a "key player" at each of the first three generations plays a leading role in the family collective. With the break introduced by an intrafamilial "confrontational strategy" at the last generation came the end of the prodigious "good fortune" of the Cibiel family and of its singular success story.

Esta dissertação se dedica a uma comparação entre as interpretações da Revolução Francesa formuladas por dois autores e personagens políticos da França do século XIX: François Guizot (1787 1874) e Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 1859). Ambas as interpretações têm em comum o esforço intelectual de inscrever a Revolução Francesa na História de longo prazo da França e da Europa, em ruptura com a compreensão que tiveram da Revolução tanto revolucionários como contrarrevolucionários. Essa inscrição da Revolução na História implicava uma aceitação da sociedade pós-revolucionária como um produto irreversível de muitos séculos e não apenas de um ato isolado da vontade. O argumento desta dissertação tem como objetivo demonstrar que, para além dessa aceitação da sociedade pós-revolucionária a qual manteve Guizot e Tocqueville à distância tanto do discurso contrarrevolucionário, com seu projeto de restaurar na França a antiga sociedade pré-revolucionária, como do discurso socialista, com seu projeto de continuar a Revolução Francesa para levar a humanidade a uma sociedade diferente da que saiu diretamente da Revolução , os dois autores estudados legaram para a posteridade duas atitudes divergentes ou mesmo opostas diante da Revolução Francesa: Guizot celebrou o papel da Revolução na História como uma vitória das classes médias sobre o poder absoluto e o privilégio, ao mesmo tempo em que criticou suas bandeiras explícitas, com destaque para a da soberania do povo; Tocqueville, ao contrário, lamentou a obra da Revolução Francesa como uma realização inconsciente da cultura política centralizadora do Antigo Regime, mas, em vez de criticar a doutrina da soberania do povo, procurou reformulá-la em novas bases, inspirado pelo modelo americano. Para o autor de O Antigo Regime e a Revolução, a crítica à Revolução Francesa deve passar, portanto, de suas doutrinas explícitas para seu caráter implícito. Para construir essa hipótese, a dissertação faz o seguinte percurso: no Capítulo 1, são contrapostas a filosofia da História de Guizot, baseada no conceito de civilização, e a filosofia da História de Tocqueville, baseada no conceito de democracia. No Capítulo 2, compara-se o lugar que cada autor atribuía à Revolução Francesa em uma História francesa e europeia lida a partir das relações entre centro político e liberdades locais. O Capítulo 3, por fim, compara a recepção de cada autor aos chamados princípios de 1789, com destaque para o princípio da soberania do povo. / This dissertation is dedicated to a comparison between the interpretations of the French Revolution made by two authors and political figures of nineteenth-century France: François Guizot (1787 1874) and Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 1859). Both interpretations have in common the intellectual effort to inscribe the Revolution in France and Europes long term History, breaking with the understanding that both revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries had about the Revolution. This inscription of the Revolution in History implied an acceptance of post-revolutionary society as an irreversible product of many centuries and not only of an isolated act of the will. As a result, Guizot and Tocqueville were critics both of the counterrevolutionaries, whose project was to restore in France the old pre-revolutionary society, and the socialists, whose project was to continue the French Revolution in order to lead humanity into a society deeply different from the one that emerged from the Revolution. Against this background, this dissertation aims at demonstrating that, beyond the acceptance of post-revolutionary society, Guizot and Tocqueville bequeathed to posterity two divergent or even opposite attitudes toward the French Revolution: Guizot celebrated the role played by the Revolution in History, as a victory of the middle classes against both absolute power and privilege, but at the same time he opposed its explicit flags, especially the sovereignty of the people; Tocqueville, on the other hand, deplored the Revolutions work as an unconscious realization of the centralizing political culture of the Ancient Regime, but, instead of criticizing the doctrine of popular sovereignty, he sought to reformulate it on new bases, inspired in the American model. According to the author of The Ancient Regime and the Revolution, thus, the criticism of the French Revolution should pass from its explicit doctrines to its implicit character. In order to build that hypothesis, this dissertation takes the following path: In Chapter 1, we will compare Guizots philosophy of History, based on the concept of civilization, with Tocquevilles philosophy of History, based on the concept of democracy. In Chapter 2, we will compare the place each author attributed to the French Revolution in French and European History, interpreted in the light of relations between political center and local freedoms. Chapter 3, lastly, compares each authors reception to what was called the principles of 1789, especially the sovereignty of the people.

La présente Dissertation de Maîtrise, intitulé LIBERTÉS ET ORGANISATION DES POUVOIRS À BENJAMIN CONSTANT: L'ÉTAT ET LES LIMITES DU POUVOIR POLITIQUE, explique objectivement la conception de Constant sur la liberté, à la recherche des éléments qui pourraient faire valoir ce que serait la forme de l'Etat idéal pour la réalisation des libertés individuelles. En commençant par une bref contextualisation historique de la Révolution Française (1789), Constant expose ses commentaires et ses critiques aux dirigeants révolutionnaires. Au début, il a défendu la Révolution qui a renversé la monarchie absolue et qui a amené la République. Les dirigeants révolutionnaires, en particulier les Jacobins, inspirés par la philosophie de Rousseau sur la volonté générale et la souveraineté populaire, ont concentré sans restriction, dans leurs mains, le pouvoir politique et ils ont déformé les idéaux républicains. L'imposition des libertés des peuples antiques sur les peuples modernes a engendré une régression historique, contraire à l'ensemble du processus de la perfectibilité humaine défendue par Benjamin Constant. Le despotisme révolutionnaire a été critiqué par Constant dans ses écrits politiques. Dans l’antiquité, l'accent était mis sur la liberté politique (positive), c’est-à-dire, les individus agissaient directement sur les questions inhérentes à l'État. Dans la modernité, au contraire, la liberté (négative) a passé à acquérir une dimension individuelle, où la politique est exercée par la représentativité. Pour Constant, l'État idéal (État Libérale) serait celui qui présentât le moins d'interférence possible sur ses individus. Dans cet État, selon lui, les garanties individuelles comme la jouissance de la propriété privée (important pour la citoyenneté), la liberté économique, la liberté de la presse, entre autres, doivent être toujours respectés. Ainsi, les individus pourraient continuer le processus de la perfectibilité humaine dans le chemin linéaire de l'histoire, en train de vivre la liberté (milieu) dans la perspective de l'égalité (fin). Bien que Constant a défendu premièrement la République, il a préparé un projet de constitution qui lui a permis de concevoir la Monarchie Constitutionnelle comme un modèle de l'État, comme les Anglais, en divisant les pouvoirs et en établissant entre eux une Puissance Neutre. Ce pouvoir, qui a inspiré le Pouvoir Modérateur (Préservateur) dans la scène politique impériale brésilienne, serait au-dessus des autres, permettant l'équilibre nécessaire, de sorte qu'il n'y eût pas de concentration de pouvoir sur un des Pouvoirs, dans un État monarchique ou républicain. / A presente Dissertação de Mestrado, intitulada LIBERDADES E ORGANIZAÇÃO DOS PODERES EM BENJAMIN CONSTANT: O ESTADO E OS LIMITES DO PODER POLÍTICO, objetiva explanar a concepção constantiana sobre liberdade, buscando elementos que possam argumentar qual seria a forma de Estado ideal para a efetivação das liberdades individuais. Partindo de uma breve contextualização histórica da Revolução Francesa (1789), Constant expôs suas observações e críticas aos líderes revolucionários. Inicialmente ele defendeu a Revolução que derrubou a monarquia absolutista e trouxe a República. Os líderes revolucionários, em especial os jacobinos, inspirados na filosofia rousseauniana sobre a vontade geral e a soberania popular, concentraram de maneira ilimitada em suas mãos o poder político e deturparam os ideais republicanos. A imposição das liberdades dos povos antigos sobre os modernos gerou um retrocesso histórico contrário a todo um processo de perfectibilidade humana defendida por Benjamin Constant. O despotismo revolucionário foi criticado por Constant em seus escritos políticos. Na antiguidade a ênfase recaía sobre a liberdade política (positiva), ou seja, os indivíduos atuavam diretamente sobre as questões inerentes ao Estado. Na modernidade, ao contrário, a liberdade (negativa) passou a adquirir uma dimensão individual, sendo a política exercida por meio da representatividade. Para Constant, o Estado ideal (Estado Liberal) seria aquele que apresentasse a menor interferência possível sobre seus indivíduos. Neste Estado, segundo ele, as garantias individuais como o gozo da propriedade privada (importante para o exercício da cidadania), da liberdade econômica, da liberdade de imprensa entre outras, sempre devem ser respeitadas. Assim, os homens poderiam continuar a se perfectibilizar no caminhar linear da história vivendo a liberdade (meio) em vista da igualdade (fim). Apesar de Constant ter primeiramente defendido a República, ele elaborou um esboço de constituição em que passou a conceber a Monarquia Constitucional como modelo de Estado, a exemplo dos ingleses, dividindo os poderes e estabelecendo entre estes um Poder Neutro. Este Poder, que inspirou o Poder Moderador (Preservador) no cenário político imperial brasileiro, estaria acima dos demais, possibilitando o equilíbrio necessário para que não houvesse concentração de poder em um dos poderes, seja em um Estado monárquico ou republicano. / This Master's Dissertation, entitled FREEDOMS AND ORGANIZATION OF POWERS IN BENJAMIN CONSTANT: THE STATE AND THE LIMITS OF POLITICAL POWER, objectively explains Constant’s conception of freedom, seeking elements that might argue what would be the ideal form of State for the realization of individual liberties. Starting with a brief historical background of the French Revolution (1789), Constant exposed his comments and criticism of the revolutionary leaders. Initially he defended the revolution that overthrew the absolute monarchy and brought the Republic. The revolutionary leaders, especially the Jacobins, inspired by Rousseau's philosophy on the general will and popular sovereignty, concentrated without restriction in their hands the political power and misrepresented the republican ideals. The imposition of the freedoms of ancient peoples on modern generated a historic setback otherwise the whole process of human perfectibility defended by Benjamin Constant. The revolutionary despotism was criticized by Constant in his political writings. In ancient times the emphasis was on political freedom (positive), in other words, directly acted individuals on issues inherent to the State. In modernity, on the contrary, freedom (negative) went on to acquire an individual dimension and the policy is exercised through representation. For Constant, the ideal state (Liberal State) would be the one to present the least possible interference on their subjects. In this state, he said, individual guarantees the enjoyment of private property (important for citizenship), economic freedom, freedom of the press among others, must be followed. Thus, they might continue the process of perfectibility and walk straight in history, living the freedom (middle) in view of equality (end). Although Constant has first defended the Republic, he prepared a draft constitution that went on to design the Constitutional Monarchy as a state model, like the English, dividing the powers and establishing between them a Neutral Power. This power, which inspired the Moderating Power (Preserver) in the Brazilian imperial political scene, would be above the others, allowing the necessary balance so that there was no concentration of power in one of the branches, or in a monarchical or republican State.

Rechercher dans les cinq districts du département des Bouches-du-Rhône, les Justices de paix installées dans tous les cantons, entre 1790 et fin décembre 1792. Etudier les difficultés de leur installation par rapport au système électoral de désignation des juges, des assesseurs, des greffiers, instauré par la Loi d'organisation judiciaire des 16/24 août 1790 et analyser le fonctionnement et l'évolution de ces juridictions pendant la première période de leur existence, entre 1790 et décembre 1792. / Search in the five districts of the Bouches du Rhone Department, the Justices of Peace installed in all cantons between 1790 and December 1792. Examine the difficulties of their installation relative to the electoral procedure of appointment of the judges, assessors, registrars who was established by the Law d'Organisation Judiciaire of the 16 and 24 August 1790. Examine the functioning of these jurisdictions during the first period of their life between 1790 and December 1792.

The Czech opera production of the so called "Pre-Smetanian" era represents a topic quite neglected by music historians. It is therefore the goal of this master's thesis to repay this debt by showing Kittl's opera, Bianca und Giuseppe oder Die Franzosen vor Nizza, (the libretto, written by Richard Wagner, based on the novel, Die hohe Braut, by Heinrich König) as a work of art which illustrates the high quality of the Prague opera scene in the mid-1800s. The core of this thesis consists of a dramaturgical analysis of the final form of the mentioned opera. This analysis advances in three steps. 1. The main idea of König's novel and its aesthetic are presented in the light of his life. 2. The following chapter concerns Wagner's libretto. Apart from showing the differences between the novel- and opera aesthetics, the emphasis is on the dramaturgical means which Wagner employs: various usage of the couleur locale, ensemble of the pezzo concertato type, working with specific time structures in the opera or allegorical usage of the so called - as Frenchmen say - spectacle d'optique. 3. The next chapter strives to assess the extent to which Kittl succeeded in expressing Wagner's intentions or, in another words, the extent to which Wagners's "poetic intention" (dichterische Absicht) came true in Kittls's music....

Le second dix-huitième siècle est marqué par une profonde reconfiguration du cadre politique qui se traduit par un essor concomitant de la critique publique et du patriotisme. Le théâtre participe au mouvement. Dans le sillage de Voltaire, des auteurs très divers s’emparent de l’Histoire de France, renouvelant les genres théâtraux et le rapport au spectacle. Aux pièces épiques ou sentimentales du « genre troubadour » s’ajoutent bientôt les anecdotes biographiques consacrées aux Grands Hommes, puis les « apothéoses dramatiques » et les « faits historiques » contemporains de la Révolution. Cet ensemble hétéroclite de pièces jouées sur des théâtres officiels, en société ou seulement diffusées par écrit, constitue ce que nous appelons le théâtre national des Lumières et de la Révolution. À travers l’étude des textes et de leur réception, nous analysons comment la représentation de l’Histoire de France participe aux transformations des mentalités, selon un effet de miroir passé-présent plus ou moins explicite. Aux enjeux esthétiques et dramaturgiques emblématiques de cette période charnière entre classicisme et romantisme, le théâtre national mêle des enjeux politiques et mémoriels : plus qu’un divertissement moral, il est conçu comme un dispositif civique. Il construit un patrimoine historique collectif avec des mythes et des légendes, mais les intentions idéologiques divergentes des auteurs et la participation active des publics en font un lieu de dissensus. Le théâtre national médiatise également les tensions de la société et recherche des émotions qui oscillent entre l’admiration, l’attendrissement, la déploration indignée et l’horreur face aux blessures du passé. / The second half of the eighteenth-century is characterized by a thorough transformation of the political world, a change which reflected the simultaneous development of public criticism and patriotism. Theatre plays a key role in this process. Following Voltaire, a variety of playwrights use French history for their plots, and in so doing they update genres and audience expectations. Alongside epic or sentimental plays of the troubadour genre, bio-dramas of “Great Men” soon appeared, followed by dramatic apotheoses and the Revolution’s “faits historiques”. This varied corpus of plays – performed ¬ or not, on official or private stages – constitutes what we may call the national drama of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.By studying these texts and their reception, I analyse how the theatrical representation of French history and its ability to act as a mirror between the past and the present contribute to the contemporary changes in thought. National drama not only showcases the esthetical and dramaturgic debates of this turning point between classicism and romanticism, but it additionally implicates issues of politics and memory: it is more than simple moral entertainment, it has civic value. These productions create a collective historical heritage with its own myths and legends, but the playwrights’ contradictory ideological intentions and the audiences’ active participation also make this theatre a site of dissent. National drama also expresses contemporary social strains and seeks to evoke specific emotions such as admiration, empathy, outrage and horror in the face of the past’s wounds.

The plays of James Boaden, an author all too often forgotten in the pages of theatre history, are usually dismissed by scholars as mercenary adaptations of popular Gothic novels for the stage. Boaden’s plays of the 1790s—Fontainville Forest (1794), The Secret Tribunal (1796), The Italian Monk (1797), Cambro-Britons (1798) and Aurelio and Miranda (1799)—were certainly popular successes in their own time, but this should not discount them from serious consideration as aesthetic and ideological objects. In fact, these plays are intelligently wrought, using popular Gothic conventions to further a conservative ideology that was not originally associated with this genre. This fact has gone unrecognized by scholars partly because these plays have not been previously analysed for their dramaturgical structure as adaptations: Boaden borrows conventions from the Gothic, to be sure, but he also borrows dramaturgical techniques from Shakespeare. In so doing, Boaden harnesses both popular appeal and theatrical legitimacy to write Tory propaganda at a time when the stage was a key tool in the ideological war against France and French sympathizers in Britain. Political threats, both domestic and foreign, were of ongoing concern in Britain in the years following the French Revolution. Immediately after 1789, the Gothic was ideologically charged in ways that promoted revolutionary thinking. Boaden’s adaptation of the Gothic form responds to the revolution and the Reign of Terror by replacing the genre’s iconoclasm with a strongly nationalist orientation, drawn, in part, from eighteenth-century Shakespeare reception, itself often strongly nationalist in tone. Boaden’s plays are reactionary in that they comment on the current political situation, using allegory to play on the audience’s emotions. In his first phase, Boaden depicts the demise of a villainous usurper, a scapegoat figure, but his second phase reintegrates the villain into domestic and social harmony. In so doing, Boaden serves as a case study in the shifting attitude towards Britain’s revolutionary sympathizers, the Jacobins, and illustrates the important use of the Gothic mode for conservative purposes. Boaden emerges, in this study, as a figure whose relevance to theatre history in this fraught period requires reassessment.

L’étude de l’image de Robespierre dans le discours politique de la Restauration à la fin du XIXe siècle met en lumière le processus de construction de la légende dorée de Robespierre, légende qui n’a jamais été étudiée de manière précise, bien qu’elle ait influencé fortement l’historiographie. Forgée à partir de 1830 par des militants appartenant à la composante radicale du parti républicain, elle présente Robespierre comme le défenseur de l’égalité politique et sociale, le théoricien du droit à l’insurrection et l’apôtre d’une religion fraternelle qui doit servir de base à un nouveau contrat social. Cette étude montre aussi que la légende noire de Robespierre est traversée par des fractures idéologiques mal discernées jusqu’ici. La légende noire conservatrice/contre-révolutionnaire née sous la Révolution fait de Robespierre à la fois un tyran et un anarchiste niveleur et impie. La légende noire libérale qui se développe sous la Restauration en fait seulement un tyran clérical. Les légendes noires communiste et anarchiste, apparues respectivement au tournant de 1840 et sous la Deuxième République, dénoncent non seulement le cléricalisme de Robespierre mais aussi son manque d’ambition sociale. A la différence de la légende noire communiste, la légende noire anarchiste reprend l’image du tyran et critique le rôle de Robespierre dans la Terreur. Enfin, la légende noire libérale-républicaine apparue à partir du milieu du XIXe siècle s’inscrit dans le prolongement de la légende noire libérale tout en étant influencée par les légendes noires communiste et anarchiste et fait de Robespierre un tyran politique et clérical dont elle souligne le peu d’intérêt pour les questions économiques. / Studying the image of Robespierre in the political discourse from the Restauration to the end of the 19th century highlights the construction process of the golden legend of Robespierre, which has never been precisely analysed, although it influenced profoundly historiography. Built from 1830 onwards by militants belonging to the radical fringe of the republican movement, it presents Robespierre as the defender of political and social equality, the theoretician of the right to insurrection and the apostle of a brotherly religion, basis of a new social contract. This study also shows that Robespierre’s dark legend is split by ideological divides which remained until now unclear. A dark legend which can be called “conservative/counter-revolutionary” appeared during the Revolution. It describes Robespierre at the same time as a tyrant and as a godless leveller anarchist. The liberal dark legend appeared under the Restoration presents Robespierre only as a clerical tyrant. The communist and anarchist dark legends, which emerged respectively at the beginning of the 1840’s and under the Second Republic, point out not only Robespierre’s clericalism but also his lack of social concerns. Unlike the communist dark legend, the anarchist dark legend reuses the image of the tyrant and denounces Robespierre’s implication in the Terror. Finally, a republican-liberal dark legend emerges in the middle of the 19th century. It is a continuation of the liberal dark legend which is also influenced by the communist and anarchist dark legends. It presents Robespierre as a political and clerical tyrant and stresses on his lack of interest in economic issues.

Jeanne Bécu, an illegitimate child from the Vaucouleurs area in France, ascended the ranks of the Ancien régime to become the Countess du Barry and take her place as Royal Mistress of Louis XV. During her tenure as Royal Mistress, Jeanne amassed a jewel collection that rivaled all private collections. During the course of the French Revolution, more specifically the Reign of Terror, Jeanne was forced to hatch a plot to secure the remainder of her wealth as she lost a significant portion of her revenue on the night of 4 August 1789. To protect her wealth, Jeanne enlisted Nathaniel Parker Forth, a British spy, to help her plan a fake jewel theft at Louveciennes so that she could remove her economic capital from France while also reducing her total wealth and capital with the intent of reducing her tax payments. As a result of the theft, her jewelry was transported to London, where she would travel four times during the French Revolution on the pretext of recovering her jewelry. This thesis examines her actions while abroad during the Revolution and her culpability in the plot. While traveling to and from London, Jeanne was able to move information, money, and people out of France. Jeanne was arrested and charged with aiding the counter-revolution, for which the Revolutionary Tribunal sentenced her to death. Madame du Barry represented the extravagance and waste of Versailles and of Bourbon absolutism, and this symbolic representation of waste was what eventually inhibited Jeanne’s success.