revolution_fr | Comité de Salut Public drinks bill...?

I heard a reference to the Committee of Public Safety's drinks bill on a radio programme a couple of years ago, but I've never come across a written reference to it. Does such a thing exist, or was it a post-Thermidor 'hey, don't blame us, we were drunk all the time' excuse? I've also heard similar about the Tribunal, but again haven't found a reliable, non-anecdotal, non-hostile source.
I'm also aware that the average alcohol intake was universally far higher from the dawn of time until the 19thc - it was safer than water!
On a related issue, does anyone know if the opiate laudanum was used/abused in France as much as it was in Britain at the time? I don't know how greatly the trade links would have made a difference here. I can't remember ever having come across a reference in anything on the Revolution - the Romantic poets in Britain in the 1790's were living on the stuff - but I did wonder if that, rather than the usually assumed bisexuality, may have been Camille Desmoulins' 'vice'?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I've never seen a written reference to that either, but it would make sense--assuming it also ; after all, the Convention had it's own restaurant where the Conventionnels could eat, and when there is food there is usually drink--and in this period, often of the alcoholic variety (though I have read a lot of references to lemonade stands during the Revolution). I don't really see why the CSP couldn't have ordered both food and drink from the restaurant to be brought to them; after all, many of them were sleeping there and they would have to eat and drink sometime. (Moreover, It seems likely to me that, assuming such a practice existed, hostile sources, as you term it, would have seized upon the occasion to talk about a "drinks bill," and conveniently leave out related information--such as a food bill or at the very least a note about alcohol consumption in the 18th century.)

That's an interesting theory about he laudanum. It sounds at least as plausible as any other explanation I've heard. On a somewhat related note, there's a hilariously out of character scene in "Saint-Just et la force des choses" where Robespierre has an argument with Saint-Just, waits for him to leave, throws his glasses accross the room, makes sure no one's coming, and then has some laudanum. Somehow, I think if Robespierre had had a laudanum addiction we would know about it. -__-;

I think the radio programme was suggesting they may have been drunk in charge! Surely that would be impossible - they just couldn't have functioned if they were out of it, though I wouldn't be surprised if they were on more than the usual - ditto coffee. Their work hours and stresses seem superhuman. (A lot of 20thc British governments seemed to have functioned on a surprising amount of alcohol, including Thatcher, who got by on whisky and 5 hours sleep a night, and allegedly became an alcoholic). We're probably living in the most sober times in world history. There's a theory that Victorian sobriety was fall-out from the French Revolution - 18thc London was full of drunk aristos screwing around - the moral climate of the 19thc was a backlash designed to send them back to their country estates and so create the impression that the (Westminter) ruling classes were sensible people quietly doing a good job!

I'm still waiting for my techie friend to download me those programmes! They look hilarious (very camp!) - maybe the writer was into Sherlock Holmes (strange, cerebral bachelor fond of shooting up cocaine)? Robespierre may well have taken laudanum as medicine - many people did, and they wouldn't have felt the need to be secretive about it. I don't think the notion of drug addiction really entered western public consciousness until a decade or so later, but if Desmoulins was over-using opiate 'medicine', it would have been apparent to friends, as it was with Coleridge: it might explain references to his deteriorating health, but his erratic and outspoken behaviour seems to be constant throughout his career (weren't enemies saying he was mad right from the start?) so that's probably just him being him! But it's a theory, anyway - would Robespierre and Danton think of it as a 'vice', though?

I very highly doubt they were drunk; it's illogical and there's no evidence to support it. No reputable source would even posit it. That doesn't mean they didn't drink, but there's a difference between drinking and getting drunk. That's an interesting theory about the British aristocracy, by the way, but it looks to me like one of those trends that people notice in hindsight, rather than a conscious decision on the British aristos' part.

It was a terrible series, from the point of view of historical accuracy--and yet so much better than some! I posted a detailed commentary on it a couple of days ago. You would really have had to see the context in which Robespierre was taking the laudanum... It really didn't look like it was for medecinal purposes.
I can see how a laudanum addiction might be thought of as a vice, even in the 18th century, just from the standpoint of overindulging in general's having long been viewed as a vice.

Comité de Salut Public drinks bill...?

no subject

no subject

no subject