Podcasts about Maximilien Robespierre

 Membre du Comité de salut public, organisateur de la victoire aux armées et incarnation de la Terreur, Saint-Just, que Michelet surnommait « l'archange de la mort », finira guillotiné à 26 ans en même temps que Robespierre.    Mention légales : Vos données de connexion, dont votre adresse IP, sont traités par Radio Classique, responsable de traitement, sur la base de son intérêt légitime, par l'intermédiaire de son sous-traitant Ausha, à des fins de réalisation de statistiques agréées et de lutte contre la fraude. Ces données sont supprimées en temps réel pour la finalité statistique et sous cinq mois à compter de la collecte à des fins de lutte contre la fraude. Pour plus d'informations sur les traitements réalisés par Radio Classique et exercer vos droits, consultez notre Politique de confidentialité.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Acquista il mio nuovo libro, “Anche Socrate qualche dubbio ce l'aveva”: https://amzn.to/3wPZfmCLa filosofia politica di Rousseau l'abbiamo vista, ma come influenzò i pensatori e i politici successivi?Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/dentro-alla-filosofia--4778244/support.

L'émission 28 minutes du 30/05/2025 Découvrez ou redécouvrez les meilleurs moments du Club de 28 minutes !En compagnie de nos clubistes et dessinateurs de presse, nous revenons sur les temps forts de l'actualité ces derniers mois : la relation tumultueuse entre les États-Unis et l'Europe, la mort de Jean-Marie Le Pen, l'Union européenne et les voitures électriques, la passe d'armes sur les réseaux pour rendre la statue de la Liberté à la France.Apprenez auprès de nos invités : le médecin légiste Philippe Charlier dévoile les secrets de “la table de Robespierre”, la conservatrice au musée d'Orsay Elise Dubreuil explique la place de l'affiche dans la rue, l'historienne Dominique Veillon raconte 50 objets de la France sous l'Occupation, le commissaire d'exposition Jean-Yves Leloup présente l'histoire du disco. Enfin, Claude Askolovitch revient sur Grok l'intelligence artificielle d'Elon Musk qui se moque de son créateur. 28 minutes est le magazine d'actualité d'ARTE, présenté par Élisabeth Quin du lundi au jeudi à 20h05. Renaud Dély est aux commandes de l'émission le vendredi et le samedi. Ce podcast est coproduit par KM et ARTE Radio. Enregistrement 30 mai 2025 Présentation Renaud Dély Production KM, ARTE Radio

Manon Roland was a super-smart bookworm who amazed those around her from an early age with her intelligence (and strong opinions). When the French Revolution kicked off, she sent letters from Lyons to Paris to keep people updated on the latest news. She also got on the wrong side of Robespierre, which didn't go well. — Preorder info for my book, Rebel of the Regency! — ⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up for the Vulgar History mailing list!⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Get 15% off all the gorgeous jewellery and accessories at ⁠⁠⁠⁠common.era.com/vulgar⁠⁠⁠⁠ or go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠commonera.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ and use code VULGAR at checkout — Get Vulgar History merch at ⁠⁠⁠⁠vulgarhistory.com/store⁠⁠⁠⁠ (best for US shipping) and ⁠⁠⁠⁠vulgarhistory.redbubble.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ (better for international shipping) — ⁠⁠⁠⁠Support Vulgar History on Patreon ⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Vulgar History is an affiliate of Bookshop.org, which means that a small percentage of any books you click through and purchase will come back to Vulgar History as a commission. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Use this link to shop there and support Vulgar History.⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nicht nur bekannte Männer wie Maximilien de Robespierre und Thomas Jefferson, sondern auch mutige Frauen wie Susan Anthony und Louise Otto-Peters betraten mit revolutionären Absichten die Bühne. In 19 sorgsam recherchierten und mit anschaulichen Anekdoten ausgeschmückten Kapiteln erzählt Historikerin Alexandra Bleyer in ihrem neuen Buch „Revolutionärinnen. Frauen, die Geschichte schrieben“ vom Leben und Wirken namhafter Feministinnen weltweit. Rezension von Judith Reinbold

Nicht nur bekannte Männer wie Maximilien de Robespierre und Thomas Jefferson, sondern auch mutige Frauen wie Susan Anthony und Louise Otto-Peters betraten mit revolutionären Absichten die Bühne. In 19 sorgsam recherchierten und mit anschaulichen Anekdoten ausgeschmückten Kapiteln erzählt Historikerin Alexandra Bleyer in ihrem neuen Buch „Revolutionärinnen. Frauen, die Geschichte schrieben“ vom Leben und Wirken namhafter Feministinnen weltweit. Rezension von Judith Reinbold

durée : 00:50:42 - Les Nuits de France Culture - par : Albane Penaranda - En 1989, pour le bicentenaire de la Révolution, Simone Douek enquête sur Robespierre dans "Les Îles de France". Cette archive de France Culture suit l'historien Claude Mazauric dans les lieux où vécut "l'Incorruptible", à Paris et en banlieue. - réalisation : Virginie Mourthé - invités : Claude Mazauric Historien

Like his predecessor Robespierre, Dogespierre (Elon Musk) also brought down the proverbial guillotine with indiscriminate cuts to Federal employment, contracts, leases and grants. With Dogespierre now stepping back to spend more time on his core businesses, we take an early look at DOGE's impact on US government spending, the likely overestimation of estimated savings, negative fiscal feedback loops from firing IRS workers, conflicts of interest and possible consequences of DOGE spending cuts. Also: the latest data from the Trump Tracker and some comments on the Spanish power outage. View video here

ORIGINALLY RELEASED Aug 29, 2022   The rallying cry of liberty, equality, and fraternity echoed through the streets of revolutionary France—and still reverberates through history. In this episode, we examine the French Revolution as a foundational rupture in world history, one that shattered the old feudal order and set the stage for modern capitalism, liberal democracy, and the revolutionary tradition from which subsequent socialist and communist movements would draw inspiration. From the class uprising of the sans-culottes to the radical egalitarian vision of the Jacobins, and from the fall of the monarchy to the rise of Napoleon, we follow the dialectical unfolding of hope and horror, progress and betrayal. What did the revolution achieve, where did it fall short, and what lessons can today's revolutionaries draw from the fire that consumed the Ancien Régime?   Stella joins Breht to discuss (and put a unique communist spin) on the great French Revolution!   Check out our Haitian Revolution episode HERE   Check out our Paris Commune episode HERE ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Make a one-time donation to Rev Left at BuyMeACoffee.com/revleftradio Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio HERE Outro Beat Prod. by flip da hood

So what, exactly, was “The Enlightenment”? According to the Princeton historian David A. Bell, it was an intellectual movement roughly spanning the early 18th century through to the French Revolution. In his Spring 2025 Liberties Quarterly piece “The Enlightenment, Then and Now”, Bell charts the Enlightenment as a complex intellectual movement centered in Paris but with hubs across Europe and America. He highlights key figures like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, and Franklin, discussing their contributions to concepts of religious tolerance, free speech, and rationality. In our conversation, Bell addresses criticisms of the Enlightenment, including its complicated relationship with colonialism and slavery, while arguing that its principles of freedom and reason remain relevant today. 5 Key Takeaways* The Enlightenment emerged in the early 18th century (around 1720s) and was characterized by intellectual inquiry, skepticism toward religion, and a growing sense among thinkers that they were living in an "enlightened century."* While Paris was the central hub, the Enlightenment had multiple centers including Scotland, Germany, and America, with thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, and Franklin contributing to its development.* The Enlightenment introduced the concept of "society" as a sphere of human existence separate from religion and politics, forming the basis of modern social sciences.* The movement had a complex relationship with colonialism and slavery - many Enlightenment thinkers criticized slavery, but some of their ideas about human progress were later used to justify imperialism.* According to Bell, rather than trying to "return to the Enlightenment," modern society should selectively adopt and adapt its valuable principles of free speech, religious tolerance, and education to create our "own Enlightenment."David Avrom Bell is a historian of early modern and modern Europe at Princeton University. His most recent book, published in 2020 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, is Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution. Described in the Journal of Modern History as an "instant classic," it is available in paperback from Picador, in French translation from Fayard, and in Italian translation from Viella. A study of how new forms of political charisma arose in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the book shows that charismatic authoritarianism is as modern a political form as liberal democracy, and shares many of the same origins. Based on exhaustive research in original sources, the book includes case studies of the careers of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture and Simon Bolivar. The book's Introduction can be read here. An online conversation about the book with Annette Gordon-Reed, hosted by the Cullman Center of the New York Public Library, can be viewed here. Links to material about the book, including reviews in The New York Review of Books, The Guardian, Harper's, The New Republic, The Nation, Le Monde, The Los Angeles Review of Books and other venues can be found here. Bell is also the author of six previous books. He has published academic articles in both English and French and contributes regularly to general interest publications on a variety of subjects, ranging from modern warfare, to contemporary French politics, to the impact of digital technology on learning and scholarship, and of course French history. A list of his publications from 2023 and 2024 can be found here. His Substack newsletter can be found here. His writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, Russian, German, Croatian, Italian, Turkish and Japanese. At the History Department at Princeton University, he holds the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Chair in the Era of North Atlantic Revolutions, and offers courses on early modern Europe, on military history, and on the early modern French empire. Previously, he spent fourteen years at Johns Hopkins University, including three as Dean of Faculty in its School of Arts and Sciences. From 2020 to 2024 he served as Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Bell's new project is a history of the Enlightenment. A preliminary article from the project was published in early 2022 by Modern Intellectual History. Another is now out in French History.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, in these supposedly dark times, the E word comes up a lot, the Enlightenment. Are we at the end of the Enlightenment or the beginning? Was there even an Enlightenment? My guest today, David Bell, a professor of history, very distinguished professor of history at Princeton University, has an interesting piece in the spring issue of It is One of our, our favorite quarterlies here on Keen on America, Bell's piece is The Enlightenment Then and Now, and David is joining us from the home of the Enlightenment, perhaps Paris in France, where he's on sabbatical hard life. David being an academic these days, isn't it?David Bell: Very difficult. I'm having to suffer the Parisian bread and croissant. It's terrible.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Well, I won't keep you too long. Is Paris then, or France? Is it the home of the Enlightenment? I know there are many Enlightenments, the French, the Scottish, maybe even the English, perhaps even the American.David Bell: It's certainly one of the homes of the Enlightenment, and it's probably the closest that the Enlightened had to a center, absolutely. But as you say, there were Edinburgh, Glasgow, plenty of places in Germany, Philadelphia, all those places have good claims to being centers of the enlightenment as well.Andrew Keen: All the same David, is it like one of those sports games in California where everyone gets a medal?David Bell: Well, they're different metals, right, but I think certainly Paris is where everybody went. I mean, if you look at the figures from the German Enlightenment, from the Scottish Enlightenment from the American Enlightenment they all tended to congregate in Paris and the Parisians didn't tend to go anywhere else unless they were forced to. So that gives you a pretty good sense of where the most important center was.Andrew Keen: So David, before we get to specifics, map out for us, because everyone is perhaps as familiar or comfortable with the history of the Enlightenment, and certainly as you are. When did it happen? What years? And who are the leaders of this thing called the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, that's a big question. And I'm afraid, of course, that if you ask 10 historians, you'll get 10 different answers.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm only asking you, so I only want one answer.David Bell: So I would say that the Enlightenment really gets going around the first couple of decades of the 18th century. And that's when people really start to think that they are actually living in what they start to call an Enlightenment century. There are a lot of reasons for this. They are seeing what we now call the scientific revolution. They're looking at the progress that has been made with that. They are experiencing the changes in the religious sphere, including the end of religious wars, coming with a great deal of skepticism about religion. They are living in a relative period of peace where they're able to speculate much more broadly and daringly than before. But it's really in those first couple of decades that they start thinking of themselves as living in an enlightened century. They start defining themselves as something that would later be called the enlightenment. So I would say that it's, really, really there between maybe the end of the 17th century and 1720s that it really gets started.Andrew Keen: So let's have some names, David, of philosophers, I guess. I mean, if those are the right words. I know that there was a term in French. There is a term called philosoph. Were they the founders, the leaders of the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, there is a... Again, I don't want to descend into academic quibbling here, but there were lots of leaders. Let me give an example, though. So the year 1721 is a remarkable year. So in the year, 1721, two amazing events happened within a couple of months of each other. So in May, Montesquieu, one of the great philosophers by any definition, publishes his novel called Persian Letters. And this is an incredible novel. Still, I think one of greatest novels ever written, and it's very daring. It is the account, it is supposedly a an account written by two Persian travelers to Europe who are writing back to people in Isfahan about what they're seeing. And it is very critical of French society. It is very of religion. It is, as I said, very daring philosophically. It is a product in part of the increasing contact between Europe and the rest of the world that is also very central to the Enlightenment. So that novel comes out. So it's immediately, you know, the police try to suppress it. But they don't have much success because it's incredibly popular and Montesquieu doesn't suffer any particular problems because...Andrew Keen: And the French police have never been the most efficient police force in the world, have they?David Bell: Oh, they could be, but not in this case. And then two months later, after Montesquieu published this novel, there's a German philosopher much less well-known than Montesqiu, than Christian Bolz, who is a professor at the Universität Haller in Prussia, and he gives an oration in Latin, a very typical university oration for the time, about Chinese philosophy, in which he says that the Chinese have sort of proved to the world, particularly through the writings of Confucius and others, that you can have a virtuous society without religion. Obviously very controversial. Statement for the time it actually gets him fired from his job, he has to leave the Kingdom of Prussia within 48 hours on penalty of death, starts an enormous controversy. But here are two events, both of which involving non-European people, involving the way in which Europeans are starting to look out at the rest of the world and starting to imagine Europe as just one part of a larger humanity, and at the same time they are starting to speculate very daringly about whether you can have. You know, what it means to have a society, do you need to have religion in order to have morality in society? Do you need the proper, what kind of government do you need to to have virtuous conduct and a proper society? So all of these things get, you know, really crystallize, I think, around these two incidents as much as anything. So if I had to pick a single date for when the enlightenment starts, I'd probably pick that 1721.Andrew Keen: And when was, David, I thought you were going to tell me about the earthquake in Lisbon, when was that earthquake?David Bell: That earthquake comes quite a bit later. That comes, and now historians should be better with dates than I am. It's in the 1750s, I think it's the late 1750's. Again, this historian is proving he's getting a very bad grade for forgetting the exact date, but it's in 1750. So that's a different kind of event, which sparks off a great deal of commentary, because it's a terrible earthquake. It destroys most of the city of Lisbon, it destroys other cities throughout Portugal, and it leads a lot of the philosophy to philosophers at the time to be speculating very daringly again on whether there is any kind of real purpose to the universe and whether there's any kind divine purpose. Why would such a terrible thing happen? Why would God do such a thing to his followers? And certainly VoltaireAndrew Keen: Yeah, Votav, of course, comes to mind of questioning.David Bell: And Condit, Voltaire's novel Condit gives a very good description of the earthquake in Lisbon and uses that as a centerpiece. Voltair also read other things about the earthquake, a poem about Lisbon earthquake. But in Condit he gives a lasting, very scathing portrait of the Catholic Church in general and then of what happens in Portugal. And so the Lisbon Earthquake is certainly another one of the events, but it happens considerably later. Really in the middle of the end of life.Andrew Keen: So, David, you believe in this idea of the Enlightenment. I take your point that there are more than one Enlightenment in more than one center, but in broad historical terms, the 18th century could be defined at least in Western and Northern Europe as the period of the Enlightenment, would that be a fair generalization?David Bell: I think it's perfectly fair generalization. Of course, there are historians who say that it never happened. There's a conservative British historian, J.C.D. Clark, who published a book last summer, saying that the Enlightenment is a kind of myth, that there was a lot of intellectual activity in Europe, obviously, but that the idea that it formed a coherent Enlightenment was really invented in the 20th century by a bunch of progressive reformers who wanted to claim a kind of venerable and august pedigree for their own reform, liberal reform plans. I think that's an exaggeration. People in the 18th century defined very clearly what was going on, both people who were in favor of it and people who are against it. And while you can, if you look very closely at it, of course it gets a bit fuzzy. Of course it's gets, there's no single, you can't define a single enlightenment project or a single enlightened ideology. But then, I think people would be hard pressed to define any intellectual movement. You know, in perfect, incoherent terms. So the enlightenment is, you know by compared with almost any other intellectual movement certainly existed.Andrew Keen: In terms of a philosophy of the Enlightenment, the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to be often, and when you describe him as the conscience or the brain or a mixture of the conscience and brain of the enlightenment, why is Kant and Kantian thinking so important in the development of the Enlightenment.David Bell: Well, that's a really interesting question. And one reason is because most of the Enlightenment was not very rigorously philosophical. A lot of the major figures of the enlightenment before Kant tended to be writing for a general public. And they often were writing with a very specific agenda. We look at Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau. Now you look at Adam Smith in Scotland. We look David Hume or Adam Ferguson. You look at Benjamin Franklin in the United States. These people wrote in all sorts of different genres. They wrote in, they wrote all sorts of different kinds of books. They have many different purposes and very few of them did a lot of what we would call rigorous academic philosophy. And Kant was different. Kant was very much an academic philosopher. Kant was nothing if not rigorous. He came at the end of the enlightenment by most people's measure. He wrote these very, very difficult, very rigorous, very brilliant works, such as The Creek of Pure Reason. And so, it's certainly been the case that people who wanted to describe the Enlightenment as a philosophy have tended to look to Kant. So for example, there's a great German philosopher and intellectual historian of the early 20th century named Ernst Kassirer, who had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. And he wrote a great book called The Philosophy of the Enlightened. And that leads directly to Immanuel Kant. And of course, Casir himself was a Kantian, identified with Kant. And so he wanted to make Kant, in a sense, the telos, the end point, the culmination, the fulfillment of the Enlightenment. But so I think that's why Kant has such a particularly important position. You're defining it both ways.Andrew Keen: I've always struggled to understand what Kant was trying to say. I'm certainly not alone there. Might it be fair to say that he was trying to transform the universe and certainly traditional Christian notions into the Enlightenment, so the entire universe, the world, God, whatever that means, that they were all somehow according to Kant enlightened.David Bell: Well, I think that I'm certainly no expert on Immanuel Kant. And I would say that he is trying to, I mean, his major philosophical works are trying to put together a system of philosophical thinking which will justify why people have to act morally, why people act rationally, without the need for Christian revelation to bolster them. That's a very, very crude and reductionist way of putting it, but that's essentially at the heart of it. At the same time, Kant was very much aware of his own place in history. So Kant didn't simply write these very difficult, thick, dense philosophical works. He also wrote things that were more like journalism or like tablets. He wrote a famous essay called What is Enlightenment? And in that, he said that the 18th century was the period in which humankind was simply beginning to. Reach a period of enlightenment. And he said, he starts the essay by saying, this is the period when humankind is being released from its self-imposed tutelage. And we are still, and he said we do not yet live in the midst of a completely enlightened century, but we are getting there. We are living in a century that is enlightening.Andrew Keen: So the seeds, the seeds of Hegel and maybe even Marx are incant in that German thinking, that historical thinking.David Bell: In some ways, in some ways of course Hegel very much reacts against Kant and so and then Marx reacts against Hegel. So it's not exactly.Andrew Keen: Well, that's the dialectic, isn't it, David?David Bell: A simple easy path from one to the other, no, but Hegel is unimaginable without Kant of course and Marx is unimagineable without Hegel.Andrew Keen: You note that Kant represents a shift in some ways into the university and the walls of the universities were going up, and that some of the other figures associated with the the Enlightenment and Scottish Enlightenment, human and Smith and the French Enlightenment Voltaire and the others, they were more generalist writers. Should we be nostalgic for the pre-university period in the Enlightenment, or? Did things start getting serious once the heavyweights, the academic heavyweighs like Emmanuel Kant got into this thing?David Bell: I think it depends on where we're talking about. I mean, Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow in Edinburgh, so Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment was definitely at least partly in the universities. The German Enlightenment took place very heavily in universities. Christian Vodafoy I just mentioned was the most important German philosopher of the 18th century before Kant, and he had positions in university. Even the French university system, for a while, what's interesting about the French University system, particularly the Sorbonne, which was the theology faculty, It was that. Throughout the first half of the 18th century, there were very vigorous, very interesting philosophical debates going on there, in which the people there, particularly even Jesuits there, were very open to a lot of the ideas we now call enlightenment. They were reading John Locke, they were reading Mel Pench, they were read Dekalb. What happened though in the French universities was that as more daring stuff was getting published elsewhere. Church, the Catholic Church, started to say, all right, these philosophers, these philosophies, these are our enemies, these are people we have to get at. And so at that point, anybody who was in the university, who was still in dialog with these people was basically purged. And the universities became much less interesting after that. But to come back to your question, I do think that I am very nostalgic for that period. I think that the Enlightenment was an extraordinary period, because if you look between. In the 17th century, not all, but a great deal of the most interesting intellectual work is happening in the so-called Republic of Letters. It's happening in Latin language. It is happening on a very small circle of RUD, of scholars. By the 19th century following Kant and Hegel and then the birth of the research university in Germany, which is copied everywhere, philosophy and the most advanced thinking goes back into the university. And the 18th century, particularly in France, I will say, is a time when the most advanced thought is being written for a general public. It is being in the form of novels, of dialogs, of stories, of reference works, and it is very, very accessible. The most profound thought of the West has never been as accessible overall as in the 18 century.Andrew Keen: Again, excuse this question, it might seem a bit naive, but there's a lot of pre-Enlightenment work, books, thinking that we read now that's very accessible from Erasmus and Thomas More to Machiavelli. Why weren't characters like, or are characters like Erasmuus, More's Utopia, Machiavell's prints and discourses, why aren't they considered part of the Enlightenment? What's the difference between? Enlightened thinkers or the supposedly enlightened thinkers of the 18th century and thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.David Bell: That's a good question, you know, I think you have to, you, you know, again, one has to draw a line somewhere. That's not a very good answer, of course. All these people that you just mentioned are, in one way or another, predecessors to the Enlightenment. And of course, there were lots of people. I don't mean to say that nobody wrote in an accessible way before 1700. Obviously, lots of the people you mentioned did. Although a lot of them originally wrote in Latin, Erasmus, also Thomas More. But I think what makes the Enlightened different is that you have, again, you have a sense. These people have have a sense that they are themselves engaged in a collective project, that it is a collective project of enlightenment, of enlightening the world. They believe that they live in a century of progress. And there are certain principles. They don't agree on everything by any means. The philosophy of enlightenment is like nothing more than ripping each other to shreds, like any decent group of intellectuals. But that said, they generally did believe That people needed to have freedom of speech. They believed that you needed to have toleration of different religions. They believed in education and the need for a broadly educated public that could be as broad as possible. They generally believed in keeping religion out of the public sphere as much as possible, so all those principles came together into a program that we can consider at least a kind of... You know, not that everybody read it at every moment by any means, but there is an identifiable enlightenment program there, and in this case an identifiable enlightenment mindset. One other thing, I think, which is crucial to the Enlightenment, is that it was the attention they started to pay to something that we now take almost entirely for granted, which is the idea of society. The word society is so entirely ubiquitous, we assume it's always been there, and in one sense it has, because the word societas is a Latin word. But until... The 18th century, the word society generally had a much narrower meaning. It referred to, you know, particular institution most often, like when we talk about the society of, you know, the American philosophical society or something like that. And the idea that there exists something called society, which is the general sphere of human existence that is separate from religion and is separate from the political sphere, that's actually something which only really emerged at the end of the 1600s. And it became really the focus of you know, much, if not most, of enlightenment thinking. When you look at someone like Montesquieu and you look something, somebody like Rousseau or Voltaire or Adam Smith, probably above all, they were concerned with understanding how society works, not how government works only, but how society, what social interactions are like beginning of what we would now call social science. So that's yet another thing that distinguishes the enlightened from people like Machiavelli, often people like Thomas More, and people like bonuses.Andrew Keen: You noted earlier that the idea of progress is somehow baked in, in part, and certainly when it comes to Kant, certainly the French Enlightenment, although, of course, Rousseau challenged that. I'm not sure whether Rousseaut, as always, is both in and out of the Enlightenment and he seems to be in and out of everything. How did the Enlightement, though, make sense of itself in the context of antiquity, as it was, of Terms, it was the Renaissance that supposedly discovered or rediscovered antiquity. How did many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers, writers, how did they think of their own society in the context of not just antiquity, but even the idea of a European or Western society?David Bell: Well, there was a great book, one of the great histories of the Enlightenment was written about more than 50 years ago by the Yale professor named Peter Gay, and the first part of that book was called The Modern Paganism. So it was about the, you know, it was very much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the ancient Greek synonyms. And certainly the writers of the enlightenment felt a great deal of kinship with the ancient Greek synonymous. They felt a common bond, particularly in the posing. Christianity and opposing what they believed the Christian Church had wrought on Europe in suppressing freedom and suppressing free thought and suppassing free inquiry. And so they felt that they were both recovering but also going beyond antiquity at the same time. And of course they were all, I mean everybody at the time, every single major figure of the Enlightenment, their education consisted in large part of what we would now call classics, right? I mean, there was an educational reformer in France in the 1760s who said, you know, our educational system is great if the purpose is to train Roman centurions, if it's to train modern people who are not doing both so well. And it's true. I mean they would spend, certainly, you know in Germany, in much of Europe, in the Netherlands, even in France, I mean people were trained not simply to read Latin, but to write in Latin. In Germany, university courses took part in the Latin language. So there's an enormous, you know, so they're certainly very, very conversant with the Greek and Roman classics, and they identify with them to a very great extent. Someone like Rousseau, I mean, and many others, and what's his first reading? How did he learn to read by reading Plutarch? In translation, but he learns to read reading Plutach. He sees from the beginning by this enormous admiration for the ancients that we get from Bhutan.Andrew Keen: Was Socrates relevant here? Was the Enlightenment somehow replacing Aristotle with Socrates and making him and his spirit of Enlightenment, of asking questions rather than answering questions, the symbol of a new way of thinking?David Bell: I would say to a certain extent, so I mean, much of the Enlightenment criticizes scholasticism, medieval scholastic, very, very sharply, and medieval scholasticism is founded philosophically very heavily upon Aristotle, so to that extent. And the spirit of skepticism that Socrates embodied, the idea of taking nothing for granted and asking questions about everything, including questions of oneself, yes, absolutely. That said, while the great figures of the Red Plato, you know, Socrates was generally I mean, it was not all that present as they come. But certainly have people with people with red play-doh in the entire virus.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier, David. Most of the Enlightenment, of course, seems to be centered in France and Scotland, Germany, England. But America, many Europeans went to America then as a, what some people would call a settler colonial society, or certainly an offshoot of the European world. Was the settling of America and the American Revolution Was it the quintessential Enlightenment project?David Bell: Another very good question, and again, it depends a bit on who you talk to. I just mentioned this book by Peter Gay, and the last part of his book is called The Science of Freedom, and it's all about the American Revolution. So certainly a lot of interpreters of the Enlightenment have said that, yes, the American revolution represents in a sense the best possible outcome of the American Revolution, it was the best, possible outcome of the enlightened. Certainly there you look at the founding fathers of the United States and there's a great deal that they took from me like Certainly, they took a great great number of political ideas from Obviously Madison was very much inspired and drafting the edifice of the Constitution by Montesquieu to see himself Was happy to admit in addition most of the founding Fathers of the united states were you know had kind of you know We still had we were still definitely Christians, but we're also but we were also very much influenced by deism were very much against the idea of making the United States a kind of confessional country where Christianity was dominant. They wanted to believe in the enlightenment principles of free speech, religious toleration and so on and so forth. So in all those senses and very much the gun was probably more inspired than Franklin was somebody who was very conversant with the European Enlightenment. He spent a large part of his life in London. Where he was in contact with figures of the Enlightenment. He also, during the American Revolution, of course, he was mostly in France, where he is vetted by some of the surviving fellows and were very much in contact for them as well. So yes, I would say the American revolution is certainly... And then the American revolutionary scene, of course by the Europeans, very much as a kind of offshoot of the enlightenment. So one of the great books of the late Enlightenment is by Condor Say, which he wrote while he was hiding actually in the future evolution of the chariot. It's called a historical sketch of the progress of the human spirit, or the human mind, and you know he writes about the American Revolution as being, basically owing its existence to being like...Andrew Keen: Franklin is of course an example of your pre-academic enlightenment, a generalist, inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, political thinker. What about the role of science and indeed economics in the Enlightenment? David, we're going to talk of course about the Marxist interpretation, perhaps the Marxist interpretation which sees The Enlightenment is just a euphemism, perhaps, for exploitative capitalism. How central was the growth and development of the market, of economics, and innovation, and capitalism in your reading of The Enlightened?David Bell: Well, in my reading, it was very important, but not in the way that the Marxists used to say. So Friedrich Engels once said that the Enlightenment was basically the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie, and there was whole strain of Marxist thinking that followed the assumption that, and then Karl Marx himself argued that the documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which obviously were inspired by the Enlightment, were simply kind of the near, or kind of. Way that the bourgeoisie was able to advance itself ideologically, and I don't think that holds much water, which is very little indication that any particular economic class motivated the Enlightenment or was using the Enlightment in any way. That said, I think it's very difficult to imagine the Enlightement without the social and economic changes that come in with the 18th century. To begin with globalization. If you read the great works of the Enlightenment, it's remarkable just how open they are to talking about humanity in general. So one of Voltaire's largest works, one of his most important works, is something called Essay on Customs and the Spirit of Nations, which is actually History of the World, where he talks learnedly not simply about Europe, but about the Americas, about China, about Africa, about India. Montesquieu writes Persian letters. Christian Volpe writes about Chinese philosophy. You know, Rousseau writes about... You know, the earliest days of humankind talks about Africa. All the great figures of the Enlightenment are writing about the rest of the world, and this is a period in which contacts between Europe and the rest the world are exploding along with international trade. So by the end of the 18th century, there are 4,000 to 5,000 ships a year crossing the Atlantic. It's an enormous number. And that's one context in which the enlightenment takes place. Another is what we call the consumer revolution. So in the 18th century, certainly in the major cities of Western Europe, people of a wide range of social classes, including even artisans, sort of somewhat wealthy artisians, shopkeepers, are suddenly able to buy a much larger range of products than they were before. They're able to choose how to basically furnish their own lives, if you will, how they're gonna dress, what they're going to eat, what they gonna put on the walls of their apartments and so on and so forth. And so they become accustomed to exercising a great deal more personal choice than their ancestors have done. And the Enlightenment really develops in tandem with this. Most of the great works of the Enlightment, they're not really written to, they're treatises, they're like Kant, they're written to persuade you to think in a single way. Really written to make you ask questions yourself, to force you to ponder things. They're written in the form of puzzles and riddles. Voltaire had a great line there, he wrote that the best kind of books are the books that readers write half of themselves as they read, and that's sort of the quintessence of the Enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.Andrew Keen: Yeah, Voltaire might have been comfortable on YouTube or Facebook. David, you mentioned all those ships going from Europe across the Atlantic. Of course, many of those ships were filled with African slaves. You mentioned this in your piece. I mean, this is no secret, of course. You also mentioned a couple of times Montesquieu's Persian letters. To what extent is... The enlightenment then perhaps the birth of Western power, of Western colonialism, of going to Africa, seizing people, selling them in North America, the French, the English, Dutch colonization of the rest of the world. Of course, later more sophisticated Marxist thinkers from the Frankfurt School, you mentioned these in your essay, Odorno and Horkheimer in particular, See the Enlightenment as... A project, if you like, of Western domination. I remember reading many years ago when I was in graduate school, Edward Said, his analysis of books like The Persian Letters, which is a form of cultural Western power. How much of this is simply bound up in the profound, perhaps, injustice of the Western achievement? And of course, some of the justice as well. We haven't talked about Jefferson, but perhaps in Jefferson's life and his thinking and his enlightened principles and his... Life as a slave owner, these contradictions are most self-evident.David Bell: Well, there are certainly contradictions, and there's certainly... I think what's remarkable, if you think about it, is that if you read through works of the Enlightenment, you would be hard-pressed to find a justification for slavery. You do find a lot of critiques of slavery, and I think that's something very important to keep in mind. Obviously, the chattel slavery of Africans in the Americas began well before the Enlightment, it began in 1500. The Enlightenment doesn't have the credit for being the first movement to oppose slavery. That really goes back to various religious groups, especially the Fakers. But that said, you have in France, you had in Britain, in America even, you'd have a lot of figures associated with the Enlightenment who were pretty sure of becoming very forceful opponents of slavery very early. Now, when it comes to imperialism, that's a tricky issue. What I think you'd find in these light bulbs, you'd different sorts of tendencies and different sorts of writings. So there are certainly a lot of writers of the Enlightenment who are deeply opposed to European authorities. One of the most popular works of the late Enlightenment was a collective work edited by the man named the Abbe Rinal, which is called The History of the Two Indies. And that is a book which is deeply, deeply critical of European imperialism. At the same time, at the same of the enlightenment, a lot the works of history written during the Enlightment. Tended, such as Voltaire's essay on customs, which I just mentioned, tend to give a kind of very linear version of history. They suggest that all societies follow the same path, from sort of primitive savagery, hunter-gatherers, through early agriculture, feudal stages, and on into sort of modern commercial society and civilization. And so they're basically saying, okay, we, the Europeans, are the most advanced. People like the Africans and the Native Americans are the least advanced, and so perhaps we're justified in going and quote, bringing our civilization to them, what later generations would call the civilizing missions, or possibly just, you know, going over and exploiting them because we are stronger and we are more, and again, we are the best. And then there's another thing that the Enlightenment did. The Enlightenment tended to destroy an older Christian view of humankind, which in some ways militated against modern racism. Christians believed, of course, that everyone was the same from Adam and Eve, which meant that there was an essential similarity in the world. And the Enlightenment challenged this by challenging the biblical kind of creation. The Enlightenment challenges this. Voltaire, for instance, believed that there had actually been several different human species that had different origins, and that can very easily become a justification for racism. Buffon, one of the most Figures of the French Enlightenment, one of the early naturalists, was crucial for trying to show that in fact nature is not static, that nature is always changing, that species are changing, including human beings. And so again, that allowed people to think in terms of human beings at different stages of evolution, and perhaps this would be a justification for privileging the more advanced humans over the less advanced. In the 18th century itself, most of these things remain potential, rather than really being acted upon. But in the 19th century, figures of writers who would draw upon these things certainly went much further, and these became justifications for slavery, imperialism, and other things. So again, the Enlightenment is the source of a great deal of stuff here, and you can't simply put it into one box or more.Andrew Keen: You mentioned earlier, David, that Concorda wrote one of the later classics of the... Condorcet? Sorry, Condorcets, excuse my French. Condorcès wrote one the later Classics of the Enlightenment when he was hiding from the French Revolution. In your mind, was the revolution itself the natural conclusion, climax? Perhaps anti-climax of the Enlightenment. Certainly, it seems as if a lot of the critiques of the French Revolution, particularly the more conservative ones, Burke comes to mind, suggested that perhaps the principles of in the Enlightment inevitably led to the guillotine, or is that an unfair way of thinking of it?David Bell: Well, there are a lot of people who have thought like that. Edmund Burke already, writing in 1790, in his reflections on the revolution in France, he said that everything which was great in the old regime is being dissolved and, quoting, dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. And then he said about the French that in the groves of their academy at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing but the Gallows. So there, in 1780, he already seemed to be predicting the reign of terror and blaming it. A certain extent from the Enlightenment. That said, I think, you know, again, the French Revolution is incredibly complicated event. I mean, you certainly have, you know, an explosion of what we could call Enlightenment thinking all over the place. In France, it happened in France. What happened there was that you had a, you know, the collapse of an extraordinarily inefficient government and a very, you know, in a very antiquated, paralyzed system of government kind of collapsed, created a kind of political vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped a lot of figures who were definitely readers of the Enlightenment. Oh so um but again the Enlightment had I said I don't think you can call the Enlightement a single thing so to say that the Enlightiment inspired the French Revolution rather than the There you go.Andrew Keen: Although your essay on liberties is the Enlightenment then and now you probably didn't write is always these lazy editors who come up with inaccurate and inaccurate titles. So for you, there is no such thing as the Enlighten.David Bell: No, there is. There is. But still, it's a complex thing. It contains multitudes.Andrew Keen: So it's the Enlightenment rather than the United States.David Bell: Conflicting tendencies, it has contradictions within it. There's enough unity to refer to it as a singular noun, but it doesn't mean that it all went in one single direction.Andrew Keen: But in historical terms, did the failure of the French Revolution, its descent into Robespierre and then Bonaparte, did it mark the end in historical terms a kind of bookend of history? You began in 1720 by 1820. Was the age of the Enlightenment pretty much over?David Bell: I would say yes. I think that, again, one of the things about the French Revolution is that people who are reading these books and they're reading these ideas and they are discussing things really start to act on them in a very different way from what it did before the French revolution. You have a lot of absolute monarchs who are trying to bring certain enlightenment principles to bear in their form of government, but they're not. But it's difficult to talk about a full-fledged attempt to enact a kind of enlightenment program. Certainly a lot of the people in the French Revolution saw themselves as doing that. But as they did it, they ran into reality, I would say. I mean, now Tocqueville, when he writes his old regime in the revolution, talks about how the French philosophes were full of these abstract ideas that were divorced from reality. And while that's an exaggeration, there was a certain truth to them. And as soon as you start having the age of revolutions, as soon you start people having to devise systems of government that will actually last, and as you have people, democratic representative systems that will last, and as they start revising these systems under the pressure of actual events, then you're not simply talking about an intellectual movement anymore, you're talking about something very different. And so I would say that, well, obviously the ideas of the Enlightenment continue to inspire people, the books continue to be read, debated. They lead on to figures like Kant, and as we talked about earlier, Kant leads to Hegel, Hegel leads to Marx in a certain sense. Nonetheless, by the time you're getting into the 19th century, what you have, you know, has connections to the Enlightenment, but can we really still call it the Enlightment? I would sayAndrew Keen: And Tocqueville, of course, found democracy in America. Is democracy itself? I know it's a big question. But is it? Bound up in the Enlightenment. You've written extensively, David, both for liberties and elsewhere on liberalism. Is the promise of democracy, democratic systems, the one born in the American Revolution, promised in the French Revolution, not realized? Are they products of the Enlightment, or is the 19th century and the democratic systems that in the 19th century, is that just a separate historical track?David Bell: Again, I would say there are certain things in the Enlightenment that do lead in that direction. Certainly, I think most figures in the enlightenment in one general sense or another accepted the idea of a kind of general notion of popular sovereignty. It didn't mean that they always felt that this was going to be something that could necessarily be acted upon or implemented in their own day. And they didn't necessarily associate generalized popular sovereignty with what we would now call democracy with people being able to actually govern themselves. Would be certain figures, certainly Diderot and some of his essays, what we saw very much in the social contract, you know, were sketching out, you knows, models for possible democratic system. Condorcet, who actually lived into the French Revolution, wrote one of the most draft constitutions for France, that's one of most democratic documents ever proposed. But of course there were lots of figures in the Enlightenment, Voltaire, and others who actually believed much more in absolute monarchy, who believed that you just, you know, you should have. Freedom of speech and freedom of discussion, out of which the best ideas would emerge, but then you had to give those ideas to the prince who imposed them by poor sicknesses.Andrew Keen: And of course, Rousseau himself, his social contract, some historians have seen that as the foundations of totalitarian, modern totalitarianism. Finally, David, your wonderful essay in Liberties in the spring quarterly 2025 is The Enlightenment, Then and Now. What about now? You work at Princeton, your president has very bravely stood up to the new presidential regime in the United States, in defense of academic intellectual freedom. Does the word and the movement, does it have any relevance in the 2020s, particularly in an age of neo-authoritarianism around the world?David Bell: I think it does. I think we have to be careful about it. I always get a little nervous when people say, well, we should simply go back to the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenments is history. We don't go back the 18th century. I think what we need to do is to recover certain principles, certain ideals from the 18 century, the ones that matter to us, the ones we think are right, and make our own Enlightenment better. I don't think we need be governed by the 18 century. Thomas Paine once said that no generation should necessarily rule over every generation to come, and I think that's probably right. Unfortunately in the United States, we have a constitution which is now essentially unamendable, so we're doomed to live by a constitution largely from the 18th century. But are there many things in the Enlightenment that we should look back to, absolutely?Andrew Keen: Well, David, I am going to free you for your own French Enlightenment. You can go and have some croissant now in your local cafe in Paris. Thank you so much for a very, I excuse the pun, enlightening conversation on the Enlightenment then and now, Essential Essay in Liberties. I'd love to get you back on the show. Talk more history. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Mlle Lenormand, surnommée « la Sybille de Paris », fut l'une des voyantes les plus célèbres du XIXe siècle. De ses débuts précoces au couvent à ses consultations auprès de figures historiques telles que Joséphine de Beauharnais, Robespierre ou encore peut-être Napoléon, elle a traversé les bouleversements de la Révolution, de l'Empire et de la Restauration sans jamais perdre sa renommée. Son don pour la divination et son flair pour l'autopromotion lui ont permis d'accéder à une notoriété exceptionnelle. Mystérieuse, redoutée, fascinante, elle a su entretenir sa légende à coups de prédictions marquantes et d'ouvrages publiés. Son enterrement, grandiose, a réuni tout Paris, y compris Balzac et Hugo. Entre vérité historique et mythe savamment entretenu, Mlle Lenormand reste une figure à part. Encore aujourd'hui, sa tombe au Père Lachaise attire les curieux. Une femme libre, singulière, et une vie digne d'un roman. Merci pour votre écoute Vous aimez l'Heure H, mais connaissez-vous La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiK , une version pour toute la famille.Retrouvez l'ensemble des épisodes de l'Heure H sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/22750 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : Un jour dans l'Histoire : https://audmns.com/gXJWXoQL'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvVous aimez les histoires racontées par Jean-Louis Lahaye ? Connaissez-vous ces podcast?Sous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppv36 Quai des orfèvres : https://audmns.com/eUxNxyFHistoire Criminelle, les enquêtes de Scotland Yard : https://audmns.com/ZuEwXVOUn Crime, une Histoire https://audmns.com/NIhhXpYN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Die Anfertigung von Totenmasken ist eine uralte Kulturtechnik. Zu den bekanntesten Beispielen aus der Frühgeschichte zählt die goldene Maske des Tutenchamun. Nachdem diese Tradition in der Renaissance wieder auflebte, erkannte man den Totenmasken im 19. Jahrhundert einen künstlerischen und musealen Wert zu. In diesem Zuge entstand die Sammlung an der Berliner Universität, die heute noch Bestandteil der Sammlungen der Humboldt-Universität ist. Am 16. April 1925 war ein Autor der Altonaer Neuesten Nachrichten, der mit dem Kürzel UE signiert, nach Berlin gereist, um sich eine Ausstellung an eben dieser Universität anzusehen und über sie zu berichten. Wessen Abbild er zwischen den Totenmasken von Schiller, Voltaire und Robespierre dort noch begegnete, weiß Frank Riede.

AVISO LEGAL: Los cuentos, poemas, fragmentos de novelas, ensayos y todo contenido literario que aparece en Crónicas Lunares di Sun podrían estar protegidos por derecho de autor (copyright). Si por alguna razón los propietarios no están conformes con el uso de ellos por favor escribirnos al correo electrónico cronicaslunares.sun@hotmail.com y nos encargaremos de borrarlo inmediatamente. Si te gusta lo que escuchas y deseas apoyarnos puedes dejar tu donación en PayPal, ahí nos encuentras como @IrvingSun  ⁠https://paypal.me/IrvingSun?country.x=MX&locale.x=es_XC⁠  Síguenos en:  Telegram: Crónicas Lunares di Sun  ⁠⁠Crónicas Lunares di Sun - YouTube⁠⁠ ⁠⁠https://t.me/joinchat/QFjDxu9fqR8uf3eR⁠⁠  ⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/cronicalunar/?modal=admin_todo_tour⁠⁠  ⁠⁠Crónicas Lunares (@cronicaslunares.sun) • Fotos y videos de Instagram⁠⁠  ⁠⁠https://twitter.com/isun_g1⁠⁠  

« La Cerisaie, c'est une tragédie pour certains personnages, mais pas pour d'autres. Ce qui est certain, c'est que chaque comédienne et comédien ne peut pas y faire l'économie de lui-même. Chez Tchekhov, on est obligés de faire avec ce qu'on est, et on ne peut pas tricher. C'est sans doute pour cela qu'il est si difficile à jouer. » La Cerisaie, achevée en 1904, est la dernière pièce et la plus emblématique d'Anton Tchekhov. Le dramaturge veut montrer les tiraillements de la fin d'une époque : la chute de l'aristocratie russe après l'abolition du servage en 1861 et les mutations sociales qui s'ensuivent dans la Russie du début du XXe siècle. Lioubov Ranevskaïa [Florence Viala] refuse de vendre sa cerisaie familiale, mais est rattrapée par la réalité lorsque Lopakhine [Loïc Corbery], riche marchand et fils d'un ancien moujik, finit par racheter la propriété aux enchères et détruire le verger pour y construire des datchas.Je ne conçois pas la vie sans la cerisaie, et, s'il faut la vendre, qu'on me vende avec elle…Invité(e)s :♦ Clément Hervieu-Léger est acteur et metteur en scène. En février, il a été nommé administrateur général de la Comédie-Française, à compter d'août 2025, succédant à Eric Ruf. Formé au Conservatoire du Xe arrondissement de Paris, il fait ses premiers pas à la Comédie-Française en 2000 dans L'Avare de Molière par Andrei Serban, a intégré la Troupe en 2005 et en est devenu le 533e sociétaire en 2018. Sa carrière a été marquée par des rôles notables comme Robespierre dans La Mort de Danton et Günther von Essenbeck dans Les Damnés. Il a joué sous la direction de plusieurs metteurs en scène renommés comme Robert Wilson, Marcel Bozonnet ou Denis Podalydès. Il fut également un disciple de Patrice Chéreau, qu'il a accompagné sur de nombreux projets. Il enseigne aussi le théâtre à l'école de danse de l'Opéra national de Paris et préside, depuis 2021, la Société d'histoire du théâtre.♦ Florence Viala incarne Lioubov Andreevna Ranevskaïa dans La Cerisaie. Ancienne élève du Conservatoire national supérieur d'art dramatique à Paris, elle rejoint la Comédie-Française en 1994 et en devient la 503e sociétaire en 2000. Elle a fait ses débuts dans la salle Richelieu avec le rôle de Cyprienne dans Mille Francs de récompense de Victor Hugo, mis en scène par Jean-Paul Roussillon et sa performance dans Occupe-toi d'Amélie de Georges Feydeau, sous la direction de Roger Planchon, a contribué à la faire connaître du public et de la critique. En parallèle de sa carrière théâtrale, Florence Viala a également tourné dans plusieurs films et téléfilms, dont ​​​​​​​Guermantes de Christophe Honoré et ​​​​​​​Une jeune fille qui va bien de Sandrine Kiberlain. La Cerisaie n'est pas sa première collaboration avec Clément Hervieu-Léger : elle a interprété le rôle de Dorimène dans ​​​​​​​Le Petit-Maître corrigé de Marivaux (en 2016) et celui d'Arsinoé ​​​​​​​Le Misanthrope de Molière (en 2014 puis pour sa reprise en 2022) sous sa direction. ► Créée le 13 novembre 2021, la reprise de la Cerisaie de Clément Hervieu-Léger se joue jusqu'au 1er juin 2025 salle Richelieu à la Comédie-Française. Programmation musicale : Pandémonium – Vald 

« La Cerisaie, c'est une tragédie pour certains personnages, mais pas pour d'autres. Ce qui est certain, c'est que chaque comédienne et comédien ne peut pas y faire l'économie de lui-même. Chez Tchekhov, on est obligés de faire avec ce qu'on est, et on ne peut pas tricher. C'est sans doute pour cela qu'il est si difficile à jouer. » La Cerisaie, achevée en 1904, est la dernière pièce et la plus emblématique d'Anton Tchekhov. Le dramaturge veut montrer les tiraillements de la fin d'une époque : la chute de l'aristocratie russe après l'abolition du servage en 1861 et les mutations sociales qui s'ensuivent dans la Russie du début du XXe siècle. Lioubov Ranevskaïa [Florence Viala] refuse de vendre sa cerisaie familiale, mais est rattrapée par la réalité lorsque Lopakhine [Loïc Corbery], riche marchand et fils d'un ancien moujik, finit par racheter la propriété aux enchères et détruire le verger pour y construire des datchas.Je ne conçois pas la vie sans la cerisaie, et, s'il faut la vendre, qu'on me vende avec elle…Invité(e)s :♦ Clément Hervieu-Léger est acteur et metteur en scène. En février, il a été nommé administrateur général de la Comédie-Française, à compter d'août 2025, succédant à Eric Ruf. Formé au Conservatoire du Xe arrondissement de Paris, il fait ses premiers pas à la Comédie-Française en 2000 dans L'Avare de Molière par Andrei Serban, a intégré la Troupe en 2005 et en est devenu le 533e sociétaire en 2018. Sa carrière a été marquée par des rôles notables comme Robespierre dans La Mort de Danton et Günther von Essenbeck dans Les Damnés. Il a joué sous la direction de plusieurs metteurs en scène renommés comme Robert Wilson, Marcel Bozonnet ou Denis Podalydès. Il fut également un disciple de Patrice Chéreau, qu'il a accompagné sur de nombreux projets. Il enseigne aussi le théâtre à l'école de danse de l'Opéra national de Paris et préside, depuis 2021, la Société d'histoire du théâtre.♦ Florence Viala incarne Lioubov Andreevna Ranevskaïa dans La Cerisaie. Ancienne élève du Conservatoire national supérieur d'art dramatique à Paris, elle rejoint la Comédie-Française en 1994 et en devient la 503e sociétaire en 2000. Elle a fait ses débuts dans la salle Richelieu avec le rôle de Cyprienne dans Mille Francs de récompense de Victor Hugo, mis en scène par Jean-Paul Roussillon et sa performance dans Occupe-toi d'Amélie de Georges Feydeau, sous la direction de Roger Planchon, a contribué à la faire connaître du public et de la critique. En parallèle de sa carrière théâtrale, Florence Viala a également tourné dans plusieurs films et téléfilms, dont ​​​​​​​Guermantes de Christophe Honoré et ​​​​​​​Une jeune fille qui va bien de Sandrine Kiberlain. La Cerisaie n'est pas sa première collaboration avec Clément Hervieu-Léger : elle a interprété le rôle de Dorimène dans ​​​​​​​Le Petit-Maître corrigé de Marivaux (en 2016) et celui d'Arsinoé ​​​​​​​Le Misanthrope de Molière (en 2014 puis pour sa reprise en 2022) sous sa direction. ► Créée le 13 novembre 2021, la reprise de la Cerisaie de Clément Hervieu-Léger se joue jusqu'au 1er juin 2025 salle Richelieu à la Comédie-Française. Programmation musicale : Pandémonium – Vald 

Con la morte di Robespierre termina il periodo eroico o, se volete, più creativo della Rivoluzione Francese, il potere torna nelle mani della borghesia affarista, che aspirava ad una normalizzazione della situazione politica, al ritorno al liberalismo in economia. I nuovi padroni, però, mancavano di una solida base sociale che li appoggiasse, erano costretti a ricorrere all'esercito per reprimere le frequenti fiammate insurrezionali di destra o sinistra. Proprio l'esercito alla fine, o meglio il più energico ed intelligente dei suoi capi, Napoleone, si rende conto di poter fare assolutamente a meno di quel fiacco governo civile; il colpo di stato del brumaio 1799 sancisce la fine della Rivoluzione, le cui idee fondanti però sopravvivono e saranno diffuse in tutta Europa dalle armate napoleoniche.

Aujourd'hui, dans Au cœur de l'Histoire, il sera question d'un bureau. Oui mais pas n'importe lequel ! Depuis 1849, les Archives nationales conservent un bureau de style Louis XV appelé “La table de Robespierre” et pour cause : l'Incorruptible y aurait agonisé en 1794 avant d'être conduit à l'échafaud et perdre la tête à son tour sous le couperet de la guillotine. Adepte des enquêtes historiques, le médecin légiste et anthropologue Philippe Charlier, invité de Virginie Girod, s'est donné le défi de résoudre un cold-case vieux de deux siècles et demi : le sang de Robespierre a-t-il réellement coulé sur le bureau des Archives nationales ?Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

+ George Foreman, Napoleon, Left Turn, Blockbuster, Benedict Arnold, Robespierre, Snake Draft!You can find every episode of this show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or YouTube. Prime Members can listen ad-free on Amazon Music. For more, visit barstool.link/twistedhistory

On this episode of the podcast, we have Robespierre Dornagon, one of my best friends for over 15 years! Listen as we reflect on the importance of community and communication, and reminisce on lessons learned witnessing each other grow and evolve over the years. Robes is the Founder of DirectStory an advertising resource group created by advertisers FOR advertisers to connect. Network. And grow their careers. He is also an Associate Director of Paid Social at Hearts & Science (a media agency) where he leads and coaches teammates on how to excel in their advertising careers. If this conversation has piqued your interest to be in conversation with us, I encourage you to check out DirectStory, and join us for their first fireside chat that I'll be a part of on the topic of “The Power of Connections and Networking.”Please join us in this conversation that will be valuable for anyone across any team especially if you are in the Advertising or Non-Profit industries. Priyal and Paul are joining this conversation with years of professional experience to share with us how building a strong network has led them to so many opportunities.When: Tuesday, April 8th @ 5:30pm ETWhere: Online via Google MeetTo join just sign up on there Google Form here: https://lnkd.in/eGXPAqQ8This is a free event to attend, so please join - it is open for anyone to come, listen in, and ask questions to our speakers! We can't wait to be in conversation with you all!

Vous écoutez le podcast "Les interviews Histoire", notre émission hebdomadaire gratuite pour tous. Abonnez-vous à "5.000 ans d'Histoire" et accédez à environ 400 podcasts d'1 heure pour seulement 2€ par mois sans Pub ! Avec une nouvelle émission chaque semaine : https://m.audiomeans.fr/s/S-tavkjvmo Comment devient-on « Montagnard » et ami intime de Robespierre ? Comment une famille d'anciens protestants, menacée de déclassement après la révocation de l'édit de Nantes, trouve-t-elle les moyens de se réinventer tout au long du XVIIIe siècle ? Quels sont les outils et les stratégies qui permettent aux individus de s'approprier le virage révolutionnaire, de s'adapter, et de s'affirmer dans le nouvel ordre institutionnel ? Comment la Révolution est-elle vécue en coulisses, dans l'intimité de la cellule familiale et des relations sociales ? Comment, enfin, survivre au 9 thermidor et se recycler dans la société postrévolutionnaire lorsque l'on est marqué du sceau infamant de « robespierriste » et renvoyé à une identité « terroriste » lourdement condamnée ? C'est à toutes ces questions que se propose de répondre cet ouvrage en suivant la trajectoire de quatre générations de la famille Payan, originaire de Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux dans la Drôme, entre 1685 et 1852.L'auteur, Nicolas Soulas est notre invité par téléphoneDistribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

“From this place and from this day forth commences a new era in the world's history, and you can all say you were present at its birth!” By September 1792, the Prussians, under the leadership of the formidable Duke of Brunswick, were closing in on revolutionary Paris. There, the streets roiled with the clanging of church bells, thousands of volunteers, patriotic songs and slogans, and of course; the dead bodies of all those killed during the September Massacres. It was against this feverish backdrop that on the 20th, the new National Convention - the most democratic of the assemblies yet, with unlimited powers to remake the nation - met at the famous Riding School. And though it was riven by internal rivalries under the contentious three headed triumvirate of Danton, Marat and Robespierre, remake the nation it did. Voting to abolish the monarchy once and for all, the Convention declared the institution of a new world and a new beginning for France, with all state documents from that day forth bearing the immortal words, ‘Year One'. But, with their Prussian enemies baying at the gates, would revolutionary France survive to see more than one year? A great military reckoning was approaching, which would decide the fate of the new Republic and perhaps, universal liberty. As the armies of France and Prussia met for what would prove to be one of the most ideologically significant battles of all time, political tensions were mounting in Paris… Join Dominic and Tom for this crucial, tremulous episode of the French Revolution. With Prussia closing in, bodies littering the streets, and the revolutionary leaders hungry for each other's blood, would the Revolution survive? EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/restishistory Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee! _______ Twitter: @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook Producer: Theo Young-Smith Assistant Producer: Tabby Syrett + Aaliyah Akude Executive Producers: Jack Davenport + Tony Pastor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Stéphane Bern raconte le Tribunal Révolutionnaire, une cour destinée à juger les ennemis de la République naissante, une justice d'exception qui a marqué le début de la période de la Terreur en France, alors que la machine s'est emballée, de procès expéditifs en exécutions massives.… En quoi le Tribunal Révolutionnaire incarne-t-il une justice d'exception ? Comment sa création aboutit-elle à ce que l'Histoire a retenu comme La Terreur ? Que reste-t-il de la justice de cette époque dans celle que l'on connaît aujourd'hui? Pour en parler, Stéphane Bern reçoit Jean-Clément Martin, historien spécialiste de la Révolution française. Au Coeur de l'Histoire est réalisée par Mathieu Fret. Rédaction en chef : Benjamin Delsol. Auteur du récit : Pierre-Vincent Letourneau. Journaliste : Clara Leger.

Stéphane Bern raconte le Tribunal Révolutionnaire, une cour destinée à juger les ennemis de la République naissante, une justice d'exception qui a marqué le début de la période de la Terreur en France, alors que la machine s'est emballée, de procès expéditifs en exécutions massives.… En quoi le Tribunal Révolutionnaire incarne-t-il une justice d'exception ? Comment sa création aboutit-elle à ce que l'Histoire a retenu comme La Terreur ? Que reste-t-il de la justice de cette époque dans celle que l'on connaît aujourd'hui? Pour en parler, Stéphane Bern reçoit Jean-Clément Martin, historien spécialiste de la Révolution française. Au Coeur de l'Histoire est réalisée par Mathieu Fret. Rédaction en chef : Benjamin Delsol. Auteur du récit : Pierre-Vincent Letourneau. Journaliste : Clara Leger.

For our second episode on the people and ideas behind the French Revolution David talks to historian and biographer Ruth Scurr about the man who came to embody the revolution in all its radicalism and all its terror: Maximilien Robespierre. Who was he and how did he rise so fast once the upheaval was underway? How did he harness the power of the Jacobin Club? How did he marshal the violence of the streets? What did he believe in? And what made him think it was possible to reconcile virtue with terror? Out now: a special bonus episode for PPF+ subscribers on King Donald The First: David explores the arguments being made in 2025 for the restoration of monarchy in America. Who's making them and why? What on earth are they thinking? Sign up now to get this and all our bonus episodes plus ad-free listening https://www.ppfideas.com/join-ppf-plus Next time: French Revolution 3: Paine Past Present Future is part of the Airwave Podcast Network Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

‘Still more traitors, still more treason…" It is 1792 and France has been at war since April; it is not going well. In Paris, the Tuileries Palace has been stormed, and the royal family imprisoned. Meanwhile, tensions are rising between the main political factions of the Revolution, the Girondins and the Montagnard, led by the icy Maximilien Robespierre. The streets of Paris teem with armed young men - the Federes and the Sans-Culottes - responsible for the brutal slaughtering of the Swiss Guard earlier that year. They have arrested and imprisoned thousands of people. It is into this progressively febrile atmosphere of paranoia and fear that terrible news arrives: the Prussians, hungry for vengeance, have taken the fortress of Verdin. Rumours swirl of treason and betrayal from deep within Paris itself, and a new, chilling idea is raised to wash the city of counter revolutionaries once and for all: cleanse the prisons. So it is that on the 2nd of September, a group of Prisoners being escorted from one prison to another is stopped, and methodically hacked to death. The survivors face an impromptu tribunal before receiving the same treatment. Over the next few days, all prisoners across Paris are likewise judged, and many similarly damned and mutilated. A tide of bloodshed is rising, which will soon flood the streets of Paris, taking thousands of lives with it. Who will survive the massacre? Join Dominic and Tom for the next series of the French Revolution, as they pick up this epic story - one of the most resounding and complex historical events of all time - with arguably the most horrific episode of the whole revolution: the September massacres… EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/restishistory Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee! _______ Twitter: @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook Producer: Theo Young-Smith Assistant Producer: Tabby Syrett + Aaliyah Akude Executive Producers: Jack Davenport + Tony Pastor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Victor Davis Hanson discusses the misleading information about the first 30 days of the Trump administration's actions, comparing it to FDR's first hundred days. On this episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Hanson describes the current period as a “Trump restoration” rather than a revolution, emphasizing it as a counterrevolution against the changes brought by the Obama administration. “ We don't really appreciate what we've been through with eight years of the Obama revolution and the four-year, more radical third term of Obama using or employing the wax effigy of Joe Biden. A revolution that we've experienced was a cultural, economic, political, social revolution. It was very similar to the French Revolution under the Robespierre brothers. You should remember what they tried to do. They changed the days of the week. They renamed things. They tore down statues. They went after the churches. Does this sound familiar? … “ So this was a revolutionary movement. Movies were different. Sports were different. Take a knee. And Donald Trump came in and it was not sufficient to say we're going to stop the madness of $37 billion. … It's a return to normalcy. It's a return to common sense. It only looks revolutionary to revolutionaries. But to the rest of the people, it is a counterrevolution to restore normalcy and bring the country from the far-left fringes back home again.” For Victor's latest thoughts, go to: https://victorhanson.com/   Don't miss out on Victor's latest videos by subscribing to The Daily Signal today. You'll be notified every time a new video drops: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHqkXbgqrDrDVInBMSoGQgQ The Daily Signal cannot continue to tell stories like this one without the support of our viewers: https://secured.dailysignal.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Paris, juillet 1789. Au Palais-Royal, un jeune avocat enflamme la foule : Camille Desmoulins exhorte les Parisiens à prendre les armes contre la monarchie. Quelques jours plus tard, la Bastille tombe. Desmoulins devient une figure révolutionnaire incontournable, mais ses appels à la clémence sous la Terreur lui valent la fureur des radicaux. Robespierre, son ancien ami, ne lui pardonne pas et l'envoie à l'échafaud en avril 1794. À 34 ans, celui qui rêvait d'une République modérée paie son idéalisme et son audace de sa vie. Crédits : Lorànt Deutsch, Bruno Deltombe Du lundi au vendredi de 15h à 15h30, Lorànt Deutsch vous révèle les secrets des personnages historiques les plus captivants !

Assassin's Creed Unity puts players right into the Parisian streets where the bloody events of the Reign of Terror occurred, and gives us the chance to see the gruesome guillotine up close.But were public executions all there was to the Terror? How did such a notorious period come about? And what lessons can we learn from it today? To answer these questions,Matt Lewis talks to returning guest Prof. David Andress from the University of Portsmouth, author of The Terror: Civil War in the French Revolution.Echoes of History is a Ubisoft podcast, brought to you by History Hit. Hosted by: Matt LewisEdited by: Robin McConnellProduced by: Matt Lewis, Robin McConnellSenior Producer: Anne-Marie LuffProduction Manager: Beth DonaldsonExecutive Producers: Etienne Bouvier, Julien Fabre, Steve Lanham, Jen BennettMusic:Chandeliers and Carnage by Sarah SchachnerA Seditious Act by Sarah SchachnerOff With Their Heads by Christ TiltonIf you liked this podcast please subscribe, share, rate & review. You can take part in our listener survey here.Tell us your favourite Assassin's Creed game or podcast episode at echoes-of-history@historyhit.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Crâne rasé et la mentale d'un mousquetaire. Le crâne rasé, c'est lui sur la photo, la mentale d'un mousquetaire c'est lui qui le dit. Dans la besace de cet ex-taulard du 9.4 qui a jamais été en taule, même dans sa piaule, y a du gros son, des posters et des noms qui ont laissé des traces dans le frigo de la vie : Malcolm X, Robespierre, Ice Cube, Magic Johnson, Kery James et toute la célèbre clique de Mafia K'1 Fry. L'âme de ce collectif hip-hop c'est lui, Samir Salah, plus connu sous le nom de O.G.B. 20 ans de carrière, 1 600 concerts entre la France et le Maghreb et 38 tonnes de doutes pour ce métis des banlieues. Grâce à un lit d'hôpital où il est passé à un cheveu de la grande faucheuse, O.G.B auteur interprète-producteur-régisseur se livre en tant qu'homme, fils, père, poto sur 300 pages au titre évocateur Je suis venu me dire, aux éditions Mindset. Une lecture qui m'a donné envie de cette conversation ESM pour remonter aux origines de l'artiste, même si dans la vie, on ne peut pas pull up comme dans la musique. À écouter aussiL'artiste Samir Salah, dit OGB, présente son autobiographie «Je suis venu me dire ...»

Assassin's Creed Unity allows us to confront one of the most controversial men in history: Maximillien Robespierre. What made him such a successful leader, yet so despised by his followers?To get a better understanding of the man behind so much death, Matt Lewis speaks to Dr Ruth Scurr from the University of Cambridge, author of Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolutionaries.Echoes of History is a Ubisoft podcast, brought to you by History Hit. Hosted by: Matt LewisEdited by: Robin McConnellProduced by: Matt Lewis, Robin McConnell, Peta StamperSenior Producer: Anne-Marie LuffProduction Manager: Beth DonaldsonExecutive Producers: Etienne Bouvier, Julien Fabre, Steve Lanham, Jen BennettMusic:On Father's Watch by Christ TiltonBinding Loyalties by Sarah SchachnerVersailles for Sore Eyes by Christ TiltonIf you liked this podcast please subscribe, share, rate & review. You can take part in our listener survey here: https://uk.surveymonkey.com/r/6FFT7MKTell us your favourite episode or Assassin's Creed game at echoes-of-history@historyhit.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nascido em 1758, Maximilien Robespierre entrou para a história como um dos nomes mais emblemáticos da Revolução Francesa. No entanto, a memória em torno de seus atos é controversa, uma vez que ele é visto como a encarnação de ideais violentos dos revolucionários que estiveram à frente do que foi chamado de "período do terror". Mas essa leitura é consensual entre historiadores? Convidamos Daniel Gomes de Carvalho, do podcast História Pirata, para discutirmos a história de Robespierre e entendermos outros olhares sobre este revolucionário. A INSIDER é a melhor opção para o verão! Acesse https://creators.insiderstore.com.br/HISTORIAFM para ganhar 12% de desconto ou use o cupom HISTORIAFM #insiderstore

L'émission 28 minutes du 31/01/2025 Ce vendredi, Renaud Dély décrypte l'actualité avec le regard de nos clubistes : Maud Vergnol, codirectrice de la rédaction de "L'Humanité" ; Jean Quatremer, correspondant européen de “Libération” ; Maxime Thiébaut, avocat et docteur en droit public, ainsi que le dessinateur de presse Pascal Gros.Retour sur deux actualités de la semaine : Meurtre d'Elias, 14 ans : faut-il durcir la justice des mineurs en France ?Elias, 14 ans, est mort le vendredi 24 janvier au soir à Paris, poignardé pour avoir résisté au vol de son téléphone portable par deux mineurs. Âgés de 16 et 17 ans, les adolescents ont été identifiés et interpellés. Mais leur passé judiciaire déjà lourd (vols, extorsions avec violence et port d'arme blanche) interroge l'efficacité de la justice des mineurs en France. Depuis 1945, "l'excuse de minorité" impose que les individus mineurs soient jugés et sanctionnés moins sévèrement que les majeurs, excluant par exemple le recours aux comparutions immédiates. Cette justice est-elle adaptée au monde d'aujourd'hui ?“Une taxe qui pousse à délocaliser” : la colère des grands patrons est-elle légitime ?De retour des États-Unis, où il a assisté à l'investiture du président Donald Trump, le patron du groupe LVMH Bernard Arnault a exprimé sa colère vis-à-vis de “la taxation du made in France” qui pousse, selon lui, à la délocalisation. Dans son viseur, le projet de surtaxe temporaire sur les bénéfices des grandes entreprises prévu par le gouvernement, qui devrait rapporter quelque huit milliards d'euros. À l'heure où les États-Unis promettent d'abaisser le taux d'impôt sur les sociétés à 15 % et des subventions massives aux entreprises, cette colère est partagée par d'autres grands patrons de multinationales françaises — Michelin, Air France, Total, par exemple — qui dénoncent la hausse de la fiscalité et le trop-plein de normes.Après quinze ans de recherche, le médecin légiste et paléopathologiste Philippe Charlier vient d'élucider un “cold case” historique : les mystérieuses taches brunâtres sur “la table de Robespierre”, le révolutionnaire guillotiné le 28 juillet 1794. Grâce à des expertises scientifiques poussées et le progrès des technologies, l'enquête a révélé qu'il s'agit bien du sang de Robespierre qui aurait été soigné sur cette table, victime d'un tir à la mâchoire. Philippe Charlier nous explique comment son travail permet de “faire parler les morts” à travers des reliques qui ont traversé les âges.Interrogé sur LCI, puis dans un discours à l'Assemblée nationale, le Premier ministre François Bayrou a évoqué un “sentiment de submersion” migratoire, ressenti par les Français. Le groupe socialiste, présidé par Boris Vallaud, a dénoncé un vocabulaire emprunté au Rassemblement national et annulé sa présence à une réunion préparatoire au vote du budget. C'est le duel de la semaine de Frédéric Says.Un discours au Louvre, une vidéo sur TikTok, une visite surprise dans une petite commune de l'Aisne… Ces derniers temps, Emmanuel Macron multiplie les apparitions publiques, quand l'heure est à l'instabilité et la crise politique en France. Une présence inhabituelle qui n'a pas échappé aux internautes, comme le raconte Paola Puerari.Le 23 janvier dernier, la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme a tranché : refuser des relations sexuelles avec son époux n'est pas un manquement aux obligations du mariage. Elle a condamné la France pour avoir prononcé un divorce en 2019 pour faute, alors qu'une femme refusait de se soumettre au “devoir conjugal”. C'est l'histoire de la semaine de Claude Askolovitch.Enfin, ne manquez pas la Une internationale sur le retour de milliers de Gazaouis au Nord, dans une enclave en ruine ; les photos de la semaine soigneusement sélectionnées par nos invités, ainsi que la Dérive des continents de Benoît Forgeard !28 minutes est le magazine d'actualité d'ARTE, présenté par Élisabeth Quin du lundi au jeudi à 20h05. Renaud Dély est aux commandes de l'émission le vendredi et le samedi. Ce podcast est coproduit par KM et ARTE Radio. Enregistrement 31 janvier 2025 Présentation Renaud Dély Production KM, ARTE Radio

C'est une histoire extraordinaire : celle de la femme sauvage, dans les Pyrénées. En 1807, deux chasseurs aperçoivent une femme nue, accompagnée d'un ourson. "Robespierre a tué ma famille", indique l'inconnue capturée. Qui était véritablement cette femme ?

(**spoiler alert below**) Hilary Mantel's novel A Place Of Greater Safety is, according to Oxford History of the French Revolution author William Doyle, one of the two greatest books about those turbulent years in Paris and France. Its exploration of the fascinating relationships between three of the revolution's most important figures - Georges-Jacques Danton, Camille Desmoulins and Maximilien Robespierre -  reveals so much about the importance of personality to politics during periods of crisis. Prof Doyle discusses what motivates these characters and indeed what drove the revolution itself forwards through all its tempestuous phases.  Spoiler alert: You don't need to have read A Place Of Greater Safety to enjoy listening to this episode, because the novel is really a starting point for a discussion about its three protagonists rather than being the primary subject of this conversation. This episode anyhow reveals very little about the plot given it is a largely historical, chronological-based treatment. However, there is some discussion about the timing of the ending of the novel which might be viewed by some as a mild spoiler of sorts. To be honest it wouldn't have put me off listening to this before finishing the book, but others might feel differently - you have been warned! Help us produce more episodes by supporting the Napoleonic Quarterly on Patreon: patreon.com/napoleonicquarterly

Rediffusion - Avec Danton, Mirabeau et Marat, Maximilien Robespierre est sans conteste l'une des grandes figures de la Révolution française. Né en 1758, dans le nord de la France, il fait des études de droit et devient avocat. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

This is Part 2! For Part 1, check the feed!Pull down the decorations and throw the tree in the street; because this week we're discussing a few of the attempts through history to cancel Christmas. You can expect an appearance from Oliver Cromwell, Maximilien Robespierre will pop up too, as will all the critics of Elvis Presley's 1957 Christmas album.And this week we've got several great emails on the subject of “who are you playing a song to from history and what song are you picking and what do you want out of it?” (Snappier title for this feature very urgent). If you'd like to chip in you can email: hello@ohwhatatime.com).If you fancy a bunch of OWAT content you've never heard before, why not treat yourself and become an Oh What A Time: FULL TIMER?Up for grabs is:- two bonus episodes every month!- ad-free listening- episodes a week ahead of everyone else- And much moreSubscriptions are available via AnotherSlice and Wondery +. For all the links head to: ohwhatatime.comYou can also follow us on: X (formerly Twitter) at @ohwhatatimepodAnd Instagram at @ohwhatatimepodAaannnd if you like it, why not drop us a review in your podcast app of choice?Thank you to Dan Evans for the artwork (idrawforfood.co.uk).AND MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL OUR LISTENERS!Chris, Elis and Tom xSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Pull down the decorations and throw the tree in the street; because this week we're discussing a few of the attempts through history to cancel Christmas. You can expect an appearance from Oliver Cromwell, Maximilien Robespierre will pop up too, as will all the critics of Elvis Presley's 1957 Christmas album.And this week we've got several great emails on the subject of “who are you playing a song to from history and what song are you picking and what do you want out of it?” (Snappier title for this feature very urgent). If you'd like to chip in you can email: hello@ohwhatatime.com).If you fancy a bunch of OWAT content you've never heard before, why not treat yourself and become an Oh What A Time: FULL TIMER?Up for grabs is:- two bonus episodes every month!- ad-free listening- episodes a week ahead of everyone else- And much moreSubscriptions are available via AnotherSlice and Wondery +. For all the links head to: ohwhatatime.comYou can also follow us on: X (formerly Twitter) at @ohwhatatimepodAnd Instagram at @ohwhatatimepodAaannnd if you like it, why not drop us a review in your podcast app of choice?Thank you to Dan Evans for the artwork (idrawforfood.co.uk).AND MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL OUR LISTENERS!Chris, Elis and Tom xSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

1/8: To Overthrow the World: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Communism Hardcover – September 10, 2024 by  Sean McMeekin  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-World-Rise-Fall-Communism/dp/1541601963 When the USSR collapsed in 1991, the world was certain that Communism was dead. Today, three decades later, it is clear that it was not. While Russia may no longer be Communist, Communism and sympathy for Communist ideas have proliferated across the globe. In To Overthrow the World, Sean McMeekin investigates the evolution of Communism from a seductive ideal of a classless society into the ruling doctrine of tyrannical regimes. Tracing Communism's ascent from theory to practice, McMeekin ranges from Karl Marx's writings to the rise and fall of the USSR under Stalin to Mao's rise to power in China to the acceleration of Communist or Communist-inspired policies around the world in the twenty-first century. McMeekin argues, however, that despite the endurance of Communism, it remains deeply unpopular as a political form. Where it has arisen, it has always arisen by force. Blending historical narrative with cutting-edge scholarship, To Overthrow the World revolutionizes our understanding of the evolution of Communism—an idea that seemingly cannot die.  1793 Robespierre

Virginie Girod raconte l'histoire d'une famille de bourreaux entrée dans la postérité, dans un épisode inédit d'Au cœur de l'Histoire.Le 21 janvier 1723, à 10h22 du matin, Charles-Henri Sanson (1739-1806), exécuteur des hautes-œuvres de Paris, actionne la guillotine qui tranche la tête du roi déchu Louis XVI. Marie-Antoinette, Danton, Charlotte Corday ou Robespierre connaitront bientôt le même sort, mourant sous la lame de Sanson pendant la Révolution française, période durant laquelle l'usage de la guillotine devient systématique en cas de condamnation à la peine capitale.Dans la famille Sanson, on est bourreau de père en fils depuis le siècle précédent, tuant au nom de la loi. Mais les tâches infamantes que constituent la décapitation, la pendaison, ou l'écartèlement des condamnés, relèguent ceux qui les exécutent au ban de la société. Au Cœur de l'Histoire est un podcast Europe 1.- Présentation : Virginie Girod- Ecriture : Solène Grandclaude- Production : Armelle Thiberge et Morgane Vianey- Réalisation : Nicolas Gaspard- Composition du générique : Julien Tharaud- Promotion et coordination des partenariats : Marie Corpet- Visuel : Sidonie Mangin Bibliographie : Henri-Clément Sanson, Les Sanson, une famille de bourreaux au service de la France, Jourdan, 2019 Charles-Henri Sanson, La révolution vue par son bourreau, Le Cherche Midi, 2007Bernard Lecherbonnier, Bourreaux de père en fils: Les Sanson: 1688-1847, Albin Michel, 1989Sources :Mémoires de Charles-Henri Sanson - Gallica Mémoires de Henri-Clément Sanson - Gallica Les exécutions à Paris

The French have long self-identified as champions of universal emancipation, yet the republicanism they adopted has often been faulted for being exclusionary – of women, foreigners, and religious and ethnic minorities. Can republicanism be an attractive alternative to liberalism, communism, and communitarianism, or is it fundamentally flawed? Sharing Freedom: Republicanism and Exclusion in Revolutionary France (Cambridge UP, 2024) traces the development of republicanism from an older elitist theory of freedom into an inclusive theory of emancipation during the French Revolution. It uncovers the theoretical innovations of Rousseau and of revolutionaries such as Sieyès, Robespierre, Condorcet, and Grouchy. We learn how they struggled to adapt republicanism to the new circumstances of a large and diverse France, full of poor and dependent individuals with little education or experience of freedom. Analysing the argumentative logic that led republicans to justify the exclusion of many, this book renews the republican tradition and connects it with the enduring issues of colonialism, immigration, slavery, poverty and gender. Geneviève Rousselière is a Franco-American political theorist. She is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Duke University. She is the co-editor of Republicanism and the Future of Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The French have long self-identified as champions of universal emancipation, yet the republicanism they adopted has often been faulted for being exclusionary – of women, foreigners, and religious and ethnic minorities. Can republicanism be an attractive alternative to liberalism, communism, and communitarianism, or is it fundamentally flawed? Sharing Freedom: Republicanism and Exclusion in Revolutionary France (Cambridge UP, 2024) traces the development of republicanism from an older elitist theory of freedom into an inclusive theory of emancipation during the French Revolution. It uncovers the theoretical innovations of Rousseau and of revolutionaries such as Sieyès, Robespierre, Condorcet, and Grouchy. We learn how they struggled to adapt republicanism to the new circumstances of a large and diverse France, full of poor and dependent individuals with little education or experience of freedom. Analysing the argumentative logic that led republicans to justify the exclusion of many, this book renews the republican tradition and connects it with the enduring issues of colonialism, immigration, slavery, poverty and gender. Geneviève Rousselière is a Franco-American political theorist. She is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Duke University. She is the co-editor of Republicanism and the Future of Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The French have long self-identified as champions of universal emancipation, yet the republicanism they adopted has often been faulted for being exclusionary – of women, foreigners, and religious and ethnic minorities. Can republicanism be an attractive alternative to liberalism, communism, and communitarianism, or is it fundamentally flawed? Sharing Freedom: Republicanism and Exclusion in Revolutionary France (Cambridge UP, 2024) traces the development of republicanism from an older elitist theory of freedom into an inclusive theory of emancipation during the French Revolution. It uncovers the theoretical innovations of Rousseau and of revolutionaries such as Sieyès, Robespierre, Condorcet, and Grouchy. We learn how they struggled to adapt republicanism to the new circumstances of a large and diverse France, full of poor and dependent individuals with little education or experience of freedom. Analysing the argumentative logic that led republicans to justify the exclusion of many, this book renews the republican tradition and connects it with the enduring issues of colonialism, immigration, slavery, poverty and gender. Geneviève Rousselière is a Franco-American political theorist. She is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Duke University. She is the co-editor of Republicanism and the Future of Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The French have long self-identified as champions of universal emancipation, yet the republicanism they adopted has often been faulted for being exclusionary – of women, foreigners, and religious and ethnic minorities. Can republicanism be an attractive alternative to liberalism, communism, and communitarianism, or is it fundamentally flawed? Sharing Freedom: Republicanism and Exclusion in Revolutionary France (Cambridge UP, 2024) traces the development of republicanism from an older elitist theory of freedom into an inclusive theory of emancipation during the French Revolution. It uncovers the theoretical innovations of Rousseau and of revolutionaries such as Sieyès, Robespierre, Condorcet, and Grouchy. We learn how they struggled to adapt republicanism to the new circumstances of a large and diverse France, full of poor and dependent individuals with little education or experience of freedom. Analysing the argumentative logic that led republicans to justify the exclusion of many, this book renews the republican tradition and connects it with the enduring issues of colonialism, immigration, slavery, poverty and gender. Geneviève Rousselière is a Franco-American political theorist. She is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Duke University. She is the co-editor of Republicanism and the Future of Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

The French have long self-identified as champions of universal emancipation, yet the republicanism they adopted has often been faulted for being exclusionary – of women, foreigners, and religious and ethnic minorities. Can republicanism be an attractive alternative to liberalism, communism, and communitarianism, or is it fundamentally flawed? Sharing Freedom: Republicanism and Exclusion in Revolutionary France (Cambridge UP, 2024) traces the development of republicanism from an older elitist theory of freedom into an inclusive theory of emancipation during the French Revolution. It uncovers the theoretical innovations of Rousseau and of revolutionaries such as Sieyès, Robespierre, Condorcet, and Grouchy. We learn how they struggled to adapt republicanism to the new circumstances of a large and diverse France, full of poor and dependent individuals with little education or experience of freedom. Analysing the argumentative logic that led republicans to justify the exclusion of many, this book renews the republican tradition and connects it with the enduring issues of colonialism, immigration, slavery, poverty and gender. Geneviève Rousselière is a Franco-American political theorist. She is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Duke University. She is the co-editor of Republicanism and the Future of Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The French have long self-identified as champions of universal emancipation, yet the republicanism they adopted has often been faulted for being exclusionary – of women, foreigners, and religious and ethnic minorities. Can republicanism be an attractive alternative to liberalism, communism, and communitarianism, or is it fundamentally flawed? Sharing Freedom: Republicanism and Exclusion in Revolutionary France (Cambridge UP, 2024) traces the development of republicanism from an older elitist theory of freedom into an inclusive theory of emancipation during the French Revolution. It uncovers the theoretical innovations of Rousseau and of revolutionaries such as Sieyès, Robespierre, Condorcet, and Grouchy. We learn how they struggled to adapt republicanism to the new circumstances of a large and diverse France, full of poor and dependent individuals with little education or experience of freedom. Analysing the argumentative logic that led republicans to justify the exclusion of many, this book renews the republican tradition and connects it with the enduring issues of colonialism, immigration, slavery, poverty and gender. Geneviève Rousselière is a Franco-American political theorist. She is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Duke University. She is the co-editor of Republicanism and the Future of Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

The French have long self-identified as champions of universal emancipation, yet the republicanism they adopted has often been faulted for being exclusionary – of women, foreigners, and religious and ethnic minorities. Can republicanism be an attractive alternative to liberalism, communism, and communitarianism, or is it fundamentally flawed? Sharing Freedom: Republicanism and Exclusion in Revolutionary France (Cambridge UP, 2024) traces the development of republicanism from an older elitist theory of freedom into an inclusive theory of emancipation during the French Revolution. It uncovers the theoretical innovations of Rousseau and of revolutionaries such as Sieyès, Robespierre, Condorcet, and Grouchy. We learn how they struggled to adapt republicanism to the new circumstances of a large and diverse France, full of poor and dependent individuals with little education or experience of freedom. Analysing the argumentative logic that led republicans to justify the exclusion of many, this book renews the republican tradition and connects it with the enduring issues of colonialism, immigration, slavery, poverty and gender. Geneviève Rousselière is a Franco-American political theorist. She is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Duke University. She is the co-editor of Republicanism and the Future of Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/french-studies

Vous écoutez le podcast "Les interviews Histoire", notre émission hebdomadaire gratuite pour tous. Abonnez-vous à "Timeline 5.000 ans d'Histoire" et accédez à environ 350 podcasts d'1 heure pour seulement 2€ par mois sans Pub ! Avec une nouvelle émission chaque semaine : https://m.audiomeans.fr/s/S-tavkjvmo « En écrivant le récit de son histoire, la Révolution n'a pas seulement donné du rêve aux Français, elle a cherché les fondements de sa légitimité dans la geste de ses origines. Elle a placé si haut ses idéaux qu'elle a senti le besoin de montrer toujours la “terre promise” à l'horizon de ses conquêtes. Par leur vertige même, la souveraineté du peuple, la proclamation de la république, la décapitation du roi ont été autant de raisons à l'exaltation des pouvoirs tout neufs d'un régime qui enterre mille ans de monarchie. Il fallait les rendre visibles. Il fallait des mythes. »Emmanuel de Waresquiel, notre invité en studio, se penche sur les mémoires et les héritages de la Révolution française. Il en explique les raisons, les continuités, les déformations jusqu'à nos jours, à travers deux siècles de notre histoire. Il a choisi quelques moments « fondateurs » de 1789 et de la Terreur. On a glorifié le serment du Jeu de paume alors qu'il avait été prêté sous l'emprise de la peur. On a fait de la prise de la Bastille la première grande victoire du peuple quand la Bastille s'est rendue aux insurgés, on a célébré Valmy et Valmy était à peine une bataille. On a chanté la liberté et la fraternité sur tous les tons et on les a un peu oubliées, on a sanctifié la guillotine avant d'en mesurer toute l'horreur. Que nous dit la Révolution d'elle et de nous-mêmes, dans l'épaisseur de ses mémoires ? Les événements, les lieux, les symboles qu'elle a retenus à la construction d'un monde nouveau, leur célébration – ou leur diabolisation – par les régimes qui ont suivi n'ont souvent pas grand-chose à voir avec la perception que les révolutionnaires en avaient sur le moment.Acheter le livre

Clash of the Jacobin Giants! Eager to entrench his leadership of the ultra-radical movement, Hébert goes on the attack. Denouncing Danton and Montagnard moderates, the Hébertists also clash with Robespierre. With power struggles erupting over the Constitution and the Committee of Public Safety, the fracturing of the Mountain had begun!  This episode explores efforts to refresh the Committee of Public Safety in July 1793, the factional feud between Hébert and Danton, and the attempt of Hébertists to implement the Constitution of 1793.  Early Access Don't wait! Support the show and listen to Episode 79 "The Triumph of the Sans-Culottes" now! Available for all True Revolutionaries and above! The Grey History Community Help keep Grey History on the air! Every revolution needs its supporters, and we need you! With an ad-free feed, a community discord, a reading club, and tonnes of exclusive bonus content, you're missing out! Do your part for as little as half a cup of coffee per episode! It's the best value on the internet, with the best people too! Join Now And Support the Show Make a one-off donation Contact Me Send your questions, praise, and scorn here Newsletter Sign Up for Free Bonus Episode Follow on Social Media: Facebook Instagram X Advertising Please contact sales@advertisecast.com if you would like to advertise on Grey History: The French Revolution and Napoleon. All members of the Grey History Community have an ad-free version of the show. Support the show here. About Grey History: The French Revolution and Napoleon is a podcast dedicated to exploring the complexities of our history. By examining both the experiences of contemporaries and the conclusions of historians, Grey History seeks to unpack the ambiguities and nuances of the past. Understanding the French Revolution and the age of Napoleon Bonaparte is critical to understanding the history of the world, so join us on a journey through a series of events that would be almost unbelievable if it weren't for the fact that it's true! If you're looking for a binge-worthy history podcast on the Revolution and Napoleon, you're in the right place! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Savage criticizes Harris for her lack of attachment to policies and labels her the "Queen of in Between." He blasts the Biden Administration's incompetence and reveals that Jill Biden is operating as the de facto president. He shares his concern about the influence of social media, the dangers of ultra-tolerance, and the potential destruction of civilization. He emphasizes the importance of spiritual guidance and support during challenging times, particularly under the Biden Harris administration. He then discusses the Middle East and the war in Israel. Can Israel avoid a large-scale ground war or is it inevitable? He reflects on how we arrived at this point and turns to the Bible for insight. He references a book he wrote called "The Savage Republic" and quotes a passage about God distinguishing between holy and profane. He declares the Biden Administration the most profane administration in American history with many dangerous social and political leftists surrounding the President. He reads a paragraph from the book, discussing how the sexual liberation movement led to crime, disease, drug use, open borders, and closed minds. He then draws parallels between Hitler's emergence and the current political climate in America, warning that the internationalists or socialists, represented by figures like Kamala Harris, will destroy everything worth living for if they win the election. He exposes socialism as the philosophy of failure and equity's origins from Robespierre and the French Revolution. Savage argues that he'd rather be oppressed in capitalism than starved by socialism.

C'est un des grands coups de théâtre de la Révolution : alors que la France apprend l'exécution du roi Louis XVI, une autre nouvelle fait bientôt le tour des provinces : le député Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau, proche de Robespierre, a été tué ! Par qui ? Pourquoi ? Début d'une enquête jamais close.Mention légales : Vos données de connexion, dont votre adresse IP, sont traités par Radio Classique, responsable de traitement, sur la base de son intérêt légitime, par l'intermédiaire de son sous-traitant Ausha, à des fins de réalisation de statistiques agréées et de lutte contre la fraude. Ces données sont supprimées en temps réel pour la finalité statistique et sous cinq mois à compter de la collecte à des fins de lutte contre la fraude. Pour plus d'informations sur les traitements réalisés par Radio Classique et exercer vos droits, consultez notre Politique de confidentialité.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.