Talk:Jean-Paul Marat

Strange Sentence

This sentence has some grammatical errors, but I'm not sure how to correct it while preserving meaning: "He declared it unfair to accuse Louis of anything before his acceptance of the French Constitution of 1791, and although implacably, he said, believing that the monarch's death would be good for the people, defended Guillaume-Chrétien de Lamoignon de Malesherbes, the King's counsel, as a "sage et respectable vieillard" ("wise and respected old man")."

Journalist

Marat was not very active as a politician he was mainly a journalist. (Unsigned: Sep 23, 2002 User:Ericd)

Lenin was just a journalist until he bacame the Chairman of the Council of Peoples Commissars (head of Soviet Russia). This has to do with the revolutionary aspects of the work done by Marat. Once the the "Legislative Assembly" became the "National Convention", Marat enetred formal politics, until then he was, I believe, in hiding (just like Lenin). --130.161.31.26 19:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is this entry even encyclopedic?

This entry is decent, but shouldn't it be much more concise?

Major points that left me scratching my head:

• Why did he get out of scientific pursuits? The article seems to indicate he was the laughingstock of the nation, but doesn't really indcate why. It kind of jumps from him being a notable doctor to the aristocrisy to being an well known but unconventional scientist to being laughed out into the streets selling snake oil.

• What skin disease killed him? The information given about this is way too vague.

it did not ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• What eye disease did he look into? Was it a disease of his own eyes? Did he actually cure it? How did he manage to cure it using optics and electricity?

• The entire style of the article seemed more like a dramatic narrative than an encyclopedic entry. Is this article ripped from somewhere? If it isn't please flesh out some of the more confusing points.

I'm not particularly sure this article should have been listed on the front page, as many inconsistencies as it seems to have.

--JD 01:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The entire style of the article seemed more like a dramatic narrative than an encyclopedic entry. Is this article ripped from somewhere?

Ironically, most of it is ripped from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. Townmouse 20:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Which we credit. But just goes to show how much the notion of an encyclopedia has changed in nine decades. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Skin disease

There are two articles on PubMed that attempt to answer the apparently mysterious issue of Marat's disease. Can anyone access them and tell us what they say? I believe this information would add to the article. jengod 02:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Marat. The differential diagnosis of his skin disease. - 7:48pm Jean-Paul Marat. The differential diagnosis of his skin disease. Jelinek JE. Publication Types Biography Historical Article MeSH Terms ... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve& db=PubMed&list_uids=396805&dopt=Abstract - Similar pages

   [Who will solve the mystery of Marat's itching skin disease?] - 7:48pm 

what does it even matter? do you discuss Hitlers VD ad nauseum?

   [Who will solve the mystery of Marat's itching skin disease?] [Article in Swedish]
   Wahlberg JE. Publication Types Biography Historical Article MeSH Terms ...
   www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve& db=PubMed&list_uids=11293135&dopt=Abstract - Similar pages

Mark Grzeskowiak at medhunters.com argues that Marat suffered from psoriasis. http://www.medhunters.com/articles/psoriaticRevolutionary.html --213.112.28.249 18:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

According to "The Outline of History" by H. G. Wells, Marat contracted the disease during a protracted period of hiding in the Paris sewers, and hot baths were the only palliative for the incessant itch. Elio1 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is unlikely that Marat contracted the disease in the sewers although it is a romantic notion (getting an infection from rats is a popular theory). Even at a young age he is said te be covered with "bad skin". Probably meaning he had a chronic skin condition. He also had a deformed face. After his death his body decayed rapidly causing it to smell terribly. In all likelyhood his skin condition was caused by some chronic dermatitis caused by a microorganism (there were no treatments at that time) or was a chronic skin condition aggravated by a secondary infection. The theory that he had chronic advancing psoriasis is not unlikely. The microorganism was in all likelyhood some strain of Staphylococcus or Streptococcus. Exhuming his body will probably give a definite answer, although it is not something I would recommend.

Marat spent his last years in a bathtub to relieve the itching. It is unclear wether these were hot baths or cold baths (saline baths often relieve psoriasis for a short while). He even received visitors in his bath, his writing desk (a plank) covering his private parts.

There is a theory that Marat had Tuberculous cervical lymphadenitis. If he was exposed to TBC as a child or as a physician, he had seen patients with contagious tuberculosis, this could also have been the start of his skin disease.

--JHvW (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Recently added link

I see that the Marat, premier de Corday ("Marat, first of Corday") link was added here as well as at Charlotte Corday. It's nature and relevance are unclear; see (slightly) more detailed question at Talk:Charlotte Corday, might as well have any discussion there rather than duplicate it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

September massacres

I cut the following recent addition:

The September massacres (Sept.2 to Sept.8, 1792) were perpetrated by the dregs of Marseille. These had been made to come to Paris by the Girondins, but seeing that these were on the way out, offered their services to the Jacobins. On the way up from Marseille they sang the marching song of the Rhine army which then became known as the Marseillaise.

the reference denying Marat is by a avowed communist - is NOT valid. is POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Does being an "avowed communist" remove the validity of a reference? Everyone has an ideology- is an "avowed capitalist" any less biased?? CherryPigeon (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

For one thing, we already have a decent (if short) article at September Massacres. This level of detail would belong there, not here. But for another, is there any citation for:

1. the massacres having been performed by people from Marseilles rather than Paris?
2. these people being "the dregs" of Marseilles, a rather POV characterization?
3. them having "been made to come to Paris by the Girondins"? (Not even clear what that means)
4. "offering their services" to the Jacobins?
5. identifying La Marseillaise with this rabble rather than with the fédérés who arrived from Marseille for the fête de la Fédération two months earlier?

My degree of skepticism on these points varies, but they add up to reason to doubt the accuracy of the addition, or I would have just moved it to the correct article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs cleaning and expanding

I see someone was noting that the article was not concise enough. Now it looks too concise. In fact it looks like it's been picked apart. The Life section looks like it was started but not carried through. The Secret Identity section is empty. The Views of Marat need incorporation into a larger, more coherent biographical narrative. I've tagged accordingly. — J M Rice 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just restored (and rewrote in a more modern style) a good deal of biographical material, because I also think the balance had gone too far the other way. I'd be interested to see what others think as to whether we now have the correct balance. - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Great improvement. It might be nice to add a section on Marat's legacy. The current narrative ends with Marat's apotheosis by the Revolution, but we know what became of the Revolution. Did Marat's renown die with the Revolution? Was he an icon to subsequent regimes? How is he viewed by modern historians? J M Rice 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really focused on the French Revolutionary era in a couple of years (and the bulk of my reading on the period was decades ago). Much as with Robespierre, opinion on Marat is very divided, and along basically the same lines. He is generally seen as honest and intelligent (far more intelligent than Robespierre), he is generally not seen as a likable man, but whether you see him as a hero, a monster, or somewhere between depends, basically on three things: (1) whether you favor the revolution at all, especially in going beyond English constitutionalism, (2) whether you think Marat was right or wrong that a few hundred heads chopped off in 1790 would have saved a lot of bloodshed later and (3) even if you think he was right, would any political cause justify wading ankle-deep in blood?

Anything on legacy should certainly be sourced. I would expect that someone can cite a reasonably positive assessment from Soboul and a far more negative one from Schama. If someone has their works handy (I don't), citing both would probably make a balanced approach. No doubt others are equally appropriate for this purpose, and we could ultimately end up with several authors worth citing, but, in any case, we should make sure that we cite the views from both sides. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jacobin

The lead of the article refers to Marat as a Jacobin and links that word to Jacobin Club. He was certainly a Jacobin in the broad sense of the word (Jacobinism), but I'm pretty certain he was never a member of the Jacobin Club. I'll give at least a week for someone to come up with a citation for that claim, but if no citation is forthcoming, I will change this. - Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if he wasn't technically a member of the Jacobin Club, I think it's still important to identify Marat as a Jacobin, especially since the various denotations of the word often lead to confusion. I mean, it's more useful for the lay reader to link Marat to the Jacobin Club than to leave the impression that Marat was some kind of generic Jacobin. These Revolutionary clubs didn't have formal rolls, did they? I had the impression that they were places where the various factions showed up from time to time. For example, the article also identifies Marat with the Cordeliers Club, his "base of operations". It sounds like this outfit was to the left even of the Jacobins, calling Robespierre "too moderate". So, maybe Marat wasn't a Jacobin after all ! Hmm...maybe a new section is advisable, where Marat is contrasted with the likes of St. Just and Robespierre. — J M Rice 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"These Revolutionary clubs didn't have formal rolls, did they?"

Yes, they did.

72.68.183.97 09:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, currently the intro paragraph says that he was a member, and then in 'Advocate of Revolutionary Violence' it says that he wasn't. Which was it?Figureground 05:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly as J M Rice and I said above: he was certainly a Jacobin in the broad sense of the word, and was never a formal member of the club. I'll try to edit to make that clear. - Jmabel | Talk 08:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsummarized recent edits

There were a large number of recent anonymous edits, without citation or summary. Some of them look fine to me, some I have questions about and would appreciate explanation. I'm going to list the questionable changes here, hoping that someone more expert than I on Marat can sort out which of these should stay.

• "Upon his mother's death in 1759, Marat set out on his travels and spent two years at Bordeaux in the study of medicine" became just "Marat set out on his travels and may be spent two years at Bordeaux." Is there any question about his mother's death? Is there question about him studying medicine in Bordeaux at that time? My 1955 Britannica (I know, I know) states both of these as fact.
• Similarly, the '55 Britannica gives De l'esprit by Helvetius, changed now to De l'Homme. The latter is presumably the posthumous and minor De l'homme, de ses facultés intellectuelles et de son éducation. I'm not sure of the exact date of publication, but I suspect it was not yet published at the time of Marat's essay that is described here as directly attacking it.
• "Despite his anti-royalist writing, his reputation as a clever doctor won him, in 1777, a position as physician to the guards of the comte d'Artois…" Why struck? Seems appropriate to me.
• "His pamphlet Offrande à la patrie": why drop "pamphlet"? In the new wording, it can readily be mistaken for a book.
• Now we come to the really odd part; bolding here indicates insertions: "Marat often attacked the most influential and powerful groups in France, including the Corps Municipal, the Constituent Assembly, the ministers, and the Cour du Châtelet. This resulted in his imprisonment from October 8 to November 5, 1789. In January 1790, he was again nearly arrested for his aggressive campaign against the Marquis de La Fayette, and escaped by fleeing to LondonThis resulted in prosecutions as early as october 1789. He took refuge in London, where he wrote a Denonciation contre Necker ("Denunciation of Jacques Necker," an attack against the minister of Louis XVI). In May he returned to Paris to continue the publication of L'Ami du peuple, and attacked many of France's most powerful citizens. Fearing reprisal, Marat was forced to hide in the Catacombs, where he contracted a debilitating chronic skin disease (scrofula). In 1790, he married 27 year old Simone Évrard, the sister-in-law of Jean Antoine Corne, the typographer of L'Ami du peuple. wrote a lot of articles against war and underhand dealings to disorganise the national guard, first line of defence of liberty. Fearing reprisal, Marat was often forced to hide. Offhand, all of thes changes look wrongheaded to me.
• The very concrete "Marat, long a supporter of the abolition of the Bourbon Monarchy, subsequently attacked more moderate revolutionary leaders. In July 1790, he wrote, 'Five or six hundred heads cut off would have assured your repose, freedom and happiness. A false humanity has held your arms and suspended your blows; because of this millions of your brothers will lose their lives.'" was replaced by "Marat was surprisingly indifferent to the institution of monarchy and unmoved by the existence of noble 'titles' (he regards their abolition in June 1790 as a needless provocation). He condemned the National Assembly’s decision to sell the property of th Church to fund the state’s debts, arguing that the land in question would be better used to meet the needs of the propertyless poor. He opposed the abolition of guilds, warning that unlimited competition would force down the quality of products. Marat’s republicanism was a system consisting of mix of popular sovereignity, patriot king, moderate prosperity and a common concern for the public good." Some of what was added may belong; I cannot fathom the reason for the removals.
• Removed for no apparent reason: "In December 1791, he again fled to London and wrote another book École du citoyen ("School of the Citizen")."
• Removed for no apparent reason: "Subsequently, Marat took his seat at the Paris Commune, and demanded a trial be held to judge the royalists in prison. When no trial was convened, he advocated the September Massacres in which thousands of political prisoners were murdered, and joined the commune's comité de surveillance (Surveillance Committee), whose declared role was to root out counter-Revolutionaries (Marat composed the death lists from which those suspected of political crimes). One of his victims may have been the chemist Antoine Lavoisier." I think this was overstated—I don't believe Marat's involvement in the September Massacres is nearly so clearcut, and I'd like to see a citation on this one way or the other—but I don't think it should go totally unmentioned. (After writing this, I looked again at my 50-year-old Britannica: they concur that he demanded a "demanded a tribunal… No tribunal was formed, and the massacres in the prisons were the inevitable result," which seems to me to be on the mark.

I'll allow at least a few days for comment on this, but if no one has anything substantive to say, I'll probably make a lot of restorations and a few reversions. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The father was Giovanni Mara, and not Giovanni "Marra". Jack 00:15, 6 september 2007 (UTC)

Recent Revisions

Just to let you know (now that I am registered) that it was me who made the most recent changes. I provided the source in the summary (Cock and de Goetz, 1995 - by far the most uptodate) which is far superior to the EB used previously. I will try and return to correct other errors when I have time. I am currently working on a biography so would like to think I had a pretty good idea of what is factual and what not. Any queries etc. I am more than happy to answer here or elsewhere [Matador]

• Thanks. I noticed that you had added a well-written amplification of the entry. I rewrote much of this a while back and have subsequently reverted it a few times, since for some reason this article tends to attract strange and not always helpful attention. The current version, however, is superior to my efforts and I look forward to the further development of this article. If you could provide sources that would be useful (check the MOS for the house style). Cheers, Eusebeus 13:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Girondin / Girondist

I notice that this article uses Girondin, which is, of course, the correct French-language term, but I believe that Wikipedia's other articles on the French Revolution generally favor the English Girondist. - Jmabel | Talk 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the first I have heard of this. Every English language source on the French Revolution I have seen up to now uses Girondin. PatGallacher (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What did he say?

This article states that Marat called out "À moi, ma chère amie!" before he died. However, the article on Corday states that he said "Aidez, ma chère amie!" Maybe I'm being picky, but which is it? If we don't know, maybe we should at least choose one (maybe the one with the most sources?) in order to be consistent. intooblv (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is correct. A stable source needs to be found. Eusebeus (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

considering that "aidez, ma chère amie" is grammatically incorrect, I would favor the other option. The phrase "aidez ma chère amie" is correct (without the comma) but it means "help my dear friend", as if ordering a third party to help the dear friend. "Aidez-moi, ma chère amie" is correct. But "aidez, ma chère amie" is neither correct today nor was it 200 years ago. It looks as if somebody translated into French an English sentence, which, if it were "help, my dear friend" is itself barely correct. In general, when calling out for help an anglophone might say "help", a francophone would use a pronoun and say "aidez-moi", meaning "help me". But the imperative form "aidez" by itself is way too vague. It is an order to help, but it doesn't give any indication of whom should be helped (the person asking or a third party), which is why it is not used in French. In any case, "aidez, ma chère amie" is surely not what Marat said. Unless upon his expiration he became delirious and forgetful of the most elementary French grammatical and usage rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.14.131 (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Should this person be the primary meaning of the term Marat on Wikipedia? (This would mean moving "Marat" to "Marat (disambiguation)".) Or should we leave this? PatGallacher (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Where he hid

Did he hide in the Catacombs, as the article states, or in the sewers, as H. G. Wells and the History Channel state?Lestrade (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Sewers in 1790. Frania W. (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? I only have vague references and no specific dates. Thanks User:Matador38 —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

Matador & Lestrade: Definitely the sewers of Paris. Will give you source as soon as I get back to it.

By the way, I just reread the whole thing & noticed quite a mixture of British & American English. I did not change anything because I do not know which or if any has been previously chosen, just left hidden comments at each. Same thing at the translated quotations: not knowing if these translations have been published in this manner or if someone has done it within Wikipedia, I did not touch anything. Only bringing it to your attention.

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Translations not published but are original and added to wikipedia by me: an ongoing project. BTW, if anyone wants to see the kind of controversy that Marat can attract I direct you to read the heated arguments between two historians on the discussions page of the french version; quite depressing, especially considering that one is a Marat expert and the other is not Matador38 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC) User:Matador38

Matador, what do you find depressing in the ongoing discussions at French wiki? The difference of... intellectual level, for instance? Frania W. (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the fact that one was a popular historian with a sideline in sensationalizing the revolution while often relying on unreliable sources; the other was a Marat specialist with at least 10 years specialisation on the subject and volumes of annotated work behind her. He chose to either reject her insights or to accuse her of being biased and continually vandalised her contributions until in the end she just gave up. Plus ca change... Matador38 (talk) User:Matador38 21 Jan 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.18.216 (talk)

Nationality

At the time of Marat's birth (1743), the principality of Neuchâtel belonged to the King in Prussia, Frederick I of Prussia, and it remained Prussian until 1848.

Therefore, Marat was not born a "Swiss" citizen, but a "Prussian".

Excerpt from Wikipedia Neuchâtel article [1]:

• On September 12, 1814, Neuchâtel became the 21st canton, but also remained a Prussian principality. It took a bloodless revolution in the decades following for Neuchâtel to shake off its princely past and declare itself, on March 1, 1848, a republic within the Swiss Confederation.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Entirely correct. I changed it and added a reference just now. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

--- User: Oliver Renier

I Think nationality is more than "official Status" or passport - If that would be always the main interest, we would have to change whole wikipedia. Think of all the aggressive nations who have "stolen" other countries. What should we say about persons who were born in the occupated Netherland 1942? Should we call them Germans? I don't think so and 99,99% of all dutch people would agree. Another Point: Are all the millions of belgian People, when it was officially austrian or spanish in the 18th century no belgians (wallonians/flamish etc.) anymore just because this their king married a foreign queen? think nationality has more to do with cultural stuff, with language and traditions. Kings shall not decide, which nationality someone has!

This makes no sense at all! Wikipedia is for real facts, not for pseudo-facts. Dear swiss people: you have to accept, that not all of your problematic people are foreigners. wikipedia is not made for improving images!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.184.162 (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wife's name Simonne

Her name has been "corrected" to "Simone" a number of times, but according to the biography by historian Ernest Belfort Bax (Jean-Paul Marat; The People's Friend), Marat's wife's name was Simonne Evrard. This spelling is by far the most common in a GoogleBooks search, and citations include Thomas Carlyle (The French Revolution); Baroness Orczy (The League of the Scarlet Pimpernel); and G. Lenôtre (Paris in the Revolution). Other supporting citations include Jean-Paul Marat, a study in Radicalism (Gottschalk, 1927); Jean Paul Marat: scientist and revolutionary (Conner, 1997); Women of the French Revolution (Stephens, 1922); Nine women, drawn from the epoch of the French revolution (Serebriakova, 1969); and the Encyclopaedia Britannica. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional quote for inclusion?

Seems quite an important one (from my point of view): "Don’t be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there’s no poverty to be seen because the poverty’s been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don’t be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there’s no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretense of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they’ll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces." It is found on several pages on the internet and it doesn't seem to be refuted, but i haven't found any academic references or date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.190.223 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I can find one. Will check. -Darouet (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The words appear in a number of plays that feature Marat as one of the principle characters: by Trevor Griffiths for instance, and Peter Weiss. I'm not sure that these words were ever truly spoken by Marat (though of course they bear a resemblance to his sentiments). -Darouet (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"new and useless goods which industries foist on you" - "weapons rapidly developed by servile scientists" - sounds totally anachronistic, it's 20th century talk. 31.54.33.97 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think these are from the Marat-Sade, definitely not Marat. BTW, what happened to all the quotes. They gave as good a picture of the man as the entire article yet they appear to have been deleted. They certainly haven't migrated to Wikiquote. Seems a shame to destroy someone else's time and effort in providing them in the first place :-) Who will bother to help out on wikipedia if that kind of vandalism is allowed? Just saying… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.224.242 (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Lavoisier?

I was somewhat surprised there was no mention of Lavoisier in connection with Marat -- the former's article does mention him. There's mention uppage of some text involving him that was long-since removed Should some sort of reference be re-included? 84.203.35.84 (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

History Channel: Marat having something to do with the "guillotine" name?

I am hearing from History Channel about Marat's reference(s) to "guillotine" as if he helped coin that name for what had been "louisette".

Slavery

I've removed the following text from the section on 'Other PreRevolutionary Writing' as it does not really seem to me to be encyclopedic in character and is some kind of speculation on the origins of Marat's ideas about slavery.

'Having been, as a young man, a guest of the Nairac family in the leading slave port of Bordeaux, Marat may have witnessed aspects of the trade, since Monsieur Nairac was a leading slave-merchant, and later an ennobled member of the National Assembly. But the metaphorical use of slavery imagery from political discourses at the time, including Marat's own, derived from a well-trodden English republican tradition. In 1792, soon after the uprisings in the Caribbean island and sugar colony of Saint-Domingue (later Haiti after its revolution), Marat wrote that those in St. Domingue are "a separate people" from France. He cited the new constitution (of 1791), "The basis of all free government is that no people can be legally subject to another people..." (from "The Friend of the People" 1792. See the excerpt in Dubois & Garrigus, editors, "Slave Revolution in the Caribbean, 1789–1804", pp. 111–112).'

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean-Paul Marat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100502065937/http://www.litandphil.org.uk/html_pages/LP_home.html to http://www.litandphil.org.uk/html_pages/LP_home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes reverted

Hi I have just reverted a large number of good-faith changes to this article by User:Informatics411. The reasons are:

• Aside from occasional vandalism, the current version of the article has a stable consensus and the edits were large, substantially changing the tone.
• Contributions from recent scholarly history are constructive amendments, but these were not based on that.
• Paraphrasing large sections of text from works that mainly reflect an author’s opinion about the subject is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Essentially it’s not Wikipedia’s business to relay to the reader what Loomis or any other commentator thought about Marat in the main body of an article.

Among the changes I’ve reverted there may be specific changes that editors would welcome. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for acknowledging these were "good-faith changes."

I haven't participated in several years, so I may need a few edits to catch-up with needs. We need smaller bits I see.

SO:

As Lefebvre acknowledges, nobody was put on trial for the killing of 1,500 people--but the detail from Lefebvre stops there. From Loomis we get: most of them trapped in small prison cells, in overcrowded groups and killed with clubs, spears, swords etc. Boys as young as 12; girls as young as 10.

Loomis makes the case, with evidence: that Marat was "the mastermind" behind the September Massacre: he was the head of the committee of people who a) called for a roundup of political prisoners b) voted on 2 ways of killing them as "whole groups" once imprisoned i) turned down Marat's "burn them alive" proposal ii) then voted for another proposal to have them "butchered."

I'm leaving out a lot, by the way. Early on the second day, one of the Surveillance Committee members wading into the killing (with some delight we are told) to admonish the hired mercenaries to NOT STEAL from the dead. These monies and wealth were to support the Commune!" he yells, telling them to not worry about being paid...

Now if all of this was just some spontaneous mob action which occurred out of the blue, how could someone know where to go and who to admonish to stop stealing?

Later on that same day, On the second day(3 Sept) Marat authored, signed and sent to the provinces a "circular" saying that what happened in Paris was a model for them (several sources acknowledge the document while differing on content). Finally, while a member of the National Convention, to the dismay of even his own party and the disgust of allied leaders, Marat defended the massacres.

Loomis backs up everything he says with contemporary sources. So far nobody else matches his level of detail; none of the other sources seem to address other than side issues/details, and steer clear of addressing Marat, himself. Which is odd as he is the subject, here.

Thanks for any comments.

Informatics411 (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There is an article on the September Massacres which is already linked to this one. This is a biography so we do not seek to itemise, in great detail, what a person did. It may be that some of the material you want to add is better suited to that article. Mccapra (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Question of Bias

A large part of the section "Marat's Committee on Surveillance" appears to be pulled from Bax's "Jean-Paul Marat: The People’s Friend". The quality of this piece is . . . questionable, to say the least. The large blocks of text taken from this biography contain no citations in Bax's work itself. It is one thing if this text is copied from researched work, but it is just copying Bax's unevidenced assertions--no better than if I were to post an article on the Internet that says "the moon is cheese" and then cite it in Wikipedia. Is this the quality of evidence that should be used in a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.129.129.77 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Seconded; this entire section of the article, including everything pulled from or citing Bax, seems to be written not with a view to giving biographical information about Marat or his activities on the committee, but with explaining how people other than Marat were responsible for the September massacres (the lady doth protest too much, methinks). There’s clearly some sort of historiographical debate here (whether or not Bax is an academically acceptable participant), but the section doesn’t at all try to say anything about the debate, it just wants to litigate for one side of it. It’s all written in a very emotive and certainly non-neutral style too: “the estimable Lefevbre maintains”, “That Marat personally and directly caused the death of a single individual during the September affair we have not a shadow of proof” “...an ebullition of popular fury, acquiesced in as a terrible necessity by all parties...” etc. PwnedDuck (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Physician

Was he a Physician or a Physicist? In the French version says Physicist and I read in a book form Carlo Rovelli, The Order of Time, that in fact he considered himself above all a Physicist. --88.214.163.55 (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

He was both. He earned an MD degree in 1775 and eventually served as a physician for the bodyguard of the Compte d'Artois. He also studied physics and published multiple works, most of which are already detailed in the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIS30321wafffle (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Absurd statements

“ Yet others argue that the collective mentality that made them possible resulted from circumstances and not from the will of any particular individual”. So apparently we have now excuses for massacres and genocides. This phrase is absurd, some could use that for “justification” of many genocide perpetrators, like when WWII put some countries in desperate situations, so should we use that kind of argument to alleviate their guilty related to atrocities? This individual in the article was a monster, a human rights infringement leader, a genocide leaning agitator. They (Jacobins) persecuted oppositors just because they were against the atrocities and exaggerated the Girondins’ stances as ‘traitors’, like some tribe purging members who are against an all out genocide. It’s absurd to bring this kind of statement to a serious article even if it’s sourced, well anyone can write anything and be the source of articles in Wikipedia. That doesn’t meant that such irresponsible statements should be added here. Maybe it’s because he was a typical leftist, and academic left LOVES monsters if they’re from the left, like Stalin. Reign of terror!

Counter to "absurd statements": Calling the September Massacres a genocide is horrifically inaccurate. A genocide is the systemic annihilation of a people group based on ethnicity, culture, or other arbitrary trait. While horrible and bloody, the September Massacres were nowhere near this level of systemic atrocity and to equate them with such is misleading at best and disrespectful at worst.

A journalist and advocate who never killed anyone, whose worst crime was using the inflammatory and purposefully hyperbolic language that was common in publications at that time (see Hebert's Pere Duchesne and even Desmoulins's Vieux Cordeliers) should not be compared to a dictator like Stalin. They are not remotely in the same category. You can have a personal opinion on whether Marat's rhetoric contributed to the buildup that led to the massacres, and criticisms in this regard are valid, but using this to conflate him with a dictator who mass-killed his personal opponents to consolidate his power and influence is not academically sound.

About the Girondins: Opinions differ on whether they were technically guilty of some or all of what they were accused of, and to what extent they should've been held liable for events that took place because of poor decisions on their part. But, even ignoring that the Girondins themselves were an offshoot of the broader Jacobin club, their arrests and executions had nothing to do with them being "anti-genocide" or even anti-September Massacres. Their arrest was due to their poor performance during a war that they declared and the fact that many of them tried to abandon their posts and flee the area when public opinion turned against them. Is this deserving of a death sentence? Likely not, but times in the 18th century were very different than times now, and to say that the non-Gironde Jacobins "persecuted" them for "opposing genocide" is not correct.

With all due respect, I do not believe I or any other similar editors are the ones bringing "absurd statements" to this post. Marat certainly had flaws- everyone has flaws- and you are within your right to dislike him or any of the policies he supported. But this is meant to be an unbiased article. Calling someone a monster (loaded language), a human rights infringer (inaccurate) or a genocide agitator (he was an agitator, but most definitely not for genocide) does not exactly ring with academic neutrality.

The left/leftists are those who agree with economically (and almost always socially) progressive policies. Stalin does not even fit the bill as a leftist, rather he was a centrist authoritarian playing as a leftist in order to gain power in a volatile young state, and he purposefully stalled leftist programs in order to keep control of a command economy. The vast, vast majority of the left condemns Stalin wholeheartedly. The academic left doesn't love monsters, we love unbiased historiography and facts that actually line up rather than sensationalized versions of people that seem to belong in a contemporary action film.

The sans-culottes who participated in the massacre may have been inspired by Marat, but there is no evidence to suggest that Marat intended or ordered the massacres. It was his style to write in hyperbole- perhaps poor judgement on his part- but there were in fact numerous other circumstances, such as economic problems and likely-unfounded rumors of a prison plot that incited the violence.

I hope this is to your satisfaction. CherryPigeon (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"Section du Théâtre-Français" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Section du Théâtre-Français. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 20#Section du Théâtre-Français until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is Marat listed as "French" and oft "Franco-Swiss" yet John Calvin is always listed as French?

Why is Marat French and Calvin not Swiss? 92.8.179.77 (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Because Marat was French and Calvin was not Swiss.

More precisely, Marat had French citizenship (see [2]. He was born in Boudry, in the Principality of Neuchâtel, but it is not clear whether he was also a citizen of this principality; in which case he would have been Prussian, and in any case not Swiss: he should certainly not be listed as "Franco-Swiss".

As for Calvin, he was also French, from Noyon (see https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/fr/articles/011069/2009-09-17/). He was granted the citizenship of the Republic of Geneva at the end of his life (1559), but as well as Marat he was in any case not Swiss.--Sapphorain (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)