58 Charles Kulilmann 



for the king, and for reestablishing his authority in such 

 a manner that the Nobility and the parliaments could 

 never injure it,"^ This is in full accord with the senti- 

 ments expressed in their correspondence, without excep- 

 tion. But it is necessar^^ to distinguish sharply between 



^Mcmoires particuliers sur le regne de Louis XVI., I, p. 44. Ex- 

 tracts in Aulard, I, p. XIII. Both Zinkeisea (I, 66) and Cherest (III, 

 120) accepted the version of Moleville's account as he gives it in his 

 Histoire de la Revolution, in which he says that his interview with 

 the Breton deputies took place during the first days of June. Ac- 

 cording to his Memoires it was, "Quelques jours apres I'ouverture 

 des etats generaux." The latter is the correct account as far as the 

 time of the interview is concerned, for we find in a letter of Poulain 

 de Corhion, deputy of Saint-Brieuc, dated May 11, the following pas- 

 sage: "Comme elles (observations in a previous letter of Champeaux- 

 Palasne) sont le resultat de la conversation que nous avons eue sur 

 I'affaire de Sieur P . . . avec M. de Bertrand, ancien intendant 

 de Bretagne," etc. {Socictc d' Emulation, XXVI, 220.) Since Mole- 

 ville represents this as his first meeting with the Breton deputies, it 

 could not have been later than May 10, for Champeaux-Palasne had 

 already written to Saint-Brieuc the results of the conversation when 

 Corbion wrote. It is evident, then, that Moleville's memory served 

 him poorly, for he says that the Breton deputies were at this time in 

 doubt as to whom they should elect to the presidency, but thought the 

 Duke of Orleans would be the most agreeable to the king — at a time 

 when there was neither president nor assembly, and when the Duke 

 of Orleans was still in the chamber of the Nobility. 



Building upon this confused account Zinkeisen says, "Dies geschah. 

 wie gesagt, in den ersten Tagen des Monats Juni 1789 und war wohl 

 mit die nachste Veranlassung zu einem formlichen Bruche des Club 

 Breton mit dem Hofe und dem Ministerium." If this conjecture were 

 true, then this formal break with the government, of which we find 

 no trace in the contemporaneous records, would have to be referred 

 to the middle of May. As is shown below, it was not until long after 

 this time that the king and Necker lost their popularity with the 

 Breton deputies, yet it is quite possible that Necker's refusal of the 

 Breton alliance or leadership may have determined the latter to act 

 independently, for the time coincides with the introduction of Le 

 Chapelier's motion of the 14th of May. 



Using this same account of Moleville, Cherest has been led, it seems, 

 to an entire misconception of the early position of the Breton depu- 

 tation and its club. Moderate until the beginning of June, neglected 

 by Necker, the club fell into the hands of the leaders of the revolu- 

 tionary party, of whom it then became the tool, and was henceforth 

 the violent organization which it has been supposed to have been. 

 This happened when Sieyes introduced his motions of the 10th and 

 the 15th of June. But, says Cherest, "D'abord il s'abstint de lui de- 

 masquer toutes ses batteries, de peur d'effaroucher la moderation rela- 

 tive de la pluspart de ses membres. II ne lui parla que de constituer 



264 



