"Ô Liberté! Ô Liberté! Que de crimes on commet et ton nom!"

("O Liberty! O Liberty! What crimes are committed in your name!")

- Madame Roland (on passing the Statue of Liberty in Paris in 1793 on her way to the guillotine)

(A certain university, northern England, April 2004)

Dr. Peter Barry, an historian, had tears in his eyes, whilst he continued to view the print of a portrait by Alexandre Kucharski, dated about 1792. The painting depicted a healthy, very pretty, sensitive but confident-looking boy, approximately 7 years old, who possessed big blue eyes, rosy lips and cheeks and well groomed, shoulder-length, straight, strawberry-blonde hair.

Dr. Barry’s tears had been caused by full appreciation of the horrors that would be inflicted upon the very pleasant and rather innocent boy soon after the competent portrait had been completed.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 13 August 1792)

The walled ‘Temple’ had once been a medieval fortress. It was located close to where the Bastille had recently stood in eastern Paris before that prison had been demolished after the storming by the revolutionary mob in 1789.

After a slow 2-hour carriage ride through the densely crowded streets of Paris, a family of five, with a few loyal friends and servants, was brought to the ‘Temple’. The familial quintet comprised father, mother, daughter and son, plus the man’s youngest sister, Elisabeth, respectively 37, 36, 13, 7 and 28 years of age. Rather symbolically in the circumstances, after entering the formidable walls, stout and weighty gates were closed behind them.

The original ‘Temple’ fortress had later been surrounded by a large complex of comfortable lodgings, owned by the Comte d’Artois until its recent confiscation by the state. In fact, a palatial 17^th century residence was situated at the rear of the front courtyard.

On one side of this residence was another big courtyard, surrounded by arcades, and on the other was a large garden with many tall trees. However, the whole scene was rather ruined by the sight of an ancient 60-feet high, virtually windowless, square fortress tower, with four, round, corner turrets and a steep, pointed roof. The façade of this ‘Great Tower’, which had once been occupied by the Knights Templar, had become blackened with age, a feature that only added to its sinister, threatening appearance.

The north turret of this ugly, unappealing and almost derelict edifice led to another 5-storyed building, in better condition, called the ‘Little Tower’. It was to tiny, dimly lit, almost bare and rather dirty chambers, within this latter facility and behind a series of eight, locked, heavy, iron doors, that the family was brought with their friends and servants.

The mother and daughter were to sleep in the same chamber, with the son in an adjacent room. Meanwhile, the father had been allocated accommodation on a different floor and work would soon commence to refurbish the ‘Great Tower’, in order to house the family later in even more secure conditions.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 19 August 1792)

Guards entered the family chambers at about midnight and took away all of the friends and servants, ostensibly for interrogation by command of the revolutionary Paris Commune.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 26 August 1792)

Some new servants were allocated to the family, 3 days after the father’s 38^th birthday and after almost a week during which no one at all had attended them, a unique phenomenon in their lives. One of the new appointees, Hanet Cléry, was a volunteer, who had been the boy’s former valet and was to become a "continual witness of" the familial group’s subsequent "injurious treatment".

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 2 September 1792)

The family was taking their daily walk round the ‘Temple’ compound when foreboding noises could be heard from outside the walls of the complex. News had reached Paris that invading Prussians were approaching the city and that therefore the population was in great danger.

One of the municipal guards supervising the family reflected the outside mob’s concerns and intentions when he shouted furiously at the quintet "We know that we and our wives and children will perish, but the people will have their revenge. You will die before we do!"

The guard had screamed with such clear hatred and ambition for retribution that the boy became instantly petrified and began to sob hysterically, apparently not for fear of what might happen to himself but rather what might be perpetrated against the rest of his family. His sister in particular tried to comfort him but her efforts were in vain.

During the subsequent night, the imprisoned family encountered difficulty in sleeping and, in the early hours of the morning, they could hear more loud noises from outside the walls of the ‘Temple’. The clamour clearly emanated from an enraged, murderous mob, intent on breaking into the complex, an aim in which they eventually succeeded.

As the deeply worrying disturbance came closer, members of the National Guard burst into the room where the frightened family had gathered. The father asked an officer what was happening.

"Well, if you want to know…." was the early reply from the officer before he fully answered the appalled father’s question and invited him outside to look for himself, as "they want to show you, for you to see how the people avenge themselves on tyrants!" Meanwhile, the mother had fainted and both children were crying uncontrollably.

The mob outside carried a pike, on top of which was the bloody head of a rather beautiful woman with blonde hair. She had been one of the mother’s closest friends, who had been expelled from the ‘Tower’ a week previously.

The poor woman had refused to denounce her friend and for her defiance had been brutally gang-raped, before her genitalia had been sliced off her and mounted on a pike, closely followed by her head and heart. Her naked decapitated body had then been dragged through the streets, although only her head had been allowed inside the walls of the ‘Temple’ to be shown to the five horrified prisoners.

Once inside the ‘Temple’, the mob screamed for the mother’s own decapitation. However, one of the municipal officers shouted back that "The head….does not belong to you….France has entrusted its great offenders to the city of Paris. It is your business to help guard them until the justice of the nation avenges its people!"

Despite this retort, the lives of the family members remained seriously endangered by the enraged mob until the following evening, although elsewhere in Paris bloody massacres continued for several more days.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, early October 1792)

Over the succeeding days and weeks, the family tried to survive by ordering their lives into as normal a routine as possible, although their guards followed them everywhere, making privacy difficult to achieve. They breakfasted together and then the father would give his highly intelligent young son some lessons, whilst the mother did the same in respect of the daughter.

Cléry wrote of the son that "His father taught him to recite passages from Corneille and Racine, gave him lessons in geography and taught him to colour maps." The servant was impressed by the capabilities of the boy, whose "precocious intelligence" enabled him to respond "perfectly" to his tuition.

In the late morning, the family was permitted to walk in the ‘Temple’ compound, mainly along a path flanked by horse chestnut trees. Here, Cléry encouraged the boy, who loved outdoor pursuits, to play "quoits or football, or running, or other games of exercise".

Indoors in the afternoons, the family played backgammon or piquet, or sometimes, at the behest of the boy, more active pastimes, such as shuttlecock. After supper and bath-time, the mother supervised her son’s prayers, which were usually whispered so that the guards could not overhear. Not only was Christianity currently being denounced in revolutionary France but some of what the 7 year-old begged of God would not have amused the sentinels.

These guards were zealously watchful. For example, one of Cléry’s multiplication tables, prepared to assist the boy's lessons in arithmetic, were confiscated, along with some of the mother’s tapestry, as possible cipher devices. The men also often took pleasure in disparaging their prisoners

The Paris Commune commissioned daily reports about the family, some of the information for which was provided by spies within the new, small retinue of household servants. Meanwhile, no one was allowed near the prisoners without special passes.

An obnoxious, 56 year-old former shoemaker and ardent republican, with influence amongst some of the current revolutionary leaders, especially Maximilien Robespierre, was eventually appointed as one of the commissioners charged with supervising the family in the ‘Temple’. His name was Antoine Simon and his arrival signalled another deterioration in the fortunes of the prisoners, especially that of the young boy.

The belittling of the family immediately gathered fresh momentum. Simon, who always wore a shabby old hat that rather personified his character, began referring to them by the surname of ‘Capet’, which related to distant ancestors. Outside walks became something to be endured instead of enjoyed because of the increased insolence exhibited by the guards, who sometimes, for amusement, also deliberately placed obstructions, such as chairs in corridors, to make passage more awkward.

When the family returned from their walks, fresh, vicious graffiti was often visible on walls, including inscriptions such as "Strangle the cubs", referring to the son and daughter, and drawings of the new device for mass execution, the guillotine, with appropriate suggestions as to its use. However, the parents continued to insist on the exercise because they believed that their children would still benefit despite the torment to be endured on the way.

The boy, now 7½, was particularly confused and upset about the sudden, deeply distressing changes to his family lifestyle and security. He was handsome and healthy and had previously been known for the equitable pleasantness of his character. However, he was now also becoming increasingly tense and testy, whilst being unable to comprehend how his family had become so violently unpopular.

The associated hostility towards his family and himself was especially troubling. The guards had rejoiced in letting the boy know that he was now popularly known as the ‘son of a she-ape’ and ‘a little wolfling who should be strangled’.

The delightful boy began to suffer terrible nightmares. After waking up from one of these, the 7 year-old had insisted on seeing his mother before he was prepared to believe that she was still alive.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, late October 1792)

The refurbishment of the grim, square ‘Great Tower’ had been completed and so the family was led up a winding, stone stairwell in one of the round corner turrets into their new, foreboding accommodation. The latter comprised sets of chambers on several floors, linked by the spiral staircase and each protected by a pair of sturdy doors, one of thick oak studded with nails and the other of iron, with both fitted with locks and padlocked bolts. Each room possessed a small window. However, as the walls were 9 feet thick, and the openings were fitted with external iron bars and shutters, little light or fresh air penetrated inside.

The boy was accommodated with his father and Cléry on the second floor, amongst whose sparse decorations was ironically a poster detailing the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man’, whilst his mother, sister and aunt were allocated rooms on the level above. By now, the family was guarded by a roster of eight commissioners, who were housed on the ground floor and were all stern, revolutionary zealots, with some, like Simon, also possessing strong sadistic tendencies. The men were charged "never to lose sight of the prisoners for a single instant, to speak to them only to answer questions and never to tell them anything about what is happening".

The commissioners were assisted in their tasks by forty soldiers accommodated in a first floor guardroom, whilst the whole ‘Temple’ complex was garrisoned by 200 members of the National Guard and several artillery pieces. All possibility of escape for the imprisoned family appeared to have been effectively eliminated.

Meanwhile, the commissioners noticed that the mother doted on her son and took immense comfort in his reciprocated embraces and kisses. Consequently, she was denied access to the boy throughout the day and could only visit him at certain other times, with one of her gaolers in attendance, whilst the 7 year-old was instead placed in the charge of his father and Cléry.

Nevertheless, the playful boy somehow recovered from this latest blow to his daily existence and even began to charm some of the fierce commissioners. One of these men, who publicly termed the 7 year-old a "wolf-cub" and worse, informed a friend "He is as beautiful as the day and as interesting as can be. He plays....remarkably well....The other day he asked me if the people were still unhappy. ‘That’s a pity,’ he replied when I answered in the affirmative."

Cléry, who was immensely impressed by the young boy’s consideration for others, noted "But he felt it himself; though young, he knew he was in prison and watched by enemies. His behaviour and his talk acquired that reserve which instinct, in presence of danger, inspires perhaps at any age."

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, November 1792)

It was the mother’s 37^th birthday. However, the present circumstances of the family, plus the onset of wintry weather that chilled their accommodation, which was inadequately heated by a single stove on each floor, discouraged celebration, especially as the occupants proved susceptible to seasonal illnesses in their cold, confined, oppressive environment.

When Cléry too fell ill and was confined to his bed, the boy insisted on nursing him. The 7 year-old hardly left his servant’s side, during which period his patient later wrote "the august child made me drink." Subsequently, Elisabeth passed her nephew a box of lozenges to give to the valet, who woke up from fitful slumber not long before midnight.

Cléry expressed surprise that the boy was still awake and attending him at such a late hour. "The fact is," the 7 year-old responded, "I did not want to fall asleep until I had given you this little box from my aunt. You were just in time; I’ve almost dozed off several times!"

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Paris, the National Convention was discussing the family’s future.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 11 December 1792)

The family was awoken at 5 a.m. by the loud beating of drums outside.

Cléry had already secretly advised the parents that the father might have to stand trial soon and it appeared that the day had arrived. However, the commissioners initially said nothing and the small, familial group ate breakfast together as usual.

Afterwards, the unknowing boy was keen to play his father at a variant of nine-pins and the man, despite his rightful fears, could not resist the entreaties. However, their game was interrupted at about 11 a.m. when a pair of commissioners entered the chamber and ordered the son to be taken to his mother, whilst the adult prisoner was taken before the National Convention.

Believing correctly that his father was endangered, the boy became visibly distressed at having to leave his parent, who now thought that he might never again meet his family. However, he was later returned to the ‘Temple’, where his request to have access to his wife was declined and approval to see his children granted only if he agreed that they could be transferred from their mother to his quarters for the duration of his trial. The man could not agree to such a cruel condition.

"My brother," the boy’s sister, whose 14^th birthday was 8 days later, subsequently recorded, "spent that first night of the....trial in my mother’s room. He had no bed, so she gave him hers and remained up all night in a gloom so great we did not like to leave her."

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, Christmas Day, 25 December 1792)

Alone in his small, dim, dank chambers, still unable to see his family, the father prepared his will. "I pray to God," he wrote, "especially to cast his merciful eyes on my wife, my children and my sister, who have shared for a long time in my sufferings, that He will sustain them with His grace should I be taken from them".

Amongst other messages in the will to family members, the man wrote to his son that, if the boy ever had the "misfortune" to succeed him into his former position, he "must dedicate himself entirely to the happiness of his fellow citizens". The child was also "to feel no hate or resentment about the misfortunes his father is suffering" and to care for "those persons undergoing misfortunes on his father’s account."

The man’s trial resumed on the next day. An American observer noted that it was ironic that such a mild man could find himself defending charges, primarily laid by Robespierre’s revolutionary faction, that he had been one of the "most nefarious" people in history.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 20 January 1793)

The father was allowed to see his family again for the first time in 6 weeks. The mother arrived first, holding her young son by the hand, but was quickly followed by her daughter and sister-in-law. They all ran to embrace the man, who had earlier met a priest to give his final confession and receive the last rites. "A gloomy silence," Cléry later wrote, "reigned for several minutes, interrupted only by sobs."

The family was then allowed to go into the dining room, where the guards could watch them through a glazed door. A sorrowful scene, lasting 2 hours, ensued, with much continued embracing and sobbing and during which the man told of his fate and asked his young son to swear an oath. Holding the boy’s hand above his head, he requested the child to promise to pardon those who were about to execute his father.

The father subsequently advised his son and daughter always to be friendly and supportive to each other, as well as obedient to their mother. He then blessed his children.

When the family eventually emerged from the dining facility to separate once more for the night, the boy "in his little hands....clasped" both parents, whose own hands "he kisses and waters with his tears". Meanwhile, the daughter was "filling the room with the most heart-rendering cries".

The father had declined his wife’s suggestion that they all spent the night together, stating that he needed "tranquillity". The family instead agreed to meet again at 7 a.m. on the next morning. However, the man’s subsequent melancholic expression in the doorway of "adieu" caused the familial sobbing and embracing to intensify and his daughter to collapse at his feet.

Somehow, the father eventually summoned "the strength to tear himself from their arms" and re-enter his quarters. When the rest of the family returned to their own accommodation, the mother, who was close to physical and emotional collapse, did not have the energy to undress her young son and put him bed.

The mother, according to her daughter, instead "threw herself, dressed as she was, upon the bed and we heard her through the night trembling with cold and sorrow".

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 21 January 1793)

The family rose at 6 a.m. on a chilly, misty morning to await their final opportunity to see the father.

Drums and shouted military commands could be heard in the forecourt. Someone came to the mother’s door, behind which the boy was quaking in fear, with his pretty but currently distraught and tearful face buried in the maternal lap. However, the visiting guard had not arrived to take the family to see the father but had instead come to collect a Bible for use in a mass to be conducted in the condemned man’s quarters.

As the guard was leaving, the boy suddenly stopped crying and instead gained sufficient courage to try to rush past the departing man. However, the sentinel managed to capture and restrain the 7 year-old in a harsh manner before asking the child what he was trying to do.

"I’m going to speak to the people," the 7 year-old cried. The tearful but brave boy then continued "I’m going to beg them not to have my father killed. For heaven’s sakes, do not prevent me from speaking to the people!" However, the youngster’s entreaty went unheeded and he soon found himself locked up once more within his mother’s small prison.

The family then spent hours waiting for the summons to see the father for the final time. The sinister tower they were in was regularly full of noise, including loud voices, doors slamming and footsteps on the stairs until eventually a strange quiet pervaded the place.

It was then that the family realised that the comfort of seeing the father again was not to be granted to them. The man had instead now departed the ‘Temple’ in a closed carriage, which was escorted by over 1000 soldiers and took over 2 hours to traverse through the raucously insulting crowds lining the streets of Paris until arriving at the newly renamed ‘Place de la Révolution’ and the waiting guillotine.

Shortly after 10.20 a.m., the rest of the family, imprisoned in the ‘Temple’, heard loud gunfire and happy shouts from excited citizens. The drums of their prison garrison also began to beat.

The deeply anguished mother instantly realised that she was a widow, and that her children were father-less.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, February 1793)

Despite failing health, which had seriously enfeebled her, the mother subsequently attempted to control her own distraught emotions for the benefit of her children. She consoled them as best she could and also tried to return them to some semblance of a normal routine, including assuming the responsibility of giving her son the lessons previously provided by her late husband. She also encouraged the boy to say his prayers regularly, although he countered that, whenever he did so, "it’s always my father who comes to me".

The family subsequently held a short, sad ceremony to commemorate the father. The boy had composed some special verses for the occasion. One of these read:

"Everything is fled for me on this earth,

But I am still by my mother’s side!"

Frightened that the close environment within their prison was unhealthy for her children, the mother additionally sought permission to walk around the roof battlements of the ‘Great Tower’, a favour that was granted. There, her still remarkably playful son particularly enjoyed being picked up so that he could look through the gaps in the walls.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 27 March 1793)

It was the boy’s 8^th birthday. On the same day, in the National Convention, Robespierre suggested "The time has come for patriots to rekindle their vigorous and immoral hatred of those who are called ‘Kings’!"

17 days previously, at Danton’s instigation, a ‘Revolutionary Tribunal’ had been established to try political criminals. Over a week later, on the 6^th of April, a special board was created to run France, ironically, given many of its subsequent activities, entitled the ‘Committee of Public Safety’.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 20 April 1793)

Most of the family was awoken, just after they had retired to their beds in the late evening, to suffer an unannounced search of their accommodation. However, the boy initially slept on until roughly dragged from his bunk to be held, shivering with cold and fright, in his mother’s arms.

The guards searched for hours until 4 a.m. but only found a few personal mementoes, which, despite pleas as to their sentimental value to the family, the men took away.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 3 May 1793)

It was Elisabeth’s 29^th birthday. By now, the strain of the familial existence was now beginning to have a marked affect on her young nephew’s health. "The want of air and exercise did him much harm," the boy’s sister later commented, as did the "the sort of life the poor child lived, in the midst of tears and shocks, alarm and continual terrors at just 8 years of age".

The boy began to describe a continuous pain in his side, which hurt when he sat and disturbed his breathing when he lay down. Bad headaches, bouts of fever and convulsions, as well as an infestation of worms, followed.

The prison physician was consulted and later the mother and sister nursed the boy, night and day, throughout the month of May.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 2 June 1793)

The gentle ministrations of the mother and sister helped the boy to recover by early June, when a coup against the moderates within the National Convention took place, many of whom were subsequently guillotined. With their fall, the more extreme factions led by Robespierre and Danton became ascendant.

Meanwhile, serious plots to rescue the family in the ‘Temple’ were uncovered and security tightened by the Committee of Public Safety in a particularly cruel manner.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 3 July 1793)

During the fateful evening of the 3^rd of July, the mother was sewing in candlelight, with her son sleeping on a nearby bed, when some city officials suddenly burst into their quarters. The men read a decree of the Paris Commune ordering that the "son of Capet" was to be separated from his remaining parent and placed in more secure accommodation within the ‘Great Tower’.

Despite her poor health, which had caused her body to become very thin and weak, the mother tried to defend her son with all of the courage and strength still at her disposal. She argued with the officials and stood resolutely between them and the boy, declaring, according to her daughter’s later recall, "they would have to kill her before they could tear her child from her".

By now, the 8 year-old had woken up and, according to his sister, realising what was afoot, had "flung himself into my mother’s arms, imploring not to be taken from her". The vehement and noisy stand-off lasted for an hour and only ended when the officials finally "threatened to employ violence and call up the guard". The men’s ultimate warning that they were prepared to kill the boy and the rest of the family finally won the lengthy, heated debate.

"After we had dressed him," the 8 year-old’s sister later described, the mother "took him and gave him into the hands of the municipals herself, bathing him with her tears and overwhelmed with a sense of foreboding that she would never see him again". Meanwhile, "the poor little boy kissed us all very tenderly and went away with the guards, crying his eyes out".

The sobbing boy was led down the spiral stairwell to his father’s former room, where he had not been since the emotional evening when he had last seen his male parent. The 8 year-old was locked inside, alone and frightened, in a place that recalled only sad memories.

The boy subsequently cried uncontrollably for two days, whilst his mother and sister in the room above, imagining far worse than was actually happening to the child, could hear his continuous sobs.

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 7 July 1793)

On the 7^th of July, members of the Committee for Public Safety felt compelled to check the boy’s welfare. The child had not been publicly seen recently and this had encouraged rumours to spread that he had indeed escaped, despite a categorical denial made by Robespierre on the previous day in the National Convention.

A few days earlier, Antoine Simon had arrived in the boy’s quarters. This horrible, gruff 57 year-old commissioner possessed "a square, robust build, tanned complexion and a coarse face....with black hair coming down to his eyebrows and thick whiskers". He also had a reputation for being crude, rude and cruel.

Simon, who was virtually illiterate, had ironically been appointed to ‘re-educate’ the boy in revolutionary ways, which was a role that to him represented the peak of his career. He was to eradicate any feelings the 8 year-old retained for his past, including his family. In the process, he was to destroy the child’s residual resolve and brainwash him into accepting the authority of the new citizen rulers of France.

Simon was also aware that those currently in power considered the boy to be a dangerous nuisance and would be delighted if they could unequivocally rid themselves of him. However, the execution of a child might seriously upset currently highly volatile public opinion and was therefore not an acceptable option. Quiet murder at this time might also induce unwelcome problems.

Nevertheless, Simon had promised to go about his new job with zeal, advising those who had appointed him that the "wolf-cub" "has been taught to be insolent but I shall know how to tame him. Hard luck if he dies because of it!" However, the sadistic man initially achieved little success because the youngster just sat weeping on a chair "in the darkest corner of his room....his eyes constantly turned towards the door....every time he heard the noise of the bolts and the grating of keys in the locks".

The boy was obviously deeply distressed, since "often he remained motionless and tears rolled down his cheeks". Simon, who could hardly draw a word out of his young charge, therefore felt that he could not risk taking the 8 year-old for some air on the roof battlements or garden, where his trauma could be observed. However, the visiting members of the Committee for Public Safety temporarily overruled the commissioner and had the child taken into the ‘Temple’ grounds, specifically to allow the youngster to be seen in an attempt to quash the rumours about his escape.

The sorrowful but still inherently brave boy took the opportunity to protest to the officials about his treatment. "I want to know," the 8 year-old demanded, "what law you are using that says I should be separated from my mother. Show me this law, I want to see it!" However, he was scolded for his impertinence and told to "hold his tongue".

On subsequently departing, the members of the Committee of Public Safety left orders that the boy was to frequent the garden daily. However, the command was issued not out of consideration for the child’s health but rather as a result of a desire to prove that the 8 year-old remained imprisoned.

After initially dealing with the boy with some care, whilst he fully appraised the task in hand, Simon later gained the confidence to launch fully a regime of indoctrination and psychological, physical and ultimately sexual abuse. Such acutely harsh treatment was designed to break the child to the will of the revolution.

Meanwhile, the boy’s sister later reported that "the sole pleasure my mother had was to see him....as he passed in the distance". The woman peered through a narrow chink in the wall, next to which "she stayed....for hours, watching for the instant when she could see her child. It was her sole hope, her sole occupation."

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 2 August 1793)

Four guards came to collect the mother in the early hours of the morning. The National Convention had decreed that she was to be taken elsewhere in Paris to await her own trial.

After the mother said her emotional farewells to her daughter and sister-in-law, and as she subsequently descended the outside stairwell, she passed the door of her son’s quarters on the floor below. Still unable to see her beloved boy, she also now knew that they might never meet again.

On her way down the stone steps, the mother accidentally hit her head on the final overhead beam. One of her guards enquired "Did you hurt yourself?"

"Oh no," the woman answered, "nothing can hurt me anymore!"

(The ‘Temple’, eastern Paris, 2 September 1793)

The boy was once again forced by Simon to sing a revolutionary song and decry the existence of God. The 8 year-old’s so-called tutor was aided in his tasks by befuddling his young charge with wine and hitting or kicking him whenever the youngster erred, hesitated or disobeyed.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Paris, a furtive all-night meeting of the Committee of Public Safety was taking place, at which the mother’s ultimate execution was being planned. However, the public prosecutor, who had already sent many people to the guillotine, was doubtful that he had enough evidence to be sure of winning the death penalty at the Revolutionary Tribunal. An appalling plan was therefore concocted to ensure that this decision was reached.

The mother had been the subject for years of scurrilous, false rumours about her sex life. She was alleged to be a promiscuous she-devil with wickedly immoral and unnatural tendencies, whilst, in fact, she had become sexually indifferent. The conspiracy intended to use the woman’s son to provide supposedly irrefutable evidence of his remaining parent’s sexual perversions, which would include abusing him.

The boy would thereby destroy his own mother.

(To be continued in the penultimate part 2 – ‘Egalité!’)