Understanding what liberalism actually is is very difficult. The whole problem is that he hides very attractive at first glance slogans. But if you think carefully, it turns out that this very notorious liberalism is an instrument of terrible force aimed at destroying Russia.

Liberalism appeals to the so-called universal human values. But do they exist these universal human values ​​in general? Are there such ideal ideas that are unconditionally shared by the entire population of the planet? In fact, this is a great abstraction that leads a person into the world of illusions and weakens his immunity to surrounding dangers. Therefore, the idea of ​​universal human values ​​was enthusiastically received by precisely that part of our Russian intelligentsia that is prone to overly idealized ideas about the world around us.

I argue that in modern life, unfortunately, the majority pursues only their individual goals and professes private ideals. Moreover, there is no unity in the worldview of various social groups, nationalities, and nations. If for a person of communist upbringing the ideals can be: “peace, work, May.” That for a consistent monarchist is “faith, emperor, fatherland.” And for some Papuan from distant islands: “hunting, woman, human meat.” The oligarch has “money, money, money”; the politician has “power, money, power...”.

Therefore, an appeal to abstract values, which are opposed to national values, inherent specifically to our people, and an attempt to realize these abstract ideals in life is the destruction of the age-old foundations of any national state, the destruction of patriotism, the destruction of statehood with all the ensuing consequences.

Consider the following liberal abstraction: "liberty, equality, fraternity". Is it possible to implement these categories in real life? Of course not!

.
Freedomalways perceived differently by different people. A normal person takes restrictions on personal freedom for granted. His internal aspirations and needs are limited by morality, a sense of proportion and respect for others. For an immoral, vicious or mentally ill person, the proclamation of freedom acts as an unconditional emancipation of his internal, hidden, for the time being, unnatural needs. Therefore, the implementation of this principle without restrictions in society is impossible. In addition, in any social group, the rights and freedom of one person are limited by the rights and freedom of another. Rights correspond to responsibilities. Needs are limited by available capabilities, etc.

Regarding equality, then this principle for the purposes of organizing society and establishing a normal life is complete nonsense. What is the norm in mathematics is impossible in human society. Have you ever seen absolutely identical people?!

Even twins have external differences and individual character traits. Equality does not exist in nature. It does not exist in the human world either. From birth, differences between individuals are determined by the genetic program. Some are born smarter, others stronger, others more energetic, etc. In the future, differences between people increase even more as they grow up and receive education. It must be emphasized that the science of management, from which liberals are so far from, is based on existing human inequality, focuses on the differences in characters, psyche, mentality, motivations and, for the purposes of effective social management, identifies entire categories, entire scientific directions, such as social anthropology, ethnic psychology, etc. Such inequality, conditioned by the laws of nature and life itself, gives rise to the need to limit freedom.

Let's consider the category "brotherhood" Here, you are probably thinking, is where the liberals did not miss. Humanity has always supposedly strived for universal brotherhood. I don't think that's entirely true. And world history itself is proof of this. How many wars and aggressive attacks our people had to endure. How many people died defending their homeland from the “brotherly” aspirations of the Khazars, Pechenegs, Tatar-Mongols, Avars, Turks, Japanese, French, Italians, Germans, Chinese, Americans, etc. There is not an inch of land on the territory of our vast country where the blood of a Russian person has not been shed, defending his right and the right of his descendants to life.

And would we even exist as a great nation if we treated our enemies from the point of view of liberalism? I think not. I believe that today’s events in the world do not give reason to forget about the need to protect ourselves from numerous predatory “brothers” seeking to destroy our people and seize our lands, forests, and minerals. Moreover, how can a person be forced to treat, for example, a criminal who killed people, a corrupt official who stole people's money, or a terrorist who blew up a house?

So it turns out that liberalism is complete absurdity. There is no freedom, equality or fraternity in nature. It is impossible to implement the ideas of liberalism, and an attempt to use them in certain spheres of social life leads to chaos, a weakening of the protective forces of the people's body, and the destruction of society.

Why did French become French? And how were so many different geographical features, nationalities, customs, cultures able to unite into a single whole and form France?

People are born French - or become French, having studied the language, studied at a French school, accepted republican values, humanism and human rights, shed their blood for the state.

The identity of French unity lies in the unity of will of many people to live as one people, even if these people, men and women, speak different languages ​​and adhere to different traditions. In the name of unity, they abandon differences and embrace community. France never closes itself off from foreigners or their unusual way of life. It was this country that made an ideal couple from an Italian immigrant (Yves Montand) and an actress, the daughter of an Austro-Polish Jew (Simon Signoret), from the son of Polish Jews (Jean-Marie Lustige) into a cardinal and the Archbishop of Paris, and from the Togolese Kofi Yamgnane - the mayor of Breton commune and the Minister of Integration.

France, “black, white, Arab”, on everyone’s lips thanks to the World Cup, is a country whose people play, work and fight for victory in one spirit.

The French are also united by a number of specific symbols: the motto of the Republic “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”, the anthem “Marseillaise”, the blue-white-red flag. The country has preserved all these symbols since the French Revolution.

The French people also have symbolic places. These are Versailles, Notre Dame, the Arc de Triomphe, the Pantheon, the Wall of the Communards, Verdun, Mount Valerien, the French Academy, the Eiffel Tower. In addition, every locality must have a city hall, a bell tower and a monument to those who died for their Motherland.

Symbols of the French Republic and national holidays

The national anthem, La Marseillaise, was written in 1792 by Captain Rouget de Lisle, who wanted to inspire soldiers to fight the armies of European rulers who sought to re-enthrone Louis XVI. That is why the anthem contains militant calls addressed to revolutionaries and supporting their desire to protect the independence of the new nation.

The tricolor (blue, white, red) became the French flag in 1789. It symbolizes the commonality of royal power (white) with popular power (blue and red are the colors of the Parisian coat of arms). In 1793, the tricolor became the flag of the Republic.

July 14 is a national holiday, Bastille Day by revolutionaries (July 14, 1789). The storming of the Bastille meant the end of the absolute power of the king and the triumph of republican values.

Most common French surnames

Major families of the most common surnames in France:

German origin: Bernard, Richard, Robert, Bertrand, Girard.
Biblical origin: Martin, Thomas, Laurent, Simon, Michel.
From the names of professions: Leroy, Lefebvre, Fournier, Faure, Mercier.
From geographical names: Dubois, Dupont, Fontaine, Duval, Dumont.
From nicknames: Petit, Duran, Garcia, Moro, Roux.

The French bourgeois revolutions had a contagious effect on other European countries. With the coming of the bourgeoisie to power, the labor movement also arose.

The French Revolution of 1789 ended autocracy in France and became the beginning of a series of bourgeois revolutions in Europe in the 19th century.

The slogan of the autocracy “God, King and Fatherland” was replaced by “Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood until death.” And, indeed, it was a life-and-death struggle between old privileges and the demands of the bourgeoisie for equal rights for all.

The bourgeoisie was unable to end the autocracy alone, so it appealed to the third estate to support the revolution.

Context

Election fever is gaining momentum

There's nowhere else to live in Sweden

How to divert popular anger from the Kremlin

For such a purpose, the slogan of the bourgeoisie was ideal.

Victory of the bourgeoisie

Having secured real power in France, she removed the (social) ladder and completely forgot the general slogan. The Moor has done his job, the Moor can leave!

But the lower strata of society were also able to think, and they decided that the bourgeoisie should stick to the original slogan. This led to a series of revolutions in France from 1848 to 1851.

This was also evident in Denmark when the labor movement was formed in 1871. His first banner read “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.”

Actually, the original slogan was supposed to be there, but Copenhagen police chief Crone prevented it, so only brotherhood remained. The police chief later received a high Russian order from the Tsar for his fight against the Danish labor movement.

This slogan was used by many local branches - or sections, as it was called in the Danish branch of the International.

All this was done to show the bourgeoisie that the right to freedom, enshrined in the June Constitution of 1849, belongs to all citizens, and not just a select few.

The May demonstration was banned

Soon after its formation, the labor movement was forced to make its first test of strength. The day before the May demonstration, it was banned by the chief of police, and the leaders of the labor movement, Pio, Brix og Geleff, were arrested.

The labor movement, that is, first of all, trade union leaders, opposed the ban and held a demonstration, citing the words of the Constitution on freedom of assembly. Clashes occurred with units of hussars attacking a crowd of people.

Thus, the labor movement was born in the struggle, and each of its victories in subsequent years is the result of endless struggles, trade union and political.

The next great upsurge in the labor movement came with the October Revolution of 1917. It aroused optimism and hope for the end of the terrible killings on the fronts of the First World War.

It also gave rise to the hope that the old society would be replaced by a new one, where "Equality, Liberty and Fraternity" would not only be beautiful words, but also reality.

But history is a strange thing, it does not go smoothly and calmly, it moves in leaps and is filled with catastrophes with possible returns to previous eras.

October Revolution

The bourgeoisie greeted the October Revolution with a long reactionary period, which began in the twenties of the last century in several countries, in particular in Bulgaria and Italy.

The response to the October Revolution was fascism, which won first in Italy and then in Germany in 1933. This was preparation for World War II, which began in 1939.

But the labor movement did not give up. It carefully considered how to combat fascism most effectively. After a long and thorough study, the VII World Congress of the Comintern approved the new policy.

The labor movement made a 180-degree turn and established the defense of civil democracy as its most important task. This led to the formation of a united popular front, a movement growing from below and so strong that it was able to effectively solve all its problems.

The inspiration created by the new policy was so strong that it spread throughout the globe. And in countries as diverse as India and Chile, popular front governments came to power. As for India, this happened primarily in the state of Kerala.

The idea of ​​a popular front

One of the biggest results of the creation of the popular front was the successful fight against the onset of fascism in France. A popular front government was created, consisting of representatives of the parties of the labor movement and radicals.

The example spread to other countries, in which similar governments and a broad front of popular resistance to fascism were also created.

The Danish Social Democrats flatly refused to join the People's Front government with the Communists, but the basis of the People's Front was established during the occupation, when it began to emerge in workplaces and trade union organizations. Workers, functionaries and employees together entered into “Free Denmark,” which was built precisely on the unity of various classes and strata of society.

After the victory over fascism in 1945, opportunities arose for the further development of democracy. The 1945 UN Charter is based in principle on the 1789 French Revolution's Declaration of Human Rights. Such are the long paths of history.

This has created opportunities for women's rights in a number of countries. Social progress began in new areas such as housing, health, and child care.

All this was the result of advanced policies created by the labor movement in the thirties of the last century, when the situation looked very bleak. This is also a lesson for modern times, because the labor movement has been pushed into a defensive position in recent years, and acute social need has again begun to be felt in many families.

And here the popular front of the thirties of the last century contributes to the revival of the influence of the labor movement.

The old slogan can be rewritten as follows: “From the EU, for equality and solidarity.” The main thing is not the text, but respect for the rights enshrined in the Constitution and their transfer to new social conditions based on technological and economic progress.

Here the labor movement can successfully appeal to other (social strata), for example, to functionaries and officials, in order to solve this problem with a united front.

DESPOTISM OF FREEDOM

After the Jacobins came to power, the Constitution they adopted in June 1793 continued to proclaim freedom as the natural and inalienable right of all people. As before, it was recognized as one of the fundamental human values. Like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789, the declaration of 1793 contained articles proclaiming freedom and security of the person. The Declaration promised citizens that " the right to express one's thoughts and opinions, whether through the press or any other means, the right to assemble together in peace, and the free exercise of religious rites cannot be prohibited. The need to proclaim these rights presupposes the existence of despotism or a living memory of it"

As a proclaimed principle and as an object of worship, freedom remained intact during the Jacobin reign. The preamble to the law of May 30, 1794 (11 Prairial of the year II) on the compilation of a complete code of laws of France stated that it should " base laws on the principles of Liberty and Equality" ".

From September 1793, France began to live according to the republican calendar. The beginning of a new era was officially recognized as 1792, the first year of the republic. But at the same time, the previously unofficial dating remained, according to which 1789 was considered the 1st year of freedom, so that according to the new calendar, 1793 became the 5th year of freedom and the 2nd year of the republic. The reverence for freedom is reflected in the names of the days of the republican calendar. Its compilers divided months into decades. Each day had its own dedication and symbol, which personified republican values. The second day of the decade (duodi) - beats is dedicated to freedom, and the cap became its symbol; the fourth day (quartidi) - to a free person and received a pike as a symbol.

The cult of Freedom acquired bizarre forms in the fall of 1793, when the so-called de-Christianization movement unfolded in the country. In violation of religious freedom, churches were closed and attempts were made to forcibly abolish the Catholic cult, replacing it with the cult of Reason. In the minds of the revolutionary Intelligentsia, who initiated de-Christianization, reason and freedom were inseparable from each other.

The Cathedral of Notre Dame at this time ceased to function as a Catholic church. The Paris Commune (city municipality) decided to hold a celebration in honor of Freedom in its building. During the preparation, the holiday, which took place on November 10, 1793 (20 Brumaire of the 2nd year according to the republican calendar), was transformed into the “Triumph of Reason.” The ceremony turned out to be magnificent, theatrical and full of various allegories.

A mountain was built in the altar of the cathedral, symbolizing Jacobinism (as you know, the Jacobin group in the Convention was called the Mountain). It was decorated with a small temple dedicated - as the inscription indicated - to philosophy. At the entrance there were busts of philosophers. Girls in white robes, wearing laurel wreaths and holding torches in their hands, in two rows, descended from the mountain and ascended it again. At that moment, Liberty herself, portrayed by a beautiful actress, came out of the temple. She sat down on a throne immersed in greenery and began to accept congratulations from the participants of the holiday. Deputies of the Convention were present at the ceremony. The “Hymn to Freedom” written specially for the holiday by M.-J. was performed. Chenier to music by F.-J. State Secretary:
.

The appearance of the actress in the role of Liberty was an innovation. Three days before the holiday in Paris, when discussing its scenario, the city authorities, as usual, planned to erect the Statue of Liberty in the cathedral in the place where the figure of Our Lady had previously stood. However, the organizers of the celebration abandoned the usual ritual, as they wanted to contribute to the fight against prejudice and idolatry. They reasoned that man, the crown of nature, should not worship a stone statue. By inviting the actress to embody the image of Freedom, they wanted to convince the people that freedom is not an idol, but an idea, the bearer of which is the person himself.

The history of this holiday clearly shows how diverse the perception of freedom was. The initiators of the de-Christianization movement wanted to replace Catholicism with a new, civil religion, the shrines of which would be the abstract concepts of reason, truth and freedom. They contrasted the Goddess of Liberty with the central female image of the Catholic cult - the Virgin Mary. And for the deputies of the Convention present at the celebration, the allegory of freedom was, first of all, a symbol of state power, taking the place of the king.

This complex image, created by the enlightened elite, filled with both ancient reminiscences and ideas of European socio-political thought of modern times, received an unexpected rethink among the people. The folk holiday tradition accepted and adopted it. The American researcher L. Hunt came to the conclusion that at the festivals of Reason held everywhere, the goddess of Liberty usually resembled the traditional carnival queen. As in the old days, residents chose the queen, and now Liberty, for one day the most beautiful woman in their district, village or town. However, actresses could also be invited to play the role of Freedom, as was the case at the first Festival of Reason in Paris.

In the winter of 1793 - spring of 1794, many de-Christianization carnivals took place in the country. They began with processions led by the goddesses of Liberty, and after that there were usually so-called fraternal meals. Every citizen was obliged to place a table with refreshments in front of his house for everyone.

The ceremonies in which the live “Svoboda” took part made a particularly strong impression on the audience and left a long lasting memory. Many years later, the poet P.-J. Beranger wrote the poem "Goddess" with the dedication "To the woman who personified Freedom at one of the festivities of the Revolution":

According to M. Vovel, for that part of the people that accepted the revolution, freedom became the patron saint of the French. Her images could coexist on the walls of a peasant home with images of the Virgin Mary and Catholic saints. Along with the festivities in honor of Reason, in 1793 - 1794. The veneration of the “martyrs of freedom” also spread. There were three of them: killed by Charlotte Corday in July 1793, J.-P. Marat, M. Lepeletier, killed by a royalist in January 1793, and the head of the local Jacobins, M.-J., executed in rebellious Lyon in July of the same year. Chalier. Unlike the cult of Reason, the worship of the “martyrs of freedom” arose directly among the people. It was closer and more understandable to the lower classes of the people than the veneration of Reason, which was too abstract for them. The cult of martyrs especially intensified at the height of de-Christianization, when the closure of churches temporarily prohibited the performance of Catholic rites.

By celebrating the new cult, its adherents glorified the republic, took part in the cause of freedom and strengthened their revolutionary faith. At the same time, rituals in honor of the “martyrs of freedom” were performed with truly religious pomp, with solemn processions and the participation of choirs. In the churches that became temples of Reason, images of Catholic saints were replaced by busts of the revolutionary trinity Marat, Lepeletier and Chalier.

Modern French historians studying the rituals and cults of the French Revolution use the concept of “transfer of sacredness” in relation to them. In particular, the cult of the “martyrs of freedom” was a form of popular religiosity born during the revolution. It arose, on the one hand, thanks to the popularity of the murdered Jacobin leaders, especially the “friend of the people” Marat. On the other hand, its origins were the Christian cult of saints and the worship of relics (admirers of the “martyrs of freedom” worshiped not only their images, but also their remains). Marat, Lepeletier and Chalier became revolutionary holy great martyrs and intercessors. Accepting the new values ​​and new heroes born of the revolution, the people expressed their admiration in familiar, traditional forms.

The reverence for freedom was also reflected in new names and titles. At this time, the custom arose of giving children “revolutionary” names in honor of ancient and modern heroes, days and months of the republican calendar, and civic virtues. So Freedom (Liberte) became a name that was given not only to girls, but also to boys.

So, the cult of freedom was preserved. But at the same time, as we know, the democratic constitution of the Jacobins never came into force. The Convention decided to postpone its introduction until after the war. By the autumn of 1793, a dictatorship regime had gradually taken shape in France, or, as it was then officially called, “evolutionary rule.” Thus, civil, political and economic freedoms were virtually reduced to nothing.

This process began even before the Jacobins came to power. On March 10, 1793, an extraordinary criminal tribunal was established, subsequently, in the fall of 1793, reorganized and called the revolutionary tribunal. Its creation went against the principles proclaimed in the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.”

The Tribunal received very broad powers. Its members were not elected, but appointed by the Convention. The sentences passed were not subject to any appeal. no cassation. On September 17, 1793, a decree was issued that ordered the immediate arrest of all persons declared “suspicious.” The prisons were filled with people, many of whom had not committed any crime and were arrested for dissent, for being related to an emigrant, or on suspicion of unreliability. The presumption of innocence no longer existed. The organs of the Jacobin dictatorship began to pursue a policy of terror.

At the moment of its culmination, a decree appeared on Prairial 22 of the year II (June 10, 1794) on the reorganization of the revolutionary tribunal. In accordance with this decree, the accused were deprived of defense lawyers, the mandatory calling of witnesses was abolished, instead of real evidence, the moral conviction of the jury was sufficient, and the death penalty was recognized as the only measure. The authors of this decree, which legitimized complete arbitrariness, justified this order of work of the revolutionary tribunal with nothing more than the need to defend freedom. The tribunal, the decree said, was established in order to punish the enemies of the people, i.e. those " who, by force or cunning, seek to destroy public freedom" .

Along with individual freedom, freedom of the press was also destroyed. Proclaimed in the declaration of 1789, already in the autumn of 1792 it began to be gradually limited. After the establishment of the republic, royalist newspapers were banned. Then, in December 1792, a decree was issued threatening the death penalty for promoting equalization of land redistribution. Thus, by the beginning of 1793, polemics could only be freely conducted between the Girondins and the Montagnards. Their opponents on both the right and the left were deprived of freedom of speech. After the Jacobins and Girondins came to power, they lost the right to propagate their views. This was punishable by arrest on the basis of a decree on “suspicious persons.” From now on, only the government's point of view could be openly expressed.

It is noteworthy that the people who implemented all these and other similar measures did not see them as an encroachment on freedom. On the contrary, freedom was destroyed... in the name of freedom. The French revolutionaries had no doubt that the fight for it could not stop at using the most extreme means.

In the fall of 1792, L.-A. Saint-Just promised threateningly: “ Our Freedom will fly by like a thunderstorm, and its triumph will be like a thunderclap". And a year later he uttered the infamous phrase: " Freedom must win at any cost".

A similar way of thinking was manifested in the famous report “On the Principles of Revolutionary Government,” delivered by Robespierre at the Convention on December 25, 1793.” Revolution, - said Robespierre, - it is a war of freedom against its enemies; the constitution is a regime of victorious and peaceful freedom. The revolutionary government needs to use extreme activity precisely because it is waging war... The revolutionary government is obliged to provide honest citizens with the protection of the nation, and must inflict only death on the enemies of the people" .

This speech became the official justification for the state terror carried out by the Jacobins.

However, such a vision of the events taking place was by no means a peculiarity of the Jacobins and their leaders - Robespierre and Saint-Just. Thus, Madame Manon Roland, the leader of the Girondins, who soon found themselves among the first victims of organized terror, in a letter dated July 1, 1791, proclaimed: “ We need to come to this freedom, at least through a sea of ​​blood" Later, in November 1793, ascending the scaffold, she would sadly exclaim: " O freedom, how many crimes are committed in your name!" But earlier, until the guillotine knife was raised over her own neck, she reasoned like Saint-Just.

Another Girondist leader A.-M. Inar in October 1791 demanded death for the enemies of freedom. Soon he again cried from the rostrum of the Legislative Assembly: " In relation to political freedom, to forgive a crime means almost to participate in it... Such severity will lead, perhaps, to the shedding of blood - I know that; but if you do not resort to it, will not even more be shed? Will civil war be an even greater disaster? The part affected by gangrene must be cut off to save the rest of the body." These words evoked applause from the Assembly deputies,

And here is what Danton said at the Convention on September 25, 1792, who later became the leader of the “lenient” among the Jacobins and spoke out against the extremes of dictatorship and terror: “Undoubtedly, we need a strict law against those who seek to encroach on public freedom. Great, let’s pass this law “We will pass a law threatening the death penalty for anyone who speaks out in favor of a dictatorship or a triumvirate.”

Where did enlightened humanists and freedom fighters come from, at first glance, such a strange readiness to brutally deal with their opponents?

Here the characteristic desire of French revolutionaries to start history anew was manifested. Back in 1774, in the book “Chains of Slavery,” Marat wrote: “ Freedom always arises from the fire of indignation" .

In the name of the triumph of freedom, the leaders of the revolution considered it necessary to overthrow and destroy the old world of despotism by violent means. At the same time, their thinking was distinguished by dogmatism
and intolerance of dissent. They were inclined to declare any political opponent an enemy of freedom and a defender of tyranny. Freedom, elevated to the rank of a deity, became an end in itself for them, and this gave rise to calls for freedom at any cost.

The influence of Rousseau, whose faithful disciples were the Jacobins, also had an effect. After all, it was he who, in the Social Contract, argued for the need for complete subordination of the individual (for his own good, of course) to society and the state. It was he who argued that a person can be forced to be free against his will. These ideas were developed by Robespierre, speaking at the Convention with the paradoxical statement that " revolutionary rule is the despotism of freedom versus tyranny" .

Eyewitnesses of revolutionary events, famous writers and liberal public figures Madame J. de Staël and B. Constant offered their explanation of this treatment of the Jacobins with the principle of freedom. In their opinion, the fatal mistake of the revolutionaries was that, trying on ancient clothes, they did not see the fundamental difference between the ancient and modern interpretations of freedom. In ancient times, a free person was completely and completely dissolved in the life of the community, while a person of the 18th century. became an individualist and did not want to sacrifice his personal freedom in the interests of society.

The reigning “despotism of freedom” led to a rethinking of some of the mottos of the revolution. In the summer of 1793, the directory of the Paris department called on all residents to write on the facades of their houses during the month of July: " Unity, Indivisibility of the Republic, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity or Death"On July 3, the directory of the Melun department followed this example. Residents responded to the call and began not only to write the words of the revolutionary motto in capital letters, but even to emboss them on the walls of houses and public buildings. Resolutions of the Committee of Public Safety, reports of the Commissioners of the Convention, other official papers, letters, advertisements and posters were accompanied by the headings: " Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood or Death", "Freedom, Equality or Death", "Freedom or Death".

Such mottos were not new. They have been around since at least 1790 and were originally vows to die in defense of freedom. It is in this sense that the motto " Live free or die"was included in the text of the constitution of 1791. Outwardly, the directory of the Paris department called on citizens to the same loyalty until death to the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity in the summer of 1793. However, during the terror, these words acquired a threatening meaning. They began to be interpreted as a promise to execute everyone" enemies of freedom."

At this tragic moment of the revolution, the theme of death penetrates into fine art. The canvas by J.-B. Regnault entitled “Freedom or Death” seems to illustrate the motto. The artist depicted the genius of the Republic flying between the figures. On one side sits Liberty, who holds a Phrygian cap and a triangle with a plumb line, and on the other side is the terrifying Death with a scythe. But this picture is perhaps the only example of such a gloomy interpretation of the image of Freedom. The theme of death, which filled Jacobin phraseology, practically did not have time to find reflection in revolutionary art. Images of warlike, victorious and triumphant Freedom continued to prevail.

After the coup d'etat of 9 Thermidor II (July 27, 1794) and the overthrow of the Robespierrists, inscriptions inscribed or embossed on the walls of houses began to be destroyed. Their ending was declared inhumane. So in the spring of 1795, the Parisian section of Bon Nouvel adopted a resolution in which it asked: “ Since France is no longer a cemetery, why do we read the word “death” on the doors and walls at every step?. The newspaper "Miroir" in May 1797 called this inscription " signal for massacre". The motto was reduced to the first words: " Freedom, Equality, Fraternity" or " Freedom, Equality". In this form it was still very widely used after 9 Thermidor.

Napoleon, during the coup of the 18th Brumaire (November 9, 1799), considered it necessary to publicly declare his commitment to freedom. Speaking to the Council of Elders, he said: " We desire a republic founded on true liberty, on civil liberty and on national representation, we shall have it, I swear it, I swear it in my own name and in the name of my comrades in arms! " .

The custom is to accompany official documents with the motto " Freedom, Equality"was preserved both under the Napoleonic regime of the Consulate and in the early years of the Empire. It finally disappeared around 1808.

France - G state in Western Europe. Official nameFrench Republic.

The country borders Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium in the northeast, Spain and Andorra in the south, and the Principality of Monaco and Italy in the southeast. The country is washed by the North and Mediterranean seas, the waters of the Bay of Biscay, as well as the English Channel and Pas de Calais.

Administratively, the country is divided into 27 regions, 21 of which are located on the European continent, one on the island of Corsica, and the rest in overseas territories that are possessions of France.