Puzzling inconsistencies...

...and whom to believe.

I just found a new secondary source that gives a lot of information on Toussaint de Beausire, a person who figures prominently in my WIP. It gives some extremely interesting details about him--he was in massive ammounts of debt, was the grandson of a respected architect, and was put into an asylum when released from the Bastille after the Affair of the Necklace broke. It gives pretty extensive info about his doings during the French Revolution and then says that he lived until 1811, married again, and had 6 children.

However, my most-used source, by Frances Mossiker, says that Beausire was guillotined. Abbe Georgel, a first-hand witness of the events, is quoted as saying Beausire perishe don the Revolutionary scaffold.

How to make sense of this? Mossiker wrote in the 1960's, the other book was writen around 1900. This may mean Mossiker had new information. Still, I'm puzzled about the discrepency. Clearly one of them is wrong, and very badly wrong at that.

I'm wondering if the author of the 1901 book (Frantz Funck-Brentano) got his people mixed up. Perhaps someone with a similar name lived until 1818? And if I don't believe that he lived until 1818, can I belive the rest?

It's odd that the accounts differ so dramatically.

Sirius said:

What cites does the secondary source give to primary sources, specifically marriage and death records, and are the latter available? My betting is that someone has got two very similar names mixed (cousins, perhaps) but the only way to check will be to go back to the primary sources used by the relevant texts.

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure what the sources were. Abbe Georgel was a contemporary, but it's not entirely certain he knew Beausire. He could possibly be wrong. But in a note to his words, Mossiker writes a note that also says Beasure was guillotined. I can't find any evidence of where the evidence from Funck's story came from.

After some info about his revolutionary actions, supported by primary sources, the author says: he was brought before the revolutionary tribunal on April 3, 1795. He was acquitted.

Beausire died many years later, on February 3, 1818, being then controller of taxes of Pas-de-Calais. He had become a devoted servant of the Empire, and re-tained his office at the Restoration. By his second wife, Adelaide Duport, he left six children

Click to expand...

I'm wondering if the thread of reality wasn't lost there. After all, it could easily be that he wasn't acquitted, was actually guillotined, and it was someone else who lived until 1818.

It's extremely difficult to track these documents down; I don't have the time, money, or knowledge of French to even attempt it.

The plot thickens.

I signed up for a free membership on Ancestry.com. What I have found is a few children born to J.B. Beasuire (my fellow's full name was Jean Bapiste Toussaint de Beausire) and the same woman who was mentioned in the newly-found book. I found the birth certificate of a person I am certain was the son of my fellow and my MC. He was listed there as J.B. Toussaint.

So far, I'm concluding that the authors of the 1901 book got very confused. Although Abbe Georgel might not have known my guy personally, he was closely involved in the events of my WIP. He would, probably know. And, after looking at the records--which are inconsistent in the way names were presented--it looks like someone could have gotten confused between someone else, a JB Beausire, and my guy, JB Toussaint de Beausire.

Puma said:

I hope this pastes over all right - I found this using Google.

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : : OF THE TERROR ! ! ANTOINE QUENTIN FOUQUIER-TINVILLE TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH OF ALPHONSE DUNOYER BY A. W. EVANS WITH A PHOTOGRAVURE FRONTISPIECE AND FOURTEEN OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS
Jean Baptiste Toussaint Beausire, aged thirty-three and a half, living on his income at Choisy-sur-Seine, had been im- prisoned in the Luxembourg, in Sainte-Pelagie, in the Plessis, and in the Hospice de I'Eveche.^ He gave evidence at length on what he knew about the conspiracies, and he ended thus : " On the 19th of Messidor I heard the man who performed the duties of Pubhc Prosecutor at that hearing say, ' The Morin who is here is not the man who was to be placed on trial. But as I have been looking for him for a long time I do not want to let him escape.' This Morin was placed on trial. No witness spoke against him. He was, nevertheless, condemned with the rest."^
2 Beausire is the husband of the woman d'Ohva (of the Diamond Necklace affair). In prison he played the part of a police spy.
THE CONDEMNED 301 chard, Brochet, Chretien, Ganney, Trey, Guyard, and Valagnos were not convicted of being principals, but of being accomphces in those machinations and plots. They had not acted with evil intentions. They were acquitted. Duplay and Beausire were also acquit ted. *

Click to expand...

Thanks, Puma, I hadn't run acros that in my Google searches. That's more corroboration that he didn't in fact die by Dr Guillotine's machine. I also found that records of those guillotined have been put online at Ancestry.com : http://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?dbid=1409. Monsieur de Beausire was not in those records.

pdr said:

the author's note is for.

Make your choice and write what and why in your author's note.

Click to expand...

Good point, PDR. I would like to have him perish on the guillotine (and perhaps I will, it should be a minor point at the very end)--but it is looking more and more as though he really did live on until 1818.

mayamolly said:

I might feel differently if I were writing about more modern history (in your case, it's easier to get at the actual truth), but I personally love to find ways to make two seemingly contradictory accounts BOTH true. This pushes me to more interesting plot directions that I wouldn't have considered otherwise!

This is the question I might ask: how could a man appear to both be guillotined and live to old age? (TALE OF TWO CITIES, anyone? )

Click to expand...

Oh, interesting, but not too tough.

So many people were loosing their heads [I'm forcefully reminded of the bad "head" jokes told by the Beefeaters at the Tower of London] that people in the street would lose track. If the record was somehow fudged, and it was written down that So 'n' So was decapitated on Day X, then it would probably pass. If the person could physically slip away, then voila. He's officially dead but still alive.

In the same vein, I'm considering having my heroine survive to see the French Revolution, even though the historical records say she died in a convent a few years before the break out of revolution. Like the un-guillotined person above, the official story could be that she died, but instead she disappears into the ether.

Carmy said:

Two 'bewares' for you, Angeliz:

I'm a volunteer transcriber for a genealogy group so I see church records before they've been verified and corrected. There are many mistakes, and several people have the same name. It's easy to get confused and follow the wrong lead. If possible, check out the person's parents or follow the children to the next generation. For UK genealogy, there are several archive sites around, but I don't know about the ones that may exist for France.

I've done a tremendous amount of history research on the Internet. What I've found is that there must be sites that trawl others for information and then copy it. That's the way an error can appear on several sites and be taken as truth by some. Dig, dig, dig. Eventually you'll find the truth.

Good luck!

Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. I have done some digging. It appears, unless there was some huge coincidence, that the guy I'm looking for did survive until 181 and the author I'd been primarily using believed a source that wasn't actuallly accurate. I did actually find the birth certificates of two children, one of which I know for sure was his.

I wrote all about it in my blog: Marie Antoinette's Diamonds.