Antoine Quentin Fouquier de Tinville | |
---|---|
Born | 10 June 1746 |
Died | 7 May 1795 | (aged 48)
Cause of death | Guillotine |
Occupation | Lawyer |
Signature | |
Antoine Quentin Fouquier de Tinville (French pronunciation: [ɑ̃twan kɑ̃tɛ̃ fukje tɛ̃vil], 10 June 1746 – 7 May 1795), also called Fouquier-Tinville and nicknamed posthumously the Provider of the Guillotine[1] was a French lawyer and accusateur public of the Revolutionary Tribunal during the French Revolution and Reign of Terror.
From March 1793 he served as the "public prosecutor" in Paris, demanding the execution of numerous accused individuals, including famous ones, like Marie-Antoinette, Danton or Robespierre and overseeing the sentencing of over two thousand of them to the guillotine.[2] In April 1794, it was decreed to centralise the investigation of court records and to bring all the political suspects in France to the Revolutionary Tribunal to Paris. Following the events of the 10th Thermidor, he was arrested early August.[2]
He was tried by the Revolutionary Tribunal as one of the major figures responsible for the excesses and injustices that marked the period of the Reign of Terror. During his trial, he defended himself by stating, "It is not I who ought to be facing the tribunal, but the chiefs whose orders I have executed. I had only acted in the spirit of the laws passed by a Convention invested with all powers." Generally, his defense involved shifting the blame for the executions onto the Committee of Public Safety, especially on Maximilien de Robespierre.
Despite this defense, he was sentenced to death, alongside the judges and some jurors of the Revolutionary Tribunal, among other charges, for abusing his authority and neglecting proper legal procedures during trials.[2] He was guillotined in Paris on 7 May 1795, and became the last individual to be executed by the Revolutionary Tribunal before its abolition.[2]
His precise role in the Reign of Terror is still a subject of debate; modern historians suggest that it is more valuable to view his role as part of a group of officials and various terrorist actors rather than solely as the sole instigator of the Judicial Terror.[3]