One day in 1775, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette rolled through Paris on their way back from the king's coronation. Since young Maximilian was one of the best students, he had been selected for a special honor: he would give the official Latin greeting to the newly crowned king who was only four years older than he was. Robespierre knelt respectfully next to Louis XVI's carriage in the pouring rain. He delivered his speech in Latin, and got only a slight nod in reply. Seventeen years later he would call for the death of the king without mercy.
I got this from the lecture series "Living the French Revolution and the Age of Napoleon" by Suzanne M. Desan but I've never heard it before. I tried looking it up and got mixed answers. Is this at least plausible? Was any sort of "official Latin greeting" like this customary?
The anecdote is from Father Proyart's La Vie et les crimes de Robespierre, surnommé Le Tyran, depuis sa naissance jusqu'à sa mort, published in 1795. The title translates as Life and crimes of Robespierre, nicknamed the Tyrant, from his birth to his death. The title announces the colour of the book. Although Proyart knew young Robespierre well (he was a professor at Louis-le-Grand), his book is a biography painting Robespierre as an evil tyrant, a regicide. Proyart was totally opposed to the Revolution, including the 1789 ideas, and he tried to search through Robespierre's youth the reasons that lead him to be such a mean person (in Proyart's eyes). Similar to how psychologists may analyze the childhood of serial killers. To illustrate, Proyart argued that young Robespierre beheaded birds, which prepared him to later behead humans.
There are two works that are used to write on Robespierre's early years. Proyart's and his sister Charlotte Robespierre's memoirs, which she wrote to do the contrary of what Proyart did, clean her brother's tarnished reputation. In his biography Robespierre, Hervé Leuwers wrote that plenty of publications on Robespierre were based on one of these two books or both, but that it often ended resting on the author's opinion on Robespierre. THose who like Robespierre relay on Charlotte, the others on Proyart. However, only Proyart mentioned this episode. Neither Charlotte or people close to the king (who would certainly write about a public appearance or a royal entry of the monarch) made a reference to this event. Yet, the meeting between the young and brilliant student Robespierre and the King seem to find its way in many, many books about Robespierre. It's one of these anecdotes repeated so many times that it now seems true, a little like *L'Etat c'est moi!" (Louis XIV) or Let them eat cake (Marie-Antoinette). The thing that is certain is that Proyart is the origin of this anecdote.
Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette did not go back to Versailles together. The king left Reims then Compiègne (where they stopped for a night) with his younger brother the count of Provence, a day after Marie-Antoinette. The monarch went straight to Versailles and there is not a single clue about a royal entry in Paris following Reims. Should the King and Marie-Antoinette have been in Paris, someone would have written something about it somewhere. In fact, before 1779, Louis XVI went to Paris only once in 1774 for a short stay. So, it is physically impossible that a meeting between the King and Robespierre happened in 1775. Maybe it happened some other time? In 1774, the Queen was not present and there was no royal entry, so it is unlikely. However, in February 1779, the entire royal family and a huge portion of the court went to Paris with great fanfare for the birth of Madame Royale. Maybe it happened this time, in which case Proyart was either confused with the years or he transformed the story.
One last thing, why this anecdote? Proyart was likely looking for traumatisms Robespierre suffered which could explain his later actions. The brilliant student barely acknowledged by the arrogant king and queen.
This question is very interesting, it makes us think about how many things do we consider true because some historians were not careful enough to check their sources, and transmitted us wrong or suspicious elements. Also, how long does it take for something to become widely accepted simply because a lot of people have been mentioning it for a long time.
Sources: