94

En avril 1832, alors que l’épidémie de choléra touche Paris, plusieurs passants sont accusés d’être des empoisonneurs et sont massacrés par la foule. À travers cet événement, il s’agit de contribuer à une histoire de la violence extrême et d’étudier le processus complexe du recours à la violence. Le massacre s’inscrit dans un contexte particulier où la peur de l’épidémie et la crainte du complot, l’atmosphère d’excitation et de frénésie conduisent à la désignation d’un ennemi, à sa mise à l’écart, puis à sa mise à mort et à sa destruction selon des modalités héritées parfois des rituels d’Ancien Régime, mais qui rappellent aussi des violences commises pendant les Trois Glorieuses. Les contemporains peinent à comprendre ce déferlement de violence qui contribue à aggraver l’inquiétude que le peuple de Juillet suscite dès l’automne 1830 et s’emploient à occulter la gravité du massacre.

In April 1832, while the epidemic of cholera affects Paris, several passers-by are accused of being poisoners and are massacred by the crowd. Through this event, it is a question of contributing to a history of the extreme violence and of studying the complex process of the recourse to violence. The slaughter joins in a particular context. In the speed and the gravity of the epidemic are added the fear of the poisoning and the fear of a plot contrived by the government. Besides, an atmosphere of excitement reigns in the capital. It is in this frame that claimed poisoners are exposed to public condemnation, because of their attitude, of their gestures or of their words. The designation is then enough to exclude, to put aside the one who is then put to death by the crowd. The way takes place the massacre, the knocks and the infringements on bodies call back certain rites of the Ancien Régime, but also remind violence committed during Three Glorious. For the slaughterers, who deny naturally any implication, above all, it is a question of removing the danger, even if we can not exclude a political intention, namely to show its resentment towards a regime which gives the impression of betraying the people. In a context where the violence tends to fade of the public place, as shown by the abolition of the brand in 1832, the flood of the brutality can only amaze and annoy. It also contributes to strengthen the concern which elites feel from autumn 1830 towards people who shows himself vindictive and always inclined to the violence.