A question of little importance

The vast majority of sources (from the most scrupulous of historians to the most questionable of novelists) call Robespierre's dog Brount. (Here and there I've seen Bruant or Blount, but very rarely.) No one seems to know where this name comes from - here and there people assert that the original Brount was "an obscure Englishman", which works until you realize that even the most thorough searches for the name Brount only ever come up with Robespierre's dog. (Must have been pretty damn obscure, I guess.)

But what are the sources on this? Are there even any primary sources that mention Robespierre's dog? (I seem to recall someone in Robespierre vu par ses contemporains mentioning Brount/Blount/Bruant, but not by name, I don't think...) It seems to be commonly agreed that someone gave him the dog on his trip back to Arras in 1791, but again, what are the sources? Perhaps he mentions it in his correspondance - I'll have to check that when I get home - but I somehow doubt it. Neither Charlotte Robespierre nor Élisabeth Le Bas mention it in their memoirs. We might consider Lamartine the most trustworthy of the non-primary sources for this kind of anecdote, since Élisabeth read over his manuscript and the passage on "Brount" seems to have escaped critique...

But if we assume that the dog's name was indeed Brount, the question remains, where did it come from? Bruant, one could see - it would be cute and ironic to name a large dog after all kind of small bird, especially considering Robespierre's love of birds - but not enough sources - and none that I would consider credible (for one thing, they're nearly all in English) - use the name. Blount would also make sense, especially given the obscure Englishman theory (though I'm not certain where that came from either - perhaps simply from the fact that "Brount"/"Blount" sounds English). If the obscure Englishman theory is correct, then Charles Blount seems a likely enough candidate (after all, there's obscurity and then there's obscurity; he had to have heard of him, at the very least). And since Robespierre seems to be fairly at home with references to 17th century England - and his books (the list of which is quite interesting on its own merits; I recommend checking it out) tend to indicate this to an even greater extent than his speeches - this seems all the more likely.

So if Robespierre did intend to name his dog after Charles Blount (or another Blount, though honestly I don't think the others I've come across would really fit the bill), then why does everyone insist that the dog's name was Brount? It seems to me that someone made an error, somewhere along the line. It could have been a misprint in whatever book Robespierre read about Blount in (or if he heard about Blount in conversation, a mistake on the part of whoever he was talking to). Robespierre could have read/heard "Blount" and remembered "Brount", or perhaps he simply pronounced it in such a way that other people thought he was saying "Brount". Perhaps it's a misprint of Lamartine's that Élisabeth overlooked. Perhaps Élisabeth herself was mistaken.

In short, there are so many possibilities that the question seems impossible to resolve (except for the happy spinner of fictions, who can choose whatever explanation best pleases him or her). How fortunate for us then, that it is a question of so little importance.

EDIT: I am officially stupid. Élisabeth does mention that Robespierre's dog was called "Brount" in her memoirs... which I myself translated. *facepalm* However, I haven't seen the original manuscript, so it's possible the handwriting is ambiguous, and even if it really does say "Brount", that doesn't necessarily invalidate my theory...