![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Finally!! I just found an extract online of the amazing La Terreur et la Vertu, near the ending of the second part "Robespierre".
This is the antidote needed after Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution.
This is Saint-Just -- with natural authority, dignity, and a grand, tragic, resolute and sublime aura:
My translation of the dialogue:
COUTHON – Yes, write. (reciting) “Citizen-soldiers, generals and officers, armies of the Republic. The National Convention has fallen in the hands of rascals...”
(Couthon's voice fades, as Robespierre slowly walks to Saint-Just, who's standing near the window of the Hôtel de Ville.)
ROBESPIERRE – Why don’t you say anything?
SAINT-JUST – You know it. “In the name of the French people…” What people? It is not here.
ROBESPIERRE – Why did you follow me?
SAINT-JUST – “You, who sustain the fragile patrie against the torrents of despotism and intrigue… I do not know you, but you are a great man. You are not only the deputy of a province; you are the one of humanity, and of the Republic.”
ROBESPIERRE – What is this?
SAINT-JUST – You don’t remember?
ROBESPIERRE – No.
SAINT-JUST – One day, back in 1790, a young man from Blérancourt wrote a letter to a deputy he admired through his speeches. This deputy; it was you, Robespierre. This young man; it was I.
ROBESPIERRE – So, you wrote to me?
SAINT-JUST – And I did not change.
ROBESPIERRE – I was the loneliest man of the Constituante. And now, I am alone again. Always.
SAINT-JUST – And I…
ROBESPIERRE – Everything is lost, isn’t it?
SAINT-JUST – Yes, it is lost. It could not be otherwise. Considering who we are, both of us. Considering what we think.
ROBESPIERRE – Why didn’t you help us? Give us any advice?
SAINT-JUST – We possessed seventeen companies of gunners and thirty-two cannons. The Convention only had one company. We had to, at 19:00, lead two companies in front of the main door of the Convention; at the East door, one company; at the West door, two companies. We had to, at 19:30, invade the committees and immediately arrest all the members. We had to, at 19:45, invade the Convention, proclaim the Constitution of 1793 and outlaw Tallien, Fréron, Barras and all the other rotten scoundrels. We had to send, at the School of Mars, two companies to rally the students, the officers and the troops. We had to, at 20:00, in Paris, proclaim the triumph of the Commune. And the Insurrection of the Apathetic would have been crowned the Insurrection of the Bold.
ROBESPIERRE – And you did nothing?
SAINT-JUST – If I had, would you have approved it?
ROBESPIERRE – No…
SAINT-JUST – The People of 10 August had the right to invade the Tuileries. The People of the 31 May and of the 5 September, had the right to invade the Convention. Not the armies.
ROBESPIERRE – Yes…
SAINT-JUST – Today, all that was left to us was the dictatorship of the armies. The military dictatorship. We would have been suspended in a void. Robespierre, consul of the Republic. Saint-Just, consul of the Republic.
ROBESPIERRE – Of which Republic?
Edit: And if someone feels adventurous enough to watch it all in French without subtitles, I think I just found the whole second film online: http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/xrrkt_star_vin_la-revolution-francaise
This is brilliant. And how apt.
This is the antidote needed after Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution.
This is Saint-Just -- with natural authority, dignity, and a grand, tragic, resolute and sublime aura:
My translation of the dialogue:
COUTHON – Yes, write. (reciting) “Citizen-soldiers, generals and officers, armies of the Republic. The National Convention has fallen in the hands of rascals...”
(Couthon's voice fades, as Robespierre slowly walks to Saint-Just, who's standing near the window of the Hôtel de Ville.)
ROBESPIERRE – Why don’t you say anything?
SAINT-JUST – You know it. “In the name of the French people…” What people? It is not here.
ROBESPIERRE – Why did you follow me?
SAINT-JUST – “You, who sustain the fragile patrie against the torrents of despotism and intrigue… I do not know you, but you are a great man. You are not only the deputy of a province; you are the one of humanity, and of the Republic.”
ROBESPIERRE – What is this?
SAINT-JUST – You don’t remember?
ROBESPIERRE – No.
SAINT-JUST – One day, back in 1790, a young man from Blérancourt wrote a letter to a deputy he admired through his speeches. This deputy; it was you, Robespierre. This young man; it was I.
ROBESPIERRE – So, you wrote to me?
SAINT-JUST – And I did not change.
ROBESPIERRE – I was the loneliest man of the Constituante. And now, I am alone again. Always.
SAINT-JUST – And I…
ROBESPIERRE – Everything is lost, isn’t it?
SAINT-JUST – Yes, it is lost. It could not be otherwise. Considering who we are, both of us. Considering what we think.
ROBESPIERRE – Why didn’t you help us? Give us any advice?
SAINT-JUST – We possessed seventeen companies of gunners and thirty-two cannons. The Convention only had one company. We had to, at 19:00, lead two companies in front of the main door of the Convention; at the East door, one company; at the West door, two companies. We had to, at 19:30, invade the committees and immediately arrest all the members. We had to, at 19:45, invade the Convention, proclaim the Constitution of 1793 and outlaw Tallien, Fréron, Barras and all the other rotten scoundrels. We had to send, at the School of Mars, two companies to rally the students, the officers and the troops. We had to, at 20:00, in Paris, proclaim the triumph of the Commune. And the Insurrection of the Apathetic would have been crowned the Insurrection of the Bold.
ROBESPIERRE – And you did nothing?
SAINT-JUST – If I had, would you have approved it?
ROBESPIERRE – No…
SAINT-JUST – The People of 10 August had the right to invade the Tuileries. The People of the 31 May and of the 5 September, had the right to invade the Convention. Not the armies.
ROBESPIERRE – Yes…
SAINT-JUST – Today, all that was left to us was the dictatorship of the armies. The military dictatorship. We would have been suspended in a void. Robespierre, consul of the Republic. Saint-Just, consul of the Republic.
ROBESPIERRE – Of which Republic?
Edit: And if someone feels adventurous enough to watch it all in French without subtitles, I think I just found the whole second film online: http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/xrrkt_star_vin_la-revolution-francaise
This is brilliant. And how apt.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 06:45 pm (UTC)You have made my Friday night alone in my rooms suddenly full of joy.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-19 12:44 pm (UTC)I'm interested in the revolution in general, but I actually don't know much about the Terror period so I don't know how true it is.. I mean, I didn't know that the Ventose laws were so important to Saint Just or that they in any way split the committee.. is that true? Because some things I've read tend to really dismiss them as unrealistic as though they never had any intention of putting them into action anyway.
I'm also not very good at French so I kept having to rewind it to hear what they were saying properly.
The only thing though, I suppose because they play the Robespierristes so sympathetically (it was really nice portrayal of Couthon as well, I really liked that aspect) was that I think the Thermidoreans come across as kind of evil mastermind types.
I kind of feel a bit sorry for them; my impression is that they have a worse press than robespierre and nobody ever cares about them because they didn't do anything interesting
What you have all been saying about saint just's motivation and sort of.. character is very interesting. From the little that I have read about him or by him, I found it very hard to understand him or have any sense of his personality at all. But I did get the sense that he seemed to have an idealised view of himself and what his role should be as a representative. And while I agree with you that the idea of him being a sort of teenager (because 26 is a perfectly sound age! when I reach 26 I hope I consider myself a responsible adult) I think that might have some connection with him being young.. when you haven't really had all of your experiences and you don't perhaps know yourself as well as you might do in the future, I think one often has to construct a sort of... ideal oneself to live up to, because you still don't know your real self. I don't know if I'm just projecting impressions that I have of my own experiences onto other people.. but do you know what I mean?
I've also just been re-reading Le Rouge et le Noir by Stendhal and that's what I liked so much about the character of Julien Sorel because he has this huge constructed ideal of himself, and he's so sure about his goals, but really it just shows how young and inexperienced and unsure he is about everything. - so that also might have something to do with it as well. x3
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 08:12 pm (UTC)p.s. As for SJ, I find him a bit to idealized there. Too calm in comparison to contemporary testimonies.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 08:44 pm (UTC)Personally, I think Denis Manuel's acting is generally brilliant and, in the Thermidor sequence, immensely poignant and touching. There's something in his eyes that amazes me, all this sense of mythical, resolute fatality that Saint-Just chose to accept in the last hours of his life, when he chose to remain silent and to shut himself out of the world.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 08:52 pm (UTC)I do not object to this part of the movie in particular, quite on the contrary, it is not only impressive, but it seems quite realistic - though not probable, and it fits in quite well in the sense of what you have just outlined.
It is the scenes from the CPS where it seems to me he is too "sweet" and too "reasonable".
Moreover, in his fashioning himself you are talking about, it seems from the sources that he succeeded to inspire fear, too - something not reflected in LTetlV. Sib.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 09:08 pm (UTC)Yes, I feel that this scene -- which is truly impressive, as you said; I'm always so impressed by it -- serves as a good "example" of their ideals, of their relationship, it serves to explain why it failed, why it had to fail, why there was no other ways. It's very "literary" in this sense (I don't know if that's the right term) or "philosophical". Or even, it almost gives a historical explation because the "suspended in a void" ("suspendu dans le vide") part is so often repeated by historians (Mathiez, Soboul) about what happened after the "Germinal Crisis", and how it can partially explain Thermidor. It's very Mathiézin (or Soboulien) on the whole. There were explanations from Mathiez that I've read which were portrayed almost the same way in the two films.
I don't know, I wouldn't think "sweet". I would think he's very composed and, yes, reasonable -- what I like in these films is his capacity to reason with the others, to try to conciliate as he tried to do before Thermidor. He appears much more self-controlled than Maxime -- which fits the legendary line he would have told him "Calm down; the empire belongs to the flegmatics" or something like that -- but he's still curt and abrupt, hence why I wouldn't say "sweet" (except when he speaks privately/intimately with Maxime: the tone of his voice amazingly changes). He's capable to retort to Collot or to Carnot in this -- that's what I like (and that's part of my essay as well).
As for the last thing you mention, I think it may have helped if we had had scenes of him in his missions. Of course, that was a made-for-TV film and it's obvious that they lacked the budget to do that, but it would have been awesome. Yes, I do believe that this complex personality could inspire "fear", mixed with "fascination" or "inspiration" (since he tried to "inspire" the Revolution after all) -- they all tried to mould themselves with the concept of the "sublime" (the culture of Year II being very much characterized by it) and I think Saint-Just is one of the revolutionaries who succeeded it best, with the myth he contributed to create around himself when he lived (particularly in his missions, he was very self-conscious of that).
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 09:30 pm (UTC)As for Saint-Just, my opinion is somewhat more critical, I will take my time to think and then try to write something intelligent on that subject. For the moment, I must admit that your interpretation at least pays attention to the way his self-representation could be percieved by his contemporaries, something Mantel fails to do. She indirectly admits the limits of her "troubled teenager" interpretation when she says she is puzzled by the fact that Saint-Just did not seem ridiculous or childish to the people of his time. Any historical interpretation should focus in explaining that instead of devoting time to silly psychoanalysis.
p.s. Sweet was not the right word, "too kind" would have been better.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 09:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 09:50 pm (UTC)Oh, I've never been very objective when it comes to the subject of Saint-Just -- and I've never hidden it either. ;) That's why I study Robespierre in my thesis, and not Saint-Just, because I'm capable of being relatively more "detached" (yet, still...) with him than with Saint-Just. After all, there are important people (historians and others) who openly swoon over Marie-Antoinette or Napoléon Bonaparte (or Camille Desmoulins :P), so I allow myself to swoon on Saint-Just -- and to be self-righteously offended when his characterisation is totally mutilated as it was in that BBC crap.
You've got no idea how much I SCREAMED (okay, not really, but mentally at least) when I heard Hilary Mantel's infantilization of Saint-Just. She reactualized Courtois' report -- those are almost exactly his words. And, yes, especially that part "we can't imagine how they could have been impressed by him" -- well, it's odd, but I can? And many people can? And yet they're not necessarily "novelists"?
p.s. Okay, yes, I get it. ^^ I agree; he could get very "soft-spoken" or "kind" in his speeches in LTELV.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 10:16 pm (UTC)Oh, please, do swoon as much as you feel like. I hope it will not be incompatible with having a critical debate on the topic :-)
And yes, the BBC Senzhoost has been beyond my capacity of comprehension. Isn't Hampson's Lucifer better than this dependent adolescent whiner? The BBC portrayal is so incompatible with any testimony on the behaviour of the man on 9th and 10th Thermidor, no wonder they did not show that part. I would be more receptive to a psychopatic depiction (though I would be critical with it, too, as I have developed an alergy to psychology in history), than to such radical misinterpretation.
As for Mantel: In the interpretation of history, it is fundamental to understand the people in the context of their period. So, more than Hilary's personal opinion on the "childishness" of Saint-Just's ideas (which I share to some extend: as a 20th-century-person), the relevant question for any serious historical document is how the man and his ideas were perceived by the contemporaries and why they were accepted, feared or admired. And there she fails totally.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 10:34 pm (UTC)For months, I've screamed against the LRF!SJ and the Wajda!SJ, watching Wajda's film even made me sick for a week, for the matter, because it was completely strange and puzzling and absurd and impossible to understand, the actors were terrible, the music was terrible, the "tint" of the film (the "colouring", don't know if you see what I mean) was all creepy and terrible -- so, all right, we got that you were trying to illustrate the "Terror", Wajda, no need to make it all so painful to the eyes. And yet... THAT BBC THING, it topped it all on the level of "horror". In my Chart of "The (Relatively Recent) Most Horrible Films/Docudramas Ever Made on the French Revolution", it just took the first place. And it's gotten to such a dramatic point that, indeed, one almost regrets Hampson's Lucifer -- if his horrible, silly, irrational metaphor (and conclusion line -- wtf?) can demonstrate at least the usually hated sides of Saint-Just's attitude. But here: where has the man who wrote about his "dust" and his "independant life" gone? And anyway, I stop here for the moment, or it's my whole essay that I'm going to re-write. XD My rage, it just won't cease.
I understand the opinion of "childishness" -- after all Saint-Just was twenty-six: I think he was brilliant and talented, but his ideas still reflected "youth". (Like, say, some very, very huge simplifications like in the "Institutions républicaines".) There are some physical and mental limits impossible to break. But Mantel's personal opinion -- and I already hated Mantel before that for her characterisation of Saint-Just, Le Bas and Élisabeth, among many things, in her novel -- is belittling and, really, it illustrates the whole vibe I've felt of "Saint-Just needing to be put back to his place" -- I've felt that often, I've always found it to be very despicable and even more arrogant attitude. Also, Mantel's speech just satisfies a bunch of old and/or conservatives who hate it when the youngest generations are in charge. Some of these are afraid of a "generational overthrow". Is it the return of the spectre of Mai '68?
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 10:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-18 10:39 am (UTC)Therefore, I think the destruction of a person's image through making him seem ridiculous, rather than dangerous and BAD, is very efficient, nowadays. Many do not mind being feared, they are scared of being mocked (and I can think of some cases when I love and admire the mocking approach, especially when it means taking a risk, but not this BBC document, totally conformist with the prevailing neo-liberal, classist, anti-French nationalist trend).
There is a great film which unmasks this negative, socially-paralyzing role of humour and wit, and it's not a coincidence that it is French and takes plays a couple of years before the Revolution: the film's name is Ridicule.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 09:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 09:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 10:11 pm (UTC)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awUpS6lxCVs&feature=related
if the links work, it's towards the end of part 11 and the start of part 12 - obviously, the motives are different but there is the same sense of stripping yourself of earthly things (sex, etc) in the service of the national (or in this case, Tudor!) interest. It also reminded me a bit of something my neighbour, a judge, said about wearing the long white wig and court uniform: she liked it because it enabled her to cease being herself, with her own personal worries and household concerns, and to become an instrument and representative of the law.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 10:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 11:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 11:22 pm (UTC)I so agree with you. I mean, this is such a fascinating parallel, even if a bit funny -- I don't think Saint-Just would like being compared to an English Queen (and yet again to a woman -- it's growing old, isn't it?). But it's really, sincerely an interesting concept. My own "theory" of Saint-Just's psychology is that he tried to "regenerate" himself with the Revolution, that he was "born again" with it, and then he was convinced that the model -- his model, his inspiration, etc. -- could work with others as well. No religion could have done that conversion but a revolution did it...
Your parallel is really close to it: it's becoming a whole new public person, cutting away from the past, as the vids you linked show. Thus, it's really different from what an "average individual" (who is more private than public) would do in a "normal situation" -- hence why Hilary Mantel's psychologising of Saint-Just fails, or why it always fails when they do that and call him "a whiny, tantrum-y teenager". They fail to understand the particularities of that context, the incredible, unique and, yes, self-important way they felt. Saint-Just wanted to become that idealized, perfect citizen, perfect patriot, perfect representative of the People he wrote about.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 11:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-18 10:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-19 07:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-19 08:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-19 01:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-18 12:40 am (UTC)Thank you lots. hahah Now i'm gonna go buy the dvd..hahah