Mer rougie par des torrents de sang

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

"Le vaisseau de la Révolution ne peut arriver à bon port que sur un mer rougie par des torrents de sang" 

Does anyone know if this quote is
1) historical of fictional (Büchner's) . If real when it was pronounced?
2) If it's real, is it Saint-Just's or Barère's?

"Une nation ne se regénère que sur des monceaux de cadavre."
And what about his one? Is its only source a Thermidorian satirical play, again? The one in which it's attributed, as maelicia has found out, to a mysterious friend of Saint-Just?

Because it is often attributed to Saint-Just, too. It's astonishing; as if Saint-Just hadn't left to posterity enough gory quotes, the anti-revolutionary propagandists must invent new ones :D

Well, that's not serious historiography at all. According to George Henry Lewes, Vilate contributes the first quote to Barère and the second one to Saint-Just and they are supposed to have said it at a private dinner during Marie-Antoinette's process. Has anyone read Vilate? So, did Barère say his bloody quote in the Convention or at a dinner with his CPS buddies? Did he say it at all? Oh dear.



Thanks for help!

Comments

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

When I google it, most people attribute it to Saint-Just (duh). One of these funny ones in a discussion page on Wiki about Che Guevara (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Che_Guevara), in which said person mentions a series of quotes from these "psychopaths" of the Revolution who could help us to "unmask nowadays' tyrants". Hm. And quotes Saint-Just as such: "Le vaisseau de la Révolution ne peut arriver à bon port que sur une mer rougie par des torrents de sang. En plus des traîtres, nous devons punir ceux qui manquent d’ardeur. Il n’y a que deux sortes de citoyens, les bons et les mauvais. La république doit protection aux premiers. Quant aux seconds, ils ne méritent que la mort !" Ooh, the bad synthesis!

However, here (http://books.google.ca/books?id=OMYaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=%22Le+vaisseau+de+la+R%C3%A9volution%22+PORT&source=bl&ots=LbRyBMGQFl&sig=3xCAI2QdkUVNO5EeOkqx9wic4HI&hl=fr&ei=BsOiSq7PKoyllAedsJT1CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=%22Le%20vaisseau%20de%20la%20R%C3%A9volution%22%20PORT&f=false), you see it comes from Vilate's Causes secrètes de la Révolution du 9 au 10 thermidor, published in brumaire an III (ha ha ha!) and it's attributed to Barère -- and I do recall that I read it often being attributed to Barère in books and not in silly webpages. -_- The edition of that text, which dates of 1825, puts a note with a dialogue involving Barère, Collot d'Herbois, Carrier, Vadier (ha ha ha ha! the accused of the post-thermidorian purges! what a coincidence!) and "a friend of Saint-Just" for some strange reason, saying that this (crazy) dialogue comes from "un ouvrage satirique contre les Jacobins, composé après le 9 thermidor et la chute de Robespierre":

Barère. Le vaisseau de la révolution ne peut arriver au port que sur une mer rougie de flots de sang... (Bravo.)

Un ami de Saint-Just. Je signale pour ennemis de la révolution tous les nobles, tous les prêtres, tous les hommes de palais, sans excepter les médecins et la médecine. (Bravo.)

Barère. Il faut commencer le déblai par tous les constituans et les principaux chefs de la législature. Fréteau est acquitté, dit-on ; les jurés sont donc des contre-révolutionnaires ! !

Collot. On le reprendra.

Barère. La guillotine n'est qu'un lit un peu moins bien fait qu'un autre. (Bravo.)

Vadier, frappant du pied. Il faut renouveler les jurés faibles, ça ne va pas assez vite. (Applaudi.)

Un membre. La révolution est un foudre qui doit tout pulvériser. (Oui, oui.)

Collot d'Herbois. Plus le corps social transpire, plus il devient sain. (Bravo.)

Un ami de Saint-Just. Une nation ne se regénère que sur des monceaux de cadavre. (Applaudissemens redoublés.)

Barère. L'arbre de la liberté ne jette au loin ses rameaux verdoyans qu'autant qu'il est arrosé du sang des rois. (C'est vrai, c,est vrai.)

Carrier. Celui-là est un modéré qui ne sait pas boire un verre de sang humain. (Bravos universels et mention honorable.)

HAHAHAHAHAHA. The last quote just kills me. It reminds me what de Baecque or Baczko say somewhere (don't remember which) about a pamphlet in which Robespierre would have asked a new aspiring member of the Jacobins to drink a glass of human blood. Oh, and I love how that dialogue sounds like a bunch of random quotes all copy-pasted together. And I do love how that "une nation ne se regénère que sur des monceaux de cadavre" quote isn't even Saint-Just's, but a friend of Saint-Just's. Oh dear.

I'm pretty sure I read that quote (of Barère, not of Saint-Just) being quoted in a different context though... And I'm wondering if it isn't the deformation of a common metaphor -- "the boat of the Revolution" -- or something. They could have used it often, or in different contexts.

I don't know about Büchner though because I didn't read it. -_-

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

That's what I suspected! Oh dear. I have to check Büchner, because I have discovered that people use his play as a historical source of revolutionary quotes quite often! It's quite shocking.

On English wikipedia, the quote is attributed to Saint-Just due to Stanley Loomis (Speech to the National Convention [Source: Loomis, Stanley, Paris in the Terror: June 1793 - July 1794 (Philadelphia and New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1964) p.p. 284]. Loomis, oh dear, not reliable at all.
On the other hand, a French catho anti-revolutionary website attributes it to Barère's speech on 7 April 1793. That seems more precise and verifiable. Unfortunately, I cannot verify if it's true.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

By the way, it's a hilarious dialog. It seems like a meeting of vampires. Taking to consideration how vampires are popular these days, probably a Jacobin Vampire Club movie could help change the negative image of the FR in the English-speaking world :D
Oh, the Thermidorians...Have you heard the one on revolutionaries wearing trousers made of the leather of the executed? That's a good one, too.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

And I'm wondering if it isn't the deformation of a common metaphor -- "the boat of the Revolution" -- or something. They could have used it often, or in different contexts.
The only authentic boat-related comment I can recall is Cambon's "nous avons abordé dans l'île de la Liberté et nous avons brûlé les vaisseaux qui nous ont y conduits." But, of course, I wasn't looking boat-related comments, so it's quite possible I've missed some.

[lucieandco.livejournal.com]

I'm quite sure that line does not appear anywhere in Büchner. It definitely is not in his Saint-Just's great speech, though it would be very much in tune with that. His Robespierre says (approximately) "We will not let the vessel of Revolution run aground on these people's shallow calculations and mudflats.", but that is the only mention of a vessel; his Saint-Just mentions a Red Sea, but does not literally state that it is reddened by blood, though it is surely implied ("Moses led his people through the Red Sea and through the wilderness until the old and rotten generation had dissolved before he founded the new state. [...] We have neither Red Sea nor wilderness, but we have the war and we have the guillotine.").
I've read it attributed to Barère via Vilate in his "Causes secretes de la Revolution du 9 au 10 Thermidor" from 1795; that seems to be the likely first appearance, and the source used by all other works giving the line to Barère (such as Catherine Gore's "The Tuileries"). Whether or not Vilate's testament is trustworthy is another question.

[lucieandco.livejournal.com]

Ah, well, the Vilate connection has already been unearthed. Still, good to clear Büchner's name on small counts every now and then :D

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I like Büchner, he integrates real quotes to his play in a very impressive way in order to support his general argument (which has, imo, more to do with German philosophy than with the FR). The problem is when he's used as historical source ;-)

[lucieandco.livejournal.com]

That is precisely it! I greatly respect Büchner as a writer (even and especially when he copies-and-pastes from primary sources and it somehow blends in perfectly with his own idiosyncratic diction) and for his own (brief) life, but the damage his play has done and still can do through being read as historiography (rather than, well, assorted rantings of an increasingly cynical would-have-been revolutionary) is immense.

(Heck, even read by a layman as a piece of literature it's damaging - it's been required reading for many German high school classes for the past two years, with absolutely disastrous results, since the average German high school student has no knowledge of the history of the Revolution beyond 'er, 1789?', and nor have the teachers. Not only is it impossible to follow, much less enjoy the unfolding plot without a fair amount of background knowledge, but my class actually ended up deducting that if only that Danton fella had got up and taken the reins from that ivory-tower sissy Robespierre, everything would have turned out wonderfully. Which is not only historically absurd but absolutely not what Büchner writes or implies. The only thing that qualifies his Danton as something resembling the play's hero is that he is the one who gets to spout the most of Büchner's personal philosophy - and that in itself contradicts the aforementioned notion. His interpretation of the historical Danton and Danton's role - and, correspondingly, his characterisation of the people, the masses - is actually very similar to that by Romain Rolland. Oh, I digress ...)

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Great analysis of Büchner ;-)
As for the second question, I think there should be a serious debate on the relation between history and fiction, because 1) fiction is used as a source of historical knowledge 2) writers of fiction refuse ANY rensponsibility as far as veracity is considered, even dealing with real people and events. These two phenomena are highly incompatible. At least, the school should make people aware of this problem.
The movie Danton has caused a lot of damage, too. Sometimes, especially in France, it is viewed in class as a part of a wide debate, based on previous knowledge of FR and introducing the polemics it arouse, too. Then it's ok for me. However, often it is shown as a teaching tool in history classes on the FR. That can have similar disastrous effects as those you describe. And again, all this Danton-supermale, Robespierre effeminate sissy: oh, progress, where are you?
Yes, Büchner and Rolland's Danton and Robespierre resemble quite a lot, if you think of Rolland's play Danton. Robespierre "changes" radically in Rolland's Robespierre, though. And please, do digress, your analysis very interesting!

[lucieandco.livejournal.com]

NEVER encourage me to digress :D (This comment is going to arrive in two or three parts, I guess.)

I think the problem with many of the plays (novels, films ... comics ...) fictionalising the Revolution (or any history), especially the ones that are well-written and present fascinating insights into the mind of their authors, is that it is so hard to look at them not from a historian's viewpoint (and then be rightfully angered at the simplifications and distortions of fact - I love my Büchner, but I blame no-one for abhorring him for the misconceptions he has played such a part in popularising) because you need to have some idea of who's-who and the general chain of events in order to be able to comprehend enough on the surface of the text, not to mention the thoughts behind it. To do them justice both as a treatment of a historical topic and as a creative effort is virtually impossible, because the two are essentially contradicting approaches.
"Dantons Tod" for one is (in my opinion - and it's sad, because it's such an interesting play, and arguably the best B. ever wrote) no less out of place in a literature class (unless the background knowledge has already been acquired in a good history class) than it would be in a history class (unless it would be in the context of an informed debate, such as the one you mention re: the "Danton" film), firstly because it easily gives the uninformed a wrong idea of the facts, secondly because it can only be studied in depth when you look at the points in which it radically diverged from the facts. The best parts of "Dantons Tod" (in my opinion) are the ones that are the very furthest from history: his Danton's fatalist rants and his Saint-Just's proto-Nietzschean pseudo-science (too many prefixes in this sentence). Both distinctly belong to nineteenth century philosophical debates rather than into any historical context, and viewed as such they're well-written and even somewhat ahead of their time. Büchner, like generations upon generations of playwrights, used the historical figures and context to hide behind, to 'get away with' the things he says. So far, so ... not-so-bad.
But a major problem in this regard is that it is frequently taught that Büchner (unlike the aforementioned 'generations upon generations') strove for an unconditionally faithful depiction of the events and persons, as he wrote in a letter to his parents. (He did, that's true. Sneaky brat.) Yes, an entire theory ('Büchner's realism') is based on a line a twenty-year-old wrote to his parents! And it is always taken out of context, too: in writing that he had not changed history in bringing it to life, he was trying to convince his family that the only reason his characters 'speak like atheists' was that they were atheists and, much as it pained his God-fearing little heart, he couldn't change that to make them less morally reproachable, now could he? (Well, I exaggerate, but that's what it boils down to.) Of course that's absolutely rubbish, and he knew it (and letters written to his friends or his fiancée at the same time speak a markedly different language). There is a very long tradition of half- and non-truths in Büchner's letters to the family (entire articles have been written about the many times he writes 'As for me, there is no reason to worry.'); half are taken up by assuring them that no-o-o, there was absolutely no reason for his abrupt departure, no, no, he has absolutely no connection with this or that person who's sought by the state, and if he did have a drink with them he most assuredly knew nothing of their back room schemes, he would not possibly get in touch with revolutionary circles, really he doubts the existence of any revolutionary circles, yes, they did break into his room and search his desk, but it was all a mix-up, they meant another person, oh, he is only going to France/Switzerland/wherever again for the fine air, etc. etc. ;)
The people who are as gullible as to believe that letter (which, to make the matter worse, is printed at the back of several student editions of the play), ignorant of its context, go on to be as gullible as to believe the play itself, ignorant of its context.

[lucieandco.livejournal.com]

Vaguely similar things (concerning the impossibility of treating them either as historiography or as pure fiction) go for Stanisława Przybyszewska's two An II plays: they are too historical for casual readers, too full of little details and with too many necessary back stories, and too unhistorical for historians, too speculative, too unfocused. They do less damage, though, because they are less widely read (especially outside of Poland), or at least less widely cited, and those who take an interest in them nowadays usually know their history already. But Przybyszewska is doubly difficult to judge in that she did actually believe she had 'understood' Robespierre and drew what she considered an accurate portrait that only just so happened to take on some traits she herself believed or wished to have - whereas Büchner consciously picked Danton (whose situation struck him as appropriate - and after all, the 'last days of a man condemned to death' model has served hundreds of writers as a similar outlet for philosophical reflections) as a vessel (ha!) for his own thoughts on man's inability to shape history, to control the current of events and bring order/peace/justice into a chaotic/barbaric/haphazard world ... there are a dozen other points that come up, but this I believe to be the main one.
In that he is not so like Rolland, though they have much in common otherwise (even in the clichés they repeat: both have Dantons that are so overconfident, vulgar and animalic they are actually repulsive rather than charismatic - or perhaps that's just prim old me - and Robespierres that are shown to themselves be at the mercy of the machinations of the revolution, not in control of them; this is popularly ignored in Büchner - I recall reading Hilary Mantel describe his portrayal of Danton as that of 'the world-weary philosopher done to death by a Robespierre machine', which couldn't be further from the aforementioned 'main point' B. makes). They both include the popular juxtaposition of Robespierre the high-minded idealist (and neither is inherently dismissive of his ideals! Büchner never renounced the ideals of the Revolution - much rather, in my [biased] opinion, he vents his frustration with the broad masses' incapability of being infected and transformed by them, which he considers confirmed once and for all by the course of events from 1794 onwards) and the masses, who are too occupied struggling to fulfill base human needs to work for a distant utopia. Both Büchner and Rolland have their Dantons point this out to Robespierre; both these Dantons consider themselves to be the ones who truly understand human nature, know what the people need/s, etc. (Interestingly, some lines said by B.'s Danton in this context - about the poor having no leisure for virtue and the like - turn up again almost verbatim in his "Woyzeck".) Both these Dantons, however, are shown up as deluded in their own right; firstly they are decadent slobs without an ounce of self-control in their gluttonous bodies, who would never actually (as they go around proclaiming they could if it came to that) get up and Take The Reins From That Sissy for sheer laziness alone; secondly, it becomes quite evident that the masses are nowhere near as loyal to them as they like to believe. Both these Dantons fancy themselves heroes of 'the people'; both find 'the people' to be no less indifferent to their fates in the long run than they are to higher causes.
This disturbs me especially in Wajda's film: his Danton exhibits all those same delusions about understanding 'la rue' and having its support, but he is not sufficiently proven wrong! Büchner and Rolland at least make it clear to the open-eyed viewer that their Danton is not the solution, nor indeed is their Robespierre the problem - which he definitely is in (Wajda's) "Danton".

[lucieandco.livejournal.com]

A-and part three! This is the last, and it's actually quite short.

I like Rolland's plays very much (though I find them less interesting to study than the other ones for the same reason) - they seem, to me, to be among the most balanced fictionalisations there are, particularly in their contrasting of D. and R. (I also like the way this is handled - in just one scene - in Victor Hugo's "93", where the two [plus Marat] are described in detail before their names are given, and they are instantly recognisable because all the old iconic-demonic traits are there, yet the conversation that follows shows them as three-dimensional human beings and idealises or villainises neither). I think "Robespierre" is a little cartoonish in its villainisation of Fouché, and I don't like the way Le Bas is so heavily featured, but not characterised as an individual, only as an appendix to Saint-Just - literally! there is that 'our names will forever be linked in history' line, and Saint-Just calling him 'my Pylades', which I am convinced is a shoutout to Hugo's definition of a Pylades as a type (i.e. a man who will only ever be remembered in conjunction with another; other writers - Przybyszewska most notably and most regrettably, considering her highly positive attitude towards them on the whole - have treated Saint-Just in this way, relegating him to the role of Robespierre's Pylades) in "Les Misérables", and half the time either he or anyone speaks of anything he did or ought to do, it's 'Saint-Just and I'/'Saint-Just and you' - but its characterisation of Robespierre himself is magnificent in its depth and humanity, and (unlike others) seems to be barely infused with the author's own opinions and theories. (Or perhaps Rolland is merely more subtle about it? That is also a possibility.)

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Wow! That's a beautiful analysis. It reminds me of the worthiness of an interdisciplinary approach, as a literary critic you have such an original, deep insight. It is clear that cultural historians and literary critics should work together more often, it'd be so fruitful.
1) Yes, the films, the plays and the novels that attempt at certain historical realism are used as source of historical knowledge. That's obvious and to deny it is to refuse to see how "common" people access the past. Even professional historians only become professional after having acquired an idea about the past based on children's stories, comics, fiction books, movies and lieux de mémoire. This undeniable fact should produce a debate on the responsibility of the authors of historical fiction towards real people and real events of the past. It's not that I'd like to limit the liberty of the artists, but then people should be made very aware of the difference between history and fiction, even between fiction attempting at realism and fiction that deliberately takes things out of context, that takes many liberties - and I see that quite the opposite is going on nowadays. In case of the books, I really like how old fiction books had long analytic prefaces that explained many important things, including the contextualization. Imagine, for example, that Büchner's book would be read together with an analytic text written by a literary critic and a historian, stressing all the points you make in you post. That would indeed make a difference. Anyway, it would be good if history and fiction were more often presented together, side by side, to make people think about their problematic relation and to make them learn how to read (watch) critically. Wishful thinking, I know.
2) I agree with your analysis. Using the persons from the past as vehicles for our ideas, consciously and unconsciously, is very human, indeed, so I would not reproach Büchner or Przybyszewska for it. OK, I would, but I should control my tics ;-) Again, the problem begins when the piece is read (watched) as history or if it's presented without providing historical context. I'd really love if such "serious historical fiction" would always be accompanied by a debate, featuring both literary critics and historians. If the plays are read in school, then it's clearly the role of the teacher to provide historical context, including some articles on history, question the "realism", guide students from the most obvious, biased interpretations to a more nuanced ones. I cannot see any other solution, maybe you can think of some... What a silly idealist I am, anyway.
And you are right, Rolland is really quite successful in letting his characters think and act like late 18th century men, not like proto-Nietzschean heroes or proto-communist prophets.
3) The Pylades syndrom is annoying, and you're right, both Rolland's Le Bas and Przybyszewska's Saint-Just suffer from it. Actually, many people do adopt this role in real life, but I don't see it historically justified in neither case you mention.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Wajda's Danton does not offer solutions, in a certain way it's like Forman's Goya's Ghosts: deeply reactionnary. A conservative position of a passive observer and detached critic, smirking while observing ridiculousness of people's higher aspirations, comes out as the only reasonable choice. Don't make revolutions, 'cause you'll end up like a criminal. Don't get engagé, because you can realize you've been mistaken and you can be laughed at. Now, that's brave, isn't it? If everyone was like that, we'd still be living in caves.
It's true that there is a certain inner paradox in Wajda. On one hand, the message "revolution-bad" is clear. However, Danton does come out as the man of "la rue" and a positive connotation is attributed to this, as you mention. He remains a hero, in spite of his corruption. Wajda's Danton seem to be the one who knows the people and is able to speak for them; and the people, it means 1) total lack of idealism and 2)following the basic instincts. Because "people are like that". But that does not depress him, rather he watches it with a deeply catholic benevolence. Don't try to be perfect (it'd be pride, it could be evil, you could be like Lucifer), we are all sinners, so let's tolerate our petty crimes and corruptions...and be willing to pardon the others for them, too. I am not quite sure what implications in relation to political power it actually has, besides being profoundly corrupting on the human level. Does it mean that "Danton's revolution" means cleaning the way for hedonist consumerism, or am I misinterpreting him? Does giving the people the "permission" to be imperfect and corrupt make it easier to control them through guilt-inducement and through offering ways of penitence?

[matador41.livejournal.com]

Hi, I see the first quote has already been dealt with. Here's a suggestion for the second. Hope it helps. Wikiquote always a good start.

“A nation only regenerates itself upon heaps of corpses.”
Saint-Just quoting Mirabeau before members of the Committee of Public Safety on October 17, 1793.
Cant find a direct source just Saint-Just: Colleague of Robespierre by Eugene N. Curtis [p. 236]

I have a copy of a speech he made to the Convention on 16th October for a law against the english and no mention in there so…
someone's going to have to go to a decent library and look up the relevant volume of the CPS archives.

Happy hunting!