revolution_fr | Mer rougie par des torrents de sang

"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!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.)

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.

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?

Mer rougie par des torrents de sang

no subject

no subject

no subject