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

[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.