Si Versailles m'était conté

[montagnarde1793]

I've never actually seen the whole film, but judging by these youtube clips, I think Sacha Guitry must have been on crack.

Exhibit A:

I do not approve of the pear-headed king's taste in art. >:(

Exhibit B:

...Because I'm sure that Robespierre hung out with the royals, Lavoisier, and André Chénier all the time. Because that would make logical sense. And Robespierre is probably the only one at this gathering who actually supported the abolition of the death penalty, so WTF, really. Also, the actor playing him looks nothing like him.

Still, I kind of want to see it now....

Comments

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Yes, I saw it somewhere, too. I cannot remember to whom it was attributed, if to Robespierre or Saint-Just. So is it another false quote to our collection?
(I know Lavoisier was executed for having been a tax-farmer, but I have no idea about the historicity of the quote)
Yes, the revolutionaries hated science so much that they opened the Polytechnique...

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

I think so. I don't remember exactly where I've seen it either, but I know it's in several different places, and I'm almost positive they were all English.
And for Robespierre-specific examples, obviously the lawyer in the lightning-rod case who wrote a fan letter to Franklin and the politician who used:

"Qu'y a‑t‑il de commun entre ce qui est et ce qui fut ? Les nations civilisées ont succédé aux sauvages errant dans les déserts ; les moissons fertiles ont pris la. place des forêts antiques qui couvraient le globe. Un monde a paru au‑delà des bornes du monde ; les habitants de la terre ont ajouté les mers à leur domaine immense; l'homme a conquis la foudre et conjuré celle du ciel. Comparez le langage imparfait des hiéroglyphes avec les miracles de l'imprimerie; rapprochez le voyage des Argonautes de celui de La Peyrouse ; mesurez la distance entre les observations astronomiques des mages de l'Asie, et les découvertes de Newton, ou bien entre l'ébauche tracée par la main de Dibutade et les tableaux de David."

as a positive example for the kind of changes that might then take place in the moral universe, was definitely completely against the arts and sciences. Please, people, some sense here.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Well, I wonder when someone will say that the French Enlightenment was actually bad for science! Reading all these nonsense...there seems to be a trend of denying anything good could actually come from the European continent.
The Revolution played a key-role in the development of modern science and Napoléon continued its heritage. It's clearer than the sun and anyone can find hundreds of convincing books on this topic.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Since apparently nothing is accurate these days until certified by a revisionist, I have a feeling we're going to see this "argument" any day now.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

As far as I know, the French historians of science are not in mood to allow it ;-) And revisionists seem to be too scared of science to venture to this field of history ;-)

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

That's good, at least. (Though I doubt it would stop some of them, particularly the Anglo-American ones, from making some ridiculous assertion about it in a more general work.)

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Actually, they already do ;-) Unfortunately in a very intelligent way. I have read an American historian comparing France and the USA in the first half of the 19th century, arguing that "too much science" actually prevented technology from being widespread in France, meanwhile in the USA it was practical, democratic, non-elitist (by what she means that it did not require studies in science) and therefore much more successful :-(
Yes, and therefore the USA had to import European scientists in masses since the second industrial revolution....haha

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

So having less scientists per capita is supposed to give people more access to technology how? I'm afraid I missed that one.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Her argument is that scientists make technology too difficult for common people. And that in the US, the technology was made simpler and easy to use, so the inventors could patent and sell it easily. The argument seems very convincing and it could have worked like that for a couple of decades. However, in a long run, the US schools introduced "European" science programmes and brought loads of German, Russian etc. scientists, 'cause you cannot just dela witth the second industrial revolution knowing only the basic laws of mechanics. And that's the question she compeltely avoids.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

I see, so she wasn't referring to new technologies then. But you're right that there's no way that could have worked in the long run--it's not like the US would have been content to stay permanently at that level of technological development as Europe continued to move ahead.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

But the French are still a bunch of Enlightenment lovers ;-)

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Why do you think I want to live there? ;) (Not that there aren't plenty of other reasons to pick France over the US.)

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

Yes, I saw it somewhere, too. I cannot remember to whom it was attributed, if to Robespierre or Saint-Just. So is it another false quote to our collection?

*jumps into subject* It's usually attributed to Dumas. I think he even made it in the pink pages of the Larousse dictionary of the "Mots historiques" section for it (!). Well, what an accomplishment -- though that section is obviously partially made of attributed and randomly collected quotes. Ah, les mots historiques...

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

*headdesk* I highly doubt it's any more accurate for Dumas. Still, I'm sure I've seen it attributed to Robespierre in more than one Anglo-American book.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Well, Dumas was odd enough to say something like that in the heat of a process. However, as you say, one can by no means rely on this kind of sources, they are generally pure fiction.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

For me, the most important thing is whether the source is trustworthy. Even if it were the most plausible thing in the world for him to say, coming from who knows where, there's no reason to lend it any credence.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Of course. There's no doubt about it.
I just made that speculative remark, as you mentioned Robespierre's lightning case to show how improbable it would be for him to say such a thing about science.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

True enough. Everything needs to be judged, at a basis level by its sources. Somet things are just so ridiculously improbable, though, that it can be useful to point that out.