Page 41
Other factors besides philosophical ones contributed to the breaking
down of the cultural frontier between the Catholic and Protestant worlds at
the close of the seventeenth century. Above all the Revocation of the Edict of
Nantes and the expulsion or forcible conversion of the French Protestants
had the opposite effect to that which Louis XIV intended. For the Protestant
exiles who swarmed into Holland and England in their thousands acted at
once as the disseminators of French culture and as propagandists for the
cause of religious tolerance and political liberty. There has never been a
body of emigres so intellectually active and so socially influential as the
Huguenot exiles. In England they provided the translators, like Abel Boyer,
Des Maiseaux, Pierre Coste, Peter Motteux, and the rest, who acted as
intermediaries between England and Continental culture. In Holland, which
was the chief centre of the emigration, they became the founders of
international journalism, and the French reviews and encyclopedias which
poured from the Dutch printing presses had an enormous influence on
European opinion. The famous Dictionary which was published by the
greatest of these Huguenot publicists, Pierre Bayle, in 1695-1697, was more
widely read than any other work of the kind. It became the freethinker’s
vade mecum and prepared the way for the work of Voltaire and the
Encyclopaedists.
Moreover, it must not be forgotten that the Huguenot exiles still
possessed a large body of secret sympathizers inside France among the ex-
Protestants and crypto-Protestants who had become nominally Catholic
under the stress of persecution. It is, of course, difficult to determine the
exact influence of this factor in the secularization of French
42
culture, since in the nature of the case it was a subaltern and to some extent
an unconscious influence, but it was certainly of considerable importance
owing to the position that the Protestant middle class had held in economics
and professional life. In any case, it was largely owing to the work of the
French Protestant exiles that the new secular culture acquired a
cosmopolitan character. This culture was still French in spirit and ideals, but
it was no longer identified, as in the seventeenth century, with the power of
the French monarchy and the political expansion of French power.
32
It is difficult to overestimate the share of the mystics in the Catholic
revival and their influence on the new Catholic culture. The Protestant
criticisms of Catholicism as a religion of external practices lost all their force
when they were confronted with this new outpouring of divine grace and
with the ideal of spiritual perfection manifested in the lives of the saints. At
the same time mysticism provided the antidote against the rationalist and
materialist tendencies in Western society and enlarged the range of humanist
culture by a deeper and more sublime vision of spiritual reality, which
inspired poets and artists as well as theologians and philosophers.
This too is an important factor in the Catholic revival, for the centres
of the Catholic renaissance were also the centres of artistic production, so
that Catholic art became one of the great channels for the diffusion of
Catholic culture. Thus it is that the new Baroque art has given its name to the
new culture which became the last great corporate expression of Western
religious ideals. For the expansion of the Baroque culture was not merely an
ideological movement, like the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century or
the diffusion of nineteenth-century Liberalism. It appealed to the heart as
well as the head and satisfied the emotional as well as the intellectual needs
of human
32
nature. And thus it was never merely the culture of an educated minority,
since its religious ideals, embodied in painting and architecture and music,
were the common heritage of the people as a whole and not the exclusive
possession of a privileged class.
Owing to this character, the Baroque culture possessed exceptional
powers of diffusion even among peoples of alien traditions. On the whole,
the modern expansion of European culture has been external and material.
37
For Henry IV the re-establishment of national unity after forty years of
civil war was the first essential. If his subjects were good Frenchmen they
could be Catholic or Protestant, but they must be Frenchmen first. And this
point of view made a strong appeal to a generation which had been ruined by
the miseries of civil war, deafened by religious controversy and touched in
their national pride by foreign intervention. They welcomed the restoration
of the royal power as an impartial arbiter which would be strong enough to
impose peace on the rival Churches and parties which were tearing France in
pieces. It is true that the age of Henry IV and Richelieu witnessed a great
movement of Catholic revival which produced a galaxy of saints and mystics,
like the Spanish revival in the previous century. But unlike the latter it was
not a universal movement which embraced and inspired
38
the whole culture, but a minority movement, which like the Puritan
movement in England was a protest against the secularizing tendencies of
the national culture. This analogy with Puritanism is especially visible on the
left wing of the French Catholic revival which is represented by the Jansenist
movement and which contributed no less than Protestantism itself to the loss
of religious unity and to the growth of a sectarian spirit.
Meanwhile the work of Henry IV was being carried on by Cardinal
Richelieu, the classical representative of the raison d’etat, who did more than
Gustavus Adolphus or Cromwell to defeat the international political unity of
Catholic Europe. And this ruthless system of international power-politics
which established the greatness of France on the ruin of central Europe went
hand in hand with an equally ruthless system of internal centralization which
had prepared the way for the absolute national monarchy of Louis XIV.
The effect of this revolution were not only political; they were also
religious and cultural. The Gallican Church became more and more an
autonomous ecclesiastical organism and French culture became
progressively detached from the Baroque culture of Catholic Europe. This
new national culture still shared the ideals of the humanist culture, but
instead of applying them, as the Baroque society had done, to the service of
an international religion, it used culture, in the Augustan manner, as an
instrument of government and empire. This ideal found its most complete
expression in the palace of Versailles and the elaborate ritual of the court of
Louis XIV. All the resources of the nation were concentrated on the worship
of the Roi Soleil, whose splendor in turn was reflected by every facet of
French culture. As Racine himself said in one of his discourses to the
Academy, “All the words of the language, and even the syllables, seem
precious to us because we regard them as so many instruments with which
to serve the glory of our august protector.”
Accordingly literature and art were subjected to a strict social regime,
administered by the various royal academies: the Academie Francaise, the
Academie des Sciences, the Academie des Beaux Arts, and the rest. There
was no longer any room for the unbridled fantasy
39
and spiritual ecstasy of the Baroque genius. The watch-words of the new
culture were order and regularity, good taste and good sense, reason and
clear ideas. Its spirit was essentially classical but it was also rationalist, and
this rationalist element gradually permeated the whole culture until it
undermined and ultimately destroyed the authoritarian orthodoxy of the
Gallican Church and the authoritarian absolutism of the French monarchy.
Christopher Dawson
The Gods of Revolution
Page 4
In order to understand European history we must first understand
what Europe is—not a mere geographical expression, nor a heterogeneous
collection of independent nationalities, but a true society of peoples
possessing a common tradition of culture and of religion. In the past this
social organism was known as Christendom, and it is in fact in medieval
Christendom that its unity is most plainly visible.
It is true that in its origins western Christendom was conterminous
neither with Christendom as a whole nor with Europe. To an oriental
observer it must have appeared little more than an outlying barbaric
province of the Christian world, isolated between the pagan north and the
Moslem south and unworthy to be compared with the wealthy and civilized
society of Byzantine Christendom. Yet this semi-barbarous society of western
Christendom possessed a vitality and power of growth that its more civilized
neighbours lacked.
From its original centre in the Frankish dominions it
Page 5
gradually extended its range, until by the end of the Middle Ages it had
embraced the whole of western and northern Europe and had begun its
career of colonial expansion beyond the seas, while the fortunes of eastern
Chrisendom had steadily declined until Byzantium had become the capital of
Islam and the Christian peoples of the Balkans were the slaves of the Turk.
This triumphant expansion was, however, accompanied by a loss of
internal unity; western Christendom was a synthesis of Nordic and Latin
elements, ordered and directed by the Church and the Papacy. The state, as it
was under the tutelage of the Church and the clergy, who possessed a
monopoly of the higher education, took a leading part in its administration
and policy. But with the decline of feudalism and the growth of a centralized
monarchical power, the state asserted its independence and attempted to
deprive the territorial Church of its international character and to weaken
the bonds that attached it to the Holy See.
There were many who sought to withdraw from the ever-watchful eye of
authority and to seek a freer atmosphere in which they could find relaxation
and liberty to express their opinions.
This free atmosphere was not to be found in the schools and
universities, which were still fortresses of authority and tradition, or in the
new academies, which represented the official regimentation of intellectual
life, but in the houses of nobles like the Prince of Vendome and the salons of
great ladies like Mme de Sabliere and Mme de
Page 13
Lambret in Paris or the Duchess of Mazarin in London, where courtiers and
men of letters could meet on equal terms.
In such an atmosphere there was no room for the acrimonies of
religious controversy, and intolerance became regarded as a mark of ill-
breeding.
--the organic feudal system, which as Belloc explained was uniquely inherited by the
Gallic peoples, was being eradicated by technology
Page 5
Louis’ [XIV] orthodoxy, however, did not extend to loyalty to the Pope.
At the end of August 1662 the Pope and the King exchanged letters about a
riot of French soldiers in Rome, which the French ambassador in Rome,
Crequi, called a deliberate provocation by Pope Alexander. Louis would not
even listen to the Pope’s explanations and apologies for the incident, and
Crequi left his post at the end of 1662. The climax of this disrespect for the
Vicar of Christ by the ambassadors of the French king, for all his orthodoxy,
came in May 1675 when the newly appointed French Cardinal d’Estrees,
after accusing Pope Clement X of breaking his word about cardinal
appointments, actually jumped on the chair of the octogenarian Pope in
public audience, pinned him to it, and was excommunicated on the spot. It
was a very public warning that representatives of the most powerful king in
the world considered themselves above the law, to say nothing of Catholic
respect for the head of the Church. In 1672 Louis roundly declared to
Cardinal d’Estrees “that he would not be dictated to by the Pope. For he was
master of all his subjects, priests as well as layfolk, and no one had a right to
interfere.” In September 1688 Louis XIV reinforced that lesson by taking
over the papal territory of Avignon in France, which had once been the seat
of the Popes.
There are broadly speaking two ways by which human progress can
be obtained. The first is by Revolution, the second is by Evolution. The
former may achieve results with rapidity and precision, but the latter will
achieve more though it be by a slower process.
The French Revolution in a sense was a process of evolution that led
from the fall of the French Monarchy to the establishing of a Republic, not a
mere country governed by a president instead of a king, but a people that
gradually came to make government a vastly different thing to what it had
been.
We must now consider the second point that had great influence on
the trend of the Revolution which was of course the failure of the King and
Queen to find escape by flight. How does Belloc consider this acted upon the
progress of the conflict?
With the end of the flight we find that Belloc with his usual powers of
precision has started us into the fourth phase of the Revolution. Of the effect
of the failure of the flight he says “The unwisdom of the flight would be
difficult to exaggerate: it is impossible to exaggerate the moral revolution
caused by its failure. It was regarded virtually as an abdication.” I must here
differ with Belloc. From his general attitude to the French Revolution, it is
evident that he thought Louis by this flight did not mean to do any more than
temporarily use discretion and get out of the way of danger, Belloc seems to
think that there was no idea then of a Republic. He is I am convinced quite
wrong. From a careful reading of many historians it stands out paramount
that when the king started his flight he knew that it was an abdication, he
could see in the early dawn the great word Republic.
We then proceed to the vital part of the Revolution that has to do with
the “Terror.” On this particular question I can find no agreement with Belloc
at all. With an easy assurance that is very nearly ludicrous, if it was not
pathetic, Belloc insists that the “Terror” was merely military discipline
carried to a logical conclusion. This is of course pure nonsense, the “Terror”
was an outrage to all decent ideas of justice, it was an appeal to brute force
carried out by a tyrant. Again, as with the character of Danton, Belloc lets
Robespierre down much too lightly. It is of course true that a certain
legendary Robespierre has grown up, a Robespierre that is painted as an
everlasting tyrant. This I think is to read the character of the great dictator
falsely, until he became spoilt by power Robespierre was really a kind of
priestly philosopher concerned with the immortality of the soul and the
eternity of God. While Belloc is right in pointing this out, he condones his
conduct as the champion of the “Terror” with ill advised leniency.
***
The importance of Rousseau and his teachings to Robespierre
cannot be overemphasized. Perhaps it can best be seen in
Robespierre's own writing about the philosopher, from his diary
during the Estates-General:
Divine man! It was you who taught me to know myself. When I
was young you brought me to appreciate the true dignity of my
nature and to reflect on the great principles which govern the social
order . . . . I saw you in your last days and for me the recollection
of the time will always be a source of proud joy. I contemplated
your august features and saw there the imprint of those dark griefs
which the injustice of man inflicted on you. <15>
From Rousseau, Robespierre adopted the Social Contract theory of
government, which was later to be accepted by the Jacobins. Man
is by nature good, but becomes corrupt through unjust institutions
and laws; he is born free, but becomes a slave to injustice. <16>
Government is literally a contract entered into by people; each
individual brings into the larger group a share of its power and
authority. Moreover, the contract can be changed at any time
the "general will" desires. <17> Sovereignty rests in the general
community and any executive power is merely subservient to the
sovereign -- the people. The nation's will is expressed in law. <18>
But the individual is not to be placed above the state. In such cases
where an opponent consistently resists or rejects the general will as
expressed in law, Rousseau recommends death: "When the entire
nation is in danger . . . a thing which is a crime at other times
becomes a praiseworthy action. Lenience toward conspirators is
treason against the people." <19> The state can, at times, exercise
tremendous power over the individual members: "The state, in
regard to its members, is master of all their goods. The sovereign --
that it to say the people -- may legitimately take away the goods of
everyone, as was done at Sparta in the time of Lycurgus." <20>
One of Rousseau's dictims that Robespierre took to heart in
particular is the following: "The spirit of the people may reside in
an enlightened minority, who consequently have the right to act for
the political advantage." <21> It is easy to see how this belief
enticed Robespierre, who already knew that he was not wrong,
whose care for la Patrie was his chief concern, who saw himself as
the inheritor of Rousseau and, by extension, the general will. It
became the basis for all his actions while in power; it is virtually
the same as asserting that he did what he did "because France
demanded it."
Welded firmly in Robespierre's mind with Rousseau's political and
ethical philosophy was Montesquieu's concept of republican virtue:
Virtue in a republic is a most simple thing; it is love of the
republic; it is a sensation, and not a consequence of acquired
knowledge, a sensation that may be felt by the meanest as well as
by the highest person in the state. When the common people adopt
good maxims, they adhere to them more steadily than those whom
we call gentlemen . . . The love of our country is favorable to a
purity of morals, and the latter is again conducive to the former.
<22>
Robespierre and his compatriots, especially Louis-Antoine Saint-
Just and George Couthon, envisioned a French Republic based on
virtue, wherein economic class distinctions would cease, wherein it
would be criminal to own an excess of wealth, wherein the highest
and noblest goal of any citizen would be service to the state. <23>
Reason would predominate, but not prevail; for Robespierre
believed, as did Rousseau, in a sort of deism, faith in a Supreme
Being who guided the course of the nation. Faith in the divine was
necessary for the health of the nation, both spiritually and
politically. Atheism they considered immoral and punishable by
death; it was a form of treason and as such in opposition and
potentially harmful to the general will. <24> Will Durant
demonstrates that this belief would lead ultimately to Robespierre's
clash with the Dechristianizing Herbertists in 1793, a conflict
which Durant identifies as between the philosophies of Rousseau
(Robespierre) and the philosophes, especially Voltaire (Herbert)."
<25>
Page 2
…the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Passed in the summer
of 1790, this law was not, to be sure, one of the Revolution’s
sexier events. There are no famous paintings depicting its
signing, no oft-quoted statements about it. The text of the
law reads like an administrative restructuring of a
bureaucracy. Its goals were to reshape the Catholic Church
in France and to limit the influence that the church had in
society. France was a Catholic country, and not only did
many French citizens look to the church for guidance, but
many of the most powerful men in the church were powerful
in the political world as well…In the court of public opinion,
though, France’s Catholic Church—also known as the
“Gallican Church”—had been taking quite a beating in the
decades leading up to the Revolution. Popular eighteenth-
century French writers had been openly hostile to the
Gallican Church, portraying it as hypocritical, greedy, and
lazy. Licentious priests were stock characters in the
pornographic novels of the day…
The revolutionary legislature included a large number
of Catholic clerics—mostly priests, but some bishops as
well—but it involved a far larger number of men who
considered themselves to be followers of the Enlightenment.
So it was clear to all involved that with the coming of the
Revolution, there would be some changes for the Gallican
Church.
Page 3
By early 1791, however, things had changed. Roughly half
of France’s priests had rejected the Civil Constitution of the
Clergy; the government was trying to replace the priests who
refused their allegiance, and those replacements had to face
down hostile crowds, often relying on military help just to
celebrate mass…
In much of France, women played prominent roles in the
opposition to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Priests
who opposed it boasted of the support they received from
pious women willing to put their lives at risk in defense of
their faith. Supporters of the Civil Constitution complained
of the crowds of women whom the priests had “misled,” or
even “seduced,” by playing on women’s fears and emotions.
Page 9
Legally, Protestantism was forbidden in France (with the
exception of Alsace, which had a noteworthy Lutheran
population). There had been a fair amount of government
repression of Protestantism during the first half of the
eighteenth century, but by the second half of the century such
policies had lost most of their public support. A 1787 edict
gave Huguenots more rights—including a legal right to
marry—although it did not grant Huguenots the right to
practice their religion publicly.
Page 11
In some places, these intra-church quarrels played a
major role in the daily life of French Catholics. In Paris, in
particular, the repeated battles between a heavily Jansenist
population and an archbishop hostile to Jansenism played out
for many decades; during the 1740s the archbishop went so
far as to refuse last rites to Catholics who could not prove
their hostility to Jansenism. These battles would do much to
politicize the population of Paris and strengthen its hostility
to the church hierarchy. In most of France, however, these
debates had little to no effect on religious life. Catholics
went to church, as they always had, and as they imagined
they always would. Catholic parents baptized their children
at the local church, young couples got married there, and that
was where people’s funerals took place, before the burial in
the adjacent graveyard. The church bells that rang out on
these occasions gave sound to the cycle of life, just as those
same bells, ringing out on holidays, gave sound to the cycle
of the seasons. Springtime holidays celebrating the
resurrection of Jesus occurred just as the earth was coming
back to life, while fall holidays like All Saints’ Day and the
Day of the Dead came when the earth’s fertility was coming
to its annual end. These mixtures of meanings—the “agro-
liturgical calendar,” as the historian Francois Lebrun calls
it—shows just how difficult it is to separate religious life
from other aspects of life in early modern France, be they
agricultural, economic, or social.
It is important, therefore, to make a distinction between
official Catholicism and the religion that people practiced.
Many of the folk traditions that had arisen around various
saints did not enjoy the approval of church leaders. Many of
the men in the French clergy, whether parish priests in small
villages or wealthy bishops, were as concerned about
excessive or inappropriate celebrations as they were about
those who did not attend mass at all. One priest who had just
arrived at his village in southeast France found that the
villagers welcomed Lent by having a newlywed bride light
fires in front of people’s doors at night, so that the following
day all of the horned animals in the village could walk
through the ashes. In this case as in countless others,
villagers saw nothing wrong with the practice—this was how
they had always practiced their religion, and how they
imagined they always would. Priests were often shocked and
scandalized, seeing in these traditions not expressions of
Christian faith but remnants of paganism and superstition.
There were limits, however, to the extent to which the men in
the church could do anything about these traditions. A priest
in a village was caught between two allegiances—to the
villagers he saw regularly, and to the church hierarchy whom
he represented to those villagers. Priests had to choose their
battles, and many came to accept the “superstitions” they saw
around them.
The Festival of the Federation was like a religious celebration,
a mass officiated at by Talleyrand where people got married
and stuff. It is the beginning of the attempt to replace the
agro-liturgical calendar.
Page 60
The major changes in the Revolution that would
eventually usher in the counter-revolution were ones that the
revolutionaries brought on themselves; but they were changes
that the revolutionaries stumbled into, with little sense of the
stakes involved. There were three main turning points in the
deterioration of relations between the National Assembly and
the Catholic Church. The first would come in July 1790, just
days before the Festival of the Federation, when the
Constituent Assembly approved the Civil Constitution on the
Clergy. The next came in November, when the Assembly—
impatient at the Civil Constitution’s lack of progress—voted
to require all of the nation’s clerics to swear an oath of
allegiance to the Civil Constitution. At the start of the
following year, on January 3-4, events came to a head once
again, as the two sides squared off in the Constituent
Assembly.
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy and the oath would
transform the Revolution—or, rather, it would transform the
counter-revolution, providing it with a popular base that it
lacked when the crowds gathered on the Champ de Mars to
celebrate the Festival of the Federation. If no other festival
was ever that successful, it was because the nation was never
again that unified. And if the nation was never again that
unified, it was because of the divisions that resulted from the
Constituent Assembly’s attempt to re-shape the Catholic
Church.