H-France Review Vol. 2 (June 2002), No. 47
Philippe Darriulat, Les Patriotes: La Gauche républicaine et la nation, 1830-1870. Paris: Seuil, 2001. 326 pp. Notes, bibliography, index. 23.00 € (pb). ISBN 2-02-022596-4.
Review by Venita Datta, Wellesley College.
The concept of nationhood, inherited from the French Revolution, has been one of France’s most important legacies to the world. Indeed, the French consider the leftist origins of French nationalism to be a key aspect of what makes their country unique. A survey of the republican left and of patriotism is thus an important topic in French history, perhaps especially and poignantly so in the wake of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s stunning defeat of Lionel Jospin in the first round of the 2002 presidential elections.
In Les Patriotes: La Gauche républicaine et la nation, 1830-1870, Philippe Darriulat traces the concept of the nation as promulgated by the French left. It begins in 1830 with the formation of the first republican party during the July Monarchy and ends with the Commune of 1870, which Darriulat describes as the last great manifestation of revolutionary patriotism of the nineteenth century, the last time that the radical left was able to unite around the flag in opposition to all other parties.
After 1870, the republic became a definitive part of French society, firmly established, with the notable exception of the Vichy period. Under the Third Republic, the idea of the nation was no longer a dream but a reality, but it also meant that this concept, although more concrete, was less mystical and revolutionary: "La Nation syncrétique des hommes de la Troisième République a perdu sa part de rêve pour s’ancrer dans un territoire, une culture, une histoire dans lesquels toutes les opinions doivent pouvoir s’identifer. Une page est définitivement tournée lorsque la patrie a cessé d’être révolutionnaire pour devenir tout simplement française comme la République qui l’incarne" (p. 281). Ironically, during the Third Republic, patriotism ceased to be the prerogative of the left and instead became the principle around which all groups united, except for the revolutionary left, which had now become pacifist: "le patriotisme doit cesser d’être l’enjeu de luttes partisanes pour devenir le prétexte à une union sacrée dont les seuls révolutionnaires--maintenant pacifistes, voire défaitistes--s’excluent" (p. 281). Nevertheless, from the Revolution of 1789 until the 1848 revolution, the idea of the nation was an integral part of left-wing ideology. During the Second Republic, under Lamartine’s leadership, a huge change took place when pacifist ideals were first associated with the revolutionary tradition. Despite this huge break with the past, until the Commune, the "nationalist" tradition of the left remained vibrant.
Darriulat’s book, which traces the early history of republicanism with meticulousness and detail, fills an important gap in French historiography. While historians have long been interested in the concepts of the republic, patriotism, and the nation--Maurice Agulhon’s The French Republic, 1879-1992, Claude Nicolet’s L’Idée républicaine en France: Essai d’histoire critique, and Pierre Nora’s Les Lieux de Mémoire come immediately to mind--they have largely ignored the patriotism of the first republicans, perhaps, in part, as Darriulat suggests, because this prehistory of republicanism does not clearly establish continuity with the later internationalist orientation of the French left.[1] Thus does Les Patriotes represent a welcome addition to the field, a work that specialists of nineteenth-century France as well as those interested in European history in general will find useful.
Darriulat’s approach to his material is both chronological and thematic. He begins with a discussion of revolutionary propaganda during the early days of the July Monarchy and proceeds to chart the various transformations undergone by the republican party up until the Commune. Within this framework, he examines the French left’s position on other revolutionary movements in Europe, France’s rivalry with England, as well as the concepts of the nation, the people, history, and the universal republic.
The first republicans all saw themselves as patriots who wished to restore France to the grandeur it had assumed under the French Revolution. At this time, to be a patriot was to be on the left and to be republican. At home, they saw the July Monarchy as a step in the process begun in 1789 and interrupted in 1815. Although they were initially elated by the results of the 1830 Revolution, they soon became disgruntled with Louis-Philippe’s liberal government, which they viewed as a prisoner of moneyed interests. So too did they deplore the regime’s desire to make peace with other monarchies on the continent. Instead, they desired a general uprising of nationalist movements led by France. This bellicosity was more a struggle between two concepts--that of revolution and reaction--than a war between two countries since bringing the revolution to other countries was viewed as a duty for revolutionary France.
Darriulat sees a contradiction between the revolutionaries’ desire for the success of nationalist movements in other countries and their wish for France to lead them, but this patriotism and universalism have been the hallmark of France’s revolutionary tradition and have distinguished this nationalism from the right-wing variety that emerged during the late nineteenth century.[2] The experience of the July Monarchy was an important step in the evolution of the revolutionary left in France. In 1830, lines were clearly drawn between the revolution and reaction, but the experience of the July Monarchy proved that the nobility was no longer the enemy but rather the bourgeoisie. Finally, in 1830 the republican left believed that revolution in France could lead to war between France and the European monarchies, whereas the republican party, decimated at the end of the regime, hoped for the reverse.
By the time of the 1848 revolution, the republican left had become more conciliatory because republicans were now in power and they did not wish to overturn the regime. Instead, Lamartine spoke of a "defensive patriotism," which he outlined in his manifesto of 4 March 1848. France, he declared, did not accept the treaties of 1815, but it would not declare war on its neighbors, preferring to serve as an example to European monarchies. This declaration, as Darriulat illustrates, represented a profound break with the revolutionary past and would serve as a model for the republican left later in the century. The pacifism of the republicans of 1848 was accompanied by a belief in harmony and peace among nations led by France under the banner of the revolutionary ideal of fraternity.
Another important step in the evolution of the revolutionary left took place in the wake of the June Days. Not only were those on the left profoundly divided, they were also disillusioned. Universal suffrage and democracy were no longer viewed as a panacea since they led to the presidency of Louis-Napoleon and eventually to the establishment of the Second Empire. The nation and the state, which had thus far been inextricably linked in the minds of republicans, were now divorced. Moreover, in the wake of the repression of the coup d’état of 2 December 1851, republicans who had previously held the army in great esteem began to see it as an organ of repression. The rejection of a strong state, internationalism, and antimilitarism were developments further explored by the leaders of the First International, who no longer looked to citizens but rather to workers who would unite in a universal brotherhood.
The communards proclaimed the old revolutionary patriotic rhetoric, but the leaders of the Third Republic, more practical and, perhaps, less visionary, preferred to adopt Lamartine’s thesis of defensive patriotism. As Darriulat observes, they definitively established the republic in France, but their version was shorn of much of its revolutionary patriotic legacy.
The most important contribution of Darriulat’s book is to illustrate that the break in the history of the French left with regard to revolutionary fervor and patriotism came not under the Third Republic but during the Second, under the leadership of Lamartine. Furthermore, during the Second Empire, in the wake of the founding of the First International, pacifist ideals were articulated not only by Marx but also by such leaders of the French left as Proudhon. Darriulat also dispels the notion that the colonial program dates from the Third Republic. As he clearly demonstrates, the colonial mission, itself part of France’s mission civilisatrice, was already well articulated under the July Monarchy.
While Les Patriotes is useful to general readers as well as to specialists, it is most accessible to those closely acquainted with the period. The author often assumes that readers are familiar with the names and organizations he mentions yet many of them, with the noted exception of such individuals as Lamartine and Blanqui, may be unknown to those who are not specialists. More biographical information on the individuals and associations in question in the body of the book and, perhaps, even in a separate appendix would have been welcome--the tables presented by Alan Spitzer in his excellent work on The Generation of 1820 come to mind.[3] Darriulat’s book is filled with long quotations from the republicans he is studying. While the actual words of these individuals are extremely important--Darriulat quotes from texts with which most general readers are not familiar--one often has to look hard for the identity of the person speaking and the source of the quote. It would have been more reader friendly to include such information in the body of the book rather than simply in the endnotes.
With regard to the subject matter covered in Les Patriotes, a broader discussion about patriotism and the republicans of the Third Republic would have rounded out the book, even though the rationale for stopping with the Commune is understandable. Moreover, a more detailed examination of the revolutionary patriots vis-à-vis the Napoleonic legacy would have been illuminating. Darriulat only briefly mentions the rivalry between the republicans and the Bonapartists of the Second Empire with regard to patriotism. These concerns, however, are minor quibbles with an otherwise excellent book on a topic that has heretofore been little studied.
NOTES
[1] Maurice Agulhon, The French Republic, 1879-1992 (Oxford and Cambridge, Mass. Basil Blackwell, 1995); Claude Nicolet, L’Idée républicaine en France: Essai d’histoire critique (Paris: Gallimard, 1982); Pierre Nora, ed. Les Lieux de Mémoire, 7 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 1984-1992). I would have liked Darriulat to address these works more directly than he does in his introduction; instead, he leaves it to the reader to distinguish his project from those listed above. The Agulhon and Nicolet books, as their titles indicate, address the history of the republic and the concept of the republic, respectively. While the monumental Lieux de Mémoire contains essays that cover the republic and patriotism, they concentrate on the periods of the French Revolution and the Third Republic.
[2] Zeev Sternhell, La Droite révolutionnaire: Les Origines françaises du fascisme, 1885-1914 (Paris: Seuil, 1978).
[3] Alan Spitzer, The French Generation of 1820 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987).
Venita Datta
Wellesley College
Vdatta@wellesley.edu
Copyright © 2002 by the Society for French Historical Studies, all rights reserved. The Society for French Historical Studies permits the electronic distribution for nonprofit educational purposes, provided that full and accurate credit is given to the author, the date of publication, and its location on the H-France website. No republication or distribution by print media will be permitted without permission. For any other proposed uses, contact the Editor-in-Chief of H-France.
H-France Review Vol. 2 (June 2002), No. 47
ISSN 1553-9172
