This concept of an oppositional nationalism, of constructing the nation in opposition to the Republic, would be at the heart of the politics of the new right that would explode so dramatically in the Dreyfus affair. While the ways in which elements of the church laid the ground in terms of anti-Semitism has been examined, too little attention has been paid to the Church’s insistent usage of the language of nation.145 This did not mean that either Maurice Barrès or Charles Maurras were necessarily informed by the Church - nor that the Church would agree with their understandings of nation. It is notable that Maurras’s reading of history diverged significantly from the ideas of Reims - for instance, Maurras applauded Clovis for having engaged in political murder.146 What is evident at Reims, is not the secular nationalism of a Barrès or Maurras, nor solely the familiar idea that the history of France could be read in providential terms, nor that the continuity of French history was embodied in Catholic heroes. The latter ideas were by no means novel; indeed, they were articulated with reference to the papal zouaves in the 1860s, the faithful defenders of the temporal sovereignty of the pope against the revolutionary and subversive Italian nationalists.147 In an era which saw the extinction of the temporal sovereignty of the papacy, nationalist principles were hard to square with Catholicism. The papal zouaves were in effect the papacy’s counter to the nationalist agenda.148
Reims reflected the pontificate of Leo XIII not only in its more or less grudging embrace of the ralliement, but also in its shift away from the determinedly reactionary ideas embodied in Pius IX’s 1864 Syllabus of Errors, which effectively anathematised the Revolution and the nineteenth century in its entirety. In this changed context it was possible to adopt the language of nationalism, notwithstanding the transnational aspects of Catholicism visible in the ‘Romanisation’ of the Church that developed after the mid nineteenth century and the increased emphasis on the person and authority of the Pope. Catholics in the 1890s mobilised not against nationalism as in the 1860s, but in favour of a determinedly Catholic nationalism that directly challenged the Republic’s official nationalism. The appeal to the Christian traditions of France found at Reims was part of a wider rethinking that imparted a strong nationalist charge to French Catholicism. Catholics played a key role in constructing an alternative vision of the nation that could be appealed to as an alternative pole of loyalty to the Republic. In this sense Reims was about counter-revolution. Yet, paradoxical though this might seem, this is not to claim that Reims represented at heart a rejection of the possibility of any workable accommodation with the Republic. The point is rather that accepting the legitimacy of the Republic and embracing constitutional action offered the hope to make the Republic and its institutions Christian, reconciling Catholic ‘true France’ and the Republic. France freed from the ‘masonic sect’, the rights and liberties of the Church recognised - the announced ultimate goal of ralliés from de Mun to Lamy - would see, to paraphrase François Furet, the reunion of the Catholic country with its tradition.
Share with your friends: |