French Revolutionary Thought after the Paris Commune, 1871-1885 Julia Catherine Nicholls Queen Mary University of London Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Statement of Originality I, Julia Catherine Nicholls, confirm that the research included within this thesis is my own work or that where it has been carried out in collaboration with, or supported by others, that this is duly acknowledged below and my contribution indicated. Previously published material is also acknowledged below. I attest that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge break any UK law, infringe any third party’s copyright or other Intellectual Property Right, or contain any confidential material. I accept that the College has the right to use plagiarism detection software to check the electronic version of the thesis. I confirm that this thesis has not been previously submitted for the award of a degree by this or any other university. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. Signature: Julia Catherine Nicholls Date: 23 September 2015 Abstract This thesis provides the first comprehensive account of French revolutionary thought in the years that followed the defeat of the 1871 Paris Commune, France’s last nineteenth- century revolution. The Commune as an event has captivated imaginations for the past 150 years, but the same cannot be said of its participants. With the majority either dead, deported, or in exile, this period has traditionally been seen as one of intellectual stagnation and disarray. After the fleeting unity of the Commune, revolutionaries are thought to have admitted defeat, divided into groups, and drifted towards a series of prefabricated, orthodox intellectual positions. I argue that this is not a satisfactory representation of post-Commune revolutionary thought. Revolutionary thought cannot be characterised using later neat assignations of ‘left’ and ‘right’; ‘Marxist’, ‘nationalist’, or ‘anarchist’. Drawing upon the work of thinkers and activists from across the revolutionary spectrum, I demonstrate that this was a period of intellectual fluidity and engagement, as activists experimented with a variety of ways to reconstruct a unified, credible, and autonomous French revolutionary movement. Even as they were increasingly physically and politically divided, they remained united by this commitment until well into the 1880s. I trace this thought through a series of themes including revolutionary interactions with Marxism and new imperialism. This thesis thus also provides new perspectives on the construction of these wider doctrines, and on the political and social history of late nineteenth-century Europe more generally. Finally, by offering a fresh look at what has often been considered one of its most fundamental periods, I also seek to interrogate and revise our understanding of the revolutionary tradition itself – a concept that played a pivotal role in both political thought and practice for substantial periods of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Table of Contents Note on translation Acknowledgements Introduction 7 Chapter One: Thanks for the memories 23 Truth 28 Violence 40 Legacy 51 Chapter Two: Revolutions are never over 62 History 66 Religion 82 Evolution 94 Chapter Three: On your Marx 107 Marx 111 Marxism 129 Chapter Four: The empire strikes back 150 Deportation 155 Exile 172 Imbrication 185 Conclusion 195 Image 1 203 Image 2 204 Image 3 205 Image 4 206 Image 5 207 Image 6 208 Bibliography 209 5 Note on Translation Quotes are provided in the text in English translation. All translations into English, unless otherwise stated, are my own. Originals are provided in the footnotes. Where issues of translation are of particular academic importance, the original is provided in the text and an English translation in the relevant footnote. 6 Acknowledgements I am grateful to Queen Mary University of London and the Principal’s Studentship scheme for providing me with the funding for this thesis. The staff at the British Library newspaper archives in Colindale, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the Archives de la Préfecture de Police in Paris, the Bibliothèque universitaire de Genève, and especially those at the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam provided me with invaluable assistance during my numerous visits, and for this I am also extremely thankful. It has been a privilege to be supervised by Gareth Stedman Jones. His help, support, and advice have been unparalleled, simultaneously guiding me in productive directions and forcing me to think for myself. I cannot now imagine a better supervisor. I further thank Gareth for providing me with parts of his forthcoming book on Karl Marx, and Jeremy Jennings for kindly lending me his copy of a very recent and very relevant French thesis. Several other people in the School of History have also made my years at Queen Mary enjoyable ones. I am incredibly grateful for the advice, encouragement, and opportunities that Miri Rubin and Georgios Varouxakis have given me. Richard Bourke has done all of these things, and provided insightful comments on numerous pieces of my work as well. I am fortunate to have been supervised by many wonderful historians over the past few years, and even more fortunate to have remained in touch with some of them. Of these, I am particularly thankful to Robert Tombs and the late Christopher Bayly. Both have encouraged me no end and kindly took time to read and comment on parts of this thesis. Callum Barrell has copied everything I have done for the last eight years, and I am so happy that he did. As with many other things, I have enjoyed this experience so much more for sharing it with him. Arthur Asseraf has read every piece of important work I have ever submitted, fished me out of pools of despair, shared my interests, and been a peerless cheerleader. He is an unquestionable chinchilla, and I cannot begin to describe how grateful I am. Finally, thank you to my parents, both living and dead, whose example daily inspires me to try to be the best that I can be. 7 Introduction Following the defeat of the Paris Commune in late May 1871, its participants and supporters were frequently moved to declare that while ‘le cadavre est à terre…l’idée est debout’: ‘the body may have fallen, but the idea still stands’ [IMG 1].1 Historians, political commentators, and world leaders alike have advanced their own interpretations of the events of spring 1871 since the last shots were fired. What precisely ex- Communards believed this idea to be, however, has never been clear. This thesis addresses itself to this question. Through an exploration of the nature and content of French revolutionary thought from the years immediately following the Commune’s fall, it demonstrates that this idea was not a specific policy or doctrine. Rather, by extensively redefining familiar concepts and using their circumstances creatively, it was the idea of a distinct, united, and politically viable French revolutionary movement that activists sought to preserve. The relative success of these efforts, furthermore, has significant implications for the ways in which scholars understand both the founding years of the French Third Republic and the nature of the modern revolutionary tradition. In the small hours of 18 March 1871, troops from the French Army marched into Paris. Their objective was the removal of a number of cannons that had formed part of the capital’s defence during the four-month long Siege of Paris that brought to an end the Franco Prussian War. News of the soldiers’ early morning arrival spread quickly through the working-class districts of Belleville, Buttes-Chaumont, and Montmartre where the artillery was being stored. Still aggrieved by the city’s treatment at the hands of the Prussians and the French government during the war and subsequent peace negotiations, angry residents and fédérés from the National Guard poured out into the streets. Pleas for calm fell on deaf ears, and before long the military operation had precipitated an armed revolt. By the end of the day, two generals lay dead, rebels had 1 See for example the cover of P.-O. Lissagaray, Les huit journées de mai derrière les barricades (Brussels: Au bureau du Petit journal, 1871); Pilotell, ‘La Commune de Paris: le cadavre est à terre et l’idée est debout (Victor Hugo)’ (1871. Musée Carnavalet, Paris); La Bataille (Paris), 19 March 1885. This is also the motto of the Association des Amies et Amis de la Commune de Paris 1871. The phrase was originally Victor Hugo’s. See V. Hugo, La voix de Guernesey (Guernsey: Imprimerie T.- M. Bichard, 1867), p.14. 8 assumed control of key strategic buildings in the city, and what remained of the army had beaten a hasty retreat to Versailles with the government hot on its heels. For the next two months, Paris ruled itself as a revolutionary commune. It swiftly held municipal elections, passed legislation, and waged war against the national government. This situation came to an end on 21 May 1871 when the French Army re- entered Paris, commencing a week of street battles that quickly came to be known as the Semaine Sanglante.2 As the army overcame the Communards one street and one barricade at a time, the capital went up in flames around them; the City of Light now a city on fire. Fleeing revolutionaries killed a number of hostages including the Archbishop of Paris, while the advancing troops were liable to shoot anyone they suspected of participation in the Commune.3 By the time the final Communards were defeated on 28 May amidst the graves of Père-Lachaise cemetery, thousands had been killed – the vast majority revolutionaries4 – in what Robert Tombs has termed ‘the worst violence committed against civilians in Europe between the French and Russian Revolutions’.5 In the weeks, months, and years that followed, the war against the Commune did not dissipate, but merely changed form.