Politics and Political Culture in France, 1737-1794

William S. Cormack. Revolution and Political Conflict in the French Navy, 1789-1794. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. xiii + 343 pp. $59.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-521-47209-8. John Hardman. French Politics 1774-1789: From the Accession of Louis XVI to the Fall of the Bastille. New York and London: Longman, 1995. x + 283 pp. $29.58, paper, ISBN 978-0-582-23649-3. John Rogister. Louis XV and the Parlement of Paris, 1737-1755. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. xxv + 288 pp. $69.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-521-40395-5. Julian Swann. Politics and the Parlement of Paris under Louis XV, 1754-1774. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. x + 390 pp. $41.99, paper, ISBN 978-0-521-48362-9. Reviewed by Kenneth Margerison Published on H-France (September, 1997) H-Net Reviews For the last decade and a half historians have Three of the four authors--John Rogister, Ju‐ been industriously ploughing the fertile feld of lian Swann, and John Hardman--whose books are eighteenth-century French political culture.[1] under review in this essay concentrate on aspects The emphasis in this endeavor has been on ideol‐ of the political history of Old Regime France, and ogy and the language that expresses it. Historians all three either directly or indirectly argue that of political culture have identified and analyzed political culture provides no valid insight into the the various discourses developed during the sec‐ political history of France. In fact these historians, ond half of the century in an effort to understand all of whom make extensive use of archival better the underlying bases of the political activity sources, argue that Old Regime political activity in this period. Discourse, as viewed by these histo‐ took place entirely apart from the public sphere. rians, provided the means by which political op‐ Politics in this period, according to these analyses, ponents battled each other in the public sphere in was practiced behind closed doors in the king's hopes of winning the approval of public opinion. chateau at Versailles or within the hidden recess‐ According to Keith Baker, one of the most notable es of the Palais de justice in Paris. Politics was the scholars of this phenomenon, political power it‐ work of the king's ministers, magistrates, and, self rested with those who controlled the language sometimes, his courtiers, mistresses, and wife. Po‐ of politics. Historians who accept the legitimacy of litical disputes were not public affairs, and public the concept of political culture assume that politi‐ opinion mattered little in the decisions reached in cal activity takes place within the framework of a the halls of power. Thus, by its very nature poli‐ variety of competing political languages.[2] tics could have nothing to do with discourse or Could politics actually have been practiced in ideology. If a political language was developed this fashion in Old Regime France with its abso‐ and propagated among the public, it had no effect lute monarchy, the absence of a nationally elected on political decisions or the implementation of representative body, and restrictions on the free‐ those decisions. Even in those instances where it dom of speech and press? Even after 1789 when might appear that ideological considerations or representative institutions and free communica‐ public opinion had influenced a political outcome, tions were in place, were politics actually shaped some deeply hidden motive or secret activity by political culture rather than personal relation‐ could be discovered to provide a more convincing ships, rivalries, and ambitions? Traditional politi‐ rationale for a particular political result. Concen‐ cal and social historians, accustomed to working trating on revolutionary France, William S. Cor‐ with archival materials, may remain a bit uneasy mack, the fourth author, interprets political activi‐ about conclusions regarding political activity ty quite differently. Largely basing his study on drawn from the publications of individuals who archival research, Cormack, nevertheless, argues were not themselves in positions of authority. Did that revolutionary politics must be understood as the language of these publications really repre‐ part of a society-wide political culture. Thus all sent the positions of the parlements or the min‐ four authors raise, from different perspectives, istry, and, if so, did they have any bearing on po‐ the issue of the value of political culture as an an‐ litical practice or outcome? One might even legiti‐ alytical tool for better understanding the politics mately ask if historians of political culture do not of eighteenth-century France. merely study words instead of a political reality Politics in mid-eighteenth-century France, ac‐ which can only be recovered by empirical re‐ cording to John Rogister, was confined to the search on individuals and the events and situa‐ tightly restricted world of Louis XV, his ministers, tions of their political lives. the upper clergy, and the magistrates in the pre‐ eminent court of the realm, the Parlement of 2 H-Net Reviews Paris. What specifically interests Rogister are the magistrates ultimately led to the exile of the Par‐ relationships between important ministers and lement in 1753-1754, to the arrest of its least tem‐ the parlementary leaders which provide the key, perate members, and to its replacement by the he believes, to understanding the nature of the Chambre royale du Louvre. Rogister argues that great political dispute of the 1750s, the refusal of Louis, with the encouragement of the prince de sacraments affair. These relationships were col‐ Conti, also played an active personal role in the ored by the internal workings of both the king's resolution of the crisis by making overtures to councils and the Parlement of Paris as well as by Maupeou and drafting the Law of Silence on Uni‐ the political alliances and rivalries that existed genitus. within both bodies. Having undertaken an ex‐ For all of the detail provided on the various haustive examination of the archival evidence rel‐ political maneuvers surrounding this affair, Ro‐ evant to his subject--much of which resides in pri‐ gister's study has some strange omissions. The vate family collections scattered across France-- parti janseniste, for instance, hardly appears in the author has acquired an intimate knowledge of the narrative of events. There are indeed radical the important personalities and the day-to-day op‐ magistrates, identified as zeles, but Rogister eration of the king's government. makes clear that these are not all Jansenists. After The major focus of the volume is the denial of a brief description of Jansenism and the nature of sacraments affair which began in 1752 when the the Bull Unigenitus, the account proceeds as if the archbishop of Paris, Christophe de Beaumont, be‐ refusal of sacraments issue had virtually no con‐ gan enforcing a policy of refusing the sacraments nection to the Jansenist attack on this papal pro‐ to dying clergy and members of religious orders nouncement. The Grand Remonstrances were who refused to accept the Bull Unigenitus, the pa‐ drafted by Jansenist partisans including the abbe pal condemnation of Jansenist principles issued in Mey, the author of Apologie de tous les jugements, 1713. The intervention of the Parlement of Paris, a major contribution to Jansenist political theory. designed to prevent the implementation of this Rogister mentions the authors, but says little policy, ultimately led to bitter and acrimonious re‐ about their motivations and nothing about their lations between Louis XV and the magistrates of Jansenist convictions. In describing the impor‐ the court. Rogister describes in great detail how tance of the remonstrances for the concept of the this situation ultimately degenerated into open Fundamental Laws, he makes no references to the political hostilities. The actions of the Parlement Jansenist influence on this argument. were to a large extent the result of First President Rogister's view of politics in the eighteenth Rene Charles de Maupeou's belief that the govern‐ century is one of secret transactions within a ment was trying to undercut his authority. When closed circle of influential men, whereas much of the Parlement decided to draft remonstrances in the Jansenist program had been developed in the January 1753, Maupeou refused to play a role in public sphere by numerous Jansenist theoreti‐ the process, thus leaving the way open for more cians. The Grand Remonstrances would seem to radical elements among the magistrates to influ‐ be an example of the point of convergence be‐ ence the document's form (p. 163). The resulting tween public and non-public political activity. Ap‐ Grand Remonstrances of 3 April 1753 made par‐ parently refusing to consider the possibility that ticular claims for the Fundamental Laws of the the magistrates might have found some of the realm including an insistence on the rule of law Jansenist-inspired political language appealing, and the requirement of the sovereign to obey this Rogister provides no convincing explanation as to law. Louis XV's refusal to accept the remon‐ why the entire Parlement accepted such a docu‐ strances and the subsequent judicial strike by the 3 H-Net Reviews ment outside of Maupeou's refusal to take a hand of this episode cannot blithely ignore the in its drafting and difficulties among the four Jansenist influence on the actions of the magis‐ commissioners charged with the task. Surely the trates. Yet Rogister appears to be determined to magistrates did not adopt the Grand Remon‐ demonstrate that the entire history of the rela‐ strances simply because the traditional discipline tionship between the Parlement of Paris and imposed on them by their leadership had broken Louis XV can be understood through the political down. maneuvers of the ministers and the most impor‐ Rogister is equally disdainful of that other pil‐ tant magistrates.

Load more