(1) SINCE this review of personalities opened with the sentimental and pedantic Chateaubriand, it is not inappropriate that it should close with the sternly logical and erudite de Maistre. In his Critical Miscellanies, Morley brackets the names of these two churchmen together 1 as the representatives of the same school of thought, and speaks of them as interesting to us today because of their influence on the Positivist philosophers. There are many striking similarities between them, but one ventures to think that it is their divergent influences upon posterity that make "some knowledge of them of the highest historical interest both to those who accept and those who detest" 2 their systems.

Their similarities may be briefly summarized. Both had an intense love of religion and in its defense led a revolt against the eighteenth-century philosophy; both looked upon France, in the words of de Maistre himself, as "the most beautiful kingdom after that of Heaven." Both of them

1 "The three most conspicuous champions of revived Catholicism were de Maistre, de Bonald, and Chateaubriand. The last of them, the author of the Génie du Christianisme, was effective in France because he was so deeply sentimental, but he was too little trained in speculation, and too little equipped with knowledge to be fairly taken as the best intellectual representative of their way of thinking. . . . De Maistre was the greatest of the three and deserves better than either of the others to stand as the type of the school for many reasons." Morley John, Critical Miscellanies (London, 1886), vol. ii, pp. 261-262.
2 Ibid., p. 260.

influenced the age that followed them to such an extent that their names became words to conjure with.

But, if for a time this influence appeared to run in the same direction, so that the two great critics of the eighteenth-century philosophy became known as "the champions of revived Catholicism," 3 future events were to unfold a mighty divergence in their speculative systems. In a word, Chateaubriand, with his deeply sentimental outlook, helped to forward the cause of emotional nationalism, while de Maistre's writings, on the other hand, encouraged the Church to place its hope in a Draconian discipline, as the only way to keep within bounds a flood of hazy liberalism which threatened to undermine the foundations of faith and authority."

If one may be permitted to anticipate at this point, the alternative paths marked out for the Church by Chateaubriand and de Maistre can be clearly set in contrast to each other in the hardening years between 1864 and 1870-momentous years of decision in the history of the Roman See.

In some recently published lectures by the late J. B. Bury, The Papacy in the Nineteenth Century, that keen historian asks, "Why was the Syllabus of 1864 hurled into the face of modern society?" 5 He rightly disposes of his own question by answering that the Syllabus was not aimed at modern society, but was intended as a death blow at Catholic liberalism. In other words, the spiritual descendants of de Maistre were preparing for a battle to the death with the spiritual descendants of Chateaubriand--the lines of which were clearly and unmistakably drawn in the Syllabus of 1864. The former had come to the stern resolve that it was neces-

3 Vide supra, note 1.
4 Vide infra, ch. x, pp. 237-239.
5 Bury J. B., History of the Papacy in the Nineteenth Century (edited by R. H. Murray, London, 1930), lect. ii, p. 43.

sary to crush the liberal movement within the Church, to enable the Papacy to cope effectually with the most relentless of its enemies, the omnipotent national state.

The Syllabus, on the face of it, with its very meticulous cataloguing of modern errors, was drawn up for the express purpose of leaving no resources upon which the proponents of Catholic liberalism might seize in order to continue their attempts to compromise with modern society.

Modern society and the omnipotent state were for the Ultramontanes synonomous terms; and since the state had determined to allow no extra-sovereignty within its boundaries, it had become a monster threatening the spiritual independence of the Church. The Syllabus was a warning in no uncertain terms to those Catholics who had taken up the slogan, "the reconciliation of religion with modern society," 6 that they were attempting to compromise with an implacable foe, and that the Church was going to put an end to such dangerous flirting with the enemy. Nor is it to be wondered at that Cardinal Manning, who had abandoned the Church of England because the state had presumed to dictate its dogmas, should have become the leader of the fight on liberalism. 7

The Syllabus of 1864 was the harbinger of the decrees of 1870. The latter again were based upon the resolve to meet the attacks of the modern state with all the spiritual weapons within the armory of the Church. Since the negotiations of 1801, the Papacy had been making futile attempts to find a modus vivendi with the new state that arose out of the Revolution of 1789. In days gone by, it had been possible through the medium of concordats to come to terms with the

6 Falloux Comte de, Discours et mélanges politiques (Paris, 1882, 2nd ed.), tom. i, p. 64.
7 Concerning the important part played by Manning at the Vatican Council (1870), vide Bury, op. cit., passim.

rulers of self-conscious national states, but a concordat with the new nationalism had proved a far more difficult problem. Every concession on the part of the Church had been followed by still greater demands on the part of those who represented their respective Fatherlands; nor had liberal nationalism shown itself any less suspicious of religious sovereignty than had Jacobin, as Pius IX could eloquently testify. 8

The conclusion had been borne in upon the leaders of the Catholic Church that there was no basis for an agreement between the modern state and the Roman See in the matter of sovereignty. Consequently, it became the Church's policy to put aside the precedents that had been created in the concordats of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and to take a firm stand on the dogmatic declarations of the Middle Ages in the matter of ecclesiastical polity. Thus may one interpret Manning's cryptic assertion, that "dogma must conquer history." 9 In other words, even if historical precedents could be brought forth to show that the Holy See had in times past acknowledged a limitation of its freedom of action in national states, these precedents were henceforth to be obliterated from the minds of the faithful by a forceful redeclaration of the principles of the great Ultramontane Popes, from Hildebrand to Boniface VIII.

The Encyclical, Quanta Cura (1864), asserted: "The Church is a true and perfectly free society, and it preserves its own permanent rights conferred on it by its divine founder; and it is not the business of the state to determine what are the rights of the Church and within what limits it may exercise them." 10 This is said in the true de Maistre style, and indicates how far the Church had traveled in his

10 Ibid., lect. i, p. 18.
8 This attitude is clearly revealed in Laurent F., L'Église et l'État depuis la Révolution (Brussels, 1862), pp. 455-496 (especially).
9 Bury, op. cit., lect. ii, p. 43.

direction since the days of the negotiations with Napoleon Bonaparte. It is also an evidence of a growing antagonism to the ever expanding claims of nationalism, and a deepening knowledge of a menace which threatened the integrity of the Catholic faith. To Joseph de Maistre we now turn, as the originator of the idea of making "dogma conquer history."

(2) In the selection of representative characters through whom to study the effects of the Concordat on the national and religious life of France, it has been our purpose to confine ourselves chiefly to Frenchmen. Joseph de Maistre is an exception to our rule, but for all intents and purposes he may be regarded as truly French. 11 Though a citizen of Savoy, he was also a descendant of a Languedoc family that had emigrated to Piedmont at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The elder branch of the family had remained in France, and Joseph always strove to keep in touch with his kinsfolk there.

The old aristocratic feeling of blood undoubtedly attracted him to the land of his forebears, and, moreover, he held the French mind in high repute, especially what he termed its proselytizing power. 12 In those well-known volumes of his, Evenings in St. Petersburg, he misses no opportunity to raise a pæan of glory to everything French. The French language, which was his own, is constantly the object of his admiration. France, for him, was a country chosen by God to perform a great mission for the world, and the means by which she should accomplish her destiny was through her language.

11 These biographical details are taken from a Notice Biographique, by his son, to Lettres et Opuscules; found in Œuvres Complètes de J. de Maistre (Lyon, 1891), tom. i.
12 Ibid., tom. iv, Les Soirées de Saint-Petersbourg, p. 378.

When, during the Congress of Vienna, it was proposed to break up the French state because of its preponderant power in the comity of nations, de Maistre indignantly wrote to a friend, "They wish to dismember France; is this to enrich some power of the second order . . .? It is to the poor House of Austria that they wish to give Alsace, Lorraine, Flanders. What equilibrium! Good God! I could say a thousand thousand things on this point." 13

It is clear from this that the son of a former president of the Senate of Savoy considered himself more French than Savoyard. Though he might serve as an envoy extraordinary of the king of Savoy at St. Petersburg, he regarded himself at the time as an exile, because of the Revolution, from all he held dear; and he utilized his long winter evenings in explaining why France had fallen into the abyss, and how she might again achieve the greatness that had once been hers.

In the first rank of his loyalties, however, must be placed the Catholic Church; it took precedence over all others; and its authority to dictate his manner and mode of life he never for one moment questioned.

Respect for authority of all kinds--religious, monarchical and parental--was one of the outstanding characteristics of de Maistre's personality. It had been so well instilled into him by his Jesuit instructors in his boyhood days, that, while he was at the University of Turin, he never read a book without first writing to either his father or his mother for permission. 14 Authority, in time, became the very warp and woof of his speculative system.

13 Ibid., tom. i, Lettres et Opuscules, p. 5.
14 Ibid., tom. i, p. vi,

(3) In those evenings at St. Petersburg, to which reference has already been made, de Maistre had ample opportunity to meditate on the French Revolution which had caused so many injuries to himself and his family. He had, from the first, regarded it with horror, but now in his enforced idleness he tried to understand and explain it.

It was not long before he discovered the source of all the woe that had been let loose upon the world. An old theological phrase, which had been thrown over as obsolete by the optimistic philosophers of the eighteenth century, became the key to the puzzling situation that prevailed in Europe at the time he was writing. The phrase was original sin. This abandoned term "explained all, and without it one could explain nothing." 15 Original sin menaced society at every moment. It was this danger that the eighteenth-century philosophers had totally ignored, and, as a consequence, those who had brought about the French Revolution had conspicuously failed to establish any stable form of government to take the place of that which they had so light-heartedly overthrown.

Though de Maistre poured scorn on any theory of the perfectibility of mankind, it would not be true to say that he regarded man as wholly given over to evil. In fact, in his defense of God's goodness against those who would impugn it because of the existence of evil, he asserted that man might have been naturally on the side of righteousness. It was because God had willed the virtues, which, as he put it, could not possibly be virtues unless they are man's free choice, that there is evil in the world. Evil is the inevitable negative to God's positive goodness. The great truth, he said, that one must never lose sight of, is that "a general law, if it is not

15 Ibid., tom. iv, p. 61.

unjust for all, should not be so for the individual." To this statement he added the explanatory remark, "One does not have sickness because one is able to have it, but because one is able to be free from it." And just as one would not choose sickness naturally, so man, if he had not the taint of Adam, would not choose evil naturally. 16 Furthermore, if man should naturally love evil, it would mean that God had "created him evil, a thing manifestly absurd.""If now," says de Maistre, "man is subject to ignorance and evil, that can only be because of an accidental degradation which must be the consequence of a crime." A crime committed in the dim past, then, is the cause that leads men into crimes today, since it "altered the moral principle" which should naturally have governed the human race; and this degradation, says our philosopher, "is as transmissible as scrofula or syphilis." Thus a discordant note has been imported into the race from which all other species are free. Or as de Maistre phrased it, "Man alone is discontented and this discontent is at every moment a proof of his grandeur and his misery, of his sublime privileges and his unbelievable degradation." 17

The high task that our author conceived for himself was to warn Europe of the danger to which it would be forever subject, if it did not confine the menace of original sin within proper bounds. We miss the true significance of his endeavor if we regard Du Pape as so much propaganda for the See of Rome. Primarily, his object in that much-debated book was the maintenance of the structure of the civilization of western Europe. 18

De Maistre regarded Europe as integrally one. To the Papacy he ascribed the great merit of having rescued the

16 Ibid., tom. iv, pp. 20-22.
17 Ibid., tom. iv, p. 66.
18 Vide infra, p. 225.

Empire from the degradation into which it had been hurled by the half-civilized tribes of the North. When all other powers had quailed before the onslaught of the barbarous Germans, the Church had had the courage boldly to challenge them with a new and higher ideal than had previously been theirs, and had thus created a spiritual bond of unity amongst the various warring tribes. De Maistre's only hope for the future of the race was that the Church could again achieve that wonderful feat of past history, and save Europe from the great degradation into which the French Revolution had thrust it. 19

The eighteenth-century philosophers' praise of variety was hardly pleasing to him; he sought not for differences, but for unity. "The two greatest epochs in the spiritual world," he announced to his imaginary companions in Evenings in St. Petersburg, "were without doubt that of Babel, where the languages were divided, and that of Pentecost, where a mervellous effort was made to reunite them . . ." Whoever strove for Babel, according to de Maistre, strove for the devil; while those who strove for unity were on the side of God. "It is vice," he said, "which separates men, as virtue unites them." The significance of the Mass, for him, was its ever perpetual reminder that God, in instituting this service, intended that it should be a symbol of mankind's unity. "Men have not found," he said, "a sign of unity more expressive than that of meeting together in accord for a common meal." 20

(4) Europe had sadly strayed from that much-to-be-desired unity when de Maistre began to pour out his thoughts in St. Petersburg on the subject of Church and state. It was

19 De Maistre, Œuvres Complètes, tom. ii, Du Pape, p. 172.
20 Ibid., tom. v, Les Soirées de Saint-Petersbourg, pp. 173-175.

necessary that he explain how it happened that the work so brilliantly accomplished in the Middle Ages was so suddenly brought to nought in the eighteenth century. Our philosopher had no difficulty in apportioning the blame for the disaster he conceived the French Revolution to have been. The eighteenth-century philosophers were the culprits, and he minced no words in his condemnation of their systems; but his first reproof was for the English Locke, who had led French imitators into their most glaring blunders. Locke's long dissertation on sense-knowledge and the origin of ideas, he called an English comedy, Much Ado about Nothing. 21

In contravention of Locke's theory, he asserted that it is the power of generalization which gives man his preeminent place among all the species of the earth. It is this power which "makes man what he is." Such a power, he assures us, does not proceed from the senses, for on this basis man would be no better than a beast. He allows that the senses "receive impressions and transmit them to the intelligence, but the latter alone is able to render them intelligible." His great objection to Locke's system is the impossibility of building up any idealistic philosophy when knowledge is limited to sense perception. The senses themselves, he says, "are foreign to every spiritual idea, and they even ignore their own operation." The eyesight, for instance, "neither sees itself seeing, nor sees what it sees." If anyone should ask him, "What then sees?" he would direct them to St. Thomas Aquinas' beautiful line, "Man sees with his soul and the soul is thought." Since thought, then, is the essence of man, to persist in asking what is "the origin of ideas, is to ask the origin of origin." 22

21 Ibid., tom. iv, p. 343.
22 Ibid., tom. iv, pp. 115-117.

Thus did he dispose of Locke's magnificent network of primary and secondary causes, based on sense perception. But not before he had hurled columns of abuse on the speculative system which had led men into a materialistic conception of the universe, and which finally had brought on the disaster of the French Revolution. 23 The English philosopher is described as the "enemy of every moral authority," since he "only took up his pen for the purpose of argument and contradiction." Philosophy for de Maistre was a far more serious business than juggling with propositions which threw doubt on the moral basis of the universe. A negative book in his opinion could only be regarded as an "infantile production," and it was a great grief to him that the Essay Concerning Human Understanding should have attracted so many spirits with "talents even superior to that of the author himself."

Locke's other characteristic, according to de Maistre, was superficiality, and it also became the distinguishing trait of the French imitators of the Lockian system. At this point, he feels that a feeble word can be said in excuse of Locke, in that he did not realize what he was doing, because he never "really explored a question to its depth." This, however, was a sign of mediocrity, since, as our author puts it, mediocrity "approaches the most important questions without even perceiving them." 24 The vile system is finally disposed of as follows:

It is death to all religion, to all exquisite sentiment, to every sublime impulse. Every father of a family must be well advised against receiving it under his roof. It is really able to put life to flight; no warmth is ever able to remain before its glacial breath. 25

23 Ibid., tom. iv, p. 372.
24 Ibid., tom. iv, p. 361.
25 ibid., tom. iv, p. 369.

For a horrible example of the effects of this mediocre philosophy, he did not have to go far afield. Its results he clearly saw in the visage of Voltaire whose "art, eloquence and some graces of style were marred by lack of gravity, good faith and dignity." If he (Voltaire) made Europe laugh, then so much the worse for Europe, since his pleasantries excited only an illegitimate smile, which de Maistre would term a grimace. If he had any excuse to make for Locke, he had none for Voltaire. Thus does he characterize the great mocker:

Other cynics have amazed the virtuous; Voltaire amazed the vicious. He plunged himself into the dirt; he rolled about in it; . . . he raised his imagination to the enthusiasm of hell, and hell took all his forces to train them for the extreme limits of evil. Paris crowned him, Sodom has banished him. 26

It now becomes clear why de Maistre so overwhelmed Locke with reproaches. Whoever was responsible for the mocking spirit of Voltaire, had committed a crime which no language was too harsh to condemn. But Locke had still another offense to answer for, that was, his treatise Of Civil Government. As our author puts it, "After having defined the fundamentals of a false and dangerous philosophy, his fatal spirit turned to politics with a success no less deplorable." His political theories were mediated to France in the form of the Social Contract, and thus, according to de Maistre, he was indirectly the author of "the monstrous Revolution which has devoured Europe." 27

We shall have occasion to deal more fully with de Maistre's opinion of the democratic teachings of Rousseau and his Jacobin followers in another connection. Suffice it to say here that Locke and all his breed are roundly condemned,

26 Ibid., tom. iv, pp. 208-210.
27 Ibid., tom. iv, p. 372.

especially on two counts. First, they had perverted the end of all philosophy, that end being the welfare of society, and the philosophers' immediate task being to construct and improve the social fabric so that men may live together in peace and service. Instead of giving their talents to the high purpose of their calling, the philosophers of the eighteenth century had questioned the very basis of the great organization which had guided the destinies of Europe with conspicuous success for thirteen hundred years. Second, after they had torn down, they had failed to offer any spiritual basis for a reconstruction; their work had been strictly negative, frankly ironical, laying impious hands on all that was sacred and assured. It was, then, this spirit of mockery and destruction, engendered by the Lockian systems of metaphysics and politics, that had enfeebled the one great unifying force in Europe which had done so much to curb the destructive powers of original sin. 28

(5) To restore this beneficent society to its old medieval grandeur was the object of most of de Maistre's writings. When he began Du Pape, as his chief contribution to that end, the air, so he thought, had been somewhat cleared. Napoleon, the arch-Jacobin, was an exile; the Bourbons had been restored to their proper dignity; and the Pope was once again an independent sovereign in Rome. He could now exclaim with joy, "Justice and truth have kissed each other and the bad genius ceases from troubling." But even now, he held, was no time for complacency. If the spirit of Jacobinism had been put down in France, it had broken out in other quarters, and he was already concerned because it had "produced anew a general ebullition over an immense area."

28 Ibid., tom. v, pp. 177-180.

To France he turned, France, "the unique hearth of Jacobinism," 29 as the one nation best fitted to restore to its proper eminence the Roman See. This responsibility, he proclaimed, had been imposed upon the French people by God --"who gives to privileged nations certain missions to perform." Frenchmen, according to him, were endowed with their proselytizing abilities for the service of religion. The destiny of France is ever to be propagating ideas; her language was designed for this purpose; it was only when Locke's works were translated into this "most delectable language" that they became really dangerous. If they had been left in their English dress they would have done no harm. Only in French could such revolutionary ideas have been so rapidly extended to the various parts of Europe, and our author's most fervent prayer is, that "this mysterious force," which cannot adequately be described, may no longer be prostituted in the service of evil, but may again "become the organ of a salutary proselytism, capable of consoling humanity of all the evils" which a perverted France has inflicted upon it." 30

The French were not really French when they used their God-given talents in the service of Lockian philosophy. The mission of France, as de Maistre viewed it, was so inextricably bound up with the cause of religion, that to separate the two was nothing less than a destruction of national character. "There is," he writes, "in the natural government and the national ideas of French people, an indefinable element both theocratic and religious which always rediscovers itself." Consequently, a Frenchman propagating a materialistic philosophy is a mutilated missionary.

In tracing the origin of the proselytizing characteristic of Frenchmen back through the pages of history, our author did not limit himself to the era after the conversion of Clovis and

29 Ibid., tom. ii, p. xxxii.
30 Ibid., tom. iv, p. 378.

his people, but even in the days of Druids he finds that the Gauls were the chief propagators of the best of the pagan religions. It was those same Druids who, when they became Christians, played the premier rôle in extending Catholicism throughout Europe.

The Teuton element in the French nation is summarily dealt with by the author of Du Pape. He asserts that, despite the fact that they "gave a name to France," their influence "disappeared almost completely at the battle of Fontenai and left only Gauls." 31 For proof of this statement, he made a close analysis of the French language, and by an ingenious method of calculation was able to estimate the amount of Teutonic, Celtic and Roman blood in the nation. Here is his formula: "The number of words given by each nation is always rigorously proportioned to the quantity of blood furnished respectively by the various constituent nations and blended into the national unity." According to this test he was able to demonstrate that the Teutonic element is practically negligible, and that the French people are Celtic and Roman. The Roman element, by the way, only intensified the French passion for religion, since the ancient Romans, as Cicero testified, surpassed the rest of mankind through "religion and the fear of the gods." It was for this reason that it was so easily assimilated into the Gaulish nation--"it accorded very well with Druidism."

In Druidism de Maistre found much to praise. The good in it persisted after Christianity had "stripped it of its errors and ferocity." As might well have been expected, this blending of Gaul and Roman, Druidism and Christianity, produced a truly remarkable people. In de Maistre's own words, "The result of all these elements was an extraordinary nation, destined to play an amazing rôle among all the others. . . ."

31 Ibid., tom. ii, pp. xxiv-xxv.

Even a good Jacobin nationalist could hardly have taken exception to this acute analysis of what was his own racial composition. If impressed at all, he would have been compelled to regard the Roman Church in a more kindly light when he learned that Catholic culture was not a veneer spread over the Gauls by a foreign despot at Rome, but that, as he was now reminded, "the French had the unique honor of which they were not sufficiently proud, of having, humanly speaking, constituted the Catholic Church in the world." It was not the Popes at Rome who had secured for themselves "the indispensable rank of their divine functions," but the Gallican Church. This communion, as de Maistre put it, "was almost devoid of childhood, that is to say, at birth it found itself the first of national churches," and had with unerring judgment strengthened the Papacy as the essential centre of European unity. 32

As if this were not enough, he goes on to make an almost complete identification of France and Catholicism. The Church is represented as an ellipse; at one focus is seen St. Peter, at the other, Charlemagne. He adds as an afterthought upon this geometrical illustration: "The Gallican Church with its power, doctrine, dignity, language and proselytism seems sometimes to bring together the two centers and to blend them into a magnificent unity." 33

Later on, our author will have occasion to say some harsh things about the Gallican Church, or rather Gallicanism as it had been traditionally interpreted by French divines and lawyers. But no one was going to be able to say he was lacking in French patriotism or that he held a low conception of Gallican rights. He first carefully laid a groundwork for his attack, putting forth a view of his own as to what those much-vaunted rights really were, and then proceeded to

32 Ibid., tom. ii, pp. xxvi-xxvii.
33 Ibid., tom. ii, p. xxxi.

denounce the French clergy for having failed to live up to the high honor that had been accorded to their church, since they had regarded their privileges as freedom from certain Papal restraints native to the Papacy, whereas in reality their true national privilege and glory was to lend every aid possible to strengthening the power of the Pope. 34

In saying this, he was not oblivious to the fact that he had to convert not only the clergy to a new form of Gallicanism, but also the restored Bourbon family, sadly in need of instruction. In days gone by, it had also misinterpreted its great privilege. A miracle, he says, had restored this precious house so necessary to Europe, but just the same, he ventures to hope that it has learned something from its exile. If only, in the past, it had been true to its mission and given "a strong hand" to the Papacy, the deluge would never have come. However, de Maistre is lenient with it, for, "what could the king do when the inspiration of his people became exhausted?" 35 Nevertheless, he warned all anointed kings to realize that the security of their thrones lay in inculcating a true respect for him who has the anointing power.

(6) All of the foregoing was preliminary to a discussion of the infallibility of the Pope and its relation to the divine right of kings. In the close connection he made between these two conceptions, it will be seen that one of de Maistre's major interests in exalting the power of the Papacy was not so much that it might be an oracle for deciding disputed questions of dogma, but that it might be serviceable in organizing society on a civilized basis. For him infallibility had two aspects: from one point of view he regarded it as the object of divine promise; from another, he perceived it as a reason-

34 Vide infra, p. 226, note 60.
35 De Maistre, op. cit., tom. ii, p. xxxii.

able deduction; and it is this latter aspect that is chiefly the subject of Du Pape.

Infallibility as a reasonable inference is placed upon the same basis as that of the divine right of kings. He writes:

Infallibility in the spiritual order and sovereignty in the temporal are two words completely synonymous. . . . When we say the Church is infallible, it is very essential to observe that we do not demand for it any unusual privileges; we only ask that it be permitted to play a rôle common to every conceivable sovereignty. For every government is absolute, and from the moment that one is able to resist under pretext of error or injustice, sovereignty no longer exists. 36

Even Jacobins could hardly take exception to this thesis. They also believed in an infallibility. The only question in dispute was: Where does sovereignty reside? 37 The author of Du Pape felt that the era from 1789 to 1815 had proven that the sovereignty of the people in temporal affairs was unattainable, and, as he put Church and state on the same basis in this matter, he was able, very cleverly, to use the reaction in political France as evidence for the need of reaction in Church politics as well.

Reestablished monarchs everywhere in Europe were trying to regain their tarnished divinity; in the past, these same monarchs had been none too cordial to infallibility, but the experience of exile ought, so de Maistre reasoned, to have convinced them that their future interests would best be served by an enhancement of the authority of the Holy See.

Especially had the French kings, in their appeal to Gen-

36 Ibid. "Without doubt the sovereignty assumes different forms. It does not speak in the same style in Constantinople as in London; but when either has spoken, as its manner is, le bill est sans appel comme le fetfa." Tom. ii, p. 2.
37 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 3.

eral Councils over Papal decisions, encouraged a democratic principle in Church government, which they thoroughly abhorred when applied to their own royal domains. The superiority of Councils over the Pope was one of the treasured privileges of Gallicanism which the old régime had asserted with almost as much vehemence as did Napoleon himself. It was a tradition that the Bourbons were bound to bring back to France with them, and it required all the ingenuity that de Maistre possessed to make them forget the teachings of Boussuet and Louis XIV. Still he had in his favor the hatred of the French Revolution, and he made the most of it.

To make full use of this prejudice he began by likening the Revolution of 1789 to the Protestant revolt of the sixteenth century. The sixteenth century, he pointed out, had put forth a democratic sovereignty for the Church and the eighteenth century only carried those maxims into politics. "It is the same folly, the only difference being in the epoch and the name." 38 To give a Council authority superior to the Pope was, in de Maistre's opinion, to deny the integrity of the Church, in just the same way as abolishing the monarchy had denied the integrity of France. The Protestant writer, Mosheim, was quoted in support of this thesis. He had said, "that an appeal from the Pope to a future Council destroys the visible unity of the Church." De Maistre reminded his readers that in placing the Pope above a Council, he was not unaware that he was taking a position contrary to that held by such great French divines as Bossuet and Fleury, but he simply set the opinion of an outsider like Mosheim against theirs, and sorrowfully admitted that the Protestant was right. 39

38 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 4.
39 Ibid., tom. ii, pp. 7-8.

But he hastened to add that he was in no way throwing any doubt on the infallibility of Councils. They are infallible, but the Council and the Pope meet together, and sovereignty resides in both of them, just as in England, in king and Parliament. To continue to debate, then, the threadworn topic of whether a Council is superior to the Pope or vice versa, was, in his opinion, "precisely what one calls in English, un non sens." 40

If, however, he had been debating this question in the days of Fleury, the latter would have replied that not the Pope, but the Emperor, called an Ecumenical Council together. The Revolution served the author of Du Pape one good turn at least, since it laid at rest forever that embarrassing issue of Emperor versus Pope; and he was able to demand with evident relish of any former imperialist: to whom shall the honor of calling a Council be accorded? He asks, "Shall his most Christian Majesty summon the bishops of England, or shall his Majesty of England summon those of France?" 41

But conceding, for the sake of argument, the contention of those still imbued with the spirit of the old régime, that infallibility resides only in a Council, he had another question to ask the adherents of that view: "Where is the sovereignty during the long intervals that separate Ecumenical Councils?" 42 This question was put on the assumption that all were in agreement that sovereignty and infallibility are one and the same thing. A sovereignty lying dormant over centuries, he considered unthinkable, as most people, at the time Du Pape was written, would have agreed.

Though our author conceded that Councils, when acting in conformity with the Pope were infallible, he had little place

40 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 16.
41 Ibid. , tom. ii, p. 19.
42 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 30.

for them in his scheme of Church government. In his opinion the contact of many minds assembled together does not tend to produce sanity of judgment, but rather a mass fermentation which usually ends in delirium. 43 The Estates General of 1789 served as an illustration of what he meant.

But if some fearful person should ask him if he were not making the Pope an unrestrained despot and if there were any restrictions upon the abuse of such power, he would reply, "Everything--the canons, the laws, the customs of nations, the sovereignties, the great tribunals, the national assemblies, prescription, representations, negotiations, duty, fear, prudence and, above all, opinion, queen of the world." 44

(7) Among the limitations de Maistre listed to serve as a check upon despotic Papal authority, one observes the customs of nations. This calls for some explanation. Although, as we have seen, he regarded Europe as integrally one, he, at the same time, viewed it as a federation of smaller units, and these had an existence for the purpose of temporal government and order. But how were they to be blended into the higher unity he visualized? The answer to this question is to be found in his interpretation of the sovereignty of a divine-right king, and the natural limitations upon such tremendous power.

De Maistre was an internationalist after the manner of Grotius. 45 He looked upon the existence of nations as necessary and good; but, unlike Grotius, he did not see why they should be regarded as forever and inevitably in a state of nature towards each other. In his Evenings in St. Petersburg, he makes one of his characters ask, "Why do all the

43 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 94.
44 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 153.
45 Vide supra, introd., p. 15, note 9.

nations remain in a state of nature without ever having made a single attempt to get out of it?" 46 After having put the question, he proceeded to show how easy it would be to abolish what he can only term a state of folly.

He would not do it by making the nations any less national. Their own peculiar customs and discipline he regarded as one of the important limitations to the despotic rule of the Pope. He held it to be essential that each nation strive to preserve its own local usages and customs, provided that these did not "infringe upon dogma." He described them as constituting "a public right, amalgamated over a long period of time with the character of the laws of the nation in such a manner that they could not be touched without causing trouble and visible irritation." Things bound up with national pride, the author of Du Pape affirmed, the Pope had no right to interfere with. But he was expressing no indignation against past transgressions of the Papacy, for he added, "As a matter of fact, the Pope never does; infallibility applies itself to a higher order." 47

Having precluded the supposition that an infallible Pope could in any sense be regarded as a tyrannical despot or a menace to national integrity, our author turned to the more difficult task of defending divine-right kings from a similar charge of despotism. He was now compelled to make a closer examination of the more controversial aspects of sovereignty. He did not waste much time in disposing of Rousseau's General Will theory. The very fact that "men, in order to live in association, must be governed" excluded the idea that their wills had anything to do with establishment of government. Consequently, "the sovereignty is no more the result of men's wills than the fact of society itself." 48

46 De Maistre, op. cit., tom. v, p. 11.
47 Ibid., tom. ii, pp. 154-155.
48 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 168.

The much discussed original state of nature he dismissed as "an imaginary idea," since as a matter of fact there never was a time when men did not live in a society. And if one should still continue to urge him to explain how society originated, he would reply that he was being pestered with one of those futile Lockian questions--"the origin of origin." He did, however, venture a guess--a progressive expansion of the family. 49

He is not much interested in the question of origin, which, at his distance from the event, could never be satisfactorily answered. The important thing to grasp from any such discussion was that the authority which held men together in society in the past, and would continue to hold them together in the future, came from God. Order and peace, the prime necessities of any well organized society, could never evolve out of a collection of individual wills, since the individual is fundamentally perverse. Sovereignty, then, which establishes the necessities of social relations, could have only one possible origin--it is a divine emanation from God communicated to kings and Popes for the welfare of society and nations. 50

Again the question arose, as it did in the case of the Pope, how can this absolute authority of kings be kept within proper restraints? The hedges to abuse that de Maistre placed about the Papacy would not serve him in the case of kings. Nor had he the hardihood to assert that sovereigns, because of the power that has been given to them from above, will always act in the best interests of the governed. He was not unaware that the classic example of Nero effectually disposes of any such theory.51

49 Ibid., tom. v, p. 11.
50 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 168; also p. 177.
5I Ibid., tom. ii, p. 176.

The problem, then, as de Maistre saw it, was how to restrain sovereignty "without destroying it." One solution to which even adherents of the divine-right theory had given some support, was for the monarch to postulate "some fundamental laws, in short, a constitution," 52 in the manner in which the restored Louis XVIII had given one to his people. But de Maistre saw many flaws in the logic of the settlement of 1815. He wanted to know who had the right to establish fundamental laws, and what temporal power could guarantee their execution.

Writing on this subject to a Russian friend, at a time when there was much agitation for a constitution in the land of the tsars, he asserted as an incontestable fact that any law "veritably fundamental and constitutional cannot be written down, for if it is, it becomes a nullity." If his friend should think his statement merely paradoxical, he asked him to consider "one of the most natural of constitutional laws--that of the succession to the crown." Who established that law in France? He could find no indication in any historical records that it was done by the will of the people; nor could the king himself have established it, for in that case he would have "the right to abrogate it." 53 There could be only one answer to the question posed: the succession was willed in the divine constitution of things.

But there was the English Constitution that might be urged as an example of a successful venture in a partially democratic form of government. De Maistre admitted that it seemed to be working well in practice, but he pointed out in Du Pape that the English were making a lot of money, and that Parliament had not yet faced the proper crisis to test its fundamental weaknesses. Anyway, he said, one

52 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 171.
53 Ibid., tom. i, p. 217.

exception in history proved nothing, since "the universal experience is contrary to this unique example."

He turned to France as a horrible example of "the universal experience." She had tried the new and vaunted liberty of a constitutional government; and what did she get for her pains? He sorrowfully reminded his readers that she covered herself with ridicule, and, saddest of all, she had ultimately to place "a Corsican gendarme on the throne of the French king." 54 This was real servitude, while acknowledging the right divine of the legitimate Bourbons was simply obeisance to God.

Constitutions, then, were out of the question as far as de Maistre was concerned. But he was still left with the pressing necessity of offering some check to Neronic propensities of absolute monarchs. It was not by any means his intention to abandon subjects to the unfettered whims of their king. "The law," he says, "which prescribes obeisance towards sovereigns, is a general law." All general laws are "good, just and necessary." It therefore follows that a general law must never be violated, but if a king acts like a Nero, there must be a means of redress for the innocent victims of the depraved tyrant. In other words, there must be a way of dispensing with the general law; and our author finds that the pages of history reveal that there has been from time immemorial this dispensing power, and that it has always been placed " under the guardianship of religion." 55

And that was, for him, as it should be. Since sovereignty is a sacred thing--an emanation from God--it was inconceivable that it should be curbed by anything less than the highest spiritual power upon earth. He summed up his final conclusion on the matter as follows:

54 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 172.
55 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 76.

The oath of fidelity without restriction exposes men to all the horrors of tyranny; resistance without regulation exposes them to every kind of anarchy. The dispensation from this oath, pronounced by the spiritual sovereignty, presents itself fittingly to human thought as the unique means of controlling temporal authority without effacing its character. 56

Thus did de Maistre, to his own satisfaction, escape the intolerable position of the English non-jurors of 1688, who had denied the legitimacy of any resistance whatever, against divine-right monarchs. Furthermore, he achieved the remarkable feat of providing a means whereby a revolution could be legitimatized from the beginning.

However, he hastened to make clear that a rebellion fostered by a Pope would not be against sovereignty per se, but against an individual sovereign. The act by which subjects are released from their oath of fidelity, at the same time confirms the inviolability of sovereignty. Kings need not be startled by his theory. He reassured them that he was in no way "derogating from the rigors of Catholic maxims on the inviolability of sovereigns." Rather, he wanted them to see in the right of dispensation a guarantee of the stability of their thrones, since it makes "the people aware that no human power can touch a sovereign whose authority can be suspended only by a jurisdiction completely divine." 57

It was a very remote possibility that even Catholic monarchs would be impressed by de Maistre's masterly defense of Papal dispensation. Those whom he loaded with divine effulgence were the least likely to admit any temporal infringement on their complete independence in their own national domain. National monarchs in France, from the days of Charles the Fair onward, had shown a great sensitiveness on this point, and the trend of the times was wholly

56 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 177.
57 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 185.

against the author of Du Pape. Yet he was not dealing with a problem altogether remote from our own time--he was pleading the necessity of a super-national state with the same urgency as many political scientists are still pleading it today, to do away withe the blight of war. 58

He was not, in this, devoid of nationalist sentiment, but he was clear-sighted enough to realize that a super-state was a less alarming menace to the continued existence of national units than the state of anarchy which had prevailed since the break-up of the Roman Empire. Realizing that many equal and competitive nations, even with the divine-right monarchs at their head, were a constant threat to the peace of the world, he was willing to temper his nationalism and concede that nations, even for the sake of their own integrity, ought to fix upon some outside arbitrator, to whom they might look for fair and impartial decisions in cases of dispute. The problem he endeavored to solve in Du Pape is not different from that which faces Europe today, and which the League of Nations was brought forth to solve. But since the intensity of nationalism has greatly increased, and the implements of destruction in the hands of the nations have been augmented almost beyond estimation, the theories put forward by modern writers to avoid the approaching menace seem even more remote from actuality than the one offered in Du Pape. 59

(8) In following de Maistre's general principles and his scheme for reestablishing society on a stable basis, the specific problem in hand, namely, the effect of the Concordat of 1801 in

58 Vide Cecil Viscount, The Way of Peace (New York, 1929), passim.
59 Vide Hocking W. E., Man and State (New Haven, 1926), passim; and Schuman F. L., International Politics (New York and London, 1933), ch. xvii-xix (especially).

shaping his Ultramontane views, has been somewhat obscured. It does not seem to have had much effect. The theories already discussed were put forward as an answer to eighteenth-century philosophy. The Concordat served him admirably in impressing his own views upon the French hierarchy, especially when it became an instrument in the hands of Napoleon in furtherance of dynastic schemes of aggression. The realization by the clergy that these schemes involved the subordination of the spiritual interests of the Church below the material interests of the state helped de Maistre to convince the Gallican communion that their special privileges must be forever repudiated. This task he undertook in a book entitled, De l'Église Gallicane dans son Rapport avec le Souverain Pontife.

The book opens in de Maistre's characteristic questioning style. Why, he wanted to know, is it customary to speak of the Gallican Church as if it were an independent communion like the English? This habitual practice he condemned as tending to obscure the important fact that the Church of France is "only a province of the Catholic empire." Nevertheless, he does grant that formerly there were reasons, good and otherwise, for this popular designation. There was, in the past, he says, a transcendent merit in the Gallican communion; but this, he thinks, gave its members the "air of too much introspection." 60 Too long they have brooded over their special privileges which they early won by their vigilant support of the Papacy and their powers of propagating the Catholic truth. But these same privileges, unfortunately, became a matter of local pride, which later developed into suspicion, as they were more and more identified with the nation and the monarch. The kings, in turn, became infected with the same sort of suspicion, and took it upon themselves

60 De Maistre, De l'Église Gallicane dans son Rapport avec le Souverain Pontife (Lyon, 1880), pp. 1-3.

to protect Gallican privileges as part of the national honor. Thus, the prelates were obliged to endow secular power with the unusual task of protecting the spiritual independence of a particular communion, and " this immense absurdity," writes de Maistre, "is called the liberties of the Church." 61

Early in the history of France did Gallicanism tarnish the true mission of the most notable communion in the Catholic world. But this first perversity was nothing compared to what was to follow--the Jansenist heresy. When he came to discuss Jansenism, de Maistre found something in French life to which he could ascribe no "transcendent merit." Jansenism was far worse than Protestantism. The Protestants, he writes, "are at least revealed enemies who openly attack a city we defend." The Jansenists are secret traitors who stab from behind while true Catholics are doing their duty in the breach. The comparison that Pascal and his brethren were always making between their professions of devoted allegiance to the Holy See and the blasphemous terms of the Protestants, who speak of the Pope as anti-Christ, made no impression upon him. To Pascal and his followers he would reply: "And that is why you are, in a manner, a great deal more dangerous." 62

It was not a philosophic system of Jansenism that de Maistre denounced. He asserted that it had no philosophy; nor was Port Royal even an institution, in the sense that the Benedictines, the Jesuits, or the Oratorians were institutions. It could not be such because it lacked any "vital spirit." This lack was the essence of its danger to the Church and society. He admitted the talent of Pascal, d'Arnaud and others, but those talents could never have been acquired from Port Royal. That institution he said, "never formed any-

61 Ibid., p. 5.
62 Ibid., pp. 26-27.

one." There was no moral unity in the place. Its members associated together "without understanding one another." In other words, Port Royal was an association of individualists, and, if there was one thing that de Maistre abhorred more than another, it was individualism as a creed. He considered its deliberate practice as a menace to any well ordered society, and its devotees as necessarily prevented from making a mutual contribution to the general good of all. In Port Royal he saw "many bees but no honey." 63

But what then was the secret of Port Royal? Why did Jansenism, in a manner, succeed? De Maistre had an answer for this question, and the answer was his condemnation of the institution. The key of its success, if it could be called success, was individualism. His explanation is as follows: "The human heart is naturally prone to revolt. Raise the standard against authority and you shall never lack recruits." Jansenism represents nothing less than "the eternal crime of our unhappy nature." 64 So, despite the fact that the Jansenists numbered many good men among their ranks, their natural tendency to coalesce with the baser nature of mankind made their movement a dangerous menace toward which the Church had shown too much leniency in its attempts to expel it from the corporate body.

To Jansenism he ascribed the origin of all the unhappy disputes of the Gallican communion with the Papacy during the preceding two hundred years. The Declaration of 1682 was conceived in a Jansenist spirit. The Convention which drew up the famous Four Articles of Gallicanism was called together for "no other purpose than that of mortifying the Pope." 65 In amplification of this charge, he furnishes in his book on the Gallican communion an outline of the events,

63 Ibid., pp. 39-40.
64 Ibid., pp. 32-33.
65 Ibid., p. 128.

as he perceived them, leading up to the fatal definition. Not Bossuet, but Colbert, he held, "was the prime mover of that unfortunate resolution." It was the latter who urged Louis XIV to make his famous attack on the Papacy, and Bossuet had the rather inferior rôle of a secretarial courtier who did the bidding of the king's chief minister, when he penned the Four Articles of Gallican liberty. 66

This was rash criticism to make of the great hero of the Gallican Church. De Maistre must have sensed a tremendous change taking place in the outlook of the French clergy, if he expected them to finish reading a book so critical of the great Bossuet, much less be impressed by its argument. Yet, he was no great innovator in his criticism of Gallican liberties, but was simply pushing to its logical conclusion a theory already suggested by Emery, who in 1807, as we have seen, had laid the groundwork for de Maistre's attack, by cautiously weakening the hold of the Four Articles on the mind of French churchmen. However, Emery went no further than a reinterpretation, which emphasized the power still reserved to the Holy See. D'Astros went beyond this, by open defiance of the implications of the spirit of the Articles. De Maistre but carried the attack a step further by advocating complete repudiation.

Since they were an evil, no words were minced in condemning them. Analyzing each article, our author finds the four of them either false or unfortunate statements. The antique tradition of the Gallican Church alleged in the preamble of the Declaration, he regards as a "pure chimera." In discussing the proposition that a General Council is above the Pope in authority, he comes to the same conclusion as the Jansenist, Grégoire, namely, that when Louis XIV took up the position he did in regard to the Papacy, he, at the same time, by all the rules of logic, admitted that a national

66 Ibid.

assembly was above the king. This was a conclusion that tickled Grégoire's fancy, but de Maistre urged it only to discredit the original proposition, and he did not hesitate to call those who penned the Articles "blind corrupters of power." 67

Bossuet he charged with a Protestant manner, since he had unwittingly adopted the hated style because of "the nature of the subject and the tendency of the discussion." Fundamentally, he thought Bossuet was a Catholic, but his caviling on Scripture texts, weighing one against the other, was, in the words of de Maistre, "the everlasting method of the Protestants." 68 The conclusion reached in all this was that "the Four Articles are Protestant in their essence" and a good Catholic should never agree to sustain them. 69

This is a far cry from the opening days of the Concordat of 1801, when it was taken for granted by the government that the Declaration of 1682 would serve as a rallying point for Frenchmen of all shades of opinion. However, the events in the history of the Church of France that we have been following here make it clear that the importation of Jacobin nationalism into the Declaration inevitably led to the denunciation that de Maistre voiced in his book on the Gallican Church. Nor did the criticism fall upon deaf ears. The sadly chastened clergy of the Napoleonic régime could but utter a solemn amen to all he wrote. Those clergy, as he bluntly put it, "found themselves serfs in respect to the temporal power in precisely the same proportion as they acquired independence from their legitimate superior, and in acknowledging this humiliation, they called it liberty." 70 If the French Church had not realised its state of serfdom

67 Ibid., p. 149.
68 Ibid., p. 209.
69 Ibid., p. 210.
70 Ibid., p. 291.

under the old régime, it was made abundantly clear to it when the Four Articles were transmuted into the Organic.

There was another aspect in the difference between the old régime and the new, which even de Maistre himself only dimly perceived, and which he, in agreement with the partisans of the Bourbons, called Jacobinism. A more descriptive term would have been nationalism, but de Maistre would hardly have used it. He, in conjunction with the French clergy, did not want to appear one whit behind the most outspoken Jacobin in loyalty to la Patrie. He was not yet aware that patriotism had undergone a profound change during the Revolution; that it was now rather a substitute for religious devotion, and that the new god to whom the patriots of France had pledged their troth demanded a worship as exclusive as the God, Jehovah, in that he would have none other gods before him.

Nevertheless, not only de Maistre, but the clergy of France generally, were confusedly aware that some strange thing menaced their faith. They regarded it as a materialistic philosophy which assailed the idealism of their Church. In order to combat the assailant, they fell back upon the Jesuit theory of centralization; and this, one thinks, explains the observation of an Italian delegate to the national assembly in 1807, to the effect that it was now in France that one found Ultramontanes. 71 It was this same menace which compelled de Maistre to write in large letters that all might see:

"THERE ARE NO GALLICAN LIBERTIES." To which he added as a final epitaph to a dead issue: "All that is implied in that beautiful name is only a conjuration of temporal authority to despoil the Holy See of its legitimate rights and to prevent it, because of an idea of a Church of France, from maintaining its authority there." 72

71 Vide supra, ch. vi, p. 144, note 48.
72 De Maistre, op. cit., p. 309.

The discussion of the significance of the abandonment by the French clergy of the Declaration of 1682 is reserved for our concluding chapter, where we shall attempt to follow the later history of the political system of de Maistre, especially in those periods where it came into sharp conflict with the political theories based upon the teachings of Rousseau.


(1) IN the preceding chapters it has been our endeavor to set forth the opening phases of a mighty drama that has been played on the continent of Europe for some one hundred and thirty years, the end of which is not yet perceived. Our study was based, not so much upon the actual negotiations for the Concordat, as upon the reactions of the various ecclesiastical and political parties in France to the completed document and to its practical application to the political circumstances of the time.

Beginning with Chateaubriand Génie du Christianisme, we found here an attempt to reconcile Christianity with the teachings of Rousseau. It was, in brief, a plea to the followers of the Genevan prophet to have no fear that the restoration of the Church would endanger the principles of the Revolution; that, although Christianity taught a universal brotherhood, it also held to the old principle of loving one's native place and people best of all. Furthermore, Chateaubriand sought to commend the Church to doubting French Jacobins on the ground that it really deepened national sentiment, since, he held, religious men become more firmly attached to the land of their fathers than non-religious. His logic, when stripped of its sentimental dress, seemed not clear, and the net effect of the Génie du Christianisme was to give the impression that patriotism is the first of all duties. 1

1 Vide supra, ch. iii, p. 75.

The speeches of Portalis to the legislative bodies revealed that the politicians were unutterably opposed to any agreement with the Papacy, fearing that a concordat would endanger the absolute unity of the sovereignty of the people of France. Furthermore, from other sources it was learned that the eloquence of Portalis failed to dispel the suspicion of the legislators in regard to the so-called machinations of the Roman See, and only by the exertion of considerable pressure was the First Consul able to obtain their ratification of the agreement with the Pope. This, despite the fact that Portalis had given absolute assurance that the Church would be subordinate to the state, even in the disputed terrain of "mixed questions." 2

Passing from political writers to ecclesiastical, we found Maury and Grégoire adding their weight to the suspicions of the politicians. Both were animated by the old Gallican fear of Ultramontanism, but their opposition to the Concordat sprang from two different sources. Maury, the partisan of the old régime, feared that the Papacy was consolidating a system in France which would prevent the return of the decorum of an hereditary caste control of the nation. 3 Grégoire, on the other hand, regarded the settlement as endangering the representative form of government both in Church and state. 4

At a later date the political descendants of both Maury and Grégoire were able to unite in opposition to the Papacy on the common ground of national pride. Though, as we have seen, the philosophy and temperament of Maury and Grégoire were as far apart as the poles, yet, it is a fusion of their respective forms of national pride--the one a glorifying of ancient France, the other an exultation in the innovations of

2 Ibid., ch. iv, pp. 92-93, note 29.
3 Ibid., ch. v, p. 110.
4 Ibid., ch. vi, pp. 130-131.

the Revolution -- that constitutes in no small degree the content of modern French nationalism. This blending took place to a large extent in the period when liberal Catholicism was very much in the ascendancy in France. The philosophy of Chateaubriand proved to be the common basis of approach. 5 But before attempting to disentangle the different strains of thought and influence that go to make up the liberal Catholic movement, we must take note of the fact that there was still another Catholicism in France violently opposed to liberalism, which also drew its inspiration from some of the writers with whom we have become familiar in our study of the Concordat.

Though it would be difficult to point to any later system of Church polity springing out of the writings of Emery and d'Astros--the partisans of the settlement of 1801, yet, their tacit acknowledgment of their failure to accommodate the teachings of the Church to the new régime gave point to the influential works of de Maistre. The combined result of the experiences and writings of those three men was a clear warning to the Church that any compromise with nationalism, however liberal, would further undermine the spiritual authority of religion. 6

(2) A brief résumé of the liberal Catholic movement will perhaps help to throw into clearer relief the later influences of the different Church leaders whom we have studied. A group of Catholic liberals, the better known being Père Lacordaire, Abbé Dupanloup, Comte de Montalembert and Comte de Falloux, were accustomed to meet in a salon presided over by Madame Swetchine, for the avowed purpose of finding some basis for a reconciliation of the Church's dog-

5 Ibid., ch. iii, pp. 67-70.
6 Ibid., ch. ix, p. 202, note 9.

matic teaching with modern thought. These meetings began in the early 'forties of the nineteenth century, and were attended for the most part by adherents to the Bourbon cause. These legitimists threw out the olive branch to their republican opponents. They had come to the conclusion that the failure of reaction under Charles X had somewhat discredited the philosophy of de Maistre, and that it was necessary for them to accept the Revolution of 1789 as an established fact in French national life. But they were not willing to give up all the past, feeling that much of it could be profitably fused with the new régime. 7

The Génie du Christianisme became their text book, and, like Chateaubriand, as Guerard puts it, "They chose a creed because of the feelings it aroused within them." 8

In order to redeem the rather tarnished glory of the cause of reaction, after the exile of Charles X, some of these Christian royalists undertook to outdo their opponents in their declarations of devotion to the Fatherland. The pious patriots of this rather romantic school drew copiously upon the Bible to express their admiration for France, which they described as "a Christ among nations." Paris was quite generally regarded as a new Jerusalem. Becoming bolder in their profession of admiration for the principles of the Revolution, they came to speak of France as a nation with a mission, a "gospel to preach"--none less than "the Rights of Man" through which the "world would be redeemed." 9 Thus were royalty, democracy, patriotism, and the Christian ideal of brotherhood, service and sacrifice combined into one glorious faith. All this, as our study of Chateaubriand has revealed, was already laid out in the Génie du Christianisme.

7 Falloux Comte de, Memoirs of a Royalist (trans. by C. B. Pitman, London, 1888), vol. ii, p. 156.
8 Guerard A. L., French Prophets of Yesterday (London, 1913), p. 5.
9 Ibid., p. 127.

In this new-found faith also we can see the ideals of Maury and Grégoire intertwined. 10

Some of these romantic liberals called themselves followers of de Maistre. Comte de Falloux of Lois Falloux fame thus designated himself; but his panegyrics on liberty hardly accorded with the sternly disciplinarian spirit of the author of Du Pape. The following from a speech delivered by Falloux in the Chamber of 1840 is illustrative of the new tone adopted by Catholic royalists:

It is in the name of liberty that I demand the recognition of the mark of the French genius through all its phases. . . . A fact that we will yield to no one is this, that we are neither friends nor enemies of liberty; we are liberty itself. I repeat it--you [referring to the Montagnards], like us, are the children of the same past, and the creators of a common future. 11

There can be little doubt that there was more of Chateaubriand than de Maistre in this utterance. But, if for a time, the voice of the latter was drowned out in the councils of the French Church by the sentimental heirs of the former, there were still valiant de Maistres who denounced the new apologetic for the Catholic Church. Louis Veuillot was one of these. The experiences of those moderate clergy like Emery and d'Astros, who had tried, as his liberal brethren were trying, to seek some compromise with Jacobin nationalism, had not been lost upon him. He had not forgotten that they had been compelled in the end to repudiate their own work by challenging the sanctity of Gallican privileges as a national creed. Nor was he going to have these same privileges, in a liberal disguise, reintroduced into the French communion.

10 Vide supra, ch. v, p. 115, and ch. vi, pp. 134-135.
11 Falloux, Discours et Melanges Politiques (Paris, 1882). tom i, pp. 158-159.

In opposing what they regarded as a serious menace to the spiritual authority of the Church, Veuillot and his followers deliberately adopted the uncompromising style of de Maistre. Although it must be admitted that Veuillot's language hardly accorded with the principles of Christian charity, one cannot but admire the clearness of his vision in describing the course that liberal nationalism was destined to follow. In his paper, Univers, he was unceasing in warning deluded Catholics that they were giving their allegiance to a social philosophy that would as surely undermine the prestige of the Church and disturb the peace of the world as Jacobinism had done in the past. 12

The Catholic opponents of Veuillot were at a loss to understand his reasoning. They also were eager for a peaceful and united Europe, and thought that the only way this goal could be achieved was by freeing all oppressed nationalities, which, when they should be loosed from the chains of autocracy and imperialism in which they were unwillingly entangled, would immediately and gladly cooperate in building up a world-wide unity. And so Falloux, a tolerant and kindly legitimist, lays aside his usual charitable tone when discussing the Univers and its uncompromising policy. "It is isolation," he said, "in place of common action; egoism in place of abnegation; vanity of noise in place of solidity of result." 13 The policy he supported, on the other hand, was not, in his mind, a Jacobin nationalism, but rather a new internationalism of a liberalized Europe. The peace of the continent was disturbed because people were held in bonds. He forgot that Jacobins had also envisaged a new interna-

12 Veuillot L., Les Odeurs de Paris (Paris, 1914). In the opening chapters of this book, Veuillot offers a detailed defense of the policy that had been pursued by the suppressed Univers, and sets it in contrast to that of his liberal opponents. 13 Falloux, Discours, tom. ii, p. 69.

tionalism arising out of their policy of liberation. He admitted that Bonald and de Maistre, for whom he expressed great admiration, were just as uncompromising towards Jacobinism as Veuillot was toward liberalism; but he unkindly remarked that they "hallowed their rigors with a natural genius and scholarship, intuition and meditation, the ardors of mysticism and the delicacy of refined education; moreover, they had in their favor all the differences of their time and ours." 14 Veuillot's diction may have lacked refinement and delicacy, but that can hardly prove he was not a true exponent of de Maistre.

Falloux and his friends, on the other hand, were the true heirs of Chateaubriand, and they, for a time, held the center of the stage in the Church politics of France. Even Pius IX, as is well known, was favorably disposed towards their liberal policy. Veuillot, in his strict adherence to the conservatism of de Maistre, appeared to be another Athanasius --alone against the world. But after 1852 he was not so much alone, and in 1870 he was sure the Church had returned to de Maistre and sanity. 15

(3) It is thus that one may trace down through the pages of history the fluctuations of the problems raised by the Concordat of 1801 in the relations of Church and state. It would be interesting to follow in detail the repetitions, in various parts of Europe, of the self-same issue that the Church had to face in all its bare reality in the negotiations of 1801, but the task is beyond the limits of this book.

However, there are a few landmarks that can be briefly

14 Ibid., tom. ii, p. 70.
15 Veuillot, Le Pape et la Diplomatie (Paris, 1860), p. 10. "Veuillot was a thoroughgoing theocratist, like de Maistre. Papal infallibility was one of his dearest beliefs; its proclamation in 1870 gave him one of the greatest joys in his life." Guerard, op. cit., p. 45.

indicated. The German Kulturkampf is one. If Pius VII's unfortunate experiences with Napoleon I were, from the point of view of Catholics, the evidential support of de Maistre's indictment of eighteenth-century philosophy and its heir, the French Revolution, so the Kulturkampf was the justification of Veuillot's strictures upon nineteenth-century liberalism. Just as humanitarian nationalism had been displaced by Jacobin, so liberal nationalism had been displaced by a still more violent form of state absolutism than had ever been envisaged by the partisans of the French Revolution. It has been designated integral nationalism, 16 since it regards the nation as a sufficient end and ideal in itself. In the theory and practice of Bismarck, the liberty of individuals, their innate rights and privileges, even the welfare of humanity itself, were frankly given a place secondary to the integrity of the nation. 17

Bismarck's attempt to make the internal life of his new empire conform to his monistic nationalism broke the liberal Catholic movement in Germany, and discredited its influence in the Church. Two systems converged upon the liberal Catholics at the same time, that of de Maistre as adopted by the Church, in 1870, and that of Bismarck, "the supreme master of nationalistic statesmanship." 18 Being compelled to make a choice between two rival monistic theories, the liberal Catholics, apparently, for the most part, chose the monism of the Church as the lesser of two evils.

That Bismarck, after his "blood and iron" victories over Austria and France, in the interests of national integrity, should have failed to bend the Church to his will was a surprising indication that the Roman See was not as weak as

16 Hayes, Evolution of Modern Nationalism, ch. vi.
17 Ibid., p. 226.
18 Laski H. J., Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty (New Haven, 1917), p. 211.

European statesmen had come to regard it. It was also a manifestation that there still remained some restraints upon integral nationalism. 19

(4) But to return to France. The Law of Separation of 1905 appears to be the natural outcome of the Concordat of 1801. After the Restoration the tension between Church and state was perceptibly relieved. During the period of the ascendency of liberal nationalism and under Napoleon III, the settlement of 1801 was not seriously challenged. But after 1870 when France was so preeminently occupied with her integrity as a nation, anything that did not appear to be an integral part of the state was carefully scrutinized. The schools especially were an object of great jealousy, and the Ferry laws of 1879 were a clear indication that the government of France was very much afraid that the priests were not good teachers of the complete nationalist creed, since members of unauthorized religious communities were forbidden to "take part in public instruction or to direct any sort of an establishment." 20

The religious communities which received their orders directly from Rome were bound to be suspect, and one can hardly be surprised that around them occurred a violent controversy, which did much to undermine the formal relations between Church and state. Moreover, the economic element that always associated itself with self-perpetuating religious corporations was an added cause of resentment against the monasteries. The charge of foreign origin and the stigma

19 J. N. Figgis remarks on the Kulturkampf: ". . . it is a case in which the strongest nineteenth-century statesman met more than his match." Churches in the Modern State (London, 1913), p. 29.
20 Briand A., La Séparation des Églises et de l'État (Paris, 1905), p. 128. A severe arraignment of the Ferry laws is found in Baunard Mgr. , Un Siècle de l'Église de France (Paris, 1901, 3rd ed.), pp. 313-316.

of mortmain were sufficient to unite diversely separated political parties in an attempt to rid France of what they considered indigestible groups within the body politic. The Concordat proved a hindrance to summary measures, and it would probably have been repudiated long before 1905 if the French government had not been under the impression that a repudiation would deprive their country of an imperial advantage over other nations, as the protector of Catholic missionaries in backward lands.

However, imperial interests in 1903 most imperatively demanded a weakening of the Triple Alliance. One way this object could be served was by a visit of the French president to King Victor Emmanuel. This proved to be a breaking point in the relationship of Church and state. 21 It seems a trivial incident to have brought about a rupture of the hundred-year-old Concordat, but it reveals clearly the real factors which prevented the existence of cordial relations between the Holy See and the government of France. National integrity and imperial expansion had become so allimportant in the eyes of Frenchmen that anger was bound to be widespread at any complaints against a visit which was laden with so many hopes for the future of France. For a Catholic to put forward dogmatic interests as an obstacle to the visit of President Loubet was regarded by many in France as downright disloyalty. The chief element of surprise, not only to Frenchmen, but to the world generally, in the final terms of disestablishment, was the fact that Briand, who piloted the Law of Separation through the Chamber, was compelled to make so many concessions to the Church on account of the popular clamor that had arisen against the first draft. 22

21 On this incident vide Desdevises du G. Dezert, L'Église et l'État en France (Paris, 1908), tom. ii, pp. 326-327.
22 Briand, op. cit., pp. 350-35; a plea for tolerance on the part of the state towards the Church.

(5) Disestablishment of the Church, even in predominantly Roman Catholic countries, appeared to be the only possible outcome after the appearance of integral nationalism on the contemporary scene. Yet, the Concordat between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy, proclaimed on June 7, 1929, gives still another turn to the never ceasing problem of Church and state. Considerable interest attaches to this latest agreement, since the Fascist government of Italy has frankly avowed the philosophy of integral nationalism. 23

Louis le Fur, in a volume written as an interpretation of the Concordat of 1929, ventures to assert that he is able to show that "it is perfectly possible to find a terrain d'entente between lay and theological jurists." 24 In support of this statement he quotes passages from letters that he has received from both parties to the effect that "the pretended theoretical impossibility . . . of reconciling the respective

23 Mussolini speaking on the authority of the state, in November, 1922, said: "Whoever opposes the state shall be punished. This formal notice is addressed to all citizens, and I know that it will be particularly well received by the Fascisti, who have fought and won for the purpose of founding a state capable of imposing its will upon all its citizens." Gorgolini P., La Révolution Fasciste. Avec le Texte Integral des Principaux Discours de Benito Mussolini (trans. into French by Eugene Marsan , Paris, 1924), p. 104. Ivanoe Bonomi, one time premier of Italy, thus characterizes the Fascist state: "The state is no longer liable to be influenced or dominated by any or every party through the ballot box. The liberal and democratic idea is replaced by another, that of the state-nation, the state which is wholly one with the nation, the state which has an absolute authority of its own and does not derive its rights from votes. This is the eternal and immutable Fascist state, to which, as to the embodiment of its spirit, the nation has given a mission, and which has an armed force to preserve it from any impure touch. . . . Parties outside the Fascist pale are enemies; they are the anti-nation that has lost the right to live." From Socialism to Fascism (trans. by John Murray , London, 1924), p. 121.
24 Le L. Fur, Le Saint-Siège et le Droit des Gens (Paris, 1930), p. vi.

points of view of Church and state is now generally recognized as having ceased to exist with the new conception of the notion of sovereignty." 25 This is defined by Le Fur as a domestic sovereignty exercised by the Pope in national churches, but with full recognition that the Church is an integral part of the nation, and that the Pope is acting in the national interest. According to Le Fur, it was the anticlerical Briand who first recognized the peculiar authority that inheres in the Pope in his jurisdiction over national churches. In a discourse in the Chamber in 1906, in defense of the Law of Separation, he asserted that his Holiness is not for the French people a foreign power, but a Pope Catholic and French, as he is for the German a Pope Catholic and German. His Holiness, he said, was not to be regarded as a souverain étranger, but a souverain intérieur. 26 In this happy phrasing Briand coined the term that is now, according to Le Fur, about to break the theoretic impasse between Church and state.

And yet, interior sovereignty has a very inferior ring, when placed in contrast with the complete state sovereignty visualized by integral nationalists. Nor does it appear that to make the Pope all things to all nations, a French national and a German national at one and the same time, is in accord with the Christian principle "there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free." 27 The term supra-national, so often heard from the lips of Catholic apologists in explanation of the Pope's peculiar sovereignty, seems more in accord with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

Be that as it may, Louis Le Fur's great hope for reconciliation between the Church and national states is based upon the blessed word intérieur, which he thinks is the key to the happy results of the negotiations for the Concordat of 1929.

25 Ibid., p. vii.
26 Ibid., pp. 202 - 203.
27 Galatians, 3:27.

He assures us in his book that he has not forgotten the "famous confused questions so much discussed in the last century," but suggests that a "renunciation of unlimited sovereignty" on the part of the state would bring about an accord even on those. 28

It is just such a renunciation that does not appear probable at the present time in France or Italy, or in any other nation for that matter. The now famous Article Forty-three of the Concordat of 1929, which the Pope hoped would serve him in upholding his influence in the mixed field of politics and religion, has already been the cause of violent outbreaks in Italy (May, 1931) which interrupted, for a time, official relations between the Vatican and the Fascist régime. The Catholic Action, a collection of lay societies, unified by Pius XI in 1922, and brought directly under his control, was officially recognized by the Italian State in Article Fortythree of the Concordat. The same Article permitted these societies "to exercise their activities outside any political party and under the immediate supervision of the hierarchy of the Church, for the purpose of spreading and putting into effect Catholic principles." 29 It has now become the contention of the sensitive Fascist state that the Holy See by means of these societies is trying "to reform the Fascist government in accordance with Catholic doctrine" 30 --seemingly, a laudable enough effort for any convinced Catholic.

28 Le Fur, op. cit., p. 207. 29 A French trans. of the Concordat is found in Le Fur, op. cit., p. 223. Article Forty-three reads: The Italian state recognizes the organizations included in the Italian Catholic Action, inasmuch as the Holy See has decided that these organizations shall carry on their activities for the diffusion and application of Catholic principles, outside all political parties and under the immediate supervision of the hierarchy of the Church. The Holy See, in view of the stipulation of the present Concordat, renews the prohibition to all ecclesiastics and religious of Italy, to inscribe themselves in any political party whatever. 30 Vide article by Walter Littlefield, The Dispute with Fascism, Current History, October, 1931, p. 29.

But that is by the way. The upshot of the outbreak in May, 1931, 31 only goes to show that the happy solution which Le Fur posited upon a recognition by the nation of a domestic sovereignty still suffers from a great deal of tension, and that interior influence as exercised by the officially recognized Catholic Action is very liable to be regarded by the partisans of the Fascist régime as foreign meddling. All of which seems to make it evident that the Concordat of 1929 is no final solution to the vexed problem of Church and state.

As further evidence in support of this opinion, the failure of the plenipotentiaries in 1929 to agree upon a final educational program is striking testimony. Article Thirty-six makes provision for a future settlement of the issue, 32 but really indicates that the present Concordat was proclaimed with notable lacunae, which defied the well-known skill of the negotiators to fill in. The settlement of 1929 still has the appearance of a temporary arrangement, and one can hardly predict for it a better fate than that which befell the Concordat of 1801--that is, if the Fascist state and the Holy See both rigidly adhere to their present fundamental positions on the matter of sovereignty.

31 Current History, July, 1931, p. 618.
32 Vide supra, note 29.


Artaud M. Le Chevalier, Histoire du Pape VII (Paris, 1837, 2nd ed.). 2 toms.
Aulard A., Christianity and the French Revolution (trans. by Lady Fraser , London, 1927).
-----, Histoire Politique de la Révolution Fraçaise (Paris, 1901). 4 toms.
Baudrillart A., Quatre Cents Ans de Concordat (Paris, 1905).
Baunard Mgr., Un Siècle de l'Église de France (Paris, 1908). 2 toms.
Bodley J. E. C., The Church in France (London, 1906).
Bonomi I., From Socialism to Fascism (trans. by John Murray, London, 1924).
Bossuet J. B., Discours sur l'Histoire Universelle (London, 1807, 2nd ed.), tom. i.
Boulay de la Meurthe, Histoire de la Négociation du Concordat de 1801 (Tours, 1920).
-----, ed., Documents sur la Négociation du Concordat et sur les Autres Rapports de la France avec le Saint-Siège en 1800 et 1801 (Paris, 1891).
Briand A., La Séparation des Église et de l''État (Paris, 1905).
Bryce J., The Holy Roman Empire (New York, 1886, revised edition). 2 vol.
Bury J. B., History of the Papacy in the Nineteenth Century (edited by R. H. Murray, London, 1930).

Catholique Encyclopedia.
Caussette Le R. P., Vie du Cardinal D'Astros (Paris, 1853).
Cecil Viscount, The Way of Peace (New York, 1929).
Champion E., La Séparation de l'Église et de l'État en 1794 (Paris, 1903).
Chateaubriand Vicomte de, Memoirs d'Outre-Tombe (Paris, 1860), tom. i.
-----, Œuvres Complètes (Paris, 1861, new ed.).
Creighton M., A History of the Papacy (London, 1882-1894). 5 vols.
Crousaz-Cretet P. de, L'Église et l'État ou les Deux Puissances au XVIIIe Siècle (Paris, 1893).
Debidour A., Histoire des Rapports de l'Église et de l'État en France de 1789 à 1870 (Paris, 1911, 2nd ed.).
Desdivises du G. Dezert, L''Église et l'État en France (Paris, 1908). 2 toms.
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique.
Drochon Le R. P. J. B., La Petite Église (Paris, 1894).
Falloux Le Comte de, Discours et Melange Politiques (Paris, 1882). 2 toms.
-----, Memoirs of a Royalist (trans. by C. B. Pittman, London, 1888). 2 vols.
Feret Abbé, La France et le Saint-Siège (Paris, 1911). 2 toms.
Figgis J. N., Churches in the Modern State (London, 1913).

Galton A., Church and State in France, 1300-1907 (London, 1907).
Gazier A., History Générale du Mouvement Janséniste depuis Ses Origines jusqu' à Nos Jours (Paris, 1922). 2 toms.
Gooch G. P., Nationalism (London, 1921).
Gorgolini P., La Révolution Fasciste. Avec le Texte Intégral des Principaux Discours de Benito Mussolini (trans. into French by Eugene Marsan, Paris, 1924).
Gosselin J. E. A., Vie de M. Emery (Paris, 1861). 2 toms.
Grégoire H., Histoire des Sectes Religieuses (Paris, 1828-1845). 6 toms.
-----, Libertés de l''Église Gallicane (Paris, 1820, new ed.).
Guerard A. L., French Prophets of Yesterday (London, 1931).
Haussonville Comte d', L'Église Romaine et le Premier Empire (Paris, 1868). 5 toms.
Hayes C. J. H., Essays on Nationalism (New York, 1926).
-----, The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, 1931).
Hazen C. D., The French Revolution (New York, 1932). 2 vols.
Hocking W. E., Man and State (New Haven, 1926).
Jervis W. H., A History of the Church in France (London, 1872). 2 vols.
-----, The Gallican Church and the Revolution (London, 1882).

Laski H. J., Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty (New Haven, 1917).
Latreille C., L'Opposition Religieuse au Concordat (Paris, 1910).
Laurent F., L'Église et l'État depuis la Révolution (Brussels, 1862).
Le L. Fur, Le Saint-Siège et le Droit des Gens (Paris, 1930).
Lupton J. H., Archbishop Wake and the Project of Union (London, 1896).
Maistre J. de., Œuvres Complètes (Lyon, 1891).
Martin V., Le Gallicanisme et la Réforme Catholique (Paris, 1919).
Mathieu Cardinal, Le Concordat de 1801 (Paris, 1904, 2nd ed.).
Mathiez A., Le Theophilanthropie et le Cult Decadaire 1796-1801 (Paris, 1904).
-----, Rome et le Clergé Français (Paris, 1911).
Morley J., Critical Miscellanies (London, 1886), vol. ii.
Mourret F., Histoire Générale de l'Église (Paris, 1919, new ed.), tom. vii.
Nielsen F., The History of the Papacy in the XIX Century (trans. under the direction of A. J. Mason, London, 1906). 2 vols.
Ollivier E., Le Concordat et la Séparation de l'Église et de le État (Paris, 1885).

Pastor L. F. Von, Geschichte der Päpste (Freiburg, 1903), vol. 15.
Pisani P., L'Église de Paris et la Révolution (Paris, 1908, 2nd ed.). 2 toms.
Portalis J., Discours, Rapports et Travaux, Inédits, sur le Concordat (Paris, 1845). 2 toms.
Pradt M. de, Les Quatre Concordats (Paris, 1818).
Reccolta di Concordati su Materie ecclesiastice tra la Santa sede e le autorità civile (compiled by Angelo Mercati, Rome, 1919).
Renaudet A., Préréforme et Humanisme à Paris (Paris, 1916).
Ricard Mgr., Correspondance Diplomatique et Memoires, Inédits, du Cardinal Maury, 1792-1817 (Lille, 1891). 2 toms.
Rinieri P, Napoleone e Pio VII (Turin, 1906). 2 toms.
Rose J. H., Nationality in Modern History (New York, 1916).
Rousseau J. J, Contrat Social (Paris, 1790, new ed.).
Séche L., Les Origines du Concordat (Paris, 1894). 3 toms.
Sévestre Abbé, Let Idées Gallicanes et Royalistes (Paris, 1917).
Sicard Abbé, L' Ancien Clergé de France (Paris, 1893). 2 toms.
Sloane M. S, The French Revolution and Religions Reform (New York, 1901).
Staël Baroness de, Considerations on the Principal Events of the French Revolution (trans. into English 1818). 2 vols.
Theiner A., Documents Inédits, Relatifs aux Affaires Religieuses de la France, 1799-1800 (Paris, 1857). 2 toms.
-----, Histoire des Deux Concordats (Paris, 1869). 2 toms.
Veuillot L., Le Page et la Diplomatie (Paris, 1860).
-----, Let Odeurs de Paris (Paris, 1914).
Villemain A. F., La Tribune Moderne (Paris, 1858), tom. I.


Agincourt, battle of, referred to, 17
Alfred the Great, referred to, 141
Anagni, 16
Archiepiscopal Council, in Paris, 151, 156
Aristotle, referred to, 73
Arnaud, A. d', referred to, 227
Artois, Comte d', and Maury, 105 ; reaction under, 236
Astros, Cardinal d', referred to, 61 ; and Portalis, 77 ; leadership of, 120 ; frustrated Napoleon's scheme to administer vacant dioceses, 171, 173 ; career of, 178 198, 229, 235, 237
Augustus, empire of, referred to, 70 ; emperor, referred to, 195
Aulard, A., quoted, on revolutionary patriotism, 13 - 14 ; on the Convention, 24 ; on the men of the Enlightenment, 25 ; on the uprising in La Vendee, 26 ; on the Theophilanthropist church, 28 ; on revival of religious services, 29, on the Jacobins, 127

Barruel, Abbé, his defiance of the Pope, 119 - 120
Basle, Council of, referred to, 17 18
Beaumarchais, referred to, 77
Bellarmine, quoted, 20
Belloy, Cardinal de, death of, 184
Benedictines, referred to, 227
Bernier, Abbé, agent of French government to treat with representatives of the Holy See, 42 43 ; his plea for the forced resignations of the bishops of the old régime, 43 - 44 ; a dubious act on the part of, 44 - 45 ; his letter of warning to Consalvi, 46 ; sends an ultimatum to Cacault, 47 ; on the Pope's objection to divorce clauses in the Fifth Project. 47 48 ; on the Papal bull proclaiming the Concordat, 53 - 54
Bismarck, and integral nationalism, 240
Blanchardists, their defiance of Pius VII, 117 - 122
Bodley, J. E. C., quoted, 164
Boisgelin, Mgr. de, friend of d'Astros, 181
Bonaparte, Napoleon, see Napoleon I
Boniface VIII, referred to, 15,
Bossuet, J. B., referred to, 121, 217 ; quoted, 164 ; de Maistre on, 229 - 230
Boulay de la Meurthe, on the Constitutionals and the non-Jurors, 31, 34 - 36 ; referred to, 39 ; defends First Consul, 40 ; on the Organic Articles, 56 ; on Grégoire, 132
Bourbons, The, referred to, 96 ; believers in the divine right of, 98 ; claims of, 101 ; and Maury, 110, 114 ; guardians of Gallican rights, 112 ; cause of, abandoned by Maury, 116 ; Napoleon's imitation or, 164 - 165 ; de Maistre on, 211, 215, 217, 223 ; partisans of, 231, 236
Briand, A., and the Law of Separation, 242
Bryce, J., quoted, 15
Bury, J. B., quoted on the Papacy, 200 - 202

Cacault, French agent at Rome, 45 - 46 ; suggested that Consalvi negotiate in Paris, 47 ; on Grégoire, 123 - 124, 135 - 130, 140
Canonical institution, reserved to the Pope, 55 ; Pius VIII's refusal of, 169 - 175, 185 - 186 : d'Astros on, 188
Canossa, referred to, 11, 16 ; and Napoleon, 179
Capara, Cardinal, legate a latere for the Roman See in Paris, 54, 179, 184
Carnot, M., quoted on Grégoire, 126 - 127
Cathechism, a political, for grandson of Louis XIV, 13 ; an imperial, 94 - 96, 98 ; authorship of, 184 ; d'Astros on, 194
Catholic Action, referred to, 245 -
Catholic Church, imperial traditions of, 11 ; as an international sovereignty, 14 - 15 ; lost caste, 16 ; and the Jesuits, 20 ; weakness of, 21 ; commended to France by Chateaubriand, 74 ; Portalis, reasons for reestablishment of, 79 - 80 ; saved by the moderate clergy, 154 ; class interests put above, 159 ; Napoleon's policy towards, 163, 195 ; de Maistre on, 204, 207, 211, 214 ; a new apologetic for, 237
Catholicism, regarded as dangerous to the Republic, 26 ; Revolution failed to destroy, 30 ; all forms of, abandoned, 128 ; and Druidism, 213 - 214 ; opposed to liberalism, 235
Caussette, R. P., quoted, 77 ; on the authorship of the imperial catechism, 184 ; on Gallican privileges, 187, 197 - 198 ; on controversies between d'Astros and Maury, 189, 191 ; quoted, 195 Cessarini, president of the Council of Basle, 18
Champ de Mars, referred to, 14
Chaptal, Napoleon's conversation with, 180 - 181
Charlemagne, the coronation of, 16 ; referred to, 214
Charles V, referred to, 19
Charles X, see Artois, Comte d'
Charles the Fair, referred to, 224
Chateaubriand, Vicomte de, career of, 62 - 75, referred to, 86 ; compared with de Maistre, 199 - 200 ; and the Jacobins, 233 ; philosophy of, 235 - 237 ; heirs of, 239
Chénier, Marie Joseph, speech by,
Christianity, Rousseau's opinion of, 12 - 13 ; Chateaubriand's defense of, 66 - 68, 233 : Portalis on Catholic, 80 - 81 : de Maistre on, 213
Church and state, the problem of, 11 ; the sovereignty of, 14 ; referred to, 16, 18 - 20, 25 ;
relations between, defined in the Organic Articles, 56 - 57 ; Portalis on, 78 79, 89 - 95 ; the parlements and the house of bishops on, 100 - 101 ; the Constitutional Council on, 134 ; before era of Constantine, 139 140 ; Grégoire on, 140 - 142 ; Emery on, 147 - 148 ; de Maistre on, 216 - 225 ; the effect of the Concordat on the relations of, 226, 235 ; recent developments in the relations of, 240 - 246
Church Assembly of 1811, called by Napoleon, 144
Church Constitution, Grégoire on, 140 - 141 ; Emery on, 154
Church of France. see Gallican Church
Cicero, referred to, 213
Civil Constitution of the Clergy, 23 - 25 ; and the Jansenists, 125, 127 ; work of the government, 136 ; Grégoire on, 139 : Emery on, 149 ; end of, 155
Clovis and his people, referred to, 212
Coblentz, referred to, 105 - 106
Colbert, J. B., referred to, 229
Comas, referred to, 125
Comtat Venaissin, referred to, 102
Concordat of 1801, to be a contribution to social tranquility, 38 : negotiations for, 39 - 61 ;
Portalis' defense of, 79 - 94 ; Maury's opposition to, 110 ; Comte de Provence's denunciation of, 112 ; objections of the refractory bishops to, 117 - 122 ; Grégoire's opposition to, 129 - 131, 137 ;
Emery's part in the negotiations for, 161 : his attitude towards, 162 - 163 ; a suggestion for additional clauses to, 173 - 175 ; Emery's final attitude towards, 176 - 177 ; and de Maistre, 225 - 226 ; outcome of, 241 - 242
Concordat of Bologna, referred to, 130 - 131 `Concordat of 1929, between Kingdom of Italy and the Holy See, 243 - 246
Congregation, Old, too unwieldy to consult during negotiations, 41 ; Little, an advisory group created for the negotiations, 41
Congress of Vienna, referred to, 204
Consalvi, Cardinal, Papal secretary, organized the Little Congregation, 41 ; negotiates in Paris, 47 53 ; quoted, 56 ; thankful for small mercies, 60 ; and Maury, 108 ; on Emery, 174 - 175
Constance, Council of, referred to, 17 - 18, 92
Constantine, era of, referred to, 139
Constituent Assembly, referred to, 104, 144
Constitutional Bishops, a serious problem during the negotiations, 44 - 45, 54, 139 ; consecration of, 150
Constitutional Church, 23 - 24 ; reorganization of, 29 ; never able to secure a large following, 34 ; its principles satisfactory to the First Consul, 35 ; Portalis on, 79, 84 ; and Maury, 106 ; and Grégoire, 126, 132 - 136, 142 ; failure of, 144 ; reception into the Roman communion. 160 - 161
Constitutional Council, in session during the negotiations for the Concordat, 34 - 35, 49 - 50 ;
declarations issued by, 131 ; its appeal to the Catholic episcopate, 133 ; its appeal to the French government, 134 - 135, 137
Constitutions, de Maistre on, 222 223
Contrat Social, see Social Contract
Contre-Nouvelles, a Jansenist paper, 125
Convention, referred to, 24, 26 - 27, 127 : a decree of, 155
Cosmopolitanism, see internationalism
Council of 1615, ecclesiastical, 100 101
Counter-Project, Roman, to the Fifth Project, 47 - 48
Creighton, M., quoted, 16
Cult of Reason, referred to, 26, 98
Cult of Supreme Being, referred to, 26, 98
Culte Décadaire, referred to, 28
Culte des Adorateurs, referred to, 27
Culte Social, referred to, 27
Cyrus, empire of, referred to, 70

Dante, on European unity, 16 - 17
Daunou, head of the Tribunate, 76
Debidour, A., critic of the Roman See, 33
Declaration of 1682, The Four Articles of, referred to, 20 ; to be taught in all seminaries, 57 ; compared with the Organic Articles, 91 ; injunction to teach, 144 ; Emery on, 167, 175, 177 ; de Maistre on, 228 - 230
Deists, English, and Portalis, 79
Delmas, General, quoted, 58
Democracy, Maury's dislike of Jacobin, 108 ; Grégoire on, 126
De Monarchia, of Dante, referred to, 16
Directory, referred to, 30, 158
Divine right, of kings, de Maistre on, 215 - 216, 219, 222
Divorce, Emery on law of, 156
Doria, Cardinal, acting Papal secretary of state 50 52, 111
Droit de régale controversy, referred to, 187,
Druidism, de Maistre on, 213
Dupanloup, Abbé, referred to, 235
Du Pape, of de Maistre, 206, 216, 218, 225

Ecclesiastical Commissions, Napo- leon's, of 1809 and 1811, 169 - 177
Ecumenical Councils, Portalis on, 92 ; Grégoire on, 130 ; 141 ; de Maistre on, 216 - 219, 229 - 230 Egalitê, see Equality
Eighth Project, personally dictated by Bonaparte, 51
Emery, Abbé, on the oath of July 14, 1790, 24 ; representative of the moderate clergy, 60 ; on the oath of liberty and equality, 107 ; career of, 146 - 177, 229, 235, 237
Émigré bishops, and clergy, see non-juring bishops and clergy
Émile, of Rousseau, Chateaubriand on, 65 - 66
Encyclopedists, referred to, 66
England, reunion of the old bishops in, 119 - 121
English, described by Chateaubriand, 71 ; Portalis on, 84 ; referred to, 222
Enlightenment, men of, 25 ; aped by the Third Estate, 31
Equality, Maury on, 114 ; Emery On, 115
Estates General, referred to, 110, 126 ; Emery on, 147 ; de Maistre, on, 219
Eucharist, see Mass
Eugenius IV, referred to, 18
Europe, divisions of, 17 - 19 ; de Maistre on, 206, 210 - 211
European, unity, 11, 17, 18 ; politics, powers, 17 ; monarchs, 19 ; empire, 141

Falloux, Comte de, on the liberal Catholic movement, 235, 237 - 238
Fascist government, and the Vatican, 245 - 246
Fatherland, worship of, 14 ; crime against, 25, 26 ; altars of, 27 ; Chateaubriand on, 67 - 69 ;
Portalis on teaching love of, 86 - 87 ; and the feast of St. Napoleon, 96 - 98 ; Grégoire on, 139 ; loyalty to, 231, 236
Feast of St. Louis, referred to, 96
Feast of St. Napoleon, 96 - 97
Febronianism, referred to, 198
Federation fétes of 1790, 25
Federations, formation of, 21
Fénêlon, referred to, 121
Ferry laws ( 1879), referred to, 241
Fesch, Cardinal, French represenútative at Rome, 116 ; a member of. Napoleon's ecclesiastical commission. 172 ; rebuked by Napoleon, 176 ; refused archbishopric of Paris, 186
Fifth Project, 45
First Consul, see Napoleon I
Fleury, A. H., Emery on the works of, 166 ; his Church History, 179 ; referred to, 217, 218
Fontanes, Comte de, his conversation with Napoleon, 195
Fontenai, battle of, referred to, 213
Fouché, J., examined Emery, 166 167
Four Articles of 1682, see Declaration of 1682
France, de Maistre on, 203 - 204, 212 - 215, 223
French people, during the Revolution, 12 ; described by Chateaubriand, 71 - 72
French Revolution, referred to, 12, 13, 14 ; a gospel for, 21 ; the rigorist clergy refused to compromise with, 24 ; failed to destroy Catholicism, 30 ; mass of laborers grateful to, 31 ; Pius VII on the democratic principles of, , 32 ; change of Papal policy towards, 33 ; the nationalism of, 97 ; and Maury, 110 ; and the Jansenists, 125 ; and Emery, 146 161 ; its impression on d'Astros, 182 - 184 : de Maistre on, 205, 207 208, 217 ; and the liberal Catholics, 236

Gallican Church, rent asunder, 23 ; distinguished from Roman hierarchy, 25 ; remnant of, 35, 36 ; subjected to the will of the French government, 60 ; decrees of the Council of 1615 on, 100 101 ; and Comte de Provence, 112 ; Grégoire on, 128, 137 - 145 ; Emery on, 157 ; a new, 164 ; Emery on the spiritual authority of, 168 - 169 ; liberties of, abandoned, 178 : declaration of allegiance to, 192 ; de Maistre on, 214 - 215, 226 - 232, 237
Gallican communion, see Gallican Church
Gallican liberty, see Gallicanism and Gallican Church
Gallicanism, of Grégoire, 128 ; Grégoire on, 137 - 140, 144 - 145 ; Emery's repudiation of, 163, 166, 176 - 178 ; pride of Frenchmen in, 179 ; d'Astros repudiation of, 186 - 187 ; Maury's injury to popularity of, 193 ; Caussette on, 197 198 ; de Maistre on, 214 - 215, 217, 226 - 232 ; Louis Veuillot on, 237 238
Gandolphy, quoted, 141
Gauls, referred to, 213 - 214
Gazier, A., on Jansenism, 124 - 125
General Council, see Ecumenical Council
General Will theory of Rousseau, de Maistre on, 220
Génie du Christianisme, of Chateaubriand, 30, 61 ; origin of, 62 - 64 ; analysis of, 66 - 75 ;
referred to, 233 ; text book of the liberal Catholics, 236
German barbarians, referred to, 207
Germany, liberal Catholic movement in, 240
Ghislieri, Austrian ambassador at Rome, quoted, 179
Gospel, The, Chateaubriand on, 68 ; put on a level with the Koran, 113
Grégoire, Henri, referred to, 25 ; summoned a Constitutional Council at Paris, 34 ; summoned a second National Council during the negotiations, 49 ; leader of the Constitutionals, 61 ; career of, 123 - 145 ; referred to, 165, 234, 237
Gregory VII, referred to, 15 ; Grégoire on canonization of, 138
Grotius, H., on a new internationalism, 15 ; his problem, 17 ; referred to, 219
Guerard, A. L., quoted, 236

Hayes, C. J. H., on nationalism, 12 ; on patriotism, 69 - 70
Henry IV, Emperor, referred to, 179
Henry VIII, of England, referred to, 84
Hildebrand, see Gregory VII
Hildebrandine controversy, referred to, 11
Hohenstaufens, referred to, 179
Holy Roman Empire, referred to, 15, 16, 17, 19 ; Napoleon's vision of a, 178 - 181
Holy See, see Papacy
Humanitarians, eighteenth-century, 12 ; preachings of, 21

Imperial University, Emery alarmed by the establishment of, 168 - 169
Individualism, de Maistre on, as a creed, 228
Infallibility of the Pope, de Maistre on, 215 - 219
Intellectuals, eighteenth-century, 12
Internationalism, new, 15, 18 ; old, 20 ; a liberal, 238 - 239
Italy, Kingdom of, and the Holy See, 243 - 246
Jabineau, editor of Contre-Nouvelles, 125
Jacobinism, spirit of, 211 - 212 ; confused with nationalism. 231 ; rereferred to, 238 - 239 Jacobins, referred to, 14, 22, 31 ; shocked by the First Consul's negotiating with the Pope, 33 - 34 ; their influence on Chateaubriand, 74 ; and Napoleon, 97 ; doubting, 233
Jansenism, and Portails, 78 ; and Cacault, 123 ; Gazier on, 124 ; divisions in, over the Civil Constitution of the clergy, 125 - 126 ; spirit of, 132 ; influence of Revolution on, 134 - 135 ; de Maistre on, 227 - 228
Jesuits, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 20 - 21 ; Chateaubriand on the expulsion of, 73 : referred to, 227, 231
Joseph II of Austria, referred to, 48
Josephism, referred to, 198
Justinian, Emperor, referred to, 48
Koran, referred to, 113
Kulturkampf, foreshadowing of a, 169 ; a little, 177 ; the German, 240

La Brnyère, quoted, 13
Lacordaire, Père, referred to, 235
Lalande, P., on the Civil Constitution of the clergy, 150
Latreille, C., quoted, 30, 36, 117
La Vendée, referred to, 26, 85
Law of Separation of 1905, 241 - 242
League of Nations, referred to, 18, 225
Le Fur, L., on the Concordat of 1929, 243 - 245
Legislature, hostile to the Concordat, 76 ; Portalis' speech to the members of, 79 - 94
Legitimists, their defiance of Pius VII. 118 - 122 ; accept the Revolution of 1789, 236
Leibnitz, Emery on, 148
Liberal Catholic movement, 201, 235 - 239, and Bismarck, 240
Liberalism, 200 ; see Liberal Cath movement
Liberty, Emery on, 152 - 153
Locke, J., de Maistre, on philosophy of, 208 - 211
Lorrière, referred to, 125
Loubet, President, visit of, to King of Italy, 245
Louis XIII, on the decrees of the Council of 1615, 101
Louis XIV, days of, 13 ; and Church sovereignty, 20 ; court of, 103 ; and Jansenism, 123 ; considered himself the state, 165 ; his controversies precedents for Maury, 187 - 188 ; teachings of, 217 ; and the Declaration of 1682, 229 - 230
Louis XVI, referred to, 65, 127
Louis XVIII, see Provence, Comte de

Machiavelli, teachings of, 17
Maistre, Joseph de, leader of Ultramontanes, 61, 120 ; career of, 199 - 232 ; followers of, 237 - 239 ; system of, 240
Manning, Cardinal, and Catholic liberalism, 201 - 202
Marengo, battle of, referred to, 32, 39
Marie Antoinette, received absolu-tion from Emery, 155
Marriage, of priests, 45 : in Organic Articles, 57 ; Portalis on, 90 - 91
Martin, Victor, on the growth of national royalty, 100
Martiniana, Cardinal, his letter to Pius VII, 39 - 40, 108
Mass, The, referred to by the First Consul, 32 - 33 ; Chateaubriand on, 68 ; de Maistre on, 207 Mathieu, Cardinal, discovered papers connected with the Concordat, 39 ; on Consalvi's veracity, 52 Mathiez. A., quoted on the cults of the French Revolution, 26
Maury, Cardinal, defender of the non-jurors, 60 ; career of, 90 122 ; his dispute with Emery, 149, 152 - 153. 159 - 160 : bishopelect of Paris, 173 : his quarrel with d'Astros, 186 - 191 ; and the grand vicars of Paris, 192 - 194 ; his conversation with Napoleon, 195 ; and Grégoire, 234, 237 Memorial de Sainte-Hélène, quoted from, 180 - 181
Middle Ages, referred to, 15, 20, 208
Milan, Cathedral of, Napoleon's speech at, 32 - 33
Minister of ecclesiastical affairs, see Portalis, Jean-Etienne
Mirabeau, referred to, 77 ; and Maury, 104 - 105, 114
Mohammedanism, Bonaparte's excursion into, 113
Monastic orders, Portalis on, 93 - 94 ; suspect in France, 241 - 242
Montalembert, Comte de, referred to, 235
Montefiascone, bishopric of, given to Maury, 108 ; Maury at, 114 115
Morley, John, quoted on de Maistre, 199
Morone, Cardinal, president of the Council of Trent, 19 - 20
Mosheim, J. L. von, quoted by de Maistre. 217

Napoleon I, associates of, 11, 13 ; referred to, 23, 28, 30 ; his speech at Milan, 32 ; his reasons for seeking a Concordat with the See of Rome, 33 - 38 ; his conversation with Martiniana, 39 - 40 ; sought out Grégoire as a probable plenipotentiary, 42 ; taken aback at the Roman rejection of the Fifth Project. 45 - 46 ; condemned Seventh Project and dictated a new one, 50 : his attempted deception of Consalvi, 52 ; dissatisfied with the Roman draft of the bull proclaiming the Concordat, 54 ; pleased with the Concordat, 57 ; pious Catholics grateful to, 59 ; and Portalis, 76 77 : quoted, 83 ; a Jacobin democrat to a certain extent, 85 ; apprehensive over the Declaration of 1682, 91 - 92 ; his demand for a catechism, 94 - 95 ; said he was the Revolution, 97 ; wished to master the Pope, 98 ; Maury's overtures
to, 116 - 117 ; and Grégoire, 129 132 ; his care for members of the Constitutional Church, 135 - 136 ; failed to elicit loyal support from Catholic bishops, 163 - 166 ; and Emery, 166 - 169 ; his quarrel with the Pope over non-institution of bishops, 169 - 177 ; his attempt to dominate the Church, 178 - 181 ; and d'Astros, 184 - 186, 190 - 192, 194 - 197
Napoleon III, referred to, 241
Narbonne, archbishop of, presided at the reunion of old bishops, 120 - 121
Natonalism, revolutionary, 11, 14 ; definition of, 11 - 12 ; Chateaubriand's theorizing on, 68 - 70 ; traditonal, of Chateaubriand, 71 ; defined as a God-given instinct, 75 ; Napoleonic, 97 - 98, Grégoire's. 128, 142, 145 ; clergy revolted against new, 165, 177 ; aggressive attitude of Jacobin, 178 ; emotional, 200 ; antagonism to, 203 ; de Maistre's, 225 ; intensity of, 225 : effect of Jacobin, on the Gallican Church, 230 - 231 ; content of modern French, 234 - 235 ; humanitarian, liberal, and integral, 240 - 241
Natural laws, Portalis on, 79, 88 89
Nero, example of, 221
Nicæa, Council of, referred to, 130
Nielsen, F., quoted on Napoleon, 179 - 181
Ninth Project, final text of the Concordat, 53
Non-juring bishops, resignations demanded of, 54 ; Emery on the refusal of the émigrés to resign their sees, 162
Non-juring clergy, 156 - 157 ; dispute between moderate and rigorist, 159 - 160
Notre Dame, festival service held in, 58
Nouvelles Ecclésiastiques, a Jansenist paper, 124 - 125
Oaths demanded of the clergy, 23 24, 100, 107, 149, 151 - 152, 159 160
Oratorians, referred to, 227
Organic Articles, summary of, 56 58 ; Portalis' report on, 88 - 91 ; referred to, 144 ; Emery's attitude towards, 162 ; expansion of Gallican liberties in, 179 ; d'Astros cooperated in framing, 184 Original sin, de Maistre on, 205 206

Papacy, helped to destroy the Empire, 17 ; made alliances with Protestants, 19 ; Bellarmine on theoretical position of, 20 ; popular sympathy in France on the side of, 29 ; Chateaubriand on, 74 - 75 ; Emery on prerogatives of, 165 ; Napoleon's attempt to place limits upon, 172 - 176 ; Emery created a following around, 177 ; its attempts to compromise with the new state, 201 - 202 ; de Maistre on, 206 - 207, 215 - 220 ; opposition to, 234 ; not as weak as European statesmen had come to regard it, 240 - 241 ; Louis le Fur on the sovereignty of, 244 246
Papal bull proclaiming the Concordat, 53 - 54
Papal court, see Roman court
Papal dispensations, de Maistre on, 223 - 225
Papal estates, referred to, 185
Papal secretary, see Consalvi
Paris, court at, hostile to negotiations, 41 ; domestic circumstances in, 49 ; Napoleon desired Pope to reside at, 196 ; regarded as a new Jerusalem, 236
Parlements, 100 - 101
Parliament, English, referred to, 141, 222 - 223
Pascal, B., referred to, 227
Patrie, see Fatherland
Patriotism, Chateaubriand's analysis of, 69 ; Portalis on sectional, 87 ; a changed, 231
Petite Église, referred to, 24, 122 Philosophy, eighteenth-century, and Chateaubriand, 74 ; a revolt against, 199 ; critics of, 200 ; de Maistre on, 205, 207 - 211
Pisa, Council of, referred to, 92
Pius IV, and the spiritual government of the Papacy, 19
Pius VI, referred to, 106, 108, 121
Pius VII, his reasons for negotiating with the French government, 30 - 33 ; and the old episcopate, 43 - 44 ; rejects Fifth Project, 45 ; protested against Organic Articles, 57 - 60 ; refused to conclude a concordat with Comte de Provence, 109 ; and Maury, 108, 111 - 114 ; and the legitimists and Blanchardists, 117 - 121 ; heeded the advice of the moderate clergy, 157, 160 ; his weapon of non-institution 163 - 164 ; refused to sanction Napoleon's divorce, 170
Pius IX, and liberalism, 202, 239
Plus XI, referred to, 245
Plato, referred to, 73
Plutarch, referred to, 73
Poitiers, canons of, referred to, 188
Pontifex Maximus, a title coveted by Napoleon, 196
Pope, see Papacy, Pius VII
Portalis, Jean-Etienne, minister of ecclesiastical affairs, 54 ; reassured members of legislative bodies on Gallican liberties, 59 : his difficult task, 60 ; career of, 76 - 99 ; and d'Astros, 181, 182 183 ; failed to dispel suspicions of legislators, 234
Portalis, M., son of the minister of ecclesiastical affairs, on d'Astros, 183 ; exiled from Paris, 191
Port Royal, 124 ; see Jansenism
Positivist philosophers, referred to, 199
Pradt, Abbé hostile to the Génie du Christianisme, 67
Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438), referred to, 131 - 132, 173, 175
Protestantism, compared with Jansenism, 227
Protestant religion placed on same level with Catholic, 57
Protestant revolt, advent of, 18 ; French Revolution likened to, 217
Protestants, Papal alliances with, 19 ; method of, 230
Provence, Comte de, advised by Maury, 108 ; correspondence with Maury, 108 - 115 ; rights of, 120 ; and the legitimists, 121 ; constitution of, 222
Quanta Cura, Encyclical, quoted, 202

Racine, L., his book on Port Royal, 124
Ranke, L. von, quoted, 19, 20
Ratisbon, archbishop of, humiliated by Napoleon, 176
Ratisbon, conference of, referred to, 19
Reclamations canoniques, issued by the refractory bishops, 121
Reign of Terror, referred to, 13, 26 ; proved a scourge to the Constitutional Church, 34 ; Emery's conduct during, 146, 154 - 155
Religion, defined by Portalis, 78 ; Portalis on, and the moral code, 80 - 83
Religion Naturelle, referred to, 27
Religious communities, see Monastic orders
Revolution, see French Revolution
Ricard, Mgr., quoted, 102, 106
Rights of Peace and War, of Grotius, 17
Rinieri, P., aided in the discovery of papers connected with the Concordat, 39
Rochelle, bishop of, a bribe offered to, 115
Roman Court, circumstances prevailing at, 40 - 41 ; hostile to negotiations, 41; in despair over ultimatum from First Consul, 47 ; Portalis on the enterprises of, 86 ; Maury's fears about, 110 - 111 ; the cause of, 118 ; Constitutional Council on, 134
Roman Empire, referred to, 15, 16
Roman See, see Papacy
Romantic movement, and Chateaubriand, 75
Romeuf, M. de, friend of Emery, 156, 159
Rousseau, J. J., preacher of a new evangel, 12 ; on Christianity, 12 13 ; on the nation, 13 - 14 ; provided a gospel for the French
Revolution, 21, 22 ; his influence on Chateaubriand, 64 - 66 ; followers of, 68 ; Maury unmoved by, 103 ; and Grégoire, 141 ; teachings of, referred to, 210, 232 - 233

Sacred College, objected to a French national ecclesiastical council, 45
Sainte-Beuve, quoted, 63
St. Irenæus, Seminary of, referred to, 147
St. John Lateran, Basilica of, thanksgiving service celebrated in, 58
St. Leo, referred to, 130
St. Malo, birthplace of Chateaubriand, 63
St. Peter, referred to, 214
St. Petersburg, de Maistre at, 204 205
Saint Sulpice, Seminary of, Emery superior of, 149 ; closed, 151
St. Thomas Aquinas, referred to, 148 ; quoted by de Maistre, 208
Savona, Pius VII prisoner at, 180, 185, 190
Savoy, de Maistre a citizen of, 203
Seminaries, Ecclesiastical, Declaration of 1682 to be taught in all, 57 ; Portalis on state's endowment of, 94
Seventh Project, 49 - 50
Sixth Project, 48
Social Contract, of Rousseau, Portalis on, 78 - 79, 83 ; its influence on Grégoire, 126, 141 ; Emery on, 158 ; de Maistre on, 210
Sovereignty, Portalis on Church and state, 88 - 94 ; disputed fields of, 100 - 101 ; Maury on, 103 ; Grégoire on Church and state, 140 - 142 ; Napoleon on Church, 163 ; de Maistre on, 216 - 225 ; Louis le Fur on a new conception of, 243 - 245
Spina, Monsignor, Papal representative at Paris, 41 ; his arrival at Paris, 42 ; his plea on behalf of the old episcopate, 43
Staël, Baroness, de, quoted, 29 - 30
State, see Church and state
State of nature, nations in, de Maistre on, 219 - 221
Swetchine, Madame, referred to, 235
Syllabus of 1864, Bury on, 200 - 201

Talleyrand, P., secretly hostile to the negotiations, 40, 42 ; warns the Pope through Cacault, 45 - 46 ; objected to Roman Counter-Project to Fifth Project, 48 ; approved of Seventh Project, 49 ; and Emery, 150
Tam Multa, Papal brief demanding resignations of non-juring bishops, 54, 118 - 119
Terror, see Reign of Terror
Theiner, A., on Consalvi's Memoirs, 51 - 52 ; Bonaparte's special defender, 59, 193
Theophilanthropist church, dangerous rival to Catholicism, 27 - 28 ; referred to, 81
Trent, Council of, referred to, 19
Tribalism, revival of, 12
Tribunate, hostile to Concordat, 76 ; suggestions from, 96
Triple Alliance, referred to, 242

Ultramontanism, referred to, 93, 231 ; and the Blanchardists, 117 118 ; Grégoire on, 143 - 145 ;
Emery saved from being accused of, 148 ; Emery's conversion to, 163, 176 - 177 ; origin of new, 166 ; d'Astros became an advocate of, 197 ; fear of, 234
Unigenitus, bull, Emery on, 147 148
Univers, paper edited by Veuillot, 238
University, see Imperial University
Varennes, flight of king to, referred to, 65, 127
Vatican, archives of, 39 ; and the Fascist régime, 245 - 246
Verceil, Bonaparte at, 39
Veuillot, L., on the liberal Catholics, 237 - 240
Victor Emmanuel II. King, visit of French President to, 242
Villemain, M., quoted, 62
Voltaire, referred to, 28; Chateaubriand on, 72 - 73 ; de Maistre on, 210


BORN at Ellerslie, Prince Edward Island, September 17, 1899. Received high school education at Prince of Wales College, Charlottetown, and matriculated into King's University, Windsor, Nova Scotia, in 1917; received B. A. degree 1921, M. A. in 1923. Took two years' post-graduate work in theology at King's University (1921-1923). Ordained to the diaconate of the Church of England in Canada 1923. Studied theology for one year at Oxford, England (1923-1924). Ordained to the priesthood at Christ Church, Dartmouth, 1924. Rector of the parish of Musquodoboit, Nova Scotia, 1924-1927.

Entered the General Theological Seminary, New York City, in 1927, and received the degree of Master of Sacred Theology in 1930. Became a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Columbia University in 1931.

[ Previous | Main Contents ]