The janitor of the Chamber of Peers wonders why the comte de L'Isle Jourdain is addressing an empty room, and thus concludes he's a bit empty upstairs.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Palais-Royal, Paris
Louis-Philippe, duc d’Orléans
"...and it was conveyed to me that comte de L'Isle Jourdain started rambling before the empty legislature on Spain," conveyed one sycophant of Orléans, much to the delight of the gathered crème of Parisian society. Orléans' temporary alliance with the Condé failed to forestall the adoption of a budget hostile to the interests of the industrious class that Louis-Philippe identified himself with. It did open the door to future cooperation with the more pragmatic section of the Ultra's cohort, while at the same time it revealed the limitations of popular government with his cousin, the King, meddling with the proceedings on the floor to save the royal favourite--the male one of course, the female one it was reported on somewhat good authority that the King enjoyed taking snuff from Zoé Talon, the comtesse du Cayla, bosom while reading government papers--and ram home he passage of the budget. "What more if it was Artois as King, would we even have a hearing?" quipped another member of Orléans' circle. Spurred on once again by Princess Adelaïde, her brother began to gather the Left for an all-prefectures campaign to ensure a overall Liberal majority in the Chamber.
Strenuously attacking the King or Artois directly was to be avoided, instead the Orléanists put forward their vision for France under King and Charter. The press laws had sparked all sorts of one-off "mushroom pamphleting" to avoid the legal definition of being a periodical regulated by the law. There was an even greater desire to avoid libel or defamation charges. All factions sought ways to avoid the press laws, some even coming out with novels or non-fiction books on political issues to skirt the law entirely. Out of caution, no one enemy of progress could be indicated by name but rather would be engaged on the basis of policy. Since the electorate was contained to he upper and industrious classes there would be little difficulty in the pamphlet reader, or audience of an Orléanists-aligned speaker, in identifying who or what the actual topic was of conversation. One such figure to be held to account was "Archbishop Deficit," Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget; who was known by that sobriquet or as the "Enemy of the Fifth Article" (of the Public Law of the French).
Bourget's hostility to the Charter, and in particular freedom of confession were widely known. His hostility to Gallicanism in particular was the cause for much frustration among the industrious class and Liberals. Whereas Valence's reactionary Austriacist tendencies were largely confined to foreign affairs, Bourget's love affair with all things antiquated were most vexing to those who wanted to propel France property into the 19th century. Valence, Bourget, Saint-Aignan would be the identified as the "Hydra of Reaction" by the Left, with Saint-Aignan's crime being his proposal for a truly oppressive internal security law that provided for indefinite detention on the flimsiest of rationales. Combined, claimed the Left, the Hyrda would subject French policy to Habsburg approval, regulate laws according to the whims of a new Savonarola's flawed interpretation of the Good News, and jail you for exercising your privileges justly granted to you under the Charter. Henri Bourbon and Rothschild were spared the same sort of treatment in the Orléanists circle; both were assumed to be trying to do their jobs as dutifully as possible, same with the War Minister. Any flaws in Rothschild's budget were blamed on the reactionary forces he had to work with rather than the man himself.
Throughout the departments, efforts would be made to find those members of the industrious class willing to make the personal sacrifice of time and money to serve in the legislature. For those that were willing to brave the electoral gauntlet the Orléanists and the other allies would provide logistical support and advice for campaigns. The days of loose factional groupings would one day come to an end, to prepare for that day and to be organized for that change Louis-Philippe and his friends looked to a British model to guide their current actions and rationalize the fact that the Charter's franchise was quite limited. Orléanists and other allies on the Left would argue that the franchise was a form of "virtual representation," in that the legislature spoke on behalf of all Frenchmen and had its membership drawn from classes that had the greatest interest in maintaining effective government. Indeed, one argument used by the Orléanists and other allies on the Left to sway Ultras and other conservatives that had begun to be put off by Saint-Aignan's security laws was that voting for the candidates of the "mainstream" Left was the only way to control the passions of those who wanted to force impractical polices onto France; the Left had shown itself open to measured change, in contrast the Right dominated by Ultras like Bourget gave not a thought to the practical implications of trying to turn back the clock by two decades. Those irreconcilable Ultras cared not for public unrest caused by their policies and thereby threatened the security of both the industrious class and new and old nobility, thus their natural right to guide France on the right path.
Orléans would summarize this middle-road, verging center-left approach at a party he gave for a favored candidate from Lorraine, "We must be liberal in mindset to recognize and remove the ills that affect our body politic, we must be conservative in action as to safeguard the wisdom of the Charter. Let us not give into the passion of the moment nor be so fossilized as to resist the onset of change. As Augustus put it, 'we must hasten slowly'."
The Orléanist Creed
Louis-Philippe, duc d’Orléans
"...and it was conveyed to me that comte de L'Isle Jourdain started rambling before the empty legislature on Spain," conveyed one sycophant of Orléans, much to the delight of the gathered crème of Parisian society. Orléans' temporary alliance with the Condé failed to forestall the adoption of a budget hostile to the interests of the industrious class that Louis-Philippe identified himself with. It did open the door to future cooperation with the more pragmatic section of the Ultra's cohort, while at the same time it revealed the limitations of popular government with his cousin, the King, meddling with the proceedings on the floor to save the royal favourite--the male one of course, the female one it was reported on somewhat good authority that the King enjoyed taking snuff from Zoé Talon, the comtesse du Cayla, bosom while reading government papers--and ram home he passage of the budget. "What more if it was Artois as King, would we even have a hearing?" quipped another member of Orléans' circle. Spurred on once again by Princess Adelaïde, her brother began to gather the Left for an all-prefectures campaign to ensure a overall Liberal majority in the Chamber.
Strenuously attacking the King or Artois directly was to be avoided, instead the Orléanists put forward their vision for France under King and Charter. The press laws had sparked all sorts of one-off "mushroom pamphleting" to avoid the legal definition of being a periodical regulated by the law. There was an even greater desire to avoid libel or defamation charges. All factions sought ways to avoid the press laws, some even coming out with novels or non-fiction books on political issues to skirt the law entirely. Out of caution, no one enemy of progress could be indicated by name but rather would be engaged on the basis of policy. Since the electorate was contained to he upper and industrious classes there would be little difficulty in the pamphlet reader, or audience of an Orléanists-aligned speaker, in identifying who or what the actual topic was of conversation. One such figure to be held to account was "Archbishop Deficit," Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget; who was known by that sobriquet or as the "Enemy of the Fifth Article" (of the Public Law of the French).
Bourget's hostility to the Charter, and in particular freedom of confession were widely known. His hostility to Gallicanism in particular was the cause for much frustration among the industrious class and Liberals. Whereas Valence's reactionary Austriacist tendencies were largely confined to foreign affairs, Bourget's love affair with all things antiquated were most vexing to those who wanted to propel France property into the 19th century. Valence, Bourget, Saint-Aignan would be the identified as the "Hydra of Reaction" by the Left, with Saint-Aignan's crime being his proposal for a truly oppressive internal security law that provided for indefinite detention on the flimsiest of rationales. Combined, claimed the Left, the Hyrda would subject French policy to Habsburg approval, regulate laws according to the whims of a new Savonarola's flawed interpretation of the Good News, and jail you for exercising your privileges justly granted to you under the Charter. Henri Bourbon and Rothschild were spared the same sort of treatment in the Orléanists circle; both were assumed to be trying to do their jobs as dutifully as possible, same with the War Minister. Any flaws in Rothschild's budget were blamed on the reactionary forces he had to work with rather than the man himself.
Throughout the departments, efforts would be made to find those members of the industrious class willing to make the personal sacrifice of time and money to serve in the legislature. For those that were willing to brave the electoral gauntlet the Orléanists and the other allies would provide logistical support and advice for campaigns. The days of loose factional groupings would one day come to an end, to prepare for that day and to be organized for that change Louis-Philippe and his friends looked to a British model to guide their current actions and rationalize the fact that the Charter's franchise was quite limited. Orléanists and other allies on the Left would argue that the franchise was a form of "virtual representation," in that the legislature spoke on behalf of all Frenchmen and had its membership drawn from classes that had the greatest interest in maintaining effective government. Indeed, one argument used by the Orléanists and other allies on the Left to sway Ultras and other conservatives that had begun to be put off by Saint-Aignan's security laws was that voting for the candidates of the "mainstream" Left was the only way to control the passions of those who wanted to force impractical polices onto France; the Left had shown itself open to measured change, in contrast the Right dominated by Ultras like Bourget gave not a thought to the practical implications of trying to turn back the clock by two decades. Those irreconcilable Ultras cared not for public unrest caused by their policies and thereby threatened the security of both the industrious class and new and old nobility, thus their natural right to guide France on the right path.
Orléans would summarize this middle-road, verging center-left approach at a party he gave for a favored candidate from Lorraine, "We must be liberal in mindset to recognize and remove the ills that affect our body politic, we must be conservative in action as to safeguard the wisdom of the Charter. Let us not give into the passion of the moment nor be so fossilized as to resist the onset of change. As Augustus put it, 'we must hasten slowly'."
Last edited:
INSIDE PARIS (II)
Intellectual Life in the Restoration;
and
Noblesse Oblige: Alexandre, Seigneur Nouveau Aparis and Messidor
Modernity, with all its contradictions and particular styles, is fortunate enough to be endowed with the benefit of hindsight. Such retrospection affords the present audience of readers and critics perspectives that the contemporary receptors would be unable to conceptualize without an aloft au courant meta-viewpoint. Much of this ex post facto awareness requires comprehension of the political and social factors that at the time might have seemed congenital to daily life, and thus beyond the understanding of existent players. The certification of this discrepancy—between the particular norms of the time and the general norms that are only perceptible in postliminary consideration—is the fulcrum for the disparity in opinion between the past and the present. This axiom is nowhere truer then in the literary productions of the Regency Era and the Marquis Era[1]. The most obvious manifestation of the aforementioned theorem is the general (although certainly not universal) distaste for the novels of period popularity, and simultaneously, the modern eagerness for the period publications that were discarded by the time. In fewer words, the Marquis Era was brimming with Moby Dick(s) and J R(s). Intellectual Life in the Restoration;
and
Noblesse Oblige: Alexandre, Seigneur Nouveau Aparis and Messidor
That the Restoration was, in contrast to the Empire, a period of intense intellectual production, proved by cold statistics compiled by the Comte Daru, who showed that whereas in 1812 4,628 works were published, totalling 72 million full-printed sheets, in 1821, in the more restricted France of boundaries and policies, French publications amounted to 7,542 works, with a total of 218 million full-rinted sheets, or the equivalent of 14 million volumes. What is known today of those hundreds of little publications which glowed for a few months before falling back into oblivion? It is in these that the lively expression of that intellectual fermentation of the time—with its so strongly marked characteristics of individualism, almost of anarchy—would be found. There was no one directive center, no official arbiter of taste, rather the salons, the academies, the colleges, the faculties, the big schools, the provincial societies (e.g. the Athenaeum and the Society of Good Literature), and even reading rooms, circles, editorial rooms, and literary cafés; all of these constituted such a numerous and varied reading public that an author (like Cazal) could be utterly rejected by the nobility and yet find himself a steady income from the other sources of readership. The post-1815 French intellectual revival owed a great deal to contradictory sources; the peace that allowed young men to occupy their fortunes with something other then warfare, and also inspiration from the disturbances of the preceding era. Until the end of the last century, the cultural exchange between France and the other continental countries was limited to a minority of aristocrats, literary men, and artists; besides, it was a one-way street, with France and its haughty supremacy filtering throughout Europe, and thus received very little. However, the Revolution had scattered the émigrés to all the countries of Europe, and who were in the best position to profit from the sojourn in the midst of such a different society. Just as France had brought liberalism to Europe, the nobles brought back to France a whole collection of new ideas, which little-by-little made their influence felt.
A second wave, numerically stronger but geographically less widespread, and especially less capable of profiting by these contracts, was made up of the returning Revolutionary and Imperial armies. Another, and much less important third wave, that of the post-1815 emigration, cast small groups upon the shores of the Near East and the Americas, but without much visible contribution to French culture back in France. In 1814 and 1815, by an opposite movement, it was Europe which poured into France; first by military intervention, and not very favorable to cultural relations, but then later by arousing thousands of tourists, particularly English-men, attracted by the rumored congeniality and prestige of Paris. England was to be the great shepherd, guiding French literature towards romanticism—Shakespeare, Bryon, and Sir Walter Scott were inexhaustible sources of inspiration for the contemporary French novel. The introduction of Italian and Spanish noblemen to Paris also enlivened the opera and the artistic scenery. There was thus divided into three schools of intellectual life; the Ideologues, the Catholic and Royalist school, and the Eclectics. The "Ideologues" adhered to the dominant principles of the philosophy of the previous century; sensualism, deism, or atheism, faith in reason and progress, individualism; but their work was exhausted, and likely would have been condemned in France, if not for the works of Benjamin Constant, who became the Proteus of intelligence and sentiment. The basis of his liberalism was popular sovereignty, and liberty was considered the highest guarantee of all other natural rights; although democracy was still to be feared, and the English model was thus to be replicated.
This first school was opposed vigorously by the Catholic and royalist school, still called traditionalist, theocratic, or Ultramontane, furnished by the most characteristically "Restorative" contribution of the new regal system. More than any other current of thought, it really constituted a school, thanks to the unity furnished to its diverse voices by their common acceptance of Catholicism; it also presented a more European character, having been born from émigré interaction with German philosophers and the anti-revolutionary influence of Burke. Thus it was the Comte du Dhuizon, who laid the cornerstone of the reactionary edifice in his Considérations sur la folie nationale, published in Paris in 1815. His work was unquestionably a part of French Restoration thought because of the enormous influence it exerted on it. He found unforgettable expressions for crushing human pride, reason, atheist philosophy, and the principles o the French Revolution. For him the only salvation was in a return to a monarchial regime, guarded by the elite, the natural emanation of the providential social order; and he recognized no other legitimate sovereignty than that which issued from God, the temporal principles, in his system, were subordinated to the pope, and to the concept of the country, which required constitutionalism insofar as it was to be governed by the nobility. Among these ranks, and among Dhuizon's proteges, included Chateaubriand, Lamennais, and Henri-Maurice de St. Germain.
Between the materialism of the ideological school and Catholic theology, the last years of the Empire had seen emerge, with the government's benediction, an attempt to create a spiritualist philosophy founded on psychological observation and reason. Its initiations in the imperial university had been Laromiguière and Royer-Collard, whose system was inspired by that of Thomas Reid. It would fall to Victor Cousin, who had noted that if the eighteen century was one of destruction, the nineteenth should be one of intellectual rehabilitation. The concept of the philosophy was far from simple; it had to defend the sound, noble, generous ideas which did not undermine religion or the social order, and yet could be based on the eternal axioms of "The True, the Beautiful, and the Good." This order was much concerned with finding a spirtual basis for the constitutional or Doctrinaire party which claimed it was trying to find a middle course between the monarchial tradition and the principles of 1789, and thus the aspirations of the tax-qualified bourgeois voters. These intellectuals found sovereignty to reside in the collection of independent authorities; not the people, nor the king. Each school found their hopes resided in politics; the debates of the Chambre Introuvable gave the first impulse to the Catholic and royalist school; the Ministry of Decazes took its inspirations from Doctrinaire theories, etc.
The intersection of political and intellectual life was integral to the status and success of the author; the Marquis Era, however, inaugurated what could only be described as a departure in the conventional style of scholastic clashing. Before 1820, and the outbreak of revolutionary sentiment across Europe, the preferred means of intellectual deliberation were pamphlets and tracts. But after the suppression of the revolutions in Italy, and the souring of liberal events in Spain, the exploration of contemporary philosophies took on a fictional apparatus in the novellic style. The two works of modern note, although not necessarily contemporary importance, were Alexander Cazal's Messidor and Henri-Maurice de St. Germain's Alexandre, Seigneur Nouveau Aparis. The two writers hailed from conflicting schools, presented conflicting messages, and embraced conflicting styles; St. Germain was a pure Royalist of the Catholic school who led the commoner wing of the Chevaliers de la Foi, known in the time as Les Hommes, while Cazal was a liberal Ideologue, and the scion of a more distinguished class. Interestingly enough, both publications were printed by St. Germain's company Publications de la Maison d'Herbe; and what luck for Cazal! His themes were subversive enough that without the cover of a sympathetic Royalist printer, there is little doubt this themes would have been quashed beneath the boot of the state censor.
Alexandre, Seigneur Nouveau Aparis, no matter the chilly reception of modern critics, was the French literary apogee of the year. It was indisputably written in the style of Chateaubriand and his patent Romanticism, which was an outgrowth, perhaps a reaction, to the artistic classicism that dominated previous generations. The story itself—gentler in its plot if not more fantastical in its elements then the productions of Lord Bryon and Walter Scott—put a Romantic and urban spin on the old Arcadian pastoral adventure that had once been the European vogue. Romanticism was relatively late in developing in French literature, even more so than in the visual arts. The 18th-century precursor to Romanticism, the cult of sensibility, had become associated with the Ancien regime, and the French Revolution had been more of an inspiration to foreign writers than those experiencing it at first hand. But with the inspiration of Chateaubriand, who had presented Romanticism only in novella form, St. Germain pushed the Romantic conception to the novel, and traced the sometimes tragic, sometimes joyous, sometimes supernatural, and always deeply religious adventures of Alexandre, the Seigneur of Nouveau Aparis. Thematically, the novel was so popular for its rejection of literary Classicism and the transportation of the issues of the day to digestible allegories. Behind the paranoia of the protagonist, and the seeming descent of Alexandre to misery, is the elucidation of popular royalism and the broader social commentaries in post-famine, Marquis Era, France. Not unlike other literary productions of the Right, Alexandre, Seigneur Nouveau Aparis, lamented the seeming loss of social charity, noblesse oblige, and other elements of the nostalgic tradition.
Nowadays, Alexandre, Seigneur Nouveau Aparis has faded, predominantly criticized for its heavy-handed dependence on allegorical comparisons and imagery. Nonetheless, it was the great artifact of 1821, and St. Germain's appeals to lost virtue proved (as lamenting the absence of what was assumed to be great always does) irresistible to the distinguished and less-then-distinguished classes of France. The Publications de la Maison d'Herbe earned a pretty penny for St. Germain after Alexandre, Seigneur Nouveau Aparis, and allowed the press to print other works, such as Alexander Cazal's Messidor, the other work of note in 1821.
Fresh off the economic success of La Perle, Cazal pivoted back to France after the accumulation of some unfortunate gambling debts. His new publication, despite his partnership with St. Germain, seemed to be a raid on the style of Alexandre, Seigneur Nouveau Aparis. There was neither fantastical transformations of daggers, nor clear adulation towards the Church or noble principle. Cazal never wrote Messidor as an allegorical construction nor for the purpose of Restoration criticism; nonetheless his examination of providential life depicts both allegory and scorn for the present state of affairs. What is thus presented in the examination of the story is a patch-work of analysis between social relations of different class and position; always in the backdrop is not so much disregard for noblesse oblige, but the inadequate efficaciousness of its realization in the midst of desperate circumstances. Religious devotion is also called into question, or rather, the consequences of its zealous pursuit amid famine and failure. Everywhere there is a sentiment of inadequacy, as if benevolence is insufficient, as if devotion is not the vaccine, as if love is variable and oft incorrect. The satirization of the particular society is always present, but beyond particular social critiques, Cazal also seems to grapple with a more fundamental failure in the human spirit. There is resolution in the end; but one cannot hope to escape from the futility of mortal effort, and come away from Messidor believing the peace is nothing but temporary.
Messidor, despite its nationwide availability, failed to captivate the audience. Messidor, whatever its modern reception (and sometimes including it), seemed overstretched by its content, and grasping for purpose. The caricatures of social persons, perhaps its strongest asset, is undermined by what could only be described as a "dearth of direction." The entire work is plagued by helplessness and stretched beyond its limits; "there is too much oscillating love, too much desperation, too much ambition, too many characters, and too much at the same time" noted one contemporary critic, notably connected to the Isidorean Order. The ending, brimming with optimism for the future, seems emphatically disconnected from the brutal drudgery of survival, and the emptiness that imbues the greater part of the story. Cazal had designed the work to be "less weighty" than his previous publications, but in truth, Messidor simply shifts the weight of criticism to the individual, and therefore drags the reader into tribulations that seem more burdened, and more extreme, in their design. A society can endure the vicious satire of an author, but can a reader endure simultaneously the prolonged and lethargic melancholy of the protagonists? Noble society thought not, and neither did the Bourgeoise.
Messidor quashed Cazal's income and left his gambling problems amok...
[1] An historical term, first coined by British historians of the early Restoration Period in the late-19th century, typically denoting the period of leadership of the Marquis of Valence.
((Private - @m.equitum , @Eid3r ))
My dear Polignac,
I am most grateful to the prince for confiding his concerns in so proper and private a manner. Let it be known that your personal sacrifice in sheathing your principles and refraining from opposition to the budget shall not go unheeded. I am aware of the controversy concerning the policy of Monsieur de Rothschild, and I hope to settle this matter as soon as the elections are concluded. We may discuss this further at the next dinner of the Institute.
I am most grateful to the prince for confiding his concerns in so proper and private a manner. Let it be known that your personal sacrifice in sheathing your principles and refraining from opposition to the budget shall not go unheeded. I am aware of the controversy concerning the policy of Monsieur de Rothschild, and I hope to settle this matter as soon as the elections are concluded. We may discuss this further at the next dinner of the Institute.
Yours in friendship,
Valence
Valence
---
My dear archbishop,
Let me preface my response to your letter by stating that I am most grateful for the support of His Excellency towards His Majesty's Government. Given that the Chamber of Deputies appears increasingly riven by petty factionalism, it is inspiring to see His Excellency rise to the occasion of placing the national interest above personal qualms. Rest assured that such support shall not be taken for granted. As regards to your stated concerns regarding His Majesty's Minister of Finance, Monsieur de Rothschild, I shall of course acknowledge such sentiments, but I must state that Monsieur de Rothschild's ministry is entirely within the gift of His Majesty and any decision on his retention or dismissal shall be made according to his will alone.
Let me preface my response to your letter by stating that I am most grateful for the support of His Excellency towards His Majesty's Government. Given that the Chamber of Deputies appears increasingly riven by petty factionalism, it is inspiring to see His Excellency rise to the occasion of placing the national interest above personal qualms. Rest assured that such support shall not be taken for granted. As regards to your stated concerns regarding His Majesty's Minister of Finance, Monsieur de Rothschild, I shall of course acknowledge such sentiments, but I must state that Monsieur de Rothschild's ministry is entirely within the gift of His Majesty and any decision on his retention or dismissal shall be made according to his will alone.
Sincere salutations,
President of His Majesty's Council of State
Marquis de Valence
President of His Majesty's Council of State
Marquis de Valence
(( Private - @Syriana ))
Letter from the Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims to the Marquis of Valence
Letter from the Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims to the Marquis of Valence
Dearest Marquis,
It was quite a delight to receive so rapidly an answer to my most recent letter regarding my solemn objections to a part of the Ministry you have so aptly guided for the past months. This reactivity is much to your honour and in sharp contrast to the sinful slothfulness of the Dhuizon Ministry or the nefarious haughtiness of Decazes.
This being said, an old prelate such as myself was not né de la dernière pluie. The swirling rumours of your personal sway over the King are not undeserved and such influence does not vanish in thin air for convenience’s sake.
Therefore, I will grant you the personal industry and craftiness to achieve the removal of the Minister of Finances from the cabinet. Failure to do so will quite civilly indicate your disposition de vous passer de notre appui.
As always, wishing you the best in your endeavors. especially as they don't conflict with mine.
Avec vous dans la Foy,
Henri-Charles Victorin du Bourget
Metropolitan Archbishop of Reims
Lille, Department of the Nord
Auberge de la Petite Lilloise
The electoral campaign was still in its infancy. The Archbishop of Reims, desirous of augmenting the representation of his ideological bloc in the Chamber, had exerted himself to great extent in order to secure strongly conservative candidacies to oppose many more liberally-inclined candidates in certain departments. Nord, home of the industrious city of Lille but most importantly for Bourget, of Victor Durand, somewhat of an icon to the liberal doctrinaires.
Through extensive correspondence, and much spiritual encouragement, the archbishop had been able to convince the Count of Armentières, a local hero and a staunch royalist to stand in the election. His clout was certainly welcome for the ultraroyalists in the region, which had fared much poorly in the past elections, due to Durand efficiency.
Gathered in the Auberge de la Petite Lilloise, a venerable establishment of decent enough reputation, were most of the city’s moneyed gentry, doubled by several of the small nobles from the countryside. Among them, the Archbishop of Reims was busy politicking, as usual in such times.
“Well, quite so indeed Monsieur de Montignac. It is clear that the current ministry is hostage to the depredation of a growing number of liberal deputies, who have as loose a contact with reality as with the notion of royalism. It is our solemn duty, as loyal servants of the King, to ensure he has at his disposal in the Chamber of Deputies man of solid reputation, venerable acumen and proper morals. Which is why we so desperately need a man like the good Count of Armentières, rather than a sulking liberal such as Victor Durand, who dared not show his face and represent your interests since its fall from royal grace.”
Several men nodded in approval, other where offended by the attack on their good friend Durand.
“But let me tell you one thing. If we opt for the status quo, it will be more and more taxes down the line. And that is bad for your pockets, my good friend. We need a clear vision which puts the economy of France at its center. We need investments to improve trade, infrastructures and develop more lands. We need deputies who understand the complex reality you face as businessman and estate owners. But more importantly, we need a man like the Count of Armentières, who is a great listener and who shall use all his industry on behalf of your prosperity.
Auberge de la Petite Lilloise
The electoral campaign was still in its infancy. The Archbishop of Reims, desirous of augmenting the representation of his ideological bloc in the Chamber, had exerted himself to great extent in order to secure strongly conservative candidacies to oppose many more liberally-inclined candidates in certain departments. Nord, home of the industrious city of Lille but most importantly for Bourget, of Victor Durand, somewhat of an icon to the liberal doctrinaires.
Through extensive correspondence, and much spiritual encouragement, the archbishop had been able to convince the Count of Armentières, a local hero and a staunch royalist to stand in the election. His clout was certainly welcome for the ultraroyalists in the region, which had fared much poorly in the past elections, due to Durand efficiency.
Gathered in the Auberge de la Petite Lilloise, a venerable establishment of decent enough reputation, were most of the city’s moneyed gentry, doubled by several of the small nobles from the countryside. Among them, the Archbishop of Reims was busy politicking, as usual in such times.
“Well, quite so indeed Monsieur de Montignac. It is clear that the current ministry is hostage to the depredation of a growing number of liberal deputies, who have as loose a contact with reality as with the notion of royalism. It is our solemn duty, as loyal servants of the King, to ensure he has at his disposal in the Chamber of Deputies man of solid reputation, venerable acumen and proper morals. Which is why we so desperately need a man like the good Count of Armentières, rather than a sulking liberal such as Victor Durand, who dared not show his face and represent your interests since its fall from royal grace.”
Several men nodded in approval, other where offended by the attack on their good friend Durand.
“But let me tell you one thing. If we opt for the status quo, it will be more and more taxes down the line. And that is bad for your pockets, my good friend. We need a clear vision which puts the economy of France at its center. We need investments to improve trade, infrastructures and develop more lands. We need deputies who understand the complex reality you face as businessman and estate owners. But more importantly, we need a man like the Count of Armentières, who is a great listener and who shall use all his industry on behalf of your prosperity.
The associates of the Duc de Saint-Aignan did their best to prepare his political allies for the future election.The Ultraroyalist mayors, local councilors, landowners held political dinners and balls all over the east central France. During these dinners the topic of the situation in Spain was often raised and discussed, subtle parallels being made between the opposition against the support to Ferdinand VII and, in fact, opposition to the righteous monarchy in France. The concept of the "Shackled Monarch", as the ultimate dream of the Far Left, was often used.
This concept was first created by a catchphrase of a certain Jean-Alexandre, Baron de Barante, who has said, during a large dinner at the estate of Saint-Aignan, the following "Good subjects would see in the Charter a jewel in the crown of His Most Christian Majesty, but the men of the Left would like to see it as his shackles". The theme was developed by many other Ultraroyalist thinkers, who maintained that that these who were speaking in favor of the cooperation with the Spanish revolutionary junta were in fact inspired by their example, liking the triumph of the liberalism over the supremacy of the Crown. The concept of "false monarchists" was developed in various writings, drawing parallels between the leftist liberals and these revolutionaries of 1789, who, while claiming that they intend to keep the monarchy, did everything in order to weaken and debase it. And this, once again, has led to a philosophical debate regarding the question whether these who put the constitution and liberties over the King and order can truly be loyal subjects. Naturally, many Ultras maintained that they could not. "By Jove, these people would coronate the Ottoman Sultan as the King of France, if he gives them a good enough Charter!" - has been known to say Antoine de Persigny, an Ultraroyalist philosopher from the Loire department.
Another part of the campaign concentrated on the values of peace, order and stability as core Ultraroyalist values. It was noted, in many speeches and writings, that the liberals were so engulfed with their abstract doctrines and chattering about freedoms that they have forgotten about a very ordinary fact – the people need to eat, drink and be housed. The famine was widely used as an example – when it begun, it was through the efforts of private conservative associations, like the Society of Saint Isidore the Laborer, that the hunger was first lessened. The Ultraroyalist propaganda maintained that, should the administration fall to them, it would be a rule of practical people taking into account the practical needs of the people, instead of the far-fetched theories. "You cannot feed a man with a ballot, you cannot warm his house with a newspaper" - the Baron de Barante was known to write.
An important part of the campaign was also concentration of such priorities as law and order, a strong stand being taken against conspiracies, brigandage and all forms of chaos. It was maintained that these who benefited and wanted to continue to benefit from the growth of anarchy during the latter years were in fact the primary enemies of the strengthened security. For them the possibility that the government would not always be defending itself from attacks of the radical hydra, but would manage to find its layer and eliminate it, was dangerous. Comparisons were made between street-level radicals like the organizers of the Bonapartist rebellion in Lyon and their counterparts in the political establishment. "The revolutionary says "Give in or I would shoot!" The liberal says "Give in or he would shoot!"- has written Antoine de Persigny, noting that both legal and illegal far left benefitted from the weakness of the law enforcement. It was also noted that a man of clear conscience, who did not intend to participate in activities dangerous to the state, would never be afraid of strengthened security, while the guilty would certainly be. "When you a cat appears and you hear a squeak, you can be sure a rat is present."- as worded it the Baron de Barante.
The positive part was a call of the unity among all friends of the strong Monarchy, order and law, loyal subjects of the King and Country, who should functionally work together, whatever are their private perks and creeds,
This concept was first created by a catchphrase of a certain Jean-Alexandre, Baron de Barante, who has said, during a large dinner at the estate of Saint-Aignan, the following "Good subjects would see in the Charter a jewel in the crown of His Most Christian Majesty, but the men of the Left would like to see it as his shackles". The theme was developed by many other Ultraroyalist thinkers, who maintained that that these who were speaking in favor of the cooperation with the Spanish revolutionary junta were in fact inspired by their example, liking the triumph of the liberalism over the supremacy of the Crown. The concept of "false monarchists" was developed in various writings, drawing parallels between the leftist liberals and these revolutionaries of 1789, who, while claiming that they intend to keep the monarchy, did everything in order to weaken and debase it. And this, once again, has led to a philosophical debate regarding the question whether these who put the constitution and liberties over the King and order can truly be loyal subjects. Naturally, many Ultras maintained that they could not. "By Jove, these people would coronate the Ottoman Sultan as the King of France, if he gives them a good enough Charter!" - has been known to say Antoine de Persigny, an Ultraroyalist philosopher from the Loire department.
Another part of the campaign concentrated on the values of peace, order and stability as core Ultraroyalist values. It was noted, in many speeches and writings, that the liberals were so engulfed with their abstract doctrines and chattering about freedoms that they have forgotten about a very ordinary fact – the people need to eat, drink and be housed. The famine was widely used as an example – when it begun, it was through the efforts of private conservative associations, like the Society of Saint Isidore the Laborer, that the hunger was first lessened. The Ultraroyalist propaganda maintained that, should the administration fall to them, it would be a rule of practical people taking into account the practical needs of the people, instead of the far-fetched theories. "You cannot feed a man with a ballot, you cannot warm his house with a newspaper" - the Baron de Barante was known to write.
An important part of the campaign was also concentration of such priorities as law and order, a strong stand being taken against conspiracies, brigandage and all forms of chaos. It was maintained that these who benefited and wanted to continue to benefit from the growth of anarchy during the latter years were in fact the primary enemies of the strengthened security. For them the possibility that the government would not always be defending itself from attacks of the radical hydra, but would manage to find its layer and eliminate it, was dangerous. Comparisons were made between street-level radicals like the organizers of the Bonapartist rebellion in Lyon and their counterparts in the political establishment. "The revolutionary says "Give in or I would shoot!" The liberal says "Give in or he would shoot!"- has written Antoine de Persigny, noting that both legal and illegal far left benefitted from the weakness of the law enforcement. It was also noted that a man of clear conscience, who did not intend to participate in activities dangerous to the state, would never be afraid of strengthened security, while the guilty would certainly be. "When you a cat appears and you hear a squeak, you can be sure a rat is present."- as worded it the Baron de Barante.
The positive part was a call of the unity among all friends of the strong Monarchy, order and law, loyal subjects of the King and Country, who should functionally work together, whatever are their private perks and creeds,
((Consider me speaking before dissolution then. I thought the Peers didn't dissolve with the Deputies))
Scenes from the 1821 campaign
Every faction struggled to find candidates fit enough to fulfill the property requirements of candidacy. The concern was sufficient quantity, to field a slate of candidates massive enough to stretch the resources of the divided forces of reaction thin. These Liberal-minded members of the new and old nobility and the industrious class would take what was now being called in shorthand "Orléanism" to the masses. It was a creed that looked forward, not backward; that awarded merit, and disdained idleness; and that was tailored especially to the expectations the newly enfranchised members of the electorate had in gaining social recognition for their upwardly mobile families.
Louis-Philippe found it amusing that the Archbishop Deficit himself was getting his hands dirty, politicking directly. Letter writing and entertaining guests was one thing; physically standing before the masses and the voters was another. It smacked of desperation and it was delicious news for Orléans and his allies on the Left, as it conveniently fed into their campaign narrative of Bourget abusing his sacred authority for matters of the profane. Another head of the Hydra, Saint-Aignan, was subject to equal ridicule; first for spending the majority of the famine whining about Dhuizon refusing his prior legislation while the people demanded action and he provided none, then claiming Ultra credit for Society of Saint Isidore lessening the impact of the famine when in fact the black bread it distrusted contributed to malnutrition. One prominent Liberal-aligned member of the Institut de France called to public attention the negative affects the digestion of such "bread" had on the digestive system, even going so far as to wonder if what constituted the Ultra famine relief program was designed with livestock in mind rather than humans.
Yet Saint-Aignan's great crime was the creation of a police state, with measures for indefinite dentition and a newly minted plainclothes security forces that went far beyond the wildest dreams of the Ancien Regime. For many Ultras in the countryside, who still believed in measures of decentralized liberty that they had inherited in viewpoint from their forebears, Saint-Aignan's police state measures would be the bridge to their conversion or at the very least changed sympathy, towards the causes of Left and Center. Throughout the land the larger Leftist or Orléanist candidate stressed that only a measured path of policies could preserve the people from the disturbances of the past two decades. The Ultras cared not for measured change or conservation, they would either have the world they way they wanted to set fire to it to allow no others to enjoy in God's gifts. It would the the demonization of the wants and concerns of the electorate by Ultras that Orléanists and the larger Left would capitalize on to make voting for them unpalatable.
The hatred and contempt of the Ultras for the industrious class as a whole would rally the majority of the electorate against them. The Ultra Hydra wanted to create a police state, subject to a new Savonarola's whims, where Frenchmen would be forced to fight on behalf of the Habsburgs. If any faction was naturally inclined against the interests of France, it was the faction that sought laws to subjugate it, that allowed clergymen vetting over matters of the profane, and had conceded the right of foreigners to intervene--militarily if they wanted to--in the affairs of France; the Ultras. The Left would continue this rhetorical barrage against their enemies, while at the same time moving forward with pressing parts of their agenda such as selling excess government lands--the same ones Archbishop Deficit continued to deny to the people--to the masses to both enrich the state coffers and provide the smallholders and industrious class with opportunity to bring such lands to their full potential, through use of scientific management.
Only the Left could gurantee "peace, order, and stability" by ensuring short sighted policies would not be adopted. Where the larger Left would discuss differences as civilized men, the Ultras would advocate for a bullet in the head or the "troublemaker" disappearing. Peel back the Ultra's thin veneer of claimed responsibility and genteel manners, one could only find a predisposition to violence. Thus a vote for a candidate on the mainstream Left was a vote for civility in the process government. Indeed, the electorate was reminded by candidates of the Left regularly that it was the Ultras who passed legislation clearly designed to jail indefinitely their political opponents and not the Left. Only one grouping cared about due process, only one grouping would not salami slice the Charter--so dear to the people of France--into oblivion, and throughout the course of the campaign the larger Left gladly took on the banner of being the defender of the Charter and the People.
Every faction struggled to find candidates fit enough to fulfill the property requirements of candidacy. The concern was sufficient quantity, to field a slate of candidates massive enough to stretch the resources of the divided forces of reaction thin. These Liberal-minded members of the new and old nobility and the industrious class would take what was now being called in shorthand "Orléanism" to the masses. It was a creed that looked forward, not backward; that awarded merit, and disdained idleness; and that was tailored especially to the expectations the newly enfranchised members of the electorate had in gaining social recognition for their upwardly mobile families.
Louis-Philippe found it amusing that the Archbishop Deficit himself was getting his hands dirty, politicking directly. Letter writing and entertaining guests was one thing; physically standing before the masses and the voters was another. It smacked of desperation and it was delicious news for Orléans and his allies on the Left, as it conveniently fed into their campaign narrative of Bourget abusing his sacred authority for matters of the profane. Another head of the Hydra, Saint-Aignan, was subject to equal ridicule; first for spending the majority of the famine whining about Dhuizon refusing his prior legislation while the people demanded action and he provided none, then claiming Ultra credit for Society of Saint Isidore lessening the impact of the famine when in fact the black bread it distrusted contributed to malnutrition. One prominent Liberal-aligned member of the Institut de France called to public attention the negative affects the digestion of such "bread" had on the digestive system, even going so far as to wonder if what constituted the Ultra famine relief program was designed with livestock in mind rather than humans.
Yet Saint-Aignan's great crime was the creation of a police state, with measures for indefinite dentition and a newly minted plainclothes security forces that went far beyond the wildest dreams of the Ancien Regime. For many Ultras in the countryside, who still believed in measures of decentralized liberty that they had inherited in viewpoint from their forebears, Saint-Aignan's police state measures would be the bridge to their conversion or at the very least changed sympathy, towards the causes of Left and Center. Throughout the land the larger Leftist or Orléanist candidate stressed that only a measured path of policies could preserve the people from the disturbances of the past two decades. The Ultras cared not for measured change or conservation, they would either have the world they way they wanted to set fire to it to allow no others to enjoy in God's gifts. It would the the demonization of the wants and concerns of the electorate by Ultras that Orléanists and the larger Left would capitalize on to make voting for them unpalatable.
The hatred and contempt of the Ultras for the industrious class as a whole would rally the majority of the electorate against them. The Ultra Hydra wanted to create a police state, subject to a new Savonarola's whims, where Frenchmen would be forced to fight on behalf of the Habsburgs. If any faction was naturally inclined against the interests of France, it was the faction that sought laws to subjugate it, that allowed clergymen vetting over matters of the profane, and had conceded the right of foreigners to intervene--militarily if they wanted to--in the affairs of France; the Ultras. The Left would continue this rhetorical barrage against their enemies, while at the same time moving forward with pressing parts of their agenda such as selling excess government lands--the same ones Archbishop Deficit continued to deny to the people--to the masses to both enrich the state coffers and provide the smallholders and industrious class with opportunity to bring such lands to their full potential, through use of scientific management.
Only the Left could gurantee "peace, order, and stability" by ensuring short sighted policies would not be adopted. Where the larger Left would discuss differences as civilized men, the Ultras would advocate for a bullet in the head or the "troublemaker" disappearing. Peel back the Ultra's thin veneer of claimed responsibility and genteel manners, one could only find a predisposition to violence. Thus a vote for a candidate on the mainstream Left was a vote for civility in the process government. Indeed, the electorate was reminded by candidates of the Left regularly that it was the Ultras who passed legislation clearly designed to jail indefinitely their political opponents and not the Left. Only one grouping cared about due process, only one grouping would not salami slice the Charter--so dear to the people of France--into oblivion, and throughout the course of the campaign the larger Left gladly took on the banner of being the defender of the Charter and the People.
Last edited:
THE TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT
Outremer
The Other Side of Alexandre Cazal
by Dr. Emily Barnett
(Oxford University Press; hardback, 528pp, £20)
Outremer
The Other Side of Alexandre Cazal
by Dr. Emily Barnett
(Oxford University Press; hardback, 528pp, £20)
What struck me most when preparing to review Dr. Emily Barnett's latest take on the life of Alexandre Cazal was that, had he grown up as I did, the first-generation beneficiary of the arrival of the suburban middle class to South Yorkshire, he would've been made to face constantly two charges throughout his childhood: one, that he was too clever by half; and two, that he didn't know what was good for him.
Of course, Cazal did not grow up in the shadow of the Dronfield bypass. He grew up in far more exceptional times, a far more exceptional figure. The mixed-race illegitimate son of a French minor noble and a free-woman of colour from Port-au-Prince, that Cazal was taken to France at all defied all expectations that can have been vested in him at his birth. Never mind, then, that he was raised amongst the petty nobility, and by the age of thirty had abandoned a distinguished career as one of Napoleon's officers to become a notorious figure within the literary salons of Bourbon-era Paris.
This was never his world to inhabit. Always, he regarded himself as an outsider—even after the unanticipated success of his first two books—the novel Aporie (1817) and the anthological La Perle (1819)—brought him wealth on his own efforts and a home along the fashionable Chaussée d'Antin. It is perhaps, telling, therefore, that he spent so much of his energy trying to get away from Paris—first by making the voyage back to Haiti from 1817–9, then the next year, just as alien in relative terms, traveling across the rural extremities of France that were then only begin to recover, having been desiccated by famine.
The result of these latter travels was Cazal's second novel, Messidor (1821). It is regarded today as a seminal text of the French realist tradition, although Cazal always applied the term “humanism” to his own idiom, realism avant la lettre. Contemporary critics and audiences were much less hospitable. Unappreciative of the novel's polyvalent plot, one critics lambasting it as “confused, bloated—and bad”, and its numerous, if hidden, allusions to the foibles of contemporary society, Paris rejected the novel and Cazal with it. As, ironically, did the provinces, whose sympathies Cazal had attempted to capture in presenting a rare nuanced view of its life to the haughty salons of Paris. The commercial failure of Messidor hit Cazal hard, who kept himself out of Paris as much to avoid Parisian hauteur as to avoid the financially draining whist sessions endemic amongst salon culture. Having achieved after the publication of La Perle an annual income in the order of hundreds of thousands in today's money, commercial disappointment and gambling debts took a toll on Cazal's artistic freedom.
To stave off his debtors, Cazal responded to his troubles by exiling himself from the salons for much of the rest of 1821—in truth, not a difficult task after the chilly reception of Messidor. In possession of a typically 19th century appetite for work—when not travelling, writing novels, essays and poetry, he could be found helping Benjamin Constant contort his journal La Constituionnel out of the ever-tightening grip of the censors—Cazal put his artistic freedom on hold and set about producing a series of work much more typical of French (or rather, Parisian) intellectual society at the time. This was Cazal answering both of those charges: simultaneously rowing back a half on his cleverness and, for once, putting worldly interests before literary ones. Consequently, his output from this period is amongst the most unorthodox of his career, ironically for being far more in step with the desires of his day.
First, Cazal reappropriated much of his research from his travels of the post-famine countryside as the basis for a series of essays. Ranging from documentary (read: self-consciously disinterested) accounts of the work of the Isidoreans in Picardie, to discussions of the political relationship between Paris and Occitania after conversations with farmers in Marsan, the essays were published in various Parisian hebdomadaires, appearing sporadically in deference to the censors and only ever political by allusion. Not so much dry as mundane, the essays are of interest to Cazal scholars today as examples of his humanistic approach applied to what today we would call journalism. Seeing France through his outsider's eyes, Cazal's essays are divested of all of the blindness of a Français de souche regarding his own society. Rather than approaching his subjects from the presumption that his life in Paris is inherently better than rural life, he experiences the provinces with a traveler's lack of preconception, allowing for clear analysis and, occasionally, a genuinely unique insight into the balance between town and country.
Eventually published unabridged and uncensored as Accounts from Travels in Rural France, the essays went a long way to restoring the faith of his bourgeois student audience in his authorial vision. Barnett writes of their reception in Paris as …
More intriguing, and more immediately lucrative for Cazal, were his feuilletons, published variously in Paris throughout 1821–2 under the pseudonym “Outremer”—a reference to his time in Haiti three years before. Overwhelmingly taking the form of the short story or vignette, the work of Outremer is markedly different from that of Cazal. Barnett writes:
Cazal was very much an enfant du siècle, a child of his time, and this was manifest in his literature as a preference for psychological themes and numerous expressions of doubt. Often compared with Stendhal in its interest in the human condition, Cazal's was an idiom that embraced its foreignness as an opportunity for the examination and satirising of French Restoration society—not only as a whole, but also as a collection of individuals, very fallible and often ridiculous. By contrast, the work of Outremer embraced all that Cazal was conscious to reject: Romanticism, sensationalism and the ultramundane. Cazal wrote short fiction and largely it is far more liberal, stylistically, than his novels—one need only read his Voudou-tinged Haitian stories to see that—but even this was nothing like the short fiction of Outremer. Written to grip and to titillate, Outremer's are comedic rather than philosophical in their satire, transmogrifying Parisian society into many parallel visions of Gothic love, genteel farce and Romantic adventure. Jean-Paul Sartre, a later admirer of Cazal's work, made the distinction that “Zola read Cazal; Maupassant read Outremer”. Put another way, where one was an energetic social critic, the other was a satirical populist.
For Cazal, Outremer proved artistically reinvigorating at the very least. Think of Lennon and McCartney abandoning the seriousness of Revolver for the escapism of Sgt. Pepper. Same artist, and in many ways the same music—but then popularity is a funny thing. Financially, the rewards for “Outremer” were …
To the President of the Council of State, the Marquis of Valence ((PRIVATE - @Syriana))
My lord,
It is not my usual custom to offer unsolicited advice, nor to seek to advise my elder in life and politics. However, as the King's Minister of the Interior and a member of the Council, I would be remiss if I did not convey to you my perceptions of the current circumstances. Moreover, I believe that I may offer a few potential solutions to our present dilemma, in the hopes that they somehow prove of use to your own deliberations.
Though a man of the center according to modern discourse, I find myself acquainted with men of the Left through age and disposition, as well as men of the Right through my familial connections. As such, I have surveyed my various acquaintances and come to the conclusion that we are attacked from both wings. Curiously, such attacks are not leveled at your own policies nor at the Ministry as a whole.
I must preface the next section by saying that I do not wish to be disloyal -- no matter the cost, never disloyal -- but instead find myself obligated to express the naked and uncomfortable truths of the political situation. If this means expressing less than flattering sentiments about my fellow Ministers, then for the benefit of the King and his Government, so be it.
The Left and the Right have chosen to direct their fury at individual ministers. From the Left, attacks against the Minister of Justice; from the Right, against the Minister of Finance. Both His Grace and Monsieur de Rothschild, through their forthright demeanors and heavy-handed methods of implementing policy, have proven themselves thoroughly odious to the partisan elements of the Chambers. Moreover, it is increasingly clear that neither man is particularly well-supported by their respective elements. In short, they provide us with substantial obstacles while offering few benefits.
Moreover, that the policies of the last year were implemented with undue haste is entirely understandable given the urgent needs of the moment. However, now that there has been a brief pause in the chaos, I believe that we can undertake substantive reforms to the previous policies that address the issues presented by the members of the political class. I have included a brief list of potential issues on which the Ministry might express its support.
Please do not hesitate to call upon me if I might be of further service.
Your humble servant,
Henri Jules de Bourbon
My lord,
It is not my usual custom to offer unsolicited advice, nor to seek to advise my elder in life and politics. However, as the King's Minister of the Interior and a member of the Council, I would be remiss if I did not convey to you my perceptions of the current circumstances. Moreover, I believe that I may offer a few potential solutions to our present dilemma, in the hopes that they somehow prove of use to your own deliberations.
Though a man of the center according to modern discourse, I find myself acquainted with men of the Left through age and disposition, as well as men of the Right through my familial connections. As such, I have surveyed my various acquaintances and come to the conclusion that we are attacked from both wings. Curiously, such attacks are not leveled at your own policies nor at the Ministry as a whole.
I must preface the next section by saying that I do not wish to be disloyal -- no matter the cost, never disloyal -- but instead find myself obligated to express the naked and uncomfortable truths of the political situation. If this means expressing less than flattering sentiments about my fellow Ministers, then for the benefit of the King and his Government, so be it.
The Left and the Right have chosen to direct their fury at individual ministers. From the Left, attacks against the Minister of Justice; from the Right, against the Minister of Finance. Both His Grace and Monsieur de Rothschild, through their forthright demeanors and heavy-handed methods of implementing policy, have proven themselves thoroughly odious to the partisan elements of the Chambers. Moreover, it is increasingly clear that neither man is particularly well-supported by their respective elements. In short, they provide us with substantial obstacles while offering few benefits.
Moreover, that the policies of the last year were implemented with undue haste is entirely understandable given the urgent needs of the moment. However, now that there has been a brief pause in the chaos, I believe that we can undertake substantive reforms to the previous policies that address the issues presented by the members of the political class. I have included a brief list of potential issues on which the Ministry might express its support.
- A modest reduction in the barrier in achieving the franchise, as well as allowing for absentee or proxy voting in rural areas.
- Restoring the grain tariff to its previous levels, while allowing for emergency reductions in case of famine.
- Loosening restrictions on publishing, reducing the length of administrative detentions, providing for the expiration of extraordinary powers, and rolling back the scope of the secret police's mandate.
- Replacing the present need for positive approval for political candidacy with a list of specific criteria under which a person is proscribed from standing for election.
- Providing a minimum threshold prior to being subject to the inheritance tax.
Please do not hesitate to call upon me if I might be of further service.
Your humble servant,
Henri Jules de Bourbon
To Alexandre Cazal ((PRIVATE -- @DensleyBlair))
Monsieur,
During my recent convalescence, there was a brief moment between regaining my faculties and assuming the Ministry in which I found myself shackled to my sickbed and unable to engage in any of my usual outdoor past-times. It is during that period that I imposed upon my local bookseller for something, anything, to occupy my mind and distract from the circumstances which led to that unfortunate situation.
It is thus with pleasure that I can write to you as someone who has ardently consumed your previous works and found myself equally entranced with your latest, which I have conspired to take in, no doubt to the detriment of the general public but to the great betterment of my overall demeanor. The complexity of your interwoven narratives is spellbinding and I have resolved to return to the text a second time, perhaps even a third, once I am less occupied. The critics may disagree, but I fully expect their empty-headed critiques to be swallowed by the fullness of time, while your work shall outlive them all.
Additionally, I found your writings on Saint-Domingue to be thoroughly insightful, containing within them the human element so lacking in dry government reports. I have come away with a greater appreciation of the inhabitants of our former colony and the various aspirations to which they hold themselves.
Finally, of course, your character study on M. Lecuyer. As his acquaintance and previously his fellow-legislator, I can only say that you have captured the man's unique essence in its entirety. A thoroughly entertaining read.
In any event, it seems that I am presently the recipient of a ministerial salary; as a man used to a familial allowance of much lesser scope, I am frankly at loose ends to deal with it all, particularly with my present workload. As such, please accept the enclosed note for 20,000 francs, which I hope will play some small role in furnishing you with your various needs. I confess that I cannot offer the ongoing patronage that your talent demands, as only God and His Majesty know when such largesse shall come to its natural and inevitable end, but rest assured that I shall be your faithful reader regardless of circumstance.
I hope that this letter finds you in good health and spirits.
Monsieur,
It has come to my attention that the failure of l'Elan in previous years was due to an unfortunate incident in which your press was destroyed by hooligans. Such unlawful behavior should not be allowed to silence a vital and important voice in our political discourse. I look forward to your next edition, or to whatever forthright and upstanding end you put your gift.
-- H.
The note is attached to a set of heavy crates left outside la Maison, in which a modern printing press and its equipment reside.
Monsieur,
During my recent convalescence, there was a brief moment between regaining my faculties and assuming the Ministry in which I found myself shackled to my sickbed and unable to engage in any of my usual outdoor past-times. It is during that period that I imposed upon my local bookseller for something, anything, to occupy my mind and distract from the circumstances which led to that unfortunate situation.
It is thus with pleasure that I can write to you as someone who has ardently consumed your previous works and found myself equally entranced with your latest, which I have conspired to take in, no doubt to the detriment of the general public but to the great betterment of my overall demeanor. The complexity of your interwoven narratives is spellbinding and I have resolved to return to the text a second time, perhaps even a third, once I am less occupied. The critics may disagree, but I fully expect their empty-headed critiques to be swallowed by the fullness of time, while your work shall outlive them all.
Additionally, I found your writings on Saint-Domingue to be thoroughly insightful, containing within them the human element so lacking in dry government reports. I have come away with a greater appreciation of the inhabitants of our former colony and the various aspirations to which they hold themselves.
Finally, of course, your character study on M. Lecuyer. As his acquaintance and previously his fellow-legislator, I can only say that you have captured the man's unique essence in its entirety. A thoroughly entertaining read.
In any event, it seems that I am presently the recipient of a ministerial salary; as a man used to a familial allowance of much lesser scope, I am frankly at loose ends to deal with it all, particularly with my present workload. As such, please accept the enclosed note for 20,000 francs, which I hope will play some small role in furnishing you with your various needs. I confess that I cannot offer the ongoing patronage that your talent demands, as only God and His Majesty know when such largesse shall come to its natural and inevitable end, but rest assured that I shall be your faithful reader regardless of circumstance.
I hope that this letter finds you in good health and spirits.
Sincerely,
Henri Jules de Bourbon
To the proprietor of Publications de la Maison d'Herbe ((PRIVATE -- @Dadarian))Henri Jules de Bourbon
Monsieur,
It has come to my attention that the failure of l'Elan in previous years was due to an unfortunate incident in which your press was destroyed by hooligans. Such unlawful behavior should not be allowed to silence a vital and important voice in our political discourse. I look forward to your next edition, or to whatever forthright and upstanding end you put your gift.
-- H.
The note is attached to a set of heavy crates left outside la Maison, in which a modern printing press and its equipment reside.
Name: Arthur Pétain
Age 25
Political affiliation: Republican Radical
Department: San Maine
Occupation: political writer, owner of the newspaper la voix du peuple
Bio: Arthur was lucky enough to be born in Paris, where the revolution broke out, when his father a Republican intellectual taught him the principles of illustration as well as republican ideals develop a great passion for them. Always wearing a tricolor cockade, when the war against Austria explodes, to demonstrate the love for his ideals enlisted in the army to defend his great and beloved republic. To participate in acts of valor and heroism in the field of the Rhineland, managing to reach the rank of captain, after participating in Italy and Egypt under the command of Napoleón, but when in 1799 Napoleón demolished for the government and self-proclaimed emperor, is described in Words of Arthur "Although I have restored the order betrayed the republic
After that, he left the army and founded his clandestine newspaper which criticized Napoleon as "a tyrant who would bring France to ruin" when he was overthrown in 1815,Arthur call for the restoration of the Republic.
Now, with the return of the Bourbon monarchy and the occupation of foreign forces, it will not rest until one day, the whole people of France raise the tricolor flag while they sing the Marseillaise, whose lyrics represent the ideals for which they are ready to fight Him and the people.
Last edited:
((¡Bienvenidos a RAR!))
Name: Arthur Pétain
Age 23
Political affiliation: Republican Radical
Department: San Maine
Occupation: political writer, owner of the newspaper la voix du peuple
Bio: Arthur was lucky enough to be born in Paris, where the revolution broke out, when his father a Republican intellectual taught him the principles of illustration as well as republican ideals develop a great passion for them. Always wearing a tricolor cockade, when the war against Austria explodes, to demonstrate the love for his ideals enlisted in the army to defend his great and beloved republic. To participate in acts of valor and heroism in the field of the Rhineland, managing to reach the rank of captain, after participating in Italy and Egypt under the command of Napoleón, but when in 1799 Napoleón demolished for the government and self-proclaimed emperor, is described in Words of Arthur "Although I have restored the order betrayed the republic
After that, he left the army and founded his clandestine newspaper which criticized Napoleon as "a tyrant who would bring France to ruin" when he was overthrown in 1815, Arthur published thousands of copies, calling for the restoration of the Republic.
Now, with the return of the Bourbon monarchy and the occupation of foreign forces, it will not rest until one day, the whole people of France raise the tricolor flag while they sing the Marseillaise, whose lyrics represent the ideals for which they are ready to fight Him and the people.
*A Pamphlet Circulates the Land*
Revolutionary Appeasement in Regards to Spain
Many liberal deputies have expressed their sentiment to negotiate with the revolutionary government in Spain, seeing them as a proper and legitimate government bringing about the reform they want to see enacted in France. This is a dangerous move, a move that further legitimizes illegal actions against proper institutions, and is not the way for the change the liberals want to see enacted to be postulated to the masses. Recognizing the Spanish revolution and all the destruction they bring legitimizes violence as a force of change. It was this idea that brought about the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic Wars, and it is this idea that currently engulfs various Kingdoms across Europe. If change is to happen, it is to happen via proper channels, via the Cortes and through the King. If the liberals wish for change to occur, they must take up the pen and not the sword. Recognizing the Spanish revolution does the opposite, recognizing that imprisoning a King and imposing change at gun-point is a valid method for change. Let us not support what led France for twenty-five years, the idea that death brings reform. Let the liberal deputies instead use the Chambers and their political intrigue to bring about the change they desire, and let us help Spain realize this is the best way forward as well by ensuring that said proper channels can be utilized and these violent changes be made undone.
Revolutionary Appeasement in Regards to Spain
Many liberal deputies have expressed their sentiment to negotiate with the revolutionary government in Spain, seeing them as a proper and legitimate government bringing about the reform they want to see enacted in France. This is a dangerous move, a move that further legitimizes illegal actions against proper institutions, and is not the way for the change the liberals want to see enacted to be postulated to the masses. Recognizing the Spanish revolution and all the destruction they bring legitimizes violence as a force of change. It was this idea that brought about the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic Wars, and it is this idea that currently engulfs various Kingdoms across Europe. If change is to happen, it is to happen via proper channels, via the Cortes and through the King. If the liberals wish for change to occur, they must take up the pen and not the sword. Recognizing the Spanish revolution does the opposite, recognizing that imprisoning a King and imposing change at gun-point is a valid method for change. Let us not support what led France for twenty-five years, the idea that death brings reform. Let the liberal deputies instead use the Chambers and their political intrigue to bring about the change they desire, and let us help Spain realize this is the best way forward as well by ensuring that said proper channels can be utilized and these violent changes be made undone.
To the President of the Council of State, the Marquis of Valence ((@Syriana))
Your Excellency
Spain has proven itself to be a threat to the European Balance of Power, and a threat to southern France. Many in my department are worried that Spanish revolutionaries will move across the Pyrenees and cause chaos, much like the Verdets and Veterans League did in the recent past. The King surely feels the same way, especially since a member the Bourbon family is imprisoned in Madrid. As such, I wish to humbly ask for your support in my quest to defeat the violent Spanish revolutionaries before they get a chance to stir up trouble in southern France. As long as Madrid is occupied by violent revolutionaries, France and Europe as a whole is vulnerable to its influence.
-Nathanaël Barrande, Comte de L'Isle Jourdain
Spain has proven itself to be a threat to the European Balance of Power, and a threat to southern France. Many in my department are worried that Spanish revolutionaries will move across the Pyrenees and cause chaos, much like the Verdets and Veterans League did in the recent past. The King surely feels the same way, especially since a member the Bourbon family is imprisoned in Madrid. As such, I wish to humbly ask for your support in my quest to defeat the violent Spanish revolutionaries before they get a chance to stir up trouble in southern France. As long as Madrid is occupied by violent revolutionaries, France and Europe as a whole is vulnerable to its influence.
-Nathanaël Barrande, Comte de L'Isle Jourdain
((Private correspondence to Duc de Valence - @Syriana ))
((Private to the Duc d’Orleans - @CloudStrife ))
((Private to Nathan de Rothschild, brother of Jacques, who is based in London - @99KingHigh ))
((Private to the Duc d’Orleans - @CloudStrife ))
((Private to Nathan de Rothschild, brother of Jacques, who is based in London - @99KingHigh ))
((Pamphlet circulating France)).
Reactionary Aggression in Regards to Spain.
A pamphlet have circulated France. Its accusations are many. It claim Liberals want unlawful change. This is not true, the Liberals stood up on defense of the Charter and Rule of Law. It were those who are more Royalist than the King who sacrificed legal progress for tyrrany!
It claim Liberals support the idea of Napoleonic coup. But if we examine his actions, Napoleon sacrificed liberty and Rule of Law under the pretex of order. And to legitimize it all he waged wars in Europe.
Just like the Ultras! Just like Napoleon the Ultras revert the liberties we have attained. However they create a tyrrany that would make Napoleon's Empire and even the Ancien Regime look like a liberal love fest. And it is they who seek to wage war in Europe - just like Napoleon.
Then come the greatest irony and show of ignorance. The author claim we should choose the pen over the sword. But somehow the liberals who want peace and cooperation choose the sword, while those who want war and misery choose the pen.
Any man with sound logic can see the hypocrisy of this entire pamphlet and its obvious flaws. But dear reader, said hypocrisy and flaws are the very trademark of the Radical Ultras!
Reactionary Aggression in Regards to Spain.
A pamphlet have circulated France. Its accusations are many. It claim Liberals want unlawful change. This is not true, the Liberals stood up on defense of the Charter and Rule of Law. It were those who are more Royalist than the King who sacrificed legal progress for tyrrany!
It claim Liberals support the idea of Napoleonic coup. But if we examine his actions, Napoleon sacrificed liberty and Rule of Law under the pretex of order. And to legitimize it all he waged wars in Europe.
Just like the Ultras! Just like Napoleon the Ultras revert the liberties we have attained. However they create a tyrrany that would make Napoleon's Empire and even the Ancien Regime look like a liberal love fest. And it is they who seek to wage war in Europe - just like Napoleon.
Then come the greatest irony and show of ignorance. The author claim we should choose the pen over the sword. But somehow the liberals who want peace and cooperation choose the sword, while those who want war and misery choose the pen.
Any man with sound logic can see the hypocrisy of this entire pamphlet and its obvious flaws. But dear reader, said hypocrisy and flaws are the very trademark of the Radical Ultras!