Heraldry & Vexillology: designing the Great Seal of the United States

29 Thursday May 2014

Posted by michelinewalker in Art, History, United States

Tags

authentication, Battle of Hastings, heraldry, Opus Anglicanum, symbols and emblems, the Bayeux Tapestry, The Great Seal of the United States, William the Conqueror

The Bayeux Tapestry thegardiancom (Photographer Getty Images)

The Bayeux Tapestry (thegardian.com) (Photographer: Spencer Arnold/Getty Images)

As I was researching the story of the Great Seal of the United States, it came to my attention that the first team appointed by Congress to design the afore-mentioned Great Seal of the United States had to hire Geneva-born expert Pierre Eugene du Simitière (originally Pierre-Eugène du Cimetière [cemetery]).

It was an élite team: Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, the 2nd President of the United States, and Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, but heraldry is for specialists. The second and third teams would also require the services of experts Charles Thomson and William Barton.

After the Declaration of Independence (4 July 1776), the Thirteen Colonies were no longer thirteen colonies, but a country that would be named the United States of America as of the day it won its independence. The new country would need its coat of arms, its seal, and its flag, the purpose of which would be authentication and identification. These disciplines are called heraldry (coat of arms) and vexillology (flags) and use “s ymbols” and “emblems.” Symbols are called a “forest” by French poet Charles Baudelaire (9 April 1821 – 31 August 1867) in a poem entitled “Correspondances.” (See Les Fleurs du mal or The Flowers of Evil).

Heraldry and Vexillology

“Heraldry is the profession, study, or art of creating, granting, and blazoning arms and ruling on question of rank or protocol as exercised by an officer of arms. Heraldry comes from the Anglo-Norman herald [le héraut] and from the Germanic harja-waldaz, “army commander.” The word, in its most general sense, encompasses all matters relating to the duties and responsibilities of an officer of arms. To most, though, heraldry is the practice of designing, displaying, describing, and recording coats of arms and heraldic badges.” (See Heraldry, Wikipedia)

In Wikipedia’s definition of heraldry we see the word badges. Police officers and scouts wear badges, which indicates that heraldic terms have gone beyond the world of arms. A badge is an authenticating device, as are passports, license plates, etc.

As for vexillology, from the Latin “vexillum [flag],” it is the “scientific study of the history, symbolism and usage of flags or, by extension, any interest in flags in general.” (See Vexillology, Wikipedia.)

A flag that displays a coat of arms/ seal/ insignia, i.e. a graphic design, has meaning. Without its “colours” (its graphic design), a flag is a mere piece of cloth.

Distinguishing “Friend” from “Foe”

The Great Seal is a heraldic device and heraldry is probably as old as the world. However, for Europeans, the use of heraldic symbols dates back to the 12th century and “originated when most people were illiterate but could easily recognize a bold, striking, and simple design. The use of heraldry in medieval warfare enabled combatants to distinguish one mail-clad knight from another and thus to distinguish between friend and foe.”[i]

Identification and authentication (through an inscription or engraving) was the original purpose of heraldry. The graphic design and the words could be affixed to the shield, or “escutcheon,” and would be the shields identifying element. Therefore, without a coat of arms, a seal, an insignia, or another sigh, the shield would not mean anything. An unidentified shield would be no more than an object, or device, used by combatants to protect themselves.

A modern example of identification and authentication can be found in sports. Members of hockey, soccer, football or other team wear a uniform on which a number is printed. This is how spectators can tell teams and players apart. They have their “colours,” so to speak.

Parts of a Seal or Coat of Arms (Photo credit: Google images)

The Bayeux Tapestry

The Bayeux Tapestry is interesting because it is fabric, linen to be precise, unto which an embroidered graphic design has been affixed. In heraldry the graphic design—a coat of arms or other symbol—is usually affixed on an element other than fabric.

However, according to Wikipedia “[f]rom the beginning of heraldry, coats of arms have been executed in a wide variety of media, including on paper, painted wood, embroidery, enamel stonework and stained glass.” (See Heraldry, Wikipedia.)

Shield or Escutcheon

The Bayeux Tapestry is also interesting in that it is the first work of art portraying combatants using a shield or escutcheon (un écusson), that has been emblazoned. It tells the story of the conquest of England, by William the Conqueror (Guillaume le conquérant), at the Battle of Hastings, which took place on October 14, 1066, almost a thousand years ago. Without the embroidery and the tituli, the linen would be meaningless. The same is true of the Great Seal of the United States. Without its graphic design: the eagle, etc., it too would be meaningless. So we have entered the field a semiotics or semiology. Yes, it is that simple.

A segment of the Bayeux Tapestry depicting Odo, Earl of Kent rallying Duke William‘s troops at the Battle of Hastings (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Bayeux Tapestry, King Harold is Killed (Photo credit: Goggle Images)

An Embroidery, not a Tapestry

To be exact, the Bayeux tapestry is not a tapestry. Tapestries are woven using coloured wool or thread. Our tapestry is an embroidery or, to be precise, crewel work (wool yarns) on linen. It is kept at Bayeux, Normandy, but may have been woven in England. It was probably commissioned by Odo, Bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent. Odo was a half-brother to William the Conqueror. Harold is the last Anglo-Saxon king of England. The tapestry is housed at Bayeux, a lovely small town in Normandy.

Moreover, adding to its significance, the Bayeux tapestry is the combination of “mottoes,” words called tituli (labels), and pictorial elements, or its graphic design. The same is true of the Great Seal of the United States.

The use of distinguishing symbols is an ancient practice that probably predates recorded history. As noted above, the Bayeux tapestry may constitute the first European work of art displaying the use of shields as emblems or symbols. The Bayeux tapestry dates back to the Norman conquest of Britain, or the Battle of Hastings (14 October 1066). It is 70 meters (230 ft.) long and presents 70 “scenes,” but this figure could be an approximation. Some scenes may have been lost.

Rumour has it that Mathilda, William’s wife, and ladies-in-waiting, embroidered the Bayeux tapestry, but it was probably embroidered in England by nuns and would be an example of Opus Anglicanum, the best form of British embroidery.

In 1792, during the French Revolution, the tapestry “was confiscated as public property to be used for covering military wagons,” but was rescued by a lawyer and returned to the state when it was no longer threatened. During World War II, it was again threatened. Himmler asked that it be taken to Berlin, but he did so when the Nazis were leaving Paris. (See Bayeux Tapestry, Wikipedia.) All segments of the tapestry can be seen if one clicks on Bayeux Tapestry Tituli.

Conclusion

Having defined heraldry and vexillology, we can return to the subject of designing the Great Seal of the United States, which was created between 1776 and 1782, and was completed when the Treaty of Paris of 1883 was signed. Moreover, the four signatories: Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, John Adams, representing the United States, and David Hartley, representing Britain, each left an imprinted wax seal.

My kindest regards to all of you.

Treaty of Paris 1883 (Photo Credit: Wikipedia)

RELATED ARTICLES

Designing Washington, DC (cont’d) (25 May 2014)
Designing Washington, DC: Pierre-Charles L’Enfant (23 May 2014)
Americans in Paris: George Washington (22 May 2014)
Americans in Paris: Thomas Jefferson (17 May 2014)
Americans in Paris: Benjamin Franklin (14 May 2014)

____________________

[i] “heraldry“. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 27 May. 2014
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/262552/heraldry>.

[ii] Ibid.

The Bayeux Tapestry

29 May 2014

WordPress

The Comet, Bayeux Tapestry

Designing Washington, DC (cont’d)

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by michelinewalker in France, History, United States

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

a Civil engineer, an architect, Pierre Charles L'Enfant, The Capitol, the Golden Ratio, the Golden Section, The National Mall, Videos

: The National Mall was the centerpiece of the McMillan Plan.

Pleasure & Reality

As I was writing my post entitled Designing Washington, DC: Pierre-Charles L’Enfant, I looked for a suitable video.

There was a perfectly adequate video, but the “pleasure principle” took over. The term “pleasure principle” was coined by Sigmund Freud (6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939) to describe our need to find pleasure. Its other half is the “reality principle.” So, there I was, writing and editing, but I did not want to put an informative video at the end my post. I got carried away by the “pleasure principle” and inserted videos featuring music.

To correct matters, I am now embedding the appropriate video at the foot of this post.

The Golden Section or Ratio

Pierre-Charles L’Enfant (9 August 1754 – 14 June 1825) designed the National Mall in Washington. That is Washington as we know it. Have you noticed that the design of the mall is a good example of the use of the Golden Section or Ratio. The Golden Ratio, features off-centered lines, vertical and horizontal, usually intersecting. Inside this Golden Section, to the left, there are two off-centered vertical and horizontal lines (blue)? Consequently, although it may conceal Masonic symbols, the design of the National Mall is, first and foremost, consistent with the Greek Golden Section or Golden Ratio.

Conclusion

Therefore, we could say that French-born Pierre-Charles L’Enfant‘s design of the National Mall in Washington, DC is no more yet no less than the work of an architect and civil engineer practicing his art as conscientiously as he could.

RELATED ARTICLES

Designing Washington, DC: Pierre-Charles L’Enfant (23 May 2014)
Americans in Paris: George Washington (22 May 2014)
Americans in Paris: Thomas Jefferson (17 May 2014)
Americans in Paris: Benjamin Franklin (14 May 2014)

Pierre-Charles L’Enfant (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

May 25, 2014

WordPress

Designing Washington, DC: Pierre-Charles L’Enfant

23 Friday May 2014

Posted by michelinewalker in France, History, The Enlightenment, United States

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

American War of Independence, Anderson House, André Le Nôtre, Masonic layout of Washington, Monticello & UNESCO, Pierre Charles L'Enfant, The Da Vinci Code, The Society of the Cincinnati

Balcony beneath The Apotheosis of Washington (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Balcony beneath “The Apotheosis of Washington,” in the Capitol Rotunda (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Beaumarchais enlists Pierre-Charles L’Enfant

Beaumarchais recruits Pierre-Charles L’Enfant: a coincidence

L’Enfant does not return to France

L’Enfant is initiated into Freemasonry

Washington commissions L’Enfant to be build a capital city

Thomas Jefferson supervises the building of Washington DC

Coincidentally, French playwright Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, (24 January 1732 – 18 May 1799), the gentleman who authored The Marriage of Figaro (Le Mariage de Figaro, 1784), recruited soldiers wishing to fight against the British in the American War of Independence (1775 – 1783). Among the men Beaumarchais recruited is major Pierre-Charles L’Enfant (August 9, 1754 – 14 June 1825), an architect and civil engineer who decided to settle in New York after the American War of Independence. In 1791, L’Enfant would be asked, by George Washington, to design what would be the future capital of the United States. George Washington wanted the United States to have an impressive capital city.

The National Mall was the centerpiece of the McMillan Plan. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pierre-Charles in the “Federal City”

George Washington, first President of the United States

George Washington, a Freemason

L’Enfant, a Freemason

When Pierre-Charles heard that a capital would be built, he wrote to George Washington asking to be commissioned to do this work, and Washington graciously obliged. Because Washington was a Freemason, he asked L’Enfant to include Masonic symbols in the layout of the city that would eventually be named after him. Freemasonry is not a religion. It is a fraternity. Consequently, integrating Masonic symbols would not violate the Enlightenment ideal of the separation of Church and State, an ideal also promoted by Freemasonry. Again, coincidentally, Pierre-Charles L’Enfant had been initiated in Freemasonry in New York, on 17 April 1789. He could therefore incorporate Masonic symbols in his layout, known as L’Enfant Plan. L’Enfant was never very active as a Freemason but, as an architect and civil engineer, he followed the instructions of his clients, at least to a point. The layout of Washington, D.C. contains Masonic symbols as do some of its buildings.

Washington, D.C. Pentagram (Photo credit: United States Presidents and the Illuminati /Masonic Power Structure)

Masonic and Illuminist elements in the layout of Washington

The layout of Washington, D.C. may indeed feature Masonic elements and reflect the thinking of the Illuminati. George Washington was influenced by the Illuminati or “luminaries,” a movement rooted in the Enlightenment. The George Washington Masonic National Memorial has its Internet entry. On the Internet, one also finds a rather alarming entry entitled Washington D.C. and Masonic/Lucifer Symbology.

Dan Brown: The Da Vinci Code

Parisian Elements

L’Enfant also incorporated in his designs Parisian architectural elements our “Americans in Paris,” Thomas Jefferson in particular, had admired in certain buildings. Consequently, there was a will among members of the former American Delegation to remember their stay in Paris. Like tourists, they brought back “souvenirs.” They did so by inserting Parisian motifs in houses they had built and in their décor. Therefore, Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia) does reflect the involvement of the French in the American War of Independence, but these elements are not necessarily Masonic. I wonder if they visited Vaux-le-Vicomte. There can be no doubt that L’Enfant was inspired by Louis XIV‘s landscape artist André Le Nôtre and noted British architects:

“[t]he influence of Baroque architecture at Versailles, by André Le Nôtre [12 March 1613 – 15 September 1700], appears in his plan and it also bears resemblances to the London plans of Sir Christopher Wren PRS [20 October 1632 – 25 February 1723] and John Evelyn FRS [31 October 1620 – 27 February 1706].”[ii]

French Coins (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thomas Jefferson as Architect

Supervising L’Enfant was Thomas Jefferson, whose home at Monticello Jefferson designed and redesigned personally. It included architectural features that had caught his eye in Paris. In fact, Monticello is a historical landmark and, in 1987, it was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Jefferson also designed the University of Virginia, the first buildings. Jefferson had a passion for architecture.

“Thomas Jefferson, who worked alongside President Washington in overseeing the plans for the capital, sent L’Enfant a letter outlining his task for the capital which was to provide a drawing of suitable sites for the federal city and the public buildings. Though Jefferson had modest ideas for the Capital, L’Enfant saw the task as far more grandiose, believing he was not only locating the capital, but also devising the city plan and designing the buildings.” (See Pierre-Charles L’Enfant, Wikipedia.)

Problems arose. Allow me to quote Wikipedia:

“L’Enfant was supervised by three commissioners. In February 1792, Andrew Ellicott, who was conducting the original boundary survey of the future District of Columbia (see Boundary Stones [District of Columbia]) and the survey of the “Federal City” under the direction of the Commissioners, informed the Commissioners that L’Enfant had not been able to have the city plan engraved and had refused to provide him with the original plan (of which L’Enfant had prepared several versions.” (See Pierre-Charles L’Enfant, Wikipedia.)

Andrew Ellicott

Andrew Ellicott had not been commissioned to design the layout of the future Washington, D.C., but he took over the project and modified L’Enfant Plan. George Washington dismissed L’Enfant without remuneration for the work he had carried out. Later on, L’Enfant would be remunerated, though barely so: $3,800, enough to pay a few creditors. After leaving the “Federal City,” L’Enfant surveyed and platted Indianapolis, Indiana, and Perrysburg, Ohio, but he was now in disgrace and would die in poverty. When he grew old, friends provided a refuge at Green Hill, a Maryland estate in Chillum, Prince George’s County. Chillum is where L’Enfant was first buried.

The McMillan Commission (1901-1902)

Pierre-Charles Rehabilitated

The National Mall

Pennsylvania Avenue

The Capitol Building

The “Grand Avenue”

The future would bring recognition to L’Enfant. In 1901 and 1902, his plans were used by the McMillan Commission “as the cornerstone of a report that recommended a partial redesign of the capital city. Among other things, the Commission’s report laid out a plan for a sweeping mall in the area of L’Enfant’s widest ‘grand avenue’, which had not been constructed.” (See c, Wikipedia.)

The Society of the Cincinnati (1783)

The Society of the Cincinnati

La Société des Cincinnati de France

Louis XVI ordains the Society of the Cincinnati

The French ‘connection’

In the course of his career, Pierre-Charles, an aristocrat by birth, had become “Peter.” Thomas Jefferson had asked him to paint a portrait of George Washington. He also designed the badge for the Society of the Cincinnati, a society commemorating the involvement of France in the American War of Independence. L’Enfant would also establish a French branch of the Society, La Société des Cincinnati de France, ordained by Louis XVI. The Society of the Cincinnati is a “hereditary, military, and patriotic organization formed in May 1783 by officers who had served in the American Revolution. Its objectives were to promote union and national honours, maintain their war-born friendship, perpetuate the rights for which they had fought, and aid members of their families in case of need.”[iii] The Society of the Cincinnati also remains a testimonial honouring the presence of the French in America during the American Revolutionary War, which is its most important role. France was impoverished, but its military wanted to fight for the independence of the United States and Louis XVI signed the Treaty of Alliance (1778) with France. George Washington would be elected the Society’s first President and its headquarters are the Larz and Isabel Anderson House in Washington, D.C..

Conclusion

Jean-Jules Jusserand

Lying in State, the Capitol rotunda

Pierre-Charles re-interred

Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia

At the request of Jean Jules Jusserand, a French Ambassador to the United States during World War I, the United States recognized L’Enfant’s contributions to his adopted nation. In 1909, after lying in state at the Capitol rotunda, L’Enfant’s remains were re-interred in the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. L’Enfant’s name is included in the list provided by Wikipedia (The Society of the Cincinnati). La Fayette is listed as Gilbert du Motier and Pierre-Charles L’Enfant, as Pierre L’Enfant. (See The Society of the Cincinnati, Wikipedia.) “At his first inauguration in 1791, President Washington took his oath of office on a Bible from St. John’s Lodge in New York. During his two terms, he visited Masons in North and South Carolina and presided over the cornerstone ceremony for the U.S. Capitol in 1793.” (See George Washington Masonic National Memorial.)

The Society of the Cincinnati (Photo credit: Google images)

RELATED ARTICLES

Americans in Paris: George Washington (22 May 2014)
Americans in Paris: Thomas Jefferson (17 May 2014)
Americans in Paris: Benjamin Franklin (14 May 2014)

Sources and Resources:

BBC History: The American War of Independence: The Rebels and the Redcoats,

by Professor Richard Holmes

L’Enfant Plan is an online document

The Masonic Career of Major Pierre-Charles L’Enfant, by Pierre F. de Ravel d’Esclapon, 32°, Valley of Rockville Center, N.Y. (March-April 2011)

Washington, the Mason: http://gwmemorial.org/washingtonTheMason.php

United States Presidents and the Illuminati/Masonic Power Structure, by Robert Howard

George Washington Masonic National Memorial

The Masonic Trowel

Washington D.C. and Masonic/Lucifer Symbology

The Society of the Cincinnati

La Société des Cincinnati de France

The Larz and Isabel Anderson House

_________________________

[i] “[A]t Holland Lodge No. 8 F&AM, which the Grand Lodge of New York F&AM had chartered in 1787. L’Enfant took only the first of three degrees offered by the lodge and did not progress further in Freemasonry.” (See Pierre-Charles L’Enfant, Wikipedia.)

[ii] “Pierre Charles L’Enfant”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 22 May. 2014

<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/335841/Pierre-Charles-LEnfant>.

[iii] The “Society of the Cincinnati”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 22 May. 2014 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/117977/Society-of-the-Cincinnati>.

Gershwin plays “Swanee”

Jefferson’s Monticello

Pete Seeger sings “Way down upon the Suwannee River,” by Stephen Foster

22 May 2014

WordPress

The insignia of the Society of the Cincinnati

(Photo credit: Google Images)

Americans in Paris: George Washington

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by michelinewalker in France, History, United States

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Americans in Paris, Beaumarchais' Figaro, Casuistry, Freemasonry, George Washington, La Fayette, Mental Assent and Casuistry, Pierre de Beaumarchais, the Edict of Versailles 1787, the Noble Savage

Washington and Lafayette at Valley Forge

La Fayette as a Lieutenant General, in 1791. Portrait by Joseph-Désiré Court

Lafayette as a Lieutenant General, by Joseph-Désiré Court, 1791

The French and the American Revolutionary War

A Desperate situation

Valley Forge

The Marquis de Lafayette

A hesitant Louis XVI

Lafayette[i] (6 September 1757 – 20 May 1834) arrived in Philadelphia in July 1777. Consequently, he was in the future United States a year after the American Declaration of Independence (14 July 1776) and a year before France’s Treaty of Alliance (1778) with Americans seeking independence from the motherland: Britain. In fact, when La Fayette arrived in North America, the Founding Fathers needed substantial help to win the American War of Independence, also called the American Revolutionary War. No country was mightier than Britain, so the American dream seemed impossible to achieve. At Valley Forge, “[s]tarvation, disease, and exposure killed nearly 2,500 American soldiers by the end of February 1778.” (See Valley Forge, Wikipedia.)

In other words, when Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier de Lafayette, Marquis de Lafayette[i] left France, both France and the future United States were in a desperate situation. Benjamin Franklin was in Paris seeking financial and military support for the Thirteen Colonies, but Louis XVI (23 August 1754 – 21 January 1793) was hesitant. The Seven Years’ War and Louis XV‘s extravagant and irresponsible reign had drained France. The French could not afford to enter into a war, but the future United States needed reliable allies.

Moreover, the French military was eager to support the Americans. The duc de Choiseuil (28 June 1719 – 8 May 1785), the Chief Minister of the French King and Foreign Minister of France during the Seven Years’ War, had been deeply humiliated by the Treaty of Paris (1763), and so had French military. Therefore, such men as La Fayette hoped to serve in North America and regain the prestige France had lost in 1763. The French military had regrouped and replenished its supplies, so all it needed was an “opportunity.”

The Treaty of Alliance with France (1778)

At his wit’s end, de guerre lasse, but heartened by the American victory at the Battles of Saratoga, Louis XVI signed the above-mentioned Treaty of Alliance with France, on 6 February 1778, at the Hôtel de Crillon in Pairs, providing George Washington, the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army (the American army), with men, ammunition and other army supplies. Other countries, for instance the Netherlands, also accepted to fight for the American cause.

Lafayette had distinguished himself from the start and had been named major-general. He distinguished himself at the Battle of Brandywine (11 September 1777), a British victory, but not altogether conclusive. He and American troops had also won the “Battle of Barren Hill” (28 May 1778). Lafayette then went to France to ask for greater support, a “6,000-man expeditionary army,” and proved convincing. On his return to America, in April 1780, Lafayette was named commander of the army in Virginia, “forced” Lord Charles Cornwallis to retreat across Virginia and “entrapped” him at Yorktown. He was then joined by a French fleet and several additional Americans, so General Cornwallis surrendered on 19 October 1781. According to Britannica, at this point the British cause was lost.”[ii]

However, France had recognised the independence of the United States after the Battles of Saratoga (19 September and 7 October 1777), three years before the Siege of Yorktown, which ended in 1781. (See Surrender of General Burgoyne, Wikipedia.) When it entered the American War of Independence, France transformed the war into a world war.

The Surrender of Lord Cornwallis (19 October 1781), by John Trumbull, 1819-1820 (on the left side are the French and on the right, the Americans) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Surrender of General Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga, by John Trumbull, 1822

The Surrender of General Burgoyne (7 October 1777) at the Battle of Saratoga, by John Trumbull, 1822 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

George Washington in Paris

After the Siege of Yorktown, Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette was a hero. Upon his return to France, in 1782, he was therefore promoted to maréchal de camp (brigadier general). In 1784, he returned to the United States and became a citizen of several states. However, not only did Lafayette possess superior military acumen, but he had grown an exceptional and lasting friendship with George Washington, as he would later with Thomas Jefferson. Lafayette named his son Georges Washington. Moreover, although an aristocrat by birth, he became a Freemason. (See List of Freemasons, Wikipedia.)

As I have noted in an earlier post, Freemasonry recognized a nobility of the mind. Haydn and Mozart were Freemasons. Viennese aristocracy would not have considered them “aristocrats.” Therefore, in the future United States, beginning with George Washington, the first President of the United States, a large number of American Presidents would be Freemasons. It was an aristocracy based on merit.

The Enlightenment

Moreover, George Washington was a Protestant, yet a man of virtue and merit. The Age of Enlightenment advocated the separation of Church and State and, by the sametoken, it also promoted virtue without a formal adhesion to a religion: laïcité (secularism).

George Washington was a good man in an age, the Age of Enlightenment, that advocated the separation of Church and State and, by extension, also promoted virtue per se rather than virtue rooted in a religion. During his stay in France as American Minister, Jefferson, the main author of the American Declaration of Independence, helped La Fayette, its principal author, draft the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (26 August 1789), a document that can be described as a product of the Enlightenment. Again a Protestant was working with a Catholic and vice versa. In fact, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, issued in late August 1789, resembles the American Declaration of Independence (4 July 1776), whose main author was Thomas Jefferson. Both declarations are products of the Enlightenment and John Locke‘s influence. (See Americans in Paris: Thomas Jefferson.)

1) The Enlightenment separated nobility (hereditary) and merit (earned nobility, or nobility in itself). George Washington was not an aristocrat, but he had a noble and superior mind, as did the untitled Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the American Declaration of Independence (4 July 1776). There would be a nobility of the mind.

2) Moreover, the Enlightenment separated virtue and religion. A Protestant could be virtuous and so could a Catholic. Adhesion to a religion was not the standard by which morality and virtue were to be measured. Lafayette discovered virtue in Protestant George Washington, and was therefore motivated to entrench tolerance of non-Catholics in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789). There would also be a nobility of the spirit, regardless of creed.

Article 10 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen reads as follows:

“No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.” (See Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, Wikipedia.)

The Edict of Versailles (1787)

Furthermore, impressed by George Washington, Lafayette, who had become a Freemason, asked King Louis XVI to revoke the Edict of Fontainebleau, promulgated by Louis XIV on 22 October 1685. The Edict of Fontainebleau had revoked the Edict of Nantes (1598), an edict of religious tolerance between Catholics and French Calvinist Protestants, the Huguenots. The Edict of Nantes had been promulgated by Henri IV, king of Navarre and king of France, who had been a Huguenot but had converted to Catholicism in order to be king of France. And now, in 1787, following La Fayette’s advice, Louis XVI promulgated the Edict of Versailles. Times had changed.

Conclusion

George Washington in Paris

The Nobility of the spirit

Moral superiority

Lafayette

The Edict of Versailles

So I will conclude by saying, first, that Lafayette

distinguished himself in America, as a soldier;
that he was the main author of Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen;
that, immensely impressed by a virtuous and good George Washington, a Protestant, he asked Louis XVI, king of France and Navarre, to promulgate the Edict of Versailles, an edict of tolerance of non-Catholics and Jews. Lafayette was again very convincing. Louis signed the Edict of Versailles on 7 November 1787, and it was registered in the parlement of the Ancien Régime, on 29 January 1788. On the advice of La Fayette, Louis XVI ended the persecution of French Calvinists, the Huguenots.
and that, because he was influenced by George Washington, a good person, he led Lafayette to join Freemasonry, which advocated the recognition of superior talent and merit.

Second, I will suggest

that George Washington, a Protestant and a Freemason, can be looked upon as our third American in Paris, brought to the French capital by Lafayette;
that his legacy is one of the spirit, or moral superiority;
that, because of his friendship with Lafayette, George Washington earned support for the future United States;
and that, because George Washington was a Protestant, yet a man whose moral integrity could not be questioned, he led Lafayette to ask Louis XVI to end the persecution of French Protestant Calvinists.

The “alliance” between France and the United States was broken only once. France opposed the War in Iraq. Iraq was and is a sovereign nation and entering a sovereign nation is a violation of International Law, a law rooted, at least in part, in the American Declaration of Independence and in its French counterpart, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, which is very ironic. However, the United States’ ties with France have been reaffirmed by President Obama, the current President of the United States of America and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. These ties date back to Treaty of Alliance signed by Louis XVI, King of France, in 1778. In my opinion, this is an excellent record.

—ooo—

Allow me to add a few words. Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, the author of The Marriage of Figaro (1784), a play transformed into an opera buffa (a comic opera) by Mozart (1786), recruited soldiers wishing to fight in the American Revolutionary War. Pierre Charles L’Enfant, an architect and civil engineer, was recruited by Beaumarchais.

After the war, L’Enfant settled in New York where he was initiated into Freemasonry. In 1791, he was appointed, by George Washington, to design the layout of the future capital of the United States. L’Enfant incorporated Masonic symbols into L’Enfant Plan. One of his supervisors was Thomas Jefferson, who had immersed himself in architecture and designed his home at Monticello, his primary plantation. Hence, my inserting into this post a portrait of Beaumarchais and music from Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro.

My kindest regards to all of you.

Monticello, Jefferson’s home designed by Jefferson

Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, by Jean-Marc Nattier

Americans in Paris: Thomas Jefferson (17 May 2014)
Americans in Paris: Benjamin Franklin (14 May 2014)
The Church of France during the French Revolution, cont’d (6 May 2014)
The Church of France during the French Revolution (4 May 2014)
Chateaubriand’s Atala (24 April 2014)
The Noble Savage: Lahontan’s Adario (26 October 2012)

Sources and Resources

Valley Forge in US History us.history

____________________

[i] “Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 19 May. 2014 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/327692/Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert-du Motier-marquis-de Lafayette>

[ii] Ibid.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791

The Marriage of Figaro

Leopold, Wolfgang, and Nannerl. Watercolour by Carmontelle, c. 1763–64

Leopold, Wolfgang, and Nannerl, by Carmontelle, c. 1763–64

19 May 2014

WordPress

Americans in Paris: Thomas Jefferson

17 Saturday May 2014

Posted by michelinewalker in The Enlightenment, The French Revolution, The United States

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

American War of Independence, Assembly of Notables, Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, Marquis de La Fayette, Tax reforms, the United States, Thomas Jefferson, Vicomte de Calonne

: Stone sign affixed on the rue Jacob building (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In this building, formerly the York Hotel [Paris], on 3 September 1783, David Hartley, in the name of the king of England, and Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams, in the name of the United States of America, signed the definitive peace treaty recognizing the independence of the United States.

—ooo—

Five years after Louis XVI hesitatingly signed the Treaty of Alliance (1778), which ensured the future independence of a country to be named the United States of America, the Treaty of Versailles (sometimes called the Treaty of Paris) was signed at the Hôtel d’York in Paris, a hotel that no longer exists, the above stone sign commemorates the victory of the young Republic. The Treaty of Versailles proclaimed the independence of the United States.

When the Treaty of Versailles was signed, in 1783, Thomas Jefferson had yet to assume his duties as United States Minister Plenipotentiary to France, an office now known as that of Ambassador. Moreover, and ironically, France itself would not become a republic until 22 September 1792, and not under the best of circumstances.

The names engraved on the stone shown above are those of members of the American Delegation in Paris, architects of the United States of America:

Benjamin Franklin (17 January 1706 – 17 April 1790), the “first American,” and perhaps the main artisan of an independent United States;
John Jay (12 December 1745 – 17 May 1829), of the American Delegation, the 2nd Governor of New York and an opponent of slavery;
John Adams (30 October 1735 – 4 July 1826), also of the American Delegation in Paris and the second President of the United States of America.

Representing Britain was David Hartley, King George III‘s plenipotentiary.

King George III of England, by Allan Ramsay

King George III of the United Kingdom, by Allan Ramsay (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Aftermath

It could be said that all parties gained from the Treaty of Versailles/Paris. The United States was an independent nation and Benjamin Franklin had made sure both France and England would be its trading partners. As for France, it had regained the prestige it lost when it ceded Canada to Britain under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1673, but Canada remained a British colony. However, in 1783, Benjamin Franklin did glance northwards. The mostly French-language British Province of Quebec shrank significantly. Please see the maps.[i]

Expansion

The United States would expand, but it would be to the west rather than the north. In 1803, under the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, the United States would purchase Louisiana from France. Again, ironically, the groundwork for the Louisiana Purchase, was one of Thomas Jefferson’s contributions to the United States as Minister to France. Jefferson had kept alive an alliance with France. The French did not look upon the sale of Louisiana as a severe loss. Louisiana had been disputed territory between France and Spain and the United States needed a port to the south. In short, France would have lost Louisiana. It may therefore have been in its best interest to sell it. Am I writing this?

Thomas Jefferson, by Rembrandt Peale (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thomas Jefferson

In May 1785, Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 – 4 July 1826), the 3rd President of the United States and a good friend of the Marquis de La Fayette, was installed as the United States Minister, or United States ‘Ambassador’ to France. Like his predecessor, Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson was a polymath who had read abundantly, played the violin, spoke several languages, but suffered violent attacks of migraine. He was a man of the Enlightenment and truly impressed the French, but not in the same manner as his predecessor, Benjamin Franklin, who was milling financial and military support for the American Revolutionary War, and did so as a “regular” in various French Salons and the Café Procope, major institutions in France, and importing racoon hats, “du nouveau,” something new, for the ladies of the French court and Salons. These ladies only wore the “trendy” and would not be caught otherwise. The French did however name Benjamin Franklin to the French Academy as an honorary member. As for Jefferson, his legacy would be one of the mind, to the French and to the world. I will not speak of his dependence on slaves.

Thomas Jefferson arrived in Paris in 1785 and left on 26 September 1789 in order to serve as the United States’ first Secretary of State, under George Washington (22 February 1732 – 14 December 1799). In other words, Jefferson left France a mere two weeks before Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, Prince de Talleyrand suggested, on 10 October 1789, that France resolve its financial crisis by confiscating the wealth of Church, which it did on 2 November 1789. During his stay in Paris, Jefferson was a witness to vain attempts on the part of Louis XVI to pay the huge debt accrued mainly because of wars it had fought, one of which was the American Revolutionary War. The American Revolutionary War was indeed a catalyst in the apocalyptic French Revolution. France had supported the future United States’ effort to break its ties with Britain. But who could have predicted a catastrophe that would ignore the liberalism of the Age of Enlightenment to persecute the clergy and the nobility, by killing thousands of its innocent citizens?

The American Declaration of Independence

Franklin was in France to rally the French to the American cause of independence from England. Such would not be Jefferson’s task. Given that he had drafted the American Declaration of Independence, a text reflecting the liberalism of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson’s main contribution to the French Revolution would be the lofty idealism he had contributed to the American Declaration of Independence, which he had drafted almost single-handedly. Jefferson was in a position to play an active role in the actual drafting of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen), a pivotal text in the history of France, written mainly by Jefferson’s friend, La Fayette, with assistance on the part of Thomas Jefferson, and issued on 26 August 1789, a month to the day before Jefferson left France to take up his duties as first American Secretary of State.

The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen is derivative. It is rooted in John Locke’s principles and, to a substantial extent, in Jean-Jacques Rousseau‘s Social Contract (1762), as is the American Declaration of Independence. At the very heart of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen is Jefferson’s “all men are created equal,” not in so many words, but in spirit. Equality was part of the motto of the French Revolution: liberté, égalité, fraternité, and it remains part of the motto of France. However it left room for a constitutional monarchy, the initial goal of the French Revolution. No one could have predicted such incivility as the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Nor could anyone have foreseen that the French Revolution would spin out of control to the point of regicide: the execution of Louis XVI.

Le Pressoir (The Pressurizer) (Photo credit: Google Images)

George Washington: the “Proclamation of Neutrality”

On 22 April 1793, after the execution of king Louis XVI (21 January 1793), George Washington issued a Proclamation of Neutrality. The United States declared it would remain neutral in conflicts between France and Great Britain and in Wars abroad. Americans breaking this rule could be prosecuted. (See Proclamation of Neutrality, Wikipedia.) Yet, the American Revolutionary War or American War of Independence, was a catalyst in the apocalyptic French Revolution. France had been the main financial and military supporter in the Americans’ effort to break their ties with Britain. But, again, who could have imagined a catastrophe that would ignore the liberalism of the Enlightenment and persecute the clergy and the nobility.

Therefore, would that the Parliament of Paris had ratified Charles Alexandre, vicomte de Calonne‘s proposal of imposing taxes across the board. Would, moreover, that the Assembly of Notables, created by Louis XVI, in 1787, had seen fit to implement universal taxation. Levying taxes from the First and Second Estates, the Church of France and its nobility, was the only solution to France’s financial crisis. Its participation in the American War of Independence cost France 1.3 billion livres.

In 1787, the Parliament of Paris refused to register Charles Alexandre, vicomte de Calonne‘s[ii] proposal to tax all three estates, the only way to remedy France’s desperate financial crisis. Louis XVI therefore created an Assembly of Notables, 144 individuals handpicked by him, whose duty it would be to save France from bankruptcy. The Marquis de La Fayette was a member of king Louis XVI’s Notables, but Louis’ élite team also refused across-the-board taxation. It was proposed, instead, that the matter of tax reform be handled by the Estates-General which had not convened since 1614.

“While the an [sic] Assembly of Notables had no legislative power in its own right, Calonne hoped that if the Assembly of Notables could be made to support the proposed reforms then this would apply pressure on parlement to register them. The plan failed, as the 144 Notables who made up the Assembly included Princes of the Blood, archbishops, nobles and other people from privileged positions in society, and they did not wish to bear the burden of increased taxation. The Assembly insisting that the proposed tax reforms had to be presented to a representative body such as an Estates General.” (See Assembly of Notables, in Wikipedia)

Conclusion

To end this post, one could state that “the rest is history.” But it need be retold that, on 10 October 1789, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand (and the Comte de Mirabeau) proposed that France confiscate the wealth of the Church and convert it into assignats: paper money, which was approved by the Assembly on 2 December 1789. Calonne’s proposal that all Estates be taxed turned into greater misery, the confiscation of the property of the Church of France. To harm the Church of France further, Talleyrand, a member of the clergy, l’évêque d’Autun (the bishop of Autun), also proposed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, a law passed on 12 July 1790. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy did not separate separate Church and State, a separation proposed by the Baron de Montesquieu, among others. Laïcité was part of the programme of the Enlightenment, but the Civil Constitution of the Clergy subjugated the Church of France to the State, which was not laïcité.

By 12 July 1790, Thomas Jefferson was no longer the American Minister to France. His mission terminated on 26 September 1789, as indicated above.

To sum up, I need simply say that Thomas Jefferson was in Paris as he was in the United States: a superior mind. The video is about Thomas Jefferson.[iii]

Preliminary Treaty of Paris (Photo Credit: Wikipedia)

____________________

[i] The Treaty of Versailles (1783) and the Redrawing of the Canada-US Border (Site for Language Management in Canada [SMLC]).

[ii] Calonne was Louis XVI’s Controller-General of Finances. He was appointed to this office in 1783. Jacques Necker, however, remained in the background.

[iii] Here is the text (short) of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (just click). It completes the video.

Monticello, Jefferson’s home designed by Jefferson (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

17 May 2014

WordPress

Americans in Paris: Benjamin Franklin

14 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by michelinewalker in France, History, United States

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

American Revolutionary War, Americans in Paris, Battle of Chesapeake, Battles of Saratoga, Benjamin Franklin, Costs to France, La Fayette, Salons and Cafés, Thomas Jefferson, Treaty of Paris 1783

French (left) and British ships (right) at the battle of the Chesapeake (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Battle of Chesapeake

The Battle of Chesapeake, fought on 5 September 1781, between a British fleet led by Rear Admiral Sir Thomas Graves KCB (c.1747 – 29 March 1814) and a French fleet led by Rear Admiral Francois-Joseph Paul, the Comte de Grasse, was a victory for American “patriots” and their French allies. (See The Battle of Chesapeake, Wikipedia.)

Although Louis XVI was reluctant to enter actively in the American War of Independence (19 April 1775 – 11 April 1783), he provided financial help to the fledgling North-American republic, as did the Netherlands, Spain and other nations. However, Louis XVI’s resolve not to engage in a costly war was weakened by such figures as Charles Gravier, comte de Vergennes (20 December 1717 – 13 February 1787). The Seven Year’s War had so blemished France’s military might that when France entered the American Revolutionary War, its purpose may have been revenge. In 1778, France recognized the independence of the Thirteen Colonies and, having been emboldened by the Battles of Saratoga (19 September and 7 October 1777), it entered the American War of Independence ferociously. (See Surrender of General Burgoyne, Wikipedia.)

La Fayette as a Lieutenant General, in 1791. Portrait by Joseph-Désiré Court (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Benjamin Franklin

Associated with the American War of Independence were such figures as Benjamin Franklin (6 January 1706 – April 17, 1790) and Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 – 4 July 1826), the third President of the United States. As for the French, they fought Britain enlisting the support of seasoned members of the Ancien Régime‘s military and, particularly, its rebuilt naval forces. Gilbert du Motier, marquis de la Fayette (6 September 1757 – 20 May 1834), is the name that comes to mind when we reflect on this part of American and French history. But other members of the French military also fought on behalf of the United States. In fact, the American Revolutionary War grew into a world war.

Benjamin was a hero to the French before he served as Minister to France (1776 – 1785), a position now referred to as that of ambassador. Franklin was a man of the Enlightenment and a Freemason. He participated in experiments made by French scientists, including Dr Guillotin[I] (28 May 1738 – 26 March 1814). He met Voltaire ((21 November 1694 – 30 May 1778), a fellow Freemason usually considered the leader of the French Enlightenment. Voltaire was approaching death at the time he met Franklin. Franklin was also received at Versailles, the home of the Royal Family, and knew every intellectual in Paris as well as salonniers and salonnières. He earned the title of “the first American.”

Franklin was a polymath, so he learned French easily. Moreover, he became an habitué, or regular, of the Café Procope. Benjamin Franklin loved France and quickly realized that in France much business and diplomacy was conducted in salons and cafés. He would be succeeded by Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 – 4 July 1826) as American Minister to France. When Jefferson arrived in Paris, with a few of his slaves, he announced that he was not replacing Benjamin Franklin but “succeeding” him. (See Thomas Jefferson, Wikipedia.) Franklin was also a favourite in the best of Salons. Women adored him.

Plaque honouring Benjamin Franklin at the Café Procope (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I am writing a post about Americans is Paris during the last two decades of the 18^th century. I will now return to my original article, but will post the above. The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783, ended the American War of Independence.

My computer failed me. The hard disk had to be replaced and, afterwards, software had to be reinstalled. It was a lengthy and exhausting process. So let this be an introduction to “Americans in Paris.”

Best regards to all of you.

____________________

[I] Dr Guillotin ( 28 May 1738 – 26 March 1814) was a proponent of painless capital punishment, but he did not invent the guillotine. Although it was named after him, the prototype for the guillotine was designed by Antoine Louis (13 February 1723 – 20 May 1792) and the guillotine was first called the louisette.

Surrender of General Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga, by John Trumbull, 1822

General Burgoyne Portrait by Joshua Reynolds, c. 1766

General John Burgoyne, by Joshua Reynolds, c. 1766

Jean Racine’s Cantique, by Gabriel Fauré

09 Friday May 2014

Posted by michelinewalker in Beast Literature, French Literature, Myths

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

Canticle, Cantique de Jean Racine, Gabriel Fauré, hymns of praise, Jean Racine, mythology, Racine's Phèdre, the Golden Calf, the Sacred Bull, Theseus & the Minotaur

Hippolytus and Phaedra, Louvre (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jean Racine’s Canticle (1688)

I have used this song in an earlier post on Jean Racine and his Phèdre (1677) entitled Jean Racine, Gabriel Fauré & Alexandre Cabanel: a Canticle. Phèdre is a dramatic tragedy, in five acts, written in alexandrine verse (twelve syllables). It was first performed on 1 January 1677 (see Phèdre, Wikipedia). Racine’s Cantique is not part of Phèdre, perhaps the best known of Racine’s tragedies and, officially, his last play.

Racine’s Phèdre is about love and jealousy. In certain seventeenth-century works of literature, jealousy is the feeling that reveals one is “in love.” Love is therefore looked upon as dangerous, because jealousy can be an extremely painful feeling. The foremost literary expression of this phenomenon is Madame de la Fayette‘s novel entitled La Princesse de Clèves, published anonymously in 1678. It is considered a masterpiece of Western literature.

This post is not about Phèdre, except indirectly. I am using images related to Racine’s Phèdre, whose plays, tragedies, are rooted in Greco-Latin models or mythology. However, Racine’s tragedies usually convey a meaning not entirely intended in the Greco-Roman “model.” Moreover, Racine’s plays are examples of works of literature that were considered as well written as their source. The literary maturity of seventeenth-century French literature triggered the famous Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns. As we neared the end of the seventeenth century, many claimed that the modern work of literature was at least as fine as the Greco-Latin “model,” which was often the case.

On Jean Racine

Corneille

Racine

Molière

Jean Racine is one of the most prominent dramatists in French literature. He lived during the seventeenth century, the age of Pierre Corneille (6 June 1606 – 1 October 1684), best known for Le Cid (1637) and Molière (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin), one of the “greatest masters of comedy in Western literature,” (baptized 15 January 1622 – d.17 February 1673). (See Molière, Wikipedia.)

A Canticle

Jean Racine‘s Cantique is a translation and a paraphrase (a rewording) of an earlier text. Set to Gabriel Fauré‘s music, it nearly becomes what the romantics, nineteenth-century authors, artists, musicians and critics, would call the “sublime.” Gabriel Fauré (12 May 1845 – 4 November 1924) set Racine’s Cantique to music when he was nineteen-years old.

A canticle is a song of praise taken from biblical texts other than the Psalms (Wikipedia). Magnificats, hymns of praise, are canticles. Racine’s text is a translation and a paraphrase of Consors paterni luminis. It is part of Racine’s Hymnes traduites du Bréviaire romain (Hymns Translated from the Roman Breviary), published in 1688.

The Images

I have recycled images used in my posts on Racine’s Phèdre. Phèdre’s husband slew the Minotaur, the offspring of Pasiphaë, Minos’ wife, and a bull. The Minotaur’s father may be the Sacred Bull. The Bible’s Golden Calf is an example of the worship of bulls, calfs and cows. Pictured below is the Bull of Knossos, or the Cretan Bull. The Minotaur‘s mother is Pasiphaë, Phèdre’s and Ariadne’s mother. The Minotaur was slain by Theseus, Phèdre’s husband, who used Ariadne thread to find his way to the Minotaur through the labyrinth built by Daedalus, who crafted sadly-remembered wings for his son Icarus.

However, let us focus on Gabriel Fauré’s (op. 11) musical setting of the canticle translated by Racine. Bulls will be discussed elsewhere. They were worshipped in Egypt, so it’s a long story.

By and large, we no longer worship bulls and bull-leaping is antiquated, but we do have bullies a-plenty.

Best regards to all of you: my family!

Fresco of bull-leaping from Knossos (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Posts on Marian Hymnology 7 January 2013
Phèdre’s “Hidden God” 8 October 2012
Jean Racine, Gabriel Fauré & Alexandre Cabanel: a Canticle 6 October 2012 ←

Verbe égal au Très-Haut, notre unique espérance,
Jour éternel de la terre et des cieux,
De la paisible nuit nous rompons le silence :
Divin sauveur, jette sur nous les yeux.

Répands sur nous le feu de ta grâce puissante ;
Que tout l’enfer fuie au son de ta voix ;
Dissipe le sommeil d’une âme languissante
Qui la conduit à l’oubli de tes lois !

Ô Christ ! sois favorable à ce peuple fidèle,
Pour te bénir maintenant assemblé ;
Reçois les chants qu’il offre à ta gloire immortelle,
Et de tes dons qu’il retourne comblé.

—ooo—

Word of God, one with the Most High,
in Whom alone we have our hope,
Eternal Day of heaven and earth,
We break the silence of the peaceful night;
Saviour Divine, cast your eyes upon us!

Pour on us the fire of your powerful grace,
That all hell may flee at the sound of your voice;
Banish the slumber of a weary soul,
That brings forgetfulness of your laws!

O Christ, look with favour upon your faithful people
Now gathered here to praise you;
Receive their hymns offered to your immortal glory;
May they go forth filled with your gifts.

For translations of the “Cantique” in languages other than English, please click on translations. You will find the original Latin text in Wikipedia’s entry on Cantique de Jean Racine (Fauré).

Gabriel Fauré (12 May 1845 – 4 November 1924)

Jean Racine (22 December 1639 – 21 April 1699)

9 May 2014

WordPress

Theseus and the Minotaur

Black-Figure pottery

(Photo Credit: Wikipedia)

The Church of France & the French Revolution, cont’d

06 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by michelinewalker in The French Revolution

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

Cardinal Loménie de Brienne, Dialogues des Carmélites, juring and nonjuring priests, mental assent, separation of Church and State, Talleyrand, the Concordat of 1801, the Republican Calendar

"Disaffectation" of a church, Jacques François Joseph Swebach-Desfontaines, 1794.

“Disaffectation” of a church by Jacques François Joseph Swebach-Desfontaines, 1794 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Portrait de Talleyrand (1758–1823) Pierre-Paul Prud'hon , 1817

Portrait de Talleyrand
Pierre-Paul Prud’hon, 1817 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord

As I pointed out in my post dated 2 May 2014, the downfall of the Church of France during the French Revolution did not always stem from evil intentions. I am not about to suggest that Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, (1754–1838)[i], a priest, a bishop—l’Évêque d’Autun—and a delegate of the Church to the Estates-General, acted naively when, on 10 October 1789, he proposed that France confiscate the wealth of its very wealthy Church. France was facing bankruptcy, but that could be avoided by tapping into the vaults of its affluent First Estate: the clergy.

Talleyrand’s suggestion to confiscate the wealth of the Church may have been a stop-gap measure, but it was the “idée lumineuse,” the bright idea, that constitutes the first step in a process that would lead to the dechristianisation of the budding French Republic, founded on 22 September 1792.

But Talleyrand also proposed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (12 July 1790) empowering the State. It was the instrument used to destroy the Church of France. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy subjugated the Church to the State and is part of the very long debate concerning the respective power of Church and State in the government of a nation. It could be that Talleyrand did not plan the destruction of the Church of France, but he nevertheless set it in motion. He was excommunicated by Pope Pius VI in 1791 and, ten years later, Pope Pius VII, Pius VI’s successor would laicise Talleyrand.

The fact remains, however, that in the early years of the French Revolution, it would have been very difficult to predict that France would execute its king and his wife as well as thousands of its citizens, many of whom were priests and cloistered nuns. I can’t help thinking of Francis Poulenc‘s opera Dialogues des Carmélites (1956), based on a draft by Georges Bernanos. These nuns did not want to abjure their vows and were guillotined. No one could have imagined the Reign of Terror. But we do know that Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, Talleyrand, was an opportunist who craved the comforts wealth brought. He was given 5,000 pounds for his involvement in the confiscation of the wealth of the Church.[ii] Talleyrand loved the luxuries money can buy, but he remains otherwise the extremely enigmatic figure, a “Man with Six Heads,” depicted below in a caricature, a coloured etching

Suffice it to say that he served:

Louis XVI (23 August 1754 – 21 January 1793),
the 1st Republic (1989-1804),
the 1st Empire—Bonaparte (1804-1814), and
the Restoration of the monarchy or Bourbon restoration (Louis XVIII [Bourbon] and Charles X [Bourbon-Orléans]: 1814-1830).

Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, caricature, “Floating with the Tide” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Popular colored etching, verging on caricature, published by Décrouant, early 19th century: La famille royale et les alliées s’occupant du bonheur de l’Europe (The Royal Family and the Allies concerned with the Happiness of Europe) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The “Programme”

We are already familiar with the “programme,” with the possible exception of the final demand: requesting that the Clergy pledge an oath of allegiance to the constitution (no. 5, below).

The programme was as follows:

confiscation of Church lands, which were to be the security for the new Assignat currency
removal of statues, plates and other iconography from places of worship
destruction of crosses, bells and other external signs of worship
the institution of revolutionary and civic cults, including the Cult of Reason and subsequently the Cult of the Supreme Being,
the enactment of a law on October 21, 1793 making all nonjuring priests and all persons who harboured them liable to death on sight.

Once again I am quoting Wikipedia, but we will focus of number 5, the oath of allegiance demanded of the Clergy. The Church of France was divided between jurors and non-jurors, or clergy willing to pledge loyalty to the Constitution and clergy opposing this request. No, it had nothing to do with the separation of State and Church, achieved in 1905. (See Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution, Wikipedia.)

In this caricature, after the decree of 16 February 1790, monks and nuns enjoy their new freedom (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Clergy: Jurors and Non-jurors

Mental Assent

Schism in the Church of France

Previous vilification of the Church

The thorniest part of the programme was the oath to the Constitution imposed on the clergy. European monarchies were willing to fight the French Revolutionary Army (1792-1802) as the French Revolution was a threat to all monarchies. Consequently, they were acting in their own best interest. As we know, many émigrés, Chateaubriand among them, joined counter-revolutionary forces. However, if monarchies were alarmed, the Church was and was not. In the eyes of Pope Pius VI, accepting that the French swore loyalty to the State was unacceptable. Theoretically, he was right. Swearing allegiance to the State made the Church subservient to the State. Yet, it may have lessened the revolutionaries’ anti-clerical zeal and avoided unnecessary bloodshed. We cannot know.

“Under threat of death, imprisonment, military conscription, and loss of income, about twenty thousand constitutional priests were forced to abdicate and hand over their letters of ordination, and six thousand to nine thousand of them were coerced to marry. Many abandoned their pastoral duties altogether. Nonetheless, some of those who had abdicated continued covertly to minister to the people.” (See Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution, Wikipedia.)

Among prelates in the Church of France, some favoured mental assent, which consists in saying one thing, but thinking another. Mental assent is of course extremely hypocritical, not to say an ignominy, but for a Church facing annihilation, it may have appeared the only salvation. Most French prelates opposed the pledge to the State and paid the price. But would mental assent have saved the Church of France? The very idea created a schism within the Church of France.

At any rate, when Cardinal Étienne Charles de Loménie de Brienne (9 October 1727 – 16 February 1794)[iii] and Louis XVI himself wrote to Pope Pius VI, asking for guidance and some leeway, Pope Pius VI would not bend, so King Louis XVI, who had waited as long as he could, ended up signing the oath into law. As for Cardinal Loménie de Brienne, he became a “juror.”

“Pope Pius VI (reigned 1775–99) denounced the Civil Constitution in 1791, and Catholic France was divided between adherents of the papal system and proponents of the new order.”[iv]

It is unlikely that Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand knew, or wanted to know, the consequences of his suggestions; he was a survivor and he was making money. Philippe Égalité, on the other hand, Louis XVI’s cousin, but a member of the Jacobin Club and a Grand Master of the Masonic Grand Orient de France from 1771–1793, was guillotined on 6 November 1793. Philippe Égalité never anticipated the Reign of Terror.

At any rate, no one attempted to rescue the Church, with the exception of the Vendéans. In fact, the Church of France had been vilified for hundreds of years. Nivardus of Ghent‘s Ysengrimus(1149), the birthplace of Reinardus, the fox, or Reynard the Fox, long fabliaux that ridicules the clergy as was the case in shorter Frenchfabliaux. There was considerable anti-clericalism in France and this state of affairs worsened during the Enlightenment. In the case of the French Revolution, State crushed Church.

“The Catholic Church may have been the church of the majority of the French people, but its wealth and perceived abuses meant that it did not always have their trust.”[iv]

Thermidor (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Dechristianization of the Church of France

The Church was victimized to an extreme degree ranging from several drownings in the Vendée, cruel and deadly detention, forced marriages, death by guillotine, public spankings to humiliate nuns working at l’Hôtel-Dieu de Paris, demeaning caricatures. When their vows were nullified, monks and nuns did not rejoice as is suggested in a caricature displayed above. (See Civil Constitution of the Clergy, Wikipedia)

Why would revolutionaries execute Carmelites (nuns) who had refused to renounce their vows? (See The Martyrs of Compiègne, Wikipedia.) In fact, Wikipedia tells the whole story. The programme of dechristianisation included the deportation and execution of the clergy, priests, monks and nuns being forced to abjure their vows, the closing down of church (désaffectation), the removal of the word “saint” from street names, the War in the Vendée.

“Three Church bishops and two hundred priests were massacred by angry mobs.” (See September Massacres, Wikipedia)

“Priests were among those drowned (noyades) in mass executions for treason under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Carrier; priests and nuns were among the mass executions at Lyons, for separatism, on the orders of Joseph Fouché and Collot d’Herbois. Hundreds more priests were imprisoned and made to suffer in abominable conditions in the port of Rochefort.” (See Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution, Wikipedia.)

As for “jurors:”

“By the end of the decade, approximately thirty thousand priests had been forced to leave France, and others who did not leave were executed. Most French parishes were left without the services of a priest and deprived of the sacraments. Any non-juring priest faced the guillotine or deportation to French Guiana. By Easter 1794, few of France’s forty thousand churches remained open; many had been closed, sold, destroyed, or converted to other uses.” (See Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution, Wikipedia.)

Napoleon’s victory and the Pope’s Captivity

Ironically, Bonaparte attacked the future Italian lands and defeated the territory he attacked. Consequently Pope Pius VI died in captivity.

“The ultimate humiliation of the church took place in 1798 when Pius VI was driven out of Rome by French armies; in the following year he was taken captive and dragged back to France, where he died. As papal prestige sank to depths it had not reached since the crises of the 14th century, some critics called for abolishing the office altogether.”[v] (Britannica)

Allégorie du Concordat de 1801, Pierre Joseph Célestin François (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Concordat of 1801

The Thermidorian Reaction (1794): repeal of the Civil Constitution of the Church (1791)

The Concordat

As mentioned in an earlier post, the “Concordat of 1801 was an agreement between Napoleon and Pope Pius VII, Pius VI’s immediate successor, signed on 15 July 1801. It solidified the Roman Catholic Church as the majority church of France and brought back most of its civil status.” Despite widespread anti-clericalism, France had been a Catholic nation. (See Concordat of 1801 [sometimes dated 1802], Wikipedia.) (Britannica)[vi]

The Concordat was also:

A declaration that “Catholicism was the religion of the great majority of the French” but not the official state religion, thus maintaining religious freedom, in particular with respect to Protestants and Jews. However, Metz resisted. Jews were scorned. See The Concordat of 1801, Wikipedia.

Finally, the Concordat stipulated that:

The Papacy had the right to depose bishops, but this made little difference, because the French government still nominated them.
The state would pay clerical salaries and the clergy swore an oath of allegiance to the state.
The Catholic Church gave up all its claims to Church lands that were confiscated after 1790.
The Sabbath was reestablished as a “festival[,]” effective Easter Sunday, 18 April 1802.
The rest of the French Republican Calendar, which had been abolished, was not replaced by the traditional Gregorian Calendar until 1 January 1806.

French Republican Calendar of 1794, drawn by Philibert-Louis Debucourt (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Conclusion

The programme of dechristianisation included the deportation and execution of the clergy, priests, monks and nuns being forced to abjure their vows, the closing down of church, the removal of the word “saint” from street names, the War in the Vendée. It was petty. It was cruel. And it made no sense. “The climax was reached with the celebration of the goddess Reason in Notre-Dame Cathedral on 10 November [1793].” Obvious worship was forbidden in the name of laïcité.

Celebrating the goddess Reason was not laïcité; it was public worship of a goddess and, consequently, the opposite of laïcité. Which is where I will close this post.

I will list related articles in another post.

—ooo—

Sources and Resources

____________________

[i] “Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, prince de Bénévent.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 05 May. 2014. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/581601/Charles-Maurice-de-Talleyrand-prince-de-Benevent>.

[ii] André Castelot, Talleyrand ou le cynisme (Paris: Librairie académique Perrin, 1980), p. 65.

[iii] Loménie de Brienne was arrested in 1794 and died that very night of natural causes or poisoned. However his brother, Louis-Marie-Athanase de Loménie, comte de Brienne (1730-1794), was guillotined on 10 May 1794, on the same day Madame Élisabeth, Louis XVI’s sister, was guillotined.

[iv] “Gemma Betros examines the problems the Revolution posed for religion, and that religion posed for the Revolution.” History Today. Published in History Review (2010).

[v] “Roman Catholicism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 05 May. 2014. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/507284/Roman-Catholicism>.

[vi] “Concordat of 1801.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 04 May. 2014. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/181059/Concordat-of-1801>.

Francis Poulenc (7 January 1899 – 30 January 1963)

“Mélancolie”

Francis Poulenc, pianist

Temple of Reason, Strasbourg, 1793-1794 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

5 May 2014

WordPress

The Church of France during the French Revolution

02 Friday May 2014

Posted by michelinewalker in History, The French Revolution

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Aimé du Boisguy, assignats, Civil Constitution of the Clergy, Confiscation, de-Christianisation of France, Dr Gemma Betros, separation of Church and State, Talleyrand, unsuspected consequences, War in the Vendée

Portrait présumé d’Aimé du Boisguy, peinture de Jean-Baptiste Isabey, 1800.

The Church of France during the French Revolution

Chouannerie
War in the Vendée (1793-1796)

The above portrait is presumed to be that of Aimé Casimir Marie Picquet, chevalier du Boisguy, or Bois-Guy. Aimé Picquet du Boisguy (15 March 1776, Fougères, Ille-et-Vilaine – 25 October 1839, Paris) was a Chouan (literally an “owl,” also called hibou in French), a monarchist from the Fougères area of Britanny (see Chouannerie, Wikipedia). Boisguy seems much too young to have fought against the French Revolutionary Army (active from 1792 until 1802).

When Boisguy was 15, he started fighting. At the age of 17, he was aide-de-camp (chief-of-staff) to Charles Armand Tuffin de la Rouërie[i] who played a role in the American Revolutionary War. By the age of 17, Boisguy was in fact a leader of the Chouans in what is now the Fougères commune of Britanny, then called le pays de Fougères (the country of Fougères). By the age of 19, he was a general. Boisguy was fearless, but not reckless. He therefore survived chouannerie uprisings.

The Civil Constitution of the Clergy

The Civil Constitution of the Clergy
The levée en masse

However, this post is not about the chouannerie,[ii] except indirectly. It is about the demise of the Church of France. Chouannerie uprisings were royalists uprisings that lasted beyond 1800 and, as such, they were also Catholic uprisings. Absolutism demanded that France be ruled by one king, that Catholicism be its only Church and French, its only language. There was considerable anti-clericalism in France. It had become widespread during the Enlightenment and the growth of Freemasonry also dictated laïcité in government. Yet, even among Chouans, many opposed the repression of the Church. Moreover, the War in the Vendée (1793-1796), was caused, first, by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (July 1790) and, second, by the levée en masse (23 August 1793) (mass conscription). In fact, as we will see in a later post, it was also caused by the persecution of the clergy. (See War in the Vendée, Wikipedia.)

“The first signs of real discontent appeared with the government’s enactment of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (July 1790) instituting strict controls over the Roman Catholic church.”[iii]

“However, the massive uprising of an important part of the West and the transition to counter-revolution was mostly caused by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and the levée en masse decided by the National Convention.”[iv]

The War in the Vendée was a royalist uprising that was suppressed by the republican forces in 1796

The War in the Vendée (1793-1796) was a royalist uprising that was suppressed by the republican forces in 1796 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Henri de La Rochejaquelein fighting at Cholet, 17 Octobre 1793, by Paul-Émile Boutigny

Henri de La Rochejaquelein fighting at Cholet, 17 October 1793, by Paul-Émile Boutigny (See Battle of Cholet, Wikipedia.)

The Main Events

What follows is a quotation, but I have underlined certain phrases: see Civil Constitution of the Clergy, Wikipedia.

On 11 August 1789 tithes were abolished.
On 2 November 1789, Catholic Church property that was held for purposes of church revenue was nationalized, and was used as the backing for the assignats.
On 13 February 1790 (some sources give the date as 11 February for example), monastic vows were forbidden and all ecclesiastical orders and congregations were dissolved, excepting those devoted to teaching children and nursing the sick.
On 19 April 1790, administration of all remaining church property was transferred to the State.

FRA-A7~1

Assignats worth 400 pounds and 15 pennies (sols=sous) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Civil Constitution of the Clergy: Motivation

What follows is a quotation, but I have underlined certain words: see Civil Constitution of the Clergy, Wikipedia.

The French government in 1790 was nearly bankrupt; this fiscal crisis had been the original reason for the king’s calling the Estates-General in 1789.
Church lands represented 20–25% of the land in France. In addition the Church collected tithes.
Owing, in part, to abuses of this system (especially for patronage), there was enormous resentment of the Church, taking the various forms of atheism, anticlericalism, and anti-Catholicism.
Many of the revolutionaries viewed the Catholic Church as a retrograde force.
At the same time, there was enough support for a basically Catholic form of Christianity that some means had to be found to fund the Church in France.
Presumably, another factor, at least indirectly, was Jansenist rejection of the cult of kingship [the Divine right of kings, Wikipedia] and absolutism.

The Assignats: the main motivation

Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord

The assignat was legal tender between 1789 and 1796 and it would appear that bankruptcy, and little else, led to the confiscation of the wealth of the Church (biens de l’Église). The ultimate law, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, was passed on 6 February 1790, but the idea of confiscating the goods of the Church, les biens de l’Église, dated back to 10 October 1789. On that day, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord,[v] or Talleyrand, a priest, a bishop (l’évêque d’Autun) and a representative of the Church during the meeting of the Estates-General of 1789, suggested that the government fill its empty vaults by confiscating the wealth of the Church, which it did on 2 November 1789. The biens de l’Église became biens nationaux (national property) as would, later, the biens des émigrés, the property of émigrés.

The Revolution: a Life of its Own

Tennis Court Oath

Ironically, neither the de-Christianisation of France during the French Revolution nor the downfall of the monarchy had been the objectives of the 577 representatives of the Third Estate who, on 20 June 1789, assembled in an indoors jeu de paume, a tennis court, when they discovered they had been locked out of a meeting of the Estates-General. The 576 signatories of the Tennis Court Oath favoured a constitutional monarchy.

Had the monarchy been a constitutional monarchy, the Third Estate would have played a role in the government of France. In other words, France would have been a democracy, as was England. But the Estates-General had not convened since 1614, which is what representatives of the Third Estate opposed. Moreover, the Church was vulnerable because members of the clergy were exempt of taxation, as were members of the nobility. The Church also collected tithes (la dîme). So, to a certain extent, the very radical French Revolution was a variation on a familiar theme, “no taxation without representation.” (See Civil Constitution of the Clergy, Wikipedia.)

On 20 June 1789, the 577 delegates of the Third Estate, who had taken refuge in a jeu de paume, wanted no more than representation. The 576 signatories of the Tennis Court Oath did not attack the Church, except indirectly. However, the Third Estate supported both the Church, the First Estate, and the nobility, the Second Estate, through burdensome taxes. So both the Church and the nobility were parasites. Nevertheless, it remains unlikely that the signatories of the Tennis Court Oath suspected the destruction of the Church. (See Civil Constitution of the Clergy, Wikipedia). I am inclined to agree with the following statement by Dr Gemma Betros:

“The wholesale destruction of Catholicism had been far from the minds of the nation’s representatives in 1789, but financial concerns, when combined with external and internal threats, eventually made a full-scale attack on the Church and all connected with it a necessity for a Revolution that demanded absolute loyalty.”[vi]

Conclusion

It is difficult to explain the Concordat of 1801, between Napoleon and Pope Pius VII, and Chateaubriand‘s Génie du Christianisme without the information provided in this post and a forthcoming post. I should also note that the Civil Constitution of the Clergy should be inserted in a much wider debate: the separation of Church and State in France. (See 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State, Wikipedia.)

To be continued…

____________________

[i] A cavalry officer who served under the American flag during the American War of Independence, as did La Fayette.

[ii] Uprisings in twelve departments of Western France, but mainly Brittany. Chouannerie uprisings are named after Jean Cottereau, or Jean Chouan, a nom de guerre, one of two royalist brothers.

[iii] “Wars of the Vendée.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 02 May. 2014. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/625053/Wars-of-the-Vendee>.

[iv] “Chouannerie,” Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chouannerie

[v] André Castelot, Talleyrand ou le cynisme (Paris : Librairie académique Perrin, 1980), pp. 64-65.

[vi] “Gemma Betros examines the problems the Revolution posed for religion, and that religion posed for the Revolution.” History Today. Published in History Review (2010).

Johann Sebastian Bach (31 March 1685 – 28 July 1750)

Toccata & Fugue D Minor, BWV 565