Germaanisuus Ranskan poliittisessa historiankirjoituksessa 1800-luvulla

Abstract

The French aristocracy's old (ancien regime) belief in its own Frankish origins and the lower orders' inclination toward Gallo-Roman ideas still played an important role in class relations, battles over the form of government, and attitudes toward Germany in the nineteenth century. In France, Germanicism was associated with aristocracy, its use of power, liberty, and decentralism; Romanism with the king or Kaiser, the bourgeoisie, centralism, city autonomy, and the equality of ali citizens before the sovereign. This study explores Germanicism in French political historiography from 1814 to 1882. The debate was opened in 1814 by the Count of Monlosier, F. D. de Reynaud, who argued that the bourgeoisie, the aristogracy's social rivat, was congenitally incapable of wielding political power. Middle-class spokesmen Francois Guizot and Augustin Thierry replied that class interbreeding had given the bourgeoisie the requisite ability ta organize a government based on Germanic liberty. The pessimistic Count J. A. de Gobineau, known as the father of Aryanism, claimed that the entire French people, including the aristocracy, was degraded to the point of being unable to compete with the Germanic peoples of Europe. In its historical interpretations the bourgeoisie placed particular emphasis on the racial struggle between the aristocracy and the third class, claiming to have stepped outside of this struggle for fear that the working class would find in it a model for the class struggle. In the 1860s Joseph Pierre Proudhon in particular formulated new proletarian doctrines that linked Latinism ta revolution. Following the Paris Commune and the war with Germany, Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges and Ernst Renan sought medieval precedents for a Roman form of government that would ensure social stability. At the same time the Republican Gabriel Monod and the radical Charles Renouvier argued against historical precedents for contemporary society, ins1sting that social evolution required the formation of a republic. The French attempt to sweep the Frank/Gaul issue under the rug left no foothold for social Darwinism. Darwin was primarily used in foreign policy, to attack Germany on the grounds that it was using the idea of racial struggle to justify war. In addition, it was claimed that Prussiandominated Germany no longer lived up to the ideals of Germanic decentralism. In 1882 Renan insisted that national identity be based not on race but on the citizens' subjective feelings.