¹ L. Dimier, Vingt Ans d'Action Française, 1926, p. 7. Except where otherwise noted this book is my authority for all statements about the history, as opposed to the doctrine, of the movement. For the circumstances under which it was written see postea, p. 200.

² J. E. C. Bodley, The Church in France, 1906, p. 51.

³ France, p. 557. The first edition was published on 8 February 1898. Zola's f' accuse had appeared on 13 January of that year; i.e. Bodley's book represents French political life at the very latest moment before it was plunged into the turmoil of the affaire Dreyfus which was entirely to remould it.

⁴ Barrès published a collection of articles of the preceding decade as Scènes et Doctrines du Nationalisme, 1902, but the classical exposition of his views is the trilogy of novels entitled Le Roman de l'Énergie Nationale consisting of Les Déracinés, 1897, L'Appel au Soldat, 1900, and Leurs Figures, 1903. All his later books are, however, more or less propaganda on the subject. It should be added that Barres never himself became a Royalist though always sympathetic to the Action Française.

⁵ E. Dimnet, France Herself Again, 1914, pp. 90 et seq. This book written by a Frenchman in the early months of the War “in English for the English-speaking public…as an explanation of the warlike France with which it is in such deep sympathy, but above all as an explanation of modern France as it has been since the beginning of the twentieth century,” is very valuable for its revelation, sometimes unconscious, of the nationalist point of view. The author expressly disclaims belief in the Action Française but his outlook is substantially the same except on the constitutional issue.

⁶ The Enquête sur la Monarchie was published in book form in 1909 (new ed. 1924). Among Maurras’ other works—most of which are collections of newspaper articles—may be mentioned: Troìs Idées Politiques, 1898, and L'Avenir de l'Intelligence, 1905 (combined in one volume as Romantisme et Révolution, 1922); Le Dilemme de Marc Sagnier, 1908, La Politique Religieuse, 1912, L'Action Française et la Religion Catholique, 1912 (combined as La Démocratie Religieuse, 1921); Kiel et Tanger, 1910; and Quand les Français ne s'aimaient pas, 1916. A collected edition of these (together with some smaller pieces and long prefaces bringing them up to date) was published between 1921 and 1926. From 1914 to 1920 he issued eight volumes of war-time articles under the general title of Les Conditions de la Victoire; and in 1928 he published Les Princes des Nuées, Le Mauvais Traité (two volumes of articles from 1919–1926), and La Politique de Charles Maurras, 1926–1927 (the first two volumes of an annual series).

⁷ Quand les Français ne s'aimaient pas, p. 317 (1926 ed. p. 285).

⁸ op. cit. pp. 541–2.

⁹ Enquête sur la Monarchie, p. n (1924 ed. p. 38).

¹⁰ Yet it would be equally true to say—and the observation is more often made—that Maurras is a doctrinaire interested in theory rather than in practical application. And this is so despite the fact that he always maintains that he is a realistic and not an abstract theorist and that he daily fills two columns with comments on current events. The explanation of this paradox is that his thought has not materially modified in thirty years. He is always occupied with current events—like a journalist; his views are never modified by experience—like a doctrinaire. All he does is to apply the same principles from day to day to his judgement of passing events; he does not desire to learn from passing events in order to perfect his principles.

¹¹ Notably Anthinéa, 1895; Le Chemin de Paradis, 1902; and La Musique Intérieure, 1925.

¹² Daudet is best known in England as a novelist, but his fame is perhaps more securely based on his long series of volumes of memoirs. His range of interests is enormous and he has known all the chief Frenchmen of his time, and his pictures and stories of them are extremely vivid and pungent. The volume entitled Vers le Roi, 1921, deals with the period from his joining the Action Française to the beginning of the War. Le Stupide XIXe Siècle, 1922, contains an exposition of his political, literary and social philosophy. His recent book on Charles Maurras et ses Temps, 1930, is rather disappointing.

¹³ Bainville's chief works are Louis II de Bavière, 1900; Histoire de Deux Peuples, la France et l'Empire Allemand, 1915; Histoire de Trois Générations 1815–1918, 1918; Les Conséquences Politiques de la Paix, 1920; Histoire de France, 1924; and the curious novel Faco et Lori, 1927.

¹⁴ From their nature Maurras’ books are necessarily disjointed and are full of repetitions, but a fairly consecutive and complete sketch of his programme can be found in the interviews with MM. Buffet and de Lur-Saluces which form the first part of the Enquête sur la Monarchie (pp. 7–94; 1924 ed. pp. 34–101).

¹⁵ Nationalism in the Action Française sense necessarily involves militarism. It might be said of Maurras, as of Clemenceau, that he was “a foremost believer in the view of German psychology that the German understands and can understand nothing but intimidation, that he is without generosity or remorse in negotiation, that there is no advantage that he will not take of you, and no extent to which he will not demean himself for profit, that he is without honour, pride or mercy. Therefore you must never negotiate with a German or conciliate him; you must dictate to him. On no other terms will he respect you, or will you prevent him from cheating you” (J. M. Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919, p. 29). The one object of German aspirations is to rival and conquer France. France must, therefore, be always on the alert to forestall her. The only way to prevent an attack is not by an international rapprochement but by overawing and terrifying Germany. Reduction of armaments is consequently not merely useless, it is criminal; for it hastens, where an increase would postpone, the inevitable war.

¹⁶ 1908; reprinted as an appendix to the Enquête sur la Monarchie in the 1924 edition.

¹⁷ It is true that he regards democracy as always evil, for it is essentially a disorganised form of society and inevitably leads to plutocratic control of government; but what is permanently in opposition to it is not the monarchical but the hereditary principle. An aristocratic republic would fulfil his general conditions of a good state, but monarchy is the particular form of hereditary government suitable for France.

¹⁸ See especially L'Avenir de l'Intelligence, pp. 19–99 (Romantisme et Révolution, pp. 39–87). The first half-volume of A. Thibaudet's Trente Ans de Vie Française, 1919, is devoted to Les Idées de Charles Maurras.

¹⁹ Compare a striking passage in Hanotaux's new Histoire de la Nation Française, where discussing the mistakes of Louis XVIII in 1815 he says: “Si le roi, une fois rentré aux Tuileries, eût convoqué une sorte d'Assemblée des États généraux ou d'Assemblée constituante, reprenant le travail au point où l'avait interrompu 1790…peutêtre les âmes se fussent-elles élevées à la hauteur des circonstances et quelque chose de noble et de net se serait dégagé de cette belle confiance réciproque. Le résultat eût été, sans doute, au lieu d'un régime parlementaire bâtard emprunté à l'Angleterre, une constitution monarchique s'inspirant des traditions.de la race et remontant à Louis XII, à Henri IV, à Fénelon, à Montesquieu: on aurait trouvé le moyen d'atteler le pouvoir central aux vieilles libertés nationales…. Une Constituante de 1815, convoquée par la royauté, eût pu réunir une quantité d'hommes d'expérience et d'autorité, capable de ventiler, dans l'œuvre révolutionnaire, le bon et le mauvais, le durable et l'accidentel. Sans restaurer les Ordres, on eût fondé l'ordre sur les bases solides pré-sentant l'avantage inestimable de faire consacrer la plus vieille dynastie du monde par le droit moderne” (G. Hanotaux, Histoire de la Nation Française, tome v, Histoire Politique, 3éme tome, de 1804 à 1926, pp. 267–8). Of course M. Hanotaux would not concur in a wholesale condemnation of the Revolution, and it is not quite clear from the context whether by “régime parlementaire bâtard” he is referring only to the Restoration or to subsequent constitutions also, but the passage is noteworthy as showing how far a former minister of the Third Republic can go in the direction of Maurras' position.

²⁰ It is perhaps worth emphasising this point about the natural functions of the state, for it is in some ways the key to Maurras’ whole attitude. The duty of the state in internal affairs is reduced to mere police work; its real business is the direction of foreign policy. This explains Maurras’ insistence on the need for an unparliamentary regime, for only such can have a quite unwavering foreign policy or a completely secret diplomacy. This explains also why one of his chief arguments in support of the monarchy is that the kings “made” France and can therefore be trusted not to unmake her or in any way to act contrary to her interests. National prosperity is in effect thought of as consisting in its prestige among other nations rather than in the well-being of its members. Politics to Maurras really mean foreign politics—an essentially reactionary conception; and to assume it as a truism shows how far he is out of touch with all the political thinking of the last century.

²¹ Dimnet, p. 274. Cf. also, p. 8: “It will appear, on the whole, that after being for years—more than fifty years—almost exclusively a ground for experiments, France wants to be a nation once more.”

²² Quand les Français ne s'aimaient pas, preface.

²³ Cf. Dimier, pp. 28–30 and Thibaudet, pp. 95–6.

²⁴ La Politigue Religieuse, pp. 132–70 (reprinted in La Démocratic Religieuse, pp. 258–80).

²⁵ He quotes with approval (L'Avenir de VIntelligence, p. 299, reprinted in Romantisme et Révolution, p. 233) a letter in which Comte, writing in 1856, says: “Le moment est venu de réaliser le vœu que je formais en 1841…de concentrer les discussions philosophiques et sociales entre les catholiques et les positivistes, en écartant, d'un commun accord, tous les métaphysiciens ou négativistes (protestants, déistes et sceptiques), comme radicalement incapable de coopérer à la construction qui doit distinguer le XIX^e siècle du XVIII^e. II faut maintenant presser tous ceux qui croient en Dieu de revenir au catholicisme, au nom de la raison et de la morale; tandis que, au mêne titre, tous ceux qui n'y croient pas doivent devenir positivistes.”

²⁶ The question of how far co-operation was possible was discussed by R. P. Descoqs, S.J., with favourable conclusions in A travers l'œuvre de Charles Maurras, 1911, 2nd ed. 1913, revised in answer to L. Laberthonnière, who had pronounced against it in Positivisme et Catholicisme, 1911. The question has of course come up again in all discussions of the condemnation.

²⁷ As regards the position accorded to the church in Maurras’ programme for the monarchy, there will be religious toleration—that is to say there will be freedom of worship and all careers will be open to all Frenchmen without distinction of religion (but one has an uncomfortable feeling that perhaps he might deny that Protestants, and a fortiori Jews, were real Frenchmen)—but the Roman Church will have the place of honour in the state as being that both of the majority and of the historical nation. The monarchy will be “religious but anticlerical,” that is it will resist any attempt of the ecclesiastical power to interfere in the secular sphere, for this he holds was the policy of all the kings, even of the most religious, though unlike the modern anticlericals they never interfered with its authority in purely religious affairs.

²⁸ Thus there was a chair “Maurice Barrès” of Nationalism, a chair “Louis XI” of the Provinces, a chair “Auguste Comte” of Positivism, a chair “General Mercier” of the Dreyfus Affair, and a chair of the Syllabus of politique catholigue.

²⁹ R. Cornilleau, De Waldeck-Rousseau à Poincaré, 1937, pp. 303, 330–2.

³⁰ Vingt Arts d'Action Française et Autres Souvenirs, 1926, but the preface is dated 1924 and the narrative ends in 1920. The book is written with perfect candour and though manifestly not impartial—for the author had in disappointment broken with a movement to which he had devoted twenty years of his life and could not but be embittered about it—conveys an impression of truth. The reader would be most inclined to suspect of exaggeration the account of the constant deeds of violence perpetrated by the Action Française and would indeed regard this as the most telling indictment of the movement. But it is clear that M. Dimier is wholly in sympathy with it over this and only regrets that they were not more violent and more successful. Since he parted from the Action Française on the grounds that it was incapable of accomplishing its plan one may assume that his natural bias would be towards belittling anything that they have achieved, and, since violence in the name of patriotism is obviously an achievement that he values, it becomes probable that what originally seemed an exaggeration is rather an understatement.

³¹ He too published a volume recounting his gradual disillusionment and rupture with the Action Française, L'Homme contre l'Argent, Souvenirs de dix ans, 1918–28, 1928, which to some extent carries on the history from where M. Dimier leaves it.

It is necessarily difficult to judge of the internal divisions of a contemporary movement, but there appears to have been always at the heart of the Action Française a scission, only spasmodically becoming self-conscious and acute, between the conservative, aristocratic and literary group headed by Maurras to which most of the best-known names belong, and the group, no less nationalist, but radical, democratic and passionately interested in social reform, to which Vaugeois and the original members belonged. Dimier represents the one, Valois the other point of view—both at their outer limits. Consequently though both believe in “direct action” they can have little else in common and the fact that their criticisms of the Action Française are so similar is a strong indication of their validity. Both of them insist that none of the leaders of the Action Française had any real knowledge of or interest in economics, that the whole movement had been dominated by Maurras to the suppression of all other individualities and the confusion and mismanagement of the entire organisation, and above all that it was essentially a doctrinaire movement—“j'ai compris,” says Valois, p. 18, “que Ies gens de l'Action Française, soumis à Maurras, avaient en tête, non le gûut de créer un fait, mais l'appétit de faire une démonstration logique.”

³² Fontaine, p. 68. Valois, p. 230, says that he died “au moment où il allait désavouer complètement l'Action Française.” He says also, p. 284, “j'avais combattu au moment de la mort du due d'Orléans une intrigue de l'Action Française, qui tendait à obtenir du due de Guise une renonciation à l'héritage en faveur des Vendôme, et en particulier du due de Nemours.”

³³ L'Action Française, 7 April 1926; Le Temps and The Times, 8 April.

³⁴ L'Action Française, 12 January 1927; Le Temps, 13 January; reprinted in L'“Action Française” et le Vatican, pp. 187–8.

³⁵ Nicolas Fontaine (pseud.), Saint-Siège, “Action Française” et “Catholiques Intégraux,” 1928 (reprinted with appendices from L'Année Politique for January 1928), is an admirable analysis both of the motives and of the development of the condemnation, detailed, documented, and written from a refreshingly independent standpoint. Among the quantity of books and pamphlets on the subject may be mentioned: from the Action Française side L'“Action Française” et le Vatican, 1927, and Sous la Terreur…, 1928 (both books which are collections of articles from L'Action Française have been put on the Index); from the Catholic side Non, l'Action Française n'a bien servi ni l'Église ni la France and Comment j'ai défendu le Pape, both by F. Gay, editor of La Vie Catholique, 1927, and D. Gwynn, The “Action Française” Condemnation, 1928.

³⁶ L'Aquitaine, 27 August 1926. The text is reproduced in L'“Action Française” et le Vatican, pp. 21–6 (the most convenient collection of the documents, though the interpretation is very tendencious), and Gwynn, pp. 96–101.

³⁷ It may fairly be assumed that the inspiration of Cardinal Andrieu's pronouncement came from Rome, for the pope, who had for the six months previously been making a personal study of Maurras’ works and had read L'Action Française daily, had come to the conclusion that he must be condemned and had apparently already approached Cardinal Charost of Rennes who had declined to be his mouthpiece. At the same time the form of it cannot be from that source, for whereas the Vatican weighs every word of its lightest statements, this was carelessly composed, much overstated and largely plagiarised (including inaccuracies) from a pamphlet by a Belgian lawyer, M. Passelocq.

³⁸ The question of how far Pius X favoured the Action Française has given rise to prolonged controversies. The truth depending mainly on verbal testimony can never be fully known. But the two facts remain; that Pius X did sign the condemnation, and that he did not publish it. In no other act of his pontificate was he deterred by opportunist or other motives from enforcing the line of strictest rigorism.

³⁹ This view is adopted by writers in two English periodicals: Dr W. W. Longford in The Nineteenth Century and After for November 1927 and Mr Percy Sandys in The English Review for December 1927. Both articles were followed by very interesting controversies (The Nineteenth Century and After, January and June 1928; The English Review, March, May, June and July 1928).