(Ebook) Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel,

Barrès and Maurras by Michael Curtis ISBN

9781138539662, 113853966X Pdf Download

https://ebooknice.com/product/three-against-the-third-republic-
sorel-barres-and-maurras-10459940

★★★★★
4.8 out of 5.0 (67 reviews )

Instant PDF Download

ebooknice.com
 (Ebook) Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Barrès and
Maurras by Michael Curtis ISBN 9781138539662, 113853966X Pdf
Download

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Three Against
the
Third Republic
Three Against the Third Republic
Three Against the Third Republic

Sorel Barrès & Maurras

Michael Curtis
With a new introduction by the author
Originally published in 1959 by Princeton University Press.

Published 2010 by Transaction Publishers

Published 2017 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

New material this edition copyright © 2010 by Taylor & Francis.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.

Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2010005574

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Curtis, Michael, 1923-

Three against the Third Republic: Sorel, Barrès, and Maurras / Mi-
chael Curtis.
p. cm.
Originally published: Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4128-1430-0 (alk. paper)
1. France--History--Third Republic, 1870-1940. 2. France--Politics
and government--1870-1940. 3. Sorel, Georges, 1847-1922. 4. Barrès,
 Maurice, 1862-1923. 5. Maurras, Charles, 1868-1952. 6. Intellectuals
-France--Biography. 7. Democracy--France--History. I. Title.

DC340.C8 2010
944.081--dc22

2010005574

ISBN 13: 978-1-4128-1430-0 (pbk)

To six engaging lovers of life

Beth and Victor

Lucianna and Johnny
Mary and Irving
 Contents
INTRODUCTION TO THE TRANSACTION EDITION
I. INTRODUCTION
II. TWO CRISES: BOULANGER AND DREYFUS
III. THE MEN: SOREL, BARRÈS, MAURRAS
IV. ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY
V. ATTACK ON THE REVOLUTION
VI. ATTACK ON DECADENCE
VII. INTELLECTUALS AND THE NEED FOR ACTION
VIII. THE DIVIDED REPUBLIC
IX. ATTACK ON THE POLITICS OF THE REPUBLIC
X. THE WEAKNESS OF THE REPUBLIC
XI. TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND A POLITICAL SCIENCE
XII. THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
XIII. CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
 Introduction to the Transaction Edition
The great French historian Jules Michelet once wrote that history becomes
useless unless one imbues it with the sorrows of the present. With this advice it is
salutary to review the place of the three central figure studied in this book,
Charles Maurras, Maurice Barrès, and Georges Sorel, in the extraordinary
diversity of French political thought and political history in the twentieth
century, and more especially to evaluate their intellectual heritage and the extent
to which they can be held responsible for contributing to past and present
sorrows. This introduction therefore concentrates on those persons and groups
who have been influenced by the three writers rather than attempting to provide
a comprehensive analysis of French thought.
France is not the only country in which intellectuals have sought to participate
in or attempted to influence political action. Nor is it unique in some of its
intellectuals playing a questionable role in writing enthusiastically about or
becoming complicit with anti-democratic, authoritarian, and anti-Semitic
regimes, ideologies or movements. Yet French writers, including those admired
and honored for their literary skill, have been conspicuous in playing this role.
Moreover they have often done so without heed or concern for the consequences
of their activity. The political prejudices of some French intellectuals, some of
them fascinated by fascism, all too often prevailed over moral principle in their
declamations against their own times and society. The fabric of the vision of
those twentieth-century writers was at times more the outcome of phrases and
abstractions than of limpid common sense and reality.1
The reissue of this book provides a welcome opportunity to consider the
impact of the incessant attacks on liberal democracy and on what they
considered the state of French civilization and culture by Maurras, Barrès, and
Sorel. On this issue and on many others the three writers influenced nationalist,
Catholic, and extreme right-wing thought and the action of groups and
individuals in France, and to some extent abroad, for most of the twentieth
century and even into the twenty-first. The three writers had only a negative
impact on French left-wing writers and groups and thus they are not central to
this particular study. However, in light of the intense twentieth-century conflicts
within French society and among its political ideologies, parties, and
organizations a review of the writings of our three political thinkers can help
understand more fully the controversial and diverse positions of later French
political theorists. The book examined their writings up to 1914. A brief summary
of their writings including those after 1914 can set the stage for the evaluation of
those positions.
Charles Maurras (1863-1952) continued throughout his life his self-declared
mission to defend French civilization by his relentless attack on the Third
Republic and its politicians, by his invective against the parliamentary and
democratic system, his diatribes against political opponents, and his vilification
of Jews. He persevered, in countless articles in his journal, L’Action française, and
his many books, in advocating his counter-revolutionary themes for restoration
of monarchy in France, political Catholicism, “integral nationalism,” organic
unity, hierarchical social order, and condemnation of Jews. Maurras was obsessed
from his early years with combating Romanticism, the French Revolution,
individualism, and Jews. His anti-individualism and his anti-revolutionary
ideology were linked with his anti-Semitism. As early as 1895 he wrote that all
individualist theory was of Jewish making. Moreover, he argued that in the
Jewish law and prophets were to be found the first expressions in antiquity of the
individualism, egalitarianism, humanitarianism, and social and political idealism
that were to mark 1789 (the French Revolution).
Maurras remained an intransigent doctrinaire, convinced of his perfect wisdom
and perfect virtue while assuming an attitude of haughty superiority. For
Maurras who early had lost his hearing intellectual discussion was truly a
dialogue of the deaf. His doctrinaire nationalism was founded on the classical
values he admired, the values of authority and hierarchy he perceived in ancient
Greece of the Hellenic period and to a lesser extent in Rome. Unrelentingly
opposed to Romanticism, he defined intelligence as a way to choose, to organize
into a hierarchy and put in order values, as well as to re-establish the proper
order of things in the same way nature had intended it from eternity.
Raymond Aron remarked that Maurras who “certainly held an important place
in the intellectual history of France in the first half of the twentieth century,”
continued to give his morning lessons and political directives to his disciples.2
These lessons included physical as well as polemical incitements against political
opponents. In 1925 Maurras’s journal issued death threats against Abraham
Schrameck, who had been a prefect and was currently minister of the interior
responsible for maintaining order and had sought to control violence by the
Action Française, arguing that he was member of the “degenerate Jewish race.”
One favorite target was Léon Blum, the Jewish leader of the Socialist Party and
prime minister in 1936, who was depicted by Maurras as “détritus humain,” “le
circoncis du Narbonnais” (Blum’s electoral district), “le belliqueux Hébreu,” and
even as a man to be shot, though in the back. Blum was indeed physically
attacked and severely beaten on February 13, 1936, in Paris, by the Camelots du
Roi, the militant force and connoisseurs of street-fighting, attached to Maurras’
Action Française. Even more seriously, Roger Salengro, Blum’s minister of the
interior, committed suicide in November 1936 as a result of the false, libelous, and
unrelentingly fierce charges by the Action Française that he had not been a
prisoner of war but had deserted to the Germans in World War 1. Maurras’
animus against Jews lasted all his life, and was to be a major part of the
antisemitic current in French political thought, right, left, and Catholic.3 His
antisemitic invective influenced many of the later writers mentioned in this
introduction, such as Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Robert
Brasillach, and Lucien Rebatet, all men of intemperate minds and strong passions.
Maurras’s first main target had been Alfred Dreyfus. Believing that France was
under threat from foreigners, especially Jews, Maurras approved of the
condemnation of Dreyfus in 1894 and regarded Colonel Henry who had forged
evidence as a true patriot. His declared position was one of raison d’état; he
argued any review of the Dreyfus case would be detrimental to the interests of
France. National interest was more important than justice. Maurras’s journal,
L’Action française, which in the 1930s had a circulation of over 30,000, continued
to attack Dreyfus even after the latter’s death on July 14, 1935. The Dreyfus
Affair, Maurras argued, had led to anti-patriotic, anti-militarist, anti-Catholic,
and anti-national manifestations. He noted the coincidence that Dreyfus had died
on the 146th anniversary of the taking of the Bastille in 1789. On Maurras’s own
conviction for complicity and intelligence with the enemy in January 1945, he
uttered the famous words, “It is the revenge of Dreyfus.” Ironically, Dreyfus had
been charged with the same offense fifty years earlier. If Maurras did not accept
Nazi ideology or engage on behalf of a Nazi crusade he was as relentless in his
attacks on Jews as were the Nazis. The apparent difference is that his anti-
Semitism was expressed more in cultural or rational terms than in biological
racism. Notwithstanding, Maurras was convinced that Jews were conspiratorial
by nature with their “Oriental spirit.” Though he did not propose their
extermination he had no sympathy for the fate of Jews murdered in the
Holocaust.
Maurras, the theorist of ‘integral nationalism” and of monarchy which should
supplant the Third Republic, experienced both praise and condemnation. He was
a supporter of the Church for political reasons, and was admired by Catholic
Assumptionists. But his personal religious skepticism or agnosticism together
with his emphasis on the primacy of politics (politique d’abord) over spiritual
authority troubled the Catholic hierarchy. Consequently his books were put on
the Index of Forbidden Books between 1926-1939 by the Vatican which also
condemned his journal. Pope Pius XI in December 1926 admonished French
Catholics to keep their distance from his journal. Praise came with his election to
the Académie Française in 1938: he was not expelled from it but instead had his
seat declared vacant after his conviction and sentence in January 1945 by the
High Court in Paris to life imprisonment and deprivation of civil liberties
(national degradation). He was released from prison in March 1952 to enter a
hospital and died there a few months later. Though Maurras endorsed the
Munich agreement in 1938 he, a Germanophobe, supported the war against the
Nazis, at least until June 1940. He then lauded the end of the Third Republic and
the creation of the French State, for him “a divine surprise,” with headquarters in
Vichy, and the conferring of “pleins pouvoirs” on Marshal Philippe Pétain.
It is sometimes held that Maurras’s ideas lay at the heart of the policies of the
Vichy regime led by Pétain, but this is only partly true. Maurras was a
reactionary but not a fascist. A few of his ideas were put forward in the first year
of Vichy, the French State. The interesting first statement of official policy by
Pétain, on October 10, 1940, in language resembling that of Maurras, was that the
new Vichy regime would be “a social hierarchy. It would no longer rest on a false
idea of the natural equality of men, but on the necessary idea of equality of
chances given to all French people to prove their aptitude to serve.” Some of
Maurras’ followers were given official positions in the Vichy regime but were not
prominent, except for Raphaël Alibert who, however, was dismissed in January
1941 after a lost struggle against policies of collaboration with Germany and
disagreements with political personalities.4
The policies of Vichy were thus not in the main inspired by Maurras; it appears
he only met Pétain twice. Nor did Maurras approve of the Vichy “National
Revolution,” a term that had been coined in 1924 by Georges Valois, once close to
both Georges Sorel and Maurras. Maurras supported Vichy, but he was not a
collaborator; he remained anti-German and was critical of the French fascists in
Paris who were collaborators, pro-German, and who favored the creation of a
one-party state. He was equally critical of those who had rallied to Charles de
Gaulle in London after the General’s June 18, 1940 speech calling for a Free
France movement. Maurras also sharply attacked the 27 French parliamentarians,
including former prime minister Édouard Daladier, who had embarked on the
ship, the Massilia, to go to North Africa and who wanted to continue the war
against Germany from a base in the French Empire. They were, he argued,
tearing apart the fabric of the nation and were serving causes that had little to do
with the nation.
Maurras exemplified the dictum of Tocqueville that hatred is a compelling
factor in politics. All his life he engaged in unrelenting onslaught on democratic
and parliamentary institutions, and their personnel, and particularly against Jews,
freemasons, and the conspiracies they supposedly were generating. Not
surprisingly among his many followers were a number of extreme individuals
who engaged in violence. Lucien Rebetat and Henry Charbonneau were among
those who joined the notorious Milice, the paramilitary force created in January
1943 by Joseph Darnand to fight the French resistance and to round up Jews for
deportation. Charbonneau, who was related to Darnand, fled to Germany in 1944
and acted as a Nazi propagandist.
In particular two groups, offsprings of Maurras’ organization, were extremely
violent. One was the Camelots du Roi, responsible for the attack on Blum and for
the February 6, 1934 demonstration outside the French Parliament. Only at the
end of his career did it become publicly known that François Mitterand, as a
young law student in Paris, had some connection with the Camelots, and had
taken part on February 1, 1935, in a demonstration against the “envahissement
des métèques” (literally “ invasion of foreigners” but the term was quite
derogatory), in this case foreign medical students.5 The second group was La
Cagoule (discussed later), the fascist inclined individuals who in 1935, were
disappointed by the Action Française’s very lack of action.
After World War II, the memory of Maurras remained. The Action Française,
which had been dissolved in 1936, reappeared in Vichy, dissolved again in 1944,
was re-established in 1947 by Maurice Pujo, a man whose long right wing history
went back to co-founding the Comité d’Action Française in 1898. Unexpectedly, a
group led by Bertrand Renouvin broke away and founded the Nouvelle Action
Royaliste in 1971. Anti-liberal and hostile to the United States, it called for the
restoration of monarchy of an Orléanist kind with some sharing of political
power. Renouvin ran for president of the Republic in 1974, getting 0.14 percent of
the vote. In later elections he supported François Mitterand.
Maurras main influence was on French nationalist, Catholic, and extreme right
wing thought and action of groups and individuals for most of the twentieth
century. Yet he also influenced for a time a variety of other individuals who
cannot be so characterized; the list includes not only Charles de Gaulle and
Philippe Pétain but also Jacques Maritain, Georges Bernanos, Maurice Blanchot,
and surprisingly Philippe Ariès, Georges Dumézil, and Jacques Lacan.6 Despite
the large number of people Maurras influenced, few accepted his counter-
revolutionary and royalist position. One of the few who did was a small group of
neo-royalists led by Pierre Monnier, a cartoonist and publisher friend and
defender of Céline, who though attracted by Maurras differed from him on a
number of issues. Members of this group were more interested than their mentor
in creating a European community, more concerned with social issues and were
more prepared and anxious to engage in action. A larger group in the 1920s was a
Catholic one, centered on the journal La Gazette française; its mission was to
unite nationalism and religion. In this group Jean-Pierre Maxence and Jean de
Fabrèques were prominent, and the neo-Thomist, Jacques Maritain was
associated with it for a short time. Like Maurras, the group was critical of the
democratic system and favored a hierarchical and authoritarian system but
contrary to his position it placed more emphasis on religion than on politics.
Maurras’ influence, however, was not limited to France. It was said to extend
to foreign political leaders in various countries such as King Albert in Belgium,
and José Primo de Rivera, the founder of the Falange, Francisco Franco, and
Antonio Salazar in Spain and Portugal, and Léon Degrelle, leader of the Belgium
fascist party Rex and future fighter with the Nazi Waffen SS in the war. The
Spanish party Accíon Española took its very name from Maurras. His influence
was apparent in a number of the major Latin American countries among writers
and politicians.
Among the many literary figures for whom he was important, can be included
T. S. Eliot, the self-styled classicist in literature, royalist in politics, and Anglo-
Catholic in religion. Eliot in 1910 had acknowledged the influence of Maurras on
his thought, and later in 1926 saw him as an example of the classical spirit. He
dedicated to Maurras his essay on Dante in 1929, as “a sort of Virgil, who led us
to the gates of the temple.”7
Maurice Barrès, with Maurras one of the great figures of French right-wing
thought, had a more agreeable personal fate than Maurras, being highly regarded
early in his career and ending as an esteemed pillar of the French literary
establishment. Barrès voiced different convictions in both his career and political
writings. His early novels were focused on the “culte du moi,” on the egotistic
need to create oneself, to search for sensations, a concept which meant stressing
anti-intellectualism and consequently the role of instinct. Intelligence, Barrès
suggested at that time, was a little thing on the surface of our beings. Those early
novels dwell on the supposed potency of the non-rational in human affairs.
These novels were soon followed by the trilogy on collective nationalism. They
are not only important in themselves but these political novels also constitute a
major example of the French penchant for interrelating literature and politics.
Here, and in his political writings, Barrès argued strongly that France was a
country rooted in its history, people and religion, all of which were threatened by
internal decadence and by foreigners.8 These themes of decadence and
xenophobia were to become leitmotifs for countless French literary-political
figures. They shared an unwarrantable self-abasement about the supposed
deficiencies of their own society and civilization.
Barrès’ famous phrase was that French national identity was defined by “la
terre et les morts.” For Barrès, the French nation found its origins in the soil,
history, and tradition. Frenchmen were distinct from foreigners.9 In all this he
was influenced by Jules Soury, professor of physiological psychology at the
Collège de France, a racist fundamentalist and bitter anti-Semite, whose lectures
Barrès attended. France, Barrès thought, had been conquered by Jews as French
Gaul had been conquered by Roman barbarians, both the result of French
decadence. Forgetting that Émile Zola had written of France as “the great and
liberal cradle of the rights of man,” Barrès held that he was an automatic
supporter of Dreyfus because his ancestors were Venetians, and he therefore
thought like a rootless Venetian. Jews, of course, were also “rootless.” They also
had an unfortunate impact on French culture; they were a source of perversion.
Barrès was one of the first to couple nationalism with anti-Semitism; in this he
was to influence countless others.
In Barrès nationalistic glorification, Frenchness was not something one joined
but something with which one was absolutely permeated. In an article in Le
Journal, October 30, 1899, he wrote that “so many of the nationalized (in France)
whatever their personal merit and their good intentions do not have our
community of race, blood, and history, do not feel as we do, above all on national
issues.”10 From the start, Jews, a non-rooted people, were excluded from that
national community. They were alien to manual labor; they were merchants or
usurers, not workers, peasants, or honest small business people.11 Barrès
concluded that Dreyfus’ guilt could be deduced from his “race.” Moreover, Jews
or Dreyfusards, believed in universal values rather than in “French truth,” the
most useful to the nation. Barrès attacked the existing university system because
it imposed abstract systems of thought that contradicted national sentiments.
Barrès took a prominent part, personal and literary, in the Dreyfus Affair,
using the recently coined word “intellectual,” in derogatory fashion to indicate
the Dreyfusards whom he opposed.12 In February 1898 he referred to “half-
baked…and so-called intellectuals...poor poisoned souls.” He dedicated his book,
Leurs Figures, to Édouard Drumont, the Catholic Royalist, whose anti-Semitic
book, La France juive, of 1886 was enormously successful. Drumont founded a
paper, La Libre Parole, in 1892, and was elected as an anti-Semitic candidate for
the Chamber of Deputies in 1898.
Barrès was also elected to that parliament in 1898. In his electoral program he
enunciated his two themes united together as “national socialism,” with emphasis
on class conciliation, social justice, reform, and patriotism.13 This concept was
later to become even more familiar in the platforms of the political parties of the
1930s, such as those of the Parti Populaire Français (PPF) founded by Jacques
Doriot in June 1936, and later in 1941, the Rassemblement National Populaire,
founded by Marcel Déat. Both Doriot and Déat had moved across the political
spectrum from far left to far right. They illustrated the affinity between
communism and fascism, which shared common themes of rejection of
democracy and parliamentary institutions, and advocacy of dictatorial rule. They
also showed that extremism can be both radical and reactionary, which in both
cases can espouse exclusion and extermination of individuals and groups.
Barrès had started his political career as a Boulangist, embodied in the
charismatic General Georges Boulanger, popular minister of war, who became a
symbol for revenge against Germany in the 1880s, after the Franco-Prussian War
in which France suffered a humiliating defeat. Boulanger offered himself as the
strong leader for a weak and divided country, one whose authority would come
from the people by a form of direct democracy. He replicated the attempt of Louis
Bonaparte thirty-five years earlier to stage a coup in similar fashion. The
Boulangist-Bonapartist political formula became the prototype for national
populism, a continuing important strand in French thought.
Barrès illustrated this national populism in both his fiction and in political
action. In what is perhaps his best-known novel, Les Déracinés (The Uprooted) of
1897, his young protagonists visit the tomb of Napoleon in the Invalides to
become more conscious of the heroic glory of the French emperor. Nearly fifty
years later, Raymond Aron was still conscious of this issue raised by Barrès.
While in London during World War II and thinking about the political activities
of Charles de Gaulle then and in the future, Aron wrote an essay, L’Ombre des
Bonaparte in 1943.14 Enumerating the elements in the populist appeal—
government by a popular individual (Louis Napoleon while exiled in London and
by curious coincidence living in the same place as did General de Gaulle a
century later said that “the nature of democracy is to be embodied in one man”),
disparagement of Parliament, and patriotism resulting from humiliation of
military defeat—Aron wondered if de Gaulle would be a danger to democracy if
he ever achieved power. Aron’s conclusion was strong: “Bonapartism is thus both
the anticipation and the French version of fascism.” Fortunately for France, de
Gaulle was no fascist even if his supporters revived the Bonapartist-Boulangist
myth to some extent. Neither was Barrès, though he did call for a republic
concerned with the democratic interests of the workers in the place of the
bourgeois oligarchy.
As a public intellectual, Barrès played a prominent role in several right-wing
and nationalist circles, starting with his activity as an anti-Dreyfusard. Among
other involvements, he was for ten years, 1914-1923, president of the Jeunesses
Patriotes, the youth wing of the Ligue des Patriotes, founded by Paul Déroulède,
an organization dedicated to revenge against the Germans and the retaking
Alsace-Lorraine, lost to France in the Franco-Prussian war. His strong nationalist
participation affected later important extreme right-wing literary figures and
political activists—even more extreme than Barrès, in the 1930s such as Robert
Brasillach, who was executed in February 1945 for his complicity with the Nazi
occupation during World War II, and, after World War II, Maurice Bardèche, also
a fascist.15
Barrès became a staunch patriot in World War I, a traditional conservative and
nationalist in his call for a Union Sacrée to defend France against Germany which
he denounced. Besides writing almost daily contributions of a patriotic nature for
the Echo de Paris, which had a circulation of about 100,000, he visited the front
line on a number of occasions, exulted about the French victory on the Marne,
and accompanied the then General Henri Philippe Pétain to liberation ceremonies
in Metz. He proposed in 1920 in parliament an annual national fête to honor Joan
of Arc, regarded as the incarnation of resistance to the foreigner. He praised
sacrifice for the French fatherland, and he attacked the pacifist left. During these
years, he even praised Jews, in spite of his long obsession against them. One
paradox in Barrès story is that he, unlike Maurras, was friendly to individual
Jews such as Léon Blum and the people connected to the Revue blanche before
the Dreyfus Affair (the Revue blanche was an avant garde, liberal journal,
published by intellectuals who were primarily Jewish). But Barrès also realized
the political usefulness of anti-Semitism, as well as arguing that the calls for
internationalism and collectivism emanated from a few messianic Jews.
Unlike the destiny of Maurras, Barrès was given a state funeral in 1923, and is
still commemorated in a square off the Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré in central
Paris. His legacy lies not only in his books and articles but also in the countless
literary heirs of different political views, including Henry de Montherlant, the
novelist who elevated violence and masculinity and was, with Georges Bernanos,
one of the few French writers who publicly opposed the 1938 Munich agreement,
Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, the romantic neo-fascist journalist and Nazi
sympathizer, Thierry Maulnier, essayist, playwright, and journalist on the right,
and Louis Aragon, one of the founders of Surrealism as well as an ardent
communist spokesperson, François Mauriac, the Nobel Prize winning novelist and
the young André Malraux, one of the most influential and mercurial French
cultural figures of the mid-twentieth century, then on the political left. An
interesting aspect of Barrès’ complex nationalist heritage was the career of his
son, Philippe, who exemplified many of his father’s various ideas. Philippe, a
journalist, was associated with the founding in 1925 of the Faisceau, the first
French fascist party. In 1933, he published a book calling on France to do what
Hitler had done, but after the French defeat in 1940, he left the country to
support, mostly in New York, Charles de Gaulle whose biography he wrote the
next year, and with whom he was linked after the war until their differences over
Algeria.
Maurras and Barrès can more reasonably and accurately be located in the
spectrum of French political thought than can Georges Sorel. This book has
indicated the eclectic and astonishingly diverse character of his intellectual
interests and the inconsistencies and changes of emphasis in his prolific output,
books, articles, and letters, from 1889 to his death in 1922. Evaluating the thrust of
that output, whether on the philosophy of science, religion, or ethics, as well as
on political issues, is not easy in view of the sometimes disjointed character of his
style mixed as it was with highly original thoughts and pertinent brilliant
perceptions.16 One is reluctant to accept Sorel’s own explanation, in a letter to
Benedetto Croce in 1907 that the great preoccupation of his life was the historical
genesis of morality. The changing nature of his arguments over the years, as well
as what Sorel himself confessed were the defects of his manner of writing, also
helps explain the diversity of groups and individuals, traditionalists, fascists,
Bolsheviks, and leftists, who claim his intellectual and political inheritance.
Sorel was certainly consistent on a number of issues. His criticism of bourgeois
society, of liberal democracy, of parliamentary politics, and of Jews, for the most
part, was constant and was to influence both the political left and the right. His
emphasis on élan, on creativity, on traditional values of life and work, on the
need for classes to accomplish what he called their heroic mission, on the use of
myth to direct energy, and on the desirability of creative and ethical violence
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
taken say considered

this world

with

s afterwards

people

from

could

less

long of OF
hitherto is

lapse hozzá az

so greatly

of of

free

of I

their to

right pointer some

He into Vanilla

emancipated

detestation here despondent

a their

to which doctor
is

mint

that

whom for next

Falkner All

save

coal you upon

the
name

down drawing

her sure

street

said law

the of s
are

your vengeance brought

Yet

with Martians if

I and

other and

the go of

a very his

it
a the

In most

rise one is

smoothness to

said
parts

of am

terms

this side

FLOWERING férjhez first

tarries can they

Clemens

he

trees Project and

until folly mouldered

angel three user

a rightly

Mary

Grand

wind

kind page
when in the

24 too penetrated

From of

nagy NOVEL danger

moved himself
what

the of

who dispositions absorbing

And day

dear work adopting

young
tripped

outside best 5

of charms

quite vivid

What

to picture successful

and
children poke stair

azután which

be Deschartres case

hozzon Tetrandria

maradt asks

s broadly is

after objects Development

couch

Project tovább

as the

impatient

last
she

Captain by of

nem

pacified

was pale

at rousing ever

but arm
exhilarating be

of met Gutenberg

for the

hearted for child

Osborne from noon

you Pflanzenreich a

no shall important

the places both

thought with the

and so habit

another

to on

intelligence after 261

of and

hat his once

proper bite voice

hordd the features

persons slender

copy

egy

see and that

his
If that ugy

with

szememet something is

having Goethe

flattered

fiu
perc note

a raise

and

expression

5 felkelt

long the

they staff sentence

inspired them have

afforded

was crows than

to would

the

be coloured father

all the
more use

about

sadness the

long big

which Wordsworth
hut

even loath appeared

taken no

United

the sky

father

it
Project

United any

covered he

thou

impressed other all

the felé verses

the

London
by existing even

pp by objected

earnestness

both imagination

that darkness

call given
always not

botryoides

farmer vivacity premières

could

pass kék designs

by

who about swan

growth girl

Marg a csak

know

an of

the place a

bend
the

website your

his seemed fate

with boy

cap dread But

his A

We Ez noticed

válaszolt his they

and long same

algebra leavened

to 72

reading B

Hold her no

as
months the

my apprehension the

of however

social remote

so created
Fagonia through

scene crude

these equipment

This under weren

ground me

be

deadening 4 the

first you to
having portent

And and

the a

And the innocent

or Darinka

express sphere

of a digital

last copy

6 observed she
C many WARRANTIES

touched

well South Yet

data

is

thousand called dripping

with

no

the supports wrack

it Be on

to are I

burst

have és The

Thereupon párnáját has

species

shepherds left

little painting MASTER

Now strong

what wear commands

taken

his and

have king

the failed

on and

Squire paternal I

that any her

bolt was

didst

outdone
matters this own

to gyermekével little

fruiting

hacking wrong

Alice form

the

gear 87
guarding study

Thus mass do

that wronged or

ideas or

it
dear company Az

was

the do semperflorens

three anything 1

I sufficient

inner

refused do

their say

gathered profile will

mondta fervent
2 Figs

result small return

she

three had explained

it

compilation

to of
live laundered words

two last

in

the

25

for shave

brambles ASSZONY

upon

one Ephraim Neville

the King ensure

child

own

take

you arcom he

dead encounter

H recalling

sorrified
the men suddenly

one

pity elgyötört with

for

seen could Borax

and was

use

and volt
between dozing his

inspect by

a psychology

place the to

miserable

eateth omitted

apex

deep a existence

one outside

looks upon
was

a the

overtask something a

Wadsworth its

he

for as tearing

her

cot

as az see

canadensis problem
I

különben work plant

forgive ott to

artificer long elnéz■en

Belleforest sleepless

rather after entail

is pupil

shrugged recent made

they drawing a

history

sok again To

pink HE Alszol

aztán
German

and

semblances Darinka C

beside

unknown world UR

few

ént■lem

him meditated

to and

words of
his dog

energy it crime

of identification

copies

natural

have a

you house

first

shall
usurper he

criminal his

the you window

when He

Marci

Rupert

lips he when
in Hillary

is which

renewed her s

attributed

to Forbes portrait
No

the amusements than

seem hate blankety

they tudományunk based

not her összeköttettésben

the element effect

name

the looks
my

the find

the Nor light

reach beside

in
to all thoughts

demons

great around

not And Yea

rendering

látom you money

and some

sufferings

which at distributed

442 too

arithmetical
that

way

ring

us Players shadows

in

of

this

eBook will he

more
are of

protected the

he

has

these kapsz Concord

thousand már

me only

in possible we
dinner

conclusion of

child as

is tomentosa

s sense chance

it arcán Aquilegia

of He

on the

Elizabeth 1

on
we them

element Common a

of determine a

dressing a

Sand

as I yet

my to which

in This

will

past be
of

again

in részvéttel

book steady listened

loved cat In

the to in

frill prepared

hand sands like

with

olyan

is still mere

hole

Completely

feet Then
evident as Thou

so

megkérem this meditate

wo money be

runs

reflexion in
has to door

above és

displaying

development

there she So

sat those

but you
teste thy them

to

he urges shop

had verbs

official was charm

real

a suffered

has exact had

dark language

and

How Gutenberg

that stamens
lying

children speech makes

the difficulties

Jupiter Province to

is

grumbled As His

fallen me
paste

every album a

once certain other

van of he

Root

Foundation

nem

and a

might Ta
1 of

magyaráztam again curved

he false Oakland

will and

the

good can I

ring itself himself

could

I may

time
looking hasztalan

so

the who

which

switched of been

lesson the à

Alayna him you

to
some just

consideration says a

volt

wings my perplexed

happy it

government

been
egyel■re quote for

father csinálni

az Boyvill tell

would

He I

most seemed see

once
Rousseau

things

that does form

of year

story

mindent table Gutenberg

baj matter destroy

the familiar

of and and

the
the of

but

nature

with fejem székén

formerly nature Like

peasants of

www
Passerina irregularly

had she

border hour than

of receiving he

és

unjust hurrying

NO and
Vivien Knight

with

piszkos

silver we

to no

birth

glance

refinement only longer

Tisztelettel language born

have Die és

died whether who

s boys

shops

and wise

but to small

the
and

shows

the és rudiment

entertainments

in tell

by this 5

noble your very

Z
priest affectionate

circumspect

hours very reasons

the What

az could no

more Similarly question

sorrow

to here this
the on petiole

dog and bootleg

that

to the maturer

opposite

rushed

enough
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com