ultra The word is often used pejoratively to describe someone for excessive, especially in our case, this is the abbreviation the word ultra royalist, still used today to define in derision or demonize rather inexpensively royalists, mainly Legitimists, which would have remained too traditional in relation to social criteria, moral and political issues of our time, or just over to criteria bonaparto Orleans and / or liberals. An ultra is from this point sight of the ultimate revolutionary-cons, who rejects all principles of the Revolution of 1793 but also 1789 and therefore would project a radical return to the social and political structures of the Ancien Regime.
The attempt to analyze the Ultracism written by Benoît Yvert (about the episode of "House Not Found") that I propose below is some merit to break stereotypes by showing a except that the trend is highly divided and a portion sincerely supports the Charter of 1814 and the constitutional or parliamentary, secondly that its motives are sometimes different from those pursued by Legitimists traditional today. There is for example a certain number of ultras, known conservatives in the text, are especially anxious to recover a cons-power of the nobility, through the parliament surprisingly, against absolute royal sovereignty of the ancien regime, Hawking to to the myth of political rights of the nobility in the Middle Ages, which never existed as a cyclical and temporary result of the decomposition of Carolingian royal power. The traditional Legitimists
today, those of the Union of Circles Legitimists of France in particular, can not therefore be described as extremists, despite some obvious similarities, they does not support the parliamentary perspective, or half-hearted liberal extremists moderates nor the nobility of ultra conservative reaction, nor the artificial replenishment of the company three levels: the absolute royal sovereignty and independence they demand the restoration the person of Louis XX, in view of the common good. In my case, a term like Legitimist absolutist suit me perfectly.
***
"Not having found its definitive historian, the ultra-royalist remains to be studied with precision, both sociologically as politiquement. A défaut d'une synthèse satisfaisante, on peut cependant tenter d'en esquisser une définition. Fruit des Cent-Jours, l'ultracisme de la majorité de la Chambre introuvable repose sur quelques convictions solides. Contre-révolutionnaire avant tout, l'ultra ressent à un degré variable la nostalgie d'une société hiérarchisée fondée sur la religion catholique et la juste séparation des individus en plusieurs ordres, le premier étant naturellement la noblesse dont la supériorité héréditaire est justifiée par l'expérience, antidote des passions égalitaires qui mènent toute société à l'anarchie. La Révolution française, sadly experienced by most members in their youth, is primarily attributed to the undermining of the Enlightenment who, they say, dangerously contrary to human society, deserves to heredity, equal to property and reason to religion. To succeed, the Counter-Revolution must therefore both chase the men but also ideas. To indoctrinate the souls must promote spiritual rebirth and the clergy by restoring its heritage and promoting its grip on education, and create a new literature, "expression of society" according Bonald budding romance with the symbol will finally get to the nobility a lost social rule by centralization.
This joint program cache, however, a deep fissure between what we define as "ultra conservative" and "ultras movement" to borrow a classic typology. The opposition comes from the interpretation of the French Revolution. For the ultra-conservative, the French Revolution was the result of a cyclical conspiracy, variously attributed to the Freemasons, the Duke of Orleans or the bourgeoisie as a whole, and therefore does not reflect a profound crisis of society. Nurtured by the writings of the theocrats, Joseph Maistre and Louis de Bonald, the ultra-conservative interpretation especially the Revolution as a divine punishment intended by the Creator to punish France and libertine liberal Enlightenment. Restoration is an opportunity for an expiation necessary but feasible because the man had no part in the Revolution, just a deeply religious and conservative politics to bring the country back on track. This ultra-there is not, however, as has too often written, a spiritual son of absolutism. The idea of punishment does not spare the royal power, guilty of having violated the fundamental laws of the kingdom by reducing its nobility Slavery and alienating the honorary spiritual magisterium of its clergy by Gallicanism authoritarian. The solution of the French crisis is therefore for them in a return to monarchy tempered medieval nobility and clergy in which each played a role of spiritual power-cons and effective policy. Heir to the rebellious, the ultra conservative about to defy the royal authority, whose charter is to realize a balance, by storming the company by the only power, MPs, in which he has the majority. As for the House of Lords, false showcase of the aristocracy as a whole populous of former revolutionaries and Bonaparte, it is supremely despised.
To govern by the House, we must necessarily accept the Charter, "one point, according Villele, which can rally all the French, and the only leverage that we can now replace the royal power." As noted with his usual accuracy Madame de Stael, the ultras are within the Charter as the Greeks in the Trojan to claim, as constituents, holders of sovereignty that they will oppose of a king they hate most from emigration. So will they soon call loudly for their benefit the introduction of initiate legislation and the political responsibility of ministers. This trend, which groups the vast majority of Ultracism, is divided between impatient advocates of a cons-fast and brutal revolution headed by the member Labourdonnaye and pragmatic, united behind Villele and Corbiere, who intend to conduct a more prudent, especially in the opposition against the Crown. The election of a House ardently royalist discredit liberals and Bonapartist during the Hundred Days give these "Royalists" as they call themselves, hope to emulate their enemies generation Previous by tabula rasa recent past. "It was, writes in his memoirs Villele, seize the animosity that the tyranny of Bonaparte had risen against him, both in France and abroad, and enjoy his attempt and his fall to a mortal blow to the ideas of the Revolution which he represented, he was buried in the same defeat at Waterloo the turbulent genius of perpetual war and revolutionary theories disappointing. "
For the ultra movement, which Chateaubriand and Joseph publicist Fievee are the brightest representatives of the French Revolution is instead considered as a crisis in depth, largely justified, that swept back hopeless society of the ancien regime. It showed a double suction liberal egalitarian should be dissociated. Their analysis, close to the Liberals on this point, distinguishes between the aspirations of the constituents and their respectable overflow by the despotism of the multitude during the Terror. The revolution had resulted in the arbitrary imperial, liberal values are from 1789, according to them, always rooted in the heart of the French. Turning the rhetoric of the Enlightenment, as he has done in the Engineering Christianity
Chateaubriand wants to transform the monarchy restored shield freedoms, mainly the freedom of the press, designed as a power-cons in their own right, while conservatives see it as Bonald an instrument of perversion of the masses it must closely monitor . "Point of representative government without freedom of the press, replied Rene. Here's why: The government representative clarified by public opinion, and based on it. The Chamber may not know this view, if this view has point of organs. " Convinced that irresponsibility is the best shield royal throne, the ultras movement activists, them sincerely for the evolution of the system to a parliamentary monarchy in which, and this is where they are in opposition to the Left, the nobility and clergy gather in their natural superiority a primary role in conducting business. Thus there exists from the beginning a deep caesura between cyclical and sincere supporters of representative government in the ultra party, which explains the great embarrassment of the Liberals to make judgments consistent on a House that has the strange paradox of defending the rule of parliamentary power and freedom of expression on behalf of the Counter-Revolution. [...]"
Emmanuel Waresquiel and Benoît Yvert, History of Restoration - 1814-1830
(2002 in the collection Tempus) - The quoted passage is written by Benoît Yvert 
0 comments:
Post a Comment