from Gauls to the revolution, to the sources of French identity
A France long before France
Matthieu Poux, professor of Roman and Gallo-Roman archeology at Lumière-Lyon-2 University
“Gaul has never been a nation in the sense that we understand it. In terms of territory, it was Caesar during his conquest company (completed in 51 BC) who decides, for political reasons, that the Rhine delimits its border to the east.
I would define this “France from before France” as a constellation of around sixty autonomous cities -states that each people administered with its own political bodies, its capital … Recent excavations confirm that the Gauls built buildings for their assemblies and were fighting money – we will find this situation in the Middle Ages with feudal fiefs. Gallic “decentralization” did not prevent, in my opinion, that a central body, even loose, could exist. Besides, Caesar tells us that a Council of Gaul met regularly. And some peoples, such as the Eduens, organized a confederation with their allies.
Eduens, Arvernes, Parisii, Bituriges, Carnutes … All these Gallic ethnic groups shared the same material culture – ceramic, tools, weapons, habitats, etc. – between them but also with the other Celts, present for more than a thousand years on most of the European continent. However, in Gaul, but also in the current Luxembourg, Belgium, Switzerland and Western Germany, the populations were distinguished by speaking a “continental Gauls” different from other Celtic languages.
Rome will centralize power and influence the culture of Gallic elites. In this empire, the populations mingle and will continue to be brewed over the centuries and migration. So much so that the Gauls are genetically “our ancestors” only for a very small part! Until the revolution, moreover, the history of France referred to Clovis (5th century) and the Franks as fathers of the nation. In the 19th century, seeking other roots which had nothing to kings or church, we rediscovered the Gauls and their hero, Vercingétorix. They in turn became the founding figures of France. ”
The eldest girl of the church?
Isabelle Heullant-Donat, professor of medieval history at the University of Reims-Champagne-Ardenne.
France “eldest daughter of the church” is an expression that appeared until the 19th century. It is a misinterpretation since our territory was later Christianized that the East, Greece or Italy … On the other hand, from the end of the reign of Charles V (1364-1380), the Pope himself reserves the title of “very Christian” king to the King of France, thus emphasizing the special bond between the sovereign and the apostolic seat.
In 1495, Pope Alexandre VI was the first to call the King of France his “eldest son”. But it was not until the 16th century that the title of “eldest son of the church” emerges. Henri IV receives the title of Honorary Canon of Lateran for having restored for the benefit of this basilica in Rome of the revenues of the abbey of Clairac (Lot-et-Garonne). Finally, Louis XIII consecrates the kingdom to the Virgin in 1638.The French Revolution weakens this link between the Kingdom and the Church. But in 1841, in his Speech On the vocation of the French nation Pronounced at Notre-Dame de Paris, the Dominican Lacordaire takes up the idea of filiation: “Just as God said to his son of all eternity: you are my first born, the papacy said to France: you are my eldest daughter.” Founding event for the monarchy, the baptism of Clovis is also, in his eyes, the source of the whole mission. However, this baptism on an uncertain date (496?, 505?) Had no impact in its time.
It is the Carolingian sovereigns who, after having delighted the throne to the Merovingians, make Clovis a model of Christian prince who also serves their quest for legitimacy. The national story built by the Third Republic joined Clovis. Today, the link remains perceptible since our presidents bear the title of Honorary Canon of Latran. Since 1957, some have been going so far as to receive him from the hands of the Pope, in Rome… ”
The revolution is not a national specificity
Annie Jourdan, associate researcher at the University of Amsterdam and the Institute of History of the French Revolution in Paris 1 – Panthéon Sorbonne
“The Revolution of 1789 does not arrive like a thunderclap in a clear sky. Europe had already known important political upheavals: in 1649, the English beheaded their king, Charles I, and established a – brief -republique. In 1688, they hunted Jacques II and adopted a monarchical regime more controlled by Parliament.
In 1776, the Americans emancipated from the British crown to form a republican federal state. Finally, in 1781, the United Provinces (Netherlands) revolted … all the actors of the French Revolution had in mind these models. Their first texts to establish a parliamentary monarchy are inspired by it. Each case is different but everyone meets on the same ambition to create a framework of freedom, equality and justice.
By conducting compared research on these sudden changes of regime, we realize that the French Revolution was neither more nor less violent than the others. Each time, the revolutionaries face a terrible civil war. In France, the situation is all the more dramatic since Louis XVI and his brothers plot with the neighboring kingdoms, which exacerbates the fear of spies … violent excesses, summary executions follow in the young Republic. But the expression “terror” to designate the regime of 1793-1794 comes from the management board which, after the fall of Robespierre, wanted to distance itself from its government by accusing it of all the crimes. Then the restoration broke the nail in 1814.
This reputation means that all over the world, the French Revolution remains seen as a horribly bloody period. However, the archives show that the Napoleonic wars will make many more deaths, or that the United States in formation has massacred or exile their loyalist enemies. But America has better been able to make him forget in the account of his founding myths! ”
