ROGER PRICE

RELIGIOUS RENEWAL
IN FRANCE, 1789-1870
The Roman Catholic Church between Catastrophe and Triumph
Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870
 Roger Price

Religious Renewal in
France, 1789-1870
The Roman Catholic Church between Catastrophe
and Triumph
Roger Price
Aberystwyth, United Kingdom

ISBN 978-3-319-67195-6    ISBN 978-3-319-67196-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67196-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017955676

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © Josse Christophel / Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For Heather with love
 Acknowledgements

This book has been a long time in the making and I owe a great deal to the
support and patience of family, friends, colleagues and generations of stu-
dents. In addition to research conducted specifically for this volume I was
able to draw on material gathered for other projects over many years. My
debt to the archivists and librarians of the following institutions is enor-
mous: Archives nationales; Bibliothèque nationale; Service historique de
l’Armée de Terre; the Centre de documentation of the Société nationale
des chemins de fer français; Ecole des Mines; National Library of Wales;
University of East Anglia; Aberystwyth University; Bangor University;
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Research leave and funding were provided generously by the University of
East Anglia, Aberystwyth University and the Arts and Humanities Research
Board and further indispensable financial assistance by the British Academy,
the Leverhulme Trust, and the Wolfson Foundation. I was fortunate to be
able to draw on the late Ralph Gibson’s enthusiasm and vast knowledge of the
Church in France, and on support from William Doyle and Richard J. Evans
in making grant applications. A series of anonymous publishers’ readers made
suggestions I could not always accept, but which contributed greatly to the
end result. Once again, Heather Price saved me from confusion and numer-
ous split infinitives. I am particularly grateful for the encouragement and assis-
tance of Emily Russell and Carmel Kennedy of Palgrave Macmillan.
Above all, I want to thank Richard, Luisa, Luca and Charlotte; Siân,
Andy, Molly and Lilly; Emily, Dafydd, Eleri, and Mari Haf; Hannah,
Simon, and Megan Eira, and my dearest Heather for their encouragement
and love.

vii
 Contents

1 Introduction   1

Part I  L’Eglise de France   7

2 God’s Church   9
2.1 Introduction: Institutional Renewal  9
2.2 Authority Within the Church 12
2.3 The Appointment of Bishops 13
2.4 The Recruitment of Priests 20
2.5 Educating the Clergy 26
2.6 Hierarchy and Discipline 35
2.7 The Religious Orders 40
2.8 Preserving the Fabric 47

3 Doctrine: The Move Towards Rome  73

3.1 Introduction 73
3.2 The Lessons of History 74
3.3 The Creation of a Universal Community of Faith 76
3.4 The Cult of Pius 82
3.5 Devotion to Mary 85
3.6 The Syllabus of Errors 89

ix
x   Contents

3.7 The Vatican Council 97

3.8 Conclusion102

4 Pastoral Care: The Clergy and the People of God 113

4.1 Introduction113
4.2 Administering the Sacraments114
4.3 Transmitting the Message117
4.4 Conclusion152

5 The Protection of Moral Order 169

5.1 Introduction169
5.2 The Obstacles to the Creation of a ‘Perfect Society’170
5.3 Achieving Perfection190
5.4 Censorship194
5.5 Conclusion201

6 Saints and Sinners 215
6.1 Le bon prêtre215
6.2 The Trials and Tribulations of Parish Life218
6.3 Moral Failings236
6.4 Conclusion249

Part II  A Change of Perspective 263

7 The Practice of Religion 265

7.1 Introduction265
7.2 Religious Practice Among the Social Elites270
7.3 Popular Religion291
7.4 Conclusion310
  Contents 
   xi

8 Anti-Clericalism 327
8.1 Introduction327
8.2 Opinion Leaders?328
8.3 Popular Anti-Clericalism334

9 Conclusion 347

Appendices 351

Index 401
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The Protestant Reformation was widely perceived by the Roman Catholic

Church in the nineteenth century as the first of two major and overlapping
catastrophes, periods of profound change, spreading uncertainty, anxiety
and chaos. It had at least, however, in response, inspired the vigorous,
creative—and repressive—movement identified with the Counter-­
Reformation (inaugurated by the Council of Trent (1545–63)). The sec-
ond period, represented by the French Revolution, beginning in 1789,
and continuing in 1848, similarly represented a massive transformation,
threatening destructive anarchy, and also stimulating a powerful counter-­
revolution. During these reactionary phases, the clergy, in collaboration
with state institutions and social elites and the faithful in general, desper-
ately sought to defend the Church they believed to be the only repository
of the true faith of Jesus Christ, to fortify belief, combat the ‘Satanic’
forces of moral corruption and revolutionary disorder and to create a
‘counter-society’, the société parfaite.1 For the historian, understanding
these complex processes of politico-religious confrontation and their pro-
found impact at both national and international levels requires a recogni-
tion of context, as well as comprehension of the people involved—the
historical actors—their institutional loyalties, mindsets, and social roles.
After 1789, the vast majority of churches and monastic buildings in
France had been vandalized and then closed. Perhaps 20,000 priests left
holy orders and a further 30,000–40,000 had emigrated; many were
murdered.2 While some communities sought to safeguard their religious

© The Author(s) 2018 1

R. Price, Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67196-3_1
2   R. PRICE

heritage, as a public act, Christian worship largely disappeared.3 Changing

political circumstances leading to the Napoleonic Concordat, followed in
1815 by the restoration of the Bourbons in the person of Louis XVIII,
would, however, eventually facilitate the renewed transmission of tradi-
tional faith together with theological/ideological and institutional regen-
eration, the gradual restitution of religious institutions and of the physical
fabric of the Church.4 The latent strength of religious commitment and
its revitalization, together with the ‘devotional revolution’ experienced
during the nineteenth century, represented a dynamic process of (re)
Christianization.5 A massive and continuing effort would also be neces-
sary to combat the longer-term secularizing forces set in motion by a
complex of economic, social and cultural changes.6
Every new confrontation, and particularly the revolutionary move-
ments in 1830 and 1848, ensured that memories and fear of persecution
would be reawakened. The establishment of ‘universal’ suffrage in 1848
would, however, promote conservative as well as democratic mobilization
and substantially reinforce the political influence of the Church, its priests
and of the Catholic laity. Through the inculcation of a clerical vision of
society and politics, militant Catholicism would energetically promote
religious and ‘moral’ revival, together with counter-revolutionary political
strategies. A reinvigorated Church would respond positively to the charis-
matic leadership of its popes in adopting doctrinal and ideological posi-
tions towards the modern world based upon an overwhelmingly pessimistic
and fundamentally intransigent position of défense religieuse.7 Such an out-
look could, however, be combined with an apocalyptic confidence in the
Second Coming of Christ which would inaugurate the final defeat of Satan
and sin.8 Appeals to old spiritual and moral verities, together with the
centralization of doctrinal authority within the Church, and trends towards
greater uniformity of practice, were encouraged by the exploitation of
emerging modern technologies and particularly of the communications
systems (rail, telegraph, education and the mass media), which facilitated
the transmission of ideas, religious mobilization and an ‘assertive
confrontation’.9
Understanding ‘the dynamics of religious change’,10 and the capacity of
the Church to define and to affirm its own interests, as well as to shape
social attitudes and political ideologies depends on a profile of the clergy,
of their outillage mental and their key role as cultural intermediaries.11
This should take into account the recruitment and training of priests and
the hierarchical organization of the Church. Theology, evolving patterns
  INTRODUCTION   3

of spirituality, ritual and symbolic representation and the relations between

dogma and practice revealed by pastoral care and popular religiosity are all
within our remit. A traditional top-down perspective has deliberately been
adopted in recognition of the ‘overbearing hierarchical and doctrinal elit-
ism’ of the religious institution,12 as well as the determination and
enhanced capacity of the Papacy to impose a sense of discipline and moral
order on both the lower clergy and the laity. The sources of internal unity
and division, and the nature of the power struggles characteristic of any
large organization similarly need to be delineated. The crucial questions
are: Who were the clergy? Why did they think and behave as they did?
How much influence did they wield?
A series of questions also needs to be posed concerning ‘the dialectical
relationship between clerical representations and the reality lived or con-
ceived by Christians’ and the wider practice (or rejection) of religion.13
How was the message received? Articulated initially by the Apostles, by
the Fathers, councils and popes, and commented upon by numerous theo-
logians and canon lawyers in a complex technical and rebarbative lan-
guage. those theological ideas, approved by the religious hierarchy, were
subsequently presented to the population in simplified form in sermons,
catechisms, through confession, as well as in popular works of piety. How
did these religious ideals influence individual perceptions, expectations
and behaviour, as well as wider social relationships? Was religion—as an
ideology—a more powerful motivating factor than class allegiance? To
what extent did the Church and religion serve as integrative or as divisive
forces in social and political life? How did relationships between the tem-
poral and spiritual domains evolve? This will lay the ground for an assess-
ment of the influence of the Church within social and cultural systems
undergoing rapid change, in which the intensity of religious practice var-
ied considerably between localities, and where seemingly contradictory
processes of secularization and religious renewal were underway.
As well as representing a ‘source of personal inspiration and private
sustenance, an interior form of mystical experience, faith is to a large
degree socially constructed through interaction between the representa-
tives of a hierarchical institution (the Church) and individuals belonging
to distinct and diverse social milieux and parish communities’.14 Faith can
be expressed in discourse, through material forms and representations,
through the adoption of a sense of identity and also by means of political
activity judged to be in the interests of the institution and of those values
perceived by its leading decision-makers to be in need of protection and
4   R. PRICE

reinforcement. In these circumstances, the religious and the secular easily

become confused. Thus, rather than simply offer an institutional history or
a history of theology, it is also my intention to focus on the social contexts,
the gendered processes of family and community socialization, and the
developing social networks within which power was exercised, and ideas
constructed, adapted and diffused, as well on the relationships between
dogma and practice. It is also worth constantly bearing in mind that ‘the
faith of a past age is of its age’15 and that ‘men and women of the past
deserve to be considered on their own terms and in the context of their
own social and cultural milieux’.16 In a book about the Roman Catholic
Church in an age of revolution, contextualization is everything.17
Discussion of the Church as an institution in crisis, of the recruitment
and instruction of its bishops, parish clergy, and the members of religious
orders, of its hierarchical structures and internal discipline, and of the need
to compensate for the losses suffered by its people and physical fabric dur-
ing a period of revolutionary upheaval (Chap. 2) provides the basis for an
exploration of its evolving doctrine(s) and sense of purpose (Chap. 3); for
an assessment of the pastoral care provided to the parish community (Chaps.
4 and 5); and of the leadership and moral qualities of the clergy (Chap. 6);
before final consideration of the reception of the religious message(s)
(Chaps. 7 and 8). The period which began in 1789 in catastrophe, ended,
in 1870, with the declaration of Papal Infallibility at the Vatican Council,
the culminating act of the long and largely successful era of re-affirmation
and reconstruction which is the subject of this book. Apparent triumph
however coincided with the military defeat and collapse of the French
Second Empire, the elimination of the Papal States, and the opening of a
new era of uncertainty for the Church—which is beyond the remit of this
chapter.

Notes
1. C.  Langlois, ‘Infaillibilité, une idée neuve au 19e siècle’ in Le continent
théologique. Explorations historiques, Rennes, 2016, p. 61.
2. T. Tackett, C. Langlois, ‘Ecclesiastical structures and clerical geography on
the eve of the French Revolution’, French historical studies, 1980, p. 357.
3. C. Langlois, T. Tackett, M. Vovelle, Atlas de la Révolution française, vol.
IX, 1996, p.  42; R.  Gibson, A social history of French catholicism, 1789–
1914, 1989, p. 44. See also M.-H. Froeschlé-Chopard, Espace et sacré en
Provence, 16e–20e siècles, 1994, pp. 305–317. The intense ‘shock’ this rep-
  INTRODUCTION   5

resented is discussed by R. Price, The Church and the State in France, 1789–
1870. ‘Fear of God is the basis of Social Order’, 2017, Chap. 2.
4. See also E. Duffy, Saints, Sacrilege and Sedition. Religion and conflict in the
Tudor reformations, 2012, p. 176.
5. The concept was developed by E. Larkin, ‘The Devotional revolution in
Ireland, 1850–75’ American Historical Review, 1972. For subsequent
debate, see e.g. L. van Ypersele, A.-D. Marcelis, (eds) Rêves de chrétienté,
Réalités du monde. Imaginaires catholiques, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2001,
pp. 7–9.
6. R.  Price, The Modernization of Rural France. Communications networks
and agricultural market structures in 19th century France, 2017, Part 3.
7. Y. Déloye, Les voix de Dieu. Pour une autre histoire du suffrage électoral: le
clergé catholique et le vote 19e–20e siècles, 2006, p. 46; E. Bogalska-Martin,
Sacrée liberté. Imaginaires sociaux dans les encycliques pontificales du 19e
siècle, 2012, p. 10.
8. See also H. Multon, ‘Un vecteur de la culture politique contre-révolution-
naire. La décadence dans la littérature apocalyptique’ in F. Jankowiak, (ed)
La décadence dans la culture et la pensée politique, Rome, 2008,
pp. 140–3.
9. R. Schaefer, ‘Program for a new Catholic Wissenschaft: devotional activities
and Catholic modernity in the 19th century’, Modern Intellectual History,
2007, p. 437.
10. I.  Katznelson, G.  Stedman Jones, (eds) Religion and the Political
Imagination, Cambridge 2010, p. 10.
11. Ibid., p. 447.
12. Anonymous publisher’s reader.
13. A.  Walch, La spiritualité conjugale dans le catholicisme français (16e–20e
siècles), 2002, p. 477.
14. J. de Vries, J.  Morgan, (eds) Women, gender and religious culture in
Britain, 1800–1940, 2010, p. 3.
15. Rowan Williams, Why study the past? The quest for the historical church,
2005, p. 89.
16. R.  McKitterick, ‘Great light’, Times Literary Supplement, 22 May 2009,
p. 9.
17. See R. Harris, Lourdes. Body and spirit in the secular age, 1999, p. xv.
 PART I

L’Eglise de France
 CHAPTER 2

God’s Church

2.1   Introduction: Institutional Renewal

In the aftermath of the Revolution the Church proved able to revitalize its
human resources during a lengthy period of expansion and of ‘recon-
quest’. The lessons drawn from history, from the counter-Reformation
and the sixteenth-century Council of Trent, as well as more recent cata-
clysmic experiences stimulated substantial doctrinal reaffirmation as well
as the building of a more effective organizational culture.1 Under the
increasingly authoritarian guidance of an ‘infallible’ Pope, the Church
wholly and intransigently committed itself to the struggle for human
souls. As an institution, it was defined by Mgr Gaston de Ségur in his
widely read Traité de l’Eglise (1861) as ‘made up of priests and the faithful.
The body of priests calls itself l’Eglise enseignante, it includes the Pope and
the bishops, and to a certain degree, the priests. L’Eglise enseignée includes
all the faithful, whoever they might be, even kings and princes. This dis-
tinction is of divine origin. When one speaks of the Church, from the
point of view of its authority, and of its mission, it is in reference to the
Eglise enseignante which, alone, through the Pope and its bishops has
received from Jesus Christ the right and the duty to teach, to govern, and
to judge. The Eglise enseignée profits from these divine privileges but does
not share them.’2 Responsible for interpreting the Word of God, the
Church possessed well-organized channels for communication through its
hierarchical structures and established forms of socio-religious discourse.

© The Author(s) 2018 9

R. Price, Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67196-3_2
10   R. PRICE

It was regulated by its own dogmas and by the received wisdom of the
past, reinterpreted by each generation of theologians and canon lawyers.
Unsurprisingly, as the intermediaries between ‘Man’ and God, priests
claimed superiority over the laity. Just like Christ and his Apostles, they
were men, their functions manifestations of male superiority over all, save
the most exceptional, women.3 The Plan d’une vie sacerdotale ou règle-
ment de vie pour un jeune prêtre, a manual published in 1865, began with
the confidence-building affirmation that ‘Just like Jesus Christ I have
through my vocation, a divine origin, a divine mission, and divine pow-
ers.’.4 These powers included the miraculous capacity during the commu-
nion service to transform bread and wine into the body and blood of
Christ, as well as the ability to establish social ‘reality’ through definitions
of ‘orthodoxy’ and of ‘heresy’ and to identify the means of living a good
and moral life. Even a ‘bad’ priest had sacramental obligations through
ordination, and would share these virtues. The spiritual claims made by
ordained priests thus ensured that they assumed powerful and demanding
responsibilities within every sphere of human life. Their instruction, their
special relationship with an all-powerful God, the distinctive role they
assumed within the parish community, together with their vows, and in
particular that of celibacy, furthermore guaranteed that priests were not
like other men.
By employing Christianity as a powerful ideological force, the clergy
were capable of exercising substantial influence in order to achieve a vari-
ety of both spiritual and secular objectives. In his Lenten message in 1858
Mgr Raess, Bishop of Strasbourg, reminded the faithful that the Church
was ‘the infallible organ of truth … the mystical body of Jesus Christ who
speaks to us through His Church … It is invested with all His authority
and it is in virtue of this great and magnificent authority that the Church,
immaculate spouse of the Son of God, dictates the law, that it makes
judgements concerning the path to salvation, that it excommunicates
those who reject its word, and that its judgements are sanctioned by God
Himself …’5 Such authoritarian and potentially aggressive claims to a
monopoly on truth, and the rejection of individual autonomy, reinforced
the influence of the clergy among believers but also made internal dis-
putes, as well as conflict with the representatives of other institutions all
the more likely. Thus, as a result of the Napoleonic Concordat (1801), a
constant tension existed between the priest’s performance of an idealized
role as God’s servant and his legal position as a paid functionary of the
state. The priest owed obedience to the Holy Father in Rome and to his
   GOD’S CHURCH    11

representatives in the bureaucracy of the Papal Curia, and more directly to

his bishop, but was also subject to supervision by the Ministre des Cultes
in Paris, as well as by the government’s local representatives, the depart-
mental prefect and the communal mayor. The Administration des Cultes
would come to play an increasingly assertive role, reflecting its budgetary
responsibilities, the political significance of religion, and the power of
precedent.6
The balance of authority within the Church was shifting moreover,
and in a manner which would have a substantial impact on relations
between Church and State. The threats posed by revolution and moder-
nity, together with distaste for the Concordat, encouraged the clergy to
look increasingly towards the Universal Church and its Pope—the Vicar
of Christ on Earth, ultra montes (across the mountains)—for leadership,
as well as for protection. The proponents of an increasingly dominant
ultramontanism—a much-used, and abused, label—sought to defend
the rights of the Church, and to insist upon the absolute power of the
Pope and in effect on a personification of power.7 Ultramontanes
mounted a powerful challenge to the established Gallican traditions of
the Church in France and increasingly to the authority of the State.8
They were resolutely and aggressively opposed to Gallican efforts to
affirm the superior authority of episcopal councils within the Church
and to maintain traditional provincial autonomies. They rejected the
right, enshrined in the Concordat, of the civil authorities to regulate
religious life. The Church, they affirmed, should enjoy complete ‘liberty’
of action in those domains, and most notably pastoral care and educa-
tion, which were its particular concern. The primary objective of the
State should be to assist the religious institution in the achievement of its
objectives. A divinely ordained monarchy seemed most appropriate to
serving the interests of religion.9
Paradoxically, the influence of a fundamentally conservative institution,
whose representatives constantly expressed negative views of modernity,
would, in the nineteenth century, be substantially reinforced, and the
exercise of authority by successive popes greatly facilitated, by modern
technologies which established new perceptions of time and space—by the
railway which encouraged regular visits by bishops and pilgrims to Rome;
by an improved postal service, and the telegraph which intensified contact;
as well as by increased literacy and the emergence of the mass circulation
press so vital for the rapid diffusion of an evolving religious discourse.
Centralization was becoming a reality for both Church and State.
12   R. PRICE

2.2   Authority Within the Church

According to Roman Catholic theologians, God had manifested Himself
through Christ—the earthly presence of His only Son through whom He
had chosen to reveal the Word; the Truth of which was further affirmed
when He spoke through ‘His Gospels and divine writings, apostolic tradi-
tion, and through the Church, the only guardian, interpreter, and supreme
judge of revelation’.10 Inspired by a widespread (re)reading of Saint
Augustine’s La Cité de Dieu, and centuries-old traditions, theologians and
ordinary parish priests believed that, divinely ordained, through doctrine,
life and worship, the Church could claim to be the key agent in the trans-
mission of God’s Word, and the means of securing the defeat of Satan and
the final victory of Truth over Evil and, at the end of time—heralded by
the Second Coming of Christ, the final establishment of the rule of God
on earth.11
The Papal Bull Auctorem fedei (1794) had clearly affirmed the magiste-
rial authority of the Pope within the Church. As the Archbishop of
Cambrai reminded the faithful, His Holiness owed his authority to Jesus
Christ who, before ascending to Heaven, had chosen Saint Peter ‘to gov-
ern in His Place and in His name’. In his turn, Peter had established Rome
and its bishop as the centre of the Universal Church, an ‘Eternal City’, a
source of stability ‘independent of the revolutions which overthrow states
and change the face of the world’.12 The Pope was responsible for defining
the faith given to the world by God, for its transmission by means of evan-
gelization, and for imposing discipline on the Church. Inspired by a vision
of the perfect society, he was also duty-bound to condemn everything
incompatible with his holy mission.13 The sacred duty of all Christians
must be to ‘believe everything taught from the [Papal] throne and to
reject everything it condemns. Peter’s law must be our faith.’ Catholics
should at all times offer docile, confident and loving submission to the
‘Père de la famille chrétienne’.14
The law of 18 germinal An X similarly insisted upon the top-down
nature of authority within the Church, reminding both government offi-
cials and individual priests that bishops were responsible for imposing dis-
cipline on their diocesan clergy in relation to doctrinal matters and pastoral
care.15 Few, if any, of his colleagues would have disagreed with Mgr Pie,
Bishop of Poitiers’ assertion that ‘Just as the Church is a monarchy, of
which the Pope, and the Pope alone, is the supreme head, so each diocese
is a monarchy of which the chief is the bishop, the bishop alone, under the
   GOD’S CHURCH    13

dependence of the universal pastor.’16 Their pastoral authority over both

clergy and laity was justified through biblical references to the Apostles
and regularly reiterated—in stereotyped form—in pastoral letters.17 On his
translation to the diocese of Nantes in August 1870, Mgr Fournier offered
a grandiose definition of the bishop’s role as ‘the chief, the principal
­driving force of religion in the area subject to him, on whom depends the
individual churches and their pastors … It is with reason that heads bow
under his beneficent hand, that people and institutions request his sup-
port, that he intervenes in the direction and education of the young …
that he extends his gaze to all those religious and moral works of which he
is quite properly the creator, the inspiration or the judge.’18 The entry of
a newly appointed bishop into his episcopal city was celebrated with great
pomp, its streets decorated and crowded with both the faithful and the
curious, as befitted a figure of such considerable importance in the func-
tioning of both Church and State.19 Religious processions, which during
the July Monarchy had been closely controlled to avoid offending
Protestant or anti-clerical opinion, under the Second Empire became
quasi-official in character. The Church was able to proclaim the faith
through street theatre.
From the perspectives of both Church and State it seems clear that the
bishops were expected to play a difficult coordinating role within both the
religious and State hierarchies, were key figures of authority, constituting
part of the socio-political elite, as well as forming an elite within the
Church itself. The Prefect of the Aisne in 1865 warned that a senior cler-
gyman ‘can be either an excellent auxiliary or a serious embarrassment’.
Thus, a nominee should be ‘at the same time a very good priest and a very
good citizen’ and certainly devoted to the Emperor.20 Once their nomina-
tions had been confirmed by the Pope, bishops were moreover difficult to
discipline and almost impossible to dismiss.21 Considerable care was clearly
required in making appointments to such posts.

2.3   The Appointment of Bishops

According to the terms of the Concordat, governmental approval was nec-
essary for the appointment of bishops, and their vicars-general, as well as
to the tenured position of curé. At mid-century, there were 80 bishops
(rising to 86 following the annexation of Nice and Savoy), each assisted by
two or three vicars-general and eight or nine canons. In return for coop-
erating with the administration, they received high salaries and public
14   R. PRICE

honours, as well as subsidies for diocesan works, and expected to be treated

with a certain deference. As Mgr Sibour warned his ‘cher ami’ Fortoul
after two of his colleagues had been kept waiting in the ministerial ante-­
chamber—‘we are by our nature as bishops rather demanding and
extremely susceptible’.22 Nevertheless, during the Second Empire’s first
decade, a close alliance between Church and State prevailed. The bishops
played a central role in the construction of an image of the regime as a
Christian monarchy. Cardinals took their seats in the Imperial Senate.
Public ceremony constantly associated the two institutions. The represen-
tatives of State and Church united to inaugurate and bless railway stations
and other public monuments. The civil authorities were present in serried
ranks for the sanctification of new and restored churches, for such specta-
cles as the restoration of the Pantheon to religious use in 1852, and the
laying of the foundation stone of the new cathedral in Marseille.
J-O. Boudon’s invaluable prosopographical study of L’Episcopat fran-
çais à l’époque concordataire (1996), read in conjunction with his work
on Paris, capitale religieuse sous le Second Empire (2001), provides
detailed insights into the ideas and careers of the 250 men—essentially
bishops and vicars-general, holding ‘postes de commande’ within the
Church in France. Boudon’s research revealed that most bishops origi-
nated in towns or larger rural centres, located primarily within the ‘pays
de chrétienté’.23 Although, in popular perceptions, bishops tended to be
assimilated with the aristocracy, in practice, the origins of most were the
middle class. They were the sons of lawyers, government officials and
army officers, and of merchants, although especially from mid-century,
the promotion of a rising proportion of sons of the lower middle
classes—traders, artisans, minor officials—was becoming evident.24 If
only a minority came from wealthy families, virtually all future bishops
depended on family financial support during their long studies for the
priesthood and in order to acquire the priestly culture, as well as the
‘bonnes manières’, necessary to mix in polite society. The appointment of
sons of peasants, invariably those of the better-off, and representing
19.5% of bishops gaining office during the July Monarchy and 26.8%
under the Second Empire, continued to arouse comment and to reveal a
marked distaste for such ‘commoners’—le paysan mitré—among the
upper classes.25
The statistics compiled by Boudon26 reveal a real process of democrati-
zation associated with the demise of the Bourbons in 1830. More than any
other elite group in French society, save perhaps the army officer corps,27
   GOD’S CHURCH    15

Table 2.1  Social origins of French bishops (%)

Period of appointment Nobility Bourgeoisie Petite Peasants Unknown
bourgeoisie

First Empire 47.1 33.8 11.8 7.3

Restoration 59.6 25.3 3 1 11.1
July Monarchy 14.1 41 17.9 16.7 10.3
Second Republic/ 8.5 34 25.5 22.3 9.7
Second Empire
Third Republic 4.5 25 41.5 16.5 12.5

the Church offered a career open to the talented (Table 2.1). Of course, it

was unique in that inheritance could not close off access.
The overall pattern of recruitment to the clergy and deliberate govern-
ment appointments policy ensured that a growing proportion of bishops
came from the ‘popular’ classes. By 1871, according to other calculations,
this was true of 53.3% of the 90 bishops. Of these, 34 came from peasant
families, 18 had fathers who were artisans, 2 were unskilled workers, 15
clerks and 8 traders.28 Nevertheless, as a result of their origins or the pro-
cess of acculturation they had experienced, bishops came overwhelmingly
to belong to the class of notables.
The Prefect of the Oise considered the case of the Abbé Obré, recom-
mended in 1854 for promotion to the see of Evreux. Although coming
from a family of ‘petits cultivateurs’, and indeed possessing ‘some relatives
… in inferior situations’, including a cousin who was a shoemaker in
Beauvais, Obré had proved capable of developing ‘gravité’ in his language,
appearance and bearing. Indeed, he had already acted as tutor to the chil-
dren of the Duc de Clermont-Tonnerre and his appointment to Evreux
would place further distance between himself and his ‘parenté médiocre’.
While subsequently being considered for Amiens, in an interview with the
prefect, Obré admitted that although some members of his extended fam-
ily had become notaries or prosperous farmers, others remained ‘simple
artisans who might cause him to blush’. As a result, it was determined that
he should not be appointed to a diocese close to his place of origin but was
qualified for appointment anywhere else in France. By 1859, however,
when nominated to the see of Nancy, the unfortunate Obré was too con-
cerned about the threat of ‘une congestion cérèbrale’ to accept—causing
considerable surprise and consternation among those who had supported
his candidature.29
16   R. PRICE

Within the Church the bishops represented a small and culturally

homogeneous elite. The social promotion many of them had enjoyed
might have encouraged humility but was more likely to result in pride and
a taste for authority. Generally, there was a considerable intellectual and
cultural gulf between bishops, most of whom had risen through service in
diocesan administration or seminary teaching, and the mass of parish
priests.30 Immersed as they often were in the details of administration,
working closely with their vicars-general and a small secretariat, there was
a constant danger that bishops might isolate themselves from the day-to-­
day realities in the parishes. Educated within the closed world of the semi-
nary and rarely going on to higher education, their own intellectual
limitations would become only too evident when debate was joined with
German, Italian and Spanish colleagues at the Vatican Council in 1870.31
The Abbé Darboy’s opinions of the senior churchmen he encountered
when vicar-general in the Paris diocese—expressed in the privacy of his
diary—were generally less than flattering. Consulted by Fortoul on the
promotion of the Abbé de Guerry, curé of the fashionable Parisian parish
of La Madeleine, to the see of Marseille, he observed that the priest was
‘indiscreet, lacking in tact, subject to frequent changes of opinion, and
had insufficient strength of character to become a bishop’. Following din-
ner with the Cardinal-Archbishop of Lyon, Mgr de Bonald, Darboy
described this eminent figure as ‘rather dull, a listless character, of limited
intelligence’ adding that ‘he represents an older France’. He claimed that
Mgr Meirieu, Bishop of Digne, not only ‘believes in table turning’ [i.e.
spiritualism] but was ‘a narrow-minded, credulous, provincial’. With, it
appears, a certain degree of relish, he recorded the description by Mgr
Menjaud, Bishop of Nancy and chaplain to the Emperor, of his own arch-
bishop as ‘an impressionable man, unreflecting, lacking dignity’. He also
gleefully reported the claim made by the Abbé Coquereau that Mgr
Morlot was regarded by both ministers and members of the clergy as
‘médiocre’ and as someone who had ‘attained such a high position because
no one believed that he would, and no obstacles were placed in his way’.32
In terms of career trajectories it appears that young men identified as
the most able seminarians were earmarked for the most attractive and vis-
ible posts as college or seminary teachers, as parish priests in episcopal
towns and especially Paris, or in diocesan administration. These were all
functions in which an ambitious young priest might establish a reputation
and attract the favour of an influential patron as a first step towards estab-
lishing contacts with significant networks within the French Church or
   GOD’S CHURCH    17

even with the Roman curia.33 To a substantial degree the nomination of

new bishops thus represented a process of co-option which ensured a high
degree of homogeneity. Those already holding office were periodically
requested to name priests suitable for promotion and, in a thorough pro-
cess, information gathered from prefects and other government officials
on their ‘religious and theological tendencies … political opinions …
devotion to the person of the Emperor and to the traditional interests of
the nation.’34 In some cases, such as the appointment of Mgr Bécel to
Vannes, recommendations by members of the local social and political
elite were significant and, in this case, particularly that of the Emperor’s
cousin—the Princess Bacciochi—owner of a château in the diocese.35
The support of bishops was also likely to be canvassed by those anxious
to be considered for promotion—particularly their own senior subordi-
nates and close acquaintances. In recommending the Abbé Obré as suc-
cessor to Mgr Olivier at Evreux and then for appointment as Bishop of
Amiens, the Bishop of Beauvais Mgr Gignoux described a career spent first
as a singularly pious parish priest, then as a well-informed seminary profes-
sor, and finally as an effective vicar-general and administrator. He insisted
that he would regret the loss of such a capable collaborator and was pre-
pared to part with him only in the broader interests of the Church. This
unqualified reference was followed up by a report from the prefect of the
Oise which might have aroused ministerial concern. He described the
vicar-general as ‘inclined to be domineering’ and as an ‘ultramontain, de
l’Ecole de l’Univers’, although otherwise devoted to the regime and
extremely grateful for admission to the Legion d’honneur.36 Such reports
contributed to the creation of substantial personal files on likely candidates
for bishoprics.
The final decision was taken by the Emperor, on the advice, not always
followed, of the Ministre des Cultes. In the consultation process, some
bishops—those close to the Emperor, the ruling family, and ministers—
were of course more influential than others. They included successive
archbishops of Paris and Cardinal Donnet, the long-serving Archbishop of
Bordeaux, whose advice was sought in both Paris and Rome.37 A priest
with particular influence because of his functions, social status and con-
nections, like the canon law expert and eminent member of the Roman
curia, Abbé Louis-Gaston de Ségur, felt able to write directly to the
Emperor. In November 1854, he supported the promotion to the episco-
pate of the Abbé de Conney, vicar-general of Moulins, because of his piety,
theological and political moderation, and of the Abbé Gay, canon of
18   R. PRICE

Limoges, due to his ‘rare sainteté’ and good judgement. Ségur hoped
furthermore that, in a forthcoming audience with the Emperor, he would
be able to expound upon his concern about the ‘lack of character and of
impact of many of our bishops’.38
An unsigned and undated letter among the Fortoul papers, in recom-
mending the establishment of a Commission consultative pour les affaires
ecclésiastiques, with responsibility for systematically consulting bishops
and leading theologians, implies some dissatisfaction with this informal
appointment process. It was further suggested that care needed to be
taken to appoint Gallicans and to counter Ultramontane intrigue.39
Subsequently, Fortoul expressed concern about the rumours and rivalry
stimulated by discussion of potential candidates, reminding the Prefect of
Aveyron of the need for absolute secrecy in such matters and the necessity
of responding to requests for information in sealed envelopes rather than
in telegrams which passed through several hands.40
As well as according to the government the right to nominate bishops,
the Concordat also required subsequent confirmation by the Pope.
Generally, prior consultation with the Papal nuncio in Paris ensured the
appointment of individuals acceptable to both the French State and the
Papacy. Almost by definition they were mainly theological and political
moderates. Nevertheless, and although classification is not always easy, it
is evident that a growing proportion of bishops were or, once in office,
became, ultramontane in terms of their general sympathies, and further-
more, that the appointments they made—particularly of the vicars-general
from whose ranks future bishops were likely to be selected, tended to
favour men whose outlook was similar to their own.41 The trend had com-
menced during the July Monarchy and had reflected the growing appeal
of such ideas among the younger clergy. During the Second Republic, 13
of the 19 bishops appointed, and during the 1850s, 21 of 29, exhibited
sympathy for the Roman cause. In spite of this, a majority of bishops
shared some misgivings about the further extension of Papal centralization
and this group would be strengthened deliberately as relationships dete-
riorated in the following decade.42
The regime’s growing preference for neo-Gallicans and frequently for
priests trained at the Parisian seminary of Saint-Sulpice, who offered each
other mutual support through correspondence and regular meetings, cer-
tainly caused concern in Rome. The bishops appointed in the 1860s were
also increasingly less typical of the clergy in general and particularly of
those described by Emile Ollivier as representatives of ‘l’ultramontanisme
   GOD’S CHURCH    19

du presbytère’––the enthusiastic adherents of the Roman cause.43 This

might by the end of the decade be seen as an attempt by the French gov-
ernment to prepare a challenge to Papal aspirations for the forthcoming
General Council of the Church.44 Increasingly, tension was also caused by
Pius IX’s determination to challenge the secular right of nomination which
he saw as the main obstacle to Papal control over the Church in France. In
case of disagreement, as in the case of the proposed nomination of the
Abbé Marte to Vannes in 1860, the displeasure of the Holy See would be
expressed directly to the French government and intense pressure imposed
on the unfortunate candidate to desist.45
The appointment of a successor to Mgr Morlot as Archbishop of Paris
in 1863 was always going to be fraught with difficulty. The Abbé Maret,
doyen of the Paris theological faculty and a leading Gallican, had responded
to Minister Rouland’s request for advice with a firm warning against the
appointment of an intransigent Ultramontane—‘the question of the
moment is to know whether this anti-modern, anti-French and anti-­
Napoleonic party will be strengthened by the nomination of an Archbishop
of Paris taken from within its ranks’.46 In most respects Mgr Darboy, the
candidate favoured by the government, was well qualified. He had served
in the administration of two previous archbishops, latterly as a vicar-­
general, before his appointment as Bishop of Nancy. He was known to be
an opponent of extreme ultramontanism and a firm supporter of the impe-
rial regime.47 The minister (Rouland) was even prepared to break with
precedent by announcing Darboy’s nomination without consulting the
Papal nuncio.48
The new archbishop’s Gallicanism, his support for the regime’s Italian
policy, and subsequently his criticism of the Syllabus of Errors, were, how-
ever, hardly calculated to endear Darboy to the Pope. Together with his
closest associates within the University theological faculty, and the Société
de Saint-Sulpice and the Ecole des Carmes—responsible for the training
of future priests, he would be regarded with hostile suspicion. In a private
letter written on 26 October 1865 (and eventually leaked in 1868), Pius
even accused the new archbishop of being a ‘proponent of false and erro-
neous doctrines’.49 His unwillingness to appoint Darboy to the cardinalcy,
even when this was requested by the Emperor, was a public expression of
his displeasure. In February 1868, he forcefully maintained that ‘in the
choice of cardinals, I am obliged to prefer candidates who have given
proof of their loyalty to the Holy See in adhering to the principles it has
proclaimed … How can I accept the entry into the college of cardinals of
20   R. PRICE

a prelate who has shown himself to be animated by different principles,

and who has, in a variety of circumstances, inclined towards maxims con-
demned by the Holy See?’50

2.4   The Recruitment of Priests

In spite of their differences, State and Church continued to cooperate in
the post-revolutionary work of religious restoration. Substantial efforts
were made to recruit priests and to improve their instruction, to reinforce
discipline among the clergy, and to encourage pastoral activity and the
spread of Catholic schools. A more numerous, rejuvenated and dynamic
priesthood emerged, anxious to exert its influence and confident in its
powers. The parish clergy in 1870 included an influential elite of 3450
curés in tenured posts—enjoying a limited administrative, but certainly not
doctrinal autonomy—generally located in major urban parishes and can-
tonal centres. The remainder was made up of 31,000 untenured desser-
vants, responsible for smaller, mainly rural parishes; 10,700 vicaires and
4750 prêtres habitués providing assistance in the larger parishes, often
assuming responsibility for a chapel of ease established in part of an espe-
cially populous or geographically extensive parish; as well as some 5000
secular priests serving as teachers in seminaries and collèges or as chaplains
in prisons, hospitals, schools or in the service of religious congregations;
and a further 1000 engaged in diocesan administration.51 With the excep-
tion of curés these secular priests were entirely subject to diocesan bishops
who had ‘the exclusive right to appoint and to revoke’ as a means of bal-
ancing supply/demand and of imposing discipline.52 Thus, when the Abbé
Reboul, curé of La Madeleine in Béziers omitted the prayer for the
Emperor in January 1853, the Bishop of Montpellier forcefully reminded
clergy that under no circumstances should they deviate from the formal
instructions in this matter given both by himself and the Ministère des
Cultes. There was no room for debate, no right of appeal to local custom,
simply the assertion that ‘the proper authority … inspired by his rights and
duties controls the interior of our churches … assuming a responsibility
which cannot be left to the free will of individual [priests]’.53
In terms of density, whereas in 1821 there had been one priest for every
814 inhabitants (excluding the religious orders), by 1848, the figure had
risen to 1:752 and by 1877 to 1:657, although there were substantial
variations in this clerical presence—between 1:463  in the Tarn in 1870
and, at the other extreme, 1:858  in the Loir-et-Cher.54 The clergy had
   GOD’S CHURCH    21

moreover been rejuvenated. In 1814, 42% of diocesan priests were at least

60 years old; by 1848, this was true of only 6%.55 Subsequently, between
1852 and 1860, an average of 1310 ordinations occurred annually, while
only around 800 secular clergy died.56 As a result, there were, by 1860,
around 50,000 secular priests, active in 36,000 parishes, and, in addition,
some 25,000 monks and 120,000 nuns, resident in 14,000 religious
houses.57 A peak of 1753 ordinations would be achieved in 1868.58
However, the situation was already beginning to deteriorate as priests
recruited earlier in the century died and as the status of the clergy and the
attractiveness of a clerical career began to decline.59 Their numbers and
distinctive garb still ensured, however, that the clergy remained a visible
presence in French society. Indeed, they were a formidable body—
‘l’élément d’encadrement essentiel’ in many communities.60
In general, recruitment was relatively easy in the west—although illit-
eracy restricted the numbers of suitable candidates; in Flanders, the
Franche-Comté, Massif Central and parts of the Midi, regions in which
populations remained devoted to their priests and in which the prestige,
influence and material comfort of the clergy seemed assured. It was much
more difficult in parts of central France, in Bourgogne and especially in
Champagne and the Paris region. In the diocese of Meaux, for example,
the rate of ordinations per 100,000 Catholics between 1853 and 1870
was only 16.4 compared with a national average of 37.61 These differences
can be explained only very roughly in terms of the varying intensity of
religious faith, as measured by the number of Easter Communicants.
Population densities and access to land, literacy as well as celibacy rates,
local models of social promotion, and the sustained impact of missionary
activity in the previous century, all contributed to the definition of dis-
crete cultural zones. In the second half of the nineteenth century voca-
tions appear to have been especially common in rural areas with high
population densities and restricted opportunities for upward mobility,
rather than in the more dynamic economic regions. As a result, the dio-
cese of Montpellier depended on neighbouring upland dioceses (Viviers,
Rodez, Mende) to supply it with a sufficient number of priests. In areas of
strong recruitment, the majority of priests tended to come from the coun-
tryside. Elsewhere, in dioceses like Orleans or Limoges, where much of
the rural population was rather indifferent, most of the priests came from
the towns but in insufficient numbers.62 Paradoxically, a ruralization of
recruitment appears to have been developing just as society was becoming
more urban.
22   R. PRICE

Numbers were important. Areas which found it difficult to recruit

priests were often forced to accept unsuitable candidates or the rejects
from more plethoric dioceses. In the nature of things, ‘good’ parishes
tended to receive ‘good’ priests and ‘bad’ parishes had ‘bad’ priests, that
is, the incompetent, indifferent or those with low social status, priests who
might well have been removed from a regional linguistic and cultural con-
text in which they were comfortable and, due to a surplus of priests,
deposited in a diocese with very different religious mores and patterns of
behaviour.63 As a result of the large number of priests ordained in his dio-
cese, Mgr Bouvier, Bishop of Le Mans, prided himself on being able to
select committed and able parish priests and to reject those whose voca-
tions appeared doubtful and education incomplete. It was possible to
maintain a high density of priests and to expect them to engage in close
pastoral care of their parishioners.64 In contrast, Mgr Regnault, Bishop of
Chartres, bemoaned his inability to provide a priest for every parish. In
March 1869, there were 47 vacancies, and parishes with relatively small
populations were likely to have to share a priest, who might well be non-­
resident, provide fewer services and less intense pastoral care than was the
norm. In a situation in which he was unable to pick and choose, it was also
the case that the overall quality of the clergy was diminished.65 In such
circumstances, the mayor of Les Ecrennes (Seine-et-Marne), despairing at
having to rely on clergy from other parishes, offered to supplement the
stipend, and renovate the presbytery, ready for a new priest—but to no
avail. The bishop continued to insist that no priest was available.66 An
inhabitant of Monfiquet in Normandy, a little village with only 300 inhab-
itants, lost in the forest of Biards, complained that in ten years four priests
had been appointed to the parish, ‘all of them mediocrities’ and with long
intervals between the departure of one and the arrival of his successor.67
Judging from the complaints this might well have been a parish which
served as a dumping ground for inadequate priests.
Particular problems were evident in the larger, rapidly growing cities,
and especially in their suburbs. In the Paris diocese, low levels of recruit-
ment to the clergy combined with high levels of population immigration
to cause growing pastoral difficulties. The relative lack of ordinations was
partly compensated for, however, by the substantial recruitment of
priests—over 70% of them—in the provinces, although many had received
their seminary instruction in the city.68 As the undoubted religious capital
of France, Paris attracted both the ambitious and able as well as those who
had already failed elsewhere and who would frequently seek to make ends
   GOD’S CHURCH    23

meet through the accumulation of minor tasks.69 Overall the number of

secular clergy of all kinds, including teachers, administrators and chap-
lains, increased from 752 to 1368 between 1852 and 1870, a rate of
growth exceeding that of the population and generally assumed by
­contemporary observers to be sufficient.70 Of these, some 256 in 1841,
285 in 1851, and 491 in 1870 were parish priests charged with the care of
souls.71 This parish clergy was supported by 1200 regular clergy and 4000
nuns, as well as by the lay activists of organizations like the Société de
Saint-Vincent-de-Paul.72
It was not simply the number of priests which mattered, however, but
their distribution. The rigidities of the parish structure were an obstacle to
change. In 1840, Paris was divided into 37 parishes. In 1856, this was
increased to 46 and, following the annexation of the suburbs in 1860, the
number rose to 70. Most priests were anxious to secure appointments in
the city centre which were more prestigious, better rewarded and less
demanding than most suburban parishes. As the novels of Balzac and Zola
suggest, the priest was a familiar figure in the city streets. In contrast, the
often dire situation in the suburbs was exacerbated by the inability of
hard-pressed working-class parishes to finance the appointment of an ade-
quate number of clergy.73 If, in 1861, in the Paris diocese there was one
priest for every 2956 inhabitants, the Abbé Darboy’s inquiries in 1856
had revealed that in working-class Montmartre the figure was 1:4000 and
in Belleville 1:5000.74 The often hurried and cursory fashion in which
marriages and burials appeared to be conducted by priests whose func-
tions gave them little time for repose, was cause for concern within the
Church. It also aroused deep resentment among distraught relatives.
Thus, a certain M.  Cuny, who had requested a mass to accompany the
burial of his daughter-in-law at Saint Jean in Belleville in November 1858,
complained that although the fees had been paid, the mass had not been
sung. The reassurance by the parish priest that it had simply been post-
poned to the following day—and had been sung in the absence of the
bereaved family—offered little comfort.75 Similar situations were evident
in most urban centres. In Marseille, there had been one parish priest for
every 1740 inhabitants in 1821. The ratio, however, had declined to
1:2450 by 1861. Typically, the bourgeois parish of St Philippe employed
the same number of priests (six) to care for the souls of 5000 people, as
the socially more mixed la Belle-du-Mai for 15,680 parishioners.76
Moreover, concern was being expressed already about a decline in enrol-
ments in the grands seminaires.77 Gradually, in some areas, the passing
24   R. PRICE

away of priests ordained during the Restoration and early July Monarchy
came to exceed the number of ordinations.78
There were a variety of reasons for becoming a priest. Not surprisingly,
socialization within a fervent religious milieu was the key factor. Family
upbringing, and particularly the influence of a pious mother, frequently
appears to have been decisive in the transmission of values and the devel-
opment of a sense of vocation.79 Elected to the Constituent Assembly
from the Pas-de-Calais in April 1848, the Abbé Frechon had from infancy
been dedicated to the service of God by his parents (a hatter and his
wife).80 Family tradition was also significant, with many aspiring young
men influenced by uncles or other relatives who were priests already. An
acquaintanceship with an individual bon prêtre might be sufficient other-
wise. In general, the clergy were zealous in their efforts to identify and
encourage the vocations of intelligent and pious children, from the ages of
8 or 9.81 Motivation is, of course, a complex matter. It is doubtful, h
­ owever,
whether in most cases the long training and the pious behaviour expected
of priests could have been sustained without genuine religious commit-
ment, a sense of answering God’s call, constantly reinforced by the envel-
oping value system established by the Church and prevailing in the wider
society.
If faith was central to the development of religious vocations, so too
were family aspirations. Nobles, wealthy bourgeois and professional fami-
lies appear, to a significant degree, to have excluded themselves from a
calling which, from their perspective, had failed to provide sufficient finan-
cial independence and social status since the Revolution, and which
seemed to have reduced the priest to the position of a functionary paid by
the State. The overwhelming majority of candidates for the priesthood
(about 90%) in the nineteenth century were from the landowning peas-
antry and lower middle classes, and especially the families of artisans and
traders resident in the small towns of pre-industrial France. In many
regions having a priest in the family reinforced its status. Thus, religious
motives combined with a family’s marriage and economic strategies. These
were the social groups which would also become increasingly attracted to
school-teaching as a means of social promotion.82 In any case, the sons of
the poorest peasants, agricultural labourers and urban workers were largely
excluded from the priesthood by lack of education and ambition. Their
families could rarely manage without their earnings. In the Pays de Retz,
in the Nantes diocese, recruitment from the coastal fishing communities
was rare, in spite of the manifestations of faith by their inhabitants, in large
   GOD’S CHURCH    25

part because poverty precluded educating sons for the priesthood.83 It was
reported nevertheless from the impoverished southern diocese of Mende,
where Protestantism still appeared to pose a threat, that many families ‘do
without for several years, if necessary burdening themselves with debt, in
order to make a priest, according to the local expression. Those families
which are fortunate enough to succeed improve their situation within the
social hierarchy; they are more in demand for [marriage] alliances.’84
In his Lenten address for 1863, the aristocratic Mgr La Tour
d’Auvergne recognized that ‘the clergy are no longer recruited primarily
from the higher levels of society: whether as a result of the revolutions, or
the necessity of circumstances, or the Divine Will, it is in other, less privi-
leged classes—in terms of birth and fortune—although not less loved by
the Saviour of Mankind, it is in the home of the poor, under the thatched
roof of the farmer, that the Lord today searches for the chosen …’.85
Adopting a more pessimistic tone, perhaps depressed by the parlous situ-
ation prevailing in his own Orleans diocese, Mgr Dupanloup loftily com-
plained in a ‘Lettre pastorale sur la rareté des vocations sacerdotales’ (1861)
that the care of souls ‘is henceforward assured only by the plebians’ and
that ‘the spirit of cupidity’ had replaced ‘the spirit of faith’. Furthermore,
as Bishop Bouvier of Le Mans warned, cultural deprivation, and an inabil-
ity to mix in ‘polite society’ were all too likely to deprive the priest of ‘the
high moral tone so important in our holy calling’.86 Another consequence
of its origins, according to the Prefect of the Meurthe, was that the rural
clergy, which ‘recruits itself, for the most part, in the inferior classes …
appear to have retained from their origins a certain harshness of charac-
ter, which combined with an exaggerated sense of their individual value
and social importance, frequently provokes conflict with the municipal
authorities’.87
A respected, influential and indeed dignified position, which further-
more offered relative security and material comfort, and the role of ‘chef
du village’, must for many candidates for the priesthood have appeared
preferable to hard physical labour in the fields and workshops.88 Alternatives
were limited—but who would have admitted to such thoughts! Indeed, as
Mgr Bouvier had pointed out in 1846, ‘they might not be able to aspire
to wealth, but realise that they will not lack necessities if they remain faith-
ful to their holy vocations; they will face fewer obstacles to securing life
thereafter, and be sheltered from the innumerable vicissitudes to which
ordinary men are exposed in their present lives’.89 Seminary students were
moreover exempt from conscription, and might be awarded financial
26   R. PRICE

grants (bourses) to subsidize their studies, although, and in spite of sub-

stantial government assistance, providing these imposed a constant strain
on diocesan finances.90
Of course, parents were not always rendered blissfully happy by their
children’s religious vocations. It was easier to accept where they had been
blessed with a large family. In contrast, a semi-literate letter from a certain
Joseph Sorel from Bulle (Oise) complained that he and his wife had made
considerable sacrifices to educate their only son so that he could become a
school teacher and help support them in their old age. Instead, and with-
out asking for their approval, he had determined to become a missionary.
The superior of the Séminaire des Missions Etrangères in the rue de Bac
in Paris responded by pointing out that the younger Sorel was of age, had
indeed already performed his military service, and had entered the semi-
nary of his own free will.91
Some of those who had chosen to become priests or enter religious
orders would come to doubt their vocations. The contrast between the
high ideals associated with a sense of vocation and the realities of parish
life might well provoke disillusionment. The combination of faith, estab-
lished habits, reluctance to admit to doubt, and pressure to conform—
reinforced by isolation, mutual surveillance, and discouragement of close
friendships, and the resulting ‘immolation’ of the individual’s personality,
ensured that relatively few would renounce their vows, however. In all
likelihood, a former priest would have felt reduced to a mortifying state of
sin.92 Having doubts about one’s love of God or indeed concerning God’s
love must have been profoundly depressing but might be sublimated—in
the words of an anonymous priest in the diocese of Vannes—by the reas-
suring sense of belonging to the elect—‘My vocation is sublime! … It is
God who has called us.’93

2.5   Educating the Clergy

The response of priests to the needs of a changing society was largely
determined by their instruction and the perceptions of the world and of
their mission which this provided. In his first encyclical Qui pluribus (9
November 1846), Pius IX had insisted on the vital importance of provid-
ing intending priests with a good education, according to the precepts of
the Council of Trent. Thus seminary students should be ‘instructed … in
the fear of the Lord, in the love of ecclesiastical discipline; [and] moulded
according to Catholic doctrine … especially in the knowledge of the sacred
   GOD’S CHURCH    27

sciences, the traditions of the Church, the writings of the holy fathers, and
the sacred rites’.94
The early education of those identified by their parish priests as having
potential generally took place in the local primary school, and was likely to
be supplemented, from the age of 10 or 12, by tuition in the presbytery
where priests offered instruction to perhaps half a dozen pupils at a time.
The clergy took great pride in encouraging likely candidates for the priest-
hood and in providing them with the first rudiments of a religious educa-
tion. Guidance might also be offered by members of the teaching orders
or by devout lay teachers. During this time, according to the Abbé
Gaduel’s guide—De la vocation ecclésiastique chez les enfants et de leur pre-
mière éducation dans les presbytères—pupils should be informed of the
‘great truths of the faith: of the end of man, of the shortness of life and the
insignificance of the things of this world, of the eternity … which must so
soon succeed to the fleeting illusions of the present life, of the judgments
of God and of his justice for sinners, of … the dreadful results of sin, and
the terrifying punishments which will afflict sinners in this life and in the
next’. This would serve as the foundation for a Christian life. It was also
the moment to acquire some Latin, not provided in the primary schools,
but essential for the future priest.95 In this respect, for the sons of peasants
and artisans, the école presbytère was the essential link between primary and
secondary instruction.
The latter was provided for around seven years, by the petit séminaire
(in the case of 63.2% of bishops appointed during the nineteenth century)
or by public or private secondary schools (in the case of 42.14%).96 The
aim was to impart a traditional classical education and the best of the petit
séminaires tried to emulate the state lycées. In the main, they were board-
ing schools, established generally in small towns isolated from corrupting
influences. Thus, in the diocese of Rennes at mid-century there were
two—at Vitré and Saint-Méen-le-Grand with 350 students and 19
priests.97 The institution at Notre-Dame-des-Champs in Paris was excep-
tional in its national appeal, attracting the sons of the aristocracy and haute
bourgeoisie as well as serving the diocese.98 According to the Abbé Gaduel,
the objective of instruction in the petits séminaires should be to ensure that
‘sweet, pious, docile and pure children love God and adore the Holy
Virgin, [and] escape from the temptations of the world …’99 It was vitally
important to mould the characters of the young and impressionable, and
secure the internalization of faith and discipline. In the diocese of Angers,
pupils were expected to live ‘in hunger and thirst for justice and consequently
28   R. PRICE

in the spirit of penitence, so as to purify themselves; in the spirit of morti-

fication, so as to overcome vice and passion; in the spirit of prayer, in fulfil-
ment of their duties to God and to His Holy Spirit; in a profound religious
faith; in humility; in complete obedience towards those who represent the
authority of God on earth; and finally in the state of perfect charity and
holy submission which is the crowning glory of Christian virtue’.100 In
addition to the Latin of Virgil, Ovid, Horace and Cicero, some Greek and
pre-eighteenth-century French literature and a little history were taught.
Modern languages and science were utterly neglected. Far greater impor-
tance was attached to the round of prayer, meditation and spiritual exer-
cises. From the age of 14, pupils adopted the ecclesiastical dress which
marked them off from other adolescents.101
During this period young men were drawn more and more into a men-
tal universe divorced from that of their families of origin. This pressure to
maintain a distance between God’s chosen and the laity was to be con-
stant. Pupils were persuaded of the supreme importance of their religious
mission and inevitably of their own personal worth. According to the
superior of the petit séminaire at Nantes, ‘the saintliness which would have
been sufficient to ensure your salvation as a member of the laity, would not
be sufficient for a member of the clergy … The life of the priest must be
like a permanently open book in which laymen can find lessons in wisdom,
modesty, piety, and all the virtues.’102 Having been chosen by God to enter
this enclosed world, it would become increasingly difficult ever to con-
template leaving it, an act which moreover would bring shame on the
individual and his family.103 Discipline, self-criticism, silence, study, isola-
tion, and cultivation of the Christian virtues were central elements in the
instruction of future priests. The petit séminaire was to be distinguished by
the spirituality of the instruction it offered. Nevertheless, for financial rea-
sons, these institutions also needed to attract pupils who had no intention
of entering the priesthood. The other advantages of attracting the sons of
local notables were spelled out by Mgr Dupanloup—‘Opening the [petits]
séminaires to all, besides bringing in the money of the rich, provides the
means to elevate the poor, through their daily contact and their shared
education … a mutual exchange of advantages to the benefit of all.’104
State inspectors, however, frequently insisted upon the mediocrity of
the instruction provided.105 In July 1861, the Academic Rector at Rennes
was especially concerned about the ‘mutiny’ rumoured to have occurred
in the petit séminaire at Mayenne in protest against poor food and corpo-
ral punishment. He maintained that, taught mainly by inexperienced
   GOD’S CHURCH    29

young priests awaiting appointment to a parish, pupils in petits séminaires

were at least one year behind lycée students of the same age. At
Châteaugontier, he claimed, pupils regularly scaled the seminary walls and
even frequented the town’s brothels.106 However, by the Second Empire,
as the shortage of priests left by the Revolution was ended finally, and in
the regions of faith where potential recruits were plentiful, growing selec-
tivity does appear to have led to an improvement in the quality and com-
mitment of students.107
The grand séminaire was the next step in preparation for God’s minis-
try and in the inculcation of a priestly culture. The Concordat had pro-
vided for the establishment of one in each diocese. In the 1870s while 33
seminaries were directed by members of the diocesan clergy, most were
administered by members of religious orders—22 by Lazarists; 24 by
Sulpicians; and 6 by Jesuits. Undoubtedly, the most prestigious institu-
tion, its model of instruction widely imitated, was that of the Sulpician
order in the Place Saint-Sulpice in Paris.108 In a fairly benevolent socio-­
political climate the number of seminarists would fluctuate between 7500
and 8800 between 1848 and 1868. Selection of students was based upon
the intellectual ability of candidates and especially on their piety. Rather
than the lack of applicants it was financial constraints on the provision of
assistance to potential students which restricted expansion.109
The instruction provided helped determine the socio-political outlook
as well as the pastoral qualities of the future priest. Hatred of the Revolution
which had attempted to deny the truths of religious faith and to destroy
the fabric of the Church, contributed to an intense suspicion of ‘modern’
ideas, of social change and the prospect of secularization, and a marked—if
increasingly unrealistic—preference for a further restoration of the
Bourbon monarchy. Such was the government’s concern that a circular of
5 February 1853 instructed prefects to gather information ‘discreetly’ on
seminary directors and professors and especially on ‘their character, their
capacity, their reputation, and their political opinions’. In his response the
Prefect of Eure-et-Loir stressed the significance of the strategic position
occupied by the Abbé Paquert, superior of the diocesan grand séminaire,
in determining both the spiritual instruction and career paths of the clergy.
He judged the professors at the seminary to be entirely undistinguished
and offering a mediocre education. Together with most of the clergy in
the diocese, moreover, they shared Legitimist political sympathies.110 In
contrast, the Prefect of Côtes-du-Nord provided a far more positive assess-
ment of the instruction afforded to aspiring priests in the diocese of
30   R. PRICE

­ aint-­Brieuc, as did Mgr Pie, at whose diocesan seminary in Poitiers in the

S
1850s at any one time six clerical professors sought to instruct around 80
seminarists.111
The quality of the education provided certainly varied. In general, how-
ever, it appears to have been intellectually undemanding, perhaps unavoid-
ably so, given the low cultural levels previously attained by most students.
Teaching was characterized by an unimaginative routine within an author-
itarian environment. Often, the instructors themselves appear to have
been selected because of their piety rather than intellect. Typically, over
four or five years, students received instruction in religious dogma and
morality, and a grounding in religious and general history, in canon law
and the liturgy. They were introduced to the essentials of dogmatic theol-
ogy, which would prepare them for the work of catechizing, and to the
rigorist moral theology essential for future confessors. ‘They learned to
love the liturgy and develop the practices of a solid spiritual life.’112
Students made use of manuals composed of extracts from the Bible—
employed as ‘a repository of doctrinal opinion’, from the deliberations of
the Councils of the Church and from diverse works of piety.113 As part of
this project the Abbé Migne worked tirelessly from his Parisian printing
works to compensate for the destruction of libraries during the Revolution
by providing low-cost editions of Scripturae sacrae cursus completus (‘com-
plete course in sacred scripture’) including commentaries on each of the
books of the Bible; a Collection des auteurs sacrés (100 vols, 1846–48); and
a wide-ranging Encyclopédie théologique (171 vols, 1844–46) offering
guidance to parish priests.114
In the late 1850s, in the cold, uncomfortable and insalubrious seminary
directed by the Lazarist order at Cambrai, teaching was based on the
explication of chosen themes developed in an authoritarian fashion.
Independence of mind was definitely not encouraged. Success in examina-
tions depended on rote learning. There was no library. Discipline was
ferocious, surveillance constant.115 At no stage in the training of the future
priest was personal curiosity or initiative encouraged. The objective was to
train bons prêtres who identified with the suffering of Jesus Christ, who
would be pious, docile, disciplined and zealous in the performance of their
duties. Inspired by an Augustinian emphasis on the human depravity
brought about by the ‘original sin’ of Adam and Eve, they would empha-
size man’s dependence on God’s grace for salvation.116
The Abbé Tissot described a typical day in the Sulpician seminary at
Brou near Bourg-en-Bresse around the middle of the century. There, ‘the
   GOD’S CHURCH    31

life of the grand séminaire is as if set in a mould. Everything is regulated

in almost mathematical fashion.’ From the moment of getting up at 5
o’clock, to returning to bed at 9, students experienced a carefully regu-
lated day of teaching and prayer, of meals eaten while listening to readings
from the scriptures, the martyrology and spiritual works, with the all-­
pervading silence interrupted by two noisy and more relaxed periods of
recreation in the cloisters. This was the routine imposed through five years
of study. There was constant pressure, imposed both by the careful sub-­
division of time and by a rigid discipline, reinforced by mutual surveillance
and denunciation, by the confession of faults, and an internalized determi-
nation to achieve ‘perfection’.117 Similarly, in the grand séminaire at
Nantes, alongside theology, and guidance in pastoral care and the tech-
niques of conducting a service, instruction in personal behaviour—a pro-
cess of acculturation—continued. The future priest should appreciate the
need to dress—in priestly cassock—speak, and even move his body with
studied care. Regulations insisted that the seminarian must ‘carefully
observe the rules of modesty, remaining dignified and serious in appear-
ance, avoiding all frivolity and banter, moderating his voice, avoiding out-
bursts of laughter’. Spitting on the floor in chapel was also forbidden!118
New behavioural norms were being imposed, especially on students from
the countryside. Modesty, dignity, cleanliness, politeness—particularly in
dealings with the upper classes—were all characteristics of the ideal priest,
along with religious devotion and frequent prayer. The regulations of the
seminary at Marseille typically proscribed close friendships, ‘those amitiés
particulières which are based on purely natural inclination and not on
charity or the desire for perfection, and the least harmful consequences of
which are dissipation, waste of time, contempt for others, infraction of
rules, and distrust of those who are there to guide us’.119 Vacations were
rare and brief. There was a concern that young men, returning to their
homes, might well question their vocations. It was thus expected that stu-
dents would maintain the routine of study and prayer and habits of piety,
looking towards their parish priest for assistance in the on-going pursuit of
personal sanctification.120
Writing to his parents in 1847 from the seminary at Orleans, which he
had only recently entered, Louis Baunard complained that ‘I am finding it
very difficult to enter into the ecclesiastical world … The aridity of the
studies, the rigidity of the rules, the solitude of my cell, the stress caused
by constant surveillance and the triviality … of conversations, all of this is
painful for me.’121 Most seminarians would probably have been better
32   R. PRICE

prepared by the routines of the petit séminaire and less aware of, or con-
cerned by, the intellectual mediocrity of their studies. In a report on dioc-
esan seminaries prepared for Cardinal Lambruschini, Prefect of the
Congrégation des Etudes in Rome, Mgr Affre insisted that the instruction
provided was of ‘an elementary and eminently practical character’, warn-
ing that if it became ‘more extensive, more developed, it would fail to
achieve its goal, because it would not be adapted to the ability of most of
those to whom it is addressed and would be suitable only for the small
number of more able students’. His complacent conclusion was that ‘the
seminaries, just as they are, respond well to the general needs of the Eglise
de France’.122
The establishment in Paris, by the then Abbé Affre in 1845, of the
Ecole des Carmes as an institution for advanced religious studies had nev-
ertheless represented a small sign of a growing awareness of the shortcom-
ings of priestly instruction. Bishops, however, remained suspicious of the
centralizing ambitions of successive archbishops of Paris and reluctant to
send their best young priests to study in the city. Furthermore, career
prospects were more likely to be advanced by study in Rome.123 The open-
ing there of the French seminary in 1853, encouraged by the Pope, would
provide a means of creating a romanized clerical elite.124 By 1870, 340
students, selected by ultramontane bishops, had been admitted.125
In all, around 20–30% of seminary students would fail to complete
their studies. They were ‘seduced’ by the attractions of secular society,
whether it be women or alternative professional careers, had questioned
their vocations, or were suffering from poor health, and particularly tuber-
culosis, made worse by austere living conditions.126 The remainder, those
who had completed their studies and proved themselves—through their
good conduct and respect for religion and their superiors—were ready for
ordination, an imposing, long, and carefully choreographed ceremony, in
which, among numerous complex and symbolic gestures, the essential ele-
ments were the prostration of the ordinand before the altar, and the laying
on of the bishop’s hands in the act of consecration.127 This was followed
by the celebration of the new priest’s first mass, conducted in private and
attended only by a priest and relatives, and then the first public grande
messe often celebrated in his native parish.128 Once ordained, usually
around the age of 24–26, priests were appointed to parishes, often living
collectively in a presbytery under the constant and frequently humiliating
supervision of a senior priest. Subsequent promotion from vicaire to
desservant or curé was unlikely before a priest reached his early forties.129
   GOD’S CHURCH    33

In Paris, in spite of an increase in the number of parishes, most parish

priests would always remain vicaires.
In the deliberately enclosed world of the seminary there had been little
preparation for the realities of parish life or for the challenges posed by
urbanization and secularization. In spite of the invocations against pride,
newly ordained priests were easily led to consider themselves as special and
distinguished from the rest of humanity. After all, they had been chosen by
Providence to engage in a Holy Mission and would share in the Glory of
Christ. How their lofty status, long training and relative social isolation,
together with the need to sublimate sexual desire, affected the personali-
ties of individual priests is impossible to determine. The psychological
impact of the constant struggle to remain irreproachable, to behave with
dignity and self-control, and to satisfy popular expectations of the bon
prêtre, as well as endure surveillance by colleagues, superiors and parishio-
ners must have been considerable. Nevertheless, the Divine gift of spiritual
consolation—and inner strength—might be gained through constant
prayer and supplication and humble abandonment of oneself to the Will of
God.
Regular informal meetings with clergy from neighbouring parishes
offered mutual support. In a letter to his bishop, the Abbé Billet, priest in
the small community of Rahon (Jura), explained that priests usually gath-
ered twice weekly, and that ‘the object of these visits is not only an honest
recreation, but the need for advice and the advantage of meeting with
those who have the same objectives, the same spirit, the same duties as
myself, and who can sometimes instruct me, console me, and revive my
courage’.130 Priests might remain in a parish for decades, occupying them-
selves with their religious duties, influenced by such helpful, and frequently
re-printed guides as the Abbé Dupanloup’s Manuel des catéchismes and
Manuel de première communion or the Abbé Migne’s Dictionnaire des
objections populaires contre le dogme…contenant pour chaque difficulté une
réponse claire et précise, a volume which was part of an ambitious project by
its author to create a complete library for parish priests, providing them
with all the elements of Catholic ‘science’.131 Many young priests also
searched for inspiration in the pastoral letters regularly published by their
bishops, and the sermons of illustrious preachers, as well as in the pages of
the diocesan semaines religieuses which became increasingly common from
the 1860s.
Increasingly, efforts were also made to stimulate their intellects, and
above all to encourage the continuous striving for perfection, by means of
34   R. PRICE

localized conférences ecclésiastiques where, as in the diocese of Le Mans,

priests met every two or three months to discuss the practical problems of
pastoral care, as well as ‘des points de théologie dogmatique ou morale’.132
Perhaps because of their formal character, these do not appear to have
been regarded with great enthusiasm by the clergy.133 The much larger
annual retreats, generally held in the grand séminaire, were another means
of countering the isolation of the rural clergy. Appointed in 1849 to the
diocese of Poitiers which, unusually, included the two departments of
Deux-Sèvres and Vienne, with 630 parishes and a thousand priests, Mgr
Pie was particularly anxious to improve their intellectual and pastoral
attainments.134 However, discussion was invariably restricted within very
narrow and closely controlled doctrinal and spiritual bounds.135 The
results were mixed. It took time to overcome inertia. In the 1840s, the
Bishop of Saint-Brieuc, Mgr Le Mée, insisted on attendance at least once
every three years. Following construction of a new grand seminaire with
space for 400 students in 1846, it became possible to require attendance
every other year for ‘four days of contemplation and of separation from
the world, allowing time for self-reflection, to examine the depths of one’s
conscience and consider the frightening responsibility of a demanding and
challenging ministry’.136
Independent reading—self-instruction—was most likely to involve
devotional works which provided a one-sided view of a restricted range of
theological questions. In 1861, Mgr Dupanloup judged these pious
works, full of ‘puérile sentimentalité’, to be ‘mediocre and worse than
mediocre … devoid of substance and incredibly bland’ and concluded,
anxiously, that they could not possibly provide ‘sustenance for Christian
souls’.137 He was unusual in recognizing that the Church was in transition
between ‘a past … which has bequeathed practices and habits of pastoral
ministry, entirely insufficient for new needs, and a future for which our
means of action have not yet been organised’, and that as a result, ‘the
ecclesiastical ministry exercises itself and functions in a manner which
ensures that a substantial part of society remains outside its influence’.138
Younger priests were particularly likely to read and circulate the combative
and intransigent ultramontane newspaper L’Univers.139 This served to
confirm a fundamental hostility towards social and political change. Priests
were also encouraged by their bishops to enquire into the history of their
churches and parishes, and to become members of learned societies.
Achieving the status of an érudit was one means by which a priest of
humble origin might enhance his status as a local notable and his career
   GOD’S CHURCH    35

prospects.140 History, archaeology, biography and hagiography—and

notably the edifying lives of recently deceased bishops—were all popular,
and served to confirm the overwhelmingly counter-revolutionary proclivi-
ties of the clergy.141

2.6   Hierarchy and Discipline

According to the provisions of both canon law and the Concordat, curés
enjoyed tenure in office, and thus a degree of autonomy, as well as greater
security in comparison with the mass of parish priests. This might of course
turn out to be an illusion. Priests could be ‘persuaded’ to resign by the
promise of promotion, in the interests of their parishioners, or of the
Church, or else by the threat of sanctions including the temporary loss of
stipends or, in extreme instances, of de-frocking.142 The Baronne de
Monville employed all the resources at her disposal in an attempt to replace
the Abbé Petit, the curé of Mainsat (Creuse). He appears to have dis-
pleased her son-in-law, M. de La Roche-Aymon—the leading landowner,
‘benefactor’ and mayor of the commune—by voting against the re-­
establishment of the Empire. Initially, Mme de Monville appealed to the
Bishop of Limoges who had pointed out that the Abbé Petit occupied a
tenured position and could not be moved without his consent. However,
in a letter to the Emperor in November 1853, reminding him of her cre-
dentials as a daughter of Marshal Lannes, and asking him to exercise his
influence, she pointed out that such matters were constantly being
arranged.143 At the same time, in a very forceful letter to Fortoul, after
reminding the minister that her brother, General de Montebello, was an
aide-de-camp to the Emperor, the Baronne expressed her ‘conviction’ that
the Abbé Petit would regard a ‘suggestion’ from his Bishop as an ‘order’
and, if necessary, the minister could threaten to deprive the priest of his
stipend.144
Where non-tenured positions were in question, ministers normally
accepted that ‘it is the responsibility of bishops to make appointments to
ecclesiastical posts; the civil administration must abstain from all interfer-
ence in the nominations of desservants and of vicaires’.145 Around 90% of
parish priests were thus movable, at their bishop’s behest and in response
to the needs of pastoral care, as a means of promotion, or as a disciplinary
measure.146 The latter were most likely to take the form of a simple admo-
nition, as in the not untypical case of the Abbé Aubertin at Louppy-le-­
Château (Meuse) criticized for ‘imprudent’ and ‘maladroit’ relations with
36   R. PRICE

his parishioners.147 Priests were also frequently instructed not to condemn

named individuals from the pulpit for their moral transgressions,148
warned against displaying an excessive ‘esprit de domination’149 or even
‘excessive zeal’,150 and advised to display greater dignity and reserve.151
Failure to heed such warnings, or the apparently irretrievable breakdown
of relationships between a priest and his parishioners, could lead to a
transfer to another parish. Thus, like many other priests, the desservant at
Draveil (Seine-et-Oise) had quarrelled repeatedly with the commune’s
mayor, but went too far when he published a circular listing his griev-
ances.152 The Abbé Vigny at Couvrot in the Marne overstepped the mark
finally when he publicly insulted the mayor and his deputy at a session of
the parish council.153 The Abbé Bénavont, desservant of Durenque in the
mountainous Aveyron was moved, after several warnings, not because of
his politics, as the Bishop of Rodez took care to point out, but due to his
lifestyle, ‘his gluttony and expenditure beyond his presumed means, his
frequenting of persons of the opposite sex’.154 In the case of the parish
priest at Imling, accused by his parishioners of neglect of his duties and
alcoholism, Mgr Darboy, the Bishop of Nancy, concluded that the Abbé
Deblaye was too committed to his historical and archaeological studies
and intellectually unsuited to an isolated village. Typically, he also insisted
that the transfer of the priest to another parish would occur only once
spirits had calmed, to avoid confirming the impression that the priest had
been in the wrong.155
In spite of the legal situation, the archives are full of petitions from
mayors, councillors and ordinary citizens, requesting the transfer of priests.
These might be sent to bishops, prefects, and ministers, often successively.
Thus, the municipal council at Bouxières-aux-Chênes claimed that their
‘tyrannical’ parish priest had driven away a succession of lay school-­teachers
and removed a harmonium from the church. The councillors had appealed
to the Bishop of Nancy, without success, and then determined to try their
luck with the Ministre des Cultes.156 In a relatively small, but not insignifi-
cant, number of cases, appeals might even be made to the head of state or
to the Empress Eugènie. Outside intervention was, however, perceived by
bishops to be ‘entirely opposed to the letter and spirit of canon law’.157 As
the Bishop of Limoges observed, bishops bitterly resented, as an ‘abus
intolérable’, this ‘obsessive determination of the rural population, and
even some mayors … to request the minister to move a parish priest, as if
the minister, however respectable, was clothed with episcopal dignity and
authority’. Mgr Buissas went on to claim that generally complaints were
   GOD’S CHURCH    37

initiated by men ‘without religion and often without morals’, and were in
any case unnecessary as, if the case had merited it, the responsible bishop
would already have taken action. He felt that prefects should be instructed
to punish rather than lend credence to the authors of ‘capricious’ com-
plaints.158 The evidence presented was frequently contradictory. The same
priest might be described as incompetent and immoral by one group and
regarded as pious and irreproachable by their rivals.159 Making concessions
was furthermore perceived as only likely to discredit the clergy and to
encourage further complaints.160
In some circumstances, where a bishop had failed to act as government
officials would have wished, or as a result of the succession of delays which
frequently followed a promise to discipline an errant priest, creating an
impression of weakness and incompetence, administrative intervention
might appear to be unavoidable.161 Reporting on the case of a priest found
guilty of rape, the Prefect of Basses-Pyrénées maintained that disorder
among the clergy was hardly surprising given the ‘systematic’ failure of the
Bishop of Bayonne to act on complaints by the authorities.162 Age, infir-
mity and waning powers were sometimes significant factors. In June 1857,
the Prefect of the Marne complained that ‘the hand of our old bishop is
not always sufficiently firm to ensure respect for his authority’, although
this might be compensated for by a young and energetic vicar-general.163
A new bishop might also face difficulties. The clergy of the diocese of Saint
Brieuc were reported to be ‘unwilling to recognize’ in Mgr Martial ‘the
superior abilities which would have ensured obedience’. The Prefect of
Côtes-du-Nord hoped that this would come with time.164 The Bishop of
Luçon, Mgr Baillès, was exceptional in his personal arrogance and in the
degree to which he was prepared to engage in political opposition. He
rejected out-of-hand pressure to transfer the Abbé Mestres, desservant of
Nesmy who, an investigation appeared to prove, had unsuccessfully
attempted to seduce an institutrice and subsequently accused the unfortu-
nate woman of immorality. This kind of behaviour, together with Baillès’
extreme theological and political views, clearly caused discord even among
his own clergy.165 However, although parish priests might resent the high-­
handedness of their bishops, they were unlikely to publicly express their
sense of grievance other than in the exceptional circumstances created by
revolution or as a result of the widespread loss of confidence caused by the
exceptionally crass behaviour of a particular bishop like Baillès or Mgr
Depéry, Bishop of Gap, who was widely held to be guilty of nepotism and
financial misappropriation.166
38   R. PRICE

The episcopal decision to transfer a priest as a disciplinary measure was

in general taken only as a last resort, even when such action might appear
to be richly deserved. Procrastination was a frequent response to com-
plaints, presumably in the hope that the problems would somehow sort
themselves out.167 The Abbé Crétel, priest at Crépy (Pas-de-Calais), who
had already been warned on several occasions by his superiors about his
‘inconsiderate’ behaviour, was eventually moved to ‘un poste inférieur’ in
the hope that he would profit from the warning.168 For the priests involved,
such action posed a threat to their reputations and imposed practical dif-
ficulties and expense. Following long years of devoted service in a parish,
the impact could often be described as ‘sad and painful’.169 The parish
priest at Assenoncourt in the diocese of Nancy, informed about the com-
plaints made by his ‘chers paroissiens’, claimed to have been ‘morally cruci-
fied’ by their evident hatred.170
Some priests—difficult personalities, incompetents, or men with weak
vocations—were subjected to several moves during their careers. They
were likely to end up in isolation; in the diocese of Grenoble in ‘the worst
parishes in the mountains’, where the arrival of yet another failed priest
can have done little to revivify religious life.171 In such circumstances, pre-
ceded by a bad reputation, probably magnified by rumour, the transferred
priest would find himself in an extremely difficult situation. In a petition
listing the transgressions of the Abbé Goubely, the inhabitants of Bord in
the Creuse wondered what they had done to deserve a priest who had
been driven out of his previous three parishes.172 Wearily accepting the
need to transfer the abrasive Abbé Becker from Boucheporn, the Bishop
of Metz appeared to accept that, in spite of his piety and zeal, this was a
priest who would never enjoy the confidence of his parishioners for very
long and who needed to be moved repeatedly.173
There were, however, often practical obstacles. The shortage of priests
in the Soissons diocese made it difficult to find a successor for a priest who
had been transferred, for whatever reason. It might be necessary to wait
for the next round of ordinations.174 Disputes within the parish, and its
bad reputation, ensured that other priests were reluctant to replace the
Abbé Compère in Drancy in 1861.175 Finding a suitable alternative parish
was a further difficulty. When bishops regarded a priest’s offence as rela-
tively minor, as in the case of the Abbé Machère, vicaire at Bonneval,
accused, on the basis of gossip, of employing an offensive expression to
describe the Emperor, the Bishop of Chartres was anxious to move him to
a position of equivalent standing rather than humiliate a respectable
   GOD’S CHURCH    39

clergyman who had already apologized.176 While accepting the urgent

need to transfer the Abbé Barbé from Etsaut, where his ‘well-intentioned’
efforts had led to disputes with the mayor over politics and funding, the
Bishop of Bayonne was anxious not to appear to be promoting him, given
that his existing parish with its dispersed hamlets, lost in the mountains
and isolated by snow for several months each year, was already ‘one of the
least and at the same time most demanding in the diocese’.177 In the case
of the parish of Urdos, the Prefect of Basses-Pyrénées accepted that the
desservant, although ‘perhaps not a model priest’ was at least, in terms of
his charitable disposition and good morals, an improvement on his prede-
cessors. Moreover, ‘his parish is one of those in which a more distinguished
priest could not and would not reside (it is known as the Siberia of
Béarn)’.178
Tired of difficulties with parishioners, some priests welcomed a move
and a fresh start.179 In any case priests who challenged the authority of
their bishops by objecting to a move might be threatened with an interdic-
tion from all priestly activity.180 There was also the possibility—rarely
employed—of committing a recalcitrant priest to a madhouse,181 or at the
very least a Trappist monastery.182 In such difficult circumstances, priests
could appeal to the Ministre des Cultes or even the Conseil d’Etat against
what they judged to be the authoritarian and unreasonable behaviour of
their bishops. In 1863, the curé of Lizy-sur-Ourcq complained that he had
been brutally dismissed as cantonal doyen while two other priests had
been transferred from their parishes by the Bishop of Meaux for support-
ing M. Jaucourt, a Protestant official electoral candidate rather than the
opposition candidate—a Catholic critic of the Emperor’s Italian policy.
The priests concerned had been summoned to the château at Lizy—the
residence of the Baronne de Morell—at which the bishop, on a confirma-
tion tour, was staying, and been severely admonished. Their protests to
the prefect, and then to the Emperor, as well as to their metropolitan
archbishop had only intensified the bishop’s anger. The Archbishop of
Paris had recommended that they submit to the will of their superior who
was entirely within his rights.183 In similar circumstances the Bishop of
Perpignan had dismissed the Abbé Bedos from his functions as vicar-­
general for supporting a Jewish official candidate. Mgr Gerbet insisted
that he did not have to answer for his actions and that he was determined
to preserve ‘the unity of the diocesan administration’ in support of the
cause of religion and the Papacy. The insistence by Bedos on his freedom
to vote was an unacceptable threat to these principles.184
40   R. PRICE

2.7   The Religious Orders

The growth in the number of secular clergy was replicated by that of the
male religious orders. These included enclosed and primarily contempla-
tive orders like the Redemptorists, Capucins, Franciscans, Dominicans
and particularly the Jesuits whose numbers increased from 1209 to 2658
between 1850 and 1870. They proved attractive to the many devout
upper-class young men anxious to maintain close links with their milieu
d’origine and not tempted by the prospect of ministering to the lower
classes.185 Although an 1817 law required prior governmental authoriza-
tion, most of these congregations refused to submit themselves to the
official procedure. They were, however, tolerated, largely due to the
influence they exerted within the socio-political elite. Indeed, as Père
Pouget, representing the Jesuits in the Lyon province, admitted in
November 1851, this was their primary ambition.186 When the order
took charge of the Parisian Collège de Vaugirard in 1852, it provided
instruction to some 250 pupils, drawn exclusively from noble and haut
bourgeois families while the school opened in 1854 in the rue des Postes
specifically sought to prepare students for entry into the grandes écoles.187
At Nancy, where nine Jesuit fathers established themselves in 1857, their
chapel was frequented mainly by ‘les Dames de la Noblesse et de la Haute
Bourgeoisie’, members of families with Legitimist loyalties to whom they
offered spiritual guidance and in return received substantial monetary
donations.188 These establishments would be perceived as a threat to
public secondary education and to government influence over regional
elites.189 Little wonder that a report to the Ministre des Cultes from the
Paris Prefect of Police borders on paranoia. After commenting on the
‘concealed’ wealth of the religious orders, P-M.  Pietri observed that
‘Most of the congregations do not have direct relationships with the
populations which surround them; their influence is exercised in an
occult manner. They all obey the orders they receive from Rome. From
the political point of view their sympathies appear to be with the
Legitimist party … The fundamental objective of the congregations … is
to inspire the generation they are educating with their own outlook, and
in this respect, teaching provides them with powerful weapons to achieve
their goal.’190
Often, the parish clergy shared at least some of these misgivings, par-
ticularly in central Paris where the chapels opened by the religious orders,
with their fashionable preachers and confessors, competed for worshippers
   GOD’S CHURCH    41

and resources. The Jesuits in the rue de Sèvres heard around 80,000 con-
fessions each year in the 1850s, and those in the rue des Postes a further
40,000.191 The efforts of successive archbishops, and particularly Darboy,
to introduce regular pastoral visits as a means of imposing episcopal disci-
pline on the religious orders were fiercely resisted, with the Jesuits and
Capucins reminding the archbishop that they depended directly on the
authority of the Pope.192 In a strongly worded letter to Pius IX written on
1 September 1864, Darboy complained of ‘the language and behaviour of
the regular clergy, their determination to insidiously denigrate the bishops
and clergy’. He regretted the encouragement they received from the Papal
nuncio and from Rome itself. In his reply the Pope forcefully accused
Darboy of expressing opinions ‘entirely contrary to the divine primacy of
the Roman pontiff over the universal church’.193
More favourably regarded were those ‘useful’ orders, engaged in pri-
mary instruction for the masses, as well as caring for the sick. The 1861
census estimated that 13,000 of the 18,000 members of male congrega-
tions were teachers, members of orders like the Institut des Ecoles chré-
tiennes and the Frères des Ecoles chrétiennes. By 1878, the latter alone
had grown to 1800 communities with 11,600 members.194 They were
located especially in relatively under-educated areas south and west of the
line drawn on the map between Saint-Malo and Geneva, rather than to the
north where mass literacy had developed earlier and the teaching p­ rofession
had long been laïcized.195 Wearing their religious habits, trained to bear
themselves at all times with dignity and modesty, they offered a means by
which the Church could reinforce its presence and assert a powerful cul-
tural influence while satisfying the vocations of the many young people
willing to commit themselves to lives of poverty, chastity and obedience,
as a means of gaining the ‘chemin de perfection’.196
The most potent sign of the renewed dynamism of the Church—as in
the seventeenth century in the aftermath of the Reformation—was, how-
ever, the rapid expansion of the female orders, a development which
reached its apogee during the Second Empire, when around seven out of
every 1000 women were religieuses compared with four before the
Revolution.197 From less than 13,000 in 1808 their numbers rose to over
130,000 by 1880, with 80% of these belonging to congregations active in
the community. The authoritarian Empire was thus marked by the trium-
phant assertion of Catholic faith largely as a result of the annual entry of
5000 sisters into the religious congregations. Recruitment was stabilized
at this level for over two decades. With an estimated 56% of their members
42   R. PRICE

under 40  in 1880 and only 10% over 60, the female orders combined
youthful energy with solid experience.198 While encouraging the subordi-
nation of women to men in the wider society, the Church provided oppor-
tunities in teaching, nursing and charitable activity for collective and
self-expression and personal fulfilment.199 Mostly directed by a charismatic
female superior general, these religious orders thus provided a vital link
between the Church and society.200
Regions of religious vitality in the west, the Massif Central, Lorraine
and the Alps, provided sisters for other parts of the country—and espe-
cially for the Paris basin, centre-west (Poitiers, Limousin, Charentes) and
Provence. As a result of these transfers a higher density of sisters was to be
found in the irreligious Beauce close to Paris than in faithful Brittany.
Urban areas exercised a more powerful call on their services than the
countryside, due to the concentration of schools and charitable activity, as
well as their ability to provide the necessary financial resources. By 1861,
there were 55 sisters per 10,000 inhabitants in urban areas compared with
16 in rural.201 In Paris, the presence of the religious orders was evident
especially in the more bourgeois western quartiers and above all around
Saint-Sulpice, a sort of religious ghetto.202 Working-class districts, as well
as ‘dechristianized’ parts of the countryside were both more resistant to
the activities of the bonnes sœurs and far less likely to attract their initial
interest. Nevertheless, most sections of society recognized their moral
integrity and dedication.203
In the early 1850s, around 65% of sisters were involved in teaching,
25% in providing medical care and only 10% belonged to cloistered, con-
templative orders.204 Favoured by the daughters of the aristocracy and
wealthy bourgeoisie, entry into the latter was expensive. The Sisters of the
Visitation at Le Puy, for example, were, in the early 1850s, recruited from
the ‘bourgeoisie’ who brought with them a dowry of 6800 francs as well as
a ‘trousseau’ valued at around 1800 francs.205 These orders were exclusive
in terms of the social origins of the girls they educated and this largely
determined their own subsequent patterns of recruitment. Even ‘closed’
religious communities like the Dames du Sacré-Cœur de Paris or the
Bénédictines du Calvaire at Machecoul in Brittany, however, were increas-
ingly engaged in secondary education through their pensionnats, partly for
revenue-raising purposes.206 The daughters of the ‘popular’ classes in con-
trast preferred, and were encouraged to enter, those religious orders which
performed traditional female roles in teaching, hospitals, orphanages, asy-
lums, and in the care of the elderly and sick.
   GOD’S CHURCH    43

Particularly notable was the rapid expansion of the teaching orders

which represented a response to the growing mass demand for instruc-
tion, to the determination—in the interests of moral order—to separate
girls from boys at school, and to the perceived need to provide both with
a fundamentally religious instruction. Facilitated by the provisions of the
Guizot and Falloux laws, such development was evidence of the determi-
nation of the Church to transmit the faith. The schools staffed by the
religious orders might either be private institutions or communal estab-
lishments where an order had responded to an official invitation to open
or take over a school. Communes benefited from low salary costs, the
religious orders from public funding of buildings and teaching resources.
According to the Academic Rector at Rennes in 1856, ‘Municipal councils
request sisters for the direction of girls’ schools; this tendency constantly
spreads; the influence of large landowners, the powerful action of the
clergy, the legacies and donations exclusively reserved to the sisters’
schools result in the ever growing concentration of the instruction of girls
in the hands of the congregations.’207 By 1876–77, some 60% of female
pupils receiving a primary education were taught by members of the reli-
gious orders, although only around 18% of the boys. The religious orders
thus made an exceptional contribution to the achievement of female lit-
eracy and a closer equality between the sexes.208 This might be combined
with the missionary activity engaged in by such orders as the Society of the
Sacred Heart, established at the beginning of the century by Sophie Barat
(its superior general for 65 years) and Philippine Duchesne, and which, by
1865, had 3500 members, active in both North America and the French
colonies.209
In most parts of Brittany, as in the Côtes-du-Nord, both male and
female teaching orders had expanded rapidly. In 1853, the 136 Frères
were responsible for 88 schools for boys—around one-third of the total.
According to the prefect they were characterized by ‘the purity of their
morals, and by a great devotion to the poor’. Some 140 Filles offered
instruction in 50 schools, as well as distributing charity and caring for
orphans. A host of smaller orders provided similar services. These included
the Maison du Réfuge at Saint Brieuc, which sheltered a cloistered order
offering both a pensionnat de demoiselles, and a refuge for ‘les filles répen-
tantes’. The Filles de la Croix worked in both schools and hospitals; the
Sœurs hospitalières de Saint-Augustin administered the hospital at
Lannion, provided charity and instruction to the poor, and educated the
demoiselles who boarded with them. Additionally, they trained lay
44   R. PRICE

institutrices on behalf of the department.210 In the Haute-Loire the ‘Sœurs

de Mère Agnès’ typically ‘look after the sick, distribute charity to the
homes of paupers’, as well as supervising female inmates in the prison at
Le Puy.211
From the 1820s and particularly the 1840s, charitable sisters like the
Filles de la Charité in Paris, the Providence de Rouen or the Filles de la
Sagesse in the west also flourished as never before or since, with the latter
opening 252 houses in the 1850s alone. The Petites Sœurs des pauvres
specialized in care of the aged. These orders offered a range of vital ser-
vices which the State was as yet unwilling or unable to offer. By offering
assistance, in collaboration with local notables, and the parish priests who
in return served as their confessors and spiritual guides, and by sharing the
lives of the poor, the sisters were able to evangelize, by example, manifest-
ing the ‘compassion of God’ and ‘imitating the virtues of Mary’.
The overwhelming majority of nurses active in some 1500 hospitals in
1864 were also members of religious congregations. So too were sisters of
orders based largely on the model of the Bon secours established in Paris
in the 1820s to provide care in their homes for the better-off and the
Petites Sœurs de l’Assomption, which from the 1860s focused their atten-
tion on the desperately poor sick and aged.212 In under-medicalized
regions of the Massif Central and Brittany, members of the religious
orders, under the supervision of and in collaboration with parish priests,
local bureaux des bienfaisance, charity committees, mayors and doctors,
contributed to improvements in public hygiene and to the care of the sick
in their homes. There were frequent complaints, however, from an increas-
ingly professionalized medical profession that the limited medical knowl-
edge of the nursing sisters, combined with the authoritarianism of their
superiors, resulted in inappropriate treatment, which doctors found diffi-
cult to control.213 Their undoubted devotion, the ‘consolation’ and ‘sec-
ours’ they offered to the poor, and the relatively low cost of their presence
nevertheless ensured considerable community support.214 In major urban
hospitals, through the employment and supervision of lay female assis-
tants, the sisters themselves managed to avoid much of the hard physical
labour and ‘degrading’ activity typical of hospital life. They were able to
devote more of their time to religious proselytism among the sick and
dying—to the vital mission of saving souls.215 Clearly, the nuns provided
the combination of bodily and spiritual care which so many people desired.
In a society in which there were few respectable and sufficiently remu-
nerative ways to earn a living, the religious congregations offered
   GOD’S CHURCH    45

opportunities for women to express their piety and serve as models of

Christian virtue through the performance of useful and rewarding ser-
vices. Membership of a religious order offered career prospects and a sense
of professional identity within disciplined, hierarchical organizations, as
well as material security and spiritual fulfilment. Women were also offered
a means of escaping from situations in which social norms emphasized
male superiority, the duty of unquestioning obedience to fathers and hus-
bands, and the conjugal rights of the man, as well as from the terrors of
childbirth and of possible infection by spouses with venereal disease.
Becoming a sister in religion offered emancipation through membership
of a religious ‘family’.216 The idealization of chastity as a higher calling
even than ­marriage and bearing God’s children, must have offered conso-
lation or gratification to the large numbers of unmarried women (1:4 of
those over 20) and widows (1:2 women over 60), for whom the religious
orders provided an admired model of religious devotion. Unwanted ten-
sion might, however, have been introduced into married life by the glori-
fication of virginity, the association of purity with chastity, and the negative
perceptions of sexuality this implied, together with the condemnation of
contraception and insistence that carnal sin was a threat to the prospect of
earthly and Divine bliss.217
Demographic and cultural factors combined. Close curbs on sexuality
and high rates of celibacy in traditional rural communities were closely
related to religious vocations. In some impoverished areas in Brittany and
the Massif Central where the mass migration of young men created a sub-
stantial imbalance between the sexes, the religious orders had been supple-
mented since the seventeenth century by groups of béates who, while not
taking vows, wore religious habits and remained within their communities
of origin to perform good works under the supervision of their own orders
and the parish priest. In the Haute-Loire in the 1850s the Sœurs de
l’Instruction supervised the charitable activities of around 800 members
of these tiers ordres who provided some instruction in the countryside.
The ideal was a little community of bonnes sœurs in every parish, assisting
the priest in his pastoral care, educating the young, and caring for those in
need.218
The cultural climates prevailing within the family, school and parish,
would also have decisive consequences for the young women who would
become the mothers of the next generation.219 Through the organization
of pious associations like the Enfants de Marie, efforts were made to pro-
tect and reinforce their faith. Some, from a very early age were encouraged
46   R. PRICE

to think of entering the religious orders and becoming the brides of Christ.
Living modest and exemplary lives, frequently radiating happiness due to
their own sense of fulfilment, the sisters themselves were able to encourage
the young to treasure their virginity, to repress unchaste physical desire
and prepare themselves for death and God’s judgement.220 The Carmelite
sister Marie-Aimée de Jésus Quoniam was inspired by her mother’s revela-
tion that she had been forced into an unhappy marriage when she had
wished to enter a religious order. Saint Theresa of Lisieux, and her sister,
were clearly moved by the intense religious faith of both their parents.221
Sometimes, in contrast, enthusiastic proselytism led to complaints from
fathers unwilling to accept the prospect of ‘losing’ their daughters. Thus,
M.  Simon, a ‘surveillant’ working for the Nord railway company at La
Chapelle in Paris accused the Mother Superior of the Bon-Pasteur in
Reims, a school which his daughter Constance had attended from the age
of 7, of ‘cultivating his daughter in order to persuade her to embrace a
religious life’. He wanted to be absolutely certain that she genuinely pos-
sessed a vocation.222
Occasionally, and sometimes repeatedly, some young women were
beset with doubts. Largely during the testing period of noviciate, around
14–20% would decide against remaining within their orders.223 Sister
Gros, a member of the Communauté du Bon-Sauveur at Caen, while
devoted to the care of the deaf and dumb, was frustrated at being unable
to communicate freely with her family because her letters were censored.
She was also concerned that ‘certaines personnes’ would regard the senti-
ments she was determined to express as a ‘crime’. In February 1848, she
succeeded in smuggling a letter to her brother. In it she claimed that she
had come to believe that God had not wished her to enter religious life,
and expressed her determination to return to her family, rather than die
miserably in her convent. A month later, following representations by her
brother and an interview with the Mother Superior of the order, Sister
Gros was persuaded to write to the Bishop of Bayeux to inform him that
she had been depressed momentarily and wished to continue to respect
her vows. In an accompanying letter the Mother Superior claimed that the
sister had been afflicted with a ‘fièvre cérébrale’ and, as a result, suffered
from a ‘faiblesse de tête’ which, combined with ‘a vivid imagination, often
magnified in her eyes, the impact of the sorrows she encountered’. Greater
vigilance by the other sisters would ensure that in future Sister Gros
received ‘every care and consideration’.224 Most sisters would persevere
with a lifetime of service although mortality from epidemic disease and
   GOD’S CHURCH    47

especially tuberculosis was high, in spite of the determination of the reli-

gious orders to admit only physically robust candidates capable of per-
forming demanding duties.
The expansion of the religious orders, together with the Marian cult,
reflected and reinforced the ‘feminization’ of the Church. The wealthy
appear to have been less reticent about allowing their daughters to enter
the Church than their sons. As a result, leadership in these authoritarian
organizations continued to be provided by well-educated and relatively
cultured women from noble or well-off bourgeois families often reluctant
to submit to the dictatorial tendencies of their bishops.225 Members of the
teaching and charitable orders were in contrast recruited overwhelmingly
from among the better-off sections of the ‘popular classes’.226 Lack of edu-
cation was regarded as less of an obstacle to the entry of women from poor
artisanal and peasant families into the religious orders than it was for their
menfolk. There appeared to be an insatiable need for teachers, gardes-­
malades and Petites Sœurs des Pauvres, vital elements, Louis Veuillot
believed, in the struggle against socialism and revolution; a view shared by
his friend the Abbé Lelièvre, an eminent and generous representative of
the paternalistic industrial patronat of the Nord.227

2.8   Preserving the Fabric

As in Britain, many churches, at the beginning of the nineteenth century,
were in a deplorable condition, in desperate need of repair both as a practi-
cal necessity and a means of reaffirming the faith. The problem in France
had of course been greatly exacerbated by the vandalism and neglect of the
Revolution, and the destructive impact of civil war.228 An important prec-
edent was set in 1810, when the Ministre des Cultes, the Comte de
Montalivet, addressed a questionnaire to officials, the clergy and local éru-
dits—members of groups like the Société des antiquaires de la Normandie—
in an attempt to identify buildings of historical importance. Interest
gathered pace following the Restoration. In 1824, his successor, Mgr
Frayssinous, acknowledged that the state was responsible for the preserva-
tion of cathedrals and other major historical structures, while regretfully
accepting that only limited subsidies could be provided for the mass of
parish churches.229 The renovation of often decrepit buildings would
moreover not be without its problems. Concern would repeatedly be
expressed about the extreme state of dilapidation of many medieval
churches and the incompetence of those involved in their restoration, as
48   R. PRICE

well as concerning the stylistic and structural mediocrity of new build-

ings.230 In a circular to bishops in December 1834, J.C. Persil, the Ministre
de la Justice et des Cultes, complained about ‘curés, almost everywhere,
especially in the rural communes … disposed, of their own authority, to
bring workers into their churches, sometimes to undertake major recon-
struction’, without plans or consulting superior authority. Prefects were
instructed to prevent ‘degradations and mutilations’ and widespread ‘van-
dalism’. Regular and serious inspection appeared to be essential to prevent
the destruction of buildings and historically significant works of art.231
On behalf of the official Commission des Monuments historiques,
Prosper Mérimée, an anti-clerical non-believer, in close collaboration with
the aristocratic Catholic Charles de Montalembert, insisted that ‘the archi-
tect must not lose from sight that he is restoring an exceptional monu-
ment, and that in such a case, he is forbidden to invent anything. His
responsibility is to conserve with scrupulous care the smallest vestiges …
and to leave untouched a ruin in which the primitive dispositions are not
clearly recognizable.’232 Nevertheless, in 1840, J-P. Schmit, a member of
the Comité historique des Arts et Monuments, reported to the Interior
Minister that ‘grave mutilations’ of buildings and unbelievable acts of
‘vandalism’ remained common, in the cities as well as in the isolated vil-
lages in which the clergy were often left to their own devices.233 Mgr Raess,
Bishop of Strasbourg, claimed that the beauty of many ancient buildings
had been destroyed.234 Inspecting churches in the diocese of Rouen in
June 1861 on behalf of his archbishop, the Abbé Cochet reported that
although the continued zeal for church construction and restoration was
to be welcomed, the poor quality of much of the work, the excessive use
of plaster and cast iron decoration, as well as the growing presence of
tasteless plaster ornaments, were cause for concern. While complimenting
the departmental architect on work carried out in the cathedral and other
churches in Rouen, which was largely compatible with the original style of
the buildings, he was extremely critical of the situation in churches such as
that at Saint-Léger-du-Bourg-Denis. This had ‘suffered over the last 25
years distressing restoration which has disfigured it’ and served as proof
that ‘good intentions are not enough. It has been disfigured by the most
zealous piety.’235
By the mid-1860s, the work of ‘Catholic ‘reconquest’ additionally
involved an unprecedented wave of construction or enlargement of
over 9000 churches—around a quarter of the total—in a measured
response to urbanization and population growth, and thus a feature of
   GOD’S CHURCH    49

‘modernization’.236 Such a substantial modification of the built envi-

ronment would to a large degree reflect the growing prosperity and
ambitions of the Second Empire, with a substantial impact on countless
communities, large and small. As Baron Haussmann, the Prefect of the
Seine, made clear, investment in churches was for the State both a state-
ment of faith and an affirmation of the social role of religion.237 The
programme of restoration and church construction in Paris has indeed
been described as an instance of ‘haussmannisation religieuse’,238 a
means of reinforcing the regime’s own prestige and symptomatic of the
Emperor’s ‘political approach to religious questions’.239 Archbishop
Sibour certainly welcomed the Emperor’s desire to ‘make the capital of
France the most beautiful city in the world’ and promised the full sup-
port of the Church.240
The need to restore Notre-Dame de Paris as the focal point for both
religious and civil ceremony had become only too apparent. Under the
supervision of the leading ecclesiastical architects Viollet-le-Duc and
Lassus, the work had already started in 1845, been interrupted in 1850,
and then re-commenced three years later.241 The Emperor whose marriage
was solemnized in the cathedral in 1853, and whose son would be bap-
tised there in 1856, appears to have been sensitive to the archbishop’s
claim that a building of such major national, as well as religious signifi-
cance, required special care.242 In a letter to Fortoul, Sibour had com-
plained about ‘the dilapidation, the bareness, the indecency of the interior
of this magnificent monument’.243 Following the imperial wedding,
Viollet-le-Duc had pointed out that ‘the area around the cathedral today
bears little relationship to the importance of this great edifice; on ceremo-
nial occasions, the metropolitan church can only be reached by means of
circuitous, narrow and inadequate streets. The cathedral square is itself
cramped, unable to contain the troops, carriages and the crowd which
gathers … for solemn occasions.’244 The clearance of space around the
gothic masterpiece was thus a signifier of the Church’s renewed assertive-
ness, a means of enhancing its visibility, but also a vital part of the govern-
ment plans to enhance the dignity of religion, for urban renewal, slum
clearance, and improvement of the circulation of traffic.245
Mgr Sibour’s even grander aspirations would have involved not only
clearing the area around the cathedral of the many ‘puny constructions’
and ‘narrow and tortuous streets’ but also the creation of an ecclesiastical
quartier on the Ile de la Cité, including a new bishop’s palace, together
with a petit and a grand séminaire located between Notre-Dame and the
50   R. PRICE

Palais de Justice, as a means of glorifying both State and Church. The

Archbishop included with his proposals copies of preparatory sketches
drawn by Viollet-le Duc and Lassus. He pointed out that ‘Notre-Dame is
the Louvre of Religion, and the accomplishment of this plan would repre-
sent its completion. In attaching his name to this work, Napoleon III
would combine one of the great modern glories with one of the most
glorious achievements of the Middle Ages.’ He assured the minister that
‘these two immortal souvenirs, consecrated by Religion would be forever
inseparable in the memory of the faithful’.246 It would in practice be too
costly to contemplate.247
Although central Paris was relatively well provided with places of wor-
ship, the average population of inner-city parishes had nevertheless dou-
bled between 1802 and 1856.248 More peripheral areas, including the
communes eventually annexed to the city in 1860, had been severely
neglected. In a letter to his archbishop in 1849 one Parisian vicaire warned
that ‘if we continue for much longer to deal with God’s affairs in the cur-
rent fashion, Religion is lost in Paris!’249 The civil and religious authorities
had come to appreciate that there was a pressing need to establish new
parishes, as well as chapels of ease, to improve public access to religious
life.250 Ideally, Mgr Sibour would have divided the city into parishes con-
taining no more than 20,000 souls, each with a church playing a vital
integrative social role, as a centre for ‘the distribution of assistance, asso-
ciations of all kinds’.251 In practice, between 1852 and 1870, 22 new
churches would be constructed, with the cost shared between individual
donors, communes, the city and state. Substantial and ostentatious build-
ings were constructed in developing middle-class areas on the edge of the
old city, including Saint-Augustin designed by Baltard and completed in
1868 at a cost of 5.7 million francs, while in eastern, working-class Paris,
both the construction materials employed and the internal decoration of
new churches suggest a much greater determination to economize.252
In the construction of new churches the choice of architectural and
decorative styles also represented a symbolic statement and offered ‘trans-
mission languages for theology and piety’.253 In the early part of the cen-
tury, neo-classical forms were favoured, while in later years neo-medieval
styles—judged to be more Christian—would be preferred. The neo-­
gothic, and in the south neo-Romanesque, were widely perceived to be
the supreme manifestations of beauty, glory and truth. Both the clergy
and architects looked to the great church builders of the twelfth and thir-
teenth centuries for inspiration. The reign of Saint Louis in particular
   GOD’S CHURCH    51

appeared to offer the model for a Christian architecture representing a

period of intense faith, of harmony between Pope and King and of glori-
ous artistic creativity. In his Etudes historiques pour la défense de l’Eglise
(1864), the Catholic historian Léon Gautier forcefully affirmed that the
Middle Ages were ‘the epoch which established the reign of truth and
Goodness on earth’, a golden age when unity had prevailed in marked
contrast with the discord introduced by the Reformation.254 The neo-­
gothic represented the creative reaffirmation of a great tradition, and a
means of combating secularization.255
Inevitably perceptions of the past, the simple listing of ‘great’ buildings,
substantially influenced architecture in the present. Bitter differences of
opinion were nevertheless often evident between architects—the largely
conservative products of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts; archaeologists—anx-
ious about the threat to ancient monuments; the clergy—interested pri-
marily in the practical needs of pastoral care, i.e. the creation of a spiritual
space; and government and municipal officials—concerned about costs.256
The restoration, from 1837, of the Sainte-Chapelle in Paris by Duban and
Lassus, and Lassus’ and Viollet-le-Duc’s work on Notre-Dame from 1845,
as well as the former’s construction of Saint-Nicolas in Nantes, however,
provided examples which—for good or ill—would be copied widely.257
These eminent architects assumed that the work of restoration should
involve re-establishing, as far as possible, the integrity of the original struc-
ture and removal of the accretions of centuries. Viollet-le-Duc was also
committed to the achievement of harmony between material, form and
function.258 From 1848 until 1874, as inspecteur-général des édifices dioc-
esains, he assumed primary architectural responsibility, imposing a degree
of official control often resented by bishops, and a much greater unifor-
mity of style than had been the case previously.259 Paradoxically, the man,
who more than any other single individual determined the external and
internal appearance of so many religious buildings, was another anticleri-
cal, hostile to what he perceived to be the authoritarian obscurantism of
both the medieval and modern church.260
The employment of modern construction techniques was an additional
cause of dispute, and particularly the use of iron frameworks with the
potential for reducing costs and increasing the usable space. Viollet-le-­
Duc, so often associated with the neo-Gothic, insisted that modern archi-
tects, rather than ‘borrowing from all the styles of the past’, should base
themselves on ‘new principles of structure’.261 Other architects were less
enthusiastic about industrial building techniques, as a result of their
52   R. PRICE

traditional training or of a belief that iron, ideal for railway stations, cov-
ered markets or factories, was somehow improper for church construc-
tion. Improved communications having substantially reduced the cost of
transporting materials, many continued to favour traditional modes of
construction.262
The church construction, so characteristic of many expanding urban
centres, was also evident in quite small towns and in numerous rural com-
munities, most of which achieved their maximum historical population
densities around mid-century.263 The Bishop of Nantes took considerable
pride in the fact that ‘it is necessary to look far back in time to find a period
comparable to ours in terms of the construction of religious monu-
ments’.264 In the Vendée, in the second half of the century, 142 churches
were constructed and 107 others ‘profoundly modified’; adding up to
85% of the department’s churches. The expense was substantial, with new
churches in 1870 estimated to cost around 80,000 francs and presbyteries
15,000, at a time when the building which typically housed the mairie and
primary school might require a further 25,000.265 For priests, particularly
those with ultramontane sympathies, the spiritual needs of the community
and the embellishment of the ‘temple de Dieu’ should obviously be given
priority.
Wherever possible, a new church ought to make a statement. It should
be constructed on raised or open ground, with a grand entrance, and
approached by flights of steps. A high tower and a sonorous peal of bells
would further symbolize the pre-eminence of religion.266 The Bishop of
Metz was so dissatisfied with the size and condition of the church in the
village of Aumetz that he refused to appoint a priest until the municipal
council voted the funds necessary to add 6 metres to the nave and to
ensure for the building as a whole an appearance ‘at the same time … reli-
gious and monumental’.267 State subsidies were concentrated on cathe-
drals, however, placing the financial burden in the case of parish churches
very much on communities—on pew rents, extra local taxes, and more or
less ‘voluntary’ donations; in cash as well as through the physical labour of
the poor.268 A ministerial circular in August 1853 would draw attention to
‘une disposition malheureuse’ among the parish clergy, ‘to abandon, often
on the most frivolous pretexts, their old churches … in order to undertake
the construction of a new building which, often, is not very solid and does
not respond to the needs of worship. Besides the considerable and often
ruinous expense which results, these unintelligent enterprises habitually
result in the disappearance of monuments far more precious for art and
   GOD’S CHURCH    53

religion than those constructed with their wreckage.’ Prefects were

instructed to discourage such activity.269
Subsequent liability for the maintenance of buildings was, according to
the organic articles, to be shared between the parish fabrique and com-
mune. The seemingly incessant requests for money to supplement the
incomes of impoverished priests or for the repair and enlargement of
churches, for the renewal of ecclesiastical furnishings and robes, as well as
for the improvement of often decrepit presbyteries, at a time when—in
spite of growing prosperity—communes were also anxious to improve
town halls, schools and roads, caused frequent disagreement over expen-
diture priorities.270 According to Louis Dieu, the oddly named Prefect of
Haute-Saône, writing in April 1858, ‘the clergy often makes excessive
demands on communes for … the costs of worship. The difficulties which
result are becoming more frequent by the day. Many parish priests make
the serious error of managing parish finances as if they were their own,
spending without authorisation, and then asking the commune to make
payment.’271
Considerable expenditure on the transformation of church interiors
was also evident, in part in compensation for the dispersal of relics and
works of art during the Revolution, but also illustrating the further
­development of symbolic and religious system(s). During the Restoration,
again from 1835, and especially during the Second Empire, subsidies and
gifts by the State—particularly of not always worthy or appropriate paint-
ings purchased at the annual Salon, contributed to the transformation of
the appearance of many churches.272 In their internal order, restored
churches would exemplify a greater sensitivity to the mysteries of the
Incarnation, to the celebration of the Eucharist, and the cult of the Virgin
Mary, rather than to those of the saints.273 There was a widespread deter-
mination to ensure that the parish church should itself bear witness
through the beauty of holiness. Nothing was too good for ‘la maison du
Père’, as was evinced by the murals painted by Delacroix in Saint-Sulpice
from 1847.274 Although often still in need of more basic repairs, many
churches were embellished with reliquaries, murals, paintings, statues,
elaborately carved choir stalls and confessionals, and richly decorated cha-
pels, and provided with an abundance of ecclesiastical robes, all offering
proof of the faith of those who had made donations.275 The renewal of
stained glass windows had been slowed by concern that they obstructed
the penetration of the light needed by an increasingly literate congrega-
tion.276 Their popularity, however, grew with the realization that, in
54   R. PRICE

medieval buildings, the subdued light, the colour that flowed into the
building, and the stories told in the windows, had all exalted the faith and
added to the sense of religious mystery and piety.277
These objects often evinced a fundamental stylistic uniformity, reflect-
ing the influence of such eminent figures as Didron, the editor of the
Annales archéologiques, who stressed the importance of imitating medieval
models, and of Viollet-le-Duc, committed to a ‘total art’ in which
­furnishings, although adapted to modern needs, should reflect the style of
the building which contained them. Bishops appointed in the 1840s and
1850s were similarly committed to the neo-gothic art forms which they
believed represented the political and theological ideals of the age of Saint
Louis.278 By enhancing the theatricality of worship through art, together
with the introduction of the Gregorian chant in the forms developed by
Dom Guéranger at Solesmes, as well as the Roman liturgy, and in building
churches of a dimension sufficient for the entire population, the clergy
were enhancing the status of the individual priest and of the institution he
served.279
Paradoxically, on the initiative of many ill-educated priests and parish
councils, influenced by the latest fashions, surviving medieval objects
were frequently replaced with mass produced neo-medieval imitations.
Indeed, following the expression of concern in May 1851 by Léon
Faucher, the Minister of the Interior, Dombidau de Crouseilhes, the
Ministre des Cultes, had written to the Bishop of Perpignan, to com-
plain that ‘ancient religious objects are being destroyed or sold by
priests’. In one parish an embroidered altar cloth, believed to date from
1030, had been cut into three pieces, in another a silver chalice had been
sold and replaced with a larger vessel, of no historical value. In many
communes, priests were reported to be selling antique objects in order
to finance a destructive whitewashing of walls. The bishop was reminded
of his duty to ‘conserve ancient monuments and all the precious debris
of the past’.280
The destruction of reminders of the past was often linked to the liturgi-
cal changes of the present. Thus, in 1843, the curé of Château-Chinon in
the Loire valley objected to wooden statues which he claimed were in such
poor condition that they invited only ‘laughter’ or ‘pity’ but which never-
theless attracted ‘a ridiculous and singularly ignorant veneration’.281
Parishioners in Arles complained that the Abbé Montagnard ‘incessantly
seeks to destroy the holy traditions inherited from our ancestors’.
Traditional ceremonies had ceased, and lamps, ciboriums, statues, enamel
   GOD’S CHURCH    55

reliquaries, and even ‘ancient’ manuscripts had all disappeared.282 A con-

cerned inhabitant of the parish of Cerny-Bois-Halbout appealed against
the decision of the parish priest and mayor to replace a carved wooden
altar and two ‘tableaux antiques’ with an altar and statues made of plaster
and of ‘nulle valeur artistique’.283 A multiplicity of saints—often of purely
local significance—were also displaced as doubts were expressed about
their authenticity and the objects devoted to their memory seemed redun-
dant, or as alternative devotions, judged to be more efficacious, became
more popular.
The growing manufacture of religious furnishings as well as of more
personal objects of devotion such as religious medals and rosaries, was
designed to inspire prayer and devotion.284 Paris, and particularly the
Saint-Sulpice quartier, together with Lyon, were the primary centres for
the production and sale of religious art and artifacts, of vestments and
sacred ornaments, as well as of religious publications and a multitude of
plaster statues of a serene Virgin Mary, all available for purchase by post on
the basis of illustrated catalogues.285 Such objects were condemned by the
Abbé Sagette in 1853 as the products of a ‘gross commerce in objects of
devotion … trafficking on ignorance or simplicity, perverting taste, and
sometimes even insulting dogma and Christian sentiments’; and as failing
entirely to stimulate piety.286 According to Viollet-le-Duc, writing in 1876,
this was a trend which ‘spreads amongst the rural clergy with the speed of
phylloxera’. He added that while not hostile in principle to ‘cette propa-
gande clérico-mercantile’, as a ‘free-thinker’ he would like to ‘distribute in
the countryside carefully thought out catalogues, prepared in a very differ-
ent spirit’.287
Artistic endeavour might exhibit a particular vision of faith. Thus, a rich
Marial iconography had developed over many centuries emphasizing the
role of the Virgin as the primary intercessor between the faithful and God.
This vital popular devotion, reinforced by the Council of Trent as a central
feature of the struggle against heresy, was constantly reiterated in word,
deed and art. Every church possessed growing numbers of statues as well
as chapels dedicated to Mary. The murals decorating the Parisian churches
of Notre-Dame-de-Lorette, Saint-Germain-l’Auxerrois, Saint-Germain-­
de-Près and Saint-Etienne-du-Mont all provide evidence of these senti-
ments. Provincial churches frequently ordered copies or lithographs of
well-known representations of the Virgin by the likes of Murillo, Titian or
Raphael, or chose from among the many religious paintings exhibited at
the annual Paris Salon.288 More than 50 paintings and murals created by
56   R. PRICE

Delacroix in the churches of Saint-Sulpice and Saint-Denis-du-Sacrement

in Paris, similarly re-produced, reveal the influence of Spanish counter-­
Reformation art, and of Rubens, as well as of Romanticism. The objective
of the artist was to present the crucified Christ as the incarnation of human
suffering.289
The objective of almost every parish priest appears to have been to
‘spend sufficient money to make the church worthy of the God who
inhabits it’.290 A retired cavalry officer living near Avesnes (Nord) indeed
complained that ‘every time a new priest arrives in the commune, neither
the church nor the parish are worthy of him’.291 From within the Church,
however, relatively few critical voices were raised. In a letter to his bishop,
one Parisian priest, who preferred to remain anonymous, did express con-
cern about the value, in half-empty churches, of ‘candlesticks and candles,
chandeliers and lamps, rich and numerous ornaments, huge and pompous
incense burners, large and resounding orchestras, choir boys, porters and
beadles’.292 Far more representative of the outlook of the clergy was their
attendance in massed ranks at the consecration of a new church at Moussey
in the Vosges in August 1852, where, in the presence of the prefect, the
Bishop of Saint Dié blessed the new building and presented the Papal
order of Saint Sylvestor to the mayor, a M. Charlot, who had personally
financed its construction. The blessing of the bells represented a further
affirmation of faith and of community. The presence of a numerous laity
confirmed the immense prestige enjoyed by those who interceded between
Man and God.293
The reluctance of individual laymen or municipal councils to make
‘adequate’ contributions towards such works could, however, provoke dis-
appointment, irritation and even fury among priests.294 The Abbé
Chervaux, parish priest at Vireaux (Yonne), remembering how the coun-
cillors of his impoverished parish had delivered their priest to the guillo-
tine in 1793, complained that their successors shared this ‘blindness’ and
‘wickedness’ in their refusal to make the presbytery habitable and prevent
the church falling down.295 The income gained by a parish from collec-
tions, fees, pew rents, property, donations—in both cash and kind, lotter-
ies and fund raising was, however, often insufficient for even desperately
needed building schemes.296 An influential patron was clearly useful. In a
note to Fortoul—his ‘dear friend’—the Emperor’s close associate, the
Duc de Persigny, ambassador in London, reminded the minister of a con-
versation they had had concerning the financial assistance needed for the
restoration of the church in his native village, a project which, in retro-
   GOD’S CHURCH    57

spect, Persigny admitted had been ‘too lightly’ entered into.297 Again on
the basis of personal acquaintanceship, the writer Georges Sand sent
Fortoul a note asking him to receive the mayor of her commune to discuss
the funds needed to repair the church roof, and suggested that the rain
falling on the priest as he officiated at services represented ‘un christian-
isme trop primitif’.298
The parish priest at Beaufay (Sarthe), in desperation after 12 years of
‘efforts surhumaine’ and the expenditure of 50,000 francs, appealed
directly to the Emperor, claiming that a further 20,000 was needed to
complete the renovation of his church. The death of a leading benefactor,
together with the disastrous impact of hail on the harvest, had ­compounded
his difficulties and forced the parish to request a government subsidy, in
return for which its inhabitants would offer ‘our prayers and the gratitude
of our hearts’.299 In response, the State might well offer assistance but the
law of 30 December 1809 required the commune to provide a larger pro-
portion of the cost.300 Thus official subsidies—a useful means of exercising
political patronage—appear to have represented only around 10–15% of
the total cost of (re-)constructing parish churches, although more would
be provided for especially prestigious projects. From 1.2 million francs in
1852, the total value of subsidy had risen to 2.5 million by 1860—a sum
sufficient to satisfy around 10% of requests.301
Not surprisingly, the high cost of constructing and renovating churches
and presbyteries and their interior furnishing and decoration was fre-
quently the cause of complex disputes between parish priests, parish coun-
cils (fabriques)—made up of between five and nine members co-opted for
six years and including ex officio the parish priest and mayor of the com-
mune, together with, generally devout, local notables—and communal
councils. Prefectoral intervention could also be expected.302 Repeated
appeals for funds were much resented by parishioners.303 At Poiré in the
Vendée, the efforts of the Abbé Millageau to enlarge his parish church
were, it was claimed, a means of satisfying the priest’s vanity by ‘attaching
his name to the construction of a grandiose building’, rather than a rea-
sonable response to the needs of public worship. Moreover, in order to
circumvent opposition, the priest had failed to follow the proper legal
procedures and to secure approval from the local council. He had simply
launched a subscription and placed considerable moral pressure on his
parishioners. He had promised all the blessings of Heaven to those fami-
lies which made contributions and, accompanied by a local landowner,
had proceeded from door to door threatening ‘divine vengeance’ on the
58   R. PRICE

remainder. This ‘tax imposed on timorous consciences, on simple and

credulous spirits’, had caused considerable anxiety and divisions, particu-
larly where wives had subscribed in spite of the opposition of their hus-
bands.304 There were thus often serious obstacles to ambitious plans to
glorify God through the beauty of holiness, particularly in impoverished
parishes in some of the more ‘de-christianized’ areas. Nevertheless, in
addition to the growing presence of priests and women religious, religious
buildings and ceremonies were the visible signs of God’s real presence in a
parish and central to the act of worship in both a functional and an inspi-
rational sense.

Notes
1. D.  Gonzalez, ‘Humility and transparency in leadership and power’, in
S. Bullivant et al., (eds) Theology and power, Mahwah, N.J., p. 52.
2. Quoted by Pierrard, Les laïcs dans l’Eglise de France, 1990, p. 9. See also
L-G. de Ségur, Le Pape est. infailible. Opuscule populaire. Paris, Tolra and
Haton, 1870, p. I.
3. See also C. Langlois, ‘Catholicisme, féminité et sacralité’ in Le continent
théologique, 2016, pp. 266–267.
4. Quoted by Pierrard, Les laïcs, p. 14.
5. Quoted by R. Epp, Le mouvement ultramontane dans l’Eglise catholique en
Alsace au 19e siècle, I, Strasbourg, 1975, p. 283.
6. J.-M.  Leniaud, L’administration des cultes pendant la période concorda-
taire, 1988, p. 103.
7. See P. Boutry, ‘Ultramontanisme’ in Dictionnaire historique de la Papauté,
2003, p. 1653; V. Viaene, ‘International history, religious history, Catholic
history: perspectives for cross-fertilisation (1830–1914)’, European history
quarterly, 2008, pp. 587–8.
8. See especially A.  Gough, Paris and Rome. The Gallican Church and the
Ultramontane Campaign, 1848–59, 1986, passim.
9. E.g. B. Horaist, La dévotion au pape et les catholiques français sous le pontifi-
cat de Pie IX (1846–78) d’après les archives de la Bibliothèque Apostolique
Vaticane, Rome, 1995, pp. 16–17.
10. M. Périer, pastoral letter 1809, quoted by D. Javel, Transmettre la foi au
diocèse d’Avignon, 19e–20e siècles, Avignon, 2000, p. 96.
11. P. Airiau, L’Eglise et l’Apocalypse du 19e siècle à nos jours, 2000, pp. 7–8, 23.
12. Instruction pastorale de Mgr l’Archévêque de Cambrai sur l’autorité du
Pape…1865, AN F19/1936.
13. See also O. Bobineau, L’empire des papes. Une sociologie du pouvoir dans
l’Eglise, 2013, p. 205; Horaist, La dévotion, pp. 21–23.
   GOD’S CHURCH    59

14. Instruction pastorale de Mgr l’Evêque de Cahors pour le Carême de 1865,

AN F19/1936.
15. See e.g. Min. de l’I.P. et des C. to M. Landerr, avocat at Colmar,? Feb.1831,
AN F19/5759.
16. Quoted by M. Launay, Le bon prêtre. Le clergé rural au 19e siècle, 1986,
p. 206.
17. See M. Lagrée, Religion et modernité. France 19e–20e siècles, Rennes, 2002,
pp. 203–4.
18. Quoted by M. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes sous le Second Empire, II, 1982,
p. 912.
19. See e.g. M. Agostino, ‘Les ordinations aux 19e et 20 siècles: les enseigne-
ments de l’évolution d’un rituel. L’exemple du diocèse de Bordeaux’, in
M. Agostino, F. Cadilhon, P. Loupés, (eds) Fastes et cérémonies. L’expression
de la vie religieuse, 16e–20e siècles, Pessac, 2003, pp. 252–3.
20. Letter to Garde des Sceaux, 13 March 1865, AN F19/5863.
21. J.  Gaudemet, Administration et Eglise: du Concordat à la séparation…,
1987, p. 74.
22. Letter of 12 Feb. 1853, AN 246AP24.
23. J.-O.  Boudon, L’épiscopat français à l’époque concordataire, 1802–1905,
1996, pp. 24–5.
24. Ibid., pp. 46–48.
25. Ibid., pp. 52–4.
26. Ibid., pp. 56–8.
27. W. Serman, Les officiers français dans la nation, 1848–1914, 1982, p. 8.
28. J. Gadille, La pensée et l’action politiques des évêques français au début de la
3e République, 1967, pp. 26–7.
29. Prefect Oise to MC, 14 Nov.1854, 8 and 18 Feb. 1856, 31 July 1859;
Bishop of Beauvais to MC, 6 August 1859; M. Obré, vicaire-général de
Beauvais. Notes confidentielles. n.d., AN F19/5786.
30. J. McManners, Church and state in France, 1870–1914, 1972, pp. 25–6.
31. J.-O. Boudon, ‘Le rôle de la formation dans le recrutement des évêques
français du 19e siècle’ Paedagogica historica, 1994, pp. 89–90.
32. J.  Didier, (ed) ‘Un journal inédit de Mgr Darboy (années 1854–62)’—
entries of 9, 22 Feb. 1856; 8 March, 14 April, 15–24 Sept. 1858—in
Mèlanges de science religieuse, 1973. See also letter from the Abbé de
Guerry to Mocquart, private secretary to the Emperor, 3 July, 1861, AN
F19/5839.
33. Boudon, L’épiscopat, pp. 173–4, 181.
34. Quoted by J. Maurain, La politique ecclésiastique du Second Empire de 1852
à 1869, 1930, p. 83.
35. S. Gicquel, Prêtres de Bretagne au 19e siècle, 2008, p. 107.
36. 14 Nov. 1854. See also report from Prefect of Somme—Obré’s depart-
ment of origin—12 Feb. 1856, AN F19/5786.
60   R. PRICE

37. Boudon, L’épiscopat, pp. 421–2.

38. Letter to Emperor, 4 Nov. 1854, AN 246AP24.
39. AN 246AP24.
40. MC to Prefect Aveyron, 7 April 1855, AN 246AP24.
41. See e.g. anon letter to Bishop of Tarbes, 4 Oct. 1863, AN F19/5865.
42. Boudon, L’épiscopat, pp. 253–4.
43. Launay, Le bon prêtre, p. 211.
44. Boudon, L’épiscopat, pp. 385–8; and Paris, capital religieuse sous le Second
Empire, 2001, pp. 422–3.
45. Moulinet, D., ‘Un réseau ultramontain en France au milieu du 19e siècle’,
Revue d’histoire ecclésiatique, 1997, p. 103.
46. Quoted by Boudon, Paris, p. 354.
47. Ibid., pp.  361–4 and ‘Le Saint-Siège et les nominations épiscopales’,
pp. 132–3.
48. Boudon, Paris, p. 463 and Mgr Darboy (1813–71), 2011, pp. 64–8.
49. Boudon, Paris, p. 473.
50. Quoted by ibid., p. 476, note 3.
51. McManners, Church and state, p. 26.
52. Min. de l’I.P. et des C. to Prefect Dordogne, 22 March 1852, AN
F19/5843.
53. Bishop of Montpellier to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 4 March 1853, AN
F19/5799.
54. R. Gibson, A Social history of French Catholicism, 1789–1914, 1989, p. 67;
J.  Faury, Cléricalisme et anticléricalisme dans le Tarn, Toulouse, 1980,
p.  286; C.  Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans sous l’épiscopat de Mgr
Dupanloup, 1849–79, 1962, p. 81.
55. G. Cholvy, Etre chrétien en France au 19e siècle, 1997, p. 62.
56. Maurain, Politique ecclésiatique, p. 53.
57. McManners, Church and state, p. 20; J.-O. Boudon, Religion et politique
en France, pp. 81–2.
58. E.  Weber, Peasants into Frenchmen. The modernization of rural France,
1870–1914, 1976, p. 371.
59. C. Langlois, ‘Institutions et modèles’ in Joutard, (ed) Histoire de la France
religieuse vol. 3, 2001, p. 377.
60. M. Lagrée, Religion et cultures en Bretagne, 1850–1950, 1992, p. 157.
61. F. Boulard, (ed) Matériaux pour l’histoire religieuse du people français, 19e–
20e siècles, vol. I, 1982, p. 241.
62. R. Price, A Social history of nineteenth-century France, 1987, p. 264.
63. See e.g. G. Cholvy, Religion et société au 19e siècle. Le diocèse de Montpellier,
vol. 2, Lille, 1973, p. 1575; Y-M. Hilaire, La vie religieuse des populations
du diocèse d’Arras, 1840–1914, Doc. d’Etat, Univ. de Paris IV, 1976,
p. 184; M. Lagrée, (ed) Les parlers de la foi. Religion et langues régionales,
Rennes, 1995, p. 14.
   GOD’S CHURCH    61

64. Conseiller de prefecture to MC, 9 May 1856, AN F19/5822.

65. Bishop of Chartres to MC, 22 March 1869, AN F19/5803.
66. Mayor to MC, 22 March 1869, AN F19/5823.
67. M. Gueroult to Bishop 10 March and to MC 22 July 1863, AN F19/5783.
68. V. Petit, ‘Le clergé paroissial à Paris: 1840–70’ in P. Boutry, A. Encrève,
(eds) La religion dans la ville, 2003, pp. 124–5.
69. Vicar-general Paris to MC, 20 May 1856, AN F19/5839.
70. Boudon, Paris, pp. 24–5.
71. Petit, ‘Le clergé paroissial’, p. 127; see also Y. Daniel, L’équipement parois-
sial d’un diocèse urbain, Paris (1802–1956), 1952, p. 152.
72. On the activities of laity, see e.g. L. Girard, Nouvelle histoire de Paris. La
deuxième république et le second empire, 1981, pp. 275–6; J. Gay, ‘Les sec-
ours aux indigents et l’assistance publique à Paris, 1830–70’ Mémoires de la
Société pour l’histoire…des anciens pays bourguignons, 1994, pp. 154–5.
73. See also Conseil municipal de Paris, Projet de circonscription des paroisses de
Paris. Rapport fait au nom de la Commission spéciale par M. Bonjean, Paris,
Vinchon 1855—in AN F19/5839; Boudon, Paris, pp. 275–8.
74. Girard, op. cit., p. 278.
75. See e.g. undated letter of M. Cuny to MC and response of Archbishop of
Paris to MC, 13 Nov. 1858, AN F19/5839.
76. F. Charpin, Pratique religieuse et formation d’une grande ville. Le geste de
baptisme et sa signification en sociologie religieuse (Marseille 1806–1958)
1964, pp. 54–5.
77. See e.g. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes I, p. 291.
78. E.g. C. Dumoulin, Un séminaire français au 19e siècle: le recrutement, la
formation, la vie des clercs à Bourges, 1978, p. 132.
79. See e.g. A. Percheron, ‘La transmission des valeurs’ in F. de Singly, (ed.) La
famille, l’état des savoir, 1991, p. 183f; G. Gabbois, ‘Vous êtes presque la
seule consolation de l’Eglise. La foi des femmes face à la déchristianisation
de 1789 à 1880’ in J. Delumeau, (ed) La religion de ma mère. Les femmes
et la transmission de la foi, 1992, p.  315; P.  Foucault, B.  Waché,
‘Enseignements tirés de récits de vocations au 19e siècle. L’exemple de
Maine’, Annales de Bretagne, 2009, pp. 58–9; C. Chevandier, ‘Vocation
professionnelle: un concept efficient pour le 20e siècle?’, ibid., pp. 95, 102.
80. J.  Pascal, Les ecclésiastiques parlementaires français, 1848–1977, 1988,
pp. 45–6.
81. Boudon, L’épiscopat, pp. 63–7; E. Gargan, ‘The priestly culture in modern
France’ Catholic historical review, 1971, pp. 5–15.
82. See e.g. C.  Langlois, Un diocese Breton au début du 19e siècle, Rennes,
1974, pp. 379–80; E. Constant, Le département du Var sous le second empire
et au début de la 3e république, Thèse pour le doctorat ès letters, Univ. de
Provence-Aix-en-Provence, 1977, p. 672; Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans,
p. 411; Dumoulin, Un séminaire français au 19e siècle, pp. 338–9.
62   R. PRICE

83. M. Launay, ‘Une chrétienté sous le Second Empire: le diocèse de Nantes’

in Christianisme et Vendée, Le Roche-sur-Yon, 2000, p. 380.
84. Report of academic rector, Jan. 1865, AN F17/9982.
85. Quoted by Dumoulin, Un séminaire français, p. 339.
86. Quoted by P.  Foucault, ‘L’origine socio-professionnelle du clergé sar-
thois durant la période concordataire’ in P. Chaunu, (ed) Mentalités reli-
gieuses dans la France de l’ouest aux 19e et 20e siècles. Etudes d’histoire
sérielle, Caen, 1976, p. 156.
87. Report to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 4 Jan. 1859, AN F19/5831.
88. P. Boutry, ‘Paroisses et clergé paroissial en France’ in B. Pellistrandi, (ed)
L’histoire religieuse en France et en Espagne, Madrid, 2004, p. 184.
89. Quoted by Launay, Le bon prêtre, p. 70.
90. See e.g. Bishop of Moulins to MC, 22 Jan. 1854, AN 246AP24.
91. Unaddressed letter from Jos. Sorel of 7 Jan. 1863; Superior Missions
Etrangères to Min. de l’I.P. et des C. ?Jan. 1863, AN F19/5786.
92. O.  Faure, B.  Delpal, ‘Retour sur les enfermements’ in Faure, Delpal,
(eds) Religion et enfermements (17e–20e siècles), Rennes, 2005, pp. 24–6.
93. Quoted by S. Gicquel, Prêtres eu Bretagne au 19e siècle, Rennes, 2008,
p. 38.
94. Quoted by P. Boutry, ‘Le bienheureux Pie IX et le Séminaire français de
Rome’. In P. Levillain, P. Boutry, Y-M. Fradet, (eds) 150 ans au cœur de
Rome. Le séminaire français, 1853–2003, 2004, p. 65.
95. Orleans 1854, p. 25—quoted by C. Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans au
milieu du 19e siècle. Les hommes et leurs mentalités, 1964, p. 226.
96. Boudon, L’épiscopat, p. 93.
97. M. Denis, C. Geslin, La Bretagne des blancs et des bleus (1815–80), 2003,
p. 603.
98. Boudon, Paris, pp. 62–64.
99. Quoted by Launay, Le bon prêtre, p. 28.
100. Quoted by L.  Secondy, ‘Place et rôle des petits séminaires dans
l’enseignement secondaire en France au 19e siècle’, Revue d’histoire de
l’Eglise de France, 1980, pp. 251–2.
101. C. Langlois, ‘La formation cléricale aux 19e et 20e siècles’ in Ecole fran-
çaise de Rome, Problèmes d’histoire de l’éducation, Rome 1988,
pp. 240–2.
102. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes I, pp. 273–4.
103. See also O.  Faure, B.  Delpal, Religion et enfermements, 17e–20e siècles,
Rennes, 2005, pp.  24–5; P.  Cabanel, ‘Enfermement et intériorisation:
l’exemple de la vocation religieuse aux 19e et 20e siècles’, ibid., pp. 84–6.
104. Quoted by C.  Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans au milieu du 19e siècle,
1964, p. 86.
105. E.g. application to establish an école primaire libre in association with
existing the petit séminaire by the Congrègation du St. Esprit et du
   GOD’S CHURCH    63

Sacré-Cœur de Marie at Cellule, near Riom, 27 Nov. 1856, AN

F17/9114. See also A. Corbin, Archaïsme et modernité en Limousin au
19e siècle I 1975, pp. 641–2.
106. Academic Rector of Rennes to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 15 July 1861;
Abbé Fillion to Bishop of Laval, 22 June 1861, supported by report of
Prefect Mayenne to MC, 23 June 1861, AN F19/5816.
107. M. Launay, Les séminaires français aux 19e et 20e siècles, 2002, pp. 62–3.
108. Launay, Les séminaires, pp. 45–6, 77–8.
109. Dumoulin, Un séminaire français, pp. 313–5, 321–2.
110. Report of 6 April 1853, AN F19/5803.
111. Report to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 5 March 1853, AN F19/5855;
B. Basdevant-Gaudemet, ‘Mgr Pie et l’enseignement’ in Cholvy, Chaline,
L’enseignement catholique en France aux 19e et 20e siècles, 1995, p. 109.
112. Quoted by Corbin, Archaïsme et modernité I, p. 642. See also L. Perouas,
Refus d’une religion, religion d’un refus en Limousin rural, 1880–1940,
1985, p. 111.
113. Langlois, ‘La formation’, p.  235; Launay, le bon prêtre, pp.  36–53;
S. Grote, ‘Religion and Enlightenment’, Journal of the History of ideas,
2014, p. 158.
114. C.  Langlois, Le continent théologique. Explorations historiques, 2016,
p. 31.
115. P. Pierrard, Les dioceses de Cambrai et de Lille, 1978, p. 290.
116. See e.g. M.  Lagrée, ‘L’age de remise en cause (1840–1970s)’ in
J. Delumeau, Le diocèse de Rennes, 1979, pp. 241–3.
117. Quoted by J.-P. Gonnot, Vocations et carrières sacerdotales dans le diocèse
de Belley de 1823 à 1904, 1984, p. 90.
118. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes, I, p. 282. See also Launay, ‘Restauration du
clergé et formation sacerdotale au 19e siècle: le grand séminaire de Nantes
1807–1914’, Bulletin de la Société archéologique et historique de Nantes,
2006, passim.
119. Quoted by Gibson, Social history, p. 88.
120. See e.g. Gicquel, Prêtres de Bretagne, pp. 46–7.
121. Quoted by Launay, Les séminaires, pp. 79–80.
122. Quoted by B. Waché, ‘L’Ecole des Carmes, 1845–75’ in Cholvy, Chaline,
L’enseignement catholique, p. 238.
123. Boudon, L’épiscopat, pp. 134–6.
124. See especially J.-O.  Boudon, ‘L’épiscopat français et le développement
des hautes études ecclésiastiques au 19e siècle’ in Cholvy, Chaline,
L’enseignement catholique, pp. 237–250; P. Boutry, ‘Le bienheureux Pie
IX et le Séminaire français de Rome’, pp. 45–8.
125. Y.-M. Hilaire, ‘Note sur le recrutement des élèves du séminaire français
de Rome (1853–1914)’, Archives de sociologie de religion, 1967, p. 135.
126. Dumoulin, Un séminaire français, pp. 126–130.
64   R. PRICE

127. M. Agostino, ‘Les ordinations aux 19e et 20e siècles: les enseignements
de l’évolution d’un rituel. L’exemple du diocèse de Bordeaux’, in
Agostino et al. Fastes et cérémonies. L’expression de la vie religieuse, 16e–20e
siècles, Pressac, 2003, p. 252.
128. P.  Pierrard, La vie quotidienne du prêtre français, 1801–1905, 1986,
pp. 111–14.
129. M. Lagrée, ‘Les vicaires ruraux dans l’ouest Breton au 19e siècle’ Cahiers
de recherches en sciences de la religion, 1995, pp. 151, 159–163; F. Ploux,
‘Les curés historiens de village et les tentatives de restauration de l’autorité
cléricale après la Révolution’, le mouvement social, 2008, pp. 26–30.
130. Letter of 28 Sept. 1848, AN F19/5766.
131. Langlois, ‘La formation’, p. 252; C. Savart, Les catholiques en France au
19e siècle: le témoignage du livre religieux, 1985, p. 245.
132. Bishop of Le Mans to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 24 Dec. 1831, AN
F19/5736; P.  Boutry, ‘Les conférences ecclésiastique au 19e siècle’,
Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 2007, pp. 51–53.
133. Gicquel, Prêtres de Bretagne, pp. 218–9.
134. Basdevant-Gaudemet, ‘Mgr Pie et l’enseignement’ in Cholvy, Chaline,
Enseignement catholique, pp. 109–110.
135. See e.g. Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans, pp. 176f.
136. Mgr Bécel, 1864, quoted by Gicquel, Prêtres de Bretagne, p. 215.
137. Quoted by P. Martin, Une religion des livres, 2003, p. 85. See also Savart,
Les catholiques en France au 19e siècle, pp. 657–664.
138. Quoted by Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans, pp. 310–1.
139. J. McMillan, ‘Louis Veuillot, L’Univers and the ultramontane network’ in
D.  Bates, Liens personnels, réseaux, solidarités en France et dans les îles
britanniques, 2006, pp. 221–9.
140. F. Ploux, ‘Les curés historiens de village, pp. 26–27.
141. See especially S.  Milbach, Prêtres historiens et pèlerinages du diocèse de
Dijon, Dijon 2000.
142. See e.g. Ministre de l’I.P.et des C., Note, n.d. but Dec.1854 re. curé of
Contrexville, AN F19/5776.
143. Letter to Emperor, 15 Nov. 1853, AN F19/5817.
144. Letter of 19 Nov. 1853, AN F19/5817.
145. MC to Prefect Côtes-du-Nord, 20 April 1855, AN F19/5845.
146. J.-O.  Boudon, ‘Les charges antiépiscopales au 19e siècle’ in C.  Sorrel,
L’anticléricalisme croyant (1860–1914), Chambéry, 2004, p. 25.
147. Prefect Meuse to MC, 17 Nov. 1865, AN F19/5873.
148. See e.g. Bishop of Autun to MC, 28 Aug. 1860, AN F19/5782.
149. Abbé Delahaye, vicar-general to Archbishop of Rouen 10 June 1861, re.
curé of Thil-Manneville, AN F19/5854.
150. E.g. Vicar-general of Nancy to MC, 26 Feb. 1870, re. curé of Bayon, AN
F19/5831.
   GOD’S CHURCH    65

151. Bishop of Limoges to MC, 10 March 1853 re. desservant of Margival,

AN F19/5863.
152. MI to MC, 16 Sept. 1859, AN F19/5875.
153. Prefect Marne to MC, 31 Aug. 1857, AN F19/5850.
154. Letter to MC, 18 Feb. 1854, AN F19/5853.
155. Prefect Meurthe to MC, 5 Aug. 1862, AN F19/5831.
156. Petition of Feb. 1870, AN F19/5831.
157. Bishop Montauban to MC, 6 July 1859, AN F19/5773.
158. Letter to Prefect Creuse, 22 Jan. 1852, AN F19/5817.
159. See e.g. Bishop of Verdun to MC, 13 Feb. 1868, AN F19/5873.
160. See e.g. Bishop of Rodez to Prefect Aveyron, 4 Sept. 1868, AN F19/5853.
161. See e.g. Prefect Bouches-du-Rhône to MC, 22 Dec. 1859, re. Mgr de
Mazenod, AN F19/5822.
162. Letter to Garde des Sceaux, 18 Jan. 1865, AN F19/5784.
163. Letter to MC, 6 June 1857, AN F19/5850. See also Prefect Saône-et-
Loire to MC, 29 Dec. 1858, AN F19/5781.
164. Letter to MC, 7 July 1859, AN F19/5855.
165. Extrait du registre des délibérations du Conseil départemental de
l’Instruction publique, 11 July 1855; Prefect Vendée to Min. de l’I.P. et
des C., 13 and 31 July 1855 and 16 Feb. 1856, AN F19/5819.
166. Anon letter from ‘plusieurs prêtres’ to MC, ? May; seemingly confirmed
in report from Prefect Hautes-Alpes to Director-general, Ministère des
Cultes, 9 Jul, and to MC,12 August 1850; AN F19/5731.
167. See e.g. Prefect Eure-et-Loir to MC, 28 Sept. 1868, AN F19/5803.
168. Vicar-general Arras to MC, 11 May 1860, AN F19/5779.
169. Bishop of Poitiers to MC, 26 July 1848, AN F19/5748.
170. Letter to Bishop of Nancy, 17 Oct. 1863, AN F19/5831.
171. Note pour M. le Ministre. Diocèse de Grenoble. 30 March 1858, AN
F19/5812.
172. Petition to MC, 23 Nov..1851, contents confirmed in report from Prefect
Creuse to MC, 29 Jan. 1852; Bishop of Limoges to Prefect Creuse, 24
Jan. 1852, AN F19/5817.
173. Letter to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 17 January 1858; Prefect Moselle to
minister, 23 March, AN F19/5825.
174. Letter to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 11 Nov. 1864, AN F19/5863.
175. Archbishop of Sens to MC, 8 Sept. 1851, AN F19/5861.
176. Letter to MC, 5 Jan. 1867, AN F19/5803.
177. Bishop Bayonne to MC, 24 March 1858, AN F19/5784.
178. Report to MC, 16 Dec. 1857, AN F19/5784.
179. See e.g. Prefect Aisne to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 20 March 1861 re. parish
priest of Levergies, AN F19/5863.
180. See e.g. PG Lyon to Garde des Sceaux, 18 Nov. 1864 re. Abbé Ruffin of
Fleurie, AN F19/5821.
66   R. PRICE

181. See e.g. Abbé Robert to MC, 6 Nov. 1848, AN F19/5718.

182. Abbé Le Moing to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 10 June 1848, AN F19/5816.
183. Prefect Seine-et-Marne to MC, n.d.; letters 23 and 24 June to Prefect
from Abbé Guérard and to Emperor from Abbés Guérard and Verdier, 30
July; Archbishop of Paris to MC, 19 August; Bishop of Meaux to Abbé
Guérard, 13 Sept. 1863, AN F19/5823.
184. Letter from the candidate I.  Periere to MC, ? July 1863; Bishop of
Perpignan to Abbé Bedos, 3 July 1863, AN F19/5845. See also Thibon,
Pays de Sault, pp. 130, 140.
185. Gibson, Social history, p.  109; Airiau, ‘Le formation sacerdotale source
d’anticléricalisme croyant au 19e siècle’, in Sorrel, L’anticléricalisme croy-
ant, pp. 49–50.
186. Quoted by P. Rocher, ‘De l’enseignement à l’éducation jésuite en région
lyonnaise (1850–1950)’ in E.  Fouilloux, B.  Hours, (eds) Les jésuites à
Lyon, 16e–20e siècles, Lyon, 2005, p. 117.
187. Boudon Paris, p. 108.
188. Prefect Meurthe to MJ et des C., 22 Jan. 1867, AN F19/6288.
189. P.  Raphael, M.  Gontard, Un ministre de l’Instruction publique sous
l’empire autoritaire, Hippolyte Fortoul, 1851–56, 1972, p. 279.
190. 4 June 1856, AN F19/6253.
191. J.-O. Boudon, ‘Etre chrétien dans une ville déchristianisée: Paris au 19e
siècle’ in Boudon, Thelamon, Les chrétiens dans la ville, p. 192.
192. Boudon, Paris, pp. 123–127.
193. Ibid., pp. 70–4.
194. C.  Langlois, ‘Une France duelle? L’espace religieux contemporain’ in
Joutard, (ed) Histoire de la France religieuse III, p. 316.
195. C.  Langlois, Le catholicisme au féminin. Les congrégations françaises à
supérieure générale au 19e siècle,1984, p.  305; Boudon, Paris,
pp. 104–5.
196. J. Séguy, ‘Une sociologie des sociétés imaginées: monachisme et utopie’
Annales ESC, 1971, p. 353.
197. See especially Langlois, Le catholicisme au féminin, passim; and contribu-
tions to D. Sutherland, (ed), ‘Claude Langlois’s Vision of France: regional
identity, royal imaginary, and holy women’, Historical Reflections, 2013;
J.  Bergin, Church, society, and religious change in France, 1580–1730,
2009, passim; R. Gibson, ‘Le catholicisme et les femmes en France au 19e
siècle’ Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, passim and ‘The
Christianisation of the countryside’ in J.-P.  Massaut, M.-E.  Henneau,
(eds) La christianisation des campagnes, Rome, 1996, pp. 503–7.
198. Langlois, Le catholicisme au féminin. pp. 522, 555, 560–1; R. Gibson,
‘Female religious orders in 19th century France’ in N. Atkin, F. Tallett,
(eds) Catholicism in Britain and France since 1789, 1996, passim;
   GOD’S CHURCH    67

R.  Rogers, Les bourgeoises au pensionnat. L’éducation féminine au 19e

siècle. Rennes, 2007, pp. 184–190.
199. Harris, Lourdes, p. 361.
200. See also C. Langlois, ‘Essai d’ego-histoire: du feminine dans le catholi-
cisme contemporain’ in Le continent théologique, 2016, pp. 253–4.
201. Langlois, Le catholicisme au féminin, p. 508.
202. Ibid., p. 505.
203. Ibid., pp. 429–34, 456–62, 505, 508, 577–83.
204. Baron de Watteville, Inspecteur général des établissements de bienfai-
sance, Rapport à son excellence le Ministère de l’Interieur sur
l’administration des bureaux de bienfaisance et sur la situation du pau-
pèrisme en France, 1854, p. 11. See also P. Wynants, ‘La christianisation
des campagnes par l’enseignement populaire au 19e siècle. Etude de cas:
les écoles des Sœurs de la Providence et de l’Immaculée Conception’ in
Massaut, Henneau, (eds) La christianisation des campagnes, p. 552.
205. Préfet of Haute-Loire, Communalités religieuses. Notes sur le personnel,
20 Oct. 1853, AN F19/5848.
206. See e.g. M. Denis, C. Geslin, La Bretagne des blancs et des bleus, 1815–80,
2003, p. 613.
207. Quoted by F.  Mayeur, ‘La formation des institutrices avant la loi Paul
Bert’ in G.  Cholvy, N.-J.  Chaline, (eds) L’enseignement catholique en
France, p. 121.
208. C. Langlois, Catholicisme, religieuses et société. Le temps des bonnes sœurs,
2011, pp. 48–50.
209. See the Catholic Encyclopedia online.
210. Prefect to Min. de l’I.P. et des C. ,3 March 1853 and accompanying
report, AN F19/5855; see also Prefect Ardennes to Min. de l’I.P. et des
C., 14 Feb. 1853, AN F19/5850.
211. Detailed report from members of the Ordre de Saint-Joseph, 24 Nov.
1857, AN F19/5773.
212. C. Langlois, Catholicisme, religieuses et société. pp. 35–42.
213. Denis, Geslin, La Bretagne, 2003, p. 613.
214. See e.g. reports from Bureaux de bienfaisance Marseille and Prefect
Bouches-du-Rhône, 29 Dec. 1844, AN F19/5737.
215. O. Faure, ‘Les religieuses hospitalières entre médecine et religion’ in I.
von Bueltzingsloewen, D. Pelletier, (eds) La charité en pratique. Chrétiens
français et allemands sur le terrain social: 19e–20e siècles, Strasbourg 1997,
pp. 56–8; P. Guillaume, Médecins, église et foi, 1990, p. 23; J. Léonard,
Médecins, malades et société dans la France du 19e siècle, 1992, pp. 44–46;
Langlois, Catholiques, religieuses et société, pp. 35–42.
216. See also Langlois, Le catholicisme au féminin, pp. 308–9; J.-O. Boudon,
‘Congrégations’ in Tulard, Dictionnaire, p.  332; V.  Rogard, Les
68   R. PRICE

catholiques et la question sociale. Morlaix 1840–1914. L’avènement des

militants, Rennes 1997, pp. 38–9; M. Warner, Alone of all her sex. The
myth and the cult of the Virgin Mary, New York, 1983, p. 361.
217. P.  Bourdelais, ‘Le poids démographique des femmes seules en France’,
Annales de démographie historique, 1981, pp.  215–223; R.  Rogers, Les
bourgeoises au pensionnat, p. 180.
218. See e.g. Prefect, 25 Nov. 1853 AN F1 CIII Haute-Loire 5; Communalités
religieuses, 20 Oct. 1853, AN F19/5848.
219. See e.g. Y. Pourcher, ‘Les vocations sacerdotales et religieuses en Lozère
aux 19e et 20e siècles’, Le monde alpin et rhodanien, 1985, pp. 55–82.
220. See e.g. G. Cholvy, ‘Une école des pauvres au début du 19e siècle. Pieuses
filles, béates ou sœurs des campagnes’ in D. Baker, P. Harrigan, (eds) The
making of Frenchmen: current directions in the history of education in
France, 1679–1979, Waterloo, Ontario, 1980, pp. 135–241; P. Cabanel,
Cadets de Dieu. Vocations et migrations religieuses en Gévaudan 18e-20e
siècles, 1997, pp. 170–1; F. Mayeur, ‘L’éducation des filles en France au
19e siècle’ in Ecole française de Rome, (ed) Problèmes d’histoire de
l’éducation, Rome, 1988, p. 86.
221. D.-M. Auzet, La mystique bien temperée. Ecriture fèminine de l’expérience
spirituelle, 2006, pp. 34–5.
222. Simon to President of Republic 20 Nov. and to MC, 8 Dec. 1851;
Archbishop of Reims to MC, 16 Dec. 1851, AN F19/5850.
223. See e.g. S. Curtis, Educating the Faithful. Religious Schooling and Society
in 19th Century France, DeKalb, 2000, pp. 75–8.
224. Sister L. Gros to Edmund Coppin, 28 Feb. 1848. M. Coppin passed on
her request to the MC; Sister Gros to Bishop of Bayeux and Mother
Superior, Communauté du Bon Sauveur, Caen, to Bishop of Bayeux both
30 March, AN F19/5719.
225. Langlois, Catholicisme, pp. 177–8.
226. See e.g. Curtis, Educating the Faithful, pp.  44–8; M.  Lagrée,
‘L’achèvement de la conquête (1800–40)’ in J. Delumeau, (ed) Le diocèse
de Rennes, 1979, p. 206; C. Langlois, ‘Les tiers-ordres dans le diocèse de
Vannes’ in Langlois, P.  Wagret, (eds) Structures religieuses et célibat
féminin au 19e siècle, Lyon 1972, pp. 74–5.
227. L’Univers, 13 Sept. 1848; Langlois, Catholicisme, p. 202.
228. S. Haugommard, Les églises du diocese de Nantes au 19e siècle. Des edifices
pour le culte, des monuments pour une reconquête, Rennes, 2015, pp. 25–6.
229. M. Baylé, ‘Renouveaux religieux et restauration du patrimoine architec-
tural de 1815 à 1860: l’exemple de la Normandie’ in H. Guillemain et al.,
La foi dans le siècle, Rennes, 2009, pp. 99–101.
230. See e.g. Bishop of Quimper to MC, 21 July 1861, AN F19/5849;
Y.-M. Hilaire, ‘L’évolution religieuse du littoral à l’époque de Napoléon
III’, Cahiers du Littoral, 2001, p. 201.
   GOD’S CHURCH    69

231. Circulars of 20 and 29 Dec. 1834, quoted by J.  Charon-Bordas, Les

sources de l’histoire de l’architecture religieuses aux Archives nationales de la
Révolution à la séparation, 1994, pp. 18–20.
232. Quoted by G.  Couray-Bapsolle, Patrimoine religieux en Languedoc-
Roussillon (1789–1914), 2005, pp.  129–131, 201. See also I.  Saint-
Martin, Art chrétien/art sacré. Regards du catholicisme sur l’art. France,
19e–20e siècles. Rennes, 2014, pp. 30–33.
233. Baylé, ‘Renouveau religieux’, op. cit.
234. F.  Igersheim, Politique et administration dans le Bas-Rhin, 1848–70,
Strasbourg, 1993, p. 501.
235. Rapports addressés à son éminence Mgr. le Cardinal de Bonnechose,
Archévêque de Rouen sur l’inspection des églises de son diocèse pendant les
années 1862 et 1863, Rouen 1864, pp. 3–4, 9.
236. J.-M.  Leniaud, La révolution des signes. L’art à l’église (1830–1930),
2007, p.  31. See also P.  Boutry, ‘Les mutations du paysage paroissial.
Reconstructions d’églises et translations de cimetières dans les campagnes
de l’Ain au 19e siècle’, Ethnologie française, 1985, p. 8; J.-M. Leniaud,
‘La visibilité de’l’église dans l’espace parisien au 19e siècle. Tours de Babel
catholiques pour la moderne Babylone’ in C. Charle, D. Roche, Capitales
cultuelles capitales symboliques. Paris et les expériences européennes, 18e–19e
siècles, 2002, p. 212.
237. Ibid., p. 10.
238. Leniaud, op. cit., p. 15.
239. A. Le Bas, Des sanctuaires hors les murs. Eglises de la proche banlieu parisi-
enne, 1801–1965, 2002, p. 94.
240. Letter to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 29 Aug. 1854, AN 246AP24.
241. F. Bercé, Viollet-le-Duc. 2012, pp. 51–8.
242. Boudon, Paris, pp. 291–2.
243. 10 Jan. 1853, in AN 246AP24.
244. Quoted by ibid., p. 292.
245. J.-O.  Boudon, ‘Le décor religieux de la nouvelle Rome: Paris, capital
religieuse sous le Second Empire’ in Charle, Roche, Capitales culturelles.
Capitales symboliques, p. 221.
246. Mgr Sibour to MC, 29 Aug. 1854, AN 246AP24.
247. Boudon, Paris, pp. 293–9.
248. J.-P. Moisset, Les biens de ce monde. Les finances de l’Eglise catholique au
19e siècle dans le diocèse de Paris, Bordeaux, 2004, pp. 163–4.
249. Quoted by Le Bas, Des sanctuaires hors les murs, p. 67.
250. See e.g. Le Bas, op. cit., pp. 67–8; N.-J. Chaline, ‘La construction des
églises paroissiales aux 19e et 20e siècles’, Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de
France, 1987, pp. 35–49.
251. Quoted by Boudon, Paris, capitale religieuse, p. 229.
252. Ibid., pp. 302–3.
70   R. PRICE

253. E. Carmignani, ‘Le rapport Duban en 1866: les moyens de construire les
églises avec économies’ in B.  Foucart, F.  Hamon, (eds) L’architecture
religieuse au 19e siècle. Entre éclectisme et rationalisme, 2002, pp.  233,
239.
254. Quoted by Leniaud, La révolution des signes, pp. 23–4.
255. H. van Achen, ‘Fighting the Disenchantment of the World: the instru-
ment of medieval revivalism in 19th century art and architecture’, in
H. Laugerud, S. Ryan, (eds) Devotional Cultures of European Christianity,
1790–1960, Leuven, 2012, pp. 135–138.
256. See e.g. Bishop of Limoges to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 1 June 1852, AN
246AP24; Mgr Baillès to MC, 4 March 1854, AN F19/5819.
257. J.-M.  Leniaud, ‘Variations sur le néo-gothique’ in J. de Maeyer,
L. Verpoest, (eds) Gothic revival. Religion, architecture and style in west-
ern Europe, 1815–1914, Leuven, 2000, pp. 49–58.
258. J.-M. Leniaud, Viollet-le-Duc, 1994, p. 63.
259. Leniaud, La révolution des signes, p. 124.
260. Ibid., p. 259.
261. Quoted by Le Bas, Des sanctuaires hors les murs, p. 228, note 180.
262. Ibid., pp.  78–9. See also J.-M.  Leniaud, Les cathédrales au 19e siècle.
Etude du service des édifices diocésains, 1993, p. 430; S. de Lavergne, La
restauration des cathèdrales et l’exercice du culte au 19e siècle, 1994,
p. 128.
263. Leniaud, ‘Les constructions d’églises sous le Second Empire: architecture
et prix de revient’, Revue d’histoire de L’Eglise de France, 1979,
pp. 267–278.
264. Mandement de Carême 1859, quoted by Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes II,
p. 494.
265. R.  Levesque, ‘Nous étouffons…. Permettez-nous de bâtir notre église
tant désirée!’ Réflexions sur l’architecture religieuse vendéenne au 19e
siècle’ in Centre vendéen de recherches historiques, (ed) Christianisme et
Vendée. La création au 19e siècle d’un foyer du christianisme, La Roche-
sur-Yon, 2000, p. 421; J-L. Kerouanton, ‘La reconstruction des églises
du Choletais au 19e siècle: représentation catholique, architecture en
vendée angevine’, ibid., p. 429.
266. A. Corbin, Les cloches de la terre, 1994, pp. 192–3.
267. Prefect Moselle to MJ et des C., 25 Aug. 1863, AN F19/5825.
268. E.g. Delpal, Entre paroisse et commune, p. 258.
269. Quoted by J.-M. Leniaud, Les cathédrales au 19e siècle, pp. 488–9.
270. E.g. Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans, pp. 237–8; P. Goujon, Le vigneron
citoyen. Mâconnais et Chalonnais (1848–1914), 1993, pp. 141–2.
271. 10 April 1858, AN F1 CIII Haute-Saône 12.
272. Saint-Martin, Art chrétien/art sacré, pp. 73–91.
   GOD’S CHURCH    71

273. See also J.-M. Leniaud, ‘Quelques hypothèses sur l’aménagement intéri-

eur de l’édifice cultuel au 19e siècle’ in L. van Ypersele, A.-D. Marcelis,
(eds) Rêves de chrétienté, réalités du monde. Imaginaires catholiques, 2001,
pp. 303–5; C. Laroche, ‘Les enjeux multiples de l’architecture religieuse
du second 19e siècle en France’ in Foucart, Hamon, L’architecture reli-
gieuse, pp. 303–4; F. Loyer, preface to A. Le Bas, Des sanctuaires hors les
murs, pp. 11–24.
274. Saint-Martin, Art chrétien, p. 133.
275. See e.g. B.  Foucart, Le renouveau de la peinture religieuse en France,
1800–60, 1987, p. 55.
276. G. Couray-Bapsolle, Patrimoine religieux en Languedoc-Roussillon, 1789–
1914, 2005, pp. 490–1, 495.
277. See e.g. cloying description of new stained glass windows at Beauvais in
Moniteur de l’Oise, 30 Nov. 1855, AN F19/5786; see also C.  Brisac,
‘Repéres pour l’étude de l’iconographie du vitrail du 19e siècle’, Annales
de Bretagne, 1986, p. 350.
278. Leniaud, La révolution des signes, pp. 332–4; Gagneux, Reliques, p. 165;
C. Laroche, ‘Les enjeux multiples’, p. 295; B. Foucart, ‘Comment peut-
on aimer une église au 19e siècle, ou de la réhabilitation du pastiche’, Les
monuments historiques de la France, 1974, pp. 64–71.
279. See also Leniaud, ‘Quelques hypothèses’ in Ypersele, Marcelis, (eds)
Rêves de chrétienté, pp. 302–5; J. Pirotte, ‘Refaire la chrétienté d’outre-
mer. Les métamophoses d’un projet de conquête (19e–milieu du 20e
siècle), ibid., pp. 371–6.
280. MI to MC, 2 May 1851; MC to Bishop of Perpignan, 14 May, AN
F19/5845.
281. Quoted by L. Pinard, Les mentalités religieuses du Morvan au 19e siècle,
1830–1914, 1997, p. 81.
282. Petition of 31 May 1856, AN F19/5769.
283. Secretaire-général de la prefecture du Calvados to MC, 16 Sept. 1865,
AN F19/5783.
284. E.g. Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans, p.  237; G.  Cholvy, ‘Un ex-voto
national. L’Eglise Saint Roch à Montpellier’ in Espaces religieux et com-
munautês meridionales, 1993, passim; M.  Lagrée, ‘Les répliques de la
grotte de Lourdes’ in Homo Religiosus, autour de Jean Delumeau, 1997,
p. 25.
285. C. Savart, ‘Deux siècles de querelles autour de l’art sacré’ in A. Corbin,
(ed) Histoire du christianisme, 2007, p. 407.
286. Quoted by Saint-Martin, Art chrétien, p. 158.
287. Quoted by Leniaud, La révolution des signes, p. 342.
288. C.  Langlois, ‘Le conjoncture mariale des années 40’, in F.  Angelier,
C.  Langlois, La Salette . Apocalypse, pèlerinage et littérature, Grenoble,
2000, pp. 30–1.
72   R. PRICE

289. J. Polistena, The religious paintings of Eugène Delacroix (1798–1863): the

initiator of the style of modern religious art, Lewiston, 2008, pp. 109, 162.
290. Parish priest at Chevilly to Vicar-general Paris, 25 Sept. 1863, AN
F19/5842.
291. Letter to MC, 23 May 1857, AN F19/5799.
292. Y. Daniel, (ed) La religion est perdue à Paris, 1978, p. 49.
293. Prefect Vosges to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 22 Aug. 1852, AN F19/5776.
294. See e.g. Prefect Meurthe to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 16 May 1859, AN
F19/5831.
295. Letter from Abbé Chervaux to MC, ? Feb. 1864; Archbishop of Sens to
MC, 15 March, AN F19/5861.
296. See e.g. Prefect Oise to MC, 14 Sept. 1857, AN F19/5786 re. debts
accumulated by Abbé Maillard, desservant of Pailly. J.-P.  Moisset, ‘Les
finances de la culte catholique dans les paroisses urbains: l’example de
Paris au 19e siècle’ in P. Boutry, A. Encrevé, (eds) La religion dans la ville,
pp. 103–9.
297. Letter of 1 Dec. 1855, AN 246AP27.
298. AN 246AP28.
299. Abbé Delorme to Emperor, 10 Aug. 1858, AN F19/5607.
300. N.  Gastaldi, ‘La vie des paroisses’, in Musée de l’histoire de France,
Concordat, pp. 60–1.
301. Boutry, ‘Les mutations du paysage paroissial’, p. 16.
302. Basdevant-Gaudemet, Le jeu concordataire, pp. 187–192; F. Bayard, ‘Les
comptes de la fabrique à Saint-Genis-l’Argentière, 1863–1906’ in
B. Plongeron, P. Guillaume, (eds) De la charité à l’action sociale: religion
et société, 1995, pp. 288–290 A. Lonjon, ‘Identification et catègorisation:
les élites catholiques du Pas-de-Calais au 19e siècle’, Siècles: cahiers du
centre d’histoire des entreprises et des communautés, 2004, p. 96.
303. See e.g. sous-préfet of La Tour-du-Pin to Prefect Isère, 5 Oct. 1857, AN
F19/5812.
304. PG Poitiers to G. des S., 15 Jan. 1866, AN F19/5819.
 CHAPTER 3

Doctrine: The Move Towards Rome

3.1   Introduction
The purpose of life, according to the Church, was to serve God and to
secure personal Salvation. Life could thus be represented as preparation
for death when all would be judged. Belief in the message delivered by
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, together with good works, enabled men and
women to seek forgiveness for the Original Sin committed by Adam and
to secure relief from the fallen state into which consequently all humans
had descended, as well as for personal sin—both grave and thus ‘mortal’,
and less severe and ‘venial’. Faith in the risen Christ, and genuine peni-
tence, would be rewarded with Divine forgiveness and the gift of Life
Everlasting. Unrepentant sinners were, however, threatened with eternal
damnation and all the sufferings of Hell—further proof of the power and
majesty of the Lord. The struggle between God and Lucifer, between
‘good’ and ‘evil’, was thus dramatized as a means of preserving the faithful
from temptation and sin.1 A matter for debate since the first century of the
Christian era, the major doctrinal innovation of the nineteenth century
would be the assertion (as an eternal truth) that, in matters of faith and
morals, the Pope, inspired by God (and thus protected from error), pro-
vided infallible leadership. This affirmation has to be understood within
the context of an established—and generally accepted—body of doctrine
together with perceptions of the measures required to combat the existen-
tial threats posed to what were widely regarded as universal truths. The

© The Author(s) 2018 73

R. Price, Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67196-3_3
74   R. PRICE

more systematic expression of Papal authority, bureaucratic centralization,

and the diffusion of religious ideas made possible by the nineteenth-­
century communications revolution would moreover engender a dynamic
spiritual and organizational response to the mounting challenges posed by
revolution and modernity.2

3.2   The Lessons of History

Every historical event, since the beginning of time, as well as the individ-
ual’s life experience, was conceived by theologians to be part of the Divine
Plan, a representation of the Will of God. As such, it was a passing moment
in Eternity.3 The message was essentially Providentialist. Although God
had accorded liberty to Man in order to test him, its unchecked use would
inevitably result in Divine Punishment, for individuals, and for entire
nations by means of famine, pestilence, revolution and war. ‘History was
[thus] shaped by God’s vengeance’ and certain historical events repre-
sented moments of ‘eschatalogical providence … on the way to the
Apocalypse’.4 Ultimately, however, as Mgr de Ségur confidently prom-
ised, catastrophe would be followed by ‘deliverance …, with the glorious
coming of the Saviour, at the moment when all appears lost … the power
of Satan will be broken; then, but only then, Revolution will be
vanquished’.5
On the path to deliverance, every act of Man and the State should be
inspired by Divine Law. Within an Augustinian and neo-Thomist dis-
course the Church represented itself in countless sermons, pastoral letters
and theological manuals, as the ‘perfect society’, a Divine institution,
­obedient to God’s Will, and responsible for revealing God’s eternal truth.
There was general agreement that only within the Church might sinful
Man redeem himself by fully accepting that he had no rights but only the
duty of complete submission to both the Will of God—who had sacrificed
His Son on the Cross to redeem mankind—and to the guidance of His
Church. Individuals should, moreover, accept, without question, the place
in society that God had ordained for them. The sacrifice of Christ, and of
all the saints and martyrs, was designed to inspire a sense of moral obliga-
tion towards God the Creator and His Commandments. Truth was only
accessible through faith.
The lessons of ‘history’—‘the institutionalized … memory’—could be
drawn upon in order to create an image of the ‘ideal’ society and also as
weapons in the contemporary battle against heresy and secularism.6 The
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    75

‘reinvention’ of memory thus represented both an affirmation of collective

identity and a means of learning from the past and coping better with the
uncertainties of the present. The clergy were encouraged to become his-
torians.7 The Bishop of Nantes indeed expected parish priests to engage in
the age-old tradition of hagiography and to ‘amass with care whatever, in
the lives and acts of your predecessors during the days of revolutionary
torment, might contribute to their glory and to that of the Church and, at
the same time, to the edification of the people’.8
The obsession with the past provided weapons for the intellectual and
political conflicts of the present. Catholic writers and preachers were
inspired by a particular conception of history, idealizing a profoundly rural
and hierarchical ‘golden age’. Mgr Delalle, the Bishop of Rodez, in an
article published in L’Univers, focused on the triumph of the Church over
the Barbarians and the subsequent creation of a ‘monde chrétien’, charac-
terized by the ‘predominance of law, justice, the genuine freedom of the
children of God … and the stability of power’. Harmony—‘le règne social
du Christ’—had been secured on the basis of the spiritual authority of the
Church, and with the support of the Christian kings. An idealized concep-
tion of medieval society, and especially of the reign of Saint Louis, pro-
vided a model of the complete society. This harmony had been destroyed,
according to Mgr Delalle, by three successive ‘negations’—‘Protestantisme,
philosophisme, socialisme’. The authority of the Church had been weakened
by the Reformation; that of ‘toute religion révelée’ by the Enlightenment;
and that of ‘Dieu et de l’âme humain’ by the socialist ideas the bishop
associated with Proudhon—steps towards the reign of the Anti-Christ
described so graphically in the Book of Revelation. He warned that with-
out God there could be no morality, and in the absence of a sense of
morality, the State would substitute itself for God, imposing a new
Caesarism, which would, itself ultimately be challenged, leading to
‘anarchy’.9
Preaching before the faculties of law and theology at Aix in November
1841, the Abbé Tolge had previously reminded his congregation that the
‘fameux hérétique de Witemberg’ had sought to ‘replace the dogma, so
precise, and so necessary of the infallibility of the Church by that of indi-
vidual inspiration’. The ‘catastrophic’ impact of this attempt by ‘man …
to correct God’, and to challenge ‘truth’ and ‘authority’, had been ‘pil-
lage, murder, debauchery’ and ‘tyranny’, the reinforcement of the
Moslim menace, and finally Revolution.10 That vigorous publicist Mgr
Gaume’s personification of La Révolution (1856) forcefully expressed
76   R. PRICE

similar views –‘I am the hatred of all religion and social order … I am the
proclamation of the rights of man against the rights of God. I am the
philosophy of revolt, the politics of revolt, the religion of revolution. I
am negation armed … I am anarchy; for I am God dethroned and man
put in His place. That is why I call myself Revolution, that is to say inver-
sion, because I place above that which, according to the eternal law,
should be below, and below that which should be on high.’11 It was
assumed that most of the problems faced by the contemporary Church
could be blamed on Revolution, a form of Divine Punishment, to which
the response must be to seek atonement in order to protect God’s Church
and His people.12
A sense of urgency, even of desperation, was evident. The Bishop of Le
Puy, Mgr Le Breton, insisted in a pastoral letter in 1869 that, in spite of
the ‘hideous’ events which had occurred in the centuries following the
collapse of paganism, no period was as bad as the nineteenth century, in
which ‘we have seen … the cult of the disgusting and horrible proclaimed,
the hatred of God publicly professed, negation brazenly raised above truth
…’, by individuals, ‘drunk with pride’. Human reason had glorified athe-
ism and materialism. The result was an era of social and political ‘cata-
clysm’ in which Evil had manifested itself in revolt against God and His
Church, in religious indifference, the failure to attend church, materialism
and neglect of the family and of the poor, in obscene books, immoral plays
and lascivious dances, in alcohol and brothels and in widespread criminal-
ity—all signs of moral disorder.13

3.3   The Creation of a Universal Community

of Faith

In this situation it appeared all the more urgent to reinforce the spiritual
infallibility and temporal sovereignty of the Pope. Inspired by Lamennais’
insistence in 1814 that ‘without Pope no Church; without Church, no
Christianity, no religion, and no society’, and his conclusion that ‘the
unique source of life for European nations is pontifical power’,
Ultramontanes, increasingly supported by the parish clergy and in the reli-
gious press, regarded the authoritarian leadership of the Holy Father as
the essential basis for the reaffirmation of a community of faith.14 The
concept of Papal infallibility was also adopted and politicized by counter-­
revolutionary theoreticians like Joseph de Maistre in Du Pape (1819). In
the aftermath of 1848—further proof of the desperate need to propitiate
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    77

God—it seemed all the more urgent as part of counter-revolutionary poli-

tics to defend the temporal power of the Papacy and to reinforce the
­dogmatic authority of the Pope. In 1849, the recently installed Bishop of
Amiens, Mgr de Salinis proclaimed that ‘the present not less than the past
imposes on the Church of France the obligation to reinforce the links
which bind it to Rome … The present epoch is one of transition and
regeneration, it is the eve of a new era … a time when only Catholicism
can regenerate the world. We have before us either death or renewed life
through Catholicism. Rome is the centre of hope for Catholics, it is from
Rome that the movement to regenerate human societies begins.’15 In
addition to growing centralization, Ultramontanism also implied a new
moral theology, liturgical reform, and innovative and more evangelical
forms of piety.
The long-established Gallican alternative of a more decentralized and
less authoritarian Church, however, posed an unwanted challenge which
needed to be overcome. In 1682, under pressure from Louis XIV, the
Declaration of the Clergy of France composed by Mgr Bossuet, the Bishop
of Metz, had accepted that a distinction should be made between the tem-
poral power of the King, owing his legitimacy to God alone, and the spiri-
tual authority of the Pope. It represented furthermore a belief in the
diversity of the universal Church, in the value of local administrative and
liturgical traditions, and in the scriptural origins of the bishops. Rather
than taking the form of absolute monarchy, governance within the Church
should be shared between the Pope and the bishops.16 During the nine-
teenth century successive Archbishops of Paris—Affre from 1839 to 1848;
Sibour from 1848 to 1857; Morlot between 1857 and 1863; and Darboy
from 1863 to 1871—continued to expound neo-Gallican views with sup-
port from the Sorbonne theology faculty, the Ecole des Carmes, and the
seminary of Saint-Sulpice. In February 1852, Sibour insisted on the urgent
need to combat the doctrinal positions assumed by the ultramontane
newspaper L’Univers, which he described, in a letter to Hippolyte Fortoul,
as ‘anarchic and theocratic, even more dangerous for the state than for the
church’.17 The liberal Comte de Montalembert similarly condemned ‘this
fanatical and servile school, which is attempting to identify the Church
with despotism’—and which, he claimed, would render it odious and
ridiculous.18
These mixed feelings towards the Papacy were also shared by the Abbé
Darboy, who, as vicar-general of the Paris diocese, visited Rome in 1854.
He was clearly moved by the experience of hearing the Pope, ‘tears falling
78   R. PRICE

from his eyes’, proclaim the Immaculate Conception in Saint Peter’s on 8

December. On the other hand, the impressions of the Holy City recorded
by Darboy in his journal were overwhelmingly negative and in marked
contrast to the repeated descriptions by visiting bishops of a population
‘unanimous’ in its sentiments of ‘love, respect and obedience’.19 Darboy
described Rome as ‘a heap of churches and palaces lost amidst hideous and
disgusting hovels. One feels that there is no administration in this dirty,
infected town, lacking in industry and commerce.’ He condemned the
standards of morality and the lack of dignity evident even among the social
elite—‘the women are impertinent and the profane Parisian salons offer
nothing to compare with the low cut dresses one sees in the salons visited
by cardinals and the prelacy’. He maintained that ‘they do not go to
church to pray, but as if to a spectacle; the ceremonies occur without order
or dignity, the monsignori and the abbati lack proper robes, propriety and
respect. I was shocked by their attitudes … In the papal chapels they
talked, took tobacco, arrived and left without order or reason, with their
hands in their pockets.’20
His archbishop, Mgr Sibour was probably more concerned about the
Ultramontane challenge to Gallican theology.21 The fundamental texts
composed by Bossuet almost two centuries earlier, together with the con-
temporary works of Mgr Bouvier, Bishop of Le Mans, had previously been
employed in most French seminaries. They denied Papal infallibility and
affirmed the superiority of a General Council of the Church, together with
the rights of the secular authorities. Suddenly, in 1852, they were placed
on the Index of Forbidden Works; according to Rayneval, the French
ambassador in Rome, on the express instructions of Pius IX.22 Faced with
the threat of condemnation, Bouvier decided to defer to the Pope as ‘the
supreme judge in matters of doctrine’. In a new (fifth) edition of his trea-
tise on Théologie, he humiliatingly agreed that on every issue, including
such controversial matters as ‘local customs’, he would ‘conform to the
doctrine of the Holy See’.23 This perfectly illustrated the growing defer-
ence of bishops towards the Pope, as well as the unwillingness of Gallican
bishops as eminent as Bouvier or Dupanloup, the Bishop of Orleans, to
risk a breach. Sensationally, on 7 December 1852, the Abbé Lequeux’s
Traité de droit canon, the text most commonly used in French seminaries,
was also placed on the Index because of its Gallican sentiments. Its author
was another vicar-general of the Archbishop of Paris. When, as a counter-
blast, in February 1853, Mgr Sibour ordered his clergy to stop reading the
Ultramontane newspaper L’Univers, he was instructed by Rome to rescind
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    79

this ban.24 In March, in the encyclical Intermultiplices, Pius IX formally

condemned the concept of the ‘liberties of the Gallican church’.25
Gallicans were increasingly forced on to the defensive. Fortoul, in a
long letter to Drouyn de Lhuys, his colleague at the foreign ministry, com-
plained in June 1852 about the growing pressure to secure general adop-
tion of the Roman liturgy placed on bishops by the Roman congregations,
as well as by their own diocesan clergy. This, he claimed, represented a
significant practical and symbolic step towards centralization and was a
tactic designed both to divide the French bishops and to reduce their
influence, together with that of the government itself.26 Drouyn de Lhuys
was clearly irritated that Sibour ‘with his usual petulance and bad temper
had let himself go too far’. More significantly, he recognized that the
defence of Gallican principles in their entirety was a losing battle. The
government’s objectives should be redefined—‘The policy of the
Government of the Emperor is not to secure the resurrection of
Gallicanism; that would be to pursue a fantasy; what preoccupies us all, is
to preserve the integrity of the powers of the civil authorities …’. These,
he felt, were increasingly threatened by the Pope’s determination ‘to bring
the French bishops to absolute submission’.27
The passionate debate developing over the alignment of local liturgies
with that employed in Rome was thus an issue of considerable signifi-
cance. Ceremony, the ‘visible expression of religion’ and the careful
selection of gestures and words, were the means of expressing theologi-
cal truth, and of instructing the faithful.28 The universal, and dignified,
use of Latin was unquestioned. The Papal objective was an affirmation of
the supremacy of the Pope and the spiritual and political unity of the
Universal Church.29 In 1842, Gregory XVI had already deplored the
variety of liturgies in use. Completion and perfection of the Tridentine
reforms and the rejection of local and national particularism were to be
achieved by imposing the Roman missal and breviary and adopting
Roman ceremonial as the means of eliminating differences in the order
of mass, in the selection of readings and prayers and the choice of saints
commemorated. The move towards Rome, initiated during the 1830s,
was favoured by the authoritative Vatican Sacred Congregation of Rites
and enthusiastically championed in France by Ultramontanes like Parisis,
Bishop of Arras, and such active missionaries as the Marist Emmanuel
d’Alzon, as well as by Louis Veuillot in the pages of L’Univers.30 Between
1849 and 1853 when 15 provincial councils were held, 11 of them
declared a preference for the adoption of the Roman liturgy—as soon as
80   R. PRICE

possible—in place of varied diocesan liturgies.31 The Benedictine Dom

Guéranger also argued powerfully in favour of a supposed return to a
traditional ritual in place of the corrupt variations accumulated over the
centuries, and sought to reinforce the theatrical and emotional power of
ceremonies through the ‘re-establishment’ of the Gregorian chant and
the ‘restoration’ of Gothic architecture.32 Liturgical change was allied
closely with the renewal of vestments and the inauguration of grandiose
ceremonies and pilgrimages.33 Many ordinary believers were no doubt
enthralled by ultramontane spirituality with its vision of a ‘loving God’
and ‘flamboyant ceremony’.34 Others assumed that liturgical disputes
could safely be left to the clergy.35
In March 1853, the bishops were finally instructed by the Papal curia
to (re-)establish the Roman liturgy. The capitulation of the Archbishop
of Paris, announced during a visit to Rome in December 1854, proved
to be especially significant.36 The Emperor had already cut the ground
from under Sibour by proposing to a delighted Pope, through the good
offices of Mgr L-G. de Ségur, the French auditor at the Rota court in
Rome, that measures be taken to establish an uniform catechism and
liturgy. Ségur assumed that this would finally resolve the question of the
liturgy in France, isolating the ten or 12 bishops who still, ‘from lack of
character’, wanted to retain their traditional diocesan liturgical prac-
tices.37 In an anguished letter to Fortoul in October, Mgr Cœur, Bishop
of Troyes, warned that this was a further manifestation of the ‘dream of
theocracy’ and regretted that to oppose the affirmation of Papal author-
ity in print was to run the risk of falling foul of the Index.38 Such influ-
ential figures as Mgr Mathieu, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Besançon,
also remained determined to conserve as much as possible of the tradi-
tional liturgy.39 Delaying tactics were also evident at parish level. As late
as March 1864, Pius IX would feel obliged to condemn a supplication
addressed to Cardinal de Bonald by almost 1500 priests in the Lyon
diocese.40
Whereas in 1814 only 22 dioceses had followed the Roman liturgy,
between 1845 and 1860 a further 51 adopted this signifier of ultramon-
tane superiority.41 By the mid-1860s, ‘Gallican’ liturgies had virtually dis-
appeared—in spite of the cost of replacing existing liturgical works.42
Parish priests and members of the religious orders largely took on the
substantial task of selling the new volumes directly to the faithful, an act
which was certainly not appreciated by licensed booksellers, nor by the
administration, and indeed which appeared to be an infraction of legisla-
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    81

tion on the press and bookselling.43 Nevertheless the clergy were con-
vinced that in this and through the distribution of other edifying works,
they were contributing to the diffusion of the Divine Message.
Under growing hierarchical and peer pressure, dissenting priests would
come to feel that they had little choice but to submit.44 Not untypically,
the state prosecutor at Rennes would report that ‘the Breton clergy is in
its entirety ultramontane; the old Gallican doctrines are assimilated with
heresy’.45 In L’Univers, Veuillot encouraged his followers to ‘without
cease attack dogmatic liberalism and Gallican indiscretions’.46 Although,
even bishops with ultramontane sympathies often found the editor’s
efforts to assume what they regarded as their own proper leadership roles
disconcerting, most priests appear to have been attracted by the vitriolic
language employed and by the powerful affirmation of the supremacy of
God’s Holy Church, and rejection of compromise.47 The records of one of
the regular conférences which brought together parish priests in the dio-
cese of Besançon, kept by the Abbé Filsjean from Cour-Saint-Maurice in
the Doubs, affords some insights into the outlook of the clergy. At a meet-
ing held on 15 November 1858, priests discussed relationships between
the spiritual and civil authorities and concluded that only the Catholic
Church was in a position to make judgments in case of dispute, ‘since it
alone on earth, is the single infallible tribunal. Yes, it has this right, as part
of the essence of things, a right identical to that of the soul over the body.’ The
conférence concluded that it had been Gallican efforts to reinforce the
authority of the Prince at the expense of the Church, which had led, inevi-
tably, to revolution.48
As the threat to the survival of the Papal States again intensified in the
late 1850s, resistance to ultramontane pressures further declined.49
Although, by the end of the following decade, some 30 bishops, many of
them recently appointed, like Darboy and Lavigerie, the Archbishop of
Algiers, as well as Dupanloup, the influential Bishop of Orleans, remained
more or less committed to the Gallican cause, lack of support from the
secular authorities left them exposed to pressure from their own parish
clergy, as well as from Rome.50 In this context, Archbishop Darboy’s sup-
port for the Emperor’s Italian policy and defence of the organic articles
before the Imperial Senate would inevitably prove to be provocative. In a
confidential letter of 26 October 1865, the Pope accused him of holding
‘opinions entirely contrary to the divine primacy of the Roman pontiff
over the universal Church’. He was warned that securing a cardinal’s hat
would depend on his submission.51 Regardless of their status, it was
82   R. PRICE

becoming increasingly difficult for priests to stand up to the overwhelm-

ing movement of Catholics towards Rome.

3.4   The Cult of Pius

The prestige of the Papacy had been considerably enhanced by the ‘vic-
tory’ of Pius VII over Napoleon. Within the context of the catastrophic
mid-century crisis, Pius IX had also come to be seen as the symbol of the
threatened and suffering Church and of the crusade against modern evils.
His ‘charisma’, ‘attuned to the dispositions … of disciples and followers’,
would prove to be an invaluable tool in the struggle for symbolic power,
and as such ‘a lever of social transformation’.52 The Pope was perceived to
be the primary representative of truth, order and authority in a world
turned upside down by revolution. His ‘heroic’ resistance in 1848 and
1849 and determination once again in 1859 to protect the territorial
integrity of the Papacy were widely and successfully employed as a means
of reinforcing the personality cult to which the Holy Pontiff—an emo-
tional, extremely pious, even mystical personality—appears to have been
extremely susceptible. The cult of Pius IX, as well as ‘mobilization for the
Pope’ were vigorously promoted. Justifications of the temporal power, of
the ‘sacred domain’ as the essential means of securing the independence of
the Papacy, which each Pope on his accession had taken an oath to pre-
serve, together with widely circulated portraits of His Holiness, poured
off the presses and contributed to the creation of a charismatic leader.53
The trials and tribulations of an embattled Pope-martyr, recounted in
countless sermons, encouraged devotion. In associating Gallicanism with
liberalism, republicanism and socialism, as inextricably linked ‘erreurs
modernes’, the eminent theologian Blanc de Saint-Bonnet in L’Infaillibilité
(1861) insisted that only through the unreserved acceptance of Papal
infallibility and of hereditary monarchy might respect for private property
and social hierarchy be reinforced and the enemies of social and moral
order be defeated.54
Convinced that in the absence of Papal leadership, ‘Satan will become
prince of this world’, the eminent theologian Mgr Gaume affirmed that
‘power, instead of rising from the earth, descends from Heaven … Caesar
ceases to be autonomous and becomes subject to divine laws’. The role of
the Pontiff, ‘clothed with the infallibility of God himself’, was to ‘pre-
serve, interpret and proclaim the laws; and if necessary, Caesar … places
his sword at the service of the spirit, to ensure their execution’.55 In their
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    83

pastoral letters, bishops similarly reminded the faithful that in case of dis-
pute with the State, ‘the doctrines of the Church come from God’. The
doctrines of the State, in contrast, were defined by Man. ‘Certain
­infallibility on one side; a too obvious fallibility on the other.’56 At its most
intransigent, this state of mind was represented in France by Louis Veuillot,
the savagely polemical editor of the newspaper L’Univers, who counted
most parish priests and the Pope himself among his regular readers, and in
Rome by the semi-official monthly Civiltà Cattolica, edited by members
of the Jesuit order.57
Founded in 1850, Civiltà Cattolica, served as an authoritative expres-
sion of Papal opinion and of the policy of the Roman curia. In France,
L’Univers was only the most popular representative of a burgeoning devo-
tional literature, the product of cheap industrial printing and the increas-
ingly well-coordinated activities of the Catholic press. At diocesan level,
printed pastoral messages, read aloud by parish priests, and published in
growing numbers of semaines religieuses, served to reinforce the sense of
personal devotion. Addressing the Archbishop of Toulouse, recently
returned from Rome, the Arch-priest of Saint Etienne proclaimed that,
‘Everyone wished to see you, because they know that in you they will see
Peter; everyone wished to hear you, for your voice, always loved and
blessed, appears to have retained, from your discussions with the Bishop
of Bishops, greater strength and a more touching tenderness and paternal
authority.’58 Catholics were reminded repeatedly that prayer and the medi-
tation which brought knowledge of God were the most powerful weapons
they could deploy in the battle against the forces of Satan and that every
political crisis affecting the Papacy required a ‘redoubling of prayers’.59
With growing frequency, the Pope announced that regular worship, good
works, and especially prayers for the Church would be rewarded with days
of indulgence and remission for the sins both of the living—a means of
storing up spiritual credit—and of those souls already struggling in
Purgatory.60
Improvements in communications by rail, steamship and the electric
telegraph, as well as better postal services, increasing literacy and the
development of the mass media, redefined the scale of the Catholic world.
The struggle against modernity would make imaginative use of modern
communications technology to facilitate more effective pastoral care and
moral and spiritual instruction and to combat the ever-present revolution-
ary menace. Papal efforts to centralize authority, improve the workings of
the Roman bureaucracy, and impose greater uniformity on the Church
84   R. PRICE

were greatly facilitated.61 A genuinely Universal Church was being created

as part of a wider process of modernization. The visits ad limina which
had long required bishops to report in person to the Pope once every five
years on the state of their dioceses became much easier to realize.62 Eagerly
anticipating his visit to Rome in February 1856, the Bishop of Luçon,
Mgr Baillès asked—‘How much joy will we share … with the successor of
Peter when, prostrate at his feet, we receive the apostolic blessing; when
we are able to expose our doubts so that he can dissipate them; our diffi-
culties so that he can ease them; our sorrows so that he can soothe them
…?’63 In 1862, over 300 bishops responded to the invitation to attend the
canonization of 26 Japanese martyrs, while in June 1867, for the solemni-
ties attending the anniversary of the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and
Paul, the French ambassador, the Comte de Sartiges, estimated that there
were in total 408 bishops and 8250 priests visiting the Holy City, of whom
3000 were French, all of them hoping for an audience with His Holiness.
He explained that this intensification of contact between Rome and the
provinces of the Church and the triumph of Ultramontanism, were the
result of ‘les chemins de fer à prix réduit’.64 This was the occasion on which
the Pope gave notice of his intention to summon a Council of the Church,
the first for three centuries.
The departure of bishops for Rome, as well as their subsequent return,
were occasions for major celebrations in their dioceses. Following a
7 o’clock mass in his cathedral in Nîmes on 12 May 1862, Mgr Plantier
was seen off by a large crowd of men waving their hats and women their
handkerchiefs, and to shouts of ‘Vive Monseigneur’ and ‘Vive le Pape’.
These ovations were repeated at stations further along the railway line,
while, at Manduel, the clergy were greeted by the town band and young
girls dressed in white and crowned with flowers.65 On his return, carrying
a papal blessing, the bishop could expect to receive an even more enthusi-
astic reception.66 For those who could not witness such events, the weekly
diocesan Semaine catholique described the enthusiastic crowds serenading
a returning bishop with hymns at the railway station and during the trium-
phant procession to his palace.67 Growing numbers of devout pilgrims
were also able to travel to Rome to express their devotion. Writing from
the Eternal City in May 1862, the Abbé Poupelier, parish priest at Neuville,
proudly informed his parishioners that he had been blessed by the Pope on
Ascension Day and, for more than ten minutes, had been able to ‘contem-
plate with an ineffable sentiment of love and veneration, the features of his
handsome and celestial face’. In spite of the ‘persecution’ he had endured,
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    85

the Pope remained ‘serene’. Furthermore, condemning the ‘lies’ of the

French press, Poupelier insisted that the people of Rome were ‘happy’ and
‘devoted’ to the ‘paternal government’ of the Pope.68
While the position of the Papacy as an Italian state was being gravely
weakened, the personal status of the Pope and his effectiveness as an
authority figure were substantially reinforced through inter-related top-­
down theological and bureaucratic processes and the bottom-up power of
popular piety and an emotional commitment to the Holy Father, the fig-
ure who both personalized the threats to religion and the Church, but
additionally symbolized its heroic response. The continuing development
of devotion to the Virgin Mary and publication of the Syllabus of Errors
represented further obvious manifestations of these trends.

3.5   Devotion to Mary

The exceptionality of Mary, mother of Jesus Christ, was marked by the
sensational proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of
the Blessed Virgin—immaculate because she, like her son, had been con-
ceived without recourse to the shameful physical act which had marked
humanity since the original ‘sin’ of Adam and Eve. This occured before
200 bishops in Rome (the largest gathering since the Council of Trent)69
on 8 December 1854—‘by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of
the blessed apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority’; an affirma-
tion which represented an unambiguous assertion of Papal authority over
the Church.70 Devoted throughout his life to the Virgin Mary, Pius, per-
manently scarred by the dearth, revolution and cholera endured during
the mid-century crisis, had in 1849 written to the bishops from his place
of exile in Gaëta to ask them to express their views on whether it was
opportune to ‘augmenter la gloire de Marie’. In the emotional climate cre-
ated by the visions experienced at La Salette, 51 French bishops had
responded with enthusiasm. The Papal Bull announcing the ‘reign of
Mary’ confirmed as a dogmatic truth a belief traditionally held within the
Church and forcefully asserted at the Council of Trent, and was repre-
sented as a prelude to the Second Coming of Christ and the establishment
of the reign of God and His Church on earth.71
The already rich representation of the Virgin on altars and in windows,
pictures and statues would be enhanced by the construction of numerous
new monuments, and in particular by the mass production of colourful
plaster statues of Mary Immaculate, crowned with stars and opening her
86   R. PRICE

arms to the faithful.72 Following the Revolution, the revival of Marian

shrines was frequently stimulated by the discovery of a statue of the Virgin
which had ‘miraculously’ survived the cataclysm, stimulating efforts to re-­
establish pilgrimages and construct a fitting sanctuary. Meditation on the
rosary and thrice-daily recitations of the Angelus had also become com-
mon practice. In 1830, the Virgin had appeared to Catherine Labouré, a
novice of peasant origin, belonging to the Filles de la charité, at a convent
in the rue de Bac in Paris. She had already been blessed with visions of the
heart of Saint Vincent de Paul and of Jesus himself within the host at mass.
Then, between July and November, the Virgin had appeared, clad in a
blue shawl, wearing a white veil, surrounded by a dozen stars, with beams
of light emerging from her finger tips, and carrying a globe of the world,
her feet firmly placed on top of a serpent. She had proclaimed her eternal
devotion to France while insisting on the pressing need for moral reform.
Although the identity of Catherine would be concealed until 1855, both
her confessor and Mgr de Quelen, the Archbishop of Paris, an intransigent
Legitimist, were convinced of the veracity of the vision. Following the
instructions of the Virgin herself, the event had been commemorated by
the striking of a ‘miraculous medallion’ on which, along with an image of
the apparition, were inscribed the words, ‘Mary, conceived without sin,
pray for those who have recourse to you’. Partly in reaction to the 1832
cholera epidemic, millions of medals would be sold to people for whom its
wearing appeared to hold out the promise of protection.73 The beatifica-
tion of the visionary in September 1864 would represent Papal apprecia-
tion of the potency of the vision.74
The apogee of the nineteenth-century ‘explosion’ of Marian spirituality
would manifest itself in public ceremonies—including the (re-)dedication
of churches and the crowning of monumental statues of Mary, placed
generally in prominent locations overlooking towns—and most notably in
1860 at Notre-Dame du Puy that fashioned from cannons captured from
the Russians at Sebastopol.75 More significantly, the naming of children, as
well as churches, together with sermons, feast days and pilgrimages, cre-
ations of religious fraternities, publication of numerous books, pamphlets
and popular lithographic images—‘the visual translation of religious
truth’—as well as the pious literature employed for religious instruction in
schools, together with the purchase of statues and images for numerous
homes, combined to reinforce a sentimental and emotional ethos of the
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    87

Christian family and to firmly establish the central place of the Holy
Mother in popular devotion—offering love and, where necessary,
consolation.76
News of the promulgation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
was widely celebrated. The parish priest at Willgottheim in Alsace proudly
reported to Mgr Raess his bishop that ‘this commune … is not backward
when it comes to paying homage at the feet of Mary, Queen of Heaven
and Earth’. A ‘confrérie in honour of the holy virgin’ had been established
and the priest reported enthusiastically that ‘Everyone has joined, almost
everyone confessed [when work ceased] during her principal feast day.’ A
large number, ‘even amongst the men, are members of the confrérie of the
living rosary … clear evidence of the glorious attraction of our population
towards Mary’. Popular faith and an intense pressure to conform were
clearly evident. During the week leading up to the [local?] fête of 6 May,
the population vied with each other to decorate their homes, to construct
triumphal arches and altars in the streets and above all to embellish the
church with flowers. The fête had been proclaimed by the ringing of bells
and the firing of mortars. On the day itself,

the procession began around 7 o’clock in the evening: not to participate

would have been regarded as a denial of the faith and an outrage against the
Holy Virgin. Many people from neighbouring communes took part, and the
Protestants … peaceful spectators, stood along the streets … in which all the
houses of both rich and poor were illuminated with large numbers of lights.
The litter on which the Holy Virgin was carried … was strewn with roses
and illuminated with candles. The sight was unique; one could have been
looking at the moon or the sun in the midst of shining stars … As the pro-
cession returned to the church, it was possible to see the altar dedicated to
the Holy Virgin and the entire church flooded with light. Following the
Angelus, the tower, all the houses, and especially that of M.  Strumpf, a
Protestant, were illuminated, bonfires were set alight. Crowds gathered in
the streets to enjoy the spectacle.

The Catholic press was full of similar descriptions of this explosion of

religious sentiment, while Mgr Raess announced that ‘Our heart is over-
flowing with joy.’77
The appearance of the Virgin at La Salette (1846) and then at Lourdes
(1858) (more fully discussed below) combining mystery, miracle and
88   R. PRICE

authority, were further important turning points, additional stimuli to the

expression of an already powerful popular sentiment. The visionary chil-
dren had passed on Mary’s warning that divine punishment would follow
if the religious and moral behaviour of the French people did not improve;
threatening that ‘if my people do not wish to submit, I will be forced to
release the hand of my Son; he is so strong … that I will no longer be able
to restrain him’.78 During and soon after the long mid-century crisis, this
warning inspired fear and gave hope. God could be mollified. There was
an outpouring of devotional literature, with illustrations portraying the
Virgin Mary blessing the different visionaries, and stressing the virtues of
humility and humble obedience to a Church so evidently blessed by the
appearance of Christ’s mother.79 Orchestrated by the religious hierarchy
and enthusiastically promoted by numerous parish priests the devotion
stimulated enormous affection. So too did the more Christocentric cult of
the Sacred Heart of Jesus associated in its modern form with the visions of
Marguerite Marie Alacoque at Paray-le-Monial between 1671 and 1675,
in which Jesus, as a token of his love for humanity, had revealed his heart
to the young nun and warned that only through its adoration could divine
punishment be avoided. The image had subsequently been adopted as a
counter-revolutionary symbol by royalists who had claimed that Louis
XVI in his prison in 1792 had dedicated his kingdom to the Sacred Heart.
It had been deployed on the banners of insurgents in the Vendée in 1793.
The Pope’s decision in 1856 to extend this devotion to the entire Church
would be warmly received.80
Although some Catholics, and Protestants in general, were concerned
that the cult of the Virgin Mary would diminish the significance of both
God and His Son, ultramontane enthusiasts insisted on the vital impor-
tance of securing God’s mercy by honouring Christ’s mother.81 It did not
matter that Mary—conceived free of sin, and indeed prior to the existence
of sin—and her parents Anne and Joachim are rarely mentioned in the
New Testament, that their existence was largely apocryphal, and their cult
mostly medieval in origin.82 The Marian cult, together with the devotion
to the Sacred Heart and the crucifix, and the sacrifice they symbolized,
contributed to the nurturing, renewal and reconstruction of the faith and
to ensuring, especially in those social groups and regions in which the
Church remained particularly influential, that ultramontane
Christianization would represent a phenomenon of at least as much
importance as the ‘dechristianization’ upon which historians have tended
to focus their attention.
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    89

3.6   The Syllabus of Errors

The experience of Revolution had encouraged an uncompromising resolve
to reinforce Papal authority and to promote ever more rigorous affirma-
tions of the restorative mission of the Church. In his inaugural encyclical
Qui pluribus, published on 6 November 1846, and in spite of his liberal
reputation, Pius IX had voiced clear counter-revolutionary sentiments.
The 1848 Revolution had substantially reinforced his concerns and in
1849, he had welcomed the suggestion made by Mgr Pecci, the future
Pope Leo XIII, that he should prepare a list of ‘all the errors against the
Church, its authority and property, and their explicit condemnation’.83
Three years later, Pius instructed Cardinal Fornari, the Papal nuncio in
Paris, to consult leading French clerics and laymen, and in March 1861, a
commission was established to draft a document condemning the ills of
modern society on the basis of the 85 propositions contained in an
Instruction sur les erreurs du temps présent prepared by Mgr Gerbet, the
Bishop of Perpignan.84 The threat to the Papal States, in 1859, appears to
have reinforced the Pope’s belief that decisive action was necessary, as did
publication in June 1863 of Ernest Renan’s Vie de Jésus—presenting its
subject as an exemplar of human morality rather than the Son of God, and
the speech at the Malines congress in Belgium—published as L’Eglise libre
dans l’Etat libre—in which the Comte de Montalembert condemned the
‘timidity’ of his fellow liberal Catholics and reaffirmed the need to recon-
cile religion with the principles of 1789—political liberty and freedom of
conscience.85 The presentation of similar liberal ideas at the congress of
German theologians held at Munich in September; the anticlericalism of
the Italian government; and finally the negotiation of a Franco-Italian
agreement in September 1864, providing for the withdrawal of the French
garrison from Rome in two years in return for a promise to respect the
territorial integrity of what remained of the Papal state, added to the acute
sense of crisis.86 The Pope thus expressed his intransigent determination to
defend the faith against ‘modernity’—all those ideas and sources of evil
which he was convinced threatened Christian life.87
The encyclical Quanta cura, together with the Syllabus of Errors,
would be published on 8 December 1864, after being, it has recently—
and perhaps inaccurately—been claimed, ‘cobbled together in confusion’
by the Papal bureaucracy from previously published statements.88 In real-
ity, these were emblematic documents, the summation of a series of prop-
ositions made by both the Pope and his predecessor Gregory XVI, and in
90   R. PRICE

this respect a mature, long-prepared response to modern ‘errors’. His

Holiness called for a crusade against modernity and for the secure re-­
establishment of Christian civilization and, as the French ambassador to
the Holy See stressed, was convinced that in this struggle it was essential
that the clergy in its entirety accept ‘l’omnipotence doctrinale du Saint
Siège’.89
The most immediate danger was perceived to be liberalism, as both a
philosophy and political programme, rather than the utopian schemes of
socialism and communism. In his encyclical Mirari vos, Gregory XVI in
1832 had already denounced ‘this false and absurd maxim, or rather this
delirium: that one must procure and guarantee freedom of conscience for
everyone’.90 Liberalism invariably led to demands for a false liberty, an
illusory equality, based upon such precepts as freedom of conscience, the
laïcization of institutions, the suppression of the Church, and State con-
trol of education.91 It had resulted already in the catastrophic rupture in
the fabric of society represented by the French Revolution. More recently
the Piedmontese government had renewed the assault and many of the
phrases employed in Quanta cura were borrowed wholesale from previ-
ous denunciations of its actions. The Pope also, however, condemned the
‘funeste principe de non-intervention’ employed by the various European
states to justify their unwillingness to prevent the annexation of the Papal
States, insisting that this lent justification to a rebellion which ‘opens the
fatal path to communism’. Gallicanism, which subordinated the Church
to the State and required approval of the actions of the ecclesiastical
authorities by the civil power, was similarly damned.
The encyclical affirmed that the Will of God, expressed through divine
revelation in the Bible and by the Church, was the sole source of legiti-
mate authority in society. The ends pursued by the Church in order to
secure human Salvation were entirely superior to those of the State. Its
secular clergy and religious orders should thus enjoy fully the liberty nec-
essary to secure these. The concept of the separation of Church and State
or the possibility of an education distinct from religion were forcefully
condemned, as was the notion of a freedom of expression which might
include ideas contrary to the teachings of the Church. The Syllabus identi-
fied 80 ‘Errors of the Age’ and insisted on the duty of the Church to
protect humanity against the ‘evil ones’ who promised ‘liberty’, while
spreading ‘corruption’ and ‘devouring the foundations of the Catholic
religion and of civil society’.92 The ‘errors’ were in part philosophical—
those of the ancient as well as the modern worlds which might be employed
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    91

to promote secularization—including pantheism, naturalism, rationalism,

indifference, and latitudinarianism. The essential focus was, however, on
‘modernism’, on a ‘rationalism’ which challenged the truths revealed by
God and maintained that religion was simply the product of human
­society. Such views could result only in ‘indifference’, together with social-
ism, communism, liberalism, Protestant biblical societies, freedom of con-
science and ‘materialism’—the latter resulting in ‘a society stolen away
from the laws of religion [which] can no longer propose any other goal for
itself than to amass and accumulate wealth, no longer follow any other law
… than the uncontrollable lust of a soul enslaved by its passions and its
interests …’.93 In order to make the Pope’s position absolutely clear,
Article 80 condemned the belief that ‘The Roman pontiff could and
should reconcile himself with and compromise with progress, liberalism,
and modern civilization.’ This might be judged to be ‘le moment
intransigeant’.94
Responses to the Syllabus varied, even within the Church. Ultramontanes
triumphantly greeted the ‘perfect’ representation of Papal intransigence
towards modernity.95 As the Bishop of Tarbes pointed out in a pastoral
letter in December 1864—‘When the sovereign Pontiff has proclaimed a
doctrinal decision, no-one has the right to add or remove even the least
vowel. Whatever he affirms, is true for ever, whatever he declares to be
mad and false will be eternally.’ He called on his clergy to proclaim the
Pope’s words, ‘as the true and pure word of God’.96 An often passionate
debate nevertheless ensued. Mgr Darboy, the liberal Archbishop of Paris,
was horrified by a document in which ‘the most monstrous errors and
opinions previously tolerated, or even respected by custom and law, are
stigmatized in the same manner and without distinction’, and which
appeared to condemn many of the basic principles of the French
Constitution. In a long pastoral letter, on the contribution of religion to
the ‘prosperity of States, as well as to the prevention of des révolutions
sanglantes’, Darboy suggested that as well as listing the errors of modern
society, His Holiness should have enumerated its more positive features.
Foremost among these, he suggested, was the restoration of ‘order’ and
‘security’ which Providence had ‘entrusted to the genius of a hero’. The
Archbishop came close to admonishing the Pope by pointing out that ‘It
is up to you to reconcile reason with faith, liberty with authority, politics
with the Church.’97 His close collaborator, Mgr Maret, doyen of the
Sorbonne theological faculty, in a letter dated 29 January 1865, posed
what he suggested was the ‘immense question’—‘whether the order of the
92   R. PRICE

Middle Ages and the unity of Church and State realized during that epoch
are the only true form, the necessary and immutable form of Christian
society’.98
Mgr Dupanloup vainly attempted to calm the situation by interpreting
the propositions in a relatively moderate fashion, taking advantage of
every ambiguity.99 At least in private, liberal laymen were, however, in
despair.100 They were appalled by what Falloux, in a letter to Montalembert,
written on Christmas Day 1864, described as a ‘catastrophe … the stupid
product of a cruel clique which, unfortunately, in taking up the pen, failed
to appreciate the possibility of misunderstandings’. In a subsequent letter
(3 January 1865), he nevertheless ascribed to the Pope the best of inten-
tions and assumed that his uncompromising stance revealed that ‘he has
been little by little led, by persistent obsessions, to the point at which he is
determined to emancipate his soul before God and nothing else’.101 They
felt that they had no choice but to submit.
Louis Veuillot was utterly disdainful of such temporizing. In a letter to
his brother, he described the Bishop of Orleans’s comments as ‘ridiculous,
stupid, and even odious’. Only the government’s ban on l’Univers pre-
vented him from communicating his contempt for liberals to the many
priests who hung on his every word. Nevertheless, in a book on L’Illusion
libérale (1866), he was able to associate liberalism with heresy, and to
denounce those, and by clear implication Mgr Dupanloup, who engaged
in ‘frivolous games’.102 The Pope would congratulate him on his efforts.103
According to the Comte de Sartiges, His Holiness had been surprised by
the hostile response to a document which he regarded as simply offering
clarification of existing doctrine.104
In his advice to Baroche, Minister of Justice and of Public Worship,
Mgr Darboy had suggested that he should impose a ban on the publica-
tion of the Encyclical and Syllabus by the Church in France, giving the
Archbishop time to attempt to persuade the Papal curia to issue ‘a correc-
tive, an attenuation’.105 A prohibition was issued on 1 January 1865, and
justified by the provisions of the Concordat and the organic articles, as
well as a ruling by the Conseil d’Etat that the propositions contained
within the Syllabus were contrary to the Constitution of the Empire.106
Most bishops reluctantly obeyed the minister’s instructions, although,
paradoxically, the liberalization of press legislation in 1861 ensured wide-
spread publication of the documents, together with numerous commen-
taries. The absurdity of a situation in which the Encyclical could be
published in newspapers, and non-believing journalists were free to com-
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    93

ment on the Papal statements, but not French bishops, who owed a duty
of explication to their congregations, was pointed out repeatedly. The
inability of the bishops to offer a serious theological defence of Papal doc-
trine, left the opposition press, ‘the enemies of the faith’, free to engage in
distortions.107 These critics were identified by the Bishop of Rodez, Mgr
Delalle, as ‘for the most part men who do not believe in the Church,
Protestants, Jews, free-thinkers, saint-simonians, pantheists or atheists’, all
the enemies of God and the Pope, as well as the ‘remaining partisans of a
national church, bastard Catholicism’ based upon ‘the traditions of
Jansenism and parliamentary Gallicanism’.108 Mgr Fillion, Bishop of Le
Mans, wondered why France alone—and not Protestant England or the
USA—had taken this course of action.109
The bishops in general certainly felt bound to protest, with only Mgr
Lecourtier, Bishop of Montpellier, registering approval of government
action.110 Thirty restricted themselves, however, to confidential letters. In
contrast, Cardinal Mathieu, Archbishop of Besançon, and Mgr de Dreux-­
Brézé, Bishop of Moulins, publicly read the encyclical Quanta Cura in
their cathedrals. Although this was condemned by the Conseil d’Etat, they
would be congratulated warmly and publicly by the Papal nuncio.111 The
Archbishop of Reims believed that he had an imperative duty to commu-
nicate the teaching of the ‘Pasteur suprême’ to both his clergy and the
faithful,112 while the Bishop of Auch affirmed that the absolute right of the
‘Sovereign Pontiff’ to speak to the ‘universal church’ on spiritual matters,
a right conferred by Jesus Christ, could not be contested without angering
God.113 Mgr Epivent, Bishop of Aire, could not understand ‘the sudden
reversal in church-state relations and the apparent rejection by the govern-
ment of a letter sent from heaven to earth to cure sick societies, and to
strengthen Europe as it rocks on its old foundations’. The word of God
could not be suppressed, he asserted, neither could those of the Pope and
the bishops—‘the principal organs of the word of God’.114 The Bishop of
Digne simply described the government’s action as ‘odious’ and published
his own commentary on the Syllabus in a pastoral letter.115
Others followed his example. Even the Bishop of Saint Claude, who,
anxious not to embarrass the government, had initially determined to
maintain a ‘prudent silence’, was forced by pressure from his vicars-­
general, cathedral chapter, and seminary professors, to break this silence.116
Mgr Mabille, Bishop of Versailles, informed his flock that ‘after having
condemned all the gross errors, which if applied … would instantly crush
religious and social order’, the Pope had also specifically condemned
94   R. PRICE

‘socialism, which is creeping into the habits of a certain class of the popu-
lation and which, at a given hour, could turn into a frightening danger’;
‘caesarism by which one would like to rob and diminish the Church …’;
and ‘liberalism which involves a resurrection of the spirit of paganism and
the importation of an irreligious philosophy’ and which ‘has nothing in
common with true liberty … which comes from God’.117
In a circular letter to his clergy, the Bishop of Grenoble, Mgr
Ginoulhiac, explained that His Holiness was not attacking modern soci-
ety but the errors, the ‘absolute theories of social organization, which
have been decorated with the seductive label of progress’. Error needed
to be denounced in order to protect truth and the religious faith without
which social order and the creation of the ‘perfect society’ would not be
possible. The bishop also protested that the Pope had not condemned
freedom of conscience or freedom of speech but rather, ‘freedom of con-
science in the face of God himself; freedom of all cults, whatever they are
or might become; freedom without limits and without regulation of
speech and the press, or the absolute right to think anything and to say
and write everything one has thought’.118 The Bishop of Carcassonne
identified two distinct forms of liberty—‘that of God, of the angels, of
the saints, and that of fallen man’. Only the Church, as the repository of
‘divine truth’, should enjoy absolute liberty, because ‘its liberty is not
dangerous: it wishes to be free only to preach truth to mankind, to cor-
rect morals, to sanctify souls, to pacify states, and to ensure everywhere
the rights of justice’. Outside the Church, there was ‘a much greater
tendency towards error than towards truth, towards evil than towards
good. It is this dangerous and unhealthy liberty which frightens the
Church …’. Universally, ‘the Church represents perfect tolerance’, from
which it followed that ‘Rome, the city of principle par excellence is, at the
same time, the most free soil that there is on earth’. It could not, how-
ever, tolerate ‘freedom for error’, or the freedom allowed to a press
‘impie’. This the bishop defined as ‘la liberté de perdition’.119
While regretting the obstacles placed on the full and free publication of
Papal decisions, the Bishop of Meaux reminded his clergy that these had
been published in Rome, which made observance ‘obligatory’ for
Catholics.120 He insisted that it was the duty of every Catholic to ‘accept
fully and heartfully all the decisions of the Holy See, to believe what it
believes, to approve what it approves, to condemn what it condemns. We
must be Catholics like the Pope and with the Pope …’. The religious free-
dom guaranteed by the French Constitution meant nothing if Catholics
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    95

were unable to publicly ‘avow, profess and teach’ those ‘eternal principles
of justice and truth, the bases of society and of civilization’ affirmed by the
Pope.121
It was hardly surprising that His Holiness should include in the Syllabus
of Errors the belief that ‘the will of the people, manifested by what is
referred to as public opinion … constitutes the supreme law, independent
of both Divine and human law’. Accepting such a proposition would, as
Mgr Foulquier, the Bishop of Mende insisted, place ‘the people … above
all law, above the Divine Law itself, the eternal law of truth and justice’.
The outcomes of universal suffrage were acceptable only when compatible
with Divine Law. Anything else would lead to toleration of ‘les plus
révoltantes injustices’.122 According to Mgr Landriot, Bishop of La
Rochelle, the Pope had not rejected manhood suffrage as such, nor had he
rejected ‘progress’ or ‘modern civilization’, but had condemned ‘the revo-
lutionary spirit, which … turns upside down all the rights, disregards all
the principles, installs license in the place of real liberty’.123
The bishops’ overwhelmingly positive response to the principles
affirmed by the Pope offered further proof of the degree to which
Gallicanism had crumbled.124 Even Cardinal Mathieu, Archbishop of
Besançon, who had previously played a leading role in resistance to ultra-
montane pretensions, insisted that the views expressed in Quanta cura
and the Syllabus of Errors represented ‘a lifeline for a society in danger of
perishing’.125 Mgr Plantier, the Bishop of Nîmes, also seized the opportu-
nity to demand abolition of the organic articles, as well as an end to the
role of the Conseil d’Etat in resolving disputes between State and Church,
because of the presence in its ranks of ‘Protestants, Jews, schismatics,
rationalists’.126 As the Bishop of Saint Brieuc insisted, ‘the voice of the
Pontiff is the voice of God’ and must be respected in order to bring to an
end an era of chaos, confusion, division and revolution. He predicted in
millenarian tones that, in the midst of crisis, ‘Deliverance will come sud-
denly, with the glorious accession of the Saviour, at the very moment
when all appears lost. This will be the Passover, the resurrection of the
Church after its long suffering. Then the power of Satan will be broken;
then, and only then, will the Revolution be defeated.’127 Securing this
providential, and inevitable, victory necessitated and fully justified adopt-
ing an entirely intransigent world outlook and a determined, uncompro-
mising defence of God’s Truth against error, as the means of securing the
final defeat of Satan—the root of all Evil, and installing the reign of God
on Earth.128
96   R. PRICE

The French government would be particularly concerned about the

extravagant gestures of support for the Papal position offered by an intran-
sigent minority of around 15 ultramontane bishops, including Pie, Doney
and Mabile, supported by large numbers of assertive parish priests deter-
mined to influence public opinion.129 Thus, in successive services in the
parish of Balâtre (Somme), the local priest enlightened his congregation
by reading the Encyclical and commenting on the Syllabus, insisting that
he preferred to risk imprisonment than remain silent when the ‘Ministre
des Cultes wishes to lead us like wild beasts’. He called on those present
to pray for the Emperor—‘because someone wants to put very bad ideas
into his head’.130 The Abbé Maupier, from the pulpit of his church in the
village of Saint-Michel-du-Hâvre, informed his congregation that ‘We
must all gather under the laws of the Church and never bow before earthly
laws if these are contrary to those of the Church.’131 Although large-scale
concerted action was rare, officials also reported more frequent and larger
gatherings of priests than usual.132
The Catholic and conservative press in its editorials, articles and
through publication of letters from bishops also repeatedly reaffirmed its
devotion to the Pope.133 The Syllabus had denounced 80 errors in a man-
ner which made the statement accessible to the public. It was enthusiasti-
cally welcomed as a magisterial pontifical proclamation, of universal
validity, by that portion of the laity which itself felt uneasy about the
threats to traditional values and hierarchies identified by the Pope and
which, by means of petitions and prayer, was able to share in an intense
sense of devotion to His Holiness.134
Cardinal Antonelli, the Papal Secretary of State, discussing the issue
with the French ambassador in Rome, insisted that the objectives of the
Encyclical were purely spiritual and directed ‘especially against the spirit of
socialism and against the evil passions of the century’. He was convinced
that only Papal leadership and the doctrinal unity of the Universal Church
could defeat the atheistic, Protestant, Jewish and revolutionary conspiracy
against Christianity, a conspiracy facilitated by parliamentary debate and
the ‘freedom’ of the press. The Cardinal claimed to be surprised that the
Emperor who ‘représente les conservatives’ had not welcomed an anathema
directed against the enemies of conservative principles.135 The pressing
need for an unambiguous definition of papal infallibility was stressed on 1
June in an article in Civilità cattolica.136 Equally indicative of a determina-
tion to reinforce further the authoritarian structure and culture of the
Church were the decisions of a supposedly ‘secret’ consistory on 22 June
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    97

1868, at which His Holiness condemned as ‘detestable’ the decision of

the Austrian government to recognize freedom of speech and of religion,
as well as the loss of clerical authority over education, in matrimonial dis-
putes, and over cemeteries, where the result would be the interment of
‘heretics’ alongside Catholics. Austrian ministers and officials were warned
of the spiritual consequences of their actions.137

3.7   The Vatican Council

The decision to summon a Council of the Church was inspired by the
Syllabus as was evident in the establishment of a preparatory commission
of cardinals, chaired by Mgr Patrizi, Prefect of the Congregation of Rites,
in March 1865. The Papal Bull, Aeterni Patris, actually summoning the
Council, was finally published on 29 June 1868.138 The main aims of the
gathering would be to consider means of defending truth against the
errors of the epoch, and of securing discipline within the Church.139 There
was no explicit reference to Papal Infallibility. There hardly needed to be.
The idea had, for some time, been in the air. The personality cult envelop-
ing the Pope-martyr, had generated massive emotional support for such a
declaration. In a circular letter of 2 June 1869, the Pope, who had on 11
April celebrated the 50th anniversary of his ordination, offered his grati-
tude to the faithful for their prayers, and went on to stress the seriousness
of the situation in which the Church found itself, engaged as it was in a
‘terrible’ struggle across the universe, against ‘the powers of darkness
allied with human perversity’.140 In some dioceses potential critics were
subjected to a sustained ultramontane campaign which largely succeeded
in silencing its opponents. Cardinal de Bonald did not hesitate to revoke
the Abbé Valin, who had served for 35 years as parish priest at Lissieu near
Lyon for publishing in 1868 a brochure on De l’Ultramontanisme et du
Gallicanisme, in which he had warned that the imposition of the Roman
liturgy, as well as publication of the Syllabus of Errors, would be followed
by the declaration of Papal Infallibility.141
The essential question the Council was to address was the location of
ultimate authority within a Church which was itself the undoubted reposi-
tory of Truth, and Infallible in its judgements. Many bishops made their
positions (more or less) clear before leaving for Rome. Gallicans like Mgr
Maret believed that sovereignty should be shared between the Pope and
bishops and that the Church should assume many of the attributes of con-
stitutional monarchy.142 According to the Bishop of Chambéry, particularly
98   R. PRICE

in ‘grave circumstances’, the Pope should surround himself with the bish-
ops ‘to add his wisdom to their wisdom’.143 Insisting that the Church
should be seen as an alliance between ‘authority and liberty’, Mgr Ramadié,
Bishop of Perpignan, condemned what he regarded as the excessive zeal of
those contributors to L’Univers, who ‘clearly take the particular character-
istics of their own spirit to be the true Catholic spirit’.144
Ultramontane bishops like Mgr Epivent, Bishop of Aire, saw the
Council as useful rather than necessary, pointing out that the Church,
‘already, through its monarchical constitution, possesses, in its infallible
head, a leader able to exercise his power to the full’. He nevertheless
attended in expectation of ‘an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Spirit’.145
The Bishop of Versailles, Mgr Mabille, insisted similarly that the Pope ‘has
already employed his infallible authority to strike out against the errors
and disorders of our time; he has convoked a council to complete his
work’.146 Mgr Gignoux of Beauvais explained that God would speak to the
Council, so that ‘Whoever listens to its lessons …, will listen to Jesus
Christ; but whoever has the misfortune to disregard them will denigrate
God himself.’ He could not understand the timidity of the small number
of his colleagues who were afraid that the Council might go ‘too far’ by
accepting ‘the doctrinal infallibility of the Sovereign-Pontiff, a truth as old
and as unquestionable as the Church itself …’ and consoled himself by
insisting that, due to God’s protection, the Council was incapable of even
the slightest error.147 Mgr Pie pointed to the practical difficulties of
decision-­making by bishops dispersed throughout the world,148 while,
according to Mgr Saint-Marc, Archbishop of Rennes, and Mgr Raess,
Bishop of Strasbourg, doctrinal unity and a sense of purpose were all the
more essential in a world threatened by revolution, materialism and
atheism.149
The Vatican Council opened with an impressive procession and cere-
monial mass on 8 December 1869. It would be attended by 793 archbish-
ops and bishops, 17% of them French and 40% Italian. The French embassy
would provide regular and detailed reports on the proceedings. On 24
April 1870, the Council unanimously voted in favour of Dei Filius, a doc-
ument defining Catholic doctrine in respect of God, revelationary faith
and the role of reason. Divisions were, however, already apparent on the
burning issue of the respective doctrinal authority of Pope and Council. A
majority, influenced by the writings of Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald
and the young Lamennais, and drawn especially from the bishops of Italy,
Spain, Ireland and Latin America, led, among others, by Cardinal
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    99

Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, was determined to reinforce the

authority of the Pope within a centralized, authoritarian institution fully
committed to the propositions of the Syllabus of Errors. An increasingly
divided and weakened minority, including especially German bishops
influenced by the critical theology of the universities, as well as around
one-third of French bishops—and most notably Maret and Darboy, the
leading Gallicans—anxious to reconcile the Church with the modern
world, either opposed the doctrine of Papal Infallibility or, like Dupanloup,
judged the moment to be inopportune.
While every bishop agreed that the Pope enjoyed supremacy within the
Church, there was disagreement on the issue of whether he alone had the
right to define dogma. Thus, according to Maret, ‘infallibility’, just like
sovereignty within the Church, was the shared attribute of Pope and bish-
ops, and should be realized by means of regular councils. This represented
a determination to affirm the rights of bishops within the Church and
doubtless to protect their authority within their own dioceses. It enshrined
a commitment to aristocratic government rather than absolute monarchy.
Liberals also shared a determination to protect the waning autonomy of
their national churches.150 Darboy, as Archbishop of Paris, would play a
leading role in mobilizing those of his colleagues who were anxious to
ensure that Papal absolutism was tempered by episcopal influence. It had
been hoped that the representatives of the Austrian, French and Prussian
governments in Rome would offer support. The decision of the French
government not to send a plenipotentiary, welcomed by the Holy See,
thus caused dismay among bishops anxious to restrain papal ambition.151
It seems likely that Emile Olliver, as Minister of Justice and Cultes, had
judged that the separation of Church and State, if effected by the Pope
himself, would be nothing to worry about.152
From fear of contributing to a schism, many bishops, including such
eminent figures as Dupanloup, would speak with studied ambiguity, hop-
ing to achieve a compromise. The realization by such moderates as Mgr
Lyonnet, the Archbishop of Albi, together with the archbishops of Rouen,
and Tours, Cambrai and Rennes, that—‘we need to form a group. I speak
of those who we know … will not succumb to pressure or weakness’—had
little impact.153 This was hardly surprising, given the unrealistic aspirations
of the group’s secretary, Mgr Forcade, Bishop of Nevers, who proposed to
‘1. Reject absolutely the word infallibility; 2. Search for a formula to
define the rights and prerogatives of the Holy See which will prove accept-
able to all opinions and their nuances.’154 The vicar-general representing
100   R. PRICE

the diocese of Nice was moreover only too aware of the efforts of the
Roman curia to restrict and to ‘guide’ discussion, and claimed that the
gathering in Rome was ‘less a Council than a coup d’état’.155 The careful
selection of members of preparatory commissions and close control of
proceedings served to restrict debate, creating a feeling that the outcome
had been pre-arranged.156 According to Mgr Darboy, bishops were dis-
mayed by ‘the manner in which business is conducted: no freedom, no
preparation, no sincerity’.157 The poor acoustics of the transept of Saint
Peter’s in which meetings were held, together with variations in the pro-
nunciation of Latin, sharply reduced the comprehensibility of
­proceedings.158 In any case, as M Icard, superior of Saint-Sulpice, observed
in his journal entry for 29 December—‘The Pope is extremely sensitive; he
cannot tolerate any word, any information, contrary to his views. Those
who surround him speak only to flatter him …’159
Bishops were subjected to pressure from aristocratic Roman opinion as
well as from the ultramontane press.160 Thus, the editors of both the
Jesuit-run semi-official Roman newspaper Civiltà cattolica and the
restored L’Univers assumed that members of the Council would welcome
by acclamation a declaration of Papal Infallibility and the final refutation
of Gallicanism.161 Parish priests and their parishioners were encouraged to
forward petitions to Rome in favour of the declaration of Infallibility.
When over three-quarters of the 850 parish priests in the diocese of Saint-­
Brieuc signed such a petition in March 1870, they effectively disavowed
Mgr David, their Gallican bishop.162 Mgr Place, Bishop of Marseille,
endured similar pressure.163 Impelled by ‘an invincible horror for the quar-
rels emerging between Catholics’, Mgr Lavigerie, newly appointed to the
archbishopric of Algiers, explained to Emile Ollivier, that ‘an immense
majority has acquiesced in the definition; to oppose an invincible fact is
useless; instead of exhausting oneself in a long resistance with no way out,
moderate bishops should employ all their efforts to mitigate the terms of
the definition, to remove from it whatever might cause outrage’.164
Even before the Fathers of the Church had gathered, in a letter to his
friend, Falloux, Montalembert had expressed dismay at what he perceived
to be the feebleness of liberal Catholic resistance to Papal authoritarian-
ism, expressing his hope that at the moment when the ‘personal govern-
ment’ of the Emperor was being restricted, ‘the good God will put a break
on the abuses and excesses of this form of government in the Church
which appears to me to be much more dangerous and especially more
enrooted than in the State’.165 Already critically ill, Montalembert, would
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    101

come close to despair. In a forceful letter published in the Gazette de

France on 7 March 1870, he condemned ‘those lay theologians of abso-
lutism, who began by turning all our liberties to straw when faced by
Napoleon III, and subsequently to sacrifice justice and truth, reason and
history in a burnt offering to the idol they have erected in the Vatican’. A
furious Pope would only with great reluctance agree to permit a memorial
service in Rome for this life-long servant of the Church.166
By mid-July, according to a report from the Comte de Sartiges, the
French ambassador in Rome, the minority had virtually given up. In sup-
port of this assessment a letter dated 5 July, from an unnamed bishop, was
quoted. Its author explained that the majority had simply refused to
engage in debate. The minority had been subject to constant pressure
from the religious press and the host of priests gathered in Rome, encour-
aged by Papal representatives. Those bishops suspected of pressing for
intervention by the French government were being accused of treason.167
According to Sartiges, 48 French bishops had supported the ‘dogmatic
definition’ of his authority by the Pope, a further 12 had not commented
explicitly but nevertheless were assumed to be supportive of this article of
faith, while 10 had adhered but felt that the moment was inopportune.
Three Gallican bishops, including Mgr Sibour, the Archbishop of Paris,
had determined that it was not possible to adequately define the doctrine
and that in consequence it should not become an ‘obligatory belief’. Even
so, they were prepared to accept the Pope’s judgement and had acknowl-
edged that ‘Rome has spoken, the case is closed’. According to the ambas-
sador, these were ‘the last words of Gallicanism’.168
On 18 July 1870, 533 bishops voted in favour of the constitution
Pastor Aeternus which—employing precedents drawn from the first
Councils of the Church—affirmed that Christ had established Peter as
‘leader and head of the apostles’, and recognized that his successors as
Bishop of Rome should enjoy ‘the primacy of Peter over all the Church’.
It thus followed that ‘When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is
when,…as the pastor and teacher of all Christians in virtue of his highest
apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine of faith and morals that must be
held by the Universal Church, he is empowered, through the divine
­assistance promised him in blessed Peter, with that infallibility with which
the Divine Redeemer endowed His Church’.169 Some limits were posed to
the authority of the Pope. Thus, in exercising his rights, he would not do
so on a personal basis, but on behalf of the Church, and solely on ques-
tions of faith and morality, rather than discipline and liturgical matters.
102   R. PRICE

Although this definition remained susceptible to theological hair-splitting,

its affirmation of Papal absolutism constituted a devastating blow to the
Gallican alternative of a Church in which authority was jointly held by
Pope and bishops. Only two opposing votes were recorded. The 25 French
Gallican bishops who maintained their opposition almost to the end,
absented themselves from the final vote rather than face open defeat.170 Of
their colleagues, 45 voted in favour of Papal infallibility. Centuries of
debate had been brought to an end.

3.8   Conclusion
The Council would be prorogued on 20 October 1870, following the
withdrawal of the French garrison as a result of the Franco-Prussian War,
but not before achieving the doctrinal objectives previously defined by
Pius IX and the Roman curia. The Declaration of Papal Infallibility was the
culmination of attempts to impose greater doctrinal uniformity and a sense
of purpose on the Church and to reinforce its ability to counter the threats
posed by revolution, materialism and atheism. In spite of the undoubtedly
painful loss of his temporal power following the entry of Italian troops into
the Eternal City, the Pope although considering himself to be a prisoner,
a martyr immured within the walls of the Vatican, had, thanks to Divine
Providence, emerged victorious.171 The vast majority of priests and laity
would accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility with considerable enthusi-
asm.172 Moreover, and although application of the dogma was supposed to
be limited to statements made ex cathedra, the ­proclamation’s insistence
on the God-given authority of the Roman Pontiff could easily be inter-
preted in a more inclusive and authoritarian manner. Veuillot typically
insisted that ‘we must clearly affirm the omnipotent authority of the Pope
as the source of all spiritual and temporal authority. The proclamation of
the dogma of Papal infallibility has no other purpose.’173
The primary objective of the Council had been to close the moral
breach opened up by the Revolution—itself the work of Satan—by means
of the affirmation of Papal authority. Further success required intransigent
opposition to ‘liberalism’ and to ‘progress’.174 The Jesuit editors of Civiltà
cattolica celebrated—‘In future, in the succession of centuries, ours will be
one day blessed and glorified as that in which, thanks to the Council cel-
ebrated under Pius IX, enlightenment returned to a world oppressed and
invaded by the darkness of revolution.’175 The warning delivered by Lord
Acton, the eminent Catholic historian, to the British Liberal leader,
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    103

Gladstone, that ‘we have to meet an organized conspiracy to establish a

power which would be the most formidable enemy of liberty as well as of
science throughout the world’, largely went unheard.176 So too did
Cardinal Newman’s observation that ‘it is not good for a Pope to live
twenty years … He becomes a god, [and] has no one to contradict him.’177
On 3 September 2000, John Paul II, another long-serving and combative
Pope, would nevertheless beatify Pius IX, placing him firmly on the path
to sainthood. The spirit of reactionary triumphalism, the dream of re-­
conquest and belief in the eventual triumph of Christian civilization would
persist—until the 1950s, and beyond—in response to the threats posed by
liberalism, socialism and communism, by an on-going secularization and
increasingly to the perceived menace from radical Islam.

Notes
1. See G. Le Bras, L’Eglise et le village, 1976, p. 259; R. Gibson, ‘Hellfire and
damnation in nineteenth century France’ Catholic history review, 1988,
passim; and ‘Rigorisme et liguorisme dans le diocèse de Périgueux, 17e–
19e siècles’ Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 1989, p. 316.
2. R. Aubert, Le pontificat de Pius IX (1846–70), 1958, p. 276 and Vatican I,
1964, p. 30; C. Langlois, ‘L’infaillibilité, une idée neuve du 19e siècle’ in
Le continent théologique. Explorations historiques, 2016, p. 54.
3. See also J.-M. Donegani, La liberté de choisir, Pluralisme religieux et plu-
ralisme politique dans le catholicisme français contemporain, 1993, p. 469;
J.-F. Galinier-Pallerola, La résignation dans la culture catholique en France
(1870–1945), 2007, pp. 45, 82, 99, 112.
4. C.  Gaposchkin, review of P.  Buc, Holy War, Martyrdom and Terror:
Christianity, violence and the west, Philadelphia, 2015, Reviews in History
no. 1863.
5. Quoted by Moulinet, ‘Mgr Gaume: une vision intransigeante des évène-
ments contemporain’ in L. van Ypersele, A.-D.  Marcelis, Rêves de chré-
tieneté, réalités du monde. Imaginaires catholiques, Louvain-la-Neuve,
2001, p. 181.
6. J.-L. Bonniol, M. Crivello, (eds) Façonner le passé. Représentations et cul-
tures de l’histoire, Aix-en-Provence, 2004, p. 8.
7. S. Milbach, Prêtres historiens et pèlerinages du diocèse de Dijon, Dijon, 2000,
pp.  5–9; P.  Boutry, ‘Papauté et culture au 19e siècle. Magistère, ortho-
doxie, tradition’, Revue d’histoire du 19e siècle, 2004, p. 52.
8. Quoted by M. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes sous le Second Empire, I Nantes
1983, p. 318.
104   R. PRICE

9. L’Univers, 20 December 1868, copy in AN F19/5381. See also H. Multon,

‘Un vecteur de la culture politique contre-révolutionnaire, La décadence
dans la littérature apocalyptique’, in J.-Y. Frétigné, F. Jankowiak, (eds) La
décadence dans la culture et la pensée politique, Rome, 2008, pp. 131–4;
F.  Jankowiak, ‘Décadence et société parfaite dans l’ecclésiologie du 19e
siècle’, ibid., pp.  115–16; Ypersele, Marcelis, (eds) Rêves de chrétienté,
pp. 7, 12; P. Boutry, ‘Y-a-t-il une spiritualité néogothique? Réflexions sur
un “passage à l’acte”’. Sociétés et représentations, 2005, p. 49.
10. Copy of sermon included with report from PG Aix to MC, 11 November
1841, AN F19/5709.
11. La Révolution, (1859), vol. 6, pp. 18–19; also quoted by J. Grévy, Le cleri-
calisme? Voilà l’ennemi, 2005, p. 35. See also D. Moulinet, ‘Mgr Gaume’,
op. cit., pp. 169–170.
12. A view shared by the Academic rector of Nancy, 6 April 1858, AN
F17/2649.
13. ‘Lettre pastorale de Mgr l’Evêque du Puy sur le Concile Œcuménique et
Mandement pour le Carême de 1869, Jan. 1869, AN F19/1939.
14. Quoted by J. Palard, ‘Ultramontanisme et contre-révolution en France au
19e siècle’, La Revue Tocqueville, 1989/90, p. 71. See also C. Langlois,
‘L’infaillibilité, une idée neuve au 19e siècle’ in Le continent théologique.
Explorations historiques, 2016, pp. 56–7.
15. Quoted by P. Boutry, ‘Le bienheureux Pie IX et le Séminaire français de
Rome’ in P.  Levillain, P.  Boutry, Y-M.  Fradet, (eds) 150 ans au cœur de
Rome. Le séminaire français, 1853–2003, 2004, p. 60.
16. J.-F. Chiron, ‘Une barrière éternelle. L’autorité de l’Eglise dans la défini-
tion du dogme au 19e siècle’, Recherches de science religieuse, 2006, p. 29f.
17. 27 Feb. 1852, AN246AP24.
18. Montalembert letter to Cantù, 14 Dec. 1854, quoted by Aubert, Le pon-
tificat, p. 230. See also Falloux, Mémoires II 1888, pp. 333–4.
19. Lettre pastoral et mandement de Mgr. Evêque de Montauban à l’occasion
de son voyage à Rome et de son retour…, Montauban, 1868, AN
F19/1931.
20. G.  Darboy, ‘Un journal inédit de Mgr Darboy (années 1854–62)’, ed.
J. Didier, Mélanges de science religieuse, 1973, pp. 79, 81.
21. Letter of 14 August 1852. Similar concerns were expressed by Fortoul in
a letter to the Min. des AE on 11 June 1852. AN 246AP 24.
22. Report to Min. des AE, 24 Dec. 1852, AN 246AP17.
23. De Rayneval to Min. des AE, 10 Jan. 1853, AN 246AP17. On Bouvier, see
also C. Langlois, Le crime d’Onan. Le discours catholique sur la limitation
des naissances, 2005, pp. 225–7; P. Foucault, ‘La formation du clergé dans
le Maine au 19e siècle’, in H. Guillemain, S. Tison, N. Vivier, (eds) La foi
dans le siècle, Mélanges offerts à Brigitte Waché, Rennes, 2009, pp. 211–14.
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    105

24. B. Horaist, La dévotion au Pape et les catholiques français sous le pontificat

de Pie IX (1846–78) d’après les archives de la Bibliothèque Apostolique
Vaticane, Rome, 1995, p. 12.
25. Quoted by A.  Gough, Paris and Rome. The Gallican Church and the
Ultramontane campaign, 1848–59, Oxford, 1986, p. vi.
26. Letter of 11 June 1852, draft in AN 246AP24.
27. MC to M. des AE, copy dated only 1853, AN 246AP17.
28. See also M. Agostino, ‘Les ordinations aux 19e et 20e siècles: les enseigne-
ments de l’évolution d’un ritual. L’exemple du diocese de Bordeaux’ in
Agostino et  al. (eds) Fastes et ceremonies. L’expression de la vie religieuse,
16e-20e siècles, Pessac, 2003, pp. 251, 259.
29. See also V. Petit, Eglise et nation. La question liturgique en France au 19e
siècle, Rennes, 2010, pp. 42, 54, 79.
30. See e.g. J.  McMillan, ‘Louis Veuillot, L’Univers and the Ultramontane
network’ in D.  Bates et  al., (eds) Liens personnels, rèseaux, solidarités en
France et dans les îles britanniques (11e-20e siècles). 2006, p.  225;
M. Launay, Les séminaires français aux 19e et 20e siècles, 2002, pp. 103–5;
Y.-M.  Hilaire, La vie religieuse des populations du diocèse d’Arras, 1840–
1914, Doc. d’Etat, Univ. de Paris IV, 1976, pp. 533–4.
31. S. Blenner-Michel, ‘Les conciles provinciaux français face au rétablissement
de la liturgie romaine (1849–1853)’ in B.  Dumons, V.  Petit, C.  Sorrel,
(eds) Liturgie et société. Gouverner et reformer l’Eglise, 19e–20e siècle,
Rennes, 2016, pp. 162–3.
32. See also J. Grévy, Le cléricalisme? Voilà l’ennemi, 2005, pp. 29–31.
33. See also G. Cholvy, ‘Réalités de la religion populaire dans la France con-
temporaine’ in B.  Plongeron (ed), La religion populaire dans l’occident
chrétien, 1976, p.  166; C.  Langlois, ‘Sociologie religieuse historique et
religion populaire’ in G.  Dubosq, B.  Plongeron, D.  Robert, La religion
populaire, 1977, p. 330.
34. R. Gibson, A social history of French Catholicism, 1789–1914, 1989, p. 265.
35. See e.g. V. Petit, Catholiques et comtois. Liturgie diocésaine et identité régio-
nale au 19e siècle, 2011, p. 316.
36. J.-O.  Boudon, Paris, capital religieuse sous le Second Empire, 2001,
pp. 439–440.
37. Ségur to Emperor, 4 Nov. 1854, AN 246AP24.
38. Letter to MC, 30 Oct. 1853, AN 247AP24.
39. PG Besançon to G. des S., 21 Feb. 1865, AN F19/1936; Petit, Catholiques
et comtois, pp. 229–249.
40. Copie d’une letter adressée à son éminence le Cardinal Archevêque de
Lyon, par les curés de la ville de Lyon, 30 March 1865; Ministère de la J.
et des C., Note sur le diocèse de Lyon. n.d.; Cardinal de Bonald to M.J.,
7 Jan. 1869, AN F19/5821.
106   R. PRICE

41. P.  Boutry, ‘Le movement vers Rome et le renouveau missionnaire’ in

Joutard, Histoire de la France religieuse, III, 1991, p. 419.
42. On cost, see e.g. Bishop of Carcassonne to MJ et des C., 12 Feb. 1845,
AN F19/5725.
43. MJ to MC, 16 Jan. 1853, AN F19/5578.
44. See e.g. PG Poitiers, ? April 1860, AN BB30/385; PG Grenoble, 15 Jan.
1860, AN BB30/378.
45. Report to Garde des Sceaux, 13 Oct. 1859, AN BB30/386.
46. Lead article by the Abbé Jules Morel, L’Univers, 27 Feb. 1852.
47. See e.g. Horaist, La devotion au pape, p. 15.
48. Included with letter to MC, 22 Jan. 1865, AN F19/1936. Underlined in
the original.
49. M. Launay, ‘Une chrétienté sous le Second Empire: le diocèse de Nantes’,
Centre vendéen de recherches historiques, La création au 19e siècle d’un
foyer du christianisme, La Roche-sur-Yon, 2000, p. 375.
50. See e.g. Maurain, op.  cit., p.  808; Cholvy, Le diocese de Montpellier, II,
pp.  834–5; J.  Lehning, Peasant and French. Cultural contact in rural
France during the 19th century, Cambridge, 1995, p. 103.
51. Aubert, Le pontificat de Pie IX, pp. 307–8.
52. B. Turner, The Religious and the Political, Cambridge, 2013, p. 43.
53. See e.g. Mandement de Mgr. l’Archévêque de Rouen…pour le publication
de l’Encyclique de N.S.P. le Pape en date du 19 janvier 1860, AN
F19/5609; Lettre-circulaire à MM. les curés et recteurs du diocèse de
Marseille, 7 Feb. 1860, AN F19/5822.
54. E. Vatré, ‘Blanc de Saint-Bonnet’ in Tulard, Dictionnaire, p. 157.
55. La situation, 1860, p. 22; La Révolution, (1859), vol. 6, pp. 18–19.
56. Lettre de Mgr. l’Evêque de Montauban au clergé de son diocèse à l’occasion
de l’Encyclique du 8 décembre 1864 et des attaques dont elle est. l’objet
dans les feuilles publiques, AN F19/1936.
57. J. McMillan, ‘Louis Veuillot, L’Univers and the ultramontane network’ in
Bates Liens personnels, réseaux, solidarités, pp. 227–9.
58. La Semaine Catholique…du diocèse de Toulouse, 7 Sept. 1862, AN
F19/5867.
59. See e.g. Mandement de Mgr. L’Evêque de Poitiers ordonnant des prières
publiques et publiant le Jubilé conformement à l’Encyclique du 8 décem-
bre 1864, AN F19/1936; Lettre pastorale de Mgr. L’Evêque de Clermont
à l’occasion des derniers événements de Rome, 23 Nov. 1867; circular let-
ter from Archbishop of Paris to clergy, 8 Dec. 1867, AN F19/1937.
60. See e.g. Le Monde, (9 Nov. 1866), AN F19/1938; Aubert, Pontificat,
p. 462, note 6.
61. See also P.  Boutry, ‘Les silencieuses mutations de la prélature romaine
(1814–46)’ in A.  Lia Bonella, et  al., (eds) Roma fra la Restaurazione e
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    107

l’Elezione du Pie IX, Rome 1997, p. 48; F. Jankowiak, ‘Fides ex Auditu.

L’Eglise et les moyens de communication sociale à l’époque contempo-
raine’, L’Année canonique, 1999, pp. 7–8.
62. MI to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 4 Dec. 1861, AN F19/5866; S. Blenner,
H. Yannou, ‘Le Saint-Siège et la France religieuse du Concordat à la sépa-
ration’, in G. Pizzorusso, O. Poncet, M. Sanfilippo, (eds) Gli archivi della
Sante Sede e la storia di Francia, Viterbo, 2006, p. 80.
63. Lettre pastorale de Mgr l’Evêque de Luçon qui annonce son voyage à
Rome, 8 Feb. 1856, AN F19/5819.
64. Reports to M. des Aff. Et., 18 and 25 June 1867, AN F19/1939; See
Bishop Dijon to MC, 7 Oct. 1869 and Ministère de la Marine to MJ, re.
bishops’ requests for free transport and assistance with postal charges, AN
F19/1940.
65. Commissaire de police Nîmes to Prefect Gard, 12 May 1862; MI to MC,
28 May 1862, AN F19/1931.
66. See e.g. report in the Journal de Toulouse, 23 July 1862, on the return of
Mgr Desprez, AN F19/1931.
67. See e.g. Prefect Corrèze to MI, 30 June 1862, re. return of Bishop of
Tulle, AN F19/1931.
68. Abbé Poupelier, Mon pélerinage à Rome, Neuville-sur-Seine, 1862, AN
F19/5869.
69. Quoted by Delpal, Entre paroisse et commune, p.  204; P.  Boutry, ‘Un
catholicisme intransigeant. Le moment Pie IX (1846–78)’ in A. Corbin,
Histoire du christianisme, 2007, p. 411–13; Aubert, Le pontificat de Pie IX,
p. 278.
70. Maurain, op. cit., pp. 95–6.
71. Quoted by O. Chadwick, A history of the popes, 1830–1914, Oxford, 1998,
p. 121. See also H. Multon, ‘Concurrence dévotionnelle ou recomposition
des croyances? Quelques réflexions sur le culte des saints dans le catholi-
cisme du second 19e siècle, Societè e storia, 2007, p. 100.
72. M.-H.  Froeschlé-Chopard, Espace et sacré en Provence (16e–20e siècles),
1994, pp. 328–335.
73. J. Marx, Le péché de la France. Surnaturel et politique au 19e siècle, Brussels,
2005, pp. 208–213; ‘Les prières’ in Dubosq, Plongeron, Robert, La reli-
gion populaire, pp. 371–2.
74. Cinquin, ‘Paray-le-Monial’ in Boutry, Cinquin, Deux pèlerinages au 19e
siècle, 1980, pp. 174–8.
75. C. Langlois, ‘Catholicisme, féminité et sacralité’ in Le continent théologique,
pp. 268f.
76. See also G. Tavard, La Vierge Marie en France aux 18e et 19e siècles, 1990,
p. 131; D. Lerch, ‘L’Image dans l’imagerie pieuse en Alsace (1849–1914)’
in S. Michaud, J.-Y. Mollier, N. Savy (eds) Usages de l’image au 19e siècle,
108   R. PRICE

1993, p.  39; C.  Courtois, ‘La Vierge Marie dans les catéchismes de la
paroisse Saint-Sulpice de Paris du 17e au 19e siècle’ in A. Amato et al., La
Vierge dans la catéchisme hier et aujourd’hui, 2000, pp.  188–192;
A. Kumter, Translating Truth: ambitious images and religious knowledge in
late medieval France and England, 2011, p. 241.
77. C. Muller, Dieu est catholique et alsacien. Le vitalité du diocèse de Strasbourg
au 19e siècle, Strasbourg, 1987, II, pp. 792–3.
78. Quoted by R. Bourgeois, Le fait de La Salette, Grenoble 2006, p. 69.
79. M. Warner, Alone of All Her Sex: cult of the Virgin Mary, 1976, p. 94.
80. R. Jonas. France and the Cult of the Sacred Heart, 2000, p. 469.
81. Abbé Robitaille, Traité historique et dogmatique de la définition de la dogme
de l’Immaculée Conception de la très sainte Vierge, Arras 1857 quoted by
C.  Savart, Les catholiques en France au 19e siècle: le témoignage du livre
religieux, 1985, p. 598.
82. See e.g. R.  Bartlett, Why can the Dead do such Great Things? Saints and
worshippers from the martyrs to the Reformation, 2013, p. 151.
83. Quoted by P.  Pichot-Bravard, Le pape ou l’empereur. Les catholiques et
Napoléon III, Perpignan, 2008, p. 173.
84. Aubert, Pontificat, p. 248.
85. Letter written in 1868 by Pius to his biographer Mgr Ladoue—in
P.-M.  Dioudonnat, Paroles d’évêques, 19e–20e siècles. Une anthologie du
cléricalisme français, 2005, pp. 84–5.
86. F. Coppa, ‘Italy: the Church and the Risorgimento’ in S. Gilley, B. Stanley,
(eds) The Cambridge history of Christianity: world Christianities, c. 1815–
1914, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 245–9.
87. See also C. Langlois, ‘Lire le Syllabus’ in A. Dierkens, (ed) L’intelligentsia
européenne en mutation (1850–75). Darwin, le syllabus et leurs consequences,
Brussels, 1998, pp. 86f.
88. J.  McManners, ‘Vatican Phantoms’ T.L.S., 23 October 1998; see also
F. Jankowiak, La curie romaine de Pie IX à Pie X. Le gouvernement central
de l’Eglise et la fin des Etats Pontificaux. 1846–1914, Rome, 2007,
pp. 353–4.
89. L’ambassadeur de France à Rome au Ministre des Affaires Etrangères, 6
July 1867, AN F19/1939.
90. Quoted by P. Boutry, ‘Papauté et culture au 19e siècle’, pp. 34, 38.
91. Ibid., p. 19.
92. Quoted by Clark, ‘The new Catholicism and the European culture wars’ in
C. Clark, W. Kaiser, (eds) Culture wars. Secular-Catholic conflict in 19th
century Europe, Cambridge, 2003, p. 38.
93. Quanta cura—appendix to P. Christophe, R. Minnerath, Le Syllabus de Pie
IX, 2000.
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    109

94. P.  Boutry, ‘Un catholicisme intransigeant’ in Corbin, (ed) Histoire du

christianisme, p. 410; C. Milbach, ‘Catholicisme intransigeant et catholi-
cisme libéral au 19e siècle’ in A.  Tallon, C.  Vincent, (eds) Histoire du
christianisme en France, 2014, p. 341.
95. See e.g. Christophe, Minnerath, Le Syllabus, p. I; P. Portier, ‘Catholicisme
et politique dans la France contemporaine, Un état de recherche’ in
Pellistrandi, L’histoire religieuse, p. 87.
96. Lettre pastorale de Mgr l’Evêque de Tarbes à l’occasion de l’Encyclique
du 8 décembre 1864, AN F19/5607.
97. Lettre pastorale de Mgr, l’Archevêque de Paris relatif à la récente
Encyclique du Souverain Pontife et mandement pour le Carême et le
Jubilé de l’année 1865, AN F19/1936.
98. Quoted by Christophe, ‘Pie IX, le pape du Syllabus’ in Christophe,
Minnerath, Le Syllabus, p. 25.
99. La convention du 15 septembre et l’encyclique du 8 décembre, 1865,
pp. 118–19, 126–8.
100. See Ch. de Montalembert, Catholicité et liberté: correspondence inédite
(1852–70), 1970, pp. 314–18, correspondence with Falloux.
101. Quoted Christophe, Minnerath, Le Syllabus, p. 27.
102. Minnerath, op. cit., pp. 29–31.
103. Boudon, Paris, pp. 473–4.
104. Report to M. des Aff. Et., 31 Dec. 1864, AN F19/1934.
105. Printed in Boudon, Paris, pp. 424–5.
106. Christophe, Minnerath, Le ‘Syllabus’ p. 23.
107. See e.g. Archbishop of Reims to MJ et des C., 13 Jan. 1865, AN
F19/1935.
108. Letter of 8 Jan. 1865, AN F19/1935.
109. Letter to MJ et des C., [date indecipherable], AN F19/1935.
110. See e.g. Lettre de Mgr.l’Evêque de Strasbourg à son excellence M. le Ministre
de la Justice et des Cultes à propos de l’Encyclique du 8 décembre 1864,
Strasbourg, Le Roux, 1865, AN F19/5607.
111. See e.g. letters to Bishops of Orleans and Poitiers, published in Le Monde,
3 Nov. 1865, AN F19/1934.
112. Letter to MJ et des C., 13 Jan. 1865, AN F19/1935.
113. Letter to MC, 16 Jan. 1865, AN F19/1936.
114. Letter to MJ et des C., 4 Feb. 1865, AN F19/1936.
115. Letter to MC, 23 Jan. 1865 and ‘L’Encyclique de sa sainteté Pie IX du 8
décembre 1864 et sur le syllabus qui l’accompagne’, Digne and Paris,
1865, AN F19/1934.
116. PG Besançon to Garde des Sceaux, 1 Feb. 1865, AN F19/1936.
117. Instruction pastorale et mandement de Mgr. l’Evêque de Versailles pour le
jubilé de 1865, AN F19/5607.
110   R. PRICE

118. Lettre-circulaire de Mgr l’Evêque de Grenoble sur les accusations porteés

dans la presse contre l’Encyclique de N.S.P. le Pape et le Syllabus’, Grenoble,
1868, AN F19/1936. Emphasis in the original.
119. Mandement de Mgr l’Evêque de Carcassonne au clergé et aux fidèles de
son diocèse pour le saint temps du Carême de l’an de grâce 1865, AN
F19/1936.
120. Circular of 19 Jan. 1865, AN F19/1936.
121. Bishop of Meaux to Min. de la Justice et des Cultes, 15 Jan. 1865, AN
F19/1935. See also ‘Mandement de Mgr l’Evêque de Meaux pour le
Carême de l’année 1865…AN F19/1936.
122. Lettre circulaire de Mgr. l’Evêque de Mende au clergé de son diocèse, 22
Feb. 1865, AN F19/1936.
123. Mandement et instruction pastorale de Mgr. L’Evêque de La Rochelle…
pour le saint temps de Carême 1865, AN F19/1936.
124. See also PG Paris, 17 Feb. 1865, AN BB30/384.
125. Quoted by J. Lafon, Les prêtres, les fidèles et l’état, 1987, pp. 179–80.
126. Letter to MC, n.d. [Jan. 1865], AN F19/1935.
127. Circulaire de Mgr. l’Evêque de Saint-Brieuc à l’occasion de la fête de
l’Immaculée conception et des circonstances présentes, Nov. 1866, AN
F19/1938.
128. See also P. Airiau, L’Eglise et l’Apocalypse du 19e siècle à nos jours, 2000,
pp.  55–59; C.  Bressolette, Le pouvoir dans la société et dans l’Eglise.
L’ecclèsiologogie politique de Mgr Maret…, 1984, passim.
129. See e.g. E. Richard, ‘La presse marseillaise et l’encyclique Quanta cura’,
Etudes d’histoire provençale, Gap, 1971, p. 216.
130. Prefect Somme to MJ et des C., 25 Jan. 1865, AN F19/1936.
131. PG Rouen, 13 Oct. 1859, AN BB30/386.
132. Cabinet du Ministre de l’I.P. et des C., ‘Réponses aux notes remises par
l’Empereur au Ministre des Cultes sur l’attitude du clergé’, AN F19/5605.
133. See e.g. Le Courrier de Lyon, 3 Jan. 1865; La Gazette du Midi (Marseille),
15 Jan., La Guienne (Bordeaux) 11 Jan., L’Ordre et la Liberté (Caen), 21
Jan., AN F19/1934; Le Moniteur catholique, 12 Feb. 1865, AN
F19/1936.
134. See e.g. C. Clark, ‘The new Catholicism and the European culture wars’,
in Clark, Kaiser, Culture wars, pp. 19–23; Horaist, La dévotion au pape,
pp. 9–11.
135. Report to Min. des Aff. Etr., 3 Jan. 1865, AN F19/1934.
136. Clark, ‘The new catholicism’, p. 29.
137. Speech published in L’Univers, 20 June 1869.
138. A. Chavasse, ‘L’ecclésiologie au concile du Vatican’, in M. Nédoncelle,
(ed) L’ecclésiologie au 19e siècle, 1960, p. 236.
139. Christophe, ‘Le Concile’ p. 19.
   DOCTRINE: THE MOVE TOWARDS ROME    111

140. Copy in AN F19/1939.

141. De l’Ultramontanisme et du Gallicanisme (Lyon, Ch. Mera, 1868); Abbé
Valin to MC, 28 Aug. 1868; Maire of Lissieu to Cardinal de Bonald, 27
Sept.; PG Lyon to G. des S., 2 Nov.; Cabinet du G. des S., Note, 5 Nov.;
AN F19/5821.
142. J.-F. Chiron, ‘“Une barrière éternelle”: l’autorité de l’Eglise dans la défi-
nition du dogme au 19e siècle’ Recherches de science religieuse, 1994,
p. 41.
143. Cabinet… Note pour le G. des S., 30 June 1869, AN F19/1939.
144. Ibid.
145. Ibid., 7 July 1870.
146. Ibid., 29 June.
147. Lettre pastorale de Mgr l’Evêque de Beauvais…à l’occasion de son départ
pour le Concile œcuménique du Vatican, AN F19/1941.
148. Instruction pastorale et mandement de Mgr L’Evêque de Poitiers…à
l’occasion du prochain concile œcuménique, AN F19/1939.
149. Mgr Saint-Marc, ‘Mandement de Carême sur le prochain concile œcumé-
nique’; Mgr Raess, ‘Mandement de Carême sur la charité’, AN F19/1939.
150. L’Ambassadeur de France à Rome au M. des Aff. Et., 19 Jan. 1870, AN
F19/1940.
151. Chargé d’affaires Rome to M. des Aff. Et., 22 Sept. 1869, AN F19/1940.
152. E.  Ollivier, L’Eglise et l’Etat au Concile du Vatican, 1879, I,
pp. 399–400.
153. MJ et des C., Cabinet du ministre, AN F19/1941 for an assessment of
bishops’ views by diocese. On meetings of groups of French bishops, see
M.  Launay, ‘Le Séminaire français à l’heure du Concile Vatican I’ in
Levillain, Boutry, Fradet, 150 ans au coeur de Rome, pp. 93–8.
154. Report from French embassy to Directeur-général, MC, 15 Feb. 1870,
AN F19/1940.
155. Ibid., 7 Jan. 1870.
156. Jankowiak, La curie romaine, pp. 385–6.
157. ‘Le journal de Mgr Darboy au Concile du Vatican (1869–70)’, Revue des
sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 1970, entry of 15–18 December
1869, p. 423.
158. Aubert, Pontificat, pp. 324–361.
159. Christophe, ‘Le Concile’, p. 120, document 18.
160. See e.g. Adresse de clergé de l’archdiocèse de Bordeaux à sa sainteté Pie IX,
(Bordeaux, Imprim. de J. Delmas, 1870), AN F19/5893.
161. R. Aubert, Vatican I, 1964, pp. 268–9.
162. Gicquel, Prêtres de Bretagne, p. 210.
163. Christophe, ‘Le Concile’, p. 45.
164. Ibid., p. 116—letter to Mgr Maret 28 Oct. 1869; p. 47—letter to Ollivier.
112   R. PRICE

165. Montalembert, Catholicisme et liberté, pp.  409–410, letter of 19 Aug.

1869.
166. Christophe, ‘Le Concile’ pp. 54–55.
167. Chef de la première division de l’Administration des Cultes, Concile
œcuménique du Vatican, 10e Note, 15 July 1870, AN F19/1939.
168. Min. des Aff. Et., Définition du Proclamation du dogme de l’Immaculée
conception, n.d., AN F19/1931.
169. R.  McBrien, (ed) The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism,
New York, 1995, p. 664.
170. J.  Maurain, Un bourgeois français au 19e siècle: Baroche, ministre de
Napoléon III, 1936, pp. 447–8.
171. see also P.  Boutry, ‘Papauté et culture au 19e siècle. Magistre, ortho-
doxie, tradition’ Revue d’histoire du 19e siècle, 2004/1, p. 32.
172. R. Aubert, ‘Motivations théologiques et extra-théologiques des partisans
et des adversaires de la définition dogmatique de l’infaillibilité du pape à
Vatican I’ in E. Castelli, (ed) L’infaillibilité, 1970, pp. 68–9.
173. Quoted by Jankowiak, La curie romaine, pp. 390–1.
174. On these objectives, see e.g. a sermon by Pius IX on 19 June 1869,
reported in L’Univers, 24 June. See also K. Schatz, La primauté du pape,
1992, pp. 227–9; Jankowiak, La curie romaine, p. 397.
175. Quoted by Jankowiak, op. cit., p. 397.
176. J.R. Fears, (ed) Selected writings of Lord Acton, vol. 3, Indianapolis, 2000,
p. 340.
177. Quoted by E. Duffy, ‘A Hero of the Church’, New York Review of Books,
23 Dec. 2010, p. 62.
 CHAPTER 4

Pastoral Care: The Clergy and the People

of God

4.1   Introduction
The social visibility of the Church following the Revolution was enhanced
by the vitality of a relatively youthful, numerous and combative clergy
with a high ideal of Christian ministry and devotion to God, His Church
and the community of the faithful. Their primary responsibility was to
transmit the essential truths of the Christian message and, by receiving
confession and administering the sacraments, through preaching and
teaching, by supporting the Christian family and providing comfort to the
sick and distressed, prepare the faithful for the Last Judgement. Every act
of daily life should respond to the all-pervading presence of God and be
informed by the teachings of the Church, the only legitimate interpreter
of the Gospel. As Mgr Thibault, Bishop of Montpellier. insisted, the priest
should ensure that ‘morals are purified, Religion flourishes, society begins
to envisage an improved destiny: a future in which there will be only obe-
dient children, faithful servants, charitable rich, resigned poor, hard work-
ing and sober workers: the peace of God will reign amongst us’.1 Success
depended upon the priest’s ability to understand, adapt and insert himself
into the social space of the parish.2
Subscribing to an exalted ideal of the purpose of their Christian minis-
try and their perception of themselves as the agents of God’s Will and
representatives of Christ on Earth, it was hardly surprising that priests
frequently displayed an ill-disguised sense of their own personal worth and

© The Author(s) 2018 113

R. Price, Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67196-3_4
114   R. PRICE

superiority over laymen.3 Their determination to dominate was consider-

ably reinforced by the experience of revolution, by a ‘theology of combat’,
by a pessimistic view of sinful man, and a Manichean vision of history as an
all-consuming war between good and evil.4 As local ‘notables’ they were,
moreover, widely perceived to represent a ‘force d’encadrement’ and to
serve as powerful agents of social control.5

4.2   Administering the Sacraments

The meaning and social function of the sacraments was clearly evident
within the sacred space of the parish—in which the clergy sanctified the
major stages in the life of the family and the rituals associated with the
worship of God contributed to ‘the processes of community-formation’.6
It was on Sunday in particular, at mass, on a day devoted to God, that
Christ’s sacrifice was remembered through the mystery of the Eucharist
and reconciliation between Man and God became possible following the
prior examination of one’s conscience and confession of sins, by means of
penance and forgiveness. Securing regular attendance was a key objective,
for, as the catechism of the diocese of Valence pointed out, ‘it is at Mass
that prayers are said especially for parishioners, and one hears there the
voice of God in the instructions of one’s own priest, [and] because it is at
Mass that fêtes, fasting, marriages etc. are announced’.7 Mass was the cen-
tral act of collective, community worship. The liturgy employed, with its
prayers, readings, and sermon provided a means of instruction, a frame-
work for moral teaching, and an opportunity to manifest the hierarchy of
priests and believers.8
The seven sacraments—baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance,
anointing of the sick, ordination and matrimony—constituted central fea-
tures of Christian worship, as well as vitally important ‘rites of passage’.
Marriage was the prelude to the establishment of the Christian family,
which provided the perfect context for the socialization of children and
their religious upbringing. Subsequently, baptism represented the means
of securing forgiveness for original sin, avoiding eternal damnation, and
opening the path to membership of the Christian community and ulti-
mately to salvation for the newly born. High levels of infant mortality
ensured that premature death was a very real prospect and, according to
Canon Law, baptism needed to be performed within three days of birth.
The ritual act was generally conducted publicly with the participation of
parents and godparents—usually members of the extended family—who
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    115

undertook, on behalf of the child, and in the presence of the community,

to provide a Christian upbringing. Only when an infant seemed likely to
die prematurely was baptism at home rather than in the sacred space of the
church judged to be acceptable, although the Archbishop of Cambrai con-
ceded, reluctantly, in response to a petition from the Société médicale de
Douai, that exposure to severe winter conditions in a freezing church
might threaten the well-being of the newly born.9 In extremis, in the
absence of a priest and where the death of a newly born child appeared
imminent—followed by internment in unconsecrated ground alongside
heretics and suicides—midwives, or even ordinary parishioners, were per-
mitted to administer baptism, although this meant delivery of the sacra-
ment by a woman.10 In the case of a difficult birth, many (most) Catholic
doctors, sharing the prevailing religious discourse, would have agreed that
the fundamental objective was to baptize the child.11 In a frequently re-­
published Essai sur la théologie morale considérée dans ses rapports avec la
physiologie et la médecine (1842), J-C. Debreyne (a priest and a doctor),
thus insisted that in the case of a difficult pregnancy the extremely danger-
ous procedure of a caesarian section should be followed, even if it meant
sacrificing the mother (or else post-mortem).12 The practice of contracep-
tion which might otherwise have avoided potentially dangerous births or
of abortion to safeguard the life of the mother was condemned by the
Church.13
Death, the most important moment of passage, was hardly to be con-
templated without the ‘secours de la religion’. Belief in Divine Judgement
ensured that the final confession, followed by absolution, and receipt of
the holy sacrament, were of supreme importance. Preparedness at the
moment of death, and confidence in God’s judgement, might compensate
for the failure to live a wholly Christian life. Ideally, the arrival of the
priest, carrying the viaticum, escorted by choir boys and a parishioner
ringing a hand bell, allowed time for a final confession, contrition, perfor-
mance of the last rites and absolution. Even where individuals had rarely
attended Church, they were frequently ‘persuaded’ to receive the last rites
by family members, particularly by women anxious to avoid embarrass-
ment or to ensure that those they had loved should not expire in a state of
sin. Any departure from the norms, or threat to the dignity of death-bed
and post-mortem ceremonies, was likely to cause distress. This was the
case at Lannemezan (Hautes-Pyrénées) where the parish priest attempted
to persuade 80-year-old Louise Ricaud, on her death bed, to agree to pay
her debts before he would hear her final confession. Stubbornly, she
116   R. PRICE

expired before receiving the last rites and was subsequently refused a
Christian burial. The daughter of the deceased complained in a petition to
the Emperor that the ‘extreme rigour’ the vicaire had displayed had
‘doomed a family, until then respected by all, to eternal infamy’. The priest
insisted that he could not have behaved in any other way towards someone
who even in extremity had shown ‘contempt for religion’.14
Sudden death was something to be dreaded.15 Circumstances, such as
the absence of a priest from his parish at the crucial moment or his own
serious illness, might result in the last rites not being performed.16 The
aged priest of the alpine parish of Saint Martin with its dispersed popula-
tion, was frequently unable, due to asthma and rheumatism, to attend to
the dying or to receive the bodies of recently deceased parishioners at their
homes, as custom demanded.17 Hope of life everlasting and escape from
the torments of an eternal death were not extinguished entirely, however.
For the deceased, it was assumed that there were three possible destina-
tions—Heaven, Hell or Purgatory. On the basis of very limited scriptural
evidence, the Council of Trent had revived, reinterpreted, and popular-
ized the medieval obsession with souls in Purgatory. During the nine-
teenth century—the ‘great century of purgatory’—the doctrine was again
strongly reaffirmed by the Papacy.18 It was maintained that although only
a small, saintly, minority could expect after death to directly and immedi-
ately gain the eternal bliss of Heaven, most sinners might still aspire to
avoid the eternal suffering imposed by the Devil in Hell. They should,
however, anticipate a period of torment in Purgatory, enduring punish-
ment and expiating their sins before finally ascending into Heaven. A good
and charitable life might limit this period of penance, as would constant
prayer to Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and the saints for redemption for the sins
of both the living and dead. Remission might also be gained, and the
rigour of God’s punishment eased, by means of indulgences granted by
the Church to those sinners who truly repented or else as reward for the
good works and prayers of the living; by participation in particular reli-
gious festivals and pilgrimages; membership of congregations and confra-
ternities; the wearing of crosses and religious medals; and by means of the
purchase of memorial masses for the souls of the dead; as well as donations
to good causes. The Pope could also offer further and substantial relief
from the suffering of Purgatory by means of the plenary indulgences asso-
ciated with the celebration of such events as Papal Jubilees.19
For the cynical Breton peasant, and former soldier, Jean-Marie
Déguignet, this renewed emphasis on Purgatory appeared to be yet
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    117

another money-raising scam. He was convinced that the clergy preferred

to dispatch the rich to Purgatory rather than Hell because ‘if they send
them there [to Hell], they would only be able to claim a single [burial]
fee, whereas by sending them to Purgatory they will receive annual,
monthly, weekly and even daily fees’ in return for prayers to relieve the
suffering of souls in Purgatory.20 Many others, however, doubtless wel-
comed the second chance provided to those who had sinned, or died with-
out the ministrations of a priest, to avoid the burning fires and torments
of Hell, by securing God’s blessing. As well as mechanical acts of worship,
the belief in Purgatory promoted intense devotion and a veritable cult of
the dead on All Souls Day.21

4.3   Transmitting the Message

4.3.1  Childhood Socialization
Inspired by a vision, constructed over the centuries, of Mary not only as
the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, but as the ideal wife and
mother, priests were especially determined to preserve and sanctify the
virtues of the Christian mother whose role was of such crucial importance
in the religious upbringing of the young. Marie-Eugènie-Dorothée
Quoniam, a Carmelite sister, born in 1839, indeed remembered fondly
how her pious mother ‘taught me to make the sign of the cross, to join
my little hands together in prayer! … She took such care with all those
matters which concerned my soul and the development of my faculties.’22
Women were expected to play a central role in the Catholic reconquest of
society, by inculcating virtue, as well as in the restoration of social har-
mony.23 Mgr Donnet, Archbishop of Bordeaux, in his Instruction pastoral
sur l’éducation de famille for Easter 1845 forcefully reminded mothers
that ‘You are the living instruments, the visible chiefs of a formidable
spiritual power. Your thoughts, in becoming the thoughts of succeeding
generations, mingle with universal life, and serve as the breath of human-
ity. Never forget your responsibilities, never forget your power: for if men
make the laws, women make morality which has much more influence
than laws on the destiny of the world.’24 Religion was widely regarded as
an ‘affaire des femmes’ within a gendered division of labour in which they
tended to assume responsibility for the spiritual life of the family and for
its relationships with the priests whose prayers were vital in securing pros-
perity and well-being.25
118   R. PRICE

4.3.2  Catechizing
Considerable importance was also attached to more formal catechizing.
By means of a process of instruction spread over two to four years, the
priest, assisted by the school teacher, could employ a series of simple
questions and answers about the catechism, together with stories from
the Bible, to combat the widespread ‘ignorance crasse’ of Christian prin-
ciples, promote faith among the young, protect them against sin, and
inculcate respect for authority within the primary social institutions—
home, Church and State.26 Following the Restoration and the abandon-
ment of the imperial catechism, each diocese had adopted a cheaply
printed catechism approved by its bishop. The Strasbourg catechism,
published in 1846, defined the Church, as ‘the visible society of the
faithful, united on earth by profession of a shared faith, by participation
in the same sacraments, under the authority of legitimate pastors, whose
visible chief is our Holy Father the Pope, vicar of Jesus Christ on earth
… the successor of Saint Peter, on whom Jesus Christ founded His
Church, to whom He gave the keys of the kingdom …’. The faithful
were reminded that ‘Jesus Christ is the invisible head of the Church, our
Holy Father is the visible head’. The role of the bishops, as ‘successors of
the Apostles’, was to ‘govern’ their dioceses under the ‘supervision’ and
‘authority’ of the Pope. It was maintained further that the Church,
defined as the Pope and the bishops ‘in communion with him’, was
‘infallible and never able to teach any error contrary to the faith and to
morality’, and that ‘outside the Catholic, apostolic and Roman Church,
[founded by Christ] there is no salvation’. Much greater stress was
placed on the role of the Pope than in a previous catechism published in
1829.27 From 1852, the catechism introduced by Mgr Sibour in Paris
often served as a model. It was divided into three parts—the Credo
(‘that which we must believe’); commandments (‘which we must obey’);
and the sacraments (‘the means of salvation which we must respect’).
Each of these was further divided into lessons based on questions for
which model answers were provided, which were to be learnt by heart to
ensure that they remained imprinted on the reader’s mind. Absolute
obedience to the Will of God and to the dictates of His Church were the
fundamental requirements.
In the hope of instilling a life-long faith, the provincial council held
at Lyon in 1850 recommended that the catechist employ ‘a simple and
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    119

clear language, accessible to all … stories, examples, comparisons drawn

from the Holy Scriptures or from Tradition’, and warned that ‘it is not
enough to ask children to recite the catechism learned by heart, without
raising questions and providing explanations’.28 Ideally classes should
take place in the edifying environment of a chapel. Mgr Devie, Bishop
of Belley, additionally suggested the use of engravings of the life of
Christ and history of the Church to interest and introduce the young—
many of them illiterate—to the ‘mysteries’ of religion.29 The efficacy of
this instruction of course depended on the zeal and teaching skills of
the parish clergy and of the members of religious orders and school
teachers who often assisted them. At worst, teaching could turn into a
meaningless recitation of half-­understood phrases, and according to the
warnings of the Abbé Chevrier, a leading catechist, in boredom and
discouragement.30 In such circumstances maintaining interest and disci-
pline in catechism classes must often have been a problem. Generally,
‘une sage et juste séverité’ was thought to be necessary.31 When the Abbé
Richard, desservant of Labbeville, was accused of brutality towards his
catechists, the Bishop of Beauvais pointed out that Richard had chas-
tised only the ‘most insubordinate, naughty, and incorrigible children’
and that some parents had advised him to ‘châtier, de claquer leurs
enfants’.32
The process of childhood instruction culminated in the receipt of first
communion, followed by an imposing confirmation service conducted by
the bishop for which parents proudly provided their children with new
clothes and the clergy distributed images and medals.33 Priests insisted
upon their unchallengeable right to determine whether or not a child was
adequately prepared to participate.34 The Bishop of Nancy thus fully sup-
ported the refusal of the Abbé Schleinenger, parish priest at Langatte, to
admit a 13-year-old girl, who, when questioned about the catechism,
revealed an ignorance of ‘the most elementary notions of religion’. He
was determined to ‘stimulate the zeal’ of parents who neglected to send
their children to school and who failed to go to church themselves.35
Exclusion was regarded as a weighty punishment. It represented public
humiliation and ruled out participation, as part of a peer group, in a major
community celebration, in the rite of passage which marked entry into
adulthood.36 Indeed, in some areas, the lack of a certificate attesting to
qualification for first communion made it difficult to find any kind of
work.37
120   R. PRICE

4.3.3  Confession
Following confirmation and receipt of first communion, an individual
became an adult member of the parish community and accepted his/her
personal responsibility towards God. Subsequently, in order to secure
absolution and restore themselves to a state of grace, individuals would be
required, on their knees before a priest in the confessional, to confess their
sins in their entirety, show contrition, and promise to avoid further sin.
The priest in hearing confessions and defining the limits of acceptable
behaviour thus secured a vital pedagogical opportunity and means of
imposing social control. He was obliged to interrogate the supplicant,
assist in the identification of sin, and ensure repentance in the fear of
God.38 Although required to respect the secrecy of the confession, priests
would certainly condemn acts like theft as contrary to God’s
Commandments and might additionally reinforce the public legal system
by encouraging individuals thought guilty of illegal acts to confess to the
authorities.39 The numerous missions visiting during the Restoration were
likely to demand a general confession of sins committed during the
Revolution, as a means of securing both reconciliation and expiation.40
The prospect of making confession must have aroused considerable
anxiety. Preaching in Provençal at Gordes in the 1850s, the Abbé Françon
warned that ‘When you go to confession and fail to confess all your sins, it
is as if when you pull up weeds and you do not pull hard enough, you leave
some pieces in the soil, and as though you had done nothing. Those pieces
of weed that you’ve left overrun everything, and soon there are more
weeds than there were before.’41 At Serdinya, in the eastern Pyrenees, the
parish priest in 1855 even warned those sinful young men who had failed
to make their confessions that they would be punished by drawing a ‘mau-
vais numéro’. Hearing that, some of those who had been conscripted had
criticized him, in his next sermon he warned that they would soon be
killed and went on to chant the De Profundis for the peace of their souls.
He also warned the community that God would strike it with cholera for
its sins.42
The growing popularity of the moral theology developed by Saint
Alphonse Liguori (1696–1787), particularly from the 1830 and 1840s,
with its emphasis on frequent communion moreover served to reinforce
the status of the clergy. As representatives of the ‘institution de salut’, they
assumed that it was their duty to intervene in every sphere of human
­relationships and to strip away the obstacles to salvation.43 Securing the
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    121

moral integrity of the Christian family was vital to ensure ‘the perpetua-
tion of the Catholic habitus’.44 Priests thus accepted the challenging
responsibility of regulating sexual activity within the community, although
the unconsummated marriage between Mary and Joseph, as well as their
own vow of celibacy, must have encouraged them to believe that celibacy
was a morally superior state.45
In a traditional Catholic theology, based upon the teaching of Saint
Augustine, marriage, indissoluble and monogamous, was assumed to be
the ‘natural’ situation in recognition of ‘the needs of the flesh’ and the
conjugal responsibilities of married couples. Furthermore, as Mgr Bouvier
(Bishop of Le Mans, 1833–1854), whose works were widely employed for
instructing seminarians and for the guidance of parish priests, pointed
out—‘in the intention of the Creator, venereal pleasures are uniquely des-
tined for the propagation of the human race; everything that is contrary to
that objective, constitutes a grave disorder and is then a mortal sin’.46
Sexuality, however, as the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden
of Eden had revealed, was indicative of the human capacity for bestiality
and sin. The key biblical text (Genesis 38, 9) referred to the ‘crime of
Onan’—who in practising coitus interruptus had enjoyed sex without con-
ceiving children. The practice of family limitation ran counter to the duty
of humanity to preserve itself through procreation within the family, in
order to ensure the perpetual adoration of God. The purpose of sexual
activity was the central question. Thus, activity engaged in primarily for
pleasure rather than to ensure procreation—although this might be the
outcome—was likely to be defined as venal sin, while deliberate efforts to
prevent conception were undoubtedly mortal sins. These included not
only the ‘crime d’Onan’, but those of Sodom, as well as the ‘self-abuse’
associated with masturbation. Sexual activity outside a Christian marriage
or involving civil ceremonies was also invariably condemned. Speaking to
a newly married woman at Montricher (Savoie), following a civil cere-
mony conducted by the mayor, the parish priest warned that this was not
sufficient for a Christian and little better than a ‘mariage des chiens’.47
From the late eighteenth century, the spreading practice of coitus
interrruptus—through which ‘man defies providence’—caused consider-
able anxiety among the clergy. In 1830, Mgr Arbaud, bishop of the Alpine
diocese of Gap, sought to make them more fully aware that the ‘detestable
crime of Onan has even penetrated into the cottages’.48 The marketing of
large numbers of rubber sheaths from the mid-1840s aroused further
alarm. In response, confessors might have followed Mgr Bouvier and
122   R. PRICE

avoided excessive rigourism in case it discouraged confession, limiting

themselves to vague generalities to avoid mutual embarrassment; or alter-
natively, accepted the far less tolerant views of the saintly, obsessive and
self-mortifying, curé d’Ars, or the rigourism enforced by the Congregation
of the Holy Office from the early 1850s. As the supposedly active partici-
pants in sexual activity, men, rather than women, judged to be passive,
were particularly likely to face censure.49
The degree to which the model of conjugal life defined in the manuals
was acted out in reality is of course impossible to determine. The ideal
might be represented by a prayer included in a Manuel des fidèles, pub-
lished in Lyon in 1850—‘O Mary! Pure Virgin without stain, chaste wife
of Joseph, tender mother of Jesus, perfect model for wives and mothers, I
prostrate myself at your feet and beg for your help. Consider my cares and
those of my family. I hope through you to obtain from Jesus the favour of
properly fulfilling my duties as wife and mother. Secure for me the fear of
God, the love of work and good works, the taste for prayer and holy mat-
ters, sweetness, patience, wisdom, all the virtues the apostle recommended
to Christian women and which are the happiness and ornament of fami-
lies. Teach me to honour my husband as you honour Saint Joseph and as
the Church honours Jesus Christ. That he finds in me the wife of his heart!
That the holy union we have contracted on earth will continue eternally in
Heaven!’50 Wives were required by their confessors to strive to attain per-
fection in terms of submission to their husbands, and in the creation of a
domestic environment suffused with religion, and with tenderness rather
than passion. The proclamation of Joseph as patron saint of the Church in
1870 and the growing dedication to the Virgin’s parents Saints Anne and
Joachim—more or less fictitious figures drawn from tradition rather than
biblical revelation—reinforced this devotion to the Holy Family.
Considerable emphasis was placed by both State (through the legal
system) and Church on the centrality of paternal authority, and on author-
itarian relationships within the family as the bases for both moral order
and political authority.51 Men, although rarely hostile to religion, were
increasingly likely to maintain a distance from the clergy—a development
which contributed to the growing ‘feminization’ of the Church.52 They
frequently resented the authoritarian attitudes of priests and their determi-
nation to interfere, through the confessional, in the most intimate details
of family life and particularly the interrogation of their wives and daugh-
ters. Whispered confessions, which nonetheless needed to be audible as
well as secret, must frequently have been an embarrassment. The repeated
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    123

condemnation by the clergy of family limitation as mortal sin, and the

demand that the faithful submit to God’s will and resign themselves to the
poverty associated with large families proved ever more unacceptable,
associating the clergy with a past from which many people were desperate
to escape. The celebrated theologian and Bishop of Le Mans, Mgr Bouvier,
was sufficiently concerned about the impact of ‘imprudents rigueurs’ on
Church attendance in a diocese in which contraception was widely prac-
tised, as well as anxious to avoid humiliating women—responsible for the
religious faith and morality of the next generation—that he advocated
reconsideration of the doctrine. Under pressure from colleagues like Mgr
Pie, as well as the Holy Office—confident that only moral rigour would
secure religious regeneration—he would instead become more rigorous in
his strictures.53

4.3.4  
Preaching
In addition to hearing confessions, the clergy were also expected to offer
guidance to the faithful by means of pastoral letters on the part of bishops
and through regular preaching. Surviving sermons tend to be the excep-
tional, given by senior figures within the Church or by famous preachers,
and subsequently printed. The vast majority of addresses delivered in
countless parish churches throughout France have disappeared. It never-
theless appears that congregations were constantly reminded that their
‘destinies are in the hands of their Creator’, that ‘the Providence of God
governs the affairs of this world … [and that] There does not fall a hair
from our head without His order or His permission. Nothing occurs
purely by chance …’.54
Individual or collective misfortune—floods, cholera, revolution—were
seen as representing both Divine retribution and a warning of the need for
moral reform.55 According to the parish priest at Dauendorf, the funda-
mental message was that ‘religion is the essential condition for Happiness;
it alone provides the remedy for our ills’, combined with a warning that
God would punish those who transgressed His laws.56 This was a vision of
an Old Testament God—the Creator, the All-Powerful.
The vital need to observe the Fourth Commandment, and to respect
the Sabbath, was a favourite theme, although compromises were often
accepted during the harvest.57 Even then, in his pastoral letter for Easter
1847, the Bishop of Chartres warned his flock that those who worked on
Sunday, and their families, would be punished for their ‘greed’, by means
124   R. PRICE

of ‘these dreadful events which carry with them everywhere desolation

and tragedy’ and which ‘attest to the anger of God’. Mgr Clausel de
Montals predicted that hail or flood would devastate their crops and dis-
ease afflict their livestock. In contrast, God would reward those who
rested and worshipped on Sundays.58 The situation nevertheless contin-
ued to deteriorate. In 1869, Mgr Regnault, who had succeeded to the
diocese, warned that ‘as a result of … the fatal habits of so many young
people who desert our churches, we can only dread the calamities of celes-
tial vengeance. God will not allow these scandals to go unpunished.’59
According to the Bishop of Angoulême, markets on Sundays which
encouraged the pursuit of profit and pleasure would result in ‘the almost
complete extinction of conscience, hatred of those who possess and of the
government which protects them, encouragement to join secret societies,
and an ardent aspiration towards a new revolution, more radical than all
its predecessors’.60
Many priests appear to have been poorly prepared in their seminaries
for the demanding role of preacher. Congregations enduring discomfort
in buildings which were frequently cold and damp, already bored by the
Latin intonation of the mass, must often have found it difficult to cope
with interminable and incomprehensible sermons delivered by uninspiring
priests. Complaints were frequent concerning inaudibility, excessive
length, or lack of clarity. Parishioners often found themselves unable to
wait for the end of the service before starting conversations.61 Securing the
silence conducive to audibility and private pious devotion must often have
been difficult. The priest at Vienne-en-Val in the diocese of Orleans
described how peasants ‘arriving for mass, for the most part during the
prayers and announcements from the pulpit, violently open and close the
door and make a racket as if they were at a fair or in a cabaret. Those who
have attended mass from the beginning, cough, spit, shuffle their feet, do
everything they can to make it obvious to the priest that they do not want
him to preach.’ Not surprisingly, ‘the continual noise distresses and dis-
courages the priest’.62 The Abbé Tynturié, after serving in the parish of
Cunfin in eastern France, insisted that ‘the time of the martyrs has not
passed … especially for the country priest for whom a vocation has become
a crown of thorns, a thankless task … when far from towns in which there
are a large number of intelligent souls, and where his holy words might be
understood, he finds himself alone amongst uncultured peasants, plunged
into materialism, whose speech is barely comprehensible, full of blind prej-
udices and dreadful passions …’.63
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    125

An experienced speaker, enjoying the prestige of his functions, embed-

ded in his parish, aware of the anxieties and shortcomings of his flock,
could, however, by means of a normative discourse employing simple lan-
guage and meaningful examples, hope to serve as an effective moral guide,
as well as a cultural intermediary between his community and the wider
society. Particularly on feast days, the more eloquent could attract large
and enthusiastic congregations. The model of the Christian family—the
authoritarian father, the loving and submissive mother, the obedient and
respectful children (and servants)—was frequently employed, with hymn
singing designed to reinforce the basic message, and to enhance its emo-
tional appeal.64 Manuals or collections of sermons, especially those written
for special occasions, were frequently published as pamphlets and might
serve as a model for aspiring preachers. Doubtless they were often simply
plagiarized.65
Many priests, imbued with a pessimistic view of human nature, contin-
ued, in spite of the gradual diffusion of a Ligurian emphasis on a tender,
loving Jesus, to preach a religion of fear, which by insisting on confession
as the central act of Christian life, helped to preserve their own special
status. The promise of God’s Judgement and the threat of Eternal
Damnation and the horrors of Hell were effective means of enforcing
moral discipline.66 Heaven and Hell were represented as real places.67
Father Soulas, chaplain to the Sœurs gardes-malades de Notre-Dame
Auxiliatrice at Montpellier, not untypically described Hell, in his favourite
sermon, in a very literal sense, as ‘a place of horror and despair, where the
avenging thunderbolt of the Lord strikes, where millions of victims, the
object of the most fearful of vengeances, discover how terrible a thing it is
to fall into the hands of the living God. What is hell? It is a frightful prison
where all is fire and flame, a stinking sewer from which rises an odour of
sulphur and bitumen …An ocean of fire engulfs the damned.’ He con-
cluded—‘Take away Hell, and you will thunder in vain against sin. If there
is no Hell, where is the justice of God?’ He assumed that only the prospect
of the Day of Judgement could curb human lust and greed.68 Although
Mme Lacressionière, a well-known actress at the Théâtre impériale de
l’Odéon in Paris had followed with care the prescriptions of the Church
during her last illness, confessing her sins and receiving the Last Sacrament,
at her funeral ceremony in Saint-Sulpice, the parish priest departed from
the usual words of comfort to warn his congregation, made up mainly of
actors, that they risked Eternal Damnation:‘and when I say eternal, I do
not mean 100,000 years, I do not mean 200,000 years, I mean an entire
126   R. PRICE

eternity’, as, he assured them, the deceased, in her coffin, and judged by
God, would already have realized.69 The vanities of this transitory exis-
tence were as nothing compared with death and Divine Judgement.
The Abbé Vianney, curé of Ars (Ain) near Lyon, was frequently pre-
sented to the faithful and particularly to fellow priests as a moral exemplar.
Canonized in 1925, he would be declared to be the patron de tous les curés
de l’univers in 1929. Utterly obsessed with the threat of sin, and desperate
to protect himself as well as his parishioners from earthly temptation,
Vianney engaged in a constant and desperate struggle against Satan. To
assuage his personal demons and turn his thoughts to his Divine Saviour,
he wore a hair shirt, a metal chain and a tight cord. Every night he blood-
ily scourged himself, before lying down to sleep on a stone floor with a
piece of wood as a pillow, at intervals prostrating himself in prayer, face
down on the floor of his church. This masochistic priest reinforced his
saintly reputation by tyrannizing his parishioners, warning them that
­alcohol and dancing led inevitably to the torments of Hell—described in
the most lurid terms—and requiring frequent confession of their sins.70
Belief in the real existence of Satan and his demons appears to have
been prevalent. In a lengthy Easter message in 1865, Cardinal Gousset,
Archbishop of Reims, called on his clergy to revive the respect due to the
‘holy angels’ and to warn their congregations about the threat posed by
demons, the agents of Satan. The product of sin, these fallen angels were
doomed to ‘persevere in their pride against God, in their hatred of Christ,
in their jealousy against humanity’. Arrayed in ‘invisible legions, led by
their chiefs, living in the lower layers of our atmosphere and travelling
across every part of our world’, they were a constant threat. Having failed
to assume control of Heaven, they were determined to establish their
reign on Earth.71 Mgr Epivent, Bishop of Aire, defined a hierarchy of
angels, with the superior orders close to God, and the inferior in daily
contact with Man. It was the ‘angels who govern all the phenomena of
nature’ and not the so-called ‘immutable laws [which] have been invented
by ignorant and hateful rationalists’. The bishop stressed the importance
of distinguishing between the good and the bad angels who encouraged
evil. An attached note for the minister warned him that the bishop had
increasingly been attracted to spiritualism.72
The state prosecutor at Bordeaux would be especially disconcerted by
the sermon given by the Abbé Combalot in the cathedral at Easter 1865.
Particularly popular among the younger clergy, this notorious visiting
preacher had in previous years aroused considerable disquiet in Tours and
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    127

Marseille. Invariably, he focused on the ‘question of death which strikes

the great and the little’. His sermons were full of allusions which the pros-
ecutor felt were ‘in extremely doubtful taste’, voiced in exaggerated lan-
guage. This was confirmed by another witness, the commissaire de police,
who also reported that the priest had abandoned his prepared sermon in
favour of ‘political digressions’. He had drawn a parallel between ‘Jesus
crucified by the Jews and the Pope … persecuted by the revolutionaries’;
between the Emperor and King Victor-Emmanuel and Judas and
Barabbas. Democracy had been denounced, as had Voltaire and his mod-
ern imitators who threatened to ‘drag the priesthood through the mud
and the priests to the scaffold’. To those who persecuted, or failed to fully
support the Pope, Combalot promised Divine retribution and universal
revolution.73
It was the priest’s responsibility to protect his flock from corruption,
and particularly from the sins of the flesh. Ideas often needed to be
expressed forcefully to make an impression. Words and allusions familiar
to a congregation also needed to be used.74 Examples drawn from daily life
or popular proverbs might be employed to clarify points of theology. The
Prefect of the Jura accepted that ‘one could not expect a priest brought up
in the countryside and living with peasants, to always use expressions as
choice as those one would like to hear’.75 Sermons denouncing named, or
easily identifiable individuals, could also have a considerable impact, par-
ticularly when combined with a refusal to grant them absolution or admin-
ister communion. However, as the Bishop of Poitiers pointed out, even if
allusions were employed, this practice was dangerous. The personalities
concerned were easily identified in a small community, whilst ‘the words
attributed’ to the priest, ‘in passing from mouth to mouth, change mean-
ing and take on an exaggerated character’.76 Sermons were also used fre-
quently as a means of exercising pressure in favour of the teaching orders
and against lay teachers, although when the priest at Broyes (Saône-et-­
Loire) welcomed the hail which destroyed the crops in July 1853 as pun-
ishment for appointing a lay instituteur, this was not very well received.77
The 1854 statutes of the diocese of Chartres, while instructing priests
to ‘attempt to extirpate from the parish all those superstitious practices
which are nothing other than a false cult, very damaging to the true faith’
also advised them to ‘act with a prudent care’.78 As the Abbé Denizot,
priest at Sainte Sabine in the Dijon diocese, accepted in 1860, at least
‘Superstition supposes faith, of which it is the froth and is in itself an evil
incomparably less great than incredulity or even indifference, which will
128   R. PRICE

poison and kill the soul. If you are able to introduce the true faith … do
so certainly! If you cannot, … leave the superstition, which is not incapa-
ble of doing good, and when it does wrong, does so not from malice, but
by error’.79
The religious message was nevertheless gradually changing as part of
the broader cultural change induced by the Revolution and the emergence
of Romanticism, together with the dissemination of the christo-centric
moral theology of the Neapolitan Saint Alphonse de Liguori (1696–1787),
whose volume on La pratique de l’amour envers Jésus-Christ tirée des
paroles de Saint Paul—was published in French in the 1820s and remained
a ‘best-seller’ throughout the Second Empire. In reaction against the rig-
orous Jansenist ideals popular in the eighteenth century, a new more fes-
tive ultramontane and Italianate theological sensibility emerged,
encouraged in 1831 by Papal authorization to seminary professors and
confessors to teach Liguori’s doctrines.80 These emphasized Christ’s bless-
ing and focused on a vision of ‘gentle Jesus, divine Jesus’, on a merciful
saviour rather than on the vindictive and vengeful God of the Old
Testament, so evident in the missionary preaching of the Restoration.81
This tender, sentimental vision was reinforced by the cults of the Virgin
Mary, of the tender, loving Sacred Heart of Jesus, and the Adoration of
the Holy Sacrament. Receipt of Holy Communion was increasingly pre-
sented not as an ‘exceptional reward for virtue’ but as a means of ‘getting
close to God’.82
In a probably fairly representative sermon—drawing on both the new
and more traditional theologies—preached in the little parish church at
Grandrien (Lozère) on the feast of the Assumption in 1866, the Abbé
Touzery, appealed to Mary, Mother of God not to forget ‘the unhappy
children who groan in this valley of sorrow’. He begged the Virgin to
break the chains ‘of Satan and sin’, and to ensure that ‘the torrent of the
century’ did not carry the population away and lead it to deny ‘the path to
salvation’. Calling on ‘Divine Favour’ for the Pope, the defender of reli-
gion and social order, against whom ‘Hell in its rage has unleashed its
legions’—the ‘sinners’ and ‘revolutionaries’ of every country, Touzery
begged the Virgin Mary to ‘pray your divine son to shorten this time of
trial’ and ‘From your sublime throne, deign again, O Mary, to cast a
favourable glance on France.’ He took comfort from his conviction that
‘Your divine son can refuse you nothing. Ask him to rapidly ensure the
triumph of Religion and the Church and of its venerated head.’ The ser-
mon ended with a request to Mary to ask Jesus ‘for each of you, the
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    129

blessing of a saintly life and a saintly death, so that in meeting Jesus Christ
in Heaven, together we will be able to praise him throughout eternity’.83
In its determination to reach out to the faithful, the Church increas-
ingly identified itself with a tender, loving, Holy Family. This change in
emphasis ‘d’un Dieu terrible à un dieu d’amour’84 represented, however,
only a partial theological renewal. Moreover, it took time and the passing
of generations for theological change to influence pastoral care. The less
inquisitorial, more sensitive and understanding position taken by many
confessors was not incompatible with pessimistic visions of Divine
Retribution.85 The saintly curé d’Ars, Jean-Marie Vianney, certainly saw
himself as engaged in a constant battle with the Devil.86 The influential
ultramontane preacher, and future founder of the Assumptionist order,
Father d’Alzon, similarly insisted on the value of visions of Hell as a means
of saving the impressionable young, and protecting them against sin. He
was extremely critical of what he perceived to be the growing feebleness
and ineffectiveness of many of his fellow priests.87 The threat of Eternal
Damnation remained potent. The catechism of the diocese of Orleans
continued to ask young children—‘Is it absolutely necessary to observe
the commandments to be saved?’ In response, they were expected to say—
‘Yes; eternal life is only promised to us on that condition; and it will be
enough to commit only one mortal sin to be in a state of damnation.’ The
response to the question—‘How will God punish those who violate His
commandments? was that ‘He will punish them often in this life, and make
them burn eternally in the afterlife.’88 Sermons continued to insist upon
the transitory nature of life and of its achievements and to denounce sin.
There could be no compromise between the Church—militant, trium-
phant and suffering—and the perversions of the modern world.

4.3.5  Schooling
The legislation introduced in 1833 by the Protestant historian Guizot
made a substantial contribution to the expansion of the school network by
requiring every commune to establish a primary school. Its first article
stipulated that ‘primary instruction necessarily includes moral and reli-
gious instruction’. Supporting the parish clergy in the work of religious
instruction was to be central to the school teacher’s mission. The funda-
mental lessons derived from the catechism were to be reinforced through-
out the school day. Classrooms were to be decorated with a crucifix,
together with religious pictures with a moral message. Religious exercises
130   R. PRICE

were to take priority over everything else. Classes should begin and end
with prayer. Stories from the Bible, verses learnt by heart, and the singing
of hymns would all contribute to the work of evangelization and of child-
hood socialization.89
Designed to reinforce the religious and moral instruction provided by
the Church, together with the 1850 Falloux law, this represented a direct
response to the social fear aroused among political conservatives and the
clergy by revolution and a determination to make more effective use of the
‘mechanisms of indoctrination’.90 The extension of catechizing and of an
elite-designed school network gradually resulted in a reinforcement of the
doctrinal content and internal logic of popular beliefs otherwise grounded
in the experiences of the everyday.91 In addition to providing the basic
literacy which facilitated the diffusion of religious truth, the purpose of
primary instruction, and the discipline of the classroom, was to inculcate
both the fear and love of God, together with respect for social hierarchy
and the fundamental principles of moral order.
Instruction in biblical history—‘l’histoire sainte’- also played an impor-
tant part in reinforcing the lessons of the catechism. The programmes
offered in Parisian primary schools in the 1860s appear to have been typi-
cal. They focused on stories from the Bible, and particularly from the Old
Testament. The Creation, Noah, Abraham and Isaac, Joseph and his
brothers, Moses and the flight from Egypt, David and Goliath, the
Babylonian captivity, and finally the life and passion of Jesus, were
employed to diffuse the basic religious and moral messages.92 Catholics
shared their faith in a suffering and loving Jesus Christ, as well as fear of
the powers of an Old Testament God—Creator and Avenger—and prayed
for protection during their earthly existence, together with eternal
redemption.
The official regulations of 17 August 1851—implementing the Falloux
law of the previous year, even required that ‘models of writing offer only
useful matters to the children, such as the dogmas and precepts of reli-
gion, and fine stories from the Gospel and the History of France’.93 The
texts employed to teach children to read, such as J-B. de La Salle’s Devoirs
d’un chrétien and L-P. Jussieu’s Simon de Nantua, repeated basic Christian
moral precepts, providing edifying examples of the happy lives and eternal
bliss enjoyed by children who lived in imitation of Jesus Christ and accord-
ing to the rules laid down by His Church, and contrasting them with the
sad end of those who fell into sin. Ignace Mertuan’s Morale française
(1852), widely used in girls schools, included a chapter ‘On submission to
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    131

superiors’ in which both parents and employers were presented as the

representatives of God.94 More child-centred books, less abstract and
more readable, would increasingly be provided, and most notably
Francinet (1869), written by Mme Fouillée, under the nom-de-plume
G.  Bruno, which was awarded the prize presented for ‘the most useful
work for morality’ by the Académie française, but the message would
remain the same.
It was particularly important, as Mgr Affre had pointed out in 1843,
that schools ensure that girls ‘become Christian mothers who give an excel-
lent education to their children and often lead to religion husbands brought
up in an anti-Christian spirit’.95 The establishment of girls schools was per-
ceived to be an urgent necessity and the clergy undoubtedly played a major
role in overcoming parental indifference to the education of their daugh-
ters.96 In addition to spreading literacy, it was their particular responsibility
to reinforce the messages derived from a Catholic upbringing. The Sœurs
de la Doctrine chrétienne de Nancy thus sought to inspire their working-
class and lower middle-class pupils with ‘love of piety, of work, of caring for
a household, in a word, ensure that their education is religious and exempt
from everything favourable to vanity or which might make them dissatis-
fied with their condition’.97 They were to ensure that the young girl became
a ‘bonne chrétienne’ and by definition a good wife and mother.98
Together with the moral prudence which required the strict separation
of the sexes in the classroom, these objectives stimulated a substantial
growth in the activities of the religious orders in both public and private
education.99 By 1863, 63% of primary school teachers in girls schools were
members of religious orders, compared with 18% in boy’s schools.100 The
academic rector at Rennes observed in 1856 that ‘the tendency of munici-
pal councils to ask for sisters to direct their girls’ schools is constantly
growing; the influence of large landowners, the powerful action of the
clergy, the legacies and donations exclusively reserved for these schools
tend more and more to concentrate the instruction of girls in the hands of
the congrégations’.101 The instruction provided by lay teachers also reflected
the training they received and the norms laid down by the congrégations
and as a result of inspections by both state inspectors and the parish
clergy.102 In addition to contributing to the work of religious instruction,
instituteurs were required to escort their pupils to church and, especially
in rural parishes, to perform such subordinate functions as choirmaster,
sexton and bell ringer, while their wives might repair and wash the church’s
linen.103
132   R. PRICE

Themselves faithful Catholics, many lay teachers willingly accepted

their religious obligations, although not always without misgivings. Jean
Charles, teaching at Loc-Maria-Plouzané in Finistère, was happy that
‘teachers chant at the lectern on Sundays and holy days, they teach singing
to their pupils to enable them to participate in the divine offices, some-
thing which appears as eminently useful and a means of inspiring children
with the profound sentiments of our divine religion …’. However, he
objected to what he described as ‘less tolerable’ demands by the clergy
who ‘profited’ from the teachers’ dependence ‘to impose menial chores
incompatible with the seriousness of their function … and oblige them to
assist at baptisms and burials, to serve at mass, and to teach the catechism
in the church during Lent … We can, without hesitation say, that for as
long as the instituteur will be compelled to perform such tasks, it will be
perfectly useless to speak to him of dignity and consideration’.104
Although only complete control over the means of instruction would
satisfy the clergy and many lay Catholics, most priests adopted a positive
attitude towards education as a means of developing the talents dispensed
by the Creator.105 They believed that the essential role of the Christian
teacher was to provide the knowledge without which the adult ‘has no
means of defending himself against the attacks of the demon, of
­concupiscence, and of the world’.106 The young mind was to be pro-
grammed for life. While school attendance did not become compulsory
until 1882, the clergy had already done much to promote its merits to an
often sceptical population, in some areas even threatening not to admit
recalcitrant children to their First Communion.107 Schooling—in both lay
and religious schools—undoubtedly made a substantial contribution to a
developing religiosity. The education statistics, based upon enrolments,
however, provided an excessively optimistic impression of the develop-
ment of functional literacy.108
The choice of the language in which the religious message might be
transmitted was also an issue in certain regions. The use of Latin for litur-
gical purposes was unchallenged. It added to the sense of mystery inherent
in religious practice. For catechizing, confession, or preaching, as well as
for private conversations, it was however, necessary, in the interests of
effective communication, to employ the ‘langue vulgaire’—not only
French but patois or such regional languages as German, Flemish, Catalan,
Basque, Provençal or Breton—especially in rural parishes, and where
cross-border contacts sustained linguistic differences. In the northern tex-
tile towns, for example, the adoption of French was postponed by the
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    133

continued influx of Flemish-speaking Belgian migrants.109 Archbishop

Régnier of Cambrai was particularly determined that the catechism be
taught in Flemish in the arrondissements of Hazebrouck and Dunkirk, at
least in those parishes in which ‘the families only speak and understand
Flemish, and are only able to pray in Flemish’. In response to complaints
by Duruy—the education minister, that Flemish-speaking children were
denied career opportunities and excluded from ‘progress’, the archbishop
pointed out that, together with his colleagues at Strasbourg and Rennes,
he regretted that ‘the French language has become, due to the ­unfortunate
abuses of the bad press, a means of propaganda as irreligious as it is
immoral’, but firmly denied that the clergy was in principle opposed to its
diffusion through the primary schools.110
The use of Flemish or Breton as the language of religion and French as
the language of education encouraged bilingualism and the gradual weak-
ening of the local language through the adoption of French words, partial
comprehension of French, and, particularly in the towns, the rapid replace-
ment of the old with the new language. Although bishops in the Breton
dioceses of Vannes and Saint Brieuc made an effort to appoint bilingual
clergy and to ensure that, where appropriate, prayers and the catechism
were conducted in Breton, schoolteachers tended to view French as the
language of the nation and of modernity.111 Often priests proved incapable
of adapting to the innumerable variants in  local dialects over short dis-
tances and remained linguistically isolated from many of their parishio-
ners. The parish priest at Natzwiller in the Vosges thus managed in the ten
years following his appointment, to learn sufficient German—or so he
claimed—‘to understand and be understood in the savage patois spoken in
this locality’. He was able to hear confessions but not to preach
effectively.112
Preaching in the local tongue was, however, often seen as vulgar and
likely to trivialize the message, by both priests and parishioners. Bishops
were appalled by what they regarded as the ‘crudeness’ of sermons in
patois.113 In his Mémoires d’un compagnon, Agricol Perdiguier remem-
bered with pain the effort made by a priest to preach in Provençal—‘His
words were … just and useful, but nevertheless their impact was not happy.
At Morières we spoke only patois, but we were not accustomed to preach-
ing in our own language: it surprised us, and appeared to be common,
frivolous, grotesque during a grand ceremony.’ He concluded that it was
‘better by far to preach in French and employ Provençal for confession’.114
The educated classes were likely to be scandalized by the use of a language
134   R. PRICE

spoken primarily by the poor, and French speakers were likely to resent the
use of other languages or of ‘patois’ for religious instruction or sermons.115
Many artisans and peasants were also coming to accept the school teach-
er’s view that only the national language offered them access to the ben-
efits of modern life.116 The overall result was an accelerating loss of status
for the local language, evident in the restriction of its use to ever more
limited socio-linguistic spaces.117 In any case, increasingly lengthy and
regular school attendance, and the on-going replacement of an oral with a
predominantly written culture, were from the point of view of many priests
ambiguous in its impact, offering a means of religious evangelization, but
additionally access to a ‘subversive’ and ‘immoral’ literature and to an
alternative ‘scientific’ means of understanding the universe and natural
phenomena.118 It was thus vital that the pastoral work of the clergy and
teachers be reinforced by the provision of a growing number of religious
publications as a ‘complément de la Prédication Evangélique’.119

4.3.6  The Religious Press

The development of the mechanized steam press, and of the low-cost,
mass publication and distribution of printed literature offered new pos-
sibilities.120 The catechism was the key element within the emergence of
a print culture in which the publication, re-publication, and more effec-
tive diffusion of pious works employing often a simple and evocative lan-
guage and frequently designed to be read out loud, were intended to
sustain the lessons delivered by the clergy and to encourage the habit of
prayer and meditation, as well as the regular practice of religious duties.121
From an average of 430 works per year between 1815 and 1819, publica-
tion of Catholic books is estimated to have risen to 2250 by 1860/64
(from 10.4% to 18.6% of the total number of books published).122 Three
major and growing markets might be identified—the clergy and religious
orders; women; and children, particularly the growing numbers of school
pupils.123
There was substantial demand for bibles—often cheap abridgements;
catechisms; manuels de piété centred on Marian devotions and the
Eucharist; collections of prayers and hymns; edifying extracts from the
Christian classics; and histories.124 Hagiography underwent a spectacular
renewal from mid-century—including most notably lives of Saint Vincent-­
de-­Paul, of the curé d’Ars, of Saint Geneviève and Saint François de Sales.
So too did guides to Christian behaviour written in simple language, like
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    135

the Manuel de l’ouvrier chrétien—56,000 copies of which were sold for 50

centimes or distributed free between 1849 and 1851.125 Charitable societ-
ies like the Œuvre des campagnes and the Société de Saint-Vincent-de-­
Paul were also active in the distribution of such edifying works as the Mois
de Marie, a collection of prayers edited by the Abbé Mullois and sold to
the poor for 25 centimes.126 Other works written for particular audiences
included La jeune fille selon Dieu et la jeune fille selon le monde, directed at
adolescent girls, and the Manuel de la femme chrétienne for married
women. The pamphlet A mes amis les cultivateurs sought to cater for the
spiritual needs of peasants. The Réponses courtes et faciles aux principales
objections populaires contre la religion attempted to deal with uncertainty.127
To these might be added a host of almanacs and parish or diocesan publi-
cations. The Almanach de l’ouvrier et du laboureur published by the
Société de Saint-Vincent-de- Paul, replete with moralizing tales, achieved
a very respectable circulation of 180,000 in 1859.128
The development of wood engraving and of the ‘illustrated press [as]
the greatest tool of information dissemination until the electronic age’
made possible a vast outpouring of devotional images for rich and poor.129
This included copies of often centuries-old engravings of events in the life
of Christ, of the saints and the history of the Church, together with con-
temporary evocations of Paradise juxtaposed with horrifying visions of
Hell, and numerous re-productions of paintings like Millet’s L’Angelus
which revealed the simplicity and intensity of popular devotion.130 The
publisher Pellerin at Epinal concentrated on the mass production of litho-
graphic images of the Virgin and Sacred Heart. Small prayer cards featur-
ing a religious image were present in every Catholic home.131 This popular
literature and imagery employed a simple and repetitive rhetoric to
instruct, encourage and confirm people in their faith.
For the better educated, there were theological and polemical studies,
many of them re-prints of much older books, but including 214 responses
to Renan’s Vie de Jésus and its popularization of biblical criticism in 1863
and 1864 alone.132 In spite of the cost of subscriptions and their small
circulation, daily newspapers like Le Correspondant and L’Univers
­facilitated discussion of theological and political issues. Edited by the
extremely combative ultramontane Louis Veuillot, L’Univers, was
undoubtedly the most influential Catholic newspaper, although many
bishops resented the influence wielded by even the most devoted of lay-
man.133 Among notables, subscriptions to Parisian newspapers like the
Gazette de France, L’Assemblée nationale and L’Union, with Legitimist as
136   R. PRICE

well as Catholic sympathies, were favoured, as well as regional newspapers

like the weekly Progrès de l’Ouest. Published in Angers, this typically pro-
vided national and international news, largely culled from Parisian news-
papers with similar views, from official sources, or the Havas news agency.
Its vision of the world was summed up by its sub-title—‘Religion, famille,
travail, propriété’.134 Although their literary style and cost make it clear
that they were directed at the educated classes, by influencing the outlook
of important opinion-formers, such newspapers contributed to the estab-
lishment of a current of opinion transmitted by word of mouth at all man-
ner of gatherings.135 This was also the role of specialized journals, including
the Bulletin de la Société de Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, the Bulletin de l’Œuvre
des pélerinages and the Revue de l’Enseignement chrétien.136
While books remained a luxury for much of the population, the activi-
ties of peddlers, as well as growing numbers of booksellers, were stimu-
lated by improved living standards, rising literacy and reductions in the
cost of production particularly by the major industrial publishers of pious
works—the ‘bonne presse’ made up of committed Catholic businessmen—
like Périsse and Pélagaud (Paris and Lyon), Mame (Tours), Lefort (Lille),
or Arsant (Limoges).137 At Petit-Montrouge, in Paris, that remarkable
entrepreneur the Abbé Migne operated a large and modern publishing
enterprise and printing works where, by 1854, 600 workers were employed
producing religious images and devotional works.138 According to the
Prefect of Police, the establishment was notorious for low wages and harsh
discipline, including not only a ban on singing but on any kind of
­conversation. Its employees generally found alternative employment at the
first opportunity.139
Edifying religious novels, of which an estimated 2–2.5 million copies
were published every year in the 1860s, were a speciality of Mame, Lefort
and Ardant.140 Typically, in Mme Manceau’s Les deux jumeaux; ou travail
et paresse, the Abbé Boudevillain’s L’ouvrier ébeniste ou les fruits d’une
bonne conduite (both 1864) or the Fleurs symboliques offertes à Marie
(1860), written by Josephine de Gaulle (the General’s grandmother), or
the extremely successful works of the Comtesse de Ségur (mother of Mgr.
Gaston de Ségur; close friend of Louis Veuillot) ideal types were pre-
sented—the good who included practising Catholics, hard-working and
frugal workers, le bon curé, the devoted bonne sœur, the pious and resigned
woman, the charitable rich, the grateful and virtuous poor, etc.; and the
wicked represented by the usual suspects—Protestants, Jews, freemasons,
unbelievers, the greedy and uncharitable rich, free thinkers, la femme
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    137

coquette, republicans, revolutionaries, socialists, lazy and drunken workers,

lay teachers, those who chose to work on the Sabbath, and Parisians. In
the very successful series La Bibliothèque de la jeunesse chrétienne, estab-
lished in 1840, the authors employed by Mame sought to instruct their
young, and essentially bourgeois, readers with heroic stories of acts
inspired by Christian morality and set within the context of an authoritar-
ian and hierarchical model of family and social relationships.141 Frequently,
such works were distributed as school prizes—further reinforcing the sta-
tus of reading, through parish libraries and as a result of the efforts of the
Société de Saint-Victor (1846–56) and the Société pour l’amélioration et
l’encouragement des publications populaires, as well as through book-
shops like those clustered around Saint-Sulpice in Paris.142 The archcon-
fraternity of the Œuvre des bons livres, created in 1831 in Bordeaux, from
1842 began to publish lists of recommended works for parish libraries.
Three hundred of these, containing over 50,000 volumes existed in the
diocese of Bordeaux alone in the 1860s.143 Activists were promised indul-
gences to ease their suffering in Purgatory.144
It is of course far easier to determine what was published than to iden-
tify what people actually read, which included old and treasured works
inherited from previous generations. Considering how people read and
the impact their reading might have had on their attitudes and beliefs is
another major problem It has been suggested that reading habits altered
from an intensive and repetitive reading of the same (religious) text to an
extensive reading of different texts. The printed word, more easily acces-
sible than ever before, proved to be an effective means of education, of
reinforcing the memory, and of representing the Divine.145 For many par-
ish priests and diocesan missionaries, the press offered a means of extend-
ing their pastoral care, while every effort was made by the Roman
Congregation of the Index and bishops to guide the rapidly growing
number of readers towards an orthodox as well as edifying literature. The
list of theological and secular works which Catholics were forbidden to
read—given ‘the evil produced by bad reading’146 —also grew ever longer.
The parish priest at Buzançais (Indre), a small town which had experi-
enced violent subsistence disorders in 1847, assumed that, as this had
‘incontestably represented the opening of the socialist war’, he had a spe-
cial duty to write to the Comte de Falloux and to insist that a special com-
mittee be appointed to select school text books.147
The potential impact of much of this pious literature was, however,
reduced by its stultifying banality, typified by the message accompanying a
138   R. PRICE

picture of Jesus the apprentice carpenter, drawn by the author of a pam-

phlet written for industrial workers—‘The wood lends itself to all the
wishes of the God-worker, the tools obey his all-powerful hand, the work
advances with speed, the infant, from time to time, looks towards Mary,
and often the glances of the Mother encounter those of her Son: they
smile and throw themselves into each other’s arms’.148 Mgr Dupanloup
welcomed the reprinting of the works of Archbishop Fénelon (1651–1715)
in 1861 because he regarded them as infinitely superior to contemporary
publications which he described as, in general, ‘mediocre and worse than
mediocre … incredibly empty and bland’, and characterized by a ‘puérile
sentimentalité’. This, he concluded, was particularly serious because such
works ‘were incapable of nourishing Christian souls, and if anyone were to
open them, they would very quickly close them, with an equal disgust for
the book and its piety’.149 The development of a mass media nevertheless
allowed substantial publicity for doctrinal statements, miraculous occur-
rences, pilgrimages and major events in the life of the Church, helping to
reinforce an already strong sense of community. Numerous pamphlets
glorified the Pope, insisting on his closeness to God, focusing intently on
his every triumph or misfortune. The paradox is obvious. Modern means
were being employed to combat ‘modernity’ and to maintain the links
between a specifically clerical and theological culture and popular Catholic
religiosity.150

4.3.7  Ceremonies
Ceremony, by means of an appeal to the emotions represented, according
to the Bishop of Carcassonne, another ‘ powerful means of creating
impressions favourable to piety, and especially of disposing the uncouth
spirits of the rural population, so generally susceptible to the influence of
the senses, to accept religious ideas’.151 The pomp and theatricality, the
spectacle of seemingly ever longer religious processions, involving the
clergy, school children, religious fraternities, musicians and (until 1883)
the civil and military authorities, passing along decorated streets had, for
the Abbé Migne, been instituted ‘to speak to the soul by an appeal to the
senses’.152
Popular faith was stimulated by regular festivals—the Rogations prior
to Ascension Day which represented a prayer for a fruitful harvest, Corpus
Christi which honoured Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, Easter,
Christmas, the feast of the Assumption and that of the Perpetual Adoration.
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    139

Festivals in honour of local saints or the universal jubilees proclaimed by

the Pope provided especially fruitful opportunities to mobilize large
crowds and enhance the visibility of the Church. During such acts of com-
memoration the proper, ordered conduct of priests and worshippers as
laid out in the missal was of crucial importance. Bowing and kneeling at
the appropriate moments were marks of respect for religion and for the
real presence of Christ. So too were the prayers, chants and hymns designed
to honour God, and contribute to the solemnity and emotional intensity
of the occasion.153
The parish, its boundaries and the sense of identity of its inhabitants
largely unchanged over centuries, represented the primary field of priestly
endeavour. Efforts were also made to provide external assistance to parish
priests. Episcopal visitations, linked to confirmation tours, were one means
of stimulating enthusiasm. The organic articles (article 23) stipulated that
annually each bishop should visit some part of his diocese and the entire
area over a period of five years. Regular pastoral visits to parishes would
place a bishop ‘in direct relations with his flock, and particularly with the
popular classes, and provide him with the means of understanding their
needs, as well as reducing the impact of many of those prejudices so unfa-
vourable to religion and to the clergy’.154 The latter undoubtedly had
mixed feelings concerning what were in effect tours of inspection and in
their aftermath must have waited anxiously for criticism or praise. Every
effort was certainly made to ensure that churches had been cleaned care-
fully and embellished. Parish priests were also required to complete a
questionnaire providing information on church attendance and particu-
larly on the number of Easter communicants. The desire to gain the good-
will of their bishop might well have encouraged them to inflate the
figures.155
Even in communities with low levels of regular church attendance, the
triumphal entry of the bishop was nevertheless eagerly awaited. He would
be greeted by large and enthusiastic crowds, and process under triumphal
arches. Thus, in July 1865, in the village of Le Russey near the Swiss bor-
der, as the Cardinal-Archbishop of Besançon arrived on his confirmation
tour, he passed under an arc de triomphe and was greeted by the mayor,
juge de paix and senior customs officer, each of whom made a speech of
welcome and then, at the entrance to the church, by the parish priest. In
the evening, public buildings and ‘maisons bourgeoises’ including those, it
was noted, belonging to Jews, were illuminated, with M.  Feuvrier, a
retired notary, distinguishing himself by lighting 128 candles. On his walk
140   R. PRICE

through the village to admire the illuminations, the Cardinal was accom-
panied by over 200 people. The following day, a guard of honour was
mounted in front of the church by customs men, gendarmes and the local
fire brigade while the Société philarmonique performed, mortars were
fired, and 498 young people from 12 parishes were confirmed. Following
the ceremony, a dinner for 34 local notables was held in the
presbytery.156
Efforts were also made to engage every age group and social milieu in
an intensification of the religious basis of daily life. Virtually every parish
contained groups of pious people on whom the clergy could depend. The
35,000 parish councils (fabriques)—one in every parish—in themselves
nationally involved around 300,000 laymen.157 There were also a variety
of associations designed to involve the laity in pastoral activity, but over
which the clergy were determined to assert their own dominance. Ideally
the result should have been like that achieved in the Breton parish of
Maure (Ille-et-Vilaine) where, in 1861, of 4000 inhabitants, 700 belonged
to the confrèrie of the Rosary and 1300 to that of the Scapular. Others
were adorateurs du Saint-Sacrement. In this rural community, few adults
remained outside these networks of devotion which provided the means
by which the parish clergy could offer advice and exercise pressure.158 In
the major cities, in which ‘indifference’ was perceived to be a growing
threat, the conférences of the Société de Saint-Vincent de Paul and other
associations provided a valuable resource. In a letter to his archbishop in
1849, the Abbé Martin de Noirlieu, curé of Saint Augustin in Paris,
expressed his ‘joy’ at the zeal of pious laymen committed to doing good
and filling ‘the serious gap we have in God’s work’.159 Such groups as the
Société pour l’observation du Dimanche created in Toulouse in 1846, and
the Association réparatrice des blasphemes et de la violation du dimanche,
which represented a similar burst of activity in 1854  in the diocese of
Langres, were welcomed by bishops, although they would enjoy only lim-
ited success.160
The cult of the saints, exemplary practitioners of sacred values, and pos-
sessing miraculous power, was another central feature of this spiritual
revival.161 With increasing regularity from the 1840s, major public events
were organized to celebrate the display of holy relics (bodily remains,
objects saints had used). Following a disastrous fire in Limoges on the
night of 15–16 August 1864, the clergy, by popular demand, sought
God’s forgiveness by parading the relics of Saint Martial, Saint Aurélien
and Sainte Agathe, through the city’s streets.162 Relic collecting continued
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    141

with almost medieval fervour, stimulated by the availability of ‘saints’

bones from newly excavated Roman catacombs—complete with certifi-
cates of authenticity linking them to renowned martyrs; the re-discovery
of relics lost during the Revolution; and the development of a functioning
market.163 At Amiens, in 1853, 28 archbishops and bishops, together with
numerous other priests and large crowds of worshippers gathered for the
translation of relics of Saint Theodosius—fifth-century hermit and abbot—
to the cathedral.164 The arrival at Montpellier in 1856 of what was reputed
to be a bone from St Roch’s leg was similarly marked by a week of
­celebrations.165 In 1860, at Arras, over 50,000 people were estimated to
have prayed before the relics of the blessed Labre—the eighteenth-century
pilgrim-saint. The newly re-discovered tomb of Saint Martin in Tours pro-
vided another occasion for celebration in 1861, while in 1866, at Cadouin
in the Dordogne, the Holy Shroud which had reputedly covered Christ’s
head was carried in a procession attended by three bishops, 200 priests
and 6000 of the faithful.166
Throughout the decade Mgr Pie, the combative Bishop of Poitiers,
promoted the cult of ‘the only part of Christ’s body left behind when He
ascended into Heaven’,167 while in 1864, the celebration of Corpus Christi
was represented as a response to the Protestant denial of the ‘real pres-
ence’ in the Eucharist, and additionally as a challenge to the scandalous
denial of the divinity of Christ by Ernest Renan—‘soldat de l’Anti-Christ.
The diocesan Semaine religieuse glorified the procession as an affirmation
of popular piety through which ‘the internal feelings of the soul manifest
themselves externally’. The presence of a military band added to the sense
of occasion.168

4.3.8  
Missions and Pilgrimages
A revival in the practice of religious missions and pilgrimages as manifesta-
tions of the search for spiritual grace and of commitment to the commu-
nity of believers was also encouraged. In the Avignon diocese, where only
15 missions were preached between 1845 and 1849, 108 occurred in the
following decade, particularly in the fervent parishes most likely to
request—and to be able to pay for—a visit.169 The Bishop of Nantes, Mgr
Jacquemet, believed that even the most devoted parish required ­stimulating
at least once every ten years.170 His advice to missionaries was to find,
‘each day, something new and interesting to say: [and] avoid wearing their
audience out with long-winded sermons …’.171 A simple pedagogy was
142   R. PRICE

essential. The Jesuits from Quimper would spend at least two weeks in a
parish, holding four meetings each day, with separate gatherings for men
and women, as well as for children. Every morning the Angelus would
summon the faithful to the parish church to listen to edifying sermons.
These would be followed by prayers, by instructional dialogues between
priests, or commentaries on illustrations of such scenes as the paths to
Heaven taken by the virtuous, contrasted with the temptations leading
ineluctably to the eternal suffering of Hell, for those who had chosen
alternative ways. Parishioners were encouraged to confess their sins and to
receive the blessing of Holy Communion.
In addition to terrifying warnings about the consequences of all man-
ner of transgressions, the preachers also increasingly emphasized the love
of God, together with the need for devotion to Mary and the sanctifica-
tion of the Sabbath.172 A more tender Christo-centric appeal was added to
a religion of fear. God could be mollified. The mission culminated with a
daytime or torchlight procession and the triumphant raising of a cross.173
A ‘Christianization of the landscape’ was evident in the erection of numer-
ous chapels and wayside crosses—2500 of them in the Arras diocese dur-
ing the century.174 More dramatically, a 16-metre-high statue of
Notre-Dame de France, cast from the metal of 213 Russian cannons cap-
tured at Sebastopol, was installed in 1860 on the summit of a volcanic
plug at Puy-en-Vélay. Visible over long distances, such monuments were a
potent affirmation of Christian reconquest.175 The spectacle provided by a
mission was of course all the greater in major population centres ­particularly
when combined with a call to the faithful from the surrounding region.
Sustaining the interest of crowds attracted in part by the sheer spectacle,
was, however, often problematic. In many parishes, it often proved diffi-
cult to attract men to these events in the first place.176
From the late 1840s, the gradual construction of railways offering
cheap and rapid mass transport also made possible the modern triumpha-
list mass pilgrimage as a collective affirmation of faith; of a determination
to follow in Christ’s footsteps; and acceptance of leadership by the
clergy.177 A hierarchy among shrines was rapidly established. Pilgrimages
to Rome itself were rendered so much easier and offered the prospect of
paying tribute to the Holy Father in person.178 Increasingly, pilgrims,
although still drawn towards convenient local sites, were also encouraged
to visit diocesan and, from the 1860s, national shrines.179 The efforts to
disassociate these spiritual occasions from traditional popular fêtes fur-
thermore required the imposition of clerical control through the presence
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    143

of permanent chaplains and diocesan missionaries and the ritualization of

behaviour at recognized pilgimage centres like Chartres or Paray-le-­
Monial, at that dedicated to St Martin at Tours, and to Sainte-Anne
d’Auray in Brittany, and the many shrines devoted to the Virgin Mary.180
Even the better educated social groups which might disdainfully have
avoided popular processions to traditional shrines marked by holy wells
and misshapen trees were much more likely to participate in pilgrimages
to devotional centres dignified by the presence of the clergy.181 Such pil-
grimages, creating demand for transport, hotels, cafés and souvenirs were
also good for business and constituted an important element in the growth
of modern tourism. Indeed, spirituality has rarely been divorced from
commerce.182
Processing to a place where God had manifested His love by means of
a miracle was a potent means of reinforcing the ‘visibility’ of the Church.
A sentimental attachment to the Holy Family, to Saint Joseph and to the
maternal and comforting figure of Mary, Virgin and Mother—the symbol
of female perfection—ensured that Marian shrines were especially popular.
The cult of the Virgin Mary—constructed by theologians and popular
tradition over two millennia—as the primary intercessor between Man and
God had already enjoyed renewed popularity during the eighteenth cen-
tury, in spite of rationalist criticism. In a world in which the supernatural
was ever present, and in which the Church encouraged belief in the power
of Satan and his demons, the need to pray to God for protection was self-­
evident. The willingness of Christ’s mother—the greatest and most uni-
versal of saints—to intervene on behalf of those who believed in Her Son
and prayed for salvation, offered considerable reassurance.183 The ravages
of cholera in 1832, 1849 and 1854 promoted the construction of numer-
ous statues and Marian shrines along the roads as appeals to the Virgin
Mary replaced the traditional pleas to Saint Roch for protection against
plague.184
Within this context, the messages apparently offered by the Virgin
Mary to humble, poverty-stricken, illiterate and deprived children like
Maximin Giroud (aged 11) and Mélanie Calvat (aged 15) at La Salette in
1846 and to Bernadette Soubirous (aged 14) at Lourdes in 1858 aroused
considerable emotion. In an era which had commenced with the
Revolution, the ‘reign of Mary’ might be seen as a prelude to the Second
Coming of Christ—conceived without sin—and the final defeat of Satan.185
The first accounts of events on the mountainside at La Salette in the Isère
were given by Mélanie to Mme Pra, her employer, who decided that the
144   R. PRICE

children must have seen the Sainte Vierge or else some great saint and
insisted that they tell the parish priest. They were then interviewed succes-
sively by the priest, the mayor of La Salette, and the Abbé Mélin, curé of
nearby Corps. The various accounts of these interviews largely concur,
although details vary.186 That dictated to and written up by Jean-Baptiste
Pra, their patron, on 20 September 1846 took a form which closely resem-
bled the ‘Lettre tombées du ciel’, a feature of the traditional popular litera-
ture circulated by peddlers throughout the countryside, and read out loud
at winter community gatherings.187 Maximin and Mélanie claimed that
while searching for their sheep in an isolated alpine valley, they had
encountered a lady, dressed in shimmering white, seated, head in hands
and crying. As she lifted her head they could see that she wore a crucifix,
and some sort of bonnet or tiara. This image would be diffused rapidly
throughout France in numerous popular engravings. The lady warned
them that unless blasphemy, the desertion of the churches, and the profa-
nation of the Sabbath, were brought to an end rapidly, her son would
punish His people by means of famine. After insisting that they pass on
this message, the ‘Belle dame, rose into the sky and disappeared in a ball of
flame.188
Interrogated by the Abbé Mélin, and threatened by the authorities,
the children stuck to their story. Reporting to Mgr Philibert de Bruillard,
the Bishop of Grenoble, 15 days after the event, Mélin claimed to believe
them.189 On 17 November, responding to further questions from his
bishop, he maintained that the children lacked the intelligence to have
invented their account.190 Mgr Bruillard was cautious. Members of his
entourage were sceptical, afraid of the embarrassment which would
result, for themselves and the Church, from premature recognition of a
(false) miracle.191 However, the commission of priests nominated by the
bishop appears to have succumbed to the pressure of events as news of
the miracle spread. The onset of Spring brought thousands of pilgrims,
including well-known Legitimist aristocrats, to La Salette to participate
in open air masses. The threat of famine appeared credible to the inhab-
itants of impoverished mountain parishes, already frightened by poor
cereal harvests and the spread of potato disease. The warning delivered
by the Virgin must have invoked memories of the angry and vengeful
God of the Old Testament who had inflicted a series of plagues on
Egypt. In comparison, Mary appeared sorrowful and compassionate,
anxious to protect the people if only they would repent and pray for
salvation.192
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    145

Visiting friends in a nearby château, the Abbé Dupanloup, soon to

become Bishop of Orleans, addressed the ‘problem of La Salette’ in June
1848. After meeting the two visionary children on several occasions and
discussing the evidence with Mgr de Bruillard and other priests, he con-
cluded that ‘it is very difficult to believe that the hand of God is not there’.
Dupanloup pointed out three ‘signs of truth. 1. the steady character of the
children; 2. the numerous responses absolutely beyond their age and their
understanding, which they made spontaneously in the various interroga-
tions to which they have been submitted; 3. the fidelity with which they
have kept the secret they claimed was entrusted to them.’ Initially, he had
judged Maximin to be ‘gross’, ‘repulsive’ and ‘wicked’. Mélanie had made
a similar impression. Although she had already been in the care of a reli-
gious order for 18 months, she remained ‘a sulky person, dull, stupidly
silent, saying scarcely more than “yes” or “no” in response’. Nevertheless,
Dupanloup was impressed by the ‘simplicity, gravity, seriousness, and
respect for religion’ displayed by the children as they described their great
experience.193 This conviction was undoubtedly reinforced by his belief in
an all-powerful God intervening in human affairs.
The validation of these events depended upon the clergy. As the first
miraculous cures were proclaimed, public pressure obliged the bishop to
institute two enquiries which were conducted by hand-picked commis-
sions drawn from his cathedral priests and seminary professors. The doubts
which might have been aroused by such unfortunate incidents as Maximin’s
confession to Jean-Marie Vianney, the saintly curé of Ars, in September
1850, that he had not seen the apparition of the Virgin, were cast aside on
the convenient pretext that the Vianney was deaf and had misunder-
stood.194 In a pastoral letter dated 19 September 1851, Mgr de Bruillard
announced that the ‘apparition … carries in itself all the characteristics of
truth, and the faithful are well founded in believing in it’. In his opinion,
that so many pilgrims believed the Fact to be true, confirmed its truth. He
thus determined to ‘expressly forbid that the faithful and priests of our
diocese ever publicly raise their voices … against the Fact that we proclaim
today, which demands to be respected by all’.195 Finally and unequivocally,
on 10 November 1851, and with Papal approval, Mgr de Bruillard recog-
nized the ‘truth’ of ‘l’apparition céleste’ and authorized the cult of Notre-­
Dame de Salette.196 In spite of the reservations expressed by the
metropolitan Archbishop of Lyon, the Cardinal de Bonald, to the Papal
nuncio, Mgr de Bruillard also sent two envoys to the Pope to reveal the
‘secret’ conveyed by the apparition. His Holiness does not appear to have
146   R. PRICE

been impressed, but it hardly mattered.197 On 1 May 1852, Mgr

Ginoulhiac, the new Bishop of Grenoble, authorized the construction of
a sanctuary at La Salette.198 He had expressed some concern about the
‘truth’ of the evidence offered by the children but also warned that unless
official recognition was forthcoming and close control of the phenome-
non secured, Legitimist sympathizers would make full use of the
prophecies.199
Whatever had happened, and regardless of whether the children had
genuinely undergone, or imagined, or playfully constructed, some kind of
spiritual experience, first, Mme Pra and then a succession of priests had
interpreted and reinterpreted the story of the Virgin’s visitations, impos-
ing structure as well as the French language, in place of the simple patois
of the original descriptions.200 By the time bishops had established their
commissions of investigation, the details of the Divine visitations were
firmly fixed in the minds of both the miraculés and local populations.
Moreover, prayer and penitence appeared to have ensured cures for some
at least of the chronically sick pilgrims and confirmed the validity of the
original miracle. Large and devout crowds helped to overcome the initial
scepticism of both the religious and civil authorities. Further ‘re-­
construction’ also occurred to conform to ‘elite [and clerical] notions of
taste and credibility’.201 As Ruth Harris has pointed out, ‘the older
Pyrenean tradition of wondrous storytelling’ was combined with ‘the
innovation of 19th century Roman Catholic spirituality’.202 The appari-
tions were located within an orthodox theological structure which associ-
ated the ills of the world—death and revolution—with the failure to follow
the teachings of the Church.203 Miraculous visions of the Virgin Mary
reminded the faithful of the power of God and appeared to vindicate scrip-
ture and more especially the major dogmas of the Catholic Church. The
traditional belief that Christ’s mother had herself been conceived without
sin, the Immaculate Conception—voiced since at least the twelfth cen-
tury—would finally be proclaimed as dogma by Pius IX in 1854.204
The problem of authenticity would re-emerge when, at Lourdes, in the
foothills of the Pyrenees, another impoverished peasant girl, Bernadette
Soubirous, claimed that on 11 February 1858, and on a further 17 occa-
sions in the following five months, she had experienced visions of the
Virgin Mary. The parish priest, the Abbé Peyremale, was sceptical initially.
The civil authorities were positively hostile, closely interrogating
Bernadette and constructing fences in a vain effort to exclude pilgrims
from the grotto at Massabielle in which her visions had appeared.205
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    147

Nevertheless, within days of Bernadette’s visions, as news spread rapidly,

local pilgrims began to arrive at the grotto, and were joined by a curious
Louis Veuillot, on holiday in the area. Convinced by the evident sincerity
of the visionary and moved by the devotion of the crowds, he was able to
use the pages of L’Univers to spread the good news.206 In these circum-
stances, Rouland, the Ministre des Cultes, expressed the view that ‘these
pretended miracles degrade religion’, but significantly added that ‘I fear
that a prelate cannot struggle openly against popular belief’.207 Indeed, on
the first anniversary of Bernadette’s vision at Lourdes, a mass was autho-
rized by Mgr Laurence, Bishop of Tarbes, even before the investigatory
commission he had appointed had reported. It was celebrated by 200
priests with the participation of some 40,000 pilgrims in search of forgive-
ness for sins, in hope of consolation or divine assistance, or simply
curious.208
It was thus hardly surprising that the episcopal judgement finally
delivered in 1862 following lengthy enquiries was that the apparitions at
Lourdes were authentic—a view already upheld by the Empress
Eugènie.209 The grounds were: First, the evident simplicity and sincerity
of Bernadette when describing 18 separate appearances of a figure who
had fortuitously announced that ‘I am the Immaculate Conception’—
and thus confirmed a central tenet of the new theology—and then iden-
tified a hidden, healing spring (a major feature of traditional popular
religion), and asked that a chapel be constructed on its site. It hardly
seemed to matter that Bernadette’s aunts had been leading figures in the
local Enfants de Marie and that her visionary experience might be the
product of an already powerful cult, with the figure of the Virgin Mary
as described by Bernadette derived from popular art. Second, the reports
of miraculous cures and conversions. Although these had not been
promised in the visions, they encouraged visits from growing numbers of
pilgrims. By the time the report was published, the site of the apparition
had already been purchased and plans for a suitably imposing shrine
drawn up.210
On 4 August 1864, the first official pilgrimage was organized to witness
the consecration of a statue of the Virgin in the grotto. It would soon be
followed by the construction of a basilica. The prospect of a cure for a
deadly affliction, or at least the alleviation of suffering, was central to the
development of the cult. The publicity accorded in sermons and the reli-
gious press, preparation for pilgrimage through confession and prayer, the
eventual excitement engendered by participating in the crowd, the sheer
148   R. PRICE

theatricality of the event and of the ‘curing drama’, all added to the pos-
sibility of an intense spiritual experience and to the revival of piety.211 The
construction of a branch line from Tarbes by the Midi railway company in
1866 further stimulated the movement, as well as creating significant
commercial opportunities.212
In the cases of La Salette and Lourdes, the ‘propensity to believe’ was
reinforced by press campaigns, most notably in L’Univers.213 In con-
trast, ‘Notes’ prepared in the Emperor’s private office in November
1856 would express continued official concern about the propagation
of ‘le culte du miracle de la Salette’, pointing out that ‘this apparition,
true or false, has caused a very notable religious movement in the
region’, which the religious authorities ‘have not judged it timely to
condemn’. While recognizing that the Bishop of Grenoble ‘appears to
have resisted the propagation of the prophecies as far as possible’ and
welcoming his discussions with colleagues on the ‘rules to follow in
such matters’, the notes also suggested that the clergy might be tempted
by the substantial profits likely to be made from the sale of holy water to
pilgrims.214 Many priests appear to have shared such concerns.215 Some
were irritated that the Virgin had chosen to appear and speak—in
patois—to ‘ignorant’ peasants, women and children, rather than one of
their own number. Nothing should be allowed to threaten the central
role of the priest or the hierarchical order of the Church.216 More gener-
ally members of the clergy were determined to reaffirm the responsibil-
ity of the Church as the primary mediator between Man and God and to
reassert control.
Hand-picked commissions appointed by bishops assessed the evidence
and sought to distinguish between vraies et fausses apparitions. These
commissions determined whether apparitions should receive publicity: in
effect, whether they should be marketed, or suppressed.217 It was ­important
not to sanction apparitions which might subsequently prove to be false,
and even more important to avoid rejecting signs and messages from God.
The commissions were especially likely to assume that cures provided con-
firmation of the original miraculous visitation.218 In the case of the visions
at La Salette and Lourdes, and 32 other shrines recognized during the
Second Empire, the pressure of public opinion in impoverished communi-
ties, desperately anxious to grasp any means of self-gratification and mate-
rial improvement, and easily convinced of the powers of the supernatural,
combined with the ultramontane spirituality of social elites and of the
clergy themselves, to overcome doubts.219
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    149

Most of the dozens of apparitions reported to the clergy—developing

in close geographical proximity to each other—were, however, not authen-
ticated by the religious authorities and were dismissed as mere imitations
or attributed to hallucinations or superstition. Among the visions rejected
were those of Félicité Plumel, a 34-year-old spinster and devout Catholic,
living at Brette in the Drôme who, in 1848, together with a young shep-
herd, claimed to have received a terrible warning from the Virgin Mary to
the local population: ‘Either they convert or a fire will fall from heaven …
The embers will cover the earth … The dead will re-appear with the same
bodies as before, some will rise in glory and the others remain forever in
the embers.’ The faithful were called upon to process and sing in the open
air. The local clergy refused to accept the validity of this particular appari-
tion, apparently resenting the challenge to their leadership. The parish
priest’s report that his parishioners ‘are abandoning mass, and roaming
the mountains, the two sexes, even at night … certainly to pray and sing,
but they are on a slippery slope, these events are taking place in deserto’,
confirmed the Bishop of Valance’s worst fears concerning the ‘cupidité’
and ‘superstition’ of the poor and ignorant, and the threat of social unrest
which he blamed on the 1848 Revolution.220 Also dismissed were the
visions of the Abbé Clauset, curé at La Sauvetat de Blanquefort (Lot-et-­
Garonne), who had terrified his congregation by describing the appear-
ance of the Virgin Mary in his bedchamber. She had warned of the coming
of the Anti-Christ who would dethrone all the kings of the world, and
establish his own, short-lived, kingdom, before bringing about the end of
the world (in 1910).221 An ‘epidemic’ of visionaries would be written out
of the Church’s official accounts.222
In contrast, in the cases of Mélanie and Bernadette, hagiography—and
photography––were employed to construct edifying images, as means of
encouraging the faithful and combating de-christianization. The two
young women were carefully controlled, and given intensive religious
instruction by (male) spiritual advisors who sought to ensure that they
conformed to official dogma.223 In 1856, Mélanie, an extremely disturbed
and unhappy figure, would be transferred to (isolated in) an English con-
vent (in Darlington) and ultimately to a more comfortable place of exile in
Naples. Given her growing predilection for making startling predictions—
of revolution, the destruction of Paris, and the coming of the Anti-Christ,
born of a bishop and a nun—this is perhaps not surprising! Maximin sim-
ply took to drink. Although far less troublesome, Bernadette was removed
to the convent of the Sisters of Charity in Nevers in July 1866.224
150   R. PRICE

The determination of many priests to eliminate popular ‘superstition’

and to regularize religious practices was increasingly evident.225 The gen-
eralized imposition of the Roman liturgy during the 1850/60s aroused
widespread, if generally short-lived resentment, especially where it inter-
fered with the celebration of traditional local festivals.226 In Grandru, in
the Beauvais diocese, parishioners demanded the replacement of their
unfortunate parish priest for failing to chant the traditional prayer to Saint
Médard the parish patron, for which there was no place in the revised
order of service.227 In the Breton department of Côtes-du-Nord, the reli-
gious authorities during the nineteenth century would insist on the reded-
ication of 110 of the area’s 400 parishes to saints recognized by the
Church, most commonly Saint Peter—in place of mythical figures from
the Celtic past.228 Chapels were constructed at popular places of pilgrim-
age to allow the clergy to play a more effective pastoral role; ‘ancient’
wooden statues, considered by some to possess magical powers, were
replaced with colourful plaster images.229
The Virgin’s prediction of dire consequences unless the people returned
to religion was clearly a message the clergy were anxious to propagate.
During the long period of intense crisis between 1845 and 1856, with
repeated harvest failures, cholera epidemics, and widespread social and
political unrest across Europe—and with particularly dire consequences
for already impoverished upland communities—the apparitions had pre-
sented an apocalyptical and divine warning that without moral reform and
a return to the faith, mankind could expect yet more severe punishment.230
The Virgin Mary had also, however, offered hope in the battle against
Satanic forces. The apparitions at La Salette and Lourdes representing
proof of her love of France and of the possibility of securing God’s
blessing.231
The explosion of popular Marian devotion was further stimulated in
virtually every parish by an outpouring of pious literature, and by the cre-
ation of confraternities of the Sacred Heart or Rosary, their members
forming a religious elite working closely with the parish priest.232 A series
of festivals honoured Christ’s Mother throughout the year—that of the
Purification (2 February), Annunciation (25 March), Visitation (2 July),
Assumption (15 August), Nativity (8 September), Rosary (7 October),
Presentation (21 November), and culminated in the feast of the Immaculate
Conception on 8 December during which images of the Virgin were car-
ried through the streets.233 Sermons frequently encouraged women to
strive to live in imitation of Mary, model of all the virtues—pure Virgin
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    151

and devoted Mother, free from all sin. The celebration in May of the Mois
de Marie with prayers to the Virgin each evening and the decoration of
altars with flowers in Her honour further stimulated the youthful enthusi-
asm and spirit of emulation of the Enfants de Marie.234
Numerous hymns, dedicated to the Virgin, celebrated a confident belief
that Christ’s Mother would intercede with Christ the Redeemer and God
the Holy Father on behalf of the faithful. She was the first among interces-
sors, placed above all the saints. Numerous churches were re-dedicated
and chapels constructed in Her name. Medals, statues, and a pious litera-
ture honouring Mary were mass produced. As part of this devotional revo-
lution an iconography developed in which Mary, without Her child, was
portrayed surrounded by light, Her head crowned with stars—just as she
had appeared at La Salette and Lourdes. Congregations were reminded
that Saint Louis had dedicated France to the Holy Virgin. Marial piety also
received a vital stimulus from a religious education which stressed the sig-
nificance of ‘purity, innocence, modesty and virginity as valuable feminine
characteristics’.235 The schools sought to prepare girls for their future roles
as Christian wives and mothers—pious and self-effacing within the patriar-
chal family. The Virgin Mary rather than Eve was without doubt the model
they should follow!236 Employing the typically emotional language of reli-
gious devotion, the Besançon diocesan catechism of 1845 described the
Virgin Mary as a sort of goddess who had dedicated herself to the service
of God on earth and to a ‘perpetuel et inviolable virginité’, and who subse-
quently, as almost the equal of Christ, ‘was transported body and soul to
Heaven. Mary was placed above all the angels and saints in Heaven and
God established her as Queen of Heaven and Earth and as dispenser of
His mercy’. The message was mixed. As well as an attack on sexuality, it
represented a glorification of femininity. Moreover, although the Marian
cult might be linked to the growing feminization of the Church, it was
also a devotion shared by many men.237 The Archconfraternity of Our
Lady of the Immaculate Conception, founded in the Parisian parish of
Notre-Dame des Victoires, already had one million members by the early
1860s.
In localities where Mary’s blessing had become evident through mira-
cles attested to by the local bishop, the Pope’s consent could be given for
the crowning of statues of the Virgin (in 66 cases between 1853 and
1890). This was a custom imported from Italy and part of a process of
categorization and recognition of major national sanctuaries.238 In 1854,
a series of ceremonies between 24 June and 2 July celebrating the laying
152   R. PRICE

of the foundation stone of the new basilica of Notre-Dame de la Treille in

Lille, culminated in a procession of 11,000 people, led by 11 bishops and
numerous robed clergy followed by children dressed in white, and the
uniformed representatives of the State, accompanied by local notables.239
At Notre-Dame d’Issoudun, where a shrine had been constructed in
1855, and a basilica consecrated in 1864, the crowning occurred in
September 1869 as the central event in a celebration attended by 13 bish-
ops, 700 other priests and over 20,000 laity.240 The inspiring vision of the
Holy Family was also extended by means of devotion to Saint Joseph, the
earthly father of the Son of God, who had respected the virginity of Mary
throughout her life.241 In September 1868, the crowning of a statue of
Anne, the Mother of Mary, in the presence of devoted crowds at Sainte-­
Anne-­d’Auray was another mark of intense popular devotion to the Holy
Family.242

4.4   Conclusion
The declaration of the Immaculate Conception had represented a clear
step towards both the Syllabus of Errors and the final assertion of Papal
Infallibility in 1870. The Bull might be taken to represent an affirmation
of both temporal—and indeed counter-revolutionary—as well as spiri-
tual truth. If Mary was unique, Man was sinful. The cause of human
misery was to be found within Man and not society. Redemption was
possible only through devotion to the suffering Christ and to His
Mother.243 In a subsequent apostolic letter, the Pope contrasted the vir-
tue of Mary with the sins of Adam and the ‘malice’ of Satan. God had
prepared for ‘His only Son, a Mother, from whom, by his incarnation, he
would be born in the happy plenitude of time, and who He would love
above all other creatures … Always exempt from any form of sinful stain,
entirely beautiful and perfect, She combines in herself the plenitude of
holiness and innocence, so that, after God, one could not imagine any-
one greater and, with the exception of God, no one can comprehend the
grandeur … of this venerable Mother to whom God the Father resolved
to give His only Son to beget in Her womb, equal to Him whom He
loves as himself, so that he became naturally the Son of both God the
Father and of the Virgin …’.244
In a letter published in the journal Rosier de Marie in 1861, a priest
from the Carcassonne diocese expressed his belief that ‘we are at the
beginning of an epoch of renewal and of the prodigious extension of
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    153

Christian society, and this, as a result of the miraculous intervention of the

Virgin Mary’.245 Such statements heralded a new era of glory for the
Church as did the intense enthusiasm of the crowds which gathered in
celebration at Marian sanctuaries like Ars, Paray-le-Monial, Rocamadour
and Notre-Dame des Victoires in Paris, behind their priests, choirs and
banners, manifesting a greater sense of spiritual optimism at a time of
mounting institutional and political calamity in Rome.246
In these various ways, the Church and its clergy sought to reinvigorate
the institutional and devotional frameworks of religious life, to reinforce
their influence and to enthuse the mass of believers. The quasi-divination
of Mary evident in Mgr de Ségur’s affirmation that ‘the Church only exists
for Mary, who leads it to Jesus, and from Jesus to the Father’ was associ-
ated closely with both a loving devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and
fear of an all-powerful God.247 Ultramontane forms of piety, involving a
public display of religious sentiment and fervour, combined with ‘modern’
forms of communication and publicity to reveal the ‘changing relation-
ships which established themselves between a living popular piety and[the]
legitimate religious prescriptions … of the clergy’.248 An intense desire for
God’s blessing in this life, as well as for heavenly recompense and Life
Everlasting promoted respect for a clergy ordained by the Divine Will,
dedicated to the service of God within His church, ‘inspired by a theo-
cratic conception of society … [and] unconditional loyalty to the pope’,
and devoted to sustaining moral order against heresy, vice and revolu-
tion.249 The only long-term solution to the revolutionary menace was, as
Mgr Clausel de Montals, Bishop of Chartres, insisted, to ‘bring back faith
and virtue’.250

Notes
1. In 1840, quoted by G. Cholvy, Christianisme et société en France au 19e
siècle, 2001, p. 494.
2. J. Bouchet, C. Simien, ‘Introduction. Pour une nouvelle approche de la
politisation des campagnes’ in Les passeurs d’idées politiques nouvelles au
village de la Rèvolution aux années 1930, Clermont-Ferrand, 2015, p. 41.
3. See e.g. re. award of Légion d’honneur, AN F19/5607; J.  Lafon, Les
prêtres, les fidèles et l’Etat. Le ménage à trois au 19e siècle, 1987, pp. 96–7.
4. P. Airiau, ‘La formation sacerdotale en France au 19e siècle’, Archives de
sciences sociales de religion, 2006, p. 33; P. Büttgen, ‘Théologie politique et
pouvoir pastoral’, Annales. Histoire, sciences sociales, 2007, 1133–35.
154   R. PRICE

5. See e.g. S. Fath, ‘Entre colporteur et confesseur: le choix des femmes en

Picardie au milieu du 19e siècle’ in G.  Cholvy, (ed.) La religion et les
femmes, Montpellier, 2002, p.  160; A.  Tillier, Des criminelles au village.
Femmes infanticides en Bretagne (1825–61), Rennes, 2001, pp. 283–5.
6. E.  Duffy, ‘Rites of passage. How historians have refashioned the
Reformation’, TLS, 10 February, 2017, p. 16.
7. Quoted by B.  Delpal, Entre paroisse et commune. Les catholiques de la
Drôme au milieu du 19e siècle, Valence, 1989, p. 72.
8. V. Petit, ‘D’un siècle l’autre: reflexions sur deux mo(uve)ments liturgiques’
in B. Dumons, V. Petit, (eds) Gouverner et reformer l’Eglise, 19e-20e siècle,
Rennes, 2016, pp. 17–20.
9. Sous-préfet of Douai to MC, n.d; Archbishop of Cambrai to MC, 10 Oct.
1851, AN F19/5799. See also V. Gourdon, ‘L’hygiènisme français et les
dangers du baptême précoce. Petit parcours au sein d’un topos médical de
19e siècle’, in G.  Alfani, P.  Castagnetti, V.  Gourdon, (eds) Baptiser.
Pratique sacramentale, pratique sociale (16e–20e siècle), Saint-Etienne,
2009, pp. 104–111.
10. V. Gourdon, C. Georges, N. Labéjoh, ‘L’ondoiement en paroisse à Paris
au 19e siècle’ Histoire urbaine, 2004, pp. 141, 147–8; L. Pinard, Les men-
talités religieuses du Morvan au 19e siècle (1830–1914), Château-Chinon,
1997, pp. 41–2.
11. J. Léonard, Médecins, malades et société dans la France du 19e siècle, 1992,
pp. 43–59.
12. P. Guillaume, Médecins, église et foi, 1990, pp. 34–5.
13. C. Fredj, ‘Concilier le religieux et le médical. Les médecins, la Césarienne
post-mortem et le baptême au 19e siècle’, in Alfani et  al., Baptiser,
pp. 125–132.
14. Sous-préfet Bagnères to Prefect Hautes-Pyrénées, 27 March; Abbé Argué
to Bishop of Tarbes, 6 May; Anne Ricaud to Emperor, 15 Oct. 1862, AN
F19/5865.
15. G. Cuchet, Le crépuscule du purgatoire, 2005, pp. 38–9.
16. Jean Carrère to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 1 Jan. 1856, AN F19/5784.
17. Bishop of Annecy to MC, 10 May; Prefect Haute-Savoie to MC, 12 Aug.
1869, AN F19/5776.
18. M. Vovelle, Les âmes du purgatoire ou le travail du deuil, 1996, p. 204.
19. C. Langlois, ‘Du bon usages des indulgences devant l’année sainte’ in Le
continent théologique, Rennes, 2016, pp. 164–170. See also A. Corbin, Le
temps, le désir et l’horreur, 1991, p. 19.
20. Mémoires d’un paysan bas-breton, An Here, 2000, p. 94.
21. See especially G. Cuchet, ‘The revival of the cult of Purgatory in France
(1850–1914)’, French history, 2004, passim; and Le crépuscule du purga-
toire, pp. 90–3, 135–145.
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    155

22. Quoted by D.-M. Dauzet, Le mystique bien tempérée. Ecriture féminine de

l’expérience spirituelle, 19e–20e siècles, 2006, pp. 28–9.
23. J.  Popiel, ‘The Hearth, the Cloister, and beyond: religion and the19th
century woman’, Proceedings of the Western society for French history, 2009,
p. 189.
24. Quoted by H.  Mills, ‘Negotiating the divide: women, philanthropy and
the public sphere in 19th century France’ in F.  Tallett, N.  Atkin, (eds)
Religion, society and politics in France since 1789, 1991, p. 40.
25. C. Langlois, ‘Toujours plus pratiquants. La permanence du dimorphisme
sexuel dans le catholicisme français contemporaine’. Clio, 1995—http://
clio.revues.org/index533.html. Consulté le 12 mars, 2009, p. 8.
26. See e.g. Prefect Côte-d’Or to MC, 2 August 1862, AN F19/5808.
27. R. Epp, Le mouvement ultramontain dans l’Eglise catholique en Alsace au
19e siècle (1802–70) I 1975, pp. 398–9.
28. Quoted by I. Saint-Martin, Voir, savoir, croire. Catéchismes et pédagogie par
l’image au 19e siècle, 2003, p. 231.
29. Ibid., pp. 244–5.
30. P. Martin, Une religion des livres (1640–1850), 2003, p. 262.
31. See e.g. sous-préfet Boussac, re. Parish priest at Bord (Creuse), 24 Dec.
1851, AN F19/5817.
32. Letter to MC, 22 Jan. 1862, AN F19/5786.
33. See e.g. L. Pinard, Les mentalités religieuses du Morvan au 19e siècle (1830–
1914), Château-Chinon, 1997, pp. 44–7.
34. Bishop of Limoges to MC, 7 July 1852, AN F19/5817.
35. Letter to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 9 Dec. 1866, AN F19/5831.
36. See e.g. Joseph Manen, cultivateur, to MC, ? March 1851, and parish
priest at Entraygues to Archbishop of Avignon, 5 April 1851, AN
F19/5783.
37. See e.g. C. Poulain, facteur de moutons, to Bishop of Bayeux, ? Aug. 1861,
AN F19/5783.
38. C. Langlois, ‘La confession, un sacrament à l’épreuve de la Révolution’ in
Le continent théologique, p. 151f.
39. A. Le Douget, Violence au village. La société rurale finistérienne face à la
justice (1815–1914), Rennes 2014, p. 253.
40. E. Sevrin, Les missions religieuses en France sous la Restauration, I, 1948,
pp.  12–21. See also R.  Price The Church and the State in France, 1789–
1870: Fear of God is the Basis of Social Order, 2017, Chap. 3.
41. D. Javel, Transmettre la foi au diocèse d’Avignon, 19e–20e siècles, Avignon,
2000, p. 302, note 678.
42. GOC, 11e Division militaire to MG, 2 Feb. 1855, AN F19/5845.
43. J.  Pirotte, ‘Refaire la chrétienté d’outre-mer. Les métamorphoses d’un
projet de conquête (19e-milieu du 20e siècles) in Ypersele, Marcelus, (eds)
Rêves de chrétienté, p. 377.
156   R. PRICE

44. C. Langlois, ‘Toujours plus pratiquantes. La permanence du dimorphisme

sexuel dans le catholicisme français contemporaine’, Clio, 1995, p. 12
45. See also P.  Airiau, ‘Le prêtre catholique: masculin, neutre, autre? Des
débuts du 19e au milieu du 20e siècle’ in R.  Revenin, (ed) Hommes et
masculinités de 1789 à nos jours, 2007, p. 203.
46. Quoted by Langlois, Le crime d’Onan. Le discours catholique sur la limita-
tion des naissances (1816–1930), 2005, p. 63.
47. Bishop of Saint Jean de Maurienne to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 8 Aug. 1861,
AN F19/5659.
48. Quoted by J. Stengers, ‘Les pratiques anticonceptionnelles dans le mariage
aux 19e et 20e siècles: problèmes humains et attitudes religieuses’ Revue
belge de philologie et d’histoire, 1971, p. 441.
49. Langlois, Le crime d’Onan, pp.  72–3, 95.See also T.  Kselman, ‘Claude
Langlois’s Vision of 19th Century French Catholicism’, Historical
Reflections, 2013, pp. 75–6.
50. Quoted by A. Walch, La spiritualité conjugale dans le catholicisme français
(11e–20e siècle), 2002, pp. 358–9.
51. See also E. Pierre, ‘Père affaibli, société en danger: la diffusion d’un dis-
cours sous les monarchies’, Le mouvement social, 224, 2008, p. 9.
52. See e.g. Gendarmerie lieutenant, arrondissement of Château-Thierry to
MG, 20 May 1861, re. ‘indecent’ questions posed in the confessional, AN
F19/5863; R. Gibson, ‘Théologie et société en France au 19e siècle’ in
J-D. Durand, (ed) Histoire et théologie, 1994, p. 90; Gibson, ‘Le catholi-
cisme et les femmes’, pp. 12–3; H. Mills, ‘Negotiating the divide: women,
philanthropy and the public sphere in 19th century France’ in F.  Tallett,
N. Atkin, (eds) Religion, society and politics in France, p. 42; H. Pomme,
‘La pratique religieuse dans les campagnes de la Meurthe vers 1840′,
Annales de l’est., 1968, pp. 138–9
53. Langlois, Le crime d’Onan. p. 108.
54. Mandement de Mgr. l’Evêque de Chartres pour le Carême de 1847…, AN
F19/5726.
55. See e.g. Secrètaire-Général prefecture de la Sarthe to G. des S., 4 Dec.
1866, re. sermon on blasphemy by Abbé Salé at Bonnétable, AN
F19/5822.
56. Anon, De la question du paupèrisme sous le point de vue politique et social, ou
Mémoire à l’occasion de la statistique des pauvres, Paris, chez Debécourt,
1842—written by the parish priest of Dauendorf, copy in AN F19/5760.
57. M. Launay, Le bon prêtre. Le clergé rural au 19e siècle, 1986, p. 165.
58. Mandement de Mgr l’Evêque de Chartres pour le Carême de 1847…, AN
F19/5726.
59. Quoted by J-C.  Farcy, Les paysans beaucerons au 19e siècle, II Chartres,
1989, p. 914.
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    157

60. Mgr Cousseau to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 22 Dec. 1856. AN F19/5539.
61. See e.g. F. Chauvaud, Les passions villageois au 19e siècle. Les émotions rura-
les dans les pays de Beauce, du Hurepoix et du Mantais, 1995, p. 132; Pinard,
Les mentalités religieuses, p. 60.
62. Quoted by Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans au milieu du 19e siècle, 1964,
p. 395.
63. Quoted by S. Milbach, Prêtres historiens et pèlerinages du diocèse de Dijon
(1860–1914), 2000, p. 81.
64. See e.g. S.  Le Maléfan, ‘Dans l’attente du Ciel: agromanes et clergé en
Bretagne au milieu du 19e siècle’ in F. Quellier, G. Provost, (eds) Du ciel
à la terre. Clergé et agriculture, 16e–19e siècles, Rennes, 2008. pp. 240–3.
65. See e.g. Discours de M.F-L. Bonnin, curé-archiprêtre d’Astaffort dans son
église, à l’occasion de la fête du Comice agricole, le 8 septembre 1867, se vend
au profit de l’église, Agen 1867 and the same author’s Erection d’une statue
de la Sainte Vierge dans la paroisse d’Astaffort. Le 27 mai 1866, Agen 1866,
AN F19/5787.
66. J. Delumeau, La peur en occident, 1978, p. 44; G. Cuchet, Faire de l’histoire
religieuse dans une société sortie de la religion, 2013, pp. 156–8.
67. G. Cuchet, ‘La carte de l’autre vie au 19e siècle. L’au-delà entre espaces
réel et symbolique’, Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 2007. Mis en
ligne le 19 nov. 2010, consulté le 4 juillet 2017.
68. Quoted by R. Gibson, A social history of French Catholicism, 1789–1914,
1989, p. 247; see also Gibson, ‘Hellfire and damnation in nineteenth cen-
tury France’, Catholic historical review, 1988, passim.
69. Chef de la division des théâtres, Note pour M. le ministre [d’Etat], 29 Jan.
1859, AN F19/5841.
70. P. Boutry, Prêtres et paroisses au pays du curé d’Ars, 1986, passim; see also
J.  Cornwell, ‘The Pope’s priestly model: a rabid, self-harming tyrant’,
Guardian, 11 Sept. 2010.
71. Mandement de son éminence Mgr le Cardinal Gousset…pour l’année
1865, AN F19/1936; See also R.  Muchembled, A History of the Devil,
Oxford, 2003, pp. 1–7.
72. Note for MJ et des C., 10 Feb. 1869, AN F19/1939.
73. PG Bordeaux to G. des S., 2 April 1865, Commissaire de police to PI
Bordeaux, 15 April; see also Prefect Bouches-du-Rhône to Min. de l’I.P. et
des C., 12 March 1860; MJ to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 7 June 1862, AN
F19/5839.
74. Points made by sous-préfet Oloron to Prefect Basses-Pyrénées, 13 Nov.
1867, AN F19/5784.
75. To MJ et des C., 6 June 1866, AN F19/5856.
76. Letter to MC, 26 July 1840, AN F19/5748. See also e.g. Bishop of Autun
to MC, 28 Aug. 1860, AN F19/5782 recommending that this practice
should be ended.
158   R. PRICE

77. Le Conseil municipal et les principaux habitants de la commune de Broye

to MC, 21 Feb. 1854; Prefect Saône-et-Loire to MC, 27 April, AN
F19/5782.
78. Quoted by Farcy, op. cit. II, p. 906.
79. Quoted by Milbach, Prêtres historiens, p. 331.
80. See especially G. Humbert, ‘Jalons chronologique pour une histoire de la
pénétration en pays francophones de la pensée et des œuvres d’Alphonse
de Liguori’, in J. Delumeau, (ed) Alphonse de Liguori: Pasteur et docteur,
1987, pp. 369–401; C. Langlois, ‘La conjoncture mariale des années 40’
in F. Angelier, C. Langlois, (eds) La Salette. Apocalypse, pèlerinage et litera-
ture, Grenoble, 2000, pp. 32–33.
81. D.  Lerch, ‘L’image dans l’imagerie pieuse en Alsace (1848–1914)’ in
S.  Michaud et  al., (eds) Usages de l’image au 19e siècle, 1992, p.  39;
R. Gibson, ‘Hellfire and damnation’ pp. 153–167; G. Cuchet, Le crépus-
cule, pp. 35, 41, 58–9.
82. Gibson, Social history, p. 259.
83. AN F19/6288.
84. G. Cholvy, ‘Du dieu terrible au dieu d’amour: une évolution dans la sensi-
bilité religieuse au 19e siècle’ in Actes du 109e CNSS, 1984, pp. 141–154.
85. R. Gibson, ‘De la predication de la peur à la vision d’un Dieu d’Amour: la
predication en Perigord aux 17e-19e siècles’, Le jugement, le ciel et l’enfer
dans l’histoire du christianisme, Angers, 1999, pp. 161–5.
86. J. Marx, Le péché de la France. Surnaturel et politique au 19e siècle, Brussels,
2005, pp. 206–7.
87. I. Saint-Martin, Voir, savoir, croire. Catéchismes et pédagogie par l’image au
19e siècle, 2003, p. 535.
88. Quoted by M. Crubellier, L’enfance et la jeunesse dans la société française,
1800–1950, 1979, p. 172. See also C. Cuchet, ‘La pastorale de la peur au
19e siècle. Continuité, crise et mutations d’un discours’ in D.  Aron,
K. Rizk, (eds) De la faute et du salut dans l’histoire des monothéismes, 2010,
p.  168–9; and P.  Airiau, ‘Le péché dans les cathechismes catholiques et
protestants (19e–20e siècles), idem., pp. 213–15.
89. M.  Gontard, Les écoles primaires de la France bourgeoise (1833–78),
Toulouse, n.d., pp. 119–20.
90. E. Delivre, ‘Le catéchisme politique: un prêche sur l’autel de la modernité’
La Révolution française, 18 nov. 2009, [en ligne] p. 5, consulted 4 Jan.
2010; P.  Zind, L’enseignement religieux dans l’instruction primaire pub-
lique en France de 1850 à 1873, Lyon, 1971, p. 88.
91. See e.g. D.  Roche, ‘Histoire des idées, histoire sociale’, Revue d’histoire
modern et contemporaine, 2012, pp. 24–5.
92. A. Bruter, ‘Un laboratoire de la pédagogie de l’histoire: l’histoire sainte à
l’école primaire (1833–82)’, Histoire de l’éducation, 2007, pp.  61–81.
Religious instruction in state schools was abolished in 1882.
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    159

93. Quoted by Zind, L’enseignement religieux, p. 88.

94. Ibid., p. 124.
95. Quoted by G. Gabbois, ‘Vous êtes Presque la seule consolation de l’église. La
foi des femmes face à la déchristianisation de 1789 à 1880’ in J. Delumeau,
(ed) Le religion de ma mère. Les femmes et la transmission de la foi, 1992,
p. 323.
96. See e.g. R.  Basdevant-Gaudemet, ‘Mgr Pie et l’enseignement’ in
G. Cholvy, N-J. Chaline, (eds) L’enseignement catholique en France aux
19e et 20e siècles, 1995, pp. 112–13.
97. Quoted by R. Rogers, Les bourgeoises au pensionnat. L’éducation féminine
au 19e siècle, Rennes, 2007, p. 200.
98. See also R.  Burton, Holy tears, holy blood. Women, Catholicism, and the
culture of suffering in France, 1840–70, 2004, p. xxi.
99. See e.g. Academic rector Douai, 15 April 1858, AN F17/2649.
100. Statistique de l’instruction primaire pour l’année 1863, 1865.
101. Report to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 5 June 1856, AN F17/9765.
102. R. Price, A social history of nineteenth-century France, 1987, pp. 326–7.
103. Academic inspector Aisne to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 1 May 1867, AN
F19/5863; Louis Lagarde, instituteur, letter of complaint to MC, 13
March 1865, AN F19/5784.
104. Quoted by G. Nicolas, Le grand débat de l’école au 19e siècle. Les institu-
teurs du Second Empire, 2002, p. 179.
105. See e.g. curé of Saint Roch, Paris, Note sur les rapports du Gouvernement
avec l’Eglise, n.d. (1870), AN F19/1937.
106. Guide des écoles à l’usage des Petits Frères de Marie, 1853, p. 94—quoted
by P. Zind, L’enseignement religieux, p. 70.
107. See e.g. G. Cholvy, ‘Une école des pauvres au début du 19e siècle. Pieuses
filles, béates ou sœurs des campagnes’ in D. Baker, P. Harrigan’, (eds) The
making of Frenchmen: current directions in the history of education in
France, 1679–1979, Waterloo, Ont., 1980, p. 177.
108. See reports in AN F17/10792.
109. M-J. Lussien-Maisonneuve, ‘Contribution de la Flandre aux développe-
ments néo-gothiques de la ville et de la vie artistique en France septen-
trionale au 19e siècle’ in J. de Maeyer, L. Verpoest, (eds) Gothic revival.
Religion, architecture and style in western Europe, 1815–1914, Leuven
2000, pp. 174–7; T. Baycroft, Culture, identity and nationalism: French
Flanders in the 19th and 20th centuries, 2004, p. 2.
110. Min. de l’I.P. to MJ et des C., 25 Aug. 1866; Archbishop of Cambrai to
Academic Rector Douai, 22 Oct., AN F19/5724. See also Baycroft,
Culture, identity and nationalism, Chap. 5 passim.
111. S.  Gicquel, Prêtres de Bretagne au 19e siècle, Rennes, 2008, p.  124;
G.  Désert, ‘Alphabétisation et scolarisation dans le grand-ouest au 19e
160   R. PRICE

siècle’, in Baker, Harrigan, The making of Frenchmen, p. 185; Nicolas, Le

grand débat de l’école, pp. 253–5.
112. Bishop of Saint Dié to MJ et des C., 5 Feb. 1868, AN F19/5776.
113. See e.g. Bishop of Montauban to MJ et des C., 21 March 1864, AN
F19/5825.
114. A. Perdiguier, Compagnon du Tour de France et répresentant du peuple,
1805–75, 1981; see also R. Betrand, ‘Le provençal aux 18e et 19e siècles’
in M.  Lagrée, (ed) Les parlers de la foi. Religion et langues régionales,
Rennes, 1995, p. 111.
115. See e.g. petition from Louis Carrère, from Lommé (Hautes-Alpes) to
Emperor—n.d. but received 23 March 1868, AN F19/5865.
116. See e.g. G. Cholvy, Religion et sociétè au 19e siècle. Le diocèse de Montpellier,
II, Lille, 1973, pp. 1554–5.
117. M. Lagrée, op. cit., p. 16.
118. See e.g. E. Mension-Rigau, Le donjon et le clocher. Nobles et curés de cam-
pagne de 1850 à nos jours, 2004, pp. 287–9; M. Lagrée, ‘La littérature
religieuse dans la production bretonne imprimée: aspects quantitatifs’ in
Lagrée, (ed) Les parlers de la foi, p. 89.
119. J.-M.  Leniaud, La révolution des signes. L’art à l’église (1830–1930),
2007, p. 252.
120. M. Vernus, ‘La culture écrite et le monde paysan. Le cas de la Franche-
Comté (1750–1869)’, Histoire et sociétés rurales, 1997, pp.  50–1;
F. Barbier, ‘La diffusion de l’imprimerie en Eure-et-Loir au 19e siècle’ in
J.-Y.  Mollier, (ed) Le commerce de la librairie en France au 19e siècle,
1997, pp. 158–61; A. Baker, ‘Locality and nationality: geopieties in rural
Loir-et-Cher during the 19th century’ in S.  Courville, N.  Ségur, (eds)
Espace et culture, (Ste-Foy 1995) p. 83; on development of literacy see
Price, Social history, pp. 330–337.
121. I Saint-Martin, ‘Variations sur le texte et l’image dans les albums et manu-
els d’instruction religieuse (1800–1914)’ in A. Charon et al. (eds) La mis
en page du livre religieux, 2004, pp. 105–6; see also P. Martin, Une reli-
gion des livres (1640–1850), 2003, pp. 564–570.
122. D. Julia, ‘Des indicateurs de longue durée’ in Joutard, (ed) Histoire de la
France religieuse, III, pp.  182–3; C.  Savart, ‘Le livre religieux’ in
H.-J. Martin, R. Chartier, (eds) Histoire de l’édition française III Le temps
des éditeurs. Du Romantisme à la Belle Epoque, 1985, p. 403
123. C. Bellanger, (ed) Histoire générale de la presse française II 1969, p. 405.
124. C.  Savart, ‘Quelle Bible les catholiques français lisaient-ils?’ in Savart,
J.-N. Aletti, (eds) Le monde contemporaine et la Bible, 1985, pp. 19–34.
125. See e.g. V.  Petit, Catholiques et comtois. Liturgie diosèsaine et identité
régionale au 19e siècle, Rennes, 2011, pp.  437–445; S.  Maclaren,
‘Modernity and Catholic restoration: the cases of the Blessed Anna Maria
Gianetti Taigi and the Blessed Elisabetta Canori Mora’ in H. Laugerud,
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    161

S. Ryan, (eds) Devotional cultures of European Christianity, 1790–1960,

Dublin, 2012, p. 61.
126. Martin, Une religion des livres, pp. 454–462; M. Brejon de Lavergnée, La
Société de Saint-Vincent de Paul au 19e siècle. Un fleuron du catholicisme
social, 2008, p. 501.
127. C. Savart, ‘Approches de la religion populaire à travers quelques publica-
tions de la Société de Saint-Vincent de Paul (1850–60)’ in G. Dubosq,
B. Plongeron, Robert, La religion populaire, 1979, pp. 260–1; Martin,
Une religion des livres, pp. 354–5; A. Gough, Paris and Rome: the Gallican
Church and the Ultramontane campaign 1848–53, Oxford, 1986, p. 86.
128. Savart, ‘Approches de la religion populaire’, p. 260.
129. P. Mainardi, ‘The invention of the illustrated press in France’, French poli-
tics, culture and society, 2017, p. 34.
130. G.  Cholvy, Etre chrétien en France au 19e siècle, 1997, p.  68; I.  Saint-
Martin, Voir, savoir, croire, pp. 300–431.
131. R. Priest, The Gospel according to Renan. Reading, writing and religion in
19th century France, Oxford, 2015, p. 171.
132. Ibid., p. 184; C. Amalvi, ‘L’exemple des grands hommes de ‘histoire de
France à l’école et au foyer (1814–1914)’ in P. Cabanel, (ed) Religion et
culture dans les sociétés et dans les états européens de 1800 à 1914, 2001,
p. 377.
133. E.g. Gibson, Social history, p. 59.
134. S.  Chassagne, ‘L’histoire des villes: une opération de rénovation histo-
riographique’ in M.  Garden, (ed) Villes et campagnes, 15e–20 siècles,
Lyon, 1977, p. 257.
135. See e.g. O. Gaudin, ‘La presse catholique sarthoise de la Monarchie de
Juillet au Second Empire’ Annales de Bretagne, 2001, pp. 92–4.
136. Bellanger et al., Histoire générale de la presse française, II, pp. 296–7.
137. Martin, Une religion des livres, p. 183.
138. Bellanger, op. cit., p. 404.
139. Prefect of Police to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 27 Oct. 1857, AN F19/5842.
140. L. Artiaga, ‘Les catholiques et la litterature industrielle au 19e siècle’ in
J. Migozzi, (ed) Production(s) du populaire, Limoges, 2005, [en ligne].
141. P.  Pierrard, ‘Le roman pieux ou d’édification en France au temps de
l’Ordre moral (1850–80)’ in Dubosq, Plongeron, Robert, Le religion
populaire, p. 229. See also Galinier-Pallerola, La résignation, pp. 136–7;
Price, Social History, p.  355; S.  Heywood, Catholicism and Children’s
Literature in France. The Comtesse de Ségur (1799–1874) Manchester,
2011, 67–70.
142. Pierrard, op. cit., pp. 229–234; Savart, ‘Le livre religieux’ p. 32.
143. L. Artiaga, ‘Histoires religieuses francophones et proto-histoire de la cul-
ture médiatique’, Revue d’histoire du 19e siècle, 2003, p. 20.
162   R. PRICE

144. L. Artiaga, Des torrents de papier. Catholicisme et lectures populaires au 19e

siècle, Limoges, 2007, pp. 73–4.
145. Artiaga, ‘Histoires religieuses’, p. 14.
146. 29 Dec. 1852, quoted by Savart, op. cit., p. 260.
147. Abbé Oudoul to Comte de Falloux, 21 June 1849, AN F19/5723. On
Buzançais, see R. Price, The modernisation of rural France. Communications
networks and agricultural market structures in nineteenth century France,
1983, pp. 179–184.
148. Quoted by P.  Pierrard, L’Eglise et les ouvriers en France (1840–1940),
1984, p. 105.
149. Quoted by Martin, Une religion des livres, p. 85. See also C. Savart, Les
catholiques en France au 19e siècle. Le témoignage du livre religieux, 1985,
pp. 657–664.
150. See e.g. E.  Fouilloux, ‘Intransigence catholique et monde moderne’
Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 2001, pp. 75–6, 86; R. Schaefer, ‘Program
for a new Catholic Wissenschaft: devotional activism and Catholic moder-
nity in the 19th century’, Modern Intellectual History, 2007, p. 434.
151. Letter to MJ et des C., 12 Feb. 1845, AN F19/5725.
152. Migne, Dictionnaire de la liturgie, 1844, quoted by Agostino, Les ordina-
tions, p. 251.
153. Q. Deluermoz et al., ‘Ecrire l’histoire des émotions’, Revue d’histoire du
19e siècle, 2013/2, p. 177.
154. Abbé Darboy, diary entry for 6 January 1855, in J.-C. Didier, (ed) ‘Un
journal inédit (années 1854–62) de Mgr. Darboy’, Mélanges de science
religieuse, 1973, p. 86. See also G. Darboy, Statistique religieuse du diocèse
de Paris, 1856, pp. 16–29.
155. E.g. commissaire de police of Argentré, 19 May and Prefect, 6 July 1863,
AN F1 CIII Ille-et-Vilaine 13; M. Launay, ‘Les procès verbaux de visites
pastorales dans le diocèse de Nantes au milieu du 19e siècle’, Annales de
Bretagne, 1975, p. 185.
156. Commissaire de police to Prefect Doubs, 23 July 1862, AN F19/1931.
157. P. Pierrard, Les laïcs, p. 15.
158. Lagrée, Aspects de la vie religieuse’, p. 408; see also L.-A. Biarnais, ‘Les
Brouzils de 1814 à 1856: un encadrement paroissial dans le bocage ven-
déen’ and M.-P. Guérin, ‘La paroisse de Guémené-Penfao au 19e siècle’
both in Eglise et société dans l’ouest atlantique du moyen âge au 20e siècle,
Nantes 2000, pp. 60, 171; P. Goujon, Le vigneron citoyen. Mâconnais et
Châlonnais (1848–1914), 1993, p. 38.
159. Quoted by Pierrard, Les laïcs, p. 26.
160. S. Blenner-Michel, ‘Sanctifier le dimanche ou le vain combat de l’épiscopat
français au 19e siècle’ Histoire, économie et société, 2009, pp. 46–8.
161. See e.g. Cholvy, Le diocèse de Montpellier, pp. 601–6; M.-V. Le Meur, ‘Le
culte des saints dans le diocèse de Blois aux environs de 1840’, Cahiers de
l’Institut d’histoire de la presse et de l’opinion (Tours) no. 2, pp. 19–23.
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    163

162. P. d’Hollander, La bannière et la rue. Les processions dans le centre-ouest au

19e siècle (1830–1914), 2003, p. 104, note 28.
163. P.  Boutry, ‘Le movement vers Rome et le renouveau missionnaire’ in
Joutard, (ed) Histoire de la France religieuse, pp. 414–16.
164. Academic Rector of Douai, 15 April 1858, AN F17/2649.
165. Crubellier, L’enfance, p. 179.
166. Y.  Gagneux, ‘Reliques et reliquaires à Paris (19e–20e siècles), 2007,
pp. 188f and ‘Entre culte et histoire. Le reliquaire du tombeau de sainte
Geneviève à Saint-Etienne-du-Mont’, in P.  Boutry, P.  Fabre, D.  Julia,
(eds) Reliques modernes, vol. 2, 2009, pp.  836–7; See also L.  Pérouas,
‘Ostensions et culte des saints en Limousin. Une approche ethno-histo-
rique’, Ethnologie française, 1983, pp.  323–336 and Le catholicisme en
Limousin aux 19e et 20e siècles à travers sa presse. Les semaines religieuses,
Treignac, n.d., pp. 21–2.
167. A.  Gough, ‘The conflict in politics: Bishop Pie’s campaign against the
19th century’ in T. Zeldin, Conflicts in French society, p. 163.
168. P. d’Hollander, ‘The church in the street in 19th century France’
Proceedings of the western society for French history, 2004, pp. 172–8.
169. Javal, Transmettre la foi, p. 270; Lagrée, Religion, pp. 312–13.
170. Ibid., p. 462.
171. Quoted by Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes I, p. 162.
172. G. Cholvy, Y.-M. Hilaire, Histoire religieuse de la France contemporaine
1800–80, I Toulouse, 1986, pp. 192–6; see also Hilaire, Diocèse d’Arras,
pp. 772–7.
173. See e.g. E. Constant, Le département du Var sous le Second Empire et au
début de la 3e République, Doc. ès Lettres, Univ. de Provence-Aix, 1977,
pp.  690–2; Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans, p.  281; Lagrée, Religion,
pp.  317–18; G.  Cholvy, ‘Les missions intérieures catholiques dans les
campagnes en Europe aux 19e et 20e siècles’ in J.-P.  Massaut,
M.-E. Henneau, (eds) La christianisation des campagnes, II Rome, 1996,
pp. 568–575.
174. Boulard, Matériaux, I, p.  33; see also Y.-M.  Hilaire, ‘Table ronde’ in
G. Dubosq, B. Plongeron, D. Robert, (eds) Le religion populaire, 1979,
p. 395.
175. D.  Moulinet, ‘Pèlerinages mariaux en France aux 19e-20e siècles’ in
B.  Maes, D.  Moulinet, C.  Vincent, (eds) Jubilé et culte marial, Saint-
Etienne, 2009, pp. 338–9.
176. PG Pau, 7 Jan. 1860, AN BB30/384 re. Bagnères; also A.  Corbin,
Archaïsme et modernité en Limousin au 19e siècle I 1975, p.  691;
B. Peyrous, ‘La pratique religieuse dans le diocèse de Bordeaux au 19e
siècle’, Annales du Midi, 1975, p. 459.
177. M. Lagrée, La bénédiction de Prométhée. Religion et techniques, 19e–20e
siècles, 1999, pp. 272–283; R. Harris, Lourdes, 1999, Chaps. 7–10.
164   R. PRICE

178. B. Horaist, La dévotion au pape et les catholiques français sous le pontificat

de Pie IX (1846–78) d’après les archives de la Bibliothèque Apostolique
Vaticane, Rome, 1995, p. 31
179. See e.g. L.  Perouas, Cultes saints et anticléricalisme, 2002, pp.  24–25;
Milbach, Prêtres historiens, p. 8; Lagrée, La bénédiction, pp. 232–5.
180. Gicquel, Prêtres de Bretagne, pp. 270–1; T. Kselman, Miracles and prophe-
cies. Popular religion and the Church in 19th century France, Ph.D., Univ.
of Michigan, 1978, p. 37; Denis, Geslin, La Bretagne, p. 632.
181. See e.g. P.  Savard, ‘Des Lumières au milieu du 19e siècle’ in Dubosq,
Plongeron, Robert, La religion populaire, p. 147.
182. See e.g. S.  Kaufman, Consuming visions: mass culture and the Lourdes
shrine, 2005, pp. 7–9, 40.
183. C.  Langlois, ‘Mariophanies, mariologie: approche méthodologique’ in
J. Comby, (ed) Théologie, histoire et piété mariale, Lyon, 1997, p. 35; see
also R.  Bartlett, Why can the Dead do such Great Things?, Princeton,
2013, p. 232.
184. See e.g. G.-G. Lesart, Notre-Dame de Doute, Le culte marial en Franche-
Comté, Besançon, 2006, p. 77.
185. H. Multon, ‘Concurrence dévotionnelle ou recomposition des Croyances?
Quelques réflexions sur le culte mariale et le culte des saints dans le
catholicisme du second 19e siècle’ Società e storia, 2007, pp. 99–104.
186. See especially R. Bourgeois, Le fait de La Salette, 1846, Grenoble, 2006,
pp. 69–80; M. Lagrée, Religion et modernité, pp. 221–8.
187. B.  Delpal, Entre paroisse et commune, pp.  155–170; C.  Langlois,
‘Mariophanies et mariologies au 19e siècles’ in J. Comby, (ed) Théologie,
histoire et piété mariale, Lyon, 1997, p. 20; J. Marx, ‘La Salette dans la
théologie politique légitimiste’ in A. Dierkins, (ed) L’Intelligentsia euro-
péenne en mutation (1850–75): Darwin, le Syllabus et leurs conséquences,
Brussels, 1998, p. 133.
188. P. Boutry, ‘Marie, la grande consolatrice de la France’, L’Histoire, 1982,
pp. 31–9.
189. Report in L. Bassette, Le fait de La Salette, 1846–54, 1955, pp. 1–2.
190. Ibid., p. 7.
191. Bourgeois, Le fait, pp. 52–3.
192. M. Cabardel, desservant of Cordeac was certainly convinced—see letter
to Emperor, 13 Oct. 1852, AN F19/5813. See also E.  Marchand,
M. Tochon, La Salette dans la France de 1846, 2007, pp. 106–9.
193. Letter to Albert du Boys written 11 June 1848 and published in Ami de
la Religion, 7 April 1849, reproduced in Bassette, Le fait, pp. 161–7.
194. P.  Boutry, ‘Ars’ in Boutry, M.  Cinquin, Deux pèlerinages au 19e siècle,
1980, p. 77.
195. Document printed in Bourgeois, Le fait, pp. 107–8.
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    165

196. Ibid., pp. 234–244.

197. See also Marx, Le péché de la France, pp. 257, 280.
198. Bourgeois, Le fait, p. 108.
199. Bishop of Grenoble, 9 May 1854 and 23 March 1858, AN F19/5812.
200. Lagrée, Religion, pp. 121–2.
201. T.  Taylor, ‘So many extraordinary things to tell: letters from Lourdes
1858’, Journal of ecclesiastical history, 1995, p. 460.
202. Harris, Lourdes, p. xiv.
203. See e.g. R. Jonas, France and the cult of the Sacred Heart, 2000, pp. 65–7.
204. T. Kselman, Miracles and prophecies, p. 134.
205. R. Harris, Lourdes, Chaps. 1–5; S. Kaufman, Consuming visions. Mass cul-
ture and the Lourdes shrine, 2005, Chap. 1.
206. Kaufman, op. cit., p. 19; T. Taylor, ‘So many extraordinary things to tell’,
pp. 457f; Harris, Lourdes, pp. 169–176.
207. Letter to MJ, 1 May 1858, AN BB18/1577.
208. P. Boutry, ‘Les mutations des croyances’, p. 466.
209. PG Pau, 7 April 1859, AN BB30/384; B. Billet, ‘Lourdes et Bernadette
sous le Second Empire’ Souvenirs napoléoniens, 1991, pp. 36–9.
210. Jonas, Sacred Heart, pp. 155–7.
211. Kaufman, Consuming visions, p. 117.
212. C.  Bouneau, ‘L’organisation ferroviaire des pélerinages de Lourdes’,
Bulletin. Soc. des sciences, lettres et arts de Bayonne, 1987, pp. 261–2.
213. See T. Kselman, Miracles and prophecies and e.g. issue of 17 Feb. 1847.
214. Notes remises par S.M. l’Empereur au Ministre de l’Intérieur…sur
l’attitude du clergé, Nov. 1856, AN F19/5605.
215. See e.g. Ministre des Aff. Et. to ambassador in Rome 26 Aug. 1854, re.
memoir to Pope signed by ‘un assez grand nombre de members du clergé
de Grenoble’ presenting their reasons for not believing in apparitions at
la Salette, AN F19/5812.
216. See also H. Multon, ‘Pôle sacerdotal et pole prophétique. Une tension au
cœur de l’anticléricalisme des visionnaires du second 19e siècle’ in C. Sorrel,
(ed) L’anticléricalisme croyant, Chambéry, 2004, pp. 107, 113–16.
217. See e.g. PG Poitiers, 10 Feb. 1865, re. visions at Bressuire (Vendée), AN
BB30/385; Delpal, Entre paroisse et commune, p.  9; Lagrée, ‘Langue
céleste et langue régionale au 19e siècle’ Annales de Bretagne, 1999, p. 121.
218. E.g. Jonas, Sacred Heart, pp. 157–8.
219. Kselman, Miracles and prophecies, p. 39.
220. Quoted by Delpal, op. cit., p. 164.
221. Petition from parishioners to MC, 10 March 1857, AN F19/5768.
222. T. Taylor, ‘So many extraordinary things to tell’ p. 471; see also C. Langlois,
‘Mariophanies et mariologies au 19e siècle’ in J. Comby, (ed) Théologie,
histoire et piété mariale, pp. 20–22; S. Barnay, Les apparitions de la Vierge,
1992, pp. 113–14.
166   R. PRICE

223. See reports in AN BB18/1454; Kselman, Miracles, p.  110; Kaufman,

Consuming visions, p. 24.
224. Marx, Le péché de la France, pp. 277–281.
225. G.  Cholvy, ‘Religion populaire et intériorisation du christianisme: les
pesanteurs de l’historiographie’ in G. Duboscq, B. Plongeron, D. Robert,
(eds) La religion populaire, 1979, pp. 179f.; L. Pérouas, Culte des saints
et anticléricalisme, 2002, pp. 85–8.
226. See e.g. Vicar-general, diocese of Meaux to MC, 27 May 1862, AN
F19/5823.
227. Pétition des habitants de Grandrû, département de l’Oise…en vue
d’obtenir le remplacement du Desservant, sent to MJ et des C., 17 Oct.
1867, AN F19/5786.
228. Lagrée, Religion et culture, p. 299.
229. See e.g. Prefect Calvados to MC, re. parish of Cesny-Bois-Halbout, 16
Sept. 1865, AN F19/5783; Vicar-General diocese of Meaux to MC, 27
May 1862, AN F19/5823.
230. D. Blackbourn, Marpingen: Apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Bismarckian
Germany, Oxford, 1993, pp.  23–4; J.  Sperber, Popular Catholicism in
19th century Germany, 1984, pp. 39–58.
231. H.  Multon, ‘Un vecteur de la culture politique contre-révolutionnaire.
La décadence dans la littérature apocalyptique’ in J.-Y.  Frétigne,
F.  Jankowiak, (eds) La décadence dans la culture et la pensée politique,
2008, pp.  130–1; V.  Viaene, ‘International history, religious history,
Catholic history: perspectives for cross-fertilisation (1830–1914)’,
European history quarterly, 2008, p. 589.
232. E.g. Launay, Le diocèse de  Nantes II, pp.  551–9; Goujon, Le vigneron
citoyen, p. 43.
233. d’Hollander, La bannière, pp. 94–5.
234. E.g. Javel, Transmettre la foi, pp. 182–3; G.-G. Lesart, Notre-Dame de
Doute. Le culte mariale en Franche-Comté (au 19e et au début du 20e siè-
cle), Besançon, 2006, pp. 60–1.
235. S. Curtis, Educating the faithful, p. 93.
236. F. Rochefort, ‘Religions, genre, et politiques laïques en France, 19e–20e
siècles’, French politics, culture and society, 2007, pp. 21–2.
237. See e.g. S. Kale, Legitimism and the reconstruction of French society 1852–
83, 1992, pp. 24–7.
238. C.  Langlois, ‘Mariophanies sculpturales et modèle provençal sous le
Second Empire’, in Mélanges Michel Vovelle. Sociétés, mentalités, cultures
en France (15e–20e siècles), Aix-en-Provence, 1997, pp. 297–315.
239. B. Menager, La vie politique dans le département du Nord de 1851 à 1877,
Doc. d’Etat, Univ. de Paris IV, pp. 376–7.
240. Kselman, Miracles, pp. 33–4.
   PASTORAL CARE: THE CLERGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD    167

241. G.  Tavard, La Vierge Marie en France aux 18e et 19e siècles, 1998,
pp. 17–29.
242. M.  Denis, ‘L’épanouissement de la vie religieuse et intellectuelle’ in
Denis, Geslin, La bretagne, pp. 631–2.
243. F. Jankowiak, La curie romaine de Pie IX à Pie X. Le gouvernement cen-
tral de;‘Eglise et la fin des Etats pontificaux, 1846–1914, Rome, 2007,
pp. 326–8; see also pastoral letter from Cardinal Paulinier, Archbishop of
Besançon, quoted by Lesart, Notre-Dame de Doute, pp. 165–7.
244. ‘Lettres apostoliques de N.T.S.  Père Pie IX, Pape par la divine provi-
dence, touchant la définition dogmatique de l’Immaculée Conception de
la Vierge Mère de Dieu’ published in L’Ami de la Religion, 20 Jan. 1855,
AN F19/1931.
245. Quoted by C. Savart, ‘Cents ans après: les apparitions mariales en France
au 19e siècle’ Revue d’histoire de la spiritualité, 1972, p. 216.
246. Cholvy, Hilaire, Histoire religieuse, pp. 194–4.
247. Quoted by Savart, Les catholiques en France, p. 602.
248. Lagrée, Religion, pp. 297–8.
249. C.  Dujardin, ‘World Missions as a field of inspiration for new Vatican
strategies towards modern society (1830–1940)’ in Maeyer, Viaene,
World views and worldly vision, p. 233.
250. Quoted by P.  Boutry, ‘Industrialisation et déstructuration de la société
rurale’ in Joutard, (ed) Histoire de la France religieuse III, p. 279.
 CHAPTER 5

The Protection of Moral Order

5.1   Introduction
The fundamental message was simple. Life on Earth was only a brief pre-
lude to the eternal life of the soul. Death was the moment of passage from
one world to the next. The ultimate destination—Heaven or Hell—
depended on the outcome of a constant and apocalyptical struggle by
both individuals and mankind in general against Satan, the Anti-Christ,
who through the original sin of Adam and Eve had introduced suffering
and death into the world. The Abbé Gaume in his influential study of La
Révolution, published in 1856, insisted that the powers of evil had been
reinforced by heresy and materialism, renewed by the Protestant
Reformation, and given massive additional strength by the guarantees of
freedom of worship provided by the Revolution and the Napoleonic
Concordat.1 The mission of the clergy in this battle between God and the
Anti-Christ was to construct a rampart against sin and to secure the means
of achieving individual spiritual perfection. All those in positions of author-
ity were duty bound to work towards the (re)establishment of moral order
and the regeneration of a corrupt world through the affirmation of God’s
power on Earth. The objective was the creation of a ‘perfect society’, rig-
orously hierarchical, authoritarian, and intransigent.2 Its critics were likely
to be demonized.

© The Author(s) 2018 169

R. Price, Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67196-3_5
170   R. PRICE

5.2   The Obstacles to the Creation of a ‘Perfect

Society’
5.2.1  Heresy
In his 1853 Easter message, Mgr Gros, Bishop of Versailles, warned that
there could be no compromise, no dialogue with beliefs which threatened
the path to salvation. ‘Heresy’ posed a substantial threat. In offering ‘sim-
ply a taste of error’ it had caused ‘sufferings without number to society …
giving rise to divisions and wars, [to] the cruelties which have dishon-
oured it, the blood it has shed, the profanations with which it has soiled
itself, the sins to which it has given over the entire world’.3 Moreover, as
the Abbé Léger, Professor of Canon Law at the Nîmes seminary, recog-
nized, ‘there can be only one truth … It is impossible to … recognize for
error the same rights as for truth.’4 The liberté des cultes recognized by the
Concordat was thus perceived by most priests as at best an act of ‘pru-
dence, dictated by circumstances’ and as incompatible with the ‘essential
and absolute laws of justice and truth’.5 ‘Liberty’ and ‘toleration’ were, as
the Syllabus concluded, equivalent to ‘indifference’. The plurality of cults
posed the threat of anarchy.6
Protestantism in embodying the ‘spirit of insurrection’ had, accord-
ing to Joseph de Maistre, proved to be ‘the mortal enemy of all sover-
eignty’, and ‘the French Revolution the incontestable daughter of the
revolution of the sixteenth century’.7 In 1851, there were some 565,000
Calvinists and 270,000 Lutherans in France, mainly resident along the
southern edges of the Massif Central, in the Tarn and Tarn-et-Garonne,
in the Nîmes, Alais and Vigan areas of the Gard, in the Hérault and
parts of Alsace. Like Catholics, they were experiencing considerable
spiritual ferment. Pietistic elements were reacting against the rational-
ism of the eighteenth century and reaffirming the doctrines of the
Reformation—the Bible as God’s word revealed, and the utter sinful-
ness of man. The existence of separate confessional communities with
their own religious ‘truths’, reinforced by a particular sense of history,
and memories of past persecution had encouraged intensely competitive
religious devotion.8 Protestants were consumed by a determination to
resist the hegemonic pretensions of the Catholic clergy and to preserve
their separate identity.9 They sought security by means of rigid segrega-
tion in urban quartiers and villages with their own schools and charita-
ble and voluntary associations. The rarity of mixed marriages in these
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    171

areas suggests a high degree of success, particularly in areas in which

they were relatively numerous such as the arrondissements of Alais and
Vigan in the Gard. There, memories of persecution, most recently dur-
ing the White Terror in 1815, when churches had been pillaged and
around 80 Protestants murdered, were revived by such incidents as Mgr
Plantier’s deliberate redirection of Catholic processions through the
Protestant quarters of Nîmes.10 It was the school text books and cate-
chisms employed in communes with a Protestant majority which par-
ticularly exercised the bishop. In his view, they presented a ‘shrewdly
organized history’ designed to encourage contempt for the Catholic
Church. The Abbé Mujas, the parish priest at Clarensac had been so
disturbed that, accompanied by the village p ­ oliceman (garde-champêtre),
he had entered the village school and confiscated Protestant catechisms
and Bibles from pupils.11
All manner of incidents, minor in themselves, illustrated the spirit of the
times. In the case of mixed marriages, priests always insisted that in return
for their blessing a couple should promise to bring up their children in the
Catholic faith.12 In Lorgies (Pas-de-Calais) even the public celebration of
a marriage between two Protestants induced the furious priest to instruct
his parish clerk to remove the flowers decorating many of the houses in the
village and pass on his threat of ‘vengeances célestes’.13 At Spicheren
(Moselle), after delivering babies for 22 years without concern for the reli-
gion of their parents, Marguerite Stein was in 1859 instructed by her par-
ish priest not to deliver Protestant babies or risk being found guilty of
mortal sin and refused absolution.14
Objections were also frequently raised to the opening of Protestant
schools, churches or burial grounds.15 Mgr Baillès, Bishop of Luçon, ever
ready for battle, complained that by conducting the funeral service of a
textile manufacturer at Cugand in the Vendée, the Protestant pastor from
Nantes ‘profane le cimetière catholique par sa présence’. According to the
bishop, the refusal of the family of the deceased to accept his burial in the
small plot of ground normally reserved for unbaptised infants, suicides
and non-Catholics, would mean that ‘the corpses of heretics … of those
who were the supporters of demons’ would lie alongside ‘the precious
remains of the faithful’.16 At Saint Pierreville in the Ardèche, a mixed com-
munity, the Catholic priest having previously forbidden Catholic partici-
pation in ceremonies at the Protestant temple or cemetery, reminded
those who might have wished to pay their last respects to M.  Salhen, a
former juge de paix, that they were engaged in a ‘war to the death against
172   R. PRICE

Protestantism’.17 Such incidents, widely reported, inevitably provoked

disquiet.
The situation was further complicated in some parts of eastern France
by the practice of the Simultaneum. According to its provisions, time and
space in the parish church were divided between Catholics and Protestants,
a stipulation unwelcome to both, and which resulted in frequent disputes.
In one case, in 1843, the Bishop of Nancy, Mgr de Forbin-Janson
reminded the Protestant minister that the medieval parish church at
Viberswiller (Meurthe) had been constructed originally by Catholics and
that furthermore the sanctuary was essential to the celebration of the mass,
as well as for the perpetual display of the Holy Sacraments, while Protestants
did not believe in transubstantiation and in the Real Presence. Indeed,
from the time of Louis XIV until 1790, the Catholics had used the sanctu-
ary and the Protestants the nave. The decision of the imperial government
in 1806 that in such situations the entire church should be used by both
cults was regarded as a ‘monstreuse conception’. A new bishop, Mgr
Menjaud, would return to the issue in 1852.18
Intransigent Ultramontanism invariably reinforced tensions.19 Louis
Veuillot, together with the hyperactive Abbé Migne—writing in the peri-
odical La voix de la vérité—proved to be ardent supporters of the Œuvre
de Saint-François-de-Sales established in 1857 with Papal approval to
combat Protestantism.20 In a series of articles in L’Univers, Veuillot regret-
ted that Luther had not been burnt at the stake and sought to justify both
the Inquisition and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. He insisted
that the secular authorities had a duty to ‘reduce to silence’ those who
threatened ‘moral and religious truth’.21 In a sermon published in
L’Univers, his collaborator, the Abbé Combalot, a missionary based at
Saint-Sulpice in Paris, and already banned from preaching in several
departments because of his extreme views and aggressive language, as well
as virtually disowned by his own archbishop, similarly contested the prin-
ciple of religious tolerance. Complaining that ‘tolerance of error, of the
constitutional equality of all cults, of legal atheism, has become the corner
stone of modern governments, and the most grave crime against truth.
Faith and doubt, sacred traditions and anarchy, light and darkness, truth
and lies, are the dividing lines between Catholicism and Protestantism.
The latter represents an impious and immoral rationalism … an open
wound which brutalises souls to the point at which they envisage … every
excess of the intelligence as social and religious progress … Instead, it is
impiety and immorality which emerge from rationalism, just like a virus
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    173

from an abscess. Those who do not see that the Church can only be mili-
tant are blind!’22 In an article published on 19 September 1860  in Le
Monde—the successor to the suppressed L’Univers—Mgr Doney, Bishop
of Montauban, quite logically insisted that ‘either the Church has con-
stantly taken the wrong road, it has violated the law, it has sinned in
approving, in favouring, in claiming and in practising itself acts of what
might be called intolerance wherever it has exercised temporal power, or
it must be accepted that, in principle, intolerance is the duty of Christian
governments, as it has always professed and as it still professes’.
In general, the administration tried hard not to offend the susceptibili-
ties of the main Protestant churches, while encouraging the reinforcement
of hierarchical control over these organizations by ‘respectable’ Protestant
notables.23 Protestants were nevertheless alarmed by the regime’s close
identification with the Church in the 1850s, as well as by its efforts to
protect the Papacy in the following decade.24 Catholic officials who tended
to assume that ‘every sectarian is a soldier of Socialism’ were moreover
often reluctant to approve the establishment of new Protestant congrega-
tions.25 When an approach was made by some residents of Azay-le-Rideau
in 1853 to the Protestant pastor in Tours, it was condemned by the Prefect
of the Indre as the work of ‘a few ill-reputed individuals’. Their petition,
he claimed, included the signatures of children and others obtained by
‘menaces et injures’, together with the promise that the commune’s com-
mon land would be distributed among the Protestants. Judging that the
introduction of a ‘culte dissident’ into the commune—and the language is
instructive—would not represent ‘a sincere conversion, but would be the
outcome of maneuvers as offensive for religion, for morality, and for
authority, as compromising for order, public tranquility and the peace of
families’, he requested assistance from the judicial authorities in prevent-
ing the spread of Protestantism.26 A request from the Protestant consis-
tory at Nantes for the establishment of a church at Murs was similarly
rejected, the following year, on the advice of the Prefect of Maine-et-­
Loire, because, initiated by a group of around 15 known ‘subversives’,
‘people who, unfortunately, have no religious faith of any kind’, he
assumed it was simply ‘a pretext to have a meeting place from which poli-
tics will not be excluded’.27 At the same time, the authorities in the Var
condemned proposals by the Marseille consistory to establish a church in
overwhelmingly Catholic Hyères, a little town which had experienced
considerable political agitation during the Second Republic. Although
intended to provide a place of worship for foreign visitors who spent
174   R. PRICE

summer in the area, the activities of two English residents who had distrib-
uted Protestant pamphlets and bibles, and thus sought to encourage
‘apostasy’, had aroused the concern of the Bishop of Fréjus, while the
involvement of known ‘socialists’ worried the civil authorities.28
Protestant evangelization was likely to awaken a storm of protest.29 On
the Ile-d’Oleron, immediately after the coup d’état, the police commissaire
had insisted that the mayor of Saint Pierre, supported by other Protestant
employers, favoured the ‘instincts anti-religieux’ of the small Protestant
community, and represented ‘an immense danger to the religious inter-
ests’ of the 4700 Catholics on the island. The seizure in the post of bro-
chures intended, it was assumed, for distribution to Catholics was taken to
be proof of subversive intent. These included two tracts by the Protestant
evangelist Napoleon Roussel, one on Les reliques juives et payennes de
l’archévêque de Paris, published by Delay in Paris, which appeared to claim
that the Catholic faith was an invention of Satan; the other entitled Les
papes peints par eux-mêmes presented the popes as ‘proud, idolatrous,
ambitious criminals’.30
The activities of Protestant missionaries, like those of the London Bible
Society, were especially resented.31 In the early 1850s, Baptist missionaries
in Picardy were accused of sowing division within families and threatening
paternal authority by seeking to influence women.32 In the Summer of
1854, following visits by missionaries from the Société évangélique de
Genève, around 500 Protestants were prosecuted for holding unauthor-
ized meetings in the communes of Montpont, Branges and Sornay (Saône-­
et-­Loire). According to the procureur général at Grenoble, ‘the new cult
involves nothing less than the interpretation of the word of God according
to the free reason of each individual’. He was concerned that ‘if such an
approach can, without too much inconvenience, be accepted from intelli-
gent and informed men, one is less able to understand how it might be
suitable for poor and simple peasants’. It seemed ‘hardly permissible to
hope that uncultured spirits will be able to furnish a reasonable explana-
tion of the divine texts’, particularly as ‘those recruited are the habitués of
the cabaret who have distanced themselves from the Church and its les-
sons …’ He concluded that ‘political self-interest, the protection that the
government owes to those classes, so easily led astray, demands that the
countryside is not abandoned to all the recklessness of religious novel-
ties’.33 It was subsequently claimed that evangelical sects like the
Methodists, the Plymouth Brethren, and Momists, active in the Die and
Montélimar areas of the Drôme in 1858, were recruiting former socialists,
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    175

and their meetings were also banned.34 An overwhelmingly Catholic mag-

istrature remained largely unsympathetic towards Protestants, and some of
its members were undoubtedly susceptible to the influence of popular
Catholic theologians like the Abbé François Martin, who challenged the
validity of Protestant beliefs and insisted that their influence was entirely
destructive, serving only to encourage materialism and revolt. He warned
that ‘Protestantism has allied itself to revolution: either Catholicism tri-
umphs or society will perish’.35
In spite of official tolerance, together with the provision of stipends for
rabbis and subsidies for synagogues, the Jewish community represented
another form of heresy for many Catholics. By 1870, there were around
95,000 Jews in France, with individuals torn between a desire to assimilate
and a determination to preserve their religious and cultural traditions, as
well as divided between the adherents of religious liberalism and ortho-
doxy.36 The largest communities were to be found in Paris and the depart-
ment of the Seine (23,000), in the south in the former papal enclaves in
the Comtat-Venaissin, and in the two Alsatian departments of Bas-Rhin
(21,300) and Haut-Rhin (14,500), in which they made up 3.68% and
2.75% of the population respectively, compared with 0.23% nationally.37
The clergy, in France as elsewhere, played an absolutely crucial role in
stimulating an anti-semitism based on the repetition and reinterpretation
of the centuries-old themes, images and language, the ‘habits of thought’,
which identified Jews as the murderers of Christ and as a race guilty of
‘déicide’.38 As part of the post-Napoleonic restoration, Pius VII had
reversed the emancipation of Jews in the Papal States and forced them to
return to their ghettos. Subsequently, in responding to a request in 1843
from the Austrian Chancellor Metternich for greater tolerance, Gregory
XVI denied that the Jews of Ancona had a right to purchase property out-
side the ghetto within which they were confined, insisting that ‘the Jews
are forbidden such ownership … as a Nation of deicides and blasphemers
of Christ, and sworn enemies of the Christian name’. The Pope was also
determined that in Rome itself the Jews should continue to attend the
traditional annual sermon devoted to encouraging their conversion. Priests
were furthermore instructed to prevent their parishioners from having
social contact with Jews.39 Following some slight easing of restrictions on
Jewish residence, Pius IX displayed similar hostility, associating Jews with
freemasons, socialists and revolutionaries. He would bitterly regret the
emancipation in 1848 of those he described as a ‘harsh and disloyal
people’.40
176   R. PRICE

In Alsace and Lorraine, where the majority of French Jews still lived,
the 1848 Revolution had been followed by an explosion of anti-semitic
violence blamed by the authorities on resentment arising from the involve-
ment of local Jews in the cattle trade and money-lending, as well as on
religious hostility.41 Both Catholics and Socialists condemned the ‘finan-
cial tyranny’ supposedly exercised by Jews, while the former remained
overwhelmingly hostile to the ‘murderers of Christ’.42 At its most serious,
in Marmoutier on 28 February, around 30 Jewish houses had been invaded
by a mob, their contents smashed and their inhabitants threatened with
hanging. The state prosecutor at Colmar explained that, ‘if it is true that
some Jews deserve this hatred, one might add that intolerance can be
found in the very make-up of the inhabitants; it is the fruit of this classic
land of prejudice. Every question here, for most of the inhabitants is a
question of religion.’ It would take the deployment of troops to entirely
restore order in the region.43
Popular anti-semitism was widespread, frequently taking the form of
the vague, unreflecting antipathy evident in the sort of discourse in which
the parish priest at Cornimont (Vosges) condemned manufacturers who
imposed Sunday labour on their workers, for behaving like ‘greedy Jews’.44
The parish priest of Oberschaeffolsheim (Haut-Rhin) was in March 1863
reported by the local juge-de-paix to have warned his congregation—
‘above all do not go into cabarets held by Jews, for you know that they are
the enemies of Christians, that they crucified Our Lord and that they only
live by deceit and laziness’.45 Although the regime insisted on the equality
of all its citizens, officials were themselves frequently guilty of sharing the
prejudices of those they administered, habitually condemning what they
perceived to be the ‘spirit of intrigue and rapacity’ of the Jewish popula-
tion.46 In spite of the fact that Christians were equally likely to engage in
money-lending at rates above the official maximum, and the denunciation
of ‘usury’ by the Jewish consistory, the state prosecutor at Colmar,
Pouillaude de Carnières in 1853 still launched an enquiry specifically into
‘l’usure juive’ and accused ‘rootless’ Jews of reducing local peasants to a
state of demoralization similar to that of the ‘paysan irlandais’.47 Little
was done to prevent the publication and preaching of anti-semitic dia-
tribes by the Catholic clergy. When in 1859 and 1860 a vicious pamphlet
campaign was launched against the government and the local Jewish com-
munity by a group of priests alarmed by threats to the Pope’s temporal
power, the state prosecutor failed to suppress them because he was aware
that the bishop had himself corrected the proofs.48
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    177

Anti-semitism remained a central feature of the Catholic vision of the

universe. The essential links between simple prejudice and a more ideo-
logical anti-semitism were in large part provided by the sermons of par-
ish priests, together with the numerous diocesan catechisms and
religious manuals written to instruct both children and adults. Thus, the
manual for religious instruction employed in the Paris diocese between
1852 and 1903, and which influenced those of other dioceses, explained
the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel in the following terms:
‘Jerusalem perished without hope, the temple was consumed by fire, the
Jews perished by the sword. They suffered the consequences of their
cries against the Saviour: His blood be on us and on our children: The
vengeance of God pursues them, and everywhere they are captives and
vagabonds.’ According to the 1860 Catéchisme du diocèse de Moulins,
the response to the question: ‘Who caused the death of Our Saviour?’
was ‘The Jews, our sins, and the love which Our Lord bears for us.’ If
the Jews alone were not responsible, they were certainly regarded as the
active agents of deicide.49 A widely distributed prayer, intended for chil-
dren preparing for their first communion, and published by Pillet in the
Rue des Grands Augustins in Paris, called on the faithful to pray for
‘Jesus crucified between two thieves, soaked with venom and vinegar,
blasphemed by the Jews, and dying so as to restore your glory and to
save the world’.50
It was frequently claimed that the negative qualities associated with the
Jews were the result of their rejection of Christ. According to the Abbé
Rigaud, writing in 1866, the Jew’s ‘mission’ was ‘to bear throughout his
life punishment for deicide’.51 Only acceptance of the Saviour might bring
freedom from persecution and from eternal damnation. This was certainly
the view of the Comtesse de Ségur, the best-selling author of moralizing
children’s books. Her Bible d’une Grand-Mère (Hachette 1869) included
the following dialogue:

Grand’mère: Every time we sin, we are accomplices in his Passion.

Madeleine: But it’s frightening to think, Grand’Mere, that we are
monsters like the Jews.
Grand’mère: We are monsters like them if we commit mortal sins …’.

Such stereotypes were reinforced by the religious and conservative

press, in satirical journals and in the best-selling novels of authors as
diverse as Balzac and Eugene Sue, as well as in the socialist Proudhon’s
178   R. PRICE

condemnation of Jews as parasitic and inassimilable.52 When Mathieu

Dairnvael, an obscure pamphleteer, published an Histoire édifiante et
curieuse de Rothschild Ier, roi des juifs, par Satan in 1846, purporting to
provide evidence of the threat posed by this greedy, manipulative, cos-
mopolitan ‘Prince of Darkness’, over 60,000 copies were sold and the
work was reprinted 20 times.53
The determination of zealous Catholic priests and laymen to work for
the conversion of Jews in an attempt to save their souls54 was again revealed
by the Mortara affair in 1858. Then, following the baptism—in Bologna,
part of the Papal states—by a Christian servant, of a Jewish infant she
believed to be dying, the Sacred Congregation determined that the child
(by then aged 7) who had been admitted by his baptism to the Christian
faith, must be taken from his parents and brought up in that faith.
According to the Jesuit newspaper, and Papal mouthpiece, Civiltà cattol-
ica—in an article rapidly translated into French—the Church was obliged
to take action by ‘a law superior to all human law’. Moreover, the child’s
parents, required to conform to the laws of the Christian state in which
they lived, had, as Jews, behaved illegally by employing a Christian ser-
vant.55 According to the French ambassador, the Duc de Gramont, the
Pope’s decision was inspired by ‘His deep religion’, combined with ‘a
streak of mysticism that seems to have increased with time. In the silence
of his chapel, alone in the presence of God and the lights of his conscience,
the Holy Pontiff makes his decisions on the basis of what he takes to be
divine inspiration.’56
Criticized both by liberal Catholics and the French government, the
Pope’s assertion of what he saw as a major issue of principle, was vigor-
ously defended. Preaching in Nice, the Jesuit Abbé Lachaud, affirmed
that ‘the finest title of the Pope to the recognition of the world is the
baptism of young Mortara’.57 Louis Veuillot—that ‘valiant soldier of
Jesus Christ and of his Church’, as the Bishop of Laval described him58—
in a series of articles approved by Rome, and warmly received by the
clergy in France, led a counter-attack against what he referred to as ‘la
presse juive’. Influenced by his illustrious predecessors Bonald and
Lamennais, and echoing the influential Fourierist Toussenel’s attack on
‘financial feudalism’ in Les juifs rois de l’époque (1845), he evoked the
notion of a Jewish plot—‘The Synagogue is strong. It teaches in the
universities, it has newspapers, it has banks … it is incredulous, it hates
the Church; its adepts and its agents are numerous’ and able to influence
governments.59 While accepting that the Jews—although guilty of deicide
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    179

and of the ritual murder of Christian children—might eventually accept

conversion, Veuillot admitted in an editorial on 20 November 1858
that, ‘I do not believe that we can do any good with these people;
whether by multiplying the privileges of their detestable industry, or by
lavishing political favours which encourage their natural insolence. There
is in the Christian blood against the Jew an animosity which is not unjus-
tifiable, and which these methods will not extinguish. Only Christian
charity might be successful; but the Jews excel in discouraging charity.’
Veuillot did much to poison public life during the Second Empire,60 and
would exercise a direct influence on the virulent turn-of-century anti-
semitism of Edouard Drumont, whose two massive tomes on La France
juive would run into 127 editions in the two years following their initial
publication in 1886–87, as well as on that of the Assumptionist order’s
newspaper La Croix. Instructed by the Interior Minister Delangle to
desist, he continued to express his virulent anti-­ semitism in articles
defining usury as ‘a form of holy war’ conducted by the Jews, and prov-
ing their ‘hatred of Christians, contempt for Christians, [and] determi-
nation to dominate and to annihilate Christians’.61
In a circular to prefects in December 1861, the Ministre des Cultes,
Rouland, expressed particular concern about the ‘excesses’ of those reli-
gious orders which he believed had sought to persuade Jewish minors to
adopt the Catholic faith and to enter religious communities. In order to
protect the rights of parents, the full force of the law should be deployed
against such practices.62 In large part, this was a response to the efforts of
the Abbé Ratisbonne, with all the enthusiasm of a convert, and of the
adherents of the Congrégation des Pères de Sion, of which he was the
director, to secure conversions from Judaism. During the 1850s, a net-
work of priests, including most notably the Archbishop of Cambrai, the
Pères rédemptoristes de Douai, those of the Missions apostoliques at
Cambrai, together with the sisters of the convent of Notre-Dame de Sion
and the Dames Bernardines in Paris, had exerted constant pressure on the
parents and eight children of the Bluth family, some of whom were per-
suaded to leave their home and were hidden by priests. According to med-
ical experts, the result was bitter division within the family, and the extreme
‘monomanie religieuse’ which had led to the commitment of two young
girls, Siona and Sophie, to asylums. Although Delangle, now Justice
Minister, would have preferred to avoid prosecuting the priests involved
for ‘détournement de mineurs’ in case this further inflamed religious pas-
sions, an example was made of the Abbé Mallet who was sentenced to six
180   R. PRICE

years imprisonment by the Nord assizes.63 In 1863, the Pope would make
clear his personal approval of the work of the Congrégation.64
On such a foundation of prejudice, it would be relatively easy to erect
an even more hateful structure of racial anti-semitism to which many
senior clergymen and Catholic laymen would contribute. Thus, respond-
ing in 1865 to critics of the Syllabus of Errors, the Bishop of Rodez, Mgr
Delalle, explained that Jews, not only ‘do not believe in the Church, but
all their efforts are devoted to annihilating it, and this dark plot, hatched
in the masonic lodges, explains the furious energy with which they launch
their attacks against the Supreme Pontiff. In striking the pastor, they hope
to disperse the flock.’65 The supposedly unchanging and unchangeable
‘Juif eternel’, even when transformed from an impoverished and unculti-
vated cattle dealer into a well-educated businessman or professional,
remained outside the Christian community.66 Economic modernization
and many other trends in modern society were indeed regarded by many
priests and laymen, as inimical to Catholicism and frequently associated,
within the bounds of an increasingly vicious anti-semitic discourse, with
‘Jewish finance’.67 When the government presented the financier Isaac
Pereire as its candidate for the Limoux constituency of the Aude in 1869,
the scandalized diocesan vicar-general, on behalf of the bishop, informed
parish priests that ‘Monseigneur does not doubt the profound repulsion
of his clergy for the candidature of the Jew whose election would be
shameful for the arrondissement of Limoux.’68
In the second edition of his book, De l’Antéchrist (1868), the Abbé
Rougeyron, parish priest at Menat (Puy-de-Dôme) and an honorary canon
of Clermont cathedral, combined an attack on the manipulation of politics
by international Jewish high finance with a more traditional representation
of the Jews as instruments of the Anti-Christ.69 In similar terms the
Legitimist noble Roger Gougenot des Mousseaux in his Le Juif, le Judaïsme
et la judaïsation des peuples chrétiens (1869) warned that unchecked liber-
alism and modernization could lead only to the destruction of Christianity
and the judaization of the world. He attacked ‘the strangest myopia’
which resulted in a failure to ‘recognize in the Jew the … chief engineer of
revolutions’. While calling for tolerant attitudes towards ‘honest and
pacific Jews’, Gougenot insisted, in chilling terms, that the vital duty of
the ‘soldiers of Christ’ was to resist those ‘whose beliefs and morals are
one of the curses of civilization … Our necessary violence will be that
which humanity demands of a surgeon who, in the unique interest of
achieving a cure, applies his forceps to the living flesh.’70
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    181

5.2.2  ‘Materialism’
The danger represented by heresy was compounded by the associated
menace of ‘materialism’ and vice in all its forms. The social enquiries con-
ducted in the 1840s by leading Catholic intellectuals like Villeneuve-­
Bargemont, Villermé, and Le Play, graphically described the intimacy of
life in over-crowded and squalid slums and posed questions, which, in
both reflecting and reinforcing conservative social discourse, seemed to
reveal that accelerating industrialization and urbanization represented a
growing threat to the integrity of family life and to the effective transmis-
sion of Christian moral values.71 The situation appeared sufficiently dan-
gerous for Mgr Cousseau, Bishop of Angoulême, to warn the government
in 1856 about the development of ‘an ardent aspiration towards a new
revolution, more radical than all its predecessors’, among a population
which ‘lives without religion, without moral instruction, without belief in
an after-life, without belief in anything other than money and pleasure’,
about workers without any sense of conscience, full of hatred for property
owners, and for the state which protected the rich.72
Social fear was heightened by the publicity given to the apparently inex-
orable growth of crime.73 Within this discourse, Paris, the new ‘Babylon’,
frequently served as the symbol of the growing danger. Louis Veuillot’s
books would contrast the Parfum de Rome (1862) with the Odeurs de
Paris (1867)—the one representing the perfect society, the other igno-
rance and vice. The city’s archbishop, Mgr Affre, had previously warned
that ‘Paris, as overcrowded as it already is, exercises a power of attraction
which threatens to increase …, to the great detriment of Christian habits
…’.74 The threat of wider contamination also seemed very real. In 1843,
defending the clergy against the claim made by the administrators of the
Hospices de Paris that foundlings fostered in the Pas-de-Calais were not
receiving sufficient religious instruction, the parish priest at Vendin-le-­
Vieil described these children from the Parisian orphanages as ‘fruits de
libertinage’, who had inherited from their parents ‘a brutalized intelli-
gence’ and ‘vicious and very precocious inclinations’. They were beyond
redemption.75
The Abbé Gaume characteristically castigated both the ‘egoism’ of
the rich and the materialism and indiscipline of the poor.76 Materialism
and the monetization of relationships, together with the individualism
signified by the spread of contraception, were all symptoms of spreading
evil.77 In a report to Pope Gregory XVI, the Archbishop of Toulouse,
182   R. PRICE

Mgr Astros, complained that ‘a large number of shops are open during
the days consecrated to the Saviour; numerous carts travel along the
roads; and the population devotes itself to agricultural work. The lure of
profit prevails over the laws of conscience’.78 The threat of social dissolu-
tion had been intensified by more rapid transport and widening literacy,
in short, by a communications revolution which threatened established
hierarchies. Even in those parts of the west where ‘the rural populations
have been devoted to the … clergy for centuries … the times have
changed, communications have become easier; less ignorant, the popula-
tions are becoming less docile’.79 The new technologies also provided
the means for a dangerous political centralization. According to the
Revue du monde catholique in 1869, they threatened universal revolution
and the creation of a new tyranny, as well as war and slaughter on a previ-
ously unimagined scale.80
Catholics were nevertheless divided over the wonders of modern tech-
nology. Pope Gregory XVI had denounced railways—‘chemins d’enfer’—
as a means of spreading sedition. Mgr Berteaud, the long-serving Bishop
of Tulle, blessing the opening of a new railway line at Brives (Corrèze) in
1861, similarly described them as ‘instruments de démoralisation’ because
of the speed with which they transported people and ideas.81 The more
extreme Ultramontanes were particularly likely to remain technophobes.
Veuillot complained indignantly that ‘the railway is the insolent expression
of contempt for humanity. Nothing represents democracy better. I am no
longer a person, I am an object; I no longer travel, I am despatched’
(L’Univers, 23 April 1869). Pius IX, however, so ‘intransigent’ in many
respects, almost immediately after his accession appointed a commission
to plan rail construction in the Papal States. The ability of rail, together
with the electric telegraph, to link Rome to the Catholic world, would
increasingly be appreciated. Mgr Plantier, Bishop of Nîmes, in his Easter
message for 1860, described these developments as evidence of Man’s
growing ability to make use of the resources provided by God, the
Creator,82 a theme taken up by the Abbé Corbière, in L’Ami de Religion
in June 1860, in welcoming the improvements in living conditions
brought about by new technologies for the production of foodstuffs, and
cheap and warm clothing.
At one and the same time, individual priests might welcome innovation
while condemning the excesses of speculation and exploitation with which
it was associated.83 In his Lenten message for 1869, Mgr Jacquement,
Bishop of Nantes, reminded the faithful that bishops frequently blessed
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    183

the railway engines and stations, the mines and factories, which they
judged to be evidence of God’s blessing, before going on to condemn ‘the
pride of science which does not wish to submit to God and which will
push us into insane dreams, the necessary consequence of which will be to
turn society upside down’.84 Speaking at Sainte-Anne d’Auray in Brittany
in September 1868, the illustrious Parisian preacher, the Abbé Freppel,
warned his congregation that ‘this epoch is critical … a new situation is
being prepared for you: the development of business, characteristic of our
times, envelops you from every direction; outside influences penetrate in
spite of your efforts; a more rapid exchange of ideas, easier communica-
tions, multiply your relations with men and things from elsewhere; the
railway lines criss-cross your countryside, bringing with them evil as well
as good, error no less than truth’.85
In spite of the ban imposed by a law of 18 November 1814 (abrogated
12 July 1880), numerous complaints were made in pastoral letters and
sermons about the growing prevalence of work on Sundays and feast days
and its impact on church attendance. High levels of demand for manufac-
tured goods, as well as continuous production processes and numerous
exemptions, clearly made the legislation difficult to enforce.86 The Abbé
Gaume forcefully rejected the exploitative excesses of an economic
­liberalism which reduced man to ‘a machine and a beast of labour. Machine
to plough the land, machine to manufacture cloth, but always machine.’
The result he feared was alienation, degradation, crime and revolt.87 In the
aftermath of 1848, the work of moral regeneration appeared all the more
urgent. On 15 December 1851, Morny, as Interior Minister, instructed
prefects to ensure respect for the Sabbath as a means of reinforcing the
authority of religion, but with little effect. While encouraging church
attendance by its own officials, the government was not prepared to
impose a legal obligation.88 Although some significant successes were
recorded, affecting, for example, workers at the Gouin et Lavallé engi-
neering works at Clichy, and the maintenance and office workers of the
Paris-Orleans railway company, most such initiatives were short-lived. The
same was true of the efforts of the Œuvre du repos des dimanches et fêtes,
established by Albert d’Olivier and the Abbé Sibour in 1853 in the aristo-
cratic parish of Saint-Germain in Paris, which sought to encourage the
wealthy to think of the religious needs of their servants, as well as to per-
suade shopkeepers and artisans to make Sunday a day of rest.89
Businessmen, unsurprisingly, resented criticism. The Abbé Dillier, par-
ish priest at Ascq, was even threatened with legal proceedings by the
184   R. PRICE

Société Bacq-Lefebvre after he had accused the company of violating

divine and human law in preventing the young from preparing for their
first communion by requiring that they work on Sundays, and calling on
workers to resist this ‘insulte à la Religion’ and to ‘obey God’s law’.90
Similarly, and while recognizing that religious instruction was the ‘indis-
pensable’ means of achieving ‘good order’ and ‘respect for property’, the
owners of the water-powered cotton mills in the valleys of the Vosges
around Remiremont claimed to be committed by their technology to a
continuous industrial process and pointed out that the support given to
the priest’s complaints by local councillors was the result of rivalry over
water rights between industrialists and farmers. They rejected criticism by
the Abbé Martin of their insistence on night and Sunday work and were
‘outraged’ when the priest was reported to have told a catechism class in
November 1854 that the manufacturers ‘drive you on like slaves and when
you have made their fortune, laugh at you’, and in a sermon on 31
December, compared them with Protestants and Jews.91
The situation in the countryside also seemed to the clergy to be dete-
riorating rapidly. In a pastoral letter published in January 1855, Mgr
Regnault, the recently appointed Bishop of Chartres, observed that, on
the rich wheat-growing plains of the Beauce in the Paris basin, ‘the farmer
who has prospered and purchased some land, seems to say to God: All this
is due to me; it is my hands which have achieved this, and not the Lord’s;
it is through my hard work that I have been able to prosper. Growing used
to seeing the sun rise and set and the earth carry its fruits, he has said in
his heart, just like the unbeliever: there is no God.’92 The sous-préfet at
Pithiviers appeared to confirm the bishop’s view of his diocese, observing
that ‘the rural population, carried away by the immoderate desire to
increase their wealth, never suspend their work, even on Sunday during
church services, with the result that usually, particularly in the Beauce, the
churches are deserted’.93 The rural population had always felt bound to
labour during such demanding periods as harvest but the practice was
clearly becoming more common. According to the priest at Patay (Loiret),
even when they did attend services, his parishioners were quickly bored.
All peasants wished to hear, he claimed, was a sermon instructing their
children to obey their parents and warning agricultural labourers not to
steal from their masters, along with the prayers for a good harvest.94
Frequently, reports from vine-cultivating areas reiterated these concerns.
Time spent in church might be seen as time wasted.95 It was this growing
indifference rather than outright hostility that concerned many parish
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    185

priests. The famous parish priest of Ars warned that ‘You work, you work,
but what you gain ruins your soul and body. When I see someone who is
transporting goods on Sunday, I think they are carrying their soul to
hell.’96 Those who were unwilling to fulfil their religious obligations were
deprived of the religious and moral instruction on which they should base
their faith.
A further threat was posed by the rapidly increasing numbers of cafés in
both town and country.97 Only those forms of sociability directly super-
vised by the clergy were likely to meet with their approval.98 The cabaret
was widely seen as a place of perdition, the locus of alcoholism, debauch-
ery, and blasphemy against God, a danger to religion and morality, to
authority, family life and physical health.99 These were the ‘counter-­
institutions’ perceived to represent challenges to the moral leadership of
the Church in virtually every community.100 The response to the 1848
Enquête from Levet in the diocese of Bourges in fact claimed that the most
religious areas were those ‘distant from roads and centres of population’,
from ‘cabarets, cafés, inns’,101 while the Abbé Debeney, priest of Saint-­
Denis-­le-Chosson (Ain), observed that ‘the four cafés which surround the
church, and the railway, have reinforced the irreligious spirit which is
dominant amongst the men and young people’.102 Events at La Bastide
des Jourdans in the Vaucluse in March 1863, insignificant in themselves,
were revealing. There, a visiting missionary, a certain Abbé Ange,
attempted to persuade the denizens of a café to join a procession making
its way to the cemetery to pray for the dead. One of the drinkers was
reported to have responded: ‘Father, we are not men …We are young
unmarried people’, assuming presumably that they were simply behaving
in the normal fashion of their age cohort. The mayor, entering the café to
warm himself, pointed out that everyone, ‘even savages’, prayed for the
dead. At this moment the priest, angry that the young men had not
­followed him re-entered the premises and furiously commanded everyone
to kneel—‘do you not hear the Libera? It is for you that it is being chanted.
Anathema on you! Anathema on the café! Anathema on the proprietor of
the establishment! You will all die—the proprietor in six months.’
‘Stupified’ and ‘trembling’, according to the mayor, the young men finally
joined the procession. The good abbé subsequently repeated his condem-
nation in a sermon, demanding an apology from the café owner who, in
his own defence, insisted that he had at least ensured that his clients
stopped playing games and remained silent as the procession passed.
Afterwards the mayor found the café proprietor and his family distraught
186   R. PRICE

and in tears. He comforted them by pointing out that at least the

Inquisition no longer ruled.103
The parish priest had a fundamental role to play in the police des mœurs,
in offering moral guidance, encouraging communal self-regulation,
imposing some civility, and restraint on disputes within and between fami-
lies.104 In isolated and under-policed communities and through the asso-
ciation of crime with sin, he assisted in the gradual reinforcement of the
authority of the State and its justice. Considerable efforts were made
through sermons and the confessional to identify the potential dangers.
Warnings against vanity, the desire for pleasure, and for the liberty that
turned easily into licence, were constantly addressed ‘aux femmes sur-
tout’.105 The temptation of Eve, and the weakness of women in general,
needed to be constantly borne in mind. The Pope himself, in a letter to
the faithful read from every pulpit, complained that women even ‘in going
to church bedeck themselves as if they were going to the theatre’, and seek
to ‘attract the attention of others by the vanity of fashion and by their
bizarre clothing’. There was an urgent need to remind the weaker sex that
their inordinate ‘desire to please men represents hatred of God’. They
were enjoined to remember Saint Paul’s command that women should
‘attend church with their head modestly veiled, out of respect for the real
presence of God and the angels which adore Him, and in order to avoid
the danger of profaning … the sanctity of the temple’.106 The pious daugh-
ter of the mayor of Neau (Mayenne) was refused communion and publicly
humiliated because she was dressed in a crinoline, which her parish priest
claimed distracted worshippers and took up too much space, as well as
symbolizing the penetration of the countryside by ‘le luxe des villes’.107
The constant attack on dancing, a vital feature of rural courtship prac-
tices and traditionally part of many parish festivals, revealed an obsessive
anxiety concerning the ‘fréquentation des sexes’, as did criticism of partici-
pation in such communal gatherings as the veillée.108 The Bishop of Tarbes,
Mgr Laurence, threatened to excommunicate all those ‘indulging in the
pleasures of the dance’ and campaigned incessantly against the low neck-
lines on women’s dresses.109 The popularity of new and more intimate
dances like the waltz intensified these concerns. Thus, when Mme Horn,
the wife of a blacksmith sought to take communion at Saint-Jean-Brouviller
in November 1849, the officiating priest, the Abbé Hoëffel, turned her
away with the words: ‘you [tu] will not receive communion, you have
been dancing, go back to the dance’. On this occasion the priest was
admonished by the Bishop of Nancy and even required to make a public
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    187

apology.110 Misogyny, and an often obsessive fear of sexuality, clearly char-

acterized the attitudes of priests like the Abbé Galbin, a missionary present
in the parish of La Guierche (Sarthe), who condemned those women who
wore silk dresses and, it was claimed, he verbally abused young girls mak-
ing their confessions, addressing them as ‘de salop et de cochon’.111 In 1860,
the parish priest at Bilhères in the Ossau valley went so far as to claim in a
sermon that there was not a single ‘pure’ girl or faithful wife in the com-
mune.112 In terms which were undoubtedly too graphic for his congrega-
tion at Tilly (Meuse), the priest was said to have claimed that at the local
dance-hall ‘the boys take the girls, like horse dealers their animals, and the
girls look for the boys like cows searching for their calves, … they behave
like prostitutes, lacking only a licence, and marry like dogs on a manure
heap …’. Marriages in the parish were described as ‘marriages between
pigs, … couplings between dogs, between filthy animals …’.113
For the young men and especially women denounced from the pulpit,
and sometimes obliged to kneel in front of the altar to beg God’s forgive-
ness, the experience can only have been mortifying and the effect on their
reputations permanently damaging. Dismissal from parish associations—
whose rules often forbade attendance at balls—and from church choirs—
that is, public shaming—were alternative means of persuading girls to
avoid temptation.114 God-parents might also be rejected, as morally
unsuitable, because they were known to have attended dances or else
played musical instruments at such events.115 Priests might even take
offence at the dancing which traditionally accompanied wedding feasts. A
family celebration on Christmas Day 1847 was denounced by the priest at
Chérisy (Pas-de-Calais) as revealing a scandalous lack of respect for a holy
day. Following a fire on his farm, the offending party was warned in the
New Year’s Day sermon in 1849 that this represented Divine punishment
and that only through prayer might he avoid future disasters.116
The habit among the young of ‘danser les rondes’ in the village streets
on sunny summer evenings might also be condemned. The attempts of
the parish priest at Beaucens (Hautes-Pyrénées) to prevent the young
from engaging in a traditional Pyrenean dance, ‘vulgairement appellée La
Balade’, were certainly resented,117 while in the nearby town of Argelès,
the Abbé Lauga was condemned by the municipal council for exercising a
‘moral police’ and refusing communion to those—particularly women—
he believed to have ‘fallen into the horrible sin of participating in dances’,
even during official receptions at the prefecture.118 At Crançot in the Jura
the parish priest caused considerable offence when he responded to the
188   R. PRICE

village schoolmistress’ efforts to teach her class a traditional dance by

rushing in a fury into the group and striking children with his umbrella in
order to disperse them. He accused the teacher of encouraging ‘debauch-
ery’.119 At the other end of the country, the mayor of Lorgies (Pas-de-
Calais) complained about a priest who in June 1864, had condemned a
‘cock fight, joyously celebrated’, and then the following month had criti-
cized from the pulpit a dance held in the barn of a local farm. He had
reminded his congregation that his advice on the employment of the
young was frequently requested and warned them that ‘for our response
to be favourable, it is essential that you lead a Christian life’.120
The priest at Bouillancourt (Somme) even expressed his concern about
a procession in honour of Sainte Colette in which the young girls dressed
in white who accompanied the holy relics, danced as they processed,
injecting, he felt, a secular element into a religious event. The mayor, sup-
ported by the prefect, described the practice as traditional and inoffensive,
and maintained that the priest was completely fixated on the morality of
the young.121 Indeed, priestly concern about illicit sexual relations could
become an obsession, with the practice of contraception seen as a sure sign
of moral depravity. A mental revolution had undoubtedly occurred during
the revolutionary decades, powered by a determination to reduce the bur-
den of children on family resources, as well as to limit sub-division of
inherited property.122 In his response to the 1866 agricultural enquiry, a
priest from the Yonne complained that the theories of Malthus had led the
population to ‘the most degrading sensualism, to passions, [which] turn-
ing them away from divine life, render them sensible to dangerous
enthusiasms’.123
Carnival, with its traditional involvement of ‘des individus travestis’ or
wearing masks, and a habit of parodying religious ceremonies, must have
represented a nightmare for many priests.124 Any occasion for merriment
might become suspect, however. The national celebration of the fête de
l’Empereur on 15 August was generally accompanied by dancing and fire-
works and, coinciding with the Feast of the Assumption, threatened to
overshadow and contaminate the religious celebration.125 Even the festivi-
ties associated with the birth of the Prince Impérial, or with military vic-
tories, were likely to be regarded with suspicion.126 High society was not
exempt from criticism. At Lorient, the charity balls so favoured by the
wealthy were condemned in an Easter sermon by Père Godichaux, a visit-
ing Jesuit preacher, who warned that ‘you dance for the poor, but take
care that one day the poor do not make you dance’.127 Public scandal was
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    189

caused in March 1866 when M.  Fresnel, vicaire in the parish of Saint
Sauveur in Rennes, criticized Mme Uhrich, wife of the military com-
mander, because of the décolleté ball gown she had worn at an official
reception.128 Concerned that the Empress was portrayed in an engraving
of the imperial family in a dress cut so low as to provoke ‘des idées impures’,
the parish priest at Saint-Joseph-de Rivière in the Isère actually ‘confis-
cated’ the image,129 while the curé of Saint Aspais in Melun refused to
bless the new fountain in the Place Saint Jean because the statues sur-
rounding it were, in his judgement, insufficiently clothed.130
Popular among all classes, the theatre was another manifestation of
danger. According to Veuillot, ‘the theatre … applies itself, even more
than the press, to the destruction of the family and social order.
Concubinage and adultery are commonly portrayed; most of the heroes
… are bastards or unmarried mothers; marriage itself is the subject of deri-
sion.’131 The Bishop of Nantes insisted that those enfants de Marie who
attended performances must resign immediately.132 At Voiron (Isère), the
parish priest even refused to allow the town band to play during a mass for
Sainte Barbe because their instruments had previously been used in the
local theatre and, as a result, could not be brought into the church.133 A
constant battle had to be waged against vice in all its forms.

5.2.3  Revolution
During the dark years after 1789, God’s holy order had been challenged.
1848 had proved to be another ‘année de la peur’. Mgr Ségur in his fre-
quently re-published study of La Révolution warned that this sickness
spreading through modern society threatened to inaugurate the rule of
Satan and culminate in the reign of the Anti-Christ.134 The threat was
pressing, for as Mgr Jacquemet warned, ‘The enemy prepares by every
means … for a relentless war … against the Catholic religion which is so
dear to you, against society itself which you have all too recently seen …
on the verge of ruin.’135 The solution lay at hand, however, as an editorial
in L’Univers (14 April 1851) reminded its readers, in the form of ‘a doc-
trine which honours the poor, without flattering it, without rising it up
against the rich, and which instructs or persuades the rich to be the friends
of the poor: a doctrine of conciliation and of reconciliation of duties and
conditions: this is the Christian doctrine’. Only faith could neutralize the
appeals of socialism and conjure away the nightmare image of the poor
storming ‘our cities, sword and torch in hand’.136 A counter-revolutionary
190   R. PRICE

mentality was constructed which often combined the perspectives of lib-

eral political economy and Roman Catholicism. Thus, the economist
Adolphe Blanqui (‘respectable’ brother of the famous revolutionary), in a
report on Les classes ouvrières en France pendant l’année 1848 (1848),
commissioned by the Académie des sciences morales et politiques, with
the objective of dissipating any surviving illusions concerning the ‘right to
work’, maintained that poverty was essentially due to the moral shortcom-
ings of the working classes, evinced by laziness, the absence of thrift, by
drunkenness, jealousy and all manner of other evil passions. The poor
were thus themselves largely responsible for their predicament. Constant
surveillance and intimidation might be necessary in the short term, he
added, but for the longer term the answer could only be improved educa-
tion and ‘perfectionnement moral’.137

5.3   Achieving Perfection

On 26 March 1860, in a circular letter Cum catholica, the Pope expressed
his belief that ‘the Catholic Church, which was founded by Our Seigneur
Jesus Christ to procure eternal salvation for mankind, has taken the form,
as a result of its divine institution, of a perfect society’. This Augustinian
conception would be employed to justify the autonomy of the Church in
the pursuance of its Divine mission, as well as its intransigent determina-
tion to engage in a process of spiritual reconquest. In this, the clergy
welcomed the cooperation of all those who believed that political power
was ultimately derived from God and that religion provided the founda-
tion of both individual morality and an ordered society.138 Catholic social
thinking remained firmly based on an idealized conception of the eternal
order of the fields, of an ordered, hierarchical rural society, in which the
Church represented a dominant physical presence, and remained central
to the lives of the population, with its priests venerated and feared. On
28 April 1864, in the Parisian church of Sainte-Clothilde, the fashion-
able preacher Father Félix glorified the peasant as the guardian of civil
and moral order, on whom society depended for its sustenance and for
its soldiers, ready always to defend home and hearth, the ‘tombs of his
forefathers and the altars of his God’ against both internal and external
enemies. The countryside served too as the ‘nursery of priestly voca-
tions’. It was the ‘only force of resistance against the torrent of false
doctrines, and violent and egotistical passions’ which had already ‘cor-
rupted the towns’.139
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    191

The ideal—and often the reality—was a self-regulating société

d’interconnaissance. Within a face-to-face community, authority figures—
landowners and other local notables, the mayor and particularly the parish
priest—were expected to set an example and offer moral guidance to the
peasants, labourers and servants who depended on them. Refusal to offer
the deference properly owed by ‘inferior’ to ‘superior’ was symptomatic of
excessive pride. Control of sexual behaviour could be imposed by women
meeting in church, or at the public wash-place or communal oven. Matters
pertaining to the land, to violent behaviour, or to politics would be dis-
cussed by the men gathering in the village square or—especially in win-
ter—at the blacksmith’s. Deviants were likely to be ostracized and deprived
of work, lodging and charity. An individual’s loss of reputation would thus
have a negative impact on an entire family. Recourse to external authority
was a last resort.140
A sense of crisis was, however, palpable in this ruralist discourse which
idealized the peasants’ dependence on the forces of nature, as well as the
purity and spirituality of rural life, and condemned the barbarities of the
urban world. Migration from the countryside was a growing cause for
concern. New opportunities for the peasant represented the temptations
of Sodom and Gomorrah to many rural notables and priests.141 In the
Creuse, temporary migration to the cities to find work in the building
trades appeared to result in the spread of bad habits and ‘théories
vicieuses’.142 In the uplands of the Doubs, the domestic manufacture of
parts for clock makers in the Swiss cantons of Berne and Neuchâtel, a
source of enhanced prosperity for the rural population, was condemned by
the clergy because it intensified rural-urban contacts.143 Appeals to the
rural population like that made by the Abbé Devoille in La charrue et le
comptoir ou la Ville et la Campagne (1854) to ‘remain at home; scratch the
soil with your finger nails; suffer poverty, rather than throw yourselves into
the whirlpool in which all will be lost: faith, morality, health, the future
and especially eternity’, were, however, all too likely to fall on deaf ears.144
If the countryside represented stability and hope, the city and particu-
larly the working classes signified fear of change and subversion.145 The
problem of urban poverty attracted the interest of officials, priests and
political economists, who adopted a discourse inevitably riddled with value
judgements.146 Thus, in 1855, the state prosecutor at Colmar reported
that ‘in spite of the Emperor’s efforts to ensure that they enjoy the bene-
fits of work and of more abundant assistance, the working classes retain
the prejudices and tendencies inherent in their social position. The …
192   R. PRICE

perception of inferior status … the ardent desire for well-being, the envy
of all those who are rich or well-off, and, above all, the example and doc-
trines of the 1848 Revolution, have deposited within these classes a fatal
germ of defiance and of hatred against the organization of society.’147 The
focus of attention moreover shifted from the poor in general to the factory
in which the rhythm of daily life was altered, and where individuals were
constantly exposed to error and sin.148 According to Mgr Plantier,
‘Nothing has further separated us from God, than industry … Contact
with a factory or manufacture has plunged virtually entire populations into
the mire of libertinism and impiety.’149 The social theorists Frédéric
Ozanam and Armand de Melun condemned the English model of social
development and the inordinate greed, which led to excessive mechaniza-
tion, over-production, unemployment and low wages.150
Poverty was nevertheless generally viewed as self-induced rather than
structural, and as a vital part of God’s design. An essentially unsympathetic
theology developed on the basis of the belief that work itself was God’s
punishment for the sins of Adam and ought to be accepted with resigna-
tion.151 The provincial synod held at Avignon in December 1849 reminded
the poor that ‘God is the author of Society … who has established diverse
conditions amongst men: it is essential that we submit to His divine will
when he forbids us … to covet the goods of another’.152 As Mgr Darboy,
Archbishop of Paris, later concluded, ‘you will never suppress misery, nor
the suffering which results, because they have their source in the inequality
Providence has established, which Society vainly seeks to correct, and
which individual liberty only makes worse’.153 The social doctrine of the
Church established non-negotiable behavioural norms.154 Labour rela-
tions continued to be understood in essentially master-servant terms.155
Criticism of the existing, God-ordained, social order, could only be blas-
phemous. Indeed, according to one Legitimist commentator, to ‘deplore
the condition of the majority, is to put God on trial. You want to destroy
misery, why don’t you also wish to destroy hunger and then death?’156
Priests at every level in the religious hierarchy assumed that the attempt
to calm ‘the antagonism of those who do not possess against those who
possess’ was central to their responsibilities.157 In the archdiocese of
Cambrai, Mgr Régnier employed his Easter 1853 pastoral letter to instruct
the workers of the Nord to turn away ‘from these menacing coalitions,
from these concerted abstentions from work, which religion forbids and
human laws will punish’.158 His response to a major crisis affecting the
textile trades in 1869 was again simply to exhort workers to ‘put up with
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    193

misfortune like Christians’.159 Socialism was also condemned by the priest

of the parish of Saint-Etienne in Lille, as ‘that stupid and violent equality
dreamt of by wicked or insane levellers: God does not hate the society He
has created, with its ranks, its hierarchy, its precedences.’160 As the Abbé
Martin, a leading figure in the city’s conférence of the Société de Saint-­
Vincent de Paul, fatalistically insisted, the worker must ‘be submissive to
his master, observe the law of God in its entirety, and particularly in that
which concerns procreation: One should not dread the increased number
of children, nor complain. God knows what He is doing, and in creating a
family He at the same time provides sufficient to sustain it!’161
It was assumed that, in order to secure eternal salvation, the poor must
resign themselves to their misery and accept their subordinate place in
society. These were the characteristics of the ‘bon peuple’ as opposed to the
‘vile multitude’ denounced by Adolphe Thiers.162 In compensation for the
sins of Adam, they should devote themselves to work and recognize their
responsibilities towards their families and society and, above all, to God.
Work, and the self-discipline it engendered, would promote moral regen-
eration. This was the message of countless sermons and of almanacs and
pamphlets. Thus, the Almanach de l’atelier (1854) stressed that ‘coura-
geous and persevering labour is the source of all the strength and glory of
man’.163 Heavenly reward and, if it was God’s Will, earthly prosperity,
might be earned through ‘Bonne Conduite, Travail, Persévérance’.164 Mgr
Jacquemet in his Lenten message in 1850 had no hesitation in presenting
himself as the spokesman for the grateful recipients of charity—‘O rich, no
one condemns more severely than us the threats audacious mouths make
around you. Defender of the poor, but apostle of truth, we indignantly
condemn the impious doctrine which teaches to the poor that they have
the right to place a criminal hand on your inheritance and on the fruit of
your work. This doctrine … is not … the Word of Jesus Christ, our
master.’165
The clergy were not, however, entirely satisfied with the attitudes of
the property-owning classes. The irreligious greed, as well as the ‘exces-
sive’ harshness which many employers displayed towards their workers,
together with their failure to provide them with moral guidance, were
entirely unacceptable.166 Mgr Parisis, Bishop of Arras, expressed particu-
lar concern about the brutal subordination to machines of workers, and
especially women and children.167 Hypersensitive, because of their own
self-belief and glory in their role as intermediaries between Man and God,
individual priests could easily perceive criticism as an assault on the
194   R. PRICE

Church and on religious faith. The educated professional classes were

frequently accused of voltairianisme and of failing to set a good example.
According to the Abbé Méthivier, this was due to a false education—‘at
the medical faculty, the student learns materialism; at the law faculty, he
learns that the law ought to be atheistical; at the école normal, he learns
eclecticism; at the Sorbonne, he learns pantheism. In all these schools,
the voices of liberals shout in young men’s ears: Sons of the Enlightenment
and of progress, smash, smash the old institutions of France and create
around yourselves a new world’.168 Its editors posing as the ‘sentinelles
d’avant-garde’, the Parisian Journal des villes et campagnes claimed to be
representing the outlook of the episcopate in denouncing ‘the more and
more formidable invasion of atheism and materialism into modern soci-
ety’.169 The Bishop of Tarbes perceived a ‘revolt against God, contempt
for His sovereignty, disobedience of His law; the abandonment of reli-
gious practices; the obsessive love of pleasure; the unchaining of every
lust’, with an impact similar to that of ‘a devastating torrent … which eats
away at the body of society’.170 The duty of the clergy, supported by the
Christian monarch, was to alert the world to the dangers it faced.171
Censorship further exemplified this determination to engage in the work
of moral regeneration.

5.4   Censorship
Following the 1848 Revolution, both State and Church were anxious to
reduce the potential for moral and political subversion.172 The press law of
27 July 1849—reinforced by decree on 17 February 1852—required
newspaper editors to deposit caution money, and subjected them to strict
supervision which could lead to warnings, fines and the eventual suspen-
sion of publication. Stamp duty was imposed even on short pamphlets.
Special commissioners were also appointed to oversee the book trade, and
prefects instructed local police to closely supervise booksellers. Public
reading rooms, popular libraries and the new railway station bookstalls,
were all suspect.173 The Commission du colportage was established to
supervise the activities of the urban street traders and the peddlers who
traditionally distributed low cost and accessible reading matter and litho-
graphs throughout the countryside and to purge their wares by establish-
ing lists of approved works.174 It defined its primary objective as being to
‘control publications intended for the lower classes; much more important
without any doubt than the press seeking to influence the upper classes.
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    195

Peddling is the instrument by which one can corrupt or moralize the pop-
ular classes.’175 Controlling the flow of illicit publications across the fron-
tiers was a particular problem.176
The clergy welcomed the Interior Minister, Persigny’s, reminder to his
colleague at Justice (Abbatucci) in October 1853 that Article eight of the
law of 17 May 1819 could be employed against ‘every outrage to public
and religious morality’.177 Among those prosecuted under this vague
catch-all article would be Baudelaire in 1857. According to the state pros-
ecutor, the poems included in Les fleurs du mal were an affront to ‘that
great Christian morality which is in reality the only sound base for public
morals’. The poet was fined 300 francs and ordered to pay costs. The nov-
elist Flaubert was also arraigned in the same year for the ‘indecencies’
contained in Madame Bovary although, better connected and defended
than Baudelaire, he was acquitted.178 The prolific socialist P-J. Proudhon
was, however, judged to have exceeded the limits of legitimate controversy
by means of such ‘outrageous sarcasms’ as referring to Christ as ‘the puta-
tive son of God’.179
Particular public interest was aroused by the prosecution in September
1857 of the publisher of the popular novel, the Mystères du peuple written
by the recently deceased Eugène Sue. The work’s tone might be judged
from the 1851 Preface in which Sue had condemned the enslavement of
the people through ‘fourteen centuries of divine right Church’. Referring
to the histories written by Guizot, Thiers and Michelet, the novelist had
reminded his readers of the slaughter of the Albigensians and the iniquities
of the Holy Inquisition, denouncing ‘the blind ferocity of religious fanati-
cism’. More recently, he pointed out, French intervention against the
Roman Republic in 1849 had again revealed the ‘ultramontane party,
foaming with hatred and rage, preaching new crusades’, whilst the Falloux
education law represented further proof of the ‘abominable complicité de
l’Eglise catholique’ in the ‘oppression, spoliation, exploitation and enslave-
ment’ of the masses. The judgment of the imperial court was that ‘one can
find … on every page, the negation or the overthrow of all the principles
on which religion, morality and society are based’. The unfortunate pub-
lisher La Chatre was sentenced to a year in prison together with a substan-
tial 6000-franc fine. It was furthermore ordered that the printer’s plates
should be destroyed and all extant copies of the work seized and pulped.180
Prosecution before tribunals correctionnels, rather than jury trials at the
assizes, helped to ensure punitive outcomes. Self-censorship was, however,
the most likely outcome of such pressure.
196   R. PRICE

The Government, in spite of its efforts, was nevertheless frequently

accused by the clergy of tolerating an excess of liberty.181 Mgr Mabille, the
Bishop of Versailles, demanded a greater effort to combat ‘the hundred
thousand mouths of the impious press’ and reiterated the Papal condem-
nation of those ‘gross errors’ which threatened to ‘overwhelm … the
entire religious and social order’.182 In addition, associations like the
Union de prières pour la destruction des mauvais livres, established in
Chartres, repeatedly warned about the influence of ‘bad’ books, and in
particular the novels serialized in popular newspapers,183 while spiritual
guides like that published in 1849 by the Abbé Martinet instructed first
communicants that ‘You will never read any bad books, especially those
which are even slightly suspect in matters of religion, or morality, such as
novels, plays etc.’184 Mgr Baillès even insisted that where books had been
inherited, they should not be read or sold before consulting the parish
priest.185
With greater apparent precision, Mgr Wicart, the Bishop of Laval,
claimed that the threat was posed by a hundred, or perhaps 200, ‘openly
atheistic’ authors, ‘impurs romanciers’, and ‘corrupt’ playwrights’.186 The
faithful were enjoined to respect the Church’s Index of forbidden works,
and avoid reading books like Renan’s notorious Vie de Jésus, as well as the
works of Dumas, Sand, Balzac, Flaubert, Hugo, Stendhal, Champfleury,
Feydeau and Murger, which, according to the Cardinal de Bonald, should
all be confined to the flames.187 After a campaign in the Senate, the anti-­
clerical town council at St. Etienne was even forced by the local prefect to
withdraw the works of Rabelais, Voltaire, Rousseau, Proudhon, Fourier,
Michelet, Renard, Balzac, Sue, among others, from the town library.188
This was ‘la littérature moderne [which] disguises the poison, which kills
innocence’ and threatened to infect every class with ‘impiety’.189
Furthermore, as Mgr Dupanloup warned, the situation was deteriorating
rapidly. In his view, there had been ‘a sudden explosion … of errors, of
irreligion, of lies’ in learned reviews and daily newspapers, while ‘popular
songs, cheap novels, expressly written for and distributed to the people’
fed the arguments of ‘cabaret philosophers who indoctrinate the simple
beings around them and know how to translate … the arguments of a
learned impiety’.190
Such concerns might be translated into the kind of sermon preached in
October 1860 by the priest at Canaples (Somme). He forbade the reading
of newspapers on the grounds that the serialized stories they contained
‘vomit the most odious insults against morality, religion, and tradition’
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    197

and blamed the government for allowing them to circulate.191 In the

Allier, the priest at Chappes denounced the liberal newspaper le
Constitutionnel, claiming that in its columns, ‘a race of perverse, corrupt
and over-proud men’ presented ‘Voltairian doctrines which have never
produced … anything other than monsters, crimes and revolutions, and
the total destruction of all the principles of order and of religion’.192 The
priest at Sarralbe in eastern France even refused to confess the dying wife
of a limonadier and was reported to have shouted at her: ‘I cannot confess
you; your soul will go to Hell; you are a damned woman; your establish-
ment is the House of the Devil’—and this because of a subscription to ‘an
impious newspaper, le Siècle.193 Even the ancient classics, the staples of
secondary education, were condemned by some priests, provoking the
Abbé Ramadié, the curé of St Jacques at Béziers to complain that the only
books visiting missionaries, supporters of the Abbé Gaume’s campaign
against ‘pagan’ literature, would tolerate, were ‘the Roman missal, the
Roman ritual, the Roman pontifical, the Roman breviary’.194
Negative representations of religion were also prominent among the
themes prohibited in the theatre. While legislation dealing with the police
des théâtres introduced in July 1850 largely repeated previous provisions,
ministerial circulars on its implementation were more precise in demand-
ing avoidance of scenes portraying class conflict; attacks on the public
authorities, on the army and religion; and ‘moral depravity’. Although
censorship was less intense in the 1860s, Victorien Sardou’s unsympa-
thetic portrayal of a devout Catholic in Les Ganaches was in 1862 cut in
response to complaints by the Empress as well as the disquiet felt by the
censor. The equally popular playwright Emile Augier was asked to remove
such phrases as ‘Dieu n’est pas juste’ from his works.195 Haussmann’s
efforts to embellish the capital were moreover accompanied by the demo-
lition of the boisterous popular theatres characteristic of the old city. This
attempt to improve the ‘moral hygiene’ of the population was closely asso-
ciated with speculative reconstruction, the gentrification of central areas
and growing social segregation.196
There were other threats which the regime inexplicably tolerated.
Catholic theologians appeared entirely unprepared or unwilling to recog-
nize the growing interest in scientific and technical progress. Together
with Catholic scientists they sought to reconcile religion and science, both
of which, together with the existing social order, were perceived to be
manifestations of the Divine Will.197 A straightforward belief in the
Revealed Truth appeared sufficient. Dupanloup, in his Histoire de Jésus
198   R. PRICE

Christ (1869), simply insisted on the superiority of faith over science.198

An appeal to the Bible—to the Word of God—and to the traditions of the
Church was sufficient. In L’Univers, Louis Veuillot insisted that ‘science
without theology has no meaning’.199 Mgr Frayssinous, as Grand Master
of the Université, had long before, in 1825, sought to defend the domi-
nant ethos of biblical literalism against emerging concepts of geological
time. In a series of much-commented-upon lectures in Défense de chris-
tianisme, he had condemned those he described as ‘preoccupied with
research into the formation and structure of the world, known as géo-
logues, who have turned over the soil in order to discover something con-
trary to the account of Moses, whether in relation to the Creation or the
Flood’. Taking up the challenge in his Théologie dogmatique (1848), Mgr
Gausset would dismiss criticism of Genesis as the work of an ‘imagination
vagabonde’, and of scientists who continually contradicted each other.
Convoluted efforts were also made to reconcile scientific and Biblical
accounts of creation by establishing a concordance between the Days of
Genesis and the epochs of geological time.200
Mgr Cousseau, Bishop of Angoulême, was concerned that ‘the new
generations will be taught to read, to count, history (but what sort of his-
tory?), geography and astronomy, without any reference to God, creator
of heaven and earth. Man will be left in ignorance of his origin, his destiny,
and his nature, of what he might fear or aspire to after this life. Instead, he
will hear that he has nothing more to fear or to hope for than other ani-
mals, of whom he is simply the better organised brother.’201 One wonders
how aware of the great literary and scientific debates of the century the
great mass of parish clergy might have been and whether their response
went much beyond angry accusations of ‘sacrilege’.202 The Abbé Mingayon,
parish priest at Pommiers (Indre), in a sermon celebrating the Feast of the
Assumption and the Fête de l’Empereur simply referred to the education
minister Duruy as ‘un chenapan (scoundrel) considering that he claims
that man is descended from the monkey’.203 The Darwinian notion of
natural selection was caricatured and dismissed rather than addressed,
although many liberal Catholics no doubt managed to accommodate
Darwin within their beliefs.204
Even more disturbing were new forms of biblical criticism, and particu-
larly the ‘doctrines of a school for which Jesus Christ is no more than a
man possessed of a more or less honourable character, and God himself an
ideal being, without reality’.205 The German theologian David Strauss’
Leben Jesu (1835), an attempt to define the historical Jesus, and challenge
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    199

the assumption that the Scriptures were divinely inspired, threatened to

reduce the Bible from a sacred text to a collection of myths.206 His
approach was popularized in France by Renan’s Vie de Jésus (1863), which
caused a sensation, as well as enjoying considerable commercial success.
Some 65,000 copies were sold in the year following its publication in June
1863 and a further 82,000 within three months of the publication of a
cheap edition in April 1864.207 Renan’s devastating denial of the divinity
of Christ, and insistence that Jesus had simply been an ‘incomparable
man’, the greatest of the many prophets active in Galilee, together with his
claim that the resurrection had been falsified, were beyond the compre-
hension of most Catholics.208 The liberal Comte de Montalambert vigor-
ously condemned the assault on the ‘divinity of the crucified Jesus’ and
particularly its threat to the religious life of women, children and work-
ers.209 Numerous rebuttals—both cheap and popular pamphlets and
learned theological tomes—were printed.210 The Archbishop of Reims
simply instructed the population of his diocese not to read the book.211
Potential readers were of course often made aware of Renan’s book by the
pamphlets and sermons in which it was so vigorously condemned.
Dissatisfied with the lack of decisive governmental intervention in sup-
port of the Church, bishops could at least insist that they had the moral,
and indeed—according to a law of 7 Germinal An XIII—the legal right, to
expect authors resident in their dioceses to submit the manuscripts of
devotional and theological works for approval.212 Typically, the Bishop of
Nancy responded to a proposal made by the Abbé Deblaye to publish a
three-volume history of the diocese by reminding him of the obligation to
request the episcopal imprimatur before publication or else face suspen-
sion and the inclusion of the book on the diocesan index.213 Catholics
were furthermore instructed to read only those works which had received
the imprimatur and such approval appears to have been a prerequisite for
the commercial success of works intended for a Catholic readership.214
Cardinal Mathieu, the Archbishop of Besançon, went so far as to instruct
the faithful to avoid publications which failed to make an explicit avowal
of Catholic faith, whatever their other merits.215 In this atmosphere, and
indeed throughout the pontificats of Gregory XVI and Pius IX, it was
hardly surprising that the Roman Congregation of the Index became
increasingly active. Although its decisions had no legal status in France, in
the 12 months from June 1863, along with a host of theological studies,
the literary efforts of such leading contemporary writers as the two Dumas,
Sand, Balzac, Flaubert, Lamartine, Hugo and Stendhal were condemned.
200   R. PRICE

Novels in general appear to have been regarded as potent sources of moral

corruption. The historical novels of Alexandre Dumas were judged to be
fit only for the flames; Balzac’s Lys dans la vallée was condemned because
of numerous ‘stupidities, blasphemies and impieties’.216 It almost goes
without saying that Catholics were forbidden to read the works of
Enlightenment philosophers, those extolling the principles of 1789, or
expressing Gallican sentiments, or indeed any notions judged to be
­contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy as defined by the Roman curia.217
The Bishop of Arras complained forcefully that the programme for the
baccalaureate in letters established in 1852 included works condemned by
the Papal Index such as Le siècle de Louis XIV and L’histoire de Charles XII
as well as Descartes’ Discours sur la méthode. Invited to prepare expurgated
versions, Mgr Parisis had first, however, to request approval by the Pope.218
The growing determination of the Papacy to ensure doctrinal unifor-
mity on such questions as the Immaculate Conception was enforced
through the Congrégation des Rites (in the case of the breviary) and that
of the Index. Significantly, Mgr Baillès, formerly Bishop of Luçon, who
had been forced to resign in 1856 (by the Pope under pressure from the
French government) because of his extreme ultramontane and Legitimist
views, was immediately compensated by His Holiness with appointment
to the influential post of consulteur to the Congregation of the Index.219
Author of a general decree attacking French writers in 1864, Baillès, in a
typically aggressive declaration published in Paris in 1866, and entitled La
Congrégation de l’Index mieux connue et vengée, insisted that ‘The supreme
pastor of souls, charged with the government of all the flock, must lead his
ewes and his lambs into abundant pastures which are safe and healthy’ and
that an individual author like Georges Sand might be considered to be ‘the
most fatal and the most famous enemy of religion, of morality, of the fam-
ily, and of society in its entirety’.220
The main concern of the curia was nevertheless with doctrinal ortho-
doxy rather than modern novels. As the Ultramontane offensive gathered
pace, even the work of such an eminent theologian as Mgr Bouvier, Bishop
of Le Mans, which had been the staple text employed in many seminaries
for decades, was subject in 1852 to substantial ‘correction’. Bouvier’s pre-
vious insistence that each bishop should determine which manuals were to
be used in his diocesan seminaries was one of the many points of condem-
nation. Although, on behalf of the Prince-President, Fortoul expressed his
concern that ultramontane clergy were being encouraged to criticize
Gallican bishops, as well as about the weakening of State influence, in this
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    201

environment, even the Archbishop of Paris, Mgr Sibour, felt obliged to

hold his tongue.221 In a confidential letter to a close friend (10 October
1856), he explained that he had decided to avoid writing anything other
than ‘purely administrative letters … at least until the freedom of evangeli-
cal expression, killed by the Congrégation of the Index, is one day
restored’. He looked forward to the eventual calming of ‘ces passions ultra-­
catholiques et antichrétiennes’ set in motion by ‘le grand lama Veuillot’.222
In a speech before the Imperial Senate in March 1865, the former Ministre
des cultes, Gustave Rouland, would describe the Congrégation of the
Index as the ‘incarnation of despotism, a tribunal which condemns with-
out hearing’.223

5.5   Conclusion
The broad objective shared by the clergy and much of the laity collaborat-
ing within a hierarchical and disciplined religious institution was the estab-
lishment of a société d’encadrement within which, from childhood, all, or
at least a substantial part of the population, would be subject to rigorous
intellectual and social control through a combination of confession,
preaching, teaching, membership of pious associations, and Christian
charity and with the assistance offered by a Christian magistracy. These
were the means of countering the criminal and revolutionary proclivities
of those who dared to challenge the fundamental precepts of a Christian
society respectful of God’s Holy Order—as defined by His Church. In
achieving these objectives, the role of the parish priest as teacher and moral
exemplar was of course crucial.

Notes
1. J.-J. Gaume, La Révolution, recherches historiques sur l’origine et la propaga-
tion du mal en Europe depuis la Renaissance à nos jours, 1856, quoted by
H. Multon, ‘Un vecteur de la culture politique contre-révolutionnaire. La
décadence dans la littérature apocalyptique’, in J.-Y. Frétigné, F. Jankowiak,
(eds) La décadence dans la culture et la pensée politique, Rome, 2008,
p. 135. See also P. Airiau, L’Eglise et l’Apocalypse du 19e siècle à nos jours,
2000, p. 17; P. Chenaux, ‘Papauté et théologie à Rome dans les années
1870–8’ in E. Lamberts, (ed) The Black International. The Holy See and
militant Catholicism in Europe, Brussels, 2002, p. 262; M. Sacquin, Entre
Bossuet et Maurras. L’antiprotestantisme en France de 1814 à 1870, 1998,
pp. 99–100.
202   R. PRICE

2. See e.g. letter to Bishop of Rodez to MC, 8 January 1865, AN F19/1935.

3. Quoted by Sacquin op. cit., p. 102.
4. Abbé Léger, Réponse touchant la liberté de conscience et des cultes, Nîmes,
Soustelle, imprimeur de Mgr l’Evêque, 1865, AN F19/5811.
5. Mandement et instruction pastorale de Mgr l’Evêque de La Rochelle pour
le saint temps de Carême, 1865, AN F19/1936.
6. C.  Langlois, ‘Contextualiser et lire le Syllabus (1864) in Le continent
théologique, Rennes, 2016, p. 79.
7. Quoted by J. Jennings, Revolution and the Republic. A history of political
thought in France since the 18th century, Oxford, 2011, pp. 330, 332.
8. See e.g. PG Colmar, 8 July 1859, AN BB30/368; Acad. Rector of
Montpellier, 26 April 1858, AN F17/2649; P. Leuillot, ‘Politique et reli-
gion. Les élections alsaciennes de 1869’, Revue d’Alsace, 1961, p. 72.
9. J.-C.  Faury, Cléricalisme et anticléricalisme dans le Tarn (1848–1900),
Toulouse, 1988, p. 358; see also J-D. Roque, ‘Positions et tendances poli-
tiques des Protestants nimois au 19e siècle’ in Droit et gauche de 1789 à nos
jours, Montpellier 1975, pp. 199–205.
10. B. Fitzpatrick, Catholic royalism in the department of the Gard 1814–52,
1983, p.  182 and ‘The emergence of Catholic politics in the Midi,
1830–70’ in F. Tallett, N. Atkin, Religion, society and politics in France
since 1789, 1991, p. 99.
11. Abbé Mujas to Inspecteur d’Académie, 7 July 1855; Extrait du Régistre
des déliberations du Conseil presbytéral de l’Eglise-Réformée de Clarensac,
16 July; Prefect Gard to Bishop of Nîmes, 20 July; Prefect Gard to MC, 28
July; Extrait du régistre des déliberations du Consistoire de l’Eglise réfor-
mée de Calvisson (Gard); Vicar-general, diocese of Nîmes to MC, 8
September 1855, AN F19/5811.
12. See e.g. letter from Gabriel Rosset, agent voyeur at Bazas (Gironde) to MJ
et des C., 12 August 1848, AN F19/5722.
13. Mayor Lorgis to MC, 12 November; Prefect Pas-de-Calais to MC, 5
December 1864, AN F19/5779.
14. Prefect Moselle to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 28 January 1859, AN F19/5825.
15. See e.g. PG Colmar, 5 April 1859, AN BB30/376; A. Wahl, Petites haines
ordinaires. Histoire des conflits entre catholiques et protestants en Alsace,
1860–1940, Strasbourg, 2004, pp. 128–130.
16. L.-J. Favreau, avocat, Note pour M. Brodu, gérant du journal l’Esperance
du peuple, presented to Cour de Cassation, 8 July 1853.
17. Prefect Ardèche to MC, 6 February 1863, AN F19/5877.
18. Bishop of Nancy to MJ et des C., 29 August 1843 and reply of 21 October;
Bishop of Nancy to MC, 31 July 1852, AN F19/5831. See also V. Petit,
Catholiques et comtois. Liturgie et identité régionale au 19e siècle, 2001,
p. 146.
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    203

19. See e.g. letter from mayor of Beaufort (Drôme) to MJ et des C., 13
September 1867, AN F19/5577.
20. M.  Sacquin, Entre Bossuet et Maurras. p.  106. See also R.  Bloch, God’s
plagiarist. Being an account of the fabulous industry and irregular com-
merce of the Abbé Migne, 1994.
21. ‘De la liberté sous l’absolutisme’, 26 August 1851 and 12 November
1852; 1 May 1854.
22. L’Univers, 23 November 1854; see also Archbishop of Paris to MC, 3
March 1856; Prefect Lot-et-Garonne to MC, 26 November 1857, AN
F19/5839.
23. E.g. H. Fortoul, Journal, I, Geneva 1989, p. 26; F. Igersheim, Politique et
administration dans le Bas-Rhin, 1848–70, 1993, pp. 244–6.
24. A. Encreve, Protestants français au milieu du 19e siècle. Les réformes de 1848
à 1870, Geneva 1982, pp. 910–1.
25. PG Dijon, 28 Jan. 1857, AN BB30/377.
26. Prefect to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 11 April 1853, AN F19/5768.
27. Prefect to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 26 May 1854, AN F19/5776.
28. Bishop to Min de l’I.P. et des C., 12 Jan. 1854; Sous-préfet Toulon to
Prefect Var, 13 Feb., AN F19/5810.
29. See e.g. Acad. Rector of Douai, 12 Nov. 1858, AN F17/2649; P. Zind,
L’enseignement religieux dans l’instruction primaire publique en France de
1850 à 1873, Lyon, 1971, p. 163.
30. Commissaire de police of St. Pierre, to juge de paix of Ile d’Oleron, 21
January 1852; commissaire to Prefect Charente-Inférieure, 24 January;
Prefect to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 12 March, AN F19/5852.
31. See e.g. Bishop of Châlons to MC, 22 April 1852, AN F19/5801.
32. S. Fath, ‘Entre colporteur et confesseur: le choix des femmes en Picardie
au milieu du 19e siècle’ in G.  Cholvy, (ed) La religion et les femmes,
Montpellier, 2002, pp. 160–7.
33. PG Grenoble to Garde des Sceaux, 28 Dec. 1854, AN BB30/436. See also
A.  Encrévé op.  cit., pp.  852–8; J.-C.  Farcy, Les rapports des procureurs
généraux de la Cour d’Appel de Dijon (déc. 1849-juillet 1870), Dijon 2003,
p. 293, note 1.
34. PG Grenoble, 14 Oct. 1858, AN BB30/378.
35. De l’Avenir du protestantisme et du catholicisme quoted by P.  Boutry,
Prêtres et paroisses au pays du curé d’Ars, 1986, p. 557.
36. F. Raphaël, ‘Le judaïsme religion française reconnue’ in Joutard, Histoire
de la France religieuse, III, pp. 337–342.
37. D.  Cohen, La promotion des juifs en France à l’époque du second empire,
Doc. de 3e cycle, Univ. de Provence, 1977, pp. 79–80.
38. See e.g. D. Nirenberg, Anti-Judaism: the history of a way of thinking, 2013.
39. D. Kertzer, The Popes against the Jews, New York, 2000, pp. 80–5.
204   R. PRICE

40. G.  Miccoli, ‘Racines chrétiennes et contribution catholique à l’essor de

l’antisémitisme politique’, in M-A.  Mattard-Bonucci, Antisémythes.
L’image des juifs entre culture et politique (1848–1939), 2005, p. 45.
41. GOC 5th Division militaire, ? Feb. 1847, SHAT E5/156.
42. R.  Price, The French Second Republic. A social history, 1972, p.  119;
R. Rurup, ‘Progress and its limits: the Revolution of 1848 and European
Jewry’, in Dowe et al., Europe in 1848, pp. 749–752.
43. C. Muller, Dieu est catholique et alsacien. Le vitalité du diocèse de Strasbourg
au 19e siècle, II Strasbourg, 1987, pp. 745–7.
44. MJ to Min. de l’I.P., 19 February 1855, AN F19/5776.
45. Muller op. cit., II, p. 752.
46. PG Colmar 31 Dec. 1857 AN BB30/376.
47. ? March 1853, AN BB30/376.
48. J.  Maurain, La politique ecclésiastique du Second Empire de 1852 à 1869,
1930, pp. 386–7.
49. Quoted by I. Saint-Martin, ‘Les représentations des juifs dans la première
éducation religieuse’, in Mattard-Bonucci, (ed) Antisémythes, pp. 54–5.
50. Offrandes des mérites infinis de N.S. Jésus-Christ à Dieu le Père pour apaiser
sa justice et attirer sur la France sa miséricorde – enclosed with report from
Prefect Calvados to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 28 July 1860, AN F19/5783.
51. Quoted by G. Jucquois, P. Sauvage, L’invention de l’antisémitisme racial.
L’implication des catholiques français et belges, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2002,
p. 297.
52. C. Brice, G. Miccoli, Les racines chrétiennes de l’antisémitisme politique: fin
19e–20e siècles. Rome, 2003, pp. 24–28.
53. J. Kalman, ‘Sensuality, depravity, and ritual murder: the Damascus blood
libel and Jews in France’, Jewish Social Studies, 2007, pp. 42–3.
54. See e.g. Prefect Moselle to MC, 22 February 1849, together with letter
from Louis Bloch to the President du Conseil du Pouvoir executive de la
République française, 20 September and 8 October 1848, AN F19/5738.
55. M.  Winock, ‘Louis Veuillot et l’antijudaïsme français lors de l’Affaire
Mortara’ in C. Brice, G. Miccoli, (eds) Les racines chrétiennes, pp. 80–81.
56. Quoted by D. Kertzer, The unholy war: the Popes against the Jews, New York,
2001, p. 124.
57. MI to MC, 9 May 1862, AN F19/6288.
58. P. Pierrard, Louis Veuillot, 1998, p. 48.
59. L’Univers, 20 Oct. 1858.
60. See also J. Kalman, ‘The unyielding will: Jews and Catholics in Restoration
and July Monarchy France’ French Historical Studies, 2003, pp.  665–6;
N. Isser, Antisemitism during the French Second Empire, 1991, p. 109.
61. Quoted by Winock, p. 85.
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    205

62. Min. de l’I.P et des C., circular, 1 December 1861, AN F19/5609. See
also Prefect Tarn to MC, 8 July 1858, re. ‘enlevement’ of two Protestant
shepherd boys, AN F19/5773.
63. MJ to MC, 9 May 1860, AN F19/5842; MJ to MC, 16 October 1860; MC
to MJ, 9 March 1861, AN F19/5799. See also L. Schwartz, N. Isser, ‘Some
involuntary conversion techniques’, Jewish social studies, 1981, passim.
64. Jucquois, Sauvage, L’invention de l’antisémitisme racial, p. 73.
65. Bishop of Rodez to MC, 8 January 1865, AN F19/1935.
66. E.g. Igersheim, Politique et administration, pp. 319–20.
67. V. Thompson, The virtuous marketplace: women and men, money and poli-
tics in Paris, 1830–70, 2000, p. 160.
68. Quoted by Maurain op. cit., p. 925; see also D. Cohen, La promotion des
juifs en France, II 1980, p. 592f; E. Anceau, ‘Les irrégularités et les inci-
dents lors des élections législatives de 1852 à 1870’ in P. Bourdin et al.,
(eds) L’incident électoral de la Révolution française à la 5e République,
Clermont-Ferrand, 2002, p. 136.
69. Extracts in P. Airiau, L’antisemitisme catholique en France aux 19e et 20e
siècles, 2002, pp. 42–5.
70. Ibid., p. 504.
71. J.P.A. de Villeneuve-Bargemont, Traité d’économie politique, 1834;
L.-R. Villermé, Tableau de l’état physique et moral des ouvriers dans les man-
ufactures de coton, de laine et de soie, 1840; F. Le Play, Les ouvriers euro-
péens: étude sur les travaux, la vie domestique et la condition morale des
populations ouvrières de l’Europe, 1855; see also R. Price, People and poli-
tics in France, 1848–70, Cambridge, 2004, pp. 308–315.
72. Letter to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 22 Dec. 1856, AN F19/2491.
73. J.-C. Vimont, ‘Louis Chevalier revisité’ in Y. Marec, (ed) Villes en crise; Les
politiques municipales face aux pathologies urbaines, 2005, pp. 14–27 and
M. Boucher, ‘Turbulences, pacification et régulation sociale: les logiques
des acteurs sociaux dans les quartiers impopulaires’, ibid., pp.  110–111;
E. Pierre, ‘Père affaibli, société en danger: la diffusion d’un discours sous
les monarchies,’ Le mouvement social, 2008, pp. 16–17.
74. Quoted by J.-B.  Duroselle, Les débuts du catholicisme social en France,
1822–70, 1951, p. 275.
75. Letter to Mgr de la Tour-d’Auvergne-Lauraguais, 25 February 1843, AN
F19/5716.
76. D. Moulinet, ‘Mgr Gaume: une vision intransigeante des événements con-
temporains’, in L. van Ypersele, A.-D. Marcelis, (eds) Rêves de chrétienté,
réalités du monde. Imaginaires catholiques, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2001,
pp. 177–181.
77. Mandement de Mgr Régnier, archevêque de Cambrai, pour le carême de
1852, AN F19/5724.
206   R. PRICE

78. Quoted by P.  Droulers, Action pastorale et problèmes sociaux sous la

Monarchie de Juillet chez Mgr Astros, archevêque de Toulouse, 1954,
p. 212.
79. PG Angers, 18 Jan. 1862, AN BB30/371.
80. Quoted by M. Lagrée, La bénédiction de Prométhée. Religion et techniques,
19e–20e siècles, 1999, p. 42.
81. Cabinet du Min. de l’I.P. et des C., Réponses aux notes remises par
l’Empereur au M.C. sur l’attitude du clergé, 1861, AN F19/5605.
82. Instructions pastorales et mandement pour le Carême de l’an de grâce
1860, AN F19/1939.
83. M.  Lagrée, Religion et modernité. France 19e–20e siècles, Rennes, 2002,
p. 218 and especially La bénédiction de Prométhée, pp. 52–55; 217–224;
273–283; 380–1.
84. Quoted by M.  Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes sous le Second Empire, II,
Nantes, 1983, p. 807; see also M. Lagrée, ‘The impact of technology on
Catholicism in France, 1850–1952’ in C. Clark, W. Kaiser, (eds) Culture
wars. Secular-Catholic conflict in 19th century Europe, Cambridge, 2002,
pp. 172–5.
85. Quoted by M. Lagrée, Religion et cultures en Bretagne, 1850–1950, 1992,
p. 15.
86. See e.g. S.  Milbach, Prêtres historiens et pèlerinages du diocèse de Dijon,
Dijon, 2000, pp. 82–3; M. Launay, ‘Une chrétienté sous le Second Empire:
diocèse de Nantes’ Centre vendéen de recherches historiques, Christianisme
et Vendée. La création au 19e siècle d’un foyer du christianisme, La Roche-
sr-Yon, 2000, pp. 383–4; J. Prévotat, ‘L’Eglise a-t-elle trahi les pauvres?:
Le 19e siècle français’, Communio, 1986, p. 34.
87. La profanation du dimanche considerée au point de vue de la religion, de la
société, de la famille, de la liberté, du bien-être, de la dignité humaine et de
la santé (1850), quoted by M. Brejon de Lavergnée, ‘Le repos du diman-
che: un exemple de lobbying catholique en France au milieu du 19e siècle’,
Histoire, économie et société, 2009, p. 20.
88. MJ et des C. to MI, 1 Oct. 1854, AN F19/5544.
89. M.  Brejon de Lavergné, ‘Le repos du dimanche pp.  22–9; S.  Blenner-
Michel, ‘Sanctifier le dimanche ou le vain combat de l’épiscopat français au
19e siècle’, Histoire, économie et société, 2009, pp. 50–1.
90. Abbé Dillier, letter to Archbishop of Cambrai, ? Nov. 1854; Bacq-Lefebvre
et Cie. To Prefect Nord, ? May 1855; Archbishop of Cambrai to Min. de
l’I.P. et des C., 4 Aug. 1855, AN F19/5724.
91. MJ to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 19 Feb. 1855; Le maire, et les membres
composant le conseil municipal de la commune de Remiremont to MC, 25
Feb. 1855; Prefect Vosges to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 27 March, AN
F19/5770.
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    207

92. Quoted by J.-C. Farcy, Les paysans beaucerons au 19e siècle, II, Chartres,
1989, p. 916.
93. 30 June 1858, AN F1 CIII Loiret 7.
94. Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans au milieu du 19e siècle, 1964, p. 317.
95. Sous-préfet of Pithiviers, 30 June 1859, AN F1 CIII Loiret 12.
96. Quoted by M. Brejon de Lavergnée, ‘Le repos, p. 33.
97. See e.g. V.  Petit, ‘Le clergé contre l’ivrognerie. La campagne du Père
Ducreux dans les montagnes du Doubs (1864–69)’, Histoire et sociétés
rurales, 2000, p. 93.
98. See e.g. M. Launay, ‘Les procès verbaux de visites pastoraux dans le diocèse
de Nantes au milieu du 19e siècle’ Annales de Bretagne, 1975, p. 192.
99. E.g. Acad. rector of Dijon, re. Aube, 6 April 1859, AN F17/2649;
M. Vernus, ‘La culture écrite et le monde paysan. Le cas de la Franche-
Comté (1750–1869)’, Histoire et société rurales, 1997, pp. 67–8.
100. R. Aminzade, ‘Breaking the chains of dependency. From patronage to class
politics. Toulouse, France, 1830–72’ Urban history, 1976–77, p. 502.
101. AN C949.
102. Quoted by Boutry, Prêtres et paroisses, p. 114.
103. Mayor to sous-préfet, copied to Prefect Vaucluse, 6 March 1863, AN
F19/5783.
104. See e.g. A.  Tillier, Des criminelles au village. Femmes infanticides en
Bretagne (1825–65), Rennes, 2001, pp. 283–287.
105. Mandement de Mgr L’Evêque d’Agen pour le Jubilé…et pour le Carême
de l’An de Grâce 1865, AN F19/1936.
106. Published in Le Monde, 29 Dec. 1867, AN F19/1937.
107. Mme Leguicheux to Bishop of Laval, 23 March 1861; M.  Leguicheux,
Mayor of Neau to Prefect Mayenne, 12 April; juge de paix Evron to Prefect
Mayenne, 26 April; Cabinet du Min. de l’I.P. et des C., Note pour M. le
ministre, 1 June, AN F19/5816.
108. See e.g. J.-F. Chassaing, ‘Répresentations d’un rituel’, in Musée Francisque
Mandet, Entre chien et loup. La veillée, naissance d’un mythe. Les veillées en
Auvergne du 19e siècle à nos jours, Riom, 2003, p. 14; V. Petit, ‘Le clergé
contre l’ivrognerie’, pp. 99–103.
109. E.  Weber, Peasants into Frenchmen. The modernisation of rural France,
1870–1914, 1976, p. 368.
110. Joseph Horn, blacksmith, to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., ? Nov. 1849; Min. de
l’I.P. et des C. to Bishop of Nancy, 24 Nov.; Bishop to Min., 29 Nov., AN
F19/5740.
111. Cabinet du MI, Note, n.d. [186?] AN F19/5822.
112. Mayor Bilhères to Prefect Basses-Pyrénées, 1 May 1867, AN F19/5784.
113. Petition from mayor and councillors of Tilly to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 3
February 1863, AN F19/5873.
208   R. PRICE

114. See e.g. Prefect Seine-Inférieure to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 19 December
1853, AN F19/5854; Prefect Meurthe to MJ et des C., 7 December
1869, AN F19/5831.
115. See e.g. Brigadier commanding gendarmerie of La Chapelle-la-Reine to
OC arrondissement of Fontainebleau, 16 March 1866, AN F19/5823;
MC, internal note, ? February 1867, AN F19/5781 re. Abbé Ferret, priest
at Mellecey (Saône-et-Loire).
116. Petition from inhabitants of Chérisy to MJ et des C., 22 Feb. 1849; Mayor
Chérisy to Prefect Pas-de-Calais, 22 March, AN F19/5717.
117. Petition of 28 December 1860, AN F19/5865.
118. Ville d’Argelès, Séance extraordinaire du 14 octobre 1861, autorisée par
M. le sous-préfet, AN F19/5865.
119. Brigadier of gendarmerie to captain commanding arrondissement, 2 and 7
December 1858; Prefect Jura to MC, n.d., AN F19/5857.
120. Mayor to MC, 12 November 1864, AN F19/5779.
121. Mayor to Bishop of Amiens, n.d.; Prefect Somme to MC, 7 July 1869;
priest to Bishop of Amiens, 5 August; AN F19/5775.
122. See e.g. D. Paul, Paysans du Bourbonnais. Une société rurale face au change-
ment, 1750–1850, Clermont-Ferrand, 2006, pp. 333–361.
123. Quoted by C. Langlois, Le crime d’Onan. Le discours catholique sur la limi-
tation des naissances, 2005, p. 44. See also R. Price, ‘The onset of labour
shortage in French agriculture in the 19th century’, Economic history
review, 1975, p. 265.
124. See e.g. Prefect Sarthe to MC, n.d., AN F19/5822; sous-préfet Laon to
Prefect Aisne, 9 March 1864, AN F19/5863.
125. See e.g. Préfet de Police chargé de la Direction générale de la sûreté pub-
lique to MC, 24 September 1856, AN F19/5783 re. curé of Bédarrides
(Vaucluse).
126. See e.g. S. Hazareesingh, The Saint-Napoleon. Celebrations of sovereignty in
19th century France, 2004, p. 159.
127. Prefect Morbihan, 23 March [year indecipherable], AN F19/6288.
128. Prefect Ile-et-Vilaine, ‘très confidentielle’ report to Min. de l’I.P. et des C.,
14 April 1866, AN F19/5851.
129. Conseil municipal to MC, ? January 1862, AN F19/5813.
130. Cabinet du Min. de l’I.P. et des C., ‘Réponses aux notes remises par
l’Empereur au MC sur l’attitude du clergé’, 1864, AN F19/5605.
131. Odeurs de Paris, 1867, p. 130.
132. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes, I, p. 237.
133. MI to MC, 19 Nov. 1866, AN F19/5812.
134. B. van der Herten, ‘La Révolution française: prelude à la fin des temps’,
Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 1994. p. 45.
135. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes I, p. 455.
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    209

136. Abbé Chassay, La femme chrétienne dans ses rapports avec le monde, 1851
quoted by Y. Fumat, ‘La socialisation des filles au 19e siècle, Revue fran-
çaise de pédagogie, 1980, pp. 43–4; see also Abbé Léger, Réponse touchant
la liberté de conscience et des cultes. Le progrès, la civilisation, les aspirations
nationales, et le pouvoir temporel du Pape, Nîmes 1869, p. 6, AN F19/5811.
137. A.  Blanqui, Des classes ouvrières en France pendant l’année 1848, 1849,
pp. 6, 249–252; see also J. Lyon-Caen, ‘Saisir, décrire, déchiffrer: les mises
en texte du social sous la monarchie de juillet’ Revue historique, 2004,
passim.
138. B. Turner, The Religious and the Political. A comparative sociology of reli-
gion, Cambridge, 2013, pp. 59–62.
139. Quoted by E.  Mension-Rigau, Le donjon et le clocher. Nobles et curés de
campagne de 1850 à nos jours, 2004, pp. 134–5.
140. A.  Antoine, ‘Les propriétaires fonciers: conservatisme ou modernité?
L’exemple des contrats de métayage (18e–19e siècles)’ in F. Pitou, (ed)
Elites et notables de l’ouest, 16e–20e siècles. Entre conservatisme et moder-
nité, Rennes, 2003, pp.  187–191; Tillier, Des criminelles au village,
pp. 245–265; L. Le Gall, L’électeur en campagnes dans le Finistère. Une
seconde République de Bas-Breton, 2009, p. 383.
141. R. Price, People and politics in France, p. 195.
142. Sous-préfet of Bourganeuf, 20 Sept. 1858, AN F1 CIII Creuse 8. See also
A. Chatelain, ‘Les migrants temporaires et la propagation des idées révolu-
tionnaires en France au 19e siècle’ 1848, 1951, passim.
143. Petit, ‘Le clergé contre l’ivrognerie’, pp. 96–7.
144. Quoted by R. Hubscher, ‘La France paysanne: réalités et mythologies’ in
Y. Lequin, (ed) Histoire des français, 19e–20e siècles, 1983, pp. 135–6.
145. E.g. Acad. rector of Dijon, 17 April 1858, AN F17/2649; see also
P. Barral, ‘La terre’ in J.-F. Sirinelli, E. Vigne, (eds) Histoire des droits, II
1992, pp. 58–9.
146. See e.g. F. Démier, ‘La politique sociale de l’arrondissement le plus pauvre
de Paris (1814–60)’ in Marec, (ed) Villes en crise?, p. 547.
147. 2 March 1855, AN BB18/1539.
148. See also A.  Encrevé, ‘Introduction’ to P.  Boutry, A.  Encrevé, (eds) La
religion dans la ville, 2004, pp. 6–7.
149. Les grandeurs et les abus de l’industrie contemporaine, 1860, quoted by
G.  Cholvy, Y.-M.  Hilaire, Histoire religieuse de la France contemporaine
(1800–80), Toulouse, 1985, p. 235.
150. See also Price, People and politics, p. 60.
151. See e.g. P.  Pierrard, La vie ouvrière à Lille sous le Second Empire, 1965,.
p. 233; J.-L. Ormières, ‘Falloux et les catholiques libéraux (1848–83)’ in
Catholiques entre monarchie et république. Mgr. Freppel et son temps, 1995,
p. 27.
210   R. PRICE

152. Quoted by G.  Cholvy, Religion et société au 19e siècle. Le diocèse de

Montpellier. II, Lille, p. 699.
153. Quoted by Duroselle, Les débuts du catholicisme social, p. 691.
154. See e.g. D. Pelletier, ‘Le catholicisme social en France (19e–20e siècles).
Une modernité paradoxale’ in B. Pellistrandi, L’histoire religieuse en France
et en Espagne, Madrid, 2004, p.  374 and ‘Les pratiques charitable fran-
çaises entre histoire sociale et histoire religieuse’ in I. von Bueltzingsloewen,
D. Pelletier, (eds) La charité en pratique, p. 33.
155. A. Lasserre, La situation des ouvriers de l’industrie textile dans la région lil-
loise sous la monarchie de juillet, Lausanne, 1952, pp. 235–237.
156. Blanc de St-Bonnet, De la Restauration française. Mémoire au clergé et à
l’aristocratie, 1851, p. 208.
157. Mgr Parisis, Bishop of Arras to minister Rouland, 1861, quoted by Hilaire,
Le diocèse d’Arras, p. 1031.
158. Quoted by Droulers, ‘Catholicisme et mouvement ouvrier’ p. 57.
159. P. Pierrard, Les diocèses de Cambrai et de Lille,1978, p. 249.
160. Quoted by Pierrard, La vie ouvrière, p. 376.
161. Quoted by Pierrard, ibid., p. 403. Emphasis in the original.
162. On this distinction, see Thiers, letter to M. Paultre, 21 May 1869, BN naf
20619.
163. Savart, ‘Approches de la religion populaire à travers quelques publications
de la Société de Saint Vincent de Paul (1850–60)’ in Dubosq, Plongeron,
Robert, (eds) La religion populaire, p. 262.
164. Quoted by B.  Delpal, Entre paroisse et commune. Les catholiques de la
Drôme au milieu du 19e siècle, Valence, 1989, p. 140.
165. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes II, p. 612.
166. See sermon by priest at Availles, quoted by PG Poitiers, ? April 1861, AN
BB30/422.
167. Hilaire, op. cit., p. 1031.
168. Quoted by Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans, p. 199.
169. 29 May 1867, copy in AN F19/5848.
170. Lettre pastorale de Mgr. l’Evêque de Tarbes publiant le Jubilé…et mande-
ment pour le Carême de l’An de Grâce 1865, AN F19/5607.
171. Lettre pastorale et mandement de son éminence le Cardinal-Archévêque
de Bordeaux à l’occasion du Carême et du Jubilé de 1865 sur le vide et le
danger des plaisirs du Monde, AN F19/1936.
172. See e.g. R. Price, The French Second Empire, An anatomy of political power,
Cambridge, 2001, Chap. 6.
173. See e.g. E. Ebel, Police et société. Histoire de la police et de son activité en
Alsace au 19e siècle, Strasbourg, 1999, pp. 638–640.
174. See law of 27 July 1849 and circulars from Persigny, Minister of the
Interior (9 February 1852) and Maupas, Ministère de la police générale
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    211

(28 July 1852) in Documents pour servir à l’histoire du Second Empire: cir-
culaires, rapports, notes et instructions confidentielles, 1872; MI to MJ, 20
October 1853, AN BB30/381.
175. Circular 14 July 1853, quoted by J.-J. Darmon, Le colportage de librairie
en France sous le second empire, 1972. pp. 108–9.
176. Lettre de M. Dussaud, avocat à la Cour d’appel d’Aix à M. le procureur-
général, 6 mai 1851. Labadie collection, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
177. 20 October 1853, AN BB30/381.
178. Winock, Les voix, p.  385; F.  Brown, Flaubert. A biography, Cambridge,
Mass. 2006, pp. 325–9, 370.
179. Quoted by J.-P.  Royer, La société judiciaire depuis le 18e siècle, 1979,
p. 321.
180. Cour impériale de Paris, Quelques extraits des Mystères du Peuple par Eugène
Sue soumis à la Cour pour la défense de M. de la Chatre appelant du juge-
ment du 25 septembre 1857 qui l’a condamné à raison de la publication de
cet ouvrage, Paris 1857, pp. 5, 13–14, 16–17. See also J. Lyon-Caen, ‘Un
magistère social: Eugène Sue et le pouvoir de représenter’, Le mouvement
social, 224, 2008, p. 88; L. Artiaga, ‘Histoires religieuses francophones et
proto-histoire de la culture médiatique’, Revue d’histoire du 19e siècle,
2003, p. 5.
181. Instruction pastorale et mandement de Mgr. l’Evêque de Viviers pour le
saint temps de Carême de l’année 1865, AN F19/5607.
182. Instruction pastorale et mandement de Mgr. l’Evêque de Versailles pour le
jubilé de 1865, AN F19/5607.
183. Delpal, Entre paroisse et commune, p. 260; Savart, Les catholiques en France,
p. 390.
184. Quoted by P. Martin, Un religion des livres, 2003, p. 194.
185. Instruction pastorale de Mgr l’Evêque de Luçon sur l’Index des livres pro-
hibés, 1852, AN F19/5607.
186. Lettre pastorale et mandement de Mgr. l’Evêque de Laval pour le saint
temps de Carême 1865, AN F19/1936.
187. Martin, op. cit., p. 333.
188. Maurain, Politique ecclésiastique, p. 778.
189. Lettre pastorale et mandement de Mgr. l’Evêque de Saint Flour à l’occasion
du saint temps de Carême…1865, AN F19/1936.
190. Lettre circulaire de Mgr. l’Evêque d’Orléans prescrivant des prières pub-
liques pour N.T-S. le Pape et pour l’Eglise 1866, AN F19/1937.
191. M.  Namet, letter to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 16 October 1860, AN
F19/5775.
192. Prefect Allier to MC, 13 March 1860; Rapport de M. le commissaire de
police du canton de Montmarault à M. le préfet de l’Allier, 10 July 1860,
AN F19/5830.
212   R. PRICE

193. Commissaire de police of Sarralbe to sous-préfet Sarreguemines, 29 May

1861, AN F19/5825.
194. Quoted by Cholvy, Le diocèse de Montpellier, p.  1366—letter of 2 Dec.
1858.
195. O.  Krakovitch, ‘Introduction. La censure du théâtre à Paris de 1830 a
1906’ in Archives nationales, Censure des répertoires des grands théâtres
parisiens (1835–1906), 2003, pp. 29–30, 47–49, 65 and ‘La censure dra-
matique: de l’ordre impérial à l’indifférence’ in J.-C. Yon, Les spectacles sous
le Second Empire, 2010, pp. 44–5.
196. J. Aubrun, ‘Le théâtre dans les travaux d’Haussmann: histoire d’une recon-
struction d’un dessein culturel’ ibid., pp. 73–4, 80–83.
197. Point made by N.  Rupke, ‘Christianity and the sciences’ in S.  Gilley,
B. Stanley, (eds) The Cambridge history of Christianity: world Christianities,
c. 1815–1914, Cambridge, 2006, p. 173.
198. D. Moulinet, ‘Visages du Christ au 19e siècle, chez plusieurs théologiens
catholiques français’ in G.  Cholvy, (ed) Figures du Christ dans l’histoire,
Montpellier 2000, p. 26; P.-Y. Kirschleger, ‘Répondre au Jésus de Renan’
ibid., pp. 47–47, 52–59.
199. Quoted by Gibson, Social history, p. 95.
200. P. Colin, L’audace et le soupçon. La crise de modernisme dans le catholicisme
français, 1997, pp. 123–4. See also J.-L. Chappey, ‘Catholiques et sciences
au début du 19e siècle’ Cahiers d’histoire, 2002, p. 11 [en ligne], consulté
le 15 Jan. 2010.
201. Instruction pastorale et mandement de Mgr l’Evêque d’Angoulême pour
le Carême de l’an de grâce 1869, AN F19/1939.
202. See e.g. D.-M. Dauzet, ‘La mystique bien tempérée. Ecriture feminine de
l’expérience spirituelle, 19e–20e siècles, 2006, pp.  44–5; J.-L.  Chappey,
‘Catholiques et sciences au début du 19e siècle’, Cahiers d’histoire, 2002,
pp. 8–11.
203. Prefect Indre to MC, 9 Sept. 1868, AN F19/5796.
204. F. Laplanche, ‘L’évolution de l’exégèse biblique et des formes de la piété’
in A. Corbin, (ed) Histoire du christianisme, 2007, pp. 385–6.
205. Lettre pastorale et mandement de Mgr. l’Evêque de Saint Flour à l’occasion
du saint temps de Carême…1865, AN F19/1936.
206. See e.g. A.-M.  Pelletier, ‘Religion et culture. L’intérêt culturel pour la
Bible dans la France contemporaine’ in Pellistrandi, (ed) L’histoire reli-
gieuse, pp. 445–6.
207. D. Julia, ‘Des indicateurs de longue durée’ in Joutard, Histoire de la France
religieuse, III, p. 184.
208. E.g. Academic Rector of Nancy to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 18 Jan. 1861,
AN F17/2650.
209. Eglise libre, 1863, p. 169.
   THE PROTECTION OF MORAL ORDER    213

210. R. Priest, The Gospel according to Renan. Reading, writing and religion in
19th century France, Manchester, 2015, pp. 112–123.
211. Cardinal Gousset, Mandement portant condemnation d’un livre intitulé
Vie de Jésus, 24 July 1863.
212. See e.g. C. Savart, Les catholiques en France, p. 323.
213. Jugement du Métropolitain de Besançon dans l’affaire d’appel de
M. Deblaye, prêtre, demeurant à Lunèville contre une dispense déclarée
contre lui par l’Evêque de Nancy le 17 Oct. 1866, AN F19/5831.
214. Martin, Une religion des livres, p. 446.
215. C.  Savart, Les catholiques en France au 19e siècle: le témoignage du livre
religieux, 1985, pp. 292, 301, 326.
216. L.  Artiaga, ‘Les censures romaines de Balzac’, Romantisme, 2005,
pp. 29–44 and ‘La Sacra Congregation Indicis et l’histoire culturelle fran-
çaise au 19e siècle’ in G. Pizzorusso, O. Poncet, M. Sanfilippo, (eds) Gli
archivi della Santa Sede e la storia di francia, Viterbo, 2006, p. 97. See also
J-B.  Amadieu, ‘La littérature française du 19e siècle à l’Index’ Revue
d’histoire littéraire de la France, 2004, pp. 395f.
217. See e.g. lead article by Abbé Jules Morel on ‘Des dernières condamnations
de l’Index’ L’Univers, 27 Feb. 1852; P. Boutry, ‘Papauté et culture au 19e
siècle. Magistère, orthodoxie, tradition’, Revue d’histoire du 19e siècle,
2004, pp. 42–46.
218. Letter to Pius IX, 11 Aug. 1854, copy in AN 246AP24.
219. L.  Delhommeau, ‘Un évêque légitimiste sous le Second Empire: Mgr
J.-M.-J.  Baillès, évêque de Luçon’, in L’histoire des croyants, mémoire
vivante des hommes. Mélanges Charles Molette, Abbeville 1989 II, pp. 607–
609. On his role, see also Artiaga, ‘La Sacra Congrégation Indicis et
l’histoire culturelle française au 19e siècle’ in G. Pizzorusso et al., (eds) Gli
archivi della Santa Sede e la storia di francia, pp. 96, 102.
220. Quoted by Boutry, ‘Papauté et culture’, p. 47.
221. Min. de l’I.P. et des C. to Min. des Aff. Et., 11 June 1852, AN 246AP24.
On Mgr Bouvier’s tribulations, see C.  Langlois, Le crime d’Onan,
pp. 221–238.
222. Quoted by J.-Y.  Boudon, Paris, capitale religieuse sous le Second Empire,
2001, pp. 440–1.
223. Boutry, ‘Papauté et culture’, pp. 45–52.
 CHAPTER 6

Saints and Sinners

6.1   Le bon prêtre

From the perspective of the Church, the ideal/idealized parish priest—the
‘prêtre de l’evangile’—was a figure defined in sermons, in obituaries in the
religious press, and in the hagiographical literature of praise which identi-
fied emblematic individuals as a source of inspiration. In an address to
ordinands in December 1847, the aristocratic Cardinal-Bishop of Arras,
Mgr de la Tour-d’Auvergne, insisted that the priest must love his fellow
men and engage in a conciliatory ‘ministry of peace’. In his everyday deal-
ings with parishioners the ‘bon curé’ should avoid both coldness and exces-
sive familiarity, behave with humility, and subordinate his personal
concerns to those of his flock. He should scrupulously perform the rites of
the Church, living frugally, practising charity and love for the sick and
poor. Piety and zeal must be combined with virtue. Dignified in his man-
ner, modest in his demeanour, his words and gestures presenting an air of
inner calm, serving as the guide and guardian of his flock, and submissive
towards his superiors, the priest should be exemplary in his faith and per-
sonal behaviour.1
Another influential figure, Mgr Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans, after
identifying their major shortcomings—laziness, routine, and an absence of
intellectual interests—demanded that priests ‘take flight from every occa-
sion for sin; adopt a prudent reserve in relationships with members of the
female sex; observe with exactness the regulations affecting us, whether in

© The Author(s) 2018 215

R. Price, Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67196-3_6
216   R. PRICE

the canon law of the Church or in diocesan statutes; rigorously abstain

from all reading which might trouble our modesty; impose a rigorous
control over our thoughts, affections and senses; achieve sobriety and
temperance; labour assiduously; live an active and fully occupied life always
filled with saintly and zealous works; never hesitate to combat the inevi-
table assaults of temptation; and conserve … that firm and virile determi-
nation, and unshakable will to maintain, and without cease strengthen,
our resistance by a constant fidelity to all our pious exercises, and espe-
cially to prayer, to the reading of Holy Scripture and worthy spiritual
books; to the daily examination of our conscience; to frequent confession;
to spiritual retreats…’2 The minimum requirement, according to the Abbé
Perreyve, was ‘the dignity of character which makes the man, and the reli-
gious sincerity which makes the man of God … Unfortunate the priest in
whom men see nothing more than the man.’3
Parishioners also frequently made their expectations clear. According to
a petition signed by the mayor, council and notables of Rely (Pas-de-­
Calais)—‘a priest … must have, following the example of his divine mas-
ter, a rich Heart overflowing with tolerance, conciliation, indulgence and
compassion’. Absolute devotion was their expectation.4 The many signa-
tories to a petition to the Empress Eugènie from Meymac in the Corrèze
praised their vicaire, the Abbé Mas, who for 14 years had performed his
own, as well as the duties of the sick and infirm parish priest, with ‘zeal’,
‘love’, ‘disinterest’ and ‘Christian charity’, earning the ‘esteem and affec-
tion’ of the entire population, and especially of the poor who saw in him
‘an old friend and support’.5 The citizens of Villelongue (Hautes-Pyrénées)
regretted the passing of the Abbé Cénac, a priest ‘who loved the poor as
much as the rich, whose gentle and persuasive voice calmed passions and
consoled the unfortunate’.6
Particular instances of goodness might be referred to, including
priests who devoted their own financial resources to the welfare of their
parish, or else encouraged donations for the construction of churches
and schools and provision of assistance to the deserving poor. The parish
priest at Baudreville, near Chartres, during the 1856 subsistence crisis,
persuaded local farmers to sell their grain to him at below market price,
and then sold loaves to the parish poor at the presbytery door.7 Crises
such as the disastrous floods at Strasbourg in 1852 or the successive
cholera epidemics, when self-sacrifice might well attain a literal meaning,
represented particularly testing circumstances, which brought out the
best in many priests. In the little village of La Chapelle-Monthodon
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    217

(Aisne), where in August–September 1854 the epidemic killed 45 of the

135 people infected out of a population of 468, according to the school
teacher, the Abbé Bardin had stood as ‘sentinel’ and ‘consoling angel’
against this ‘fléau mysterieux’, caring for the sick, praying for relief, and
offering consolation. His actions had revealed to the population ‘all the
virtues which repose in the heart of a priest’.8 The parish priest at Saint-
Victor-de-Malcap, in the Gard, had similarly offered sustenance and
spiritual relief at a time when the mayor and instituteur had fled, and the
garde champêtre and grave-digger died of the disease, and when ‘terror
had frozen every heart’.9 This kind of devotion certainly appears to have
been far more common than the response of the Abbé Martres at
Fougaron (Haute-Garonne), who was accused of hiding in his bed when
cholera ravaged the commune, and of refusing to hear confessions, to
offer the last rites, or to bury the victims.10 The frightened inhabitants of
Templeuve (Nord), however, complained bitterly about the Abbé
Lancelle’s insistence upon constantly tolling the church bells to remind
his flock of the imminent prospect of death.11
Many priests gained public recognition for their compassion and good
works. The death of the Abbé Gellée, a priest attached to the cathedral at
Beauvais, was reported to have caused ‘a kind of electric shock’ among the
‘classe ouvrière’ to whom he had devoted his life. His funeral service was
celebrated with ‘grande pompe’, in marked contrast, according to the
Prefect of the Oise, with the life of deprivation he had imposed upon him-
self.12 The general commanding the 7th Military Division recommended
awarding the légion d’honneur to the priests who had devoted themselves
to victims of cholera in the Arles garrison in 1849.13 The Abbé Desté took
the probably less demanding route of membership of the cantonal statisti-
cal commission to win similar official approval.14 For the authorities the
‘good priest’ was generally a partisan of the regime.15
In spite of the determination of the vast majority of priests to live mor-
ally irreproachable lives or, at the very least, conform to established norms,
it was inevitable that the mutual expectations of both priests and parishio-
ners would often be disappointed. Parish life was, after all, fraught with
difficulties. Judging the clergy of the Var in the 1850s, the Bishop of
Fréjus concluded that around half were bons or très bons in the perfor-
mance of their duties, another quarter passable and the remainder incom-
petent.16 In his history of the Arras diocese, Y-M.  Hilaire similarly
concluded that there was a very real danger of parish priests adopting ‘the
worthy and tranquil life of a functionary or a rentier, cultivating their own
218   R. PRICE

garden … and isolating themselves from the world’.17 The Abbé Meignan,
vicar-general in the Paris diocese, was particularly critical of the routine
adopted by some older priests. He wondered ‘from which of these eccle-
siastics would a cultivated, serious man, say a chief clerk in city hall, solicit
a service or ask for advice?’18

6.2   The Trials and Tribulations of Parish Life

6.2.1  Fulfilling Obligations
The day-to-day realities of parish life and the expectation that a priest
should constantly fulfil his religious obligations imposed considerable bur-
dens and a frightening responsibility on a man ‘clothed’, as the Abbé
Vianney pointed out, ‘with all the powers of God’.19 As the vital interme-
diary between Man and God in the struggle for Salvation, the priest was
generally perceived to be the moral guardian and primary source of
authority within the community. His education, dress, celibacy and the
distance maintained between his life of faith and the secular community,
combined to ensure that he was regarded as a man unlike other men.20
Although mutual tolerance, religious socialization within the family, the
regular participation of the community in religious ceremonies, and the
development of a religious routine, or at least ‘la plus grand resignation’,
might limit potential disaffection, satisfying the expectations of every
parishioner was always going to be difficult.21
Priests were most certainly expected to conduct the regular round of
religious services. The sick and dying, together with the bereaved,
expected to be comforted and blessed. Parishes, however, varied consid-
erably in scale, population density and distribution, and in the demands
made upon clerics. In the large parishes with dispersed habitat, typical of
much of Brittany, and in upland areas, horses or mules were an essential
part of the priest’s equipment.22 The 2200 inhabitants of Crux-la-Ville
in the Nièvre were divided between 32 villages or hamlets, and its service
demanded a priest who was not only ‘fort diligent’ but ‘très robuste’.23
The failure to perform the last rites was unpardonable.24 Even the infir-
mity of a long-­established and much-loved priest could not long be tol-
erated if it interfered with his ability to provide hope of salvation to his
flock. The inhabitants of Sarraltroff in Lorraine complained that because
of the illness of the Abbé Müller, they had been abandoned spiritually
for three years.25 Jean Carrère, the road-repair man (cantonnier) at
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    219

Etsaut in the Basses-­Pyrénées, entirely bereft following the death of his

wife, found his pain all the harder to bear because, in spite of her piety,
she had not received ‘les secours de la religion’ from a priest who was
absent frequently and failed to perform properly the ‘duties imposed on
him by his quality as r­ epresentative of Jesus Christ on earth’. Carrère had
determined to write to the minister because the Bishop of Bayonne
always ignored complaints.26
Furthermore, communities expected funerals to be conducted in digni-
fied fashion. The practice had developed of carrying the deceased from
their homes to church for a religious ceremony and recitation of the De
Profundis, and from there to the grave where the clergy would intone the
final prayers. The failure to properly honour the dead by respecting legal
precepts or local custom in matters of ritual or the tolling of church bells
could arouse a lasting sense of grievance.27 Previously often a place for
games or even pasture for animals, the cemetery was during the nine-
teenth century turned into a separate and respected space. The refusal of
a parish priest to conduct a religious interment within its consecrated
ground invariably caused distress. The legitimate grounds for such a
refusal—resulting in an unsanctified burial in land set aside for non-­
believers—might include the death of an infant without baptism, or else
suicide, atheism, libertinism and a failure to repent, or heresy. The appar-
ently vindictive behaviour of the parish priest at Blussans (Doubs), in
refusing to perform the religious rites at the funeral of a much-respected
82-year-old veteran of the imperial army who, as a municipal councillor,
had disagreed with his views, together with his instruction to the village
schoolmaster, who served as his sexton, not to attend the funeral, and to
lock the door to the church tower to prevent the tolling of its bells, did
much to destroy his own reputation. In spite of his claim that the deceased
had always rejected the ‘secours de la Religion’, members of the commu-
nity, led by the mayor, wearing his sash of office, conducted the ceremony
themselves.28 When M.Bouyssy, mayor of the little village of Monviel
(Lot-et-Garonne) died on 31 May 1864, the Abbé Pauzet claimed that he
had refused the last rites and been unwilling to repent his sins. The may-
or’s family and the wider community were convinced that the priest had
been infuriated by the refusal of the dying man to bequeath part of his
fortune to a religious congregation. Led by the garde champêtre beating
the commune’s drum, and by uniformed national guards, the entire popu-
lation accompanied the coffin to church. The bells were tolled, while old
ladies lit candles on the altar and around the body, and a local mason,
220   R. PRICE

wearing the tricolour sash of the mayor, read the prayers for the dead.
Subsequently, the Bishop of Agen complained about the profanation of
the church and demanded the prosecution of participants. The Prefect
adopted a more tolerant attitude towards a population guilty in his eyes of
no more than ‘naivety’, ‘ignorance’ and the simplicity so characteristic of
this ‘little corner of the department’, which was, in his judgement, at least
a century behind the times.29
The parish priest was also responsible for the moral well-being of his
flock. The religious instruction of the young was of crucial importance. It
was possible to cause offence by rejecting godparents judged to lack the
moral qualities essential to the Christian upbringing of a child and thus
delaying baptism.30 In rejecting the choice of an unmarried mother, the
vicaire of Saint Laurent (Jura) explained that canon law forbade him to
‘accept as a god-parent someone whose conduct is not regular: she would
not know how to take responsibility for a child’. At nearby Vannoz, the
parish priest even sought to impose preconditions on both father—the
deputy-mayor—and godfather, in the form of a promise to refrain in
future from criticizing the clergy.31 Judgements as to whether children
were ready to receive their first communion—the mark of adulthood and
an occasion for celebration—generally around the age of 11 or 12, and
following two or three years of religious instruction, might also easily pre-
cipitate disputes. Rejection represented a blow to the status of the family
and, in many areas, an obstacle to finding employment.32
The possibly over-zealous priest at Montfranc (Aveyron)—and many
others—also faced criticism for exhibiting ‘during the religious instruction
of children an impatience which appears incompatible with the gravity of
his priestly responsibility’.33 Petitioners from Cabourg in Normandy,
where almost half of the catechism class were denied confirmation in 1851
because they had failed to regularly attend, pointed out that this was
because the children were terrified of the Abbé Boitard who resorted to
‘slaps around the head, six months of penitences, standing with arms
crossed, and to kicks’, as means of encouraging the learning process. A
child who stammered had been forced to kneel with arms crossed during
services and been called a ‘fat pig … imbecile, animal…’ Children had
been expelled from classes simply for smiling, or for attending local fairs
with their families. The priest was accused of treating the poor with
contempt.34
If it was expected and generally demanded that ‘a good minister of
Jesus Christ … will speak out against the disorders which have taken place
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    221

in his parish’, it was easy to overstep the mark and be accused of ‘le fana-
tisme religieux’ or ‘despotisme’. The authoritarian and frequently self-­
righteous attitudes of many priests might well alienate parishioners. The
priest at Bilhères in the Pyrenees was thus condemned by the ‘premiers
citoyens de la commune’, outraged by his repeated denunciations of ‘the
most respectable young girls’ who, he insisted, had lost their ‘honour’
during the regular veillées held in barns at which, in the winter months,
people ‘stripped the maize’. It was claimed that ‘most of the population
submitted to this tyranny from fear of scandal and of religious punish-
ments’—particularly their dread of a refusal to hear their death-bed con-
fessions and to administer the last rites.35 As the Prefect of Moselle pointed
out, ‘the refusal of the sacraments of the Church strikes an unbelievable
terror into the populations of the countryside [and] is an almost infallible
weapon’.36
The frequently aggressive moral rigourism of the clergy was neverthe-
less a potent cause of disgruntlement. The lack of discretion/sense of duty
which led a parish priest to engage in ad hominem denunciation and ‘to
shout at his parishioners from the pulpit, and sometimes to name people
and denounce family affairs which the public ought not to know about’
was particularly difficult to endure.37 Thus, preaching against pride on 15
August 1866, the Abbé Letienne took the mayor of Navilly and his family
as an example.38 The Abbé Nicolas, parish priest at Segré, recognized that
even when he condemned drunkenness or the ill-treatment of wives in
general terms, the criticism was invariably taken personally by those mem-
bers of his congregation whose susceptibilities were easily offended or
who were generally known to be guilty.39 Some bishops were sufficiently
concerned about the impact to instruct their clergy to desist.40 Even so,
the practice appears to have been widespread. At the little thermal centre
of Argelès, according to the minutes of a meeting of the town council, the
Abbé Lauga, his temper inflamed by gout, was prone to reproving ‘in the
most virulent terms…, the vices—genuine or supposed—which have been
denounced to him by a sort of police made up of some poor fanatics who
have no misgivings about the sad roles they are playing’. Although indi-
viduals had not been named, those presumed guilty of such diverse ‘sins’
as usury or dancing (even at family gatherings or official receptions) or of
participating in ‘les amusements les plus innocents’ were easily identifiable in
a small community, particularly when the priest refused to hear their con-
fessions and to admit them to holy communion. They generally assumed
that they had no choice but to submit to the will of a priest convinced that
222   R. PRICE

he was doing God’s work and who as a tenured curé had even ignored his
bishop’s advice to be more discreet.41 In an anguished, and semi-literate
letter, Ambroise Paturon, a resident of Le Thour in the same department,
expressed his concern that this kind of moral severity had the effect of
discouraging confession.42
Confession, which the Church increasingly insisted should become
more frequent as a means of encouraging the search for perfection, was
always an anxious moment, even in the absence of scandal, and in spite of
the spiritual relief it offered. At least once a year, immediately before the
celebration of Easter, an admission of sins was deemed to be the essential
prelude to gaining absolution and returning to a state of grace. A sympa-
thetic priest might ease the process. The clergy were encouraged to be
tactful by their superiors and in the manuals to which they looked for
practical advice. However, as Mgr Gousset, Bishop of Périgueux, insisted
in his Théologie morale (1844), ‘everyone is obliged by divine law to admit
to all the mortal sins of which they feel guilty, to identify their nature,
indicate the number, and describe the circumstances’.43 Mgr Pie warned
his clergy that absolution too easily granted to sinners would only encour-
age vice.44 Obsessed with the threat of Evil, the clergy felt duty-bound to
intervene. Laxity in the confessional represented failure in the eyes of God.
In all probability, the existence of a private sphere, from which religion
was excluded, would have been inconceivable.45
Intimate questions concerning sexual relationships were always likely to
cause embarrassment. Marie Cazaubon from Clarac in the Hautes-­
Pyrénées was distressed by an interrogation which she judged to be ‘fort
indiscret’ and ‘too familiar’, as well as by the aggressive manner of the
priest concerned.46 Parishioners making their confessions to ageing priests
like the Abbé Clere at Moiron in the Jura, who was almost completely
deaf, were often forced to shout and naturally concerned that they would
be overheard. The essential secrecy of the act was further threatened by
the rumours and gossip so typical of the small parish community.47 At
Villers-Cernay (Ardennes), women who offended against their priest’s
high moral standards could expect to be refused communion and thus
undergo public humiliation.48 The exclusion of young girls from the
Congrégation de Marie was another, much-resented, shaming tactic.49 At
Saint Christol near Nîmes, the parish priest in suddenly terminating the
confession of a widower who refused to answer questions concerning his
sexual relationships, thus abandoned the man, unable to secure absolu-
tion, or to receive Easter communion, ‘in the most terrible of alternatives’.
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    223

Another communicant was dismissed contemptuously with the words—

‘beast he was born and beast he will die’. For desperate parishioners, the
impact of the ‘caprice’ and ‘malignity’ of their priest over the previous
decade had been magnified by the bishop’s ‘indifference’ to
complaints.50
While sharing the clergy’s insistence on the vital necessity of safeguard-
ing female virtue—both the virginity of the young and fidelity within
marriage—men frequently expressed their concern about what they per-
ceived to be unacceptable levels of interest in their most intimate secrets.
They also resented efforts, through the confessional, to influence their
wives and daughters.51 Confessors, instructed to believe that the procre-
ation of God’s children was the only justification for sexual intercourse,
were especially anxious to halt the spread of the sinful practice of contra-
ception. The Abbé Féline in his influential Catéchisme des gens mariés—
first published in 1782—denounced married couples who practised ‘the
crime of the infamous Onan … when they do not want any more children,
without wishing to deprive themselves of the pleasure they have grown
used to during marriage’.52 As contraception spread, questioning fre-
quently became more obsessive and inquisitorial. Preaching at Arras, the
Abbé Planque denounced ‘the pollution, even in the marriage bed,
[which] by a refinement of corruption, I almost said, diabolical art …
cheats the intentions of nature, and even the designs of Providence for the
institution of marriage!’53 This was undoubtedly mortal sin.
By the 1850s, the various editions of Mgr Bouvier’s influential manu-
als, which offered more systematic guidance to future priests on the ques-
tions they should ask in the confessional, and which unequivocally
condemned—and associated—onanism and sodomy—were employed in
some 60 seminaries. In apportioning blame, Bouvier emphasized male
culpability. It was husbands who were judged by the clergy to be respon-
sible for the act of coitus interruptus (withdrawal) and condemned for the
péché d’Onan. Women, perceived to be submissive and sexually passive,
were thought to have endured rather than enjoyed sex, and were thus, at
least partially, absolved of responsibility, although a wife should certainly
seek to persuade her husband to avoid offending God. Concern was
rarely expressed about the impact of repeated pregnancies and the burden
of large families on the physical and mental well-being of women. The
Abbé Vianney nevertheless noted the agony of a sickly woman, terrified
by the prospect of eternal damnation resulting from her attempts to avoid
pregnancy while fulfilling the obligations of the marriage bed.54 In such
224   R. PRICE

s­ ituations, Mgr Bouvier insisted that confessors should advise couples to

abstain from sexual activity and adopt separate beds.55

6.2.2  Newcomers
Obviously, some parishes were more difficult than others. However,
‘Conflicts of interest, personality clashes, [and] rivalries … competition
and conflict … rumour and gossip, suspicion and criticism, envy and fear
of envy were endemic’ in most communities.56 Moreover, long-serving
priests, convinced of their own virtues, often came to believe that they
were immune from criticism while newcomers were almost bound to ruf-
fle feathers; particularly when they adopted ‘principled’ and authoritarian
rather than pragmatic positions on moral and communal affairs, some-
times seeking to ‘immediately exercise an absolute authority, to which lim-
ited experience gives something of the brusque and tyrannical’.57 The
Abbé Lapoulle, priest at Génicourt-sur-Meuse, manifesting a determina-
tion to change established practices and ‘tout réformer’, was thus rapidly
denounced as ‘a little tyrant in a cassock’.58 According to Joseph Baudoz,
a retired cavalry officer from the parish of Berlaimont (Nord), ‘every time
a new priest arrives in the commune neither the church nor the parish are
worthy of him and the commune is obliged to make onerous changes’.
The most recent incumbent had gone too far in his determination to con-
struct a new, much larger church, rather than restore the existing building.
This resolve to ‘destroy to construct, instead of restoring to save, as did
the Saviour of the world, Jesus Christ’, represented an ‘act of pride’ which
furthermore would disturb the remains of ‘our ancestors’.59
Newly appointed parish priests always risked being compared unfavour-
ably with their predecessors.60 The inhabitants of Chavanne in Savoie were
convinced that they would never again find the likes of their recently
deceased and much loved priest. His replacement proved to be too force-
ful in his manner and use of his pulpit to denounce the perceived moral
transgressions of young women. Following the celebration of Carnival in
1867, he had apparently complained loudly that the commune was ‘a
lunatic asylum’ and that its inhabitants were ‘imbéciles’, ‘crétins’, ‘crapules’
and ‘canailles’.61 The mayor and leading citizens of Monléon-Magnoac,
high in the Pyrenees, insisted in a letter to the newly elected President of
the Republic in January 1849 that their normal ‘blind’ confidence in their
parish priest had been shattered by the new incumbent’s determination to
entirely dominate the community.62 Subsequently, the councillors and
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    225

notables of nearby Nistos would remind the minister that ‘if a good priest
is a treasure in a locality, one can comprehend easily that one with faults is
likely to be a pure calamity’.63
New parish priests could also easily find themselves involved in on-­
going disputes within communities, of which, initially, they might be
unaware, much less understand.64 According to Mgr Fillion, the Bishop of
Le Mans, financial matters, refusals to baptize infants because of objec-
tions to proposed god-parents, efforts to persuade congregations to talk
less and prevent their members from coming and going as they pleased,
and changes in the trajectory of processions, were all likely to result in
disputes.65 Sometimes bitter differences also occurred over the participa-
tion of local musicians in church services and whether or not they were an
aid to worship or a ‘distraction’.66 Having banned the local band, the par-
ish priest at Grancey-sur-Ource (Côte-d’Or) found that he was prevented
from completing his sermon on Easter Day 1862 by the ‘tumulte’ arising
when ‘people noisily blew their noses, coughed [and] spat’.67 The right to
appoint a bell-ringer or grave-digger might also be disputed between
municipal councillors, appealing to custom, and parish priests insisting
upon their legal rights.68
Securing possession of the keys to the church tower, and control over
the church bells, the vital means of calling the faithful to worship, as well
as for sounding the alarm (tocsin), could also cause conflict.69 There might
be disagreement over whether or not it was appropriate to ring a peal for
baptisms.70 The growing unwillingness of priests to offer ‘prayers to ward
off storms’ or ring the church bells to prevent hail was also resented, espe-
cially where, as at Esquiule (Basses-Pyrénées), they continued to collect
the decalitre of wheat per household which had represented payment for
such acts.71 At Millières (Haute-Marne), the bells and clock in the church
tower ceased to function because the municipal council, determined to
retain control, refused to transfer 100 francs to the fabrique to pay for
their maintenance. Peasants, without clocks in their homes, were deprived
of ‘les sonneries’ which regulated their work.72 The holding of church ser-
vices at times which did not fit in with the work routines of local farming
or industry was a further cause for complaint.73
It was certainly possible to appoint the wrong kind of priest to a parish.
When. on 1 December 1861. the Abbé Sevestre, parish priest at
Marchéville, frustrated by the apparent indifference of the farmers and
agricultural labourers who made up his flock, provoked ‘hilarity’ by
announcing that ‘If a revolution was necessary to drag you out of the state
226   R. PRICE

of brutalization and stupor into which you have fallen, I would call for it
with all my voice!’, the Bishop of Chartres accepted that he should be
moved, while expressing his sympathy for the parish which would ulti-
mately receive a clergyman ‘without tact, without measure, and incapable
of doing good’.74 The problem with the Abbé Corpel, parish priest at
Bouligny (Meuse), according to the local gendarmerie commander, was
his ‘gloomy and haughty character … He never greets anyone, and does
not even respond to greetings from others, something the population
considers to be extremely impolite.’75 The ‘excessively pretentious man-
ners’ of the priest at Haute-Rivoire (Rhône) appear to have alienated the
mayor and other local notables.76 The instituteur at Eaux-Chaudes
(Basses-Pyrénées) on the other hand regretted the ‘grossièreté’ of the Abbé
Dufaurart and the lack of ‘respect’ evident when the priest ‘tutoye every-
one, even the old when he meets them for the first time’.77
A powerful personality, lacking tact was always likely to provoke dis-
sent. Coldness and intolerance were major failings in a priest.78 Constantly
exposed to the elements and desperate for religious consolation, the fish-
ermen of Berck (Pas-de-Calais) evidently found the Abbé Delrue too cold,
too cerebral and too unsympathetic.79 Widespread antipathy might also be
aroused by a priest’s apparent lack of sympathy for the poor.80 An ambi-
tious priest might thus address his sermons to members of the cultural
‘elite’ in a parish, employing a vocabulary and concepts hardly compre-
hensible to the majority of barely literate parishioners.81 In the worst pos-
sible circumstances, the prospect that a new priest, already transferred
from his previous parish(es) because of suspect morality, should hear con-
fessions was likely to provoke intense male suspicion.82

6.2.3  Priests and Local Notables

For the clergy, satisfying the pretensions of both the social elite and of less
elevated parishioners could be extremely difficult. The ‘rich’ and educated
invariably expected to enjoy deferential and respectful relations with parish
priests—whose bad manners they frequently complained about—and to
exercise greater influence within the parish than the ‘poor’. Recruited
mainly from the peasantry, the clergy would be expected to adapt to a
‘bourgeois’ model of civility—in terms of speech, manners, clothing and
personal cleanliness—which allowed them both to affirm their own rank
and to mix with local notables.83 The appearance of subservience to pow-
erful local families might nevertheless be viewed as a major failing. It was
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    227

claimed that the Abbé Delatroitte’s efforts to renovate a chapel at

Ronchamp in Normandy and distribute charity to his parishioners ensured
that he depended on the Marquis de Brige, in a relationship reminiscent
of ‘the despotism which existed in France before ‘89’.84 A petition signed
by ‘200 chefs de famille’ at Listrac, similarly denounced their priest as
‘detestable’, as ‘un esprit despote’, hostile to the Emperor, and wishing—
with the support of local landowners—to return France to ‘le siècle de la
dîme’.85 In more mundane terms, Mgr Davie, Bishop of Belley, reminded
his clergy that ‘the poor … easily accuse the man they often see at the door
of the rich at the time when smoke rises from his chimney and announces
a table more fully laden than their own, of flattery and sensuality … God
preserve the priest from visits which leave him with a desire to be invited
to dinner. Nothing becomes him less than the weakness which has its ori-
gins in such base inclinations, so contrary to the ecclesiastical spirit, so
conforming to the prejudices that the world has against us.’86
However saintly the priest, he was likely to assume that he had a right
and indeed a duty, to intervene in local affairs.87 This was especially the
case where the mayor, ‘an honest countryman, without education, with-
out influence and without energy’, had proved to be ‘incapable of exercis-
ing control’.88 The Prefect of Calvados was indeed grateful that in the
village of Roucamps a mayor he described as ‘poorly educated and of lim-
ited intelligence’, was able to look to the parish priest for advice.89 The
assumption that the needs of religion should take priority over all else,
however, frequently resulted in disagreements. The overlapping responsi-
bilities of the municipal council and the parish conseil de fabrique compli-
cated matters further. The former was required by an 1809 decree to
provide lodgings for the parish priest and to meet the cost of major repairs
to church buildings. The conseil de fabrique, composed of the mayor, par-
ish priest and ‘of some [elected] parish notables’ was responsible for the
proper conduct of religious services, the upkeep of buildings, and for
financial matters, including the establishment of fees and pew rents.
The legal responsibilities (particularly in financial matters) and social
pretensions of the local notables who made up these two councils pro-
vided numerous occasions for all kinds of minor disagreements which, due
to offended susceptibilities, might easily be turned into ‘un question de
principe entre la mairie et l’église’.90 Although overlapping membership
often facilitated cooperation,91 priests were especially likely to complain
about the efforts of domineering mayors to extend their influence to the
conseil de fabrique.92 At Badefols in the Dordogne, according to the Abbé
228   R. PRICE

Alette, the mayor was determined to establish himself as a ‘dictator …

using the town hall as a weapon to undermine whoever does not support
his personal interests’. To make matters worse, he failed to attend church
services, opened his notarial office on Sundays, and was described as irre-
ligious and ‘partisan des principes subversifs’.93 A municipal conseil which
took seriously its role as ‘the vigilant guardian of the interests of the popu-
lation’, and its responsibility for the financial administration of the com-
munity, might also awaken the resentment of a priest who believed that its
members should simply and unquestioningly support his initiatives.94 The
decision in 1856 by the parish priest at Baudreville in the Beauce, to
remove the mayor from the office of parish council treasurer, without fol-
lowing proper procedure, inevitably humiliated the wealthy and status-­
conscious farmer concerned. He refused to part with his keys of office,
forcing the priest to employ a locksmith to open the chest in which the
parish funds were stored.95
Much clearly depended on the personalities of the leading figures
involved as well as the circumstances; the communal mayor—in an
ambiguous position as the de facto representative of his community and
de jure government official, and the parish priest—the man of God.96 In
spite of rising prosperity and government subsidies, the competing
demands for expenditure on churches, new roads, schools and town halls,
frequently resulted in irreconcilable financial demands.97 For both parish
priest and communal mayor, the development of instruction had become
a primary area of responsibility.98 Communes already hard-pressed to
meet the obligations imposed by the 1833 and 1850 education laws were
not likely to welcome demands from their priests for funds to construct
additional premises for the religious orders.99 Their determination to
construct larger and ever more beautiful churches—to the glory of
God—and demands for communal subventions and voluntary donations
might cause discord. At Verdon (Gironde), where the parish priest had
been accused of ‘perpetual and irritating interference in … the adminis-
tration of the commune’, the problem appears to have arisen out of what
he perceived to be the mayor’s ‘unjustified’ determination to oppose the
renovation of the church.100 Similar disputes wracked the parish of Rezay
in the diocese of Bourges where the priest was able to ‘persuade’ some of
the inhabitants to engage in ‘more or less voluntary labour service (cor-
vées) to fetch stone’.101 In a case eventually brought before the Conseil
d’Etat, the mayor of Pozières (Somme), who had advised against the
purchase of a new peal of bells the parish could not afford, was denounced
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    229

by an overwrought priest for having ‘made worse ravages than the chol-
era; the cholera passed, this man remains!’ He was described as ‘stupid,
ignorant, a pedant, an unbeliever, a Voltairien’.102 Councillors who failed
to vote additional funding for a vicaire in the Vendean parish of Les
Essarts in 1868 were even threatened with eternal damnation.103
A conscientious determination to fulfil his official duties could place a
mayor in a difficult situation. M. Briot, mayor of Maure, was described by
the Prefect of Ille-et-Vilaine as extremely devout and habitually domi-
nated by the local clergy. The parish priest, ‘accustomed to administering
the commune at the same time as his parish’, had thus decided in 1856
that a school should be constructed on land belonging to the commune.
The efforts of the mayor to follow proper administrative procedures and
secure the approval of the municipal council and prefecture had so infuri-
ated him that the unfortunate Briot was forced to confess and receive
absolution in a neighbouring parish.104 At Plaintel (Côtes-du-Nord), the
installation of a young priest, the Abbé Rouault de La Vigne—‘arrogant’
and ‘despotic’—was followed by requests for the renovation of the presby-
tery on a scale far in excess of the funds available to the commune and
fabrique. In an attempt to resolve the dispute, the Prefect appointed a
commission made up of one of his officials, a representative of the bishop
and the diocesan architect, to draw up plans. When these were altered by
the priest, who furthermore demanded the dismissal of the mayor, the
entire council threatened to resign.105 At Corbas in the Isère, having com-
menced a substantial renovation programme, on this occasion with the
support of the municipal council, the parish priest was ordered by the local
civil tribunal to demolish work which had not been properly authorized by
the prefect. He refused and barricaded himself in the church with a small
group of mainly female parishioners. Whilst the priest rang the alarm on
the church bells, his companions threw stones and pepper into their faces
of the workmen sent by the prefecture. Brandishing a crucifix, the priest
justified his resistance ‘in the name of Christ’. The workmen demanding
entry ‘in the name of the law’ eventually smashed their way into the church
through the windows. Although the state prosecutor at Grenoble stigma-
tized an attitude he believed to be common among the rural clergy,
namely, an unwillingness ‘to submit their ideas and personal projects to
the control and sanction of the authorities’, most communities of course
managed to avoid such drama.106
Occasionally, however, outside intervention became an urgent neces-
sity. Just as the prefect supervised communal accounts, so the diocesan
230   R. PRICE

bishop was ultimately responsible for the proper conduct of its affairs by
the parish council.107 In October 1853, the Archbishop of Rouen dis-
solved the fabrique at La Haye because of financial irregularities and the
‘false’ accusations provoked by its internal divisions, and replaced it with a
temporary Commission administrative au temporal.108 In such situations,
a bishop could simply refuse to approve the accounts. This was the case in
October 1864 when an unauthorized meeting of the fabrique of the trou-
bled Parisian parish of Ternes agreed to provide generous and irregular
supplements to the stipends of assistant priests. A substantial correspon-
dence was subsequently generated which revealed wounded susceptibili-
ties. In 1867, the fabrique thus accused the parish priest, the Abbé
Hugony, of ‘excès de pouvoir’ on two counts. First, because, without con-
sultation, he had employed a Mme Triquenot as the church’s laundress in
place of sisters from the order of Saint-Vincent de Paul—inevitably gener-
ating rumours concerning his close relationship with the lady. Second,
because the repairs he had ordered, again without consultation, had
resulted in the removal of some chairs and in consequence a reduction in
the income from pew rents. In 1870, the fabrique even went so far as to
publish a pamphlet listing its grievances.109
Accounting difficulties were frequent. The mayor of Socx (Pas-de-­
Calais) complained that the fabrique accounts—prepared by the parish
priest rather than by the treasurer, as should have been the case, contained
‘irregularities, errors, omissions’.110 The priest responsible for the impov-
erished parish of Saint Michel in the 17th arrondissement of Paris appears
to have diverted the income from pew rents into church building and
charity and failed to produce any receipts. The fabrique president and
treasurer complained to the Archbishop; other parishioners petitioned the
Emperor to protect a priest engaged in such good works.111 The Abbé
Mayeux, in a neighbouring parish, similarly refused to account for the
income and charitable expenditure derived from a series of lotteries.112 In
Clamecy (Nièvre), the Abbé Guillaumet, served as either president or de
facto treasurer of the fabrique of the town for 30 years. According to the
prefect, between 1845 and 1851, he had ‘completely annihilated the
council’. Subsequently he had arranged only rare meetings at which he
had presented sparse and incomplete accounts of income and of the expen-
diture he had himself sanctioned.113 Substantial irregularities were also
likely to be found in the accounts of deprived upland parishes, and in
Brittany, areas in which populations continued to ‘venerate’ their priests
and accepted that they should nominate members of the fabrique, keep
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    231

the accounts, and preside over its meetings.114 The instituteur at the
Pyrenean spa of Eaux Chaudes complained that the parish priest was
unwilling even to organize a fabrique and in 1865 was able to simply
transfer local charitable funds to the denier de Saint-Pierre established in
1860 to provide assistance to the embattled Pope.115 The distribution of
charitable funds was indeed a further potential area of dispute. The juge de
paix at Wassigny (Aisne) accepted that while members of the local bureau
de bienfaisance might sometimes question the parish priest’s determina-
tion to nominate recipients and control the distribution of charity, gener-
ally they followed his advice.116 At Epinay near Paris, complaints were
similarly made concerning ‘unfair’ procedures, but throughout the 1860s
the Abbé Verrier continued to distribute the funds of the communal char-
ity bureau entirely as he wished.117
The establishment and changing level of pew rents might also provide
an occasion for disagreement by heightening the importance of questions
of precedence in processions or seating arrangements in church—both
partly determined by the level of pew rent.118 Prominent families fre-
quently assumed that the pews in which they habitually sat were their
private property. Poorer and less important families placed themselves fur-
ther away from the high altar. Those who could not afford a pew rent were
obliged to stand at the back of the church. Seating arrangements were
thus key signifiers of social status. The priest at Magnac (Aveyron) pro-
voked a furious altercation when he allocated a ‘special place’ to the sisters
of the local convent and asked the wife of the mayor and her family to sit
further back.119 The decision of the parish priest at Fongrave (Lot-et-­
Garonne) to move the seats normally occupied by the mayor and council-
lors to a less prominent place in the church was similarly perceived by the
mayor to be an ‘arrogant provocation’. According to a local notary, the
priest ‘nourished a profound hatred for all those who resisted his whims’,
as well as against the Napoleonic regime. In reaction, the next mass ended
with the councillors shouting ‘Vive Napoléon’.120

6.2.4  Payment of Priests
Priests were frequently—and often unfairly—accused of ‘l’avidité du gain’
by parishioners reluctant to accept that fees (the casuel)—levied according
to complex diocesan cahiers de charges—for the performance of weddings
and funerals, as well as the revenue from pew rents, were a necessary sup-
plement to the stipends the clergy received from the State.121 In dioceses
232   R. PRICE

like Orleans, low levels of church attendance and a widespread refusal to

pay fees, reduced country priests to near-destitution, although they were
still expected to keep up appearances and to make charitable contribu-
tions.122 The only means of protecting the dignity of the clergy and reduc-
ing popular hostility, according to the parish priest at La Fourguette in the
suburbs of Toulouse, would have been to abolish fees and compensate
priests by increasing the basic annual stipend from 850 to 1200 francs.123
In many parishes, a variety of customary payments in kind were also
levied. Where clerical influence survived intact, and particularly in the
west, priests might prosper as a result of ‘voluntary’ gifts which peasants
rarely dared refuse.124 Elsewhere, in the commune of Saint-Joseph-de-­
Rivière (Isère), for example, the clergy chanted the service of the Passion
on Good Friday as a means of ensuring a good harvest, and then in
November went from door to door to gather ‘the collection for the
Passion’. Every household was expected to contribute a gift in kind—
wheat, oil, sugar or coffee—or sometimes in cash.125 At Mezel in the Côte-­
d’Or, the Abbé Chauvin expected a gift of chickens and eggs before he
would admit a child to first communion.126 The Abbé Seilhan, priest at
Louey (Hautes-Pyrénées), refused in May 1848 to conduct a wedding
ceremony until the various fees he was owed were paid in full. In his
defence, he insisted that he was only claiming what was due to him on the
basis of ‘usages established in the commune since time immemorial’.127
The charges levied on the bereaved could similarly appear to be a ‘shame-
ful speculation by religion’.128 The refusal of the priest responsible for the
tiny alpine hamlet of Les Guibertes to bury a woman until her family paid
for a previous funeral, and a wedding, received a decidedly mixed recep-
tion.129 The constant humiliation by the priest at Hanviller (Moselle) of a
poor man unable to pay for the burial of three of his children, and which
had forced him to sell the cow which was the last resource of his family,
aroused widespread contempt. The presbytery door was twice daubed
with human excrement.130
In poor upland areas, priests might also be criticized for keeping live-
stock and becoming involved in disputes over water rights.131 Pasturing
livestock in the village cemetery seemed to suggest a lack of respect for its
dead.132 At Saint André in the Hautes-Alpes, the parish priest was reported
to disappear each day following early mass to work on his farm at Rosans,
a round trip estimated in itself to take 4 hours.133 The Abbé Simonet, priest
at Lavoye (Meuse), was accused of devoting too much of his time to bee-
keeping and fishing. Instructed by the Bishop of Verdun to investigate the
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    233

situation, the curé of Fleury-sur-Aire, reported that no harm was caused by

these ‘innocent pastimes’.134 Priests might also be criticized for their pas-
sion for hunting. On several occasions, parishioners at Labastide in the Lot
had been forced to search for their priest in the mountains so that he could
deliver the last rites. Otherwise, he might be found in local markets selling
the game he had shot.135 The Abbé Coumerilh, priest in the Pyrenean par-
ish of Urdos, eventually had to be forbidden to hunt by the Bishop of
Bayonne.136 Priests might also be accused of self-indulgence. It was claimed
that the Abbé Guinot, curé of Contrexville, gained great pleasure from
mixing in high society, spent far too much time playing whist with visitors
to the local spa, and took insufficient care in his choice of conversation. In
his defence, he could point to the assiduity with which he performed his
parish duties, to his charitable work, and to a packed church.137

6.2.5  
The Propensity of Parishioners to Complain
Complaints about the perceived shortcomings of priests was restrained by
respect for and/or fear of the clergy. The ingrained sense of deference
towards the man of the cloth, inspired by his spiritual functions and social
status, ensured that the disaffected must often have felt that they should
suffer in silence.138 The clergy were thus generally approached with ‘pru-
dence’ and treated with ‘beaucoup de circonspection’.139 The poor and pow-
erless needed to be careful. The aggressive determination of the clergy to
control the distribution of charity as a means of rewarding the faithful
exercised a powerful influence on popular behaviour. Moreover the over-
whelming likelihood that bishops, concerned to protect the reputation of
the Church, would support their clergy, ensured that complaints were
likely to have little effect.140 After attempts to draw the attention of the
Archbishop of Rouen to improper sexual advances by the parish priest at
Thil-Manneville had been dismissed out-of-hand, it would take a further
12 years before the complaint was renewed.141 Government officials who
normally insisted that disciplining the clergy was entirely the responsibility
of the religious authorities, also adopted dismissive attitudes to com-
plaints, representing them as mere ‘divisions de clocher’, the outcome of
mutual ‘sentiments de haine et de vengeance’ between rival ‘coteries’ or as
engendered by political differences.142
Discontented parishioners could of course simply choose to avoid reli-
gious services or even to boycott the parish church. The ‘immoralité’ of
the parish priest at Charentilly (Indre-et-Loire) was so notorious that in
234   R. PRICE

June 1860 the church remained empty even during a pastoral visit by the
Archbishop of Tours, normally an occasion for pomp and celebration.143
Their willingness or freedom to adopt such a course of action depended
on the vitality of their religious beliefs as well as the coercive potential of
the local alliance between priests, officials and notables. When all else had
failed, traditional means of expressing popular discontent might be
employed, although with rapidly declining frequency after mid-century.
Thus, at Nouvion-et- Catillon (Aisne), ‘interference’ by the parish priest
in municipal affairs provoked defamatory ‘anonymous writings and
songs’.144 Hand-written placards often represented a stepping up in the
intensity of protest.145 In the night of 14–15 December 1862 when the
name of the parish priest was gouged out of the base of a calvary recently
erected in the cemetery at Bouville (Eure-et-Loir), posters announcing
the fact, and threatening the life of the priest, appeared on nearby walls.146
Some of the inhabitants of Ramasse in the Ain, on 31 January 1861, took
advantage of one of the frequent absences of their parish priest to place
seals on the door of the church and then demonstrate on his return. The
incident had been provoked by the prospect of a death in the community
without benefit of clergy and had been supported by the mayor—who was
dismissed—and councillors.147
Sometimes the desire for vengeance and justice provoked a ritualized
charivari, with satirical songs and discordant music performed generally by
gangs of youths, or took even more unpleasant forms such as the daubing
of the doors of the presbytery with human excrement.148 Ribald songs in
Moulins (Allier) in December 1863 celebrated the exploits of the local
curé—seen climbing a wall in an attempt to reach the bedroom of a young
girl whose parents he knew were away from home.149 Songs were also the
weapon selected by the youths of Siradan in the Pyrenees when their parish
priest accused a young woman of infanticide, provoking a judicial investiga-
tion which had found her innocent.150 The threat of a retired gendarmerie
officer to shoot a vicaire at Gan (Basses-Pyrénées) who had impregnated
his daughter, leading to the precipitant flight of the priest, appears to have
been regarded as quite justified even by the judicial authorities.151
Carnival presented the ideal opportunity for protest. On 25 February
1849, the young men of the village of Siarrouy (Hautes-Pyrénées) chose
to parody the sermons of the Abé [sic] Cardeillac, described in a petition
as an ‘imperious spirit, … avid for domination ..., having for principles that
everyone should bend to the will of the priest, that the priest must be the
sovereign arbitrator’ in matters temporal as well as spiritual. Complaints
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    235

made to the Bishop of Tarbes had been without effect.152 The unsuccessful
efforts of the parish priest at Any-Martin-Rieux (Aisne) to prevent the
traditional masquerade on Shrove Tuesday 1864, and his subsequent
denunciation of the young men involved for immorality, led to a plot to
embarrass the priest. This involved leading mares to the front of the pres-
bytery and having them mounted by stallions, in reference to rumours
concerning the clergyman’s own sexual habits. The plan was ruined by the
arrival of the mayor with a gendarme.153 At Bouillancourt-en-Sery
(Somme), the Abbé Fourrière was briefly locked out of his own presbytery
in protest against the obsessive manner in which he followed young people
and reported any signs of familiarity to their parents, and his repeated
denunciations of sexual immorality, as well as his success in securing a ban
on the dancing which had traditionally accompanied the feast of Saint
Colette in this working-class community.154
Priests were expected to conduct themselves in a dignified manner.
They should display ‘patience’ and ‘moderation’ and avoid excessive famil-
iarity.155 It was important also for a priest to ensure that he was not too
closely identified with particular individuals or families. Most certainly, he
should not succumb to such earthly temptations as drink, lust, or a greedy
desire for possessions. Alcoholism, and also gluttony, appear, however, to
have been common problems, brought on, perhaps, by the isolation which
many priests endured.156 The Prefect of Seine-et-Marne, while stressing
that the behaviour of most priests was ‘exemplary’, certainly expressed
concern about the ‘immoderate’ consumption of alcohol which threat-
ened to ‘compromise … the dignity of their character’.157 In some cases,
as when the parish priest at Gometz (Seine-et-Oise) was arrested, along
with his drinking companions—a wine merchant and a cattle dealer—in a
bar at Limours in June 1857, severe reprimands were delivered by
bishops.158 Even more serious was the discredit resulting from public
­drunkenness within one’s own parish.159 Initially, the Prefect of the Meuse
excused the Abbé Souillot, desservant of Bazincourt, because he rarely
appeared drunk in public and provided free medical care to the poor.
However, this changed when the priest was reported to have collapsed in
an alcoholic stupor onto the altar of his church during mass and because
of his growing habit of abusing the congregation from the pulpit and
threatening them with eternal damnation.160
As Mgr Darboy pointed out, priests needed constantly to be prudent in
their behaviour and to choose every word with care.161 An often obsessive
interest in the parish priest’s every move was evident in most communities.
236   R. PRICE

Malevolence, or the impact of rumour as reports passed ‘de bouche en

bouche’ could easily exaggerate the least transgression.162 There were
always ill-defined borderlands. Self-respect might be perceived by some
parishioners to be arrogance; advice to be interference; an interest in com-
munal affairs a determination to dominate; the desire to achieve a respect-
able standard of living as greed; the occasional glass of wine as drunkenness;
enjoying the services of a housekeeper, or else an interest in the well-being
of the young, as symptomatic of a search for sexual gratification.
Susceptibilities were easily aroused. Even trivial complaints might result in
a fundamental loss of confidence on the part of some or all of the inhabit-
ants of a parish and the reputation of a priest, once called into question,
was difficult to restore.163

6.3   Moral Failings

Most priests appear to have lived morally irreproachable lives, sublimating
the pressures caused by their perpetual vows and particularly the commit-
ment to celibacy, which had been so openly and widely condemned as
contrary to the laws of nature during the Enlightenment and Revolution
by both priests and laymen.164 The subsequent reaffirmation of this pledge,
together with constant denunciations of sexuality as sinful probably
assisted in this—as well as transmitting negative attitudes towards sex
throughout society.165 Women were idealized and partly de-sexualized as
Holy Virgins or as submissive Christian Mothers. Nevertheless, many
priests appear to have been obsessed with sex and to have experienced
considerable anxiety in their everyday relations with women. It was Eve
after all who had served as the instrument of Original Sin. It was her trans-
gressions which had resulted in expulsion from the Garden of Eden and in
the end of innocence. It was she who bore a heavy responsibility for bring-
ing death into the world.166
In recent times, we have become all too familiar with the inclination of
some priests to ‘sin’ by engaging in carnal activity and of others to turn a
blind eye towards the moral and/or legal transgressions of their col-
leagues, as well as the misguided determination of those in positions of
authority to attempt to protect the reputation of the Church by conceal-
ing abuses and thus protecting offenders. Substantial evidence exists to
confirm that the Church—an institution claiming to provide moral leader-
ship—systematically concealed—over centuries—illicit acts by its priests
which, in the case of sexual abuse and the sadistic treatment of children,
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    237

had a devastating impact on the lives of many victims. In seeking to pro-

tect its own reputation, the Church, as an institution, was thus repeatedly
guilty of gross moral turpitude.
Sexual transgressions by the clergy, whether with consenting adults, or
at the expense of children were, at least according to some historians,
comparatively rare.167 Judgement was and is difficult. The Cardinal-­
Archbishop of Arras estimated in 1849 that ‘of a thousand priests, five are
rotten, which is hardly exceptional’, adding, sadly, ‘but it is too much for
a bishop of 81 who has ordained all the priests in his diocese’.168 The judi-
cial authorities—representing wider socio-cultural trends—appear to have
become increasingly intolerant of sexual crimes (of rape, paedophilia,
incest, etc.). In part, the trend towards prosecution resulted from revisions
of the penal code in 1832 and 1863 which reflected a growing official
determination to protect women and children (under the age of 11–13)
from indecent and violent assaults. Abuse of authority was also taken more
seriously and reflected in the sentencing policy of the courts.169 As political
tension grew from 1859 as a result of French intervention in Italy, it also
appears that reports of incidents involving priests, which in the past would
have been suppressed by the authorities, and dealt with by the quiet trans-
fer of the priest to another parish, were more likely to result in official
action.170 According to a recent calculation, prosecutions increased from
107 in 1830 to 875 in 1876—still representing probably only the tip of
the iceberg.171
Sexual misdemeanours involving the clergy were in any case sufficiently
frequent to cause public concern and, magnified by rumour and anti-­
clericalism, certainly lent weight to the age-old myth of the predatory
priest.172 Popular proverbs and songs, as well as gossip, frequently accused
the clergy of failing to live up to their vows. Jokes about the relationships
between priests and their housekeepers and even with nuns were particu-
larly common.173 The tavern keepers, themselves so often condemned by
the clergy for encouraging drunkenness and propagating ideas subversive
of social and moral order, frequently responded in kind.174 Even the best-­
intentioned efforts to assist the sick or comfort the bereaved could result
in potentially compromising situations where a priest was left alone with a
woman, or made repeated visits to her home.175 Lending support to an
abandoned or abused wife was especially dangerous, both because of the
suspicions generated about the priest’s motives, and what was likely to be
viewed as a challenge to male, patriarchal authority. The inhabitants of the
village of Honoy-le-Jussey (Haute-Saône) claimed to be so ‘scandalized’
238   R. PRICE

by the regular and closely observed visits of their priest to a woman

estranged from her husband, that they found alternative confessors in
neighbouring parishes.176 Indignation was easily aroused by the apparent
transgressions of a figure who claimed to be the moral guardian of the
community.177
The habitual response of senior clergymen to accusations directed at
priests whose previous behaviour had often been irreproachable was likely
to be disbelief.178 In 1847, the Bishop of Chartres defended his clergy
against the ‘lies’, and what he insisted were exaggerated accounts of the
most insignificant misdemeanours involving only a tiny minority of priests,
but publicized with ‘arrogant contempt’ in the local newspaper Le
Glaneur.179 In a confidential report to the Bishop of Troyes in 1869, a
senior parish priest in dismissing as unfounded a rumour concerning the
‘relations coupables’ engaged in by a fellow cleric, described it as a ‘banal
accusation from which few priests, at a certain stage in their lives, are able
to escape’.180 The threat to the reputation of a priest in such circumstances
could not always be ignored, however.181 A significant number of reports
containing formal accusations of illicit behaviour by priests survive in the
archives. These might be divided into cases involving consensual sex
between adults (both hetero- and homo-sexual)—the former unaccept-
able to the Church but not illegal); indecent assault or rape of adults; and
the sexual abuse of children. In many cases, the commitment to celibacy
must have caused considerable personal stress which could only have been
partially relieved by the practice of masturbation, itself a sinful act of
self-abuse.182
In certain situations sexual frustration could evidently become intense.
Simply travelling in a coach, in close physical proximity to a woman, might
represent an almost unbearable temptation.183 The Abbé Gruel was
accused of having ‘inappropriately’ touched a female travelling in a
crowded coach between Laon and Montcornet. The intimate questions he
habitually posed in the confessional had already resulted in his acquiring a
reputation as a ‘pig’, to be avoided if at all possible.184 The Abbé Bise, par-
ish priest at Le Mesnil-Saint-Denis, was transferred to another parish when
his obsession with a sister teaching at the girls school was revealed by the
suggestive letters she had passed on to her superior.185 In similar circum-
stances, the Abbé Fontaine at Vallières in the Aube was accused in 1863 of
making indecent remarks to women during his frequent bouts of intoxica-
tion. He was reprimanded by his bishop and moved to a parish ‘de peu
d’importance’.186 The sheer hypocrisy of some priests encouraged efforts
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    239

by parishioners to obtain a replacement. This was the case in Aubervilliers

on the outskirts of Paris. In a ‘très confidentielle’ ‘Note sur l’Abbé Escaille’
composed in the Prefecture of Police, it was accepted that a priest well
known for his moral rigour was himself guilty not only of greed, in
demanding supplements to his stipend from the local council and exces-
sive fees for conducting funerals, but was also widely assumed to have
indecently assaulted a young woman.187
Priests who had come to doubt their vocations were especially likely to
be tempted by the prospect of something akin to domestic bliss. The Abbé
Blin and Marie Bullot of the parish of Saint-Etienne-de-Beauvais who fled
to England in February 1857 had evidently been planning to leave as soon
as the young lady reached the age of majority. According to the prefect,
well informed about developments in his place of residence, they would
make an attractive couple. Letters seized by the authorities, suggested that
Blin had ‘entered into holy orders in spite of himself, complaining about
those with authority over him, who had forced his vocation’. As well as
love, he was motivated by a determination to stop preaching ‘truths’ in
which he did not believe. The scandal caused in the locality was ‘immense’
and the Bishop of Beauvais was determined to ensure that the authorities
prevented the couple from securing their position by means of a civil mar-
riage.188 In a similar case, in December 1858, the Abbé Calvet, a priest in
Perpignan, left town with a woman with whom he had been infatuated for
some time. He declared that they intended to marry and explained his
action largely in terms of his ‘aversion’ for the priesthood into which he
had been forced by his father. However, several days later the couple
returned to beg forgiveness from the bishop, the young man planning to
enter a monastery, the young woman a convent. Guilt had presumably
overwhelmed passion.189 In 1868, the Bishop of Albi would prove to be
far more sympathetic in another case of ‘weakness of the flesh’, in support-
ing the return to holy orders of a former priest, following the death of the
woman with whom he had run off 20 years before.190
Not surprisingly, little sympathy appears to have been shown towards
the Abbé Derras, parish priest at Lauzun, who was found to have enjoyed
a long-term liaison with a Mlle. Reynaud—revealed in letters discovered
by the lady’s husband-to-be.191 The relationship between the Abbé
Rousseau, curé of Fillé-Guécélard and Constance Leroy, a 23-year-old
‘pensionnaire libre’ in the convent of the Perpetual Adoration in nearby Le
Mans was discovered when the couple were apprehended by a garde
châmpetre engaging in ‘des actes que la morale réprouve’ in a field on the
240   R. PRICE

outskirts of the town. Rousseau confessed that for seven years he had been
in the habit of using a rope ladder to scale the convent walls to sleep with
his lover. To limit the impact of such scandalous behaviour, the prefect
agreed that the priest should not be prosecuted.192 This would not be pos-
sible when, in July 1856, an attempt was made to murder the Abbé
Constant—a vicaire in the parish of Saint-Barnabé, by the aggrieved hus-
band of a woman the priest had somehow managed to regularly meet in a
room in the convent of the Sœurs de Saint-Vincent de Paul. The Bishop
of Marseille regretted that ‘it is very painful … to see such grave interests
compromised by those very people who ought to be setting an example of
all the virtues’.193
The military and clerical authorities were similarly embarrassed when
the Abbé Bérard, chaplain at the Saint Cyr military academy, was found to
be maintaining a woman in Versailles. Devastated by his dismissal, he com-
plained that he had been found guilty simply on the basis of hearsay and
reminded the minister of his past services as a military chaplain in the
Crimea where he had been wounded as well as contracting cholera and
typhus. The outcome of his request for a parish appointment is not
known.194 Particularly shocking for M.  Renou, secretary-general at the
Eure-et-Loir prefecture, was the ‘coupable’ and ‘criminel’ liaison between
the parish priest at Gommerville and the wife of a local notary, which
appeared to be tolerated both by the husband and the community. That
the priest at nearby Oinville-Saint-Liphard was a drunkard and that his
two mistresses had come to blows over him, appears to have been far less
offensive to the official’s susceptibilities.195
Some priests appear to have been inveterate womanizers, willing to take
full advantage of their privileged positions. The mayor and councillors of
Vanne (Haute-Saône) complained that ‘our Saviour ... believed he had
sent a pastor to safeguard the flock, but instead he has placed a wolf in the
sheepfold to devour the souls of the faithful!’196 The Abbé Jardin, when
desservant of Saint-Germain-des-Bois in the Bourges diocese, had
‘attempted to corrupt’ several of the young girls attending his catechism
classes. Transferred to another commune in the same diocese he had
repeated the offence and been moved to a parish in the neighbouring dio-
cese of Nevers, where he had entered into an adulterous relationship with
a married woman, before being transferred to Entrains as vicaire and
chaplain to a community of the Sisters of the Visitation. There he had
exercised his undoubted charm to attract the attention of both the nuns
and their teenage pupils. According to the official report, the letters of
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    241

some of the latter, seized in the post, were proof of his ‘perversity’ and
‘esprit de débauche’. He was finally placed under interdit by the Cardinal-­
Archbishop of Bourges.197 Together with other widely reported incidents
such as the seduction and impregnation of three sisters, aged 16, 18 and
22, by a vicaire at La Chapelle Saint Florent (Maine-et-Loire) and his
subsequent confession, this only appeared to confirm negative popular
perceptions of priests.198
In the case of accusations directed at members of the clergy, the Prefect
of the Oise assumed, and quite typically, that his aim ‘must always be to
avoid scandal’ which might discredit the religious institution.199 When the
Abbé Duché was accused of indecent assault in June 1867, the Prefect of
the Nièvre sought to discredit the complainant, although she was sup-
ported by her own parish priest, by accusing her of being a prostitute or
‘at least an unmarried mother’, while the Bishop of Nevers, although him-
self convinced of Duché’s guilt, successfully proposed a course of action
designed to prevent public scandal . The charges against the errant priest
were dropped and in return he was removed from his parish at Donzy—
but only for two years.200 When in 1869, the instituteur at Thorey
(Meurthe) found the parish priest in his classroom in ‘flagrant délit
d’immoralité’ with a woman already rumoured to be his mistress he threw
open the windows and called upon passers-by to witness the scandalous
scene. The authorities were not amused! The Prefect severely admonished
the teacher for publicizing the scandal, while the local clergy put pressure
on him to deny that the incident had occurred. The Bishop of Nancy
refused to transfer the priest because this would be seen as an admission of
guilt, unless, and as a quid pro quo, both the village mayor and the teacher
were dismissed.201
Far more serious was the situation of the Abbé Courtaud, desservant of
Bazelat, actually brought before the assizes of the Creuse in 1850 and
sentenced to eight years imprisonment for involving himself in infanticide
as a result of the pregnancy of his mistress. He had already been trans-
ferred from another parish due to his interest in women.202 The Abbé
Tissier, desservant of Saint Maur in the diocese of Bourges, was also
accused of complicity in infanticide by a 17-year-old servant girl who
claimed that she had strangled her newborn child at the suggestion of the
priest. Clémence Mazure also insisted that he had raped her when she was
10 and introduced her to a life of ‘debauchery’. By the time the case came
to trial, Tissier had disappeared leaving the girl to face the consequences
of her actions alone.203
242   R. PRICE

Homosexual acts were judged to be both immoral and illegal. The

inhabitants of Aix-en-Provence were scandalized in June 1856 to hear of
the advances made by a priest to Sergeant Bloud of the 75th Infantry
regiment.204 In an extremely detailed deposition, a soldier undergoing a
cure for a venereal infection in the military hospital at Angers described
how he had been seduced and sodomized by the chaplain—the Abbé
David. The priest had explained that he had little real religious commit-
ment although dutifully performing his duties and preaching wonderful
sermons. He received a two-year prison sentence for his transgressions.205
When a 15-year-old student at the Collège Saint Denis at Saint Geniez in
the Aveyron told his elder brother about his homosexual relationship with
the Abbé Delpon, this had provoked an investigation in which other pupils
were closely interrogated about their masturbatory practices. They denied
that their contact with the priest involved anything more than hugs and
kisses.206 Potentially more serious had been the ‘actes nombreux de pédéras-
tie’ of which the Abbé Merlin, desservant of the parish of Saints near
Coulommiers, was suspected. Following enquiries made ‘with all the
moderation and prudence demanded by delicate affairs involving ministers
of religion’, it was recognized that the priest had made advances to at least
a dozen men in his parish, including two members of the church choir
who had subsequently suffered illness due to the acts of ‘sodomy’ commit-
ted upon them. However, as no children had been involved and the priest
was to be transferred to another parish, the judicial authorities decided to
take no action.207 The parish priest at Saint-Maxime-sur-Vic (Landes) was
also transferred after an agricultural labourer reported seeing him naked in
a field with a young man. He had already been discredited by an ­accusation
of sodomy two years before.208 The Abbé Merstrallet, professor at the petit
séminaire at Saint-Jean de Maurienne, appears to have been packed off to
Rome in 1864 before the accusation of ‘attentats aux mœurs’ made by
several of his pupils could become public.209
Children appear to have been the most likely victims of the repressed
sexuality of priests. Rumours of the abuse of children by parish clergy and
members of the teaching orders were not uncommon.210 The Abbé Jossen,
vicar-general in the diocese of Meaux, even warned priests of the dangers
they faced by treating children with affection in the irreligious parishes of
a region where their every act was susceptible to misinterpretation.211 In a
memoir to the Ministre de l’Instruction publique in 1861, in the after-
math of the abuse of 17 young people by the directors of the Christian
schools in Angers, Jean Guchet, a lay instituteur, described these incidents
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    243

as evidence of the brutal punishments regularly imposed, as well as of the

‘multiple acts of immorality and indecent assaults’ committed by the
teaching orders.212 The 64-year-old priest at Dornes (Nièvre), the Abbé
Boyer, was actually sentenced to five years imprisonment for corrupting
the young by encouraging acts of gross indecency, including sodomy,
among members of his catechism classes, the church choir, and pupils at
the local school directed by the Christian brothers. That, by law, the parish
priest was responsible for the moral and religious instruction of the young
was not lost on the court, which additionally banned Boyer from teaching
for ten years.213
Questions asked by confessors but judged to be ‘inappropriate’ by the
laity were another potential cause of difficulties. Not surprisingly, scandal
was caused when, during a visitation to the parish of Vermenton (Yonne)
by the Missionnaires de Pierre-qui-vive, initiated by a local landowner—
the Comtesse de Chastellux, 14-year-old girls were asked by a certain
Frère Etienne whether they allowed boys to ‘lift up their skirts and if …
they had placed their hands in a forbidden place’—to which he pointed.214
The parish priest at Avesnes (Nord) was accused of having made ‘proposi-
tions immorales’ to 11- and 12-year-old girls. In this case, Aline Mercier
had complained to her mother that the priest had summoned her to his
presbytery, questioned her about her relations with young boys, and then
asked her if she would like to do ‘naughty things’ [‘polissonneries’] with
him. Police investigations discovered that four other girls had apparently
been invited, in the confessional, to engage in ‘cochonneries’ with the
priest.215 The Abbé Peschaud, desservant of Paray-sous-Briailles (Allier)
accused of ‘attentats à la pudeur’ against young people ‘âgé de moins de 13
ans’, was already rumoured to have made his niece pregnant. He would be
sentenced to ten years imprisonment.216
Where the judicial authorities were persuaded that the circumstances
were particularly serious, an investigation might follow, involving such
figures as the investigating magistrate, the mayor, the juge de paix, the
police commissaire and gendarmerie. However, evidence was frequently
contradictory and the legal situation not always clear. Thus when accusa-
tions of indecent assault were laid against the Abbé Cabardos, desservant
of Eoux (Haute-Garonne) in April 1869, it was determined that if ‘some
of the accusations are consistent’, while being immoral, they did not ‘fall
under the remit of the law’. The Garde des Sceaux was advised that all he
could do was suggest that the offending priest be disciplined by the eccle-
siastical authorities and moved to another parish.217 Particularly strong
244   R. PRICE

feelings of disgust were likely to be generated by such cases as that involv-

ing the Abbé Auffret parish priest at Lommoye (Seine-et-Oise). His
drunkenness and extravagance had long been tolerated. However, accord-
ing to the prosecuting magistrate, acts of gross indecency involving the
11- and 12-year-old members of his catechism class were, ‘unpardonable’,
‘incomprehensible’ and ‘sacrilegious’.218 As in the case of sexual misde-
meanours involving adults, to their eternal shame, both the civil and reli-
gious authorities were only too likely to attempt to cover up abuse against
children, although a priest caught up in and shamed by such increasingly
public procedures and in all likelihood suffering intense feelings of guilt
could well be driven to suicide.219
Even when accusations were taken seriously by magistrates, it could
take some considerable time before suspicion was translated into prosecu-
tion.220 The mayor of Thil-Manneville pointed out to the minister that the
immorality of the parish priest had been discussed openly for at least a
dozen years, but that until he had persuaded Louis Ducroq to make a
deposition, no-one ‘wanted to testify in writing from fear of compromis-
ing themselves’.221 When the Abbé Launay appeared before the tribunal
correctionnel at Loudéac in 1862, he was charged with over 50 counts of
indecent assault, carried out in the succession of parishes in which he had
served. He had finally been prosecuted only after the sous-préfet had him-
self witnessed an act of ‘gross public indecency’ conducted with a 14-year-­
old boy.222 Brother Gerert, a frère des Ecoles chrétiennes, was accused of
indecently assaulting 87 children before finally being brought before the
assizes at Versailles in 1865.223 Accused of masturbating 11 members of his
catechism class and choir, the Abbé Richard, parish priest at Montolivet,
attempted to blame the ‘wickedness’ of certain of his parishioners, before
admitting that he might, ‘but not deliberately’, have touched the genitals
of some of the children. The assizes of the Seine-et-Marne would sentence
him to 15 years incarceration.224 When, in Spring 1857, the Abbé Bonnot,
priest at They-les-Sorans (Haute-Saône), was eventually accused, in a
widely circulated wanted poster, of ‘acts of a revolting obscenity and
numerous indecent assaults committed, over more than eight years,
against children of the male sex’ [his choirboys], he fled across the nearby
frontier into Switzerland. Deported by the Swiss police, Bonnot, who had
already served three years for similar offences, was sentenced to 14 years’
imprisonment.225
Many incidents—probably the vast majority—were left unreported.
The status of the priesthood, the victims’ sense of powerlessness, the
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    245

extreme reluctance of the civil, and especially the religious authorities, to

listen, and fear of authority in general, must have ensured that many
potential complainants remained silent. Much would depend on the
circumstances and also on the age of the supposed victims. Parents might
be anxious to safeguard the ‘honour’ of their families or, understandably
reluctant to subject children who had been victims of abuse to further
trauma.226 Pressure could be applied easily, particularly on the poor inhab-
itants of a small rural community, to prevent them from making com-
plaints. At Margueron (Gironde), efforts were made by the mayor,
described as a ‘fervent Catholic’, and the Archpriest of Sainte-Foy,
‘blinded by an ill-considered esprit de corps’, to persuade parents not to
report the sexual abuse of a 9-year-old girl by the Abbé Laëns to the
police commissaire.227 In the case of a young girl sexually abused by the
vicaire of Ham (Somme), the curé of the parish had summoned the victim
to his presbytery and ‘persuaded’ her to swear on a crucifix, and in the
presence of two witnesses, that the accusations she had made were false.
He then circulated this information in two sermons. The investigating
magistrate accepted that the girl had been intimidated but dismissed the
case on the grounds that she was more than 11 years old, and had not
been the victim of violence. At least, in this case, the bishop subsequently
instructed the vicaire to leave Ham and return to his family and repri-
manded the curé.228
The harsh regimes imposed in boarding schools and especially orphan-
ages, as well as on numerous young domestic servants, the sense of impu-
nity and the constant abuse of authority involved, must also have
discouraged complaints, as well as brutalizing many of those forced to
suffer in silence.229 The young, women, social inferiors, even if they were
courageous or desperate enough to complain, could expect a decidedly
unsympathetic reception in many (most) cases.230 Thus, Jeanne Isac and
Louise Vitrac who eventually complained that they had been ‘subject to
solicitations and other things’ by the parish priest at Nespouls (Corrèze)
over a seven-year period, from the age of 12, had been warned by the
Abbé Queyssac, in the ‘tribunal de pénitence’, never to divulge what had
happened. In this case the priest was acquitted by the tribunal at Brives, in
spite of the evidence, before being arraigned by a scandalized state pros-
ecutor before the imperial court at Limoges and given a lengthy jail sen-
tence.231 In a similar case, also tried before the Corrèze assizes, the Abbé
Vigier, priest at Cornil, was acquitted because, according to the state
prosecutor, of the ‘manoeuvres of all kinds employed to weigh on the
246   R. PRICE

conscience of the [all male] jurors’ by the clergy led by the Bishop of
Tulle.232 In many impoverished communities, particularly in the more iso-
lated rural areas like Corrèze or Creuse or Finistère, violence was a feature
of daily life, tolerance of sexual abuse common, and socially marginalized
individuals could expect little protection.233
Similar pressures appear to have been in play when the Abbé Latour,
desservant of Mauzac (Haute-Garonne), a priest with a quarrelsome repu-
tation, determined in 1852 to support his close friend the village mayor
who had been accused of raping the local schoolmistress. Subsequently,
witnesses remembered him boasting that he had summoned the victim to
his presbytery and by exercising considerable moral pressure over a period
of several hours, persuaded her to withdraw the charges. He was mistaken.
The case was tried at the assizes where the president of the court delivered
the ‘plus humiliantes admonitions’ to the priest. To the disgust of the state
prosecutor, the mayor was, however, acquitted and subsequently paraded
through the streets of Toulouse arm-in-arm with the priest. An attempt to
cite the Abbé Latour before the Conseil d’Etat was terminated on condi-
tion that he was moved to another parish. Appointed to the parish of
Mourvilles-Hautes, in April 1857, Latour was himself accused of rape.
While admitting to the minister that the priest suffered from ‘défauts de
caractère’, and deserved a severe reprimand, Mgr Mioland his bishop
decided that this serious accusation had not been proved and that he
should remain in his new parish.234
In attempting to minimize the impact on public opinion, transgres-
sions were thus likely to be concealed by a conspiracy of silence and the
transfer of suspect priests to a distant parish.235 In this, bishops were
often supported by Catholic officials. The secular authorities were prone
to dismiss accusations against priests as the outcome of disputes within
communities in which accusing a priest of sexual impropriety was an
effective means of discrediting him.236 Where complaints were persistent,
and partly in order to quash rumours, investigations might, however, be
instigated. Making sense of contradictory evidence from children was
always difficult and the authorities invariably sought confirmation from
adult witnesses.237 When, in 1854, the sous-préfet at Contrexeville in the
Vosges received a ‘vague’ complaint from the mayor of the town con-
cerning the morals and politics of the parish priest, he initiated an inves-
tigation by the brigadier de gendarmerie and then instructed the
commissaire de police to conduct a ‘contre-­enquête’. Unwilling to make a
report to the minister based upon what he regarded as limited sources of
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    247

information, the prefect himself then established a further enquiry

directed by a trusted juge de paix. He also requested that the Bishop of
Saint-Dié begin his own investigation and Mgr Caverot would claim
subsequently that this was far more thorough than the efforts of the
administration which, he claimed, had involved two gendarmes going
from door to door, gathering ‘all the slanderous remarks whispered
amongst the lowest class by the enemies of the curé’. The police commis-
saire and juge de paix had, he maintained, simply interviewed the same
hostile witnesses. In any case, the outcome, as was previously noted, was
agreement that the Abbé Guinot was too fond of playing whist with visi-
tors to the spa, and was careless in his conversation.238 Investigations of
the activities of particular priests, whether for suspected political or sex-
ual offences, and sometimes involving rather ham-fisted gendarmes or
police commissaires, were bitterly resented as an affront to the dignity
both of the priests concerned and particularly to the institution which
they represented.239
In the case of investigation by the episcopal authorities, a cantonal
doyen or diocesan vicar-general would be required to make inquiries
which again frequently proved to be inconclusive.240 Responding dismis-
sively to complaints about a priest made by two women, the Bishop of Albi
pointed out that ‘in this locality, they scarcely hesitate, when they want to
get rid of a priest who does not suit them, to accuse him of the most
wicked acts’ and that, ‘accustomed to this kind of plotting, we are obliged
to remain on our guard against most of these denunciations’.241 Following
the Abbé Delpon’s dismissal from his teaching post by the civil authorities
‘due to misconduct and immorality’, he was nevertheless appointed to a
parish by the Bishop of Rodez who similarly denounced the allegations as
‘monstrueuse’ and as evidence of the ‘perversity’ of the individual who had
laid an accusation against a priest of irreproachable morality and of ‘exe-
crable machinations against the honour of the priesthood’. He sought to
reinforce his point by insisting that ‘there are women and girls paid by
scoundrels to denounce priests’ as well as women impelled by a ‘passion
coupable’ and determined to threaten clerical chastity.242 As the Bishop of
Dijon pointed out, ‘with regard to the confessional, it is easy to incrimi-
nate the priest, because everyone knows that in this matter he is not able
to defend himself’. More frequent prosecutions for defamation appeared
to be the answer.243 The Bishop of Nevers, Mgr Forcade, similarly claimed
that accusations were generally false, a product of ‘l’esprit d’irreligion’ and
of the persecution the Church had endured for ‘eighteen centuries’.244
248   R. PRICE

The removal of a priest from his parish was undoubtedly a course of

action which bishops preferred, if possible, to avoid. It might suggest
­presumption of guilt and was likely to permanently damage his reputa-
tion among his colleagues, as well as affecting his reception in his new
parish.245 The shortage of clergy in many dioceses was another factor. A
flawed priest was better than no priest.246 A priest who was judged to be
at fault or to have lost the confidence of his parishioners, for whatever
reason, was, however, likely to be transferred, even if not immediately,
with compliance secured if necessary through the threat of prosecution,
interdiction, or retirement to the nearest Trappist monastery.247 One
wonders about the prevailing state of religious belief in those parishes
which were regarded by bishops as suitable dumping grounds for incom-
petent or errant clergy. The Abbé Delseille, vicaire at Saint-Alvère,
expelled from the Périgueux diocese after making a young girl pregnant,
was nevertheless recommended by his bishop to the Cardinal-Archbishop
of Bordeaux, in whose diocese he would rapidly be moved from three
parishes, before finally becoming desservant of Lignan, in which he again
took advantage of several young women, before being persuaded to
enter a monastery as a means of avoiding prosecution.248 Something of a
record must have been achieved by the Abbé Segond, ordained in 1847,
who by April 1865 had served in seven parishes, in each of which, accord-
ing to the state prosecutor at Grenoble, he had engaged in ‘the most
cynical immorality, spreading everywhere the contagion of his vices and
corrupting young girls, and even children’.249 The adequate supervision
of priests who moved between dioceses was recognized as a particular
problem by the Archbishop of Paris. Thus, the Abbé Imbert had been
forced to resign from his parish at Cosne due to incidents of ‘grave
immoralité’—in this case of sodomy. After agreeing to enter the Trappist
monastery at La Meilleraie, the priest, with the warm support of the
Bishop of Nevers, had, however, managed to secure an appointment to
the Parisian parish of Saint-Ambroise.250 Only very rarely did a bishop
make a stand on moral principle, as when, in 1859, the Bishop of
Montauban, Mgr Doney, felt obliged to express his regret at the Garde
des Sceaux’s decision not to prosecute the curé of Valeilles. While under-
standing the government’s determination to avoid scandal, he believed
that simply transferring the priest to another parish represented a breach
of canon law.251 The essentially systemic tendency of bishops to give
priests the benefit of the doubt, however, clearly risked bringing further
discredit on the Church.252
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    249

6.4   Conclusion
Meaningful generalizations are difficult on the basis of the available evi-
dence. Some priests were very good, some very bad. The vast majority
were somewhere in between and probably managed to live up to the
expectations defined in 1848 by the Commission municipale of Labastide
Clermont, and according to which a priest should ‘do good, encourage
the practice of religion, and accomplish with an edifying exactitude all the
duties of a good pastor’; work to establish ‘peace and concord’, and set a
good example in terms of ‘irreproachable moral purity’.253 Not surpris-
ingly, however, it was the extremes, the Saints and Sinners, who attracted
the most attention. Among the latter, in addition to sexual misdemean-
ours, priests were, as we have seen, also likely to be accused of gluttony,
drunkenness and financial greed.254 It was all too easy for senior clergymen
and officials to dismiss such complaints as exaggerated and as emanating
from a disaffected faction within a parish, often three or four people who
never even went to church.255 The Bishop of Saint Claude and the Prefect
of the Jura thus jointly concluded in 1866 that there was real cause for
concern in only five or six of the department’s communes.256 However, if
the bon prêtre is less likely to appear in our documentation than perhaps he
deserves, it is worth bearing in mind the warning delivered in the 1860s
by Mgr Ramadié, Bishop of Carcassonne, concerning the damage likely to
be caused by ‘the priest … who obstinately defends, without any sense of
proportion, his personal rights and those of his church’. Such difficult and
inflexible personalities were all too likely to compromise their ministry.257
Nevertheless, few questions illustrate the institutional weakness of the
Church as clearly as the long history of the sexual and physical abuse of
children by a small minority of priests, and particularly the manner in
which this was dealt with. The evidence, from times and places as diverse
as the fourth-century Council of Elvira and twentieth-century Ireland, as
well as nineteenth-century France, suggests that over centuries abuse was
recurrent and that erring priests were consistently treated with leniency by
the Church.258 The typical response of bishops was simply to admonish
offenders and transfer paedophile priests to other parishes. In general, and
often in collusion with the civil authorities and police, bishops proved to
be more concerned with the reputation of the Church, with avoiding
scandal, than with the well-being of children. This is surely an emblematic
issue. How can we account for the impact of physical, sexual and psycho-
logical abuse on children, by a trusted and revered priest, a man in holy
250   R. PRICE

orders, representative of God, responsible for hearing confessions and

securing forgiveness—the ultimate figure of authority? How could a ‘cul-
ture of concealment’ which obsessively sought to subvert the provisions of
both canon and criminal law be justified? Clearly clergy at every level in
the religious hierarchy, including many otherwise blameless and dedicated
parish priests, chose to ignore the depraved behaviour of their own kind
and as a result to acquiesce in evil. Even the majority of humane and lov-
ing priests, engaged in the search for moral perfection, were only too likely
to lack humility, and as representatives of an authoritative and authoritar-
ian institution, as members of an ‘instrument of control and power’, were
committed to obeying their superiors and to ensuring the passive obedi-
ence of their flocks.259

Notes
1. AN F19/5717.
2. Quoted by C.  Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans sous l’épiscopat de Mgr.
Dupanloup, 1849–70, 1962, p. 123.
3. Quoted M.  Launay, Le bon prêtre. Le clergé rural au 19e siècle, 1986,
pp. 27–8.
4. Ibid.
5. Petition of ? Jan. 1865, AN F19/5870.
6. Petition to the Emperor, ? Aug. 1859, AN F19/5865.
7. Prefect Eure-et-Loir to MC, 25 July 1856, AN F19/5803.
8. Instituteur to MC, 20 Sept. 1854, AN F19/5863.
9. Petition to Prefect Gard, 7 Sept. 1854, AN F19/5811. See also
P.  Bourdelais, J-J.  Raulot, Une peur bleue: histoire du choléra en France,
1987, p. 194.
10. Sous-préfet Saint Gaudens to Prefect Haute-Garonne, 30 July 1861, AN
F19/5867.
11. Municipal councillors to Archbishop of Cambrai, 18 Nov. and 6 Dec.
1866, AN F19/5799.
12. Prefect Oise to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 14 March 1854, AN F19/5786.
13. MG to MC, 29 Nov. 1849, AN F19/5709.
14. Min.de l’agriculture to MC, 10 Dec. 1853, AN F19/5850.
15. See e.g. Y-M. Hilaire, ‘L’Eglise et les très pauvres dans la Ire moitié du 19e
siècle’, in R. Rémond, (ed) Démocratie et pauvreté, 1996, pp. 291–2.
16. E. Constant, Le département du Var sous le Second Empire et au début de la
3e République, Doc. ès lettres, Univ. de Provence-Aix, 1977, p. 680.
17. Y-M. Hilaire, La vie religieuse des populations du diocèse d’Arras, 1840–1914,
Doc. d’Etat, Univ. de Paris IV, 1976, I, p. 191.
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    251

18. Quoted by J-O.  Boudon, Paris, capital religieuse sous le Second Empire,
2001, p. 218.
19. Quoted by P. Boutry, M. Cinquin, Deux pèlerinages au 19e siècle. Ars et
Paray-le-Monial, 1980, p. 43.
20. See also J. Grévy, ‘L’anticléricalisme au village’ in J-C. Caron, F. Chauvaud,
(eds) Les campagnes dans les sociétés européennes (1830–1930), 2005,
p. 232.
21. Letter to MC, 25 Feb. 1853, AN F19/5825; petition from inhabitants of
Malay to Bishop of Autun, ? Feb. 1863, AN F19/5797.
22. See e.g. petition to MC from mayor and councillors of Villers (Loire), 28
Nov. 1864, AN F19/5820.
23. Petition to Bishop of Nevers, 23 Nov. 1850, AN F19/5833.
24. See e.g. petition from inhabitants of Chainas (Haute-Savoie) to MC, ?
March 1870, AN F19/5801.
25. Petition to Bishop of Nancy, n.d., AN F19/5831.
26. Letter of 1 Jan. 1856, AN F19/5784.
27. see e.g. B.  Basdevant-Gaudemet, Le jeu concordataire dans la France du
19e siècle, 1988, p. 205; P. Boutry, Prêtres et paroisses au pays du curé d’Ars,
1986, pp. 466–7.
28. Prefect Doubs to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 22 March 1860, AN F19/5788.
29. Bishop of Agen to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 28 June 1864; Prefect to min-
ister, 30 Aug., AN F19/5768.
30. See e.g. complaint by Jacques Bardet of La Chapelle aux Chaux (Sarthe) to
MC, 20 April 1863, AN F19/5822.
31. Prefect Jura to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 26 July 1855 and 10 Nov. 1859,
AN F19/5856.
32. Ch. Poulain, facteur de moutons, to Min. de l’I.P. et des C.,? Aug. 1861,
AN F19/5783; R. Brodeur, B. Caulier, ‘Des catéchismes à l’enseignement
religieux’, in R. Brodeur, B. Caulier, (eds) Enseigner le catéchisme: autorités
et institutions, Laval, 1997, p. 16.
33. Prefect Aveyron to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 7 Sept. 1849, AN F19/5752.
34. Petition to Bishop of Bayeux from 26 residents of Cabourg (Calvados),
n.d. but almost certainly 1850/51, AN F19/5783.
35. Mayor of Bilhères to Prefect Basses-Pyrénées, 1 May 1867, AN F19/5784.
36. Letter to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 24 March 1863, AN F19/5825.
37. Prefect Basses-Pyrénées to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 2 July 1857, AN
F19/5784.
38. Prefect Saône-et-Loire to MJ et des C., 22 July 1866, AN F19/5782.
39. Letter to Bishop of Angers, 10 Nov. 1861, AN F19/5776.
40. See e.g. Bishop of Autun to MC, 28 Aug. 1860, AN F19/5782.
41. Ville d’Argelès-Vieuzac, séance extraordinaire du 14 Oct. 1861, AN
F19/5865.
252   R. PRICE

42. Letter from A. Paturon to Min. de l’I.P. et des C.,? Dec. 1857; prefectoral
report of 3 Aug. 1858, AN F19/5850.
43. Quoted by R.  Gibson, A social history of French catholicism, 1789–1914,
1989, p. 95; see also Gibson, ‘Rigorisme et liguorisme dans le diocèse de
Périgueux (17e–19e siècles)’ Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 1989,
p. 315 f.
44. C. Langlois, Le crime d’Onan. Le discours catholique sur la limitation des
naissances (1816–1930), 2005, pp. 258–9, 276–7.
45. See e.g. petition from Mezel (Côte-d’Or), 13 March 1848, AN F19/5728.
46. Letter from Marie Cazaubon to MC, 25 March 1849, AN F19/5761.
47. JP Lons-le-Saunier to Prefect Jura 27 March; Bishop of Saint-Claude to
MJ et des C, 23 April 1866; Prefect Jura to MJ et des C., 6 June 1866, AN
F19/5856.
48. Petition to MC, signed by ‘pères de famille’, 6 March 1865, AN F19/5850.
49. See e.g. petition from Magnac (Aveyron) to MC, 19 March 1864, AN
F19/5853.
50. Petition to MC, no date but date received stamp for 3 Dec. 1856, AN
F19/5811.
51. Concern expressed by Prefect, Basses-Pyrénées, 5 January 1867, AN
F19/1937.
52. Quoted by H. Bergues et al., La prévention des naissances dans la famille,
1959, p. 227.
53. Quoted by Hilaire, Le diocèse d’Arras, III, p. 999.
54. Boutry, ‘Ars’ in Boutry, Cinquin, Deux pèlerinages, p. 86.
55. Langlois, Le crime d’Onan, pp. 108, 118, 122–9, 164, 243, 251, 448. See
also A. Burguière, ‘Le changement social: brève histoire d’un concept’, in
B.  Lepetit, (ed) ‘Les formes de l’expérience. Une autre histoire sociale’.
1995, p. 266.
56. T. Tackett, Priest and parish in 18th Century France, 1977, p. 170.
57. Points made by Bishop of Beauvais to MJ et des C., 4 Oct. 1867, AN
F19/5786; Rapport trimestriel de l’état politique, morale et religieux des
départements du Puy-de-Dôme, Haute-Loire, Cantal, Allier, Corrèze
(Académie de Clermont), AN F17/2649.
58. Letter to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., signed ‘un habitant’, 8 May 1858, AN
F19/5874.
59. Letter to MI, 23 May 1857, AN F19/5799.
60. See e.g. letter from the ‘principaux habitants’ of Sécheval to Comtesse
Walewski, 20 March 1859, AN F19/5850.
61. Mayor of Chavanne to MC, 2 Feb. 1867, AN F19/5801.
62. 10 Jan. 1849, AN F19/5761.
63. Petition to MC, 27 Nov. 1856, AN F19/5865.
64. See e.g. Bishop of Tarbes to Prefect Hautes-Pyrénées, 11 Dec. 1849, AN
F19/5865.
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    253

65. Bishop of Le Mans to MC, 1 June 1869, AN F19/5822.

66. See e.g. petition from Conseil de fabrique, Saint-Rémy, diocese of Cahors,
to MC, 7 Nov. 1854, AN F19/5769.
67. Prefect Côte-d’Or to MC, 20 April 1862, AN F19/5808.
68. See e.g. petition from inhabitants of Nistos (Hautes-Pyrénées) to MC, 27
Nov. 1856, AN F19/5865.
69. A. Corbin, Les cloches de la terre. Paysage sonore et culture sensible dans les
campagnes au 19e siècle, 1994, Chap. 1, passim.
70. See e.g. M.  Godin, landowner at St-Paul-aux-Bois (Aisne) and ‘premier
conseiller municipal’, to President of the Republic, 23 Oct. 1851, AN
F19/5863.
71. Letter from M. Laffitte to MC, ? 1867, AN F19/5784.
72. Mayor to MC, 7 July 1863, AN F19/5814.
73. See e.g. petition to Min. de l’I.P. et des C. from Membres du Conseil
municipal, du Conseil de fabrique et chefs de famille de la commune et
paroisse d’Ecotay-l’Olme (Loire), 8 Dec. 1861, AN F19/5820.
74. Prefect to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 29 Jan. 1862, AN F19/5803.
75. Brigadier de gendarmerie of Château-Landon (Seine-et-Marne) to OC
commanding arrond. de Fontainbleau, date illegible, 1857, AN F19/5823.
76. Collective letter to MC, 16 Feb. 1857, AN F19/5821.
77. J.C. Lagardère to MC, 13 March 1865, AN F19/5784.
78. See e.g. Prefect Creuse to MJ et des C., 19 Aug. 1863, AN F19/5817.
79. Les Conseillers municipaux et les habitants notables … to MJ et des C.,
n.d.; Prefect of Pas-de-Calais to Minister, 3 April 1867, AN F19/5779.
80. See e.g. A. Audiganne, Les populations ouvrières et les industries de la France
dans le mouvement social du 19e siècle, I 1854, p. 237 re. Lyon.
81. Petition to Bishop of Autun, ? Feb. 1863, AN F19/5782.
82. See e.g. Mayor of Pierre-Percée (Meurthe) to Prince-President, 3 Jan.
1852, AN F19/5831.
83. see e.g. P. Boutry, ‘Vertus d’Etat et clergé intellectual: la crise du modèle
Sulpicien dans la formation des prêtres français au 19e siècle’, in Ecole
française de Rome, Problèmes d’histoire de l’éducation, Rome, 1988,
pp. 224–5.
84. Petition to MJ et des C.? March 1864; see also Prefect Calvados to minis-
ter 29 March, AN F19/5783.
85. Mgr. Donnet to MC, 25 May 1868; Jean Rivière, marchand-boucher to
MC, 29 May, AN F19/5794.
86. Quoted by Boutry, Prêtres et paroisses, pp. 576–7.
87. Point made by Prefect Pas-de-Calais to MJ et des C., 5 Dec. 1864, AN
F19/5779.
88. Prefect Saône-et-Loire to MC, ? March 1866, AN F19/5782.
89. Prefect to MJ et des C., 29 March 1869, AN F19/5783.
254   R. PRICE

90. Bishop of Nancy to MC, 22 July 1852, AN F19/5831.

91. Point made by Prefect Moselle to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 28 June 1856,
AN F19/5825.
92. See e.g. Abbé Picot, parish priest at Labroquère to vicar-general, diocese of
Toulouse, 2 June; to Prefect Haute-Garonne, 2 June; and Prefect to MC,
2 June 1870, AN F19/5867.
93. Letter to MC, 16 July 1860, AN F19/5843.
94. See e.g. Prefect Seine-Inférieure to Min. de l’I.P. et des C. 9 Aug. 1861 re.
Abbé Boulard, curé of Thil-Manneville, AN F19/5854.
95. Prefect Eure-et-Loir to MC, 25 July 1856, AN F19/5803.
96. See also N. Bourguignat, ‘Le maire nourricier: renouvellements et déclin
d’une figure tutélaire dans la France du 19e siècle’, Le mouvement social,
224, 2008, p. 89.
97. R. Price, The modernization of rural France. Communications networks and
agricultural market structures in 19th century France, (1983), 2018,
pp. 259–269.
98. Point made e.g. by Bishop of Bayonne in letter to MC, 4 May 1862, AN
F19/5784.
99. See e.g. sous-préfet of Tonnerre to parish priest at Vireaux (Hérault), AN
F19/5861.
100. Prefect Gironde to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 1 and 9 Oct. 1856, AN
F19/5794.
101. Prefect Indre to MI, 20 Sept. 1860, AN F19/5796.
102. Mayor to Conseil d’Etat, 22 Feb. 1852, AN F19/5775.
103. J.P. canton of Essarts to PI Napoléon-Vendée, 30 Nov. 1868, AN
F19/5819.
104. Prefect Ille-et-Vilaine to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 4 July 1856, AN
F19/5851.
105. Diocesan architect to Prefect Côtes-du-Nord, 10 Dec. 1859; Extrait du
régistre des délibérations du Conseil municipal de la commune de
Plaintel…, 2 Feb. 1860, AN F19/5855.
106. PG Grenoble to MJ, 25 Oct. 1866; MI to MC, 19 Nov. 1866, AN
F19/5812.
107. Point made, e.g. by Prefect of Côtes-du-Nord to Mayor of Plaintel, 27 Jan.
1860, AN F19/5855.
108. Prefect Seine-Inférieure to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 19 Dec. 1853, AN
F19/5854.
109. See especially Abbé Surat, vicar-general, diocese of Paris to curé of Ternes,
n.d; Abbé Hugony, curé of St-Ferdinand des Ternes to MC, 19 Feb. 1866;
Archbishop of Paris to MC, 2 Oct. 1865 and 30 April 1867; Conseil de
fabrique to MC, 18 March 1867; Mémoire par le Conseil de Fabrique de
l’Eglise St-Ferdinand des Ternes à Paris contre M. l’Abbé Hugony son desser-
vant, Paris: Chaix, 1870, AN F19/5841.
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    255

110. Letter to MC, ? May 1852, AN F19/5724.

111. President and treasurer to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 12 Aug. 1861, AN
F19/5839.
112. Prefect of Police to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 16 May 1857, AN F19/5842.
113. Min. de l’I.P. et des C., Note sur les plaintes formées contre M. l’Abbé
Guillaumet, curé de Clamecy, n.d., AN F19/5833.
114. See e.g. petition from mayor and notables of Monleon-Magnoac (Hautes-
Pyrénées) to President of the Republic, 10 Jan. 1849, AN F19/5761;
Bishop of Saint-Brieuc to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 21 June 1861, AN
F19/5855.
115. Letter to MC, 13 March 1865; similar complaint in report from Prefect
Basses-Pyrénées, 3 June 1864, AN F19/5784.
116. Juge de paix, Wassigny to Prefect Aisne, 13 Nov. 1865, AN F19/5863.
117. MI to MJ, 10 Feb. 1869, AN F19/5842.
118. T. Blot, Reconstruire l’Eglise après la Révolution: le diocése de Bayeux sous
l’épiscopat de Mgr. Charles Bruault (1802–28). 1997, pp.  330–5;
T.  Kselman, ‘The dechristianisation of death in France’, in H.  Mcleod,
W. Ustorf, (eds) The decline of Christendom in Western Europe, 1750–2000,
Cambridge 2003, 151–2; on disputes over pew rents, see e.g. F.  Ploux,
‘Luttes de faction à la campagne. L’exemple du Lot au 19e siècle’, Histoire
et sociétés rurales, 2004, p. 108.
119. Prefect Aveyron to MC, 7 May 1864, AN F19/5853.
120. Parish priest Fongrave to MC, 18 Aug. 1867; M. Demestre, notary to MC,
? Sept., AN F19/5577.
121. See e.g. Archbishop of Rouen, letter to the MC, 21 Jan. 1863, AN
F19/5854; Archbishop of Paris to MJ et des C., 20 Jan.,1867, AN
F19/5842.
122. Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans, p. 177.
123. Letter to MC, 19 Feb. 1855, AN F19/5866.
124. M. Lagrée, M. Denis, Aspects de la vie religieuse en Ille-et-Vilaine (1815–48),
Thèse de 3e cycle, Univ. de Rennes 2, 1974, p. 375; J. Maurain, La politique
ecclésiastique du Second Empire de 1852 à 1869, 1930, p. 57.
125. Commissaire de police, Canton de Saint-Laurent-du-Pont to Prefect Isère,
3 Dec. 1861, AN F19/ 5812.
126. Petition to MC from mayor and others, 13 May 1848, AN F19/5728.
127. Petition from councillors and inhabitants to MC, 29 May 1848; Abbé
Seilhan to Bishop of Tarbes, 12 May and 29 June, AN F19/5761.
128. Petition from Laàs (Basses-Pyrénées) to MJ et des C., 15 Feb. 1868, AN
F19/5784.
129. Juge de paix of Monêtier to sous-préfet of Briançon, 1 Aug. 1866, AN
F19/5811.
130. Petition to MC, 16 May 1858, AN F19/5825.
256   R. PRICE

131. See e.g. PG Pau to G. des S., 23 April 1863, AN F19/5865.

132. See e.g. petition from Lamothe (Haute-Loire), AN F19/5848; Prefect
Basses-Pyrénées, 16 Dec. 1857, AN F19/5784.
133. Petition to MC, 10 July 1854, AN F19/5811.
134. Prefect Meuse to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 31 May; curé of Fleury-sur-Aire
to Bishop of Verdun, 23 June 1864, AN F19/5874.
135. Petition to MC, ? March 1859, AN F19/5797.
136. Prefect Basses-Pyrénées to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 16 Dec. 1857, AN
F19/5784.
137. Min. de l’I.P. et des C. Cabinet. Notes, 20 June 1853; Abbé Guinot to
Bishop of Saint Dié, 8 Jan. 1855; Bishop to minister, 9 March 1855; AN
F19/5776.
138. See e.g. Jean Carrère, cantonnier at Etsaut, in the diocese of Bayonne, re.
feebleness of local notables, AN F19/5784.
139. Prefect Seine-Inférieure to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 1 Nov. 1830, AN
F19/5752.
140. Points made by sous-préfet Bayonne to prefect Basses-Pyrénées, 7 Jan.
1860, AN F19/5784.
141. Mayor to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 12 June 1861, AN F19/5854; see also
petition to Emperor from Angeville (Tarn-et-Garonne), 19 Nov. 1864,
AN F19/5825.
142. Prefect Hautes-Alpes to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 25 March 1856, AN
F19/5811. See also e.g. Abbé Abadue, curé of Labarthe (Hautes-Pyrénées)
to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., ? July 1855, AN F19/5865.
143. Prefect Indre-et-Loire to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 6 Aug. 1860, AN
F19/5768.
144. Prefect Aisne to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 28 July 1851, AN F19/5863.
145. Price, Modernization of rural France, pp. 131–143.
146. MI to MC, 23 Dec. 1862, AN F19/5803.
147. Prefect Ain to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 7 Feb. 1861, AN F19/5787.
148. See e.g. F. Ploux, ‘Luttes de faction à la campagne. L’exemple du Lot au
19e siècle’, Histoire et sociétés rurales, 2006, pp. 125–6.
149. Report to MC, 4 Dec. 1863, AN F19/5830.
150. Mayor Siradon to MC, 27 April 1851, AN F19/5865.
151. PG Pau to MJ, 22 Feb. 1865, AN F19/5784.
152. Petition of 29 May 1849, AN F19/5865.
153. Prefect Aisne to MI, 9 March 1864, AN F19/5863.
154. Mayor, councillors and notables to Bishop of Amiens, n.d.; Abbé Fourrière
to Bishop, 5 Aug. 1859; Prefect Somme to MJ et des C., 7 July 1869 and
7 June 1870, AN F19/5775.
155. Prefect Marne to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 28 Feb. 1862, AN F19/5801.
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    257

156. See e.g. Prefect to MI, 26 June 1853, AN F1 CIII Creuse 8; Prefect
Meurthe to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 4 January 1859; Prefect to MI, 2 Feb.
1869, AN F19/5831.
157. Report to MC, 29 Nov. 1856, AN F19/5823.
158. Prefect Seine-et-Oise to MC, 29 June 1857, AN F19/5875.
159. See e.g. Bishop Saint Brieuc to MC, 6 March 1868, AN F19/5855.
160. Prefect Meuse to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 22 Aug. 1860, AN F19/5874.
161. Letter to MC, 26 Dec. 1863, AN F19/5842.
162. Prefect Eure-et-Loir, to MC, 26 Dec. 1866, AN F19/5803.
163. See e.g. Prefect Meuse to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 17 March 1865, AN
F19/5873; F.  Ploux, ‘Insultes au village (Haut-Quercy, 19e siècle)’, in
T. Bouchet et al., (eds) L’insulte (en) politique. Europe et Amérique latine
du 19e siècle à nos jours, Dijon 2005, p. 48.
164. X.  Maréchaux, Noces révolutionnaires. Le mariage des prêtres en France,
1789–1815, 2017, pp. 51–53.
165. T. Zeldin, ‘The conflict of moralities’, in Zeldin, (ed) Conflicts in French
society: anti-clericalism, education and morals in the 19th century, 1970,
pp. 31–4.
166. See also E. Abbott, Histoire universelle de la chasteté et du célibat, Saint-
Laurent, Quebec, 2001, p. 12.
167. E.g. M. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes sous le Second Empire, II Nantes 1983,
pp. 524–5; J-F. Soulet, Les Pyrénéees au 19e siècle, I, 1987, p. 195.
168. Report to Min. del’I.P. et des C., 29 July 1849, AN F19/5717.
169. G.  Vigarello, Histoire du viol, 16e–20e siècles, 1998, pp.  133–6, 151–6,
173–184. See also A. Le Douget, Violence au village. La société rurale finis-
térienne face à la justice (1815–1914), Rennes, 2014, pp. 112–13.
170. PG Poitiers, 31 Jan. 1854, AN BB30/385 complains re. leniency of
Church treatment of priests; see also Maurain, Politique ecclésiastique,
pp.  535–8; Launay, Bon prêtre, pp.  130–1; Boutry, Prêtres et paroisses,
p. 224.
171. Vigarello, Histoire du viol, pp. 133–6, 151–6, 173–184.
172. See also T. Verhoeven, ‘The Satyriasis diagnosis: anti-clerical doctors and
celibate priests in nineteenth century France’, French history., 2012,
passim.
173. See e.g. Prefect Charente to MC, 18 Aug. 1866, and Bishop of Angoulême
to MC, 9 Sept. 1866; Prefect Charente to MJ et des C., 9 April 1867, AN
F19/5777; E. Badone, ‘Le folklore breton de l’anticléricalisme’, Annales
de Bretagne, 1999, p. 441.
174. V. Petit, ‘Le clergé contre l’ivrognerie. La campagne du Père Ducreux dans
les montagnes du Doubs, (1864–9)’, Histoire et sociétés rurales, 2000,
p. 87.
258   R. PRICE

175. See e.g. Commissaire de police, Lahaye-Descartes (Indre-et-Loire) to PI,

12 April 1867, AN F19/5768.
176. Petition to MC, 18 Nov. 1849, AN F19/5788.
177. See e.g. M. Batique, municipal councillor at Prévilliers (Oise) to MC, 27
Jan. 1868, AN F19/5786.
178. See e.g. Prefect Oise to MC, 6 April 1859 re. response to complaints by
Bishop of Beauvais; MC to Bishop of Beauvais, 14 Feb. 1868, AN
F19/5786.
179. Lettre pastorale de Mgr. l’Evêque de Chartres aux fidèles de son diocèse au
sujet d’un journal intitulé Le Glaneur, Chartres 1847, pp. 4, 9.
180. Résultat de l’enquête par M. le curé de Viapres au sujet des plaintes portées
contre M. le curé de Rhèges, 28 April 1869, AN F19/5869.
181. See e.g. Abbé Darboy, vicar general, diocese of Paris to MC, 28 Nov. 1856,
AN F19/5840.
182. Verhoeven, ‘The Satyriasis debate’, pp. 515–16.
183. See e.g. Bishop of Nevers to Garde des Sceaux, 21 July 1867, AN
F19/5833.
184. Prefecture de l’Aisne, cabinet de préfet, [unsigned]—Note, 25 June 1862,
AN F19/6288.
185. Prefect Seine-et-Oise to MJ et des C., 6 Nov. 1863, AN F19/5875.
186. Prefect Aube to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 18 Feb. 1863, AN F19/5869.
187. Mayor of Aubervilliers to MC, 15 and 17 Dec. 1854; Cabinet du Préfet de
Police, Note … Oct. 1856, AN F19/5840.
188. Prefect Oise to MI, 2 March 1857; Bishop of Beauvais to MC, 11 June,
AN F19/5786.
189. Prefect Pyrénées-Orientales to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 30 Dec. 1858, AN
F19/5845.
190. Letter to MJ et des C., 28 Sept. 1868, AN F19/5773.
191. Sous-préfet Marmande to Prefect Lot-et-Garonne, 11 March 1858,
together with copies of the correspondence, AN F19/5768.
192. Prefect Sarthe to MJ et des C. 22 Oct. 1866, AN F19/5822.
193. Garde des Sceaux to Bishop 12 July and bishop’s reply 15 July, 1864. AN
F19/5822.
194. Abbé Bérard to MC, 2 Oct. 1858; internal Note, n.d.; AN F19/5875.
195. Report to Prefect Eure-et-Loir, 7 March 1861, AN F19/5803.
196. Petition to MC, 30 Jan. 1862, AN F19/5788.
197. Cabinet de Min. de l’I.P. et des C., Note sur l’Abbé Jardin, AN F19/5795.
198. Prefect Maine-et-Loire to MI, 12 Nov. 1868, AN F19/5776.
199. Letter to MC, 3 Nov. 1857, AN F19/5786; See also Cabinet du Min. de
l.I.P. et des C. 1856. Réponses aux notes remises par l’Empereur au Min.
des cultes sur l’attitude du clergé, AN F19/5605.
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    259

200. Prefect Nièvre to MC, 3 March 1862; Letters from M .and Mme Goudier
to Bishop of Nevers, 20 July 1867; Ordonnance de Mgr. l’Evêque de
Nevers éloignant temporairement de sa paroisse M. le curé de Donzy;
Bishop to Garde des Sceaux, 23 July 1867, AN F19/5833.
201. Prefect Meurthe to MI, 2 Feb. 1869, AN F19/5831.
202. MJ to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 8 Feb. 1850; Bishop of Limoges to Director-
general MC, 8 Feb; AN F19/5817.
203. PG Bourges to MJ, 16 August 1861; MJ to MC 20 Aug.; Archbishop of
Bourges to MC 17 Oct. and 6 Dec., AN F19/5796.
204. Commissaire de police to sous-préfet Aix, 10 June 1856, AN F19/5769.
205. PI Angers to Prefect Maine-et-Loire, 3 Oct. 1857, AN F19/5776.
206. Depositions certified by PG 28 May 1868, AN F19/5853.
207. PG Paris to Garde des Sceaux, 5 March 1861, AN F19/5823.
208. PG Poitiers to G.des S., 3 July 1866, AN F19/5819.
209. Garde des Sceaux to Prefect Savoie, 27 Dec. 1864, AN F19/5659.
210. See also Cabinet du MC, Notes, AN F19/5605.
211. Letter to MC, 27 May 1862, AN F19/5823.
212. Quoted by G. Nicolas, ‘Les instituteurs sous le Second Empire. Pour une
approche régionale des mémoires de 1861: l’exemple de l’académie de
Rennes’, Histoire de l’éducation, 2002, p. 31 and especially note 2; see also
Nicolas, Le grand débat de l’école au 19e siècle. Les instituteurs du Second
Empire, 2004, pp. 252–8.
213. Extrait des minutes du Greffe du tribunal civil de Nevers (Nièvre), 5 June
1862, AN F19/5833.
214. Prefect Yonne to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 23 Jan. 1854, AN F19/5861.
215. Commissaire de police des deux cantons d’Avesnes, Rapport en exécution
de la circulaire de M. le Ministre de l’Intérieure, en date du 24 Sept. 1862,
AN F19/5724.
216. Prefect Allier to MC, 31 July 1865; Cabinet du G. des S., Note, 17 Oct.,
AN F19/5830.
217. Cabinet du Garde des Sceaux. Notes. 23 April and 14 May 1869, AN
F19/5866.
218. PI Mantes to MJ, 19 Dec. 1856, AN F19/5875.
219. See e.g. Prefect Seine-et-Oise to MC, 17 May 1865, AN F19/5875.
220. See e.g. Nicolas, Le grand débat de l’école au 19e siècle, pp. 74–5, re. accusa-
tions against the frères de l’Instruction chrétienne de Saint-Gabriel in
1860/61.
221. Mayor to MC, ? June 1861, with a Deposition from Louis Ducroq, can-
tonnier, dated 12 June—full of orthographical errors. AN F19/5854.
222. Prefect Côtes-du-Nord to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 5 Feb. and 12 April
1862, AN F19/5855.
260   R. PRICE

223. Gazette des Tribunaux, 19 July 1865, quoted by Vigarello, Histoire du viol,
p. 191.
224. Directeur des affaires criminelles, MJ to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 8 July
1862; MJ to MC, 3 March 1863, AN F19/5823.
225. Prefect to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 21 May 1857, AN F19/5788.
226. A-M. Sohn, ‘Les attentats à la pudeur sur les fillettes en France (1879–1939)
et la sexualité quotidienne’, Mentalités, 1989, p. 97.
227. PG Bordeaux to Garde des Sceaux, 4 Feb. and 22 March, 1870, AN
F19/5794.
228. Prefect Somme to MC, 10 July 1863, AN F19/5863.
229. See also O.  Faure, B.  Delpal, (eds) Religion et enfermements, 2005,
pp. 18–20.
230. See also F. Chauvaud, Les passions villageoises au 19e siècle, 1991, p. 59.
231. Maréchal de logis Sedille, Gendarmerie impériale, 11e Légion, cie. de la
Corrèze, brigade de Brives, procès-verbal, 28 Nov. 1861; Prefect Haute-
Vienne to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 24 Feb. 1862, AN F19/5870.
232. Cabinet du Garde des Sceaux, Note … 20 July 1865, AN F19/5870. See
also Vigarello, Histoire du viol, pp. 133–6, 151–6, 173–184.
233. See also Le Douget, Violence au village, pp. 104–5.
234. MJ to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 3 June 1856; Archbishop of Toulouse to
Directeur-général MC, 26 July; PI Toulouse to Prefect Haute-Garonne, 4
Dec.; M. Subra to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 1 Nov. 1857; Archbishop of
Toulouse to MC, 27 March 1858; Ministère de l’I.P.et des C., Note
demande sur M. Latour…, May 1858, AN F19/5867.
235. See also B. Singer, Village notables in 19th century France. Priests, mayors,
schoolmasters, Albany, 1983, pp. 21–2.
236. See e.g. Bishop of Saint Brieuc to MC, 6 March 1868, AN F19/5855.
237. On procedure, see e.g. PG Bordeaux to Garde des Sceaux, 4 June 1871,
AN F19/5794.
238. Prefect Vosges to MC, 5 Dec. 1854; Bishop of Saint-Dié to MC, 9 March
1855, AN F19/5776.
239. See e.g. Bishop of Saint Dié to MC, 9 March 1855, AN F19/5776; com-
plaints about the sous-préfet at Saint Gaudens in a letter to the MC signed
by two priests, 1 Oct. 1858, AN F19/5867; and among numerous com-
plaints about mayors, a letter from the Bishop of Limoges to MC, 23
March 1859, AN F19/5817.
240. On procedure, see e.g. PI, Parquet du tribunal civil de Mantes to MC, 19
Dec. 1856, AN F19/5875.
241. Letter to MJ et des C., 20 June 1868, AN F19/5773.
242. Letters from Bishop of Rodez to M. Cassau, avocat, member du Conseil
départementale de l’Instruction publique, 29 Aug. 1868 and to Prefect of
Aveyron, 4 Nov.; see also PG Montpellier to G.de S. 23 May; Prefect
Aveyron to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 10 Nov.; AN F19/5853.
   SAINTS AND SINNERS    261

243. Letter to MC, 23 May 1869, AN F19/5808.

244. Prefect Nièvre to MC, 3 March 1862, AN F19/5833.
245. See e.g. PG Rennes to Garde des Sceaux, 8 Nov. 1857; Bishop of Quimper
to MC, 2 Oct. 1861, AN F19/5849; Bishop of Poitiers to MC, 26 July
1848, AN F19/5748.
246. See e.g. PG Limoges to Garde des Sceaux, 25 Feb. 1862, AN F19/5870;
J. Lafon, Les prêtres, les fidèles et l’Etat: le ménage à trois du 19e siècle, 1987,
pp. 68–70.
247. See e.g. Archbishop of Bourges to Garde des Sceaux, 24 Jan. 1867, AN
F19/5723; Conseiller de prefecture Sarthe to MC, 3 April 1863, AN
F19/5822. The Abbé Thédeville, imprisoned in 1853 for planning to
assassinate the Emperor, was in March 1864 judged to be sufficiently sane
to be offered the same destination. See MI to MC, 19 March 1864, AN
F19/5839.
248. PG Bordeaux to Garde des Sceaux, 26 April 1868, AN F19/5793.
249. Report to garde des Sceaux, 24 April 1865, AN F19/5813.
250. Prefect of Police, chargé de la Direction générale de la sûreté publique to
MI, 26 Dec. 1862; Archbishop of Paris to MJ et des C.; 24 July 1863, AN
F19/5833.
251. Bishop to MC, 6 July 1859, AN F19/5773.
252. See e.g. PG Bordeaux to Garde des Sceaux, 6 July 1861 and response of
10 July, AN F19/5777.
253. Letter to Archbishop of Toulouse, 6 July 1848, AN F19/5762.
254. Prefect Jura to Min.de l’I.P.et des C. 23 May 1856 and Bishop to minister
26 May, AN F19/5856.
255. See e.g. Vicar General, diocese of Arras to MC, 10 Sept. 1851, AN
F19/5779.
256. Bishop Saint Claude to MC 23 April 1866; Prefect Jura to MJ et des C. 6
June 1866, AN F19/5856.
257. Quoted M. Brunet, Bonnets rouges et blancs bonnets. La politisation de la
campagne catalane, 1815–52, Canet, 2009, p. 69.
258. Estimates of the proportion of priests with paedophile proclivities appear
to vary between Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1%; the 4.3% suggested by research
commissioned by the US Bishops Conference and published in 2004; and
other suggestions of 6–9%—See G. Robertson, The case of the Pope. Vatican
accountability for human rights abuse, 2010, p. 20.
259. F. O’Toole, Irish Times, 28 Nov. 2009.
 PART II

A Change of Perspective
 CHAPTER 7

The Practice of Religion

7.1   Introduction
The Church as an institution as well as the religious message(s) transmit-
ted by its clergy have been considered in previous chapters. The primary
concerns of Chaps.  8 and 9 will be the religious practices of ordinary
believers; the reception of the Church’s message within a community of
believers linked by faith, ritual and the sacraments; and the influence of the
Church, as part of a wider assessment of the ‘use’ made and impact of
religious discourse(s).1 A series of questions will be posed concerning ‘the
dialectical relationship between clerical representations and the ways in
which people perceived and made sense of the world in which they lived’.2
Religious beliefs and everyday practice were moreover embedded within
particular localized social milieu (communities/parishes), wider social net-
works (classes) and broader (regional and national) social and political
systems. Individuals shared in the perceptions, in the discursive practices,
collective norms, and in the systèmes de représentation of their family, com-
munity, and social and institutional milieux of origin or belonging. Their
experiences were mediated by language, ritual and often conflicting iden-
tities/interests, as well as the varying conceptions of time and place.
Education, the management of news by State and Church, the affirmation
of religious ‘truth’ through public ceremony and the (re-)construction of
religious buildings all ensured that although significant distinctions might
be identified between the official teachings of the Church, the religious

© The Author(s) 2018 265

R. Price, Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67196-3_7
266   R. PRICE

ideologies of the social elites, and the more widespread popular beliefs and
practices, complex and mutually supportive interactions were also, and
increasingly, evident.3
Much of the evidence on religious beliefs and practice was of course
provided by the clergy themselves. The basic canonical obligations laid
down by the Lateran Council of 1215 related to church attendance,
receipt of communion, and participation in the process of religious social-
ization within the family and wider community. The level of conformity in
these respects provides an indication of clerical influence, and in certain
circumstances the basis for a fairly crude statistical analysis.4 The responses
of parish priests to the regular inquiries made by their bishops also tells us
something about the character and intensity of religious faith.5 Two
sources in particular have provided usable statistical indicators—first and
foremost data on the number of Easter communicants, described by Mgr
Dupanloup as the ‘thermomètre de Pâques’, and, second, the length of the
delay between birth and the baptism necessary to free infants from the
stain of Original Sin. Even as delays grew longer, baptism and the accep-
tance of a child into God’s church remained the most popular rite of pas-
sage.6 It might, however, be argued that measuring commitment on the
basis of religious practice primarily informs us about the levels of confor-
mity to institutional and communal norms. Michel Lagrée bemoaned the
fact that after so much effort on the part of historians ‘the profound faith
of believers, beyond the easily perceptible structures, remains ­impenetrable’.
The practice of religion might thus represent an intense personal faith or
simply the wooden performance of ritual gestures. The statistical data on
church attendance and Easter communicants needed to be supplemented
by the visual evidence of church construction and renovation, and by the
provision of altar pieces, statuary and funerary monuments, as well as the
written and oral evidence, the language and imagery of elite and popular
discourse. The degree to which the moral teaching of the clergy was
respected could furthermore be judged by employing the information
available on birth control and considering attitudes towards education and
politics.7 Indeed, the growing determination to limit family size and the
number of potential heirs to property—accumulated often through sub-
stantial effort over generations, represented a considerable, relatively rapid
and widely diffused intellectual and moral revolution and a substantial
rejection of clerical authority.8
The evidence suggests that there were considerable geographical,
social, gender and generational variations in the nature and intensity of
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    267

religious practice. In relation to these, historians have identified a wide,

complex and inter-related range of possible causal factors, including social
relationships, habitat structures, and linguistic variations, as well as the
vicissitudes of history, which combined to create distinctive, frequently
small, but rigidly demarcated socio-cultural regions. In some of these
areas, the experiences of the Reformation and of Revolution had rein-
forced loyalty to the Church, and in others had weakened the faith. In the
former, it was possible for the clergy and faithful to draw upon a routin-
ized faith, firmly based in historical experience, memory and myth, to
adapt to a changing world and develop a dynamic and evolving religious
culture. An energetic priest or the sense of crisis generated by social con-
flict, harvest failure or epidemic, could similarly promote more or less
sustained recovery in individual parishes.9 In the latter, where a gulf had
opened up between the clergy and the ambient popular culture, the influ-
ence of the Church was threatened increasingly. After discounting close
causal relationships between religious faith and either living standards or
levels of literacy, Christiane Marcilhacy concluded that ‘what appears
determinant, is the depth of the historical implantation of religion and the
strength of the social pressure exercised in its favour’. To a large degree,
the strength of religious belief in the nineteenth century and its geograph-
ical variations reflected the pastoral efforts of previous centuries.10
Employing the statistical information provided by episcopal visitations,
the canon lawyer and religious sociologist Gabriel Le Bras long ago distin-
guished between five types of attitude towards the Church. His distinc-
tions remain valuable.11 There were those he described as seasonal
conformists, who from family tradition observed the major rites of passage
(baptism, first communion, marriage, and burial); regular observants who
frequently attended Sunday mass and invariably received communion at
Easter; the devout, who received frequent communion as well as partici-
pating in a variety of religious and pious activities; those who rarely, if ever,
attended church, but whose outlook was impregnated with the religiosity
of the society in which they lived, by the all-pervasive presence of religion
in daily life, speech and sentiment; and finally, those who had broken all
links with the Church.12 However, even the last category were not neces-
sarily devoid of religious beliefs, and anti-clericals and even atheists,
while  critical of the institutional Church, were nevertheless frequently
inspired (positively and/or negatively) by its teaching.
Categorization can all too easily, however, lead to the simplification of
complex social identities and the ‘vast variety of empirical realities and
268   R. PRICE

experience’.13 The tendency towards reductionism evident in studies

which employed ‘class’ as the fundamental analytical category and anal-
ysed religion in large part as a representation of economic and social struc-
tures and relationships; as a manifestation of backwardness; and which
assumed that ‘the dwindling social significance of religion is the inevitable
consequence of the process of social development in modern societies’ has
been emphasized in recent years.14 In Western Europe, where religion was
widely perceived to have become increasingly ‘marginalized’ or at least
‘diluted’,15 debates founded on once-central linear and monolithic and
essentially teleological concepts like ‘secularization’, ‘de-christianization’
and ‘modernization’—associated with the improvement of communica-
tions, growing urbanization, wider literacy, and politicization—have been
subjected to a ‘revisionism’ stimulated in large part by local and diocesan
studies which identified complex, inter-related and geographically diverse
processes of religious decline and revival.16
Should religion instead be considered primarily in terms of individual
practice or of adhesion to a Church and community? Should faith simply
be defined as a form of social discourse, as a belief system offering under-
standing of the individual’s social situation and daily experience, providing
moral guidance, spiritual compensation and hope of life everlasting? Or
might the Church be seen as an instrument of social control, in both
anthropological and political terms? In which case—were the links between
a priestly culture and varied social milieux articulated in ways which privi-
leged some social milieux more than others? To what extent did a shared
faith influence the inter-relationships between social groups—between the
‘dominant’ and ‘dominated’?17 Was religion—and the social networks
associated with it, including those defined, at least in part, by gender or
generation—a more powerful influence on social interaction and political
relationships than class allegiance? Within these perspectives, religious
institutions and interaction between elite and popular religiosity might be
considered as agents of modernity rather than features of backwardness.18
In considering the ways in which religious revival was to be a central fea-
ture of the social transformation of the nineteenth century, it should also
be borne in mind that ‘the faith of a past age is of its age’19 and that ‘men
and women of the past deserve to be considered on their own terms and
in the context of their own social and cultural milieux’.20
Defining ‘religiosity’ and gaining an understanding of homo religiosus
clearly are ambitious objectives.21 Religious ideas were derived from a lived
experience, within the bounds of the parish—one of the formative lieux de
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    269

mémoire—and particularly within the family, which represented a vital

inter-generational ‘agent de transmission’ of religious beliefs.22 It was the
responsibility of the family, and especially of the mother, often by means
of story-telling, to introduce children to ‘the language, the moral values,
the prayers, and the very idea of God’.23 Socialization within the family
promoted ‘taken-for-granted’, routinized assumptions and behaviour.
Daily life remained ‘impregnées de religiosité’. Even those who rarely, if
ever, went to church, tended to view the world through religious prisms,
the faithful anxious to achieve a state of grace and inspired both by love of
God and fear of eternal damnation; much wider circles drawing, at least
occasionally, on religious beliefs in order to cope with suffering, anxiety
and depression and/or give thanks for God’s blessings and pray for their
continuance.24 Even if they were particularly susceptible to the exhaustion,
diseases and accidents associated with hard physical labour and dangerous
working conditions on the land and in the factory; to insufficient food and
unbalanced diets; and insanitary and unhealthy and overcrowded living
conditions, and the shortcomings of medical care, it was not only the poor
who suffered, and experienced premature death.25 Suffering offered to all
a means of sharing in the passion of Christ on the cross.
The practice of religion was thus enrooted in a day-to-day sociability,
within which the Church, its authority derived from tradition and s­ cripture,
provided a structure for belief and a means of communication.26 This
informal religiosity, closely related to the oral traditions of numerous dis-
tinct communities, was influenced by what might be called the ecclesiasti-
cal and more formal dimension of people’s religious experience, that is,
the teachings and liturgy constructed largely by members of the religious
elite, and transmitted by the parish clergy. Even if it should not necessarily
be regarded as a sign of religious vitality, the presence of a priest within the
community was almost universally regarded as essential to individual and
collective well-being. It was the duty of the clergy to impose order and
orthodoxy upon an essentially oral scriptural tradition, employing the cat-
echism and the teaching associated with it, and by means of sermons and
the practice of the mass, the veneration of the crucifix and holy images and
the burning of candles. Receiving confessions and offering absolution and
spiritual relief conferred considerable moral authority upon those who
officiated. These practices were essential to the development of a routine,
followed unquestioningly by most of its practitioners throughout their
lives. They provided the ideological framework for understanding rela-
tions between Heaven and Earth, as well as the difference between Good
270   R. PRICE

and Evil, and established the basic precepts of Christian behaviour, as well
as conveying the fundamental message—‘Hors de l’Eglise point de salut’.27
In spite of its supposedly transcendental values, religion, however,
remained a social construct.28 Indeed, the individual enjoyed a multiple
sense of belonging and identity as spouse, parent, or member of profes-
sional, generational, cultural, political or religious groups, with varied his-
torical experiences and differently constructed memories.

7.2   Religious Practice Among the Social Elites

Possession of formal (governmental) authority, and control of material
and cultural resources, implied the ability of some people (lay as well as
clerical) to exercise influence (power) over others, and engage in the
construction of belief systems which defined the world and the range of
­possible beliefs and actions.29 Wealth and control of access to scarce
resources, profession, education and culture, a superiority expressed
through conspicuous consumption, paternalism and the prestige of a
name and family reputation, might facilitate the imposition of a sense of
normative and hierarchical social order by means of complex strategies
of domination in which doing the ‘right’ thing, exercising the ‘virtues’
of power in order to gain legitimate authority, often mattered more than
the exercise of repressive (political) power.30 The perceived weakness of
subaltern groups moreover was crucial to the self-definition of the domi-
nant group.31 To what extent might religion be perceived as a constitu-
ent feature of a process of rule, of an effort—never fully achieved—to
gain hegemonic control through the construction of the means of social-
ization, and diffusion of justificatory ideologies designed to extend the
reach of the ‘dominant’ culture? To what extent moreover should reli-
gion—as institution and system of beliefs—be viewed as the primary
means of linking elite and popular culture, and/or as a ‘mechanism of
indoctrination’?32
For the clergy, accommodation with the views of members of the
national and local elites—within a network of real and symbolic dependen-
cies—was normally easy. Together with privileged personal contacts and
regular church attendance, public display—including seating arrange-
ments—replicated an essentially conservative view of the world and rein-
forced these links. Thus, in major administrative centres and cathedral
cities, senior members of the administration and representatives of the
social elite regularly met the bishop and leading clergy in church and at
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    271

receptions and engaged in—and instrumentalized—social networking

processes. In contrast, many members of the classes populaires (lower mid-
dle classes, peasants, workers) remained powerless and often unsure of the
basic precepts of orthodox Catholic teaching. Considerable efforts had
nevertheless been made by the Church to ‘purify’ religious beliefs and
practices and to eliminate ‘superstition’ and ‘paganism’. The missionary
crusade inaugurated by the Council of Trent (1545–63), as part of the
struggle against Protestantism, was revived in the mortal struggle against
Revolution.
Defining the religiosity of particular social milieu needs to be given
more precision by means of an analysis which takes account of individual
spirituality, as well as differences between (and within) social groups. In
the aftermath of the revolutionary crisis, the upper classes appear to have
undergone a long-term process of (re)christianization. Within aristo-
cratic circles, and among those attracted by ultramontane ideals and tra-
ditional concepts of hierarchical social order, the role of the Christian
gentleman committed to both ‘patriarchal domesticity’ and a muscular
assertion of faith in the public sphere had considerable appeal.33 Respect
for religion was virtually part of their self-consciousness. Even if many
nobles did not regularly go to church, or even believe, religious values
substantially influenced their view of the world and their actions within
it.34 A similar picture might be drawn of the socially conservative bour-
geoisie, the landowners, rentiers, successful businessmen, lawyers and
government officials for whom the aristocracy provided a model life
style, as well as for many businessmen anxious to ‘moralize’ their labour
forces with the help of the clergy.35 When God’s Holy Order appeared to
be threatened by the progress of materialism and secularization, as the
Prefect of the industrial Nord pointed out to the Archbishop of Cambrai,
‘the sole duty of ministers of religion must be to preach resignation and
calm to the population’.36 That the clergy had a duty to safeguard ‘wider
societal values’ also seemed evident to the largely Protestant textile
entrepreneurs of Mulhouse who insisted that ‘moral and religious regen-
eration’ was the only effective ­antidote to the class struggle.37 Inspired
by a strong sense of noblesse oblige, by a firm acceptance that wealth
implied responsibility, a substantial part of the social elite regularly and
sincerely practised the Christian virtues, played an active role in parish
life and charitable associations, influenced government policy, and exer-
cised considerable influence on a mass of dependents and on the less
privileged in general.38
272   R. PRICE

7.2.1  Consolation and Hope
The notion of Providence, of resignation, of submission to the Will of a
loving, all-knowing God, was central to Catholic doctrine and to the dis-
courses on marriage and parenthood found in devotional books and
prayers.39 Personal loss might be perceived as an act of expiation and grati-
tude for God’s own sacrifice of His son on the cross. Within every family,
childbirth was invariably an occasion fraught with suffering and danger for
mother and child. High levels of infant mortality meant that the death of
young children was an experience shared or feared. Religion at least
offered hope of God’s blessing and life everlasting and was a potent source
of comfort for the bereaved or afflicted.40 Attempting to comfort the
Ministre des Cultes, Fortoul, following the death of his newborn son, the
Bishop of Nancy, Mgr Menjaud, reminded him that only faith was ‘capa-
ble of comforting your noble soul in the midst of the sorrowful events of
life’. He should take comfort from knowing that ‘the little angel to whom
you have given life has been taken up into Heaven, happy to have escaped
from the torments of an existence, more or less long, which must never-
theless always end in death. Now, he is at God’s side, and able to watch
over your destinies, and to protect in the future the other children that
Providence will preserve to console you… The father who possesses a son
in Heaven can hope for much in this life and in the other.’41
Fortoul’s friend and colleague, the conseiller d’état Louis Bonjean, had
previously written to express his gratitude for the minister’s letter of
­sympathy following the death of his own beloved daughter. He put pen to
paper once again to express his sympathy following Fortoul’s own loss.
Apologizing for the delay caused by the need to organize the funeral of
‘ma chère petite martyre’, he added that although the child’s death had
been expected for some time, ‘the blow when it came has been none-the-­
less terrible’. His little daughter had been ‘our joy, our hope. Like the little
flower in the fields, hidden under the grass, she seemed to want to reserve
all the sweet scents for her father and mother: we alone are able to realise
what treasures of innocence, of grace, of sensibility, of spirit, and of preco-
cious intelligence we have lost. This death has opened up an abyss in our
lives that nothing will ever fill.’ Responding to Fortoul’s grief and sense of
despair, Bonjean observed that ‘in the common shipwreck of our hopes,
we share the same pain, in crying together for my beloved daughter and
for the little angel who has been stolen from you’. He earnestly hoped that
‘the cruel sacrifice which has been imposed on me, will serve as a pledge
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    273

of redemption which will spare all my friends from such a misfortune’ and
took comfort from his conviction that ‘where reason is powerless, Religion
can at least offer Consolation, can at least soften the blow in giving us
hope that one day soon we will meet those we have loved so much.’42
Louis Veuillot would seek similarly to comfort his beloved friend Juliette
de Robersart by reminding her that ‘Death is one of those salutary gifts
which God distributes to us. It constrains us to think about the hereafter,
it clearly shows us the good road.’ Those who were blessed could antici-
pate ‘re-awakening in the eternal and infinite sun’.43
The faithful, together with Catholic medical practitioners and the
members of the religious orders who assisted them in the care of the
afflicted, frequently expressed greater confidence in the efficacy of prayer—
of private devotional practices—than in the services of a doctor. In a letter
to her sister-in-law, written on 9 March 1873, the relatively well-educated
middle-class mother of the future Saint Thérèse, after calling, without
apparent effect, a medical practitioner to the bedside of her critically ill
daughter, described how ‘I kneel at the feet of Saint Joseph and beg his
mercy for the little suffering child, although resigning myself to the will of
the good Lord, if He wishes to take her.’ A week later, she wrote of her
‘continual anguish’ and wondered whether Purgatory could be worse than
the torments she was enduring. Subsequently, on 30 March, seeking to
understand the child’s suffering, she explained that ‘the good Lord intends
that this will detach us from earthly concerns and turn our thoughts
towards Heaven’. She had done her utmost to save Thérèse: ‘now, if the
good Lord wishes to decide otherwise, I will try to support the ordeal
with as much patience as possible.’ God’s Will be done. Christians should
never give in to despair.44 As a central feature of their upbringing, young
women from well-off families were likely to have received an instruction
profoundly imbued with religion from tutors, or in pensionnats established
for girls of ‘good’ family by such religious orders as the Dames du Sacré
Cœur at Kientzheim in Alsace.45
Although the growing medical use of morphine from around 1800,
and the subsequent introduction of ether and chloroform (from the 1840
to the 1850s) brought relief from pain and facilitated advances in surgery,
a widespread preoccupation with death, and fear of dying without the
blessing of the Church and in a state of sin, remained evident.46 Death—
and God’s Judgement—needed to be prepared for carefully, and solem-
nized by the Church’s liturgy. Family members, priests, members of
religious orders and of lay associations like the Société de Saint-­
274   R. PRICE

Vincent de Paul or the confréries de la Bonne Mort, all sought to ensure

that the last rites were performed in timely fashion.47 Mgr Gaston de
Ségur, desperate to ensure for his mother the ‘good death’ prescribed by
Catholic manuals, clutched a crucifix blessed by two popes and a flask
containing water from Lourdes to drive away the demons who seemed to
be tormenting her.48 For a parish to be deprived, even temporarily, of a
priest, threatened the prospect of eternal bliss for all those engaged on
their death beds in the final struggle against sin and the Devil. As the
mayor of Aragnouet (Hautes-Pyrénées) lamented in an appeal to his
bishop (in 1857), ‘to live without a priest is, for us, Mgr., to live without
God’.49
Heaven and Hell were generally represented not as symbolic but as real
spaces.50 In contrast with the sufferings endured by sinners within the fiery
furnace of Hell, the Jesuit Abbé de Ravignan, in 1855, assured his listeners
that in a paradaisical Heaven the blessed dead could expect to ‘continue to
love those they have loved … on earth; there, you will think of them; there
you will pray for them; there you will be able to help them, to relieve
them, and God, in His attentive Providence, will make you aware of the
needs of those dear souls you have left behind, so that you are able to sup-
port them’.51 The cult of the dead was evident in even the most detached
regions but its practice was especially marked in central France and the
west where on All Souls’ Day families gathered around the tombs of their
ancestors in order both to commune with them and pray for their souls
and—from the 1850s—decorate the graves with flowers.52 An especially
intense obsession with salvation and the afterlife ensured respect for the
clergy, the central practitioners in this culture des morts.53 It was also evi-
dent in the construction—at least by the wealthy—of often fantastical
memorials.54
Many among the generation reaching manhood from the 1840s, and
contrary to notions of the ‘feminization’ of religion, were also educated at
religious colleges in Paris like the petit séminaire of Saint-Nicolas-du-­
Chardonnet, the more prestigious collèges Stanislas or Vaugirard, or else
the Jesuit establishments at Brugelette in Belgium or Fribourg in
Switzerland.55 The letters written to his mother by Alfred Motte-­
Grimonprez, scion of a leading northern textile family, while boarding at
Stanislas, are quite revealing.56 In November 1844, the new pupil reported
that ‘the school contains twelve priests who, each Sunday, in addition to
conducting services, provide instruction; mass every Thursday; my confes-
sor is M. Gratry. There are also confessors from outside the school, such
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    275

as Jesuits … and, to reassure you, these gentlemen have given me salutary

advice on the choice of friends.’ The following month he wrote that, as a
reward for good behaviour, ‘I was among the five pupils from the class in
rhetoric who went this morning to hear the R.P. Lacordaire preach on the
virtues of chastity.’ He appears to have been profoundly impressed—
‘Mother, you cannot imagine the power of his voice! Over a thousand
people were at the foot of the pulpit, listening to the words of truth which
emerged in torrents from that eloquent mouth. One of his sermons revives
the soul… Oh, words are such a precious instrument when they are put to
proper use!’57
Religion subsequently offered the young Motte consolation in the face
of the disasters afflicting his family. Following the destruction of a mill by
fire in 1845, or the February Revolution in 1848, which again appeared to
threaten their prosperity, he took comfort in ‘a God who keeps watch over
us’.58 Just like other members of the social elite, Motte would be deter-
mined to play a pivotal role in the multiplication of Catholic ‘good works’.
Together with his formal education, family socialization had taught him
that ‘it is the glory, the power, the divinity of our religion to make all men
brothers, all members of a single holy family of which Jesus Christ is the
Head; one day, if I am fortunate, my great hope would be to come to the
aid of the unfortunate’.59

7.2.2  The Public Display of Faith

Faith, together with a determination to conform, and fear of God’s
Judgement encouraged compassionate public engagement. Around mid-­
century Tout-Paris participated in a ‘frénsie philanthropique’, repeatedly
making contributions to a whole host of good causes, including those of
the local ‘deserving’ poor, the victims of floods in the Loire valley in 1846
and 1856, and the suffering victims of the Irish famine.60 It was also ‘good
form’ for men to enrol in the Société de Saint-Vincent de Paul; to attend
the invariably ostentatious, even theatrical, services in fashionable churches
like Saint-Sulpice in Paris; to belong to the conseil de fabrique which
administered parish funds; to furnish private chapels; and to provide pub-
licly celebrated donations for church construction and restoration, or the
replacement of bells; and more generally to support the clergy, the teach-
ing and nursing orders, and exercise an influence favourable to religion.61
In Toulouse, a traditional administrative and marketing centre, ‘patrician’
families, resident in their town houses for three to four months each year,
276   R. PRICE

provided the clergy with ‘money, support, welcome. These families do

nothing without consulting their director of conscience… Marriages,
wills, business, everything is submitted to an examination, to the control
of religion, and finally supported by the influence of religion.’62 They saw
themselves, and were widely regarded, as constituting the Catholic elite.63
A committed laity might exercise considerable authority within the
Christian community. The influence of Louis Veuillot, that most vocal of
Catholic laymen, was greatly enhanced by the extensive network of per-
sonal and epistolary contacts he developed with both provincial nobles
and priests. Initiatives which threatened to challenge leadership by the
clergy were, however, often regarded with suspicion. The Comte de
Falloux detested him for his pretensions and extreme language.64 Veuillot
would be shocked to be accused of pride, insisting that ‘I cannot imagine
anything I would not be ready to do to prove my obedience to the teach-
ings of the Church.’65
Christian teaching served to legitimize the existing social order, sancti-
fied the possession of wealth and the existence of inequality, and justified
the actions of government officials and particularly the magistrature—the
essential guardians of order and morality. Hierarchy was measured and
represented to the community even in apparently mundane matters like
seating arrangements in the parish church. Notables expected to enjoy
such visible manifestations of deference as being at the head of proces-
sions, receiving the sacraments before other communicants, sitting in a
prominent position in church, being addressed in respectful tones, gaining
easy access to and receiving an attentive response from parish priests.66 In
some rural areas the banc du seigneur survived.67 Following the purchase
of the château at Aiguefonde (Tarn) in 1863 by the Jewish banker, Eugène
Pereire, the Abbé Bonnet, serving this weaving community, invited his
congregation to wear their Sunday-best on the day Pereire was expected
to arrive, organized the erection of arcs de triomphe, and celebrated the
entry of the new proprietor into his mansion by ringing the church bells.
The town bands from neighbouring Castres and Mazamet accompanied
the Pereire family to church on the following Sunday when they were
installed ceremonially in the pew designated for the owners of the châ-
teau.68 Even in death, funerary arrangements, memorials, charitable
bequests in wills, and the purchase of masses, provided opportunities for
the celebration of social status and the symbolic representation of power.69
In his classic study, Jean Maurain pointed out, however, that while
appreciating the social utility of religion, many members of the elite were
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    277

‘more clerical than believing’.70 The academic rector in the Allier claimed
that, for the better-off, ‘religious practices are often … a matter of
­calculation: it is advantageous to set a good example to their inferiors’.71
Age was a significant factor, with marriage often marking a dividing line
between youthful indifference and religious commitment, or at least occa-
sional conformity.72 That eminent theologian, the Abbé Gaume, was
openly contemptuous of those gentlemen who appeared ‘at mass, three or
four times a year, and never at vespers’, preferring instead to ‘frequent
spectacles and balls’,73 whilst Mgr Pie distinguished between the unstinted
support for good works provided by rich Legitimist landowners and ‘the
enriched bourgeois, the entire merit of whom is to give me a good dinner
when I visit their parish, and to come to church on that particular day’.74
In an article published in 1842 in the Revue des Deux Mondes, Charles de
Rémusat, a friend of Prime Minister Guizot, illustrated an even more cyni-
cal liberal outlook—‘Religion? One favours it wholesale as a means of
securing order, but retail, it’s a joke.’75
At a more personal level too, a shared faith did not mean that relations
between proud, and frequently arrogant and condescending notables and
a poorly educated and often socially graceless clergy were always easy.
Priests moreover demanded respect for their particular état and for the
dignity of their calling. Considerable irritation might be caused, for exam-
ple, by requests for parish priests to officiate at private chapels in  local
châteaux. The desservant at Guémené-Penfao in the Nantes diocese com-
plained to his bishop that ‘on the eve of a grande fête, Mme. la Marquise
[de Becdelièvre] asked me to hear her confession in her own chapel. That
is to say, at 8 o’clock, and under the pretext that the weather and the roads
were very bad and that the journey to Guémené would have ruined her
carriage and horses… When Mme la Marquise wants something, she can-
not understand that there could be a valid reason for refusing it.’76
The Marquis de Falendre, mayor of Mahéru (Orne), decided that the
local priest was so uncouth that it was impossible ‘to have relations with
him’. Instead his family attended services in a neighbouring parish.
Shortcomings in the ‘vie privée’ of the priest had also been noted. He had
been observed to ‘give himself over, personally, to the material cares of his
household, and stripped of his cassock, saw and split wood’. The Bishop
of Séez and the Prefect agreed that this breakdown in relations between
the priest and the most important family in the parish required the transfer
of the offending clergyman.77 More generally, however, and even if ten-
sions were not infrequent, a clergy educated to esteem social hierarchy,
278   R. PRICE

and dependent on the financial support and influence of potential benefac-

tors, was likely to be accommodating.
God was always represented as a man. Entry to the priesthood was lim-
ited to men. Religious life nevertheless often formed the basis of a distinc-
tive female sub-culture. If, within her family of origin, the woman’s role
was subordinate to that of her husband or father, the upper-class lady
nevertheless occupied a privileged place within the social hierarchy. The
salon held in the mansion of Sophie de Swetchine in the rue Saint-­
Dominique in Paris until her death in 1857 attracted the likes of Albert de
Broglie, Falloux, Armand de Melun and Montalembert, as well as influen-
tial clerics like Dom Guéranger.78 Caroline Brame, daughter of an indus-
trialist, married young, and resident in the aristocratic Boulevard
Saint-Germain, occupied herself with social visits, by playing the piano,
reading novels, and with parish activities. According to an entry in her
journal, however, ‘nothing is more delightful for the heart than to receive
communion … I am never as happy as during these pious and fervent
instants in which Jesus gives himself to me. Is there any pleasure compa-
rable to that of hearing one’s God address to the bottom of one’s heart
these words which do so much good?’ (11 March 1865). Every day she
dedicated her life to Jesus and to the Virgin Mary.79
Most parishes also sheltered a group of pious women dedicated to
supporting the priest, and displaying those qualities usually associated
with prevailing stereotypes of femininity—tenderness, weakness, docility,
­submissiveness.80 They were likely to have been educated themselves by
the religious orders and belong to the various associations which cele-
brated the cult of Mary, that perfect exemplar of purity and female good-
ness—both Virgin and Mother—the vital mediator between man and
God, largely constructed by male theologians, and ever present in statues
and imagery. In some situations, as among the women of the Lille bour-
geoisie, a passionate and immersive spiritual milieu was created, dominat-
ing daily life and social relationships. Its members shared an increasingly
intense piety, rigorously observing their religious obligations—daily mass,
regular prayer, and frequent consultation of their spiritual advisors, as well
as an all-encompassing religious faith. Some would probably have wished
to assume the role of priest. The achievement of ‘perfection’ as the means
of gaining eternal salvation could become the dominant element in their
lives.81 The sincerity of this intense piety seems so evident and yet many
women were also no doubt conforming, half-heartedly, to established
models and expectations of thought and behaviour, sufficiently so for Mgr
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    279

Dupanloup to complain about the ‘odious and barbaric’ social pressure

which produced ‘complicity between worldly prejudices and piety, I want
to say, false piety’.82
While insisting that the woman’s primary role was to serve as a com-
panion and help-meet to her husband, the clergy also assumed that reli-
gion was a necessary check on those peculiarly female passions—sexuality,
vanity and pride—most likely to result in sin.83 They sought to protect the
innocence and purity of young girls and to insist upon the need for virgin-
ity before as well as fidelity within marriage. The constant representation
of the Virgin Mary—Mother of God, conceived without sin—as exemplar;
the practice of communion and penitence; the presence of the bonnes
sœurs; the establishment of dense networks of Enfants de Marie and of
confréries which offered wholesome games and songs in addition to prayer
and instruction; the denunciation of such ‘erotic’ activities as dancing and
of visits to the theatre as occasions for sin; and of the ‘indecent’ styles of
dress favoured by many women; culminating in the denunciation—from
the pulpit—of the filles perdues who had given in to temptation, were all
part of an attempt to protect Christian morality.84
Besides regular (and often daily) attendance at church services, chari-
table endeavours served multiple functions, providing an opportunity for
‘respectable’ women—excluded from the male-dominated space of the
club or café—to socialize and to establish their social status, as well as to
serve humanity. Indeed, for the clergy, a woman’s ‘tender heart’ made her
the ideal dispenser of charity. In La femme chrétienne dans ses rapports avec
le monde (1851), the Abbé Chassay reminded his readers that ‘it is touch-
ing to see women, brought up in a situation of well-being, defy the false
delicacies of their education and install themselves in the cottages of the
poor, like angels descending from Heaven… If there is something espe-
cially agreeable to the female heart, it must be the noble joy inspired by
charity.’85 In Rouen, the activities of the Société de Saint-Vincent de Paul
were reinforced by the shared idealism and cooperation between the ladies
of the region’s aristocracy and the city’s upper middle class in the Société
de charité maternelle, which assisted poor women during childbirth.86 In
Lyon, while seeking to provide shelter and comfort for the incurable and
widows without families, the good ladies of the Dames de la Calvaire,
blessed with money, time and energy, also encouraged them to under-
stand their miserable situations in terms of Divine Punishment and to
exalt the suffering which offered such a wonderful opportunity for
repentance.87
280   R. PRICE

7.2.3  Christian Charity
God had punished France for the sins of its people by means of revolution
and cholera. It seemed evident that only acts of expiation could secure
renewed Divine blessing.88 Charity justified wealth and also facilitated
social control by promoting dependence and deference. Jules Gossin, a
leading figure in the Société de Saint-Vincent de Paul, optimistically
pointed out in 1848—‘By means of enlightened assistance, the poor can
be reconciled to the rich, and through affectionate contacts with all those
who have some wealth, harmony can be re-established between the differ-
ent classes of society.’89 Another eminent member of the Société, the assis-
tant state prosecutor at Rennes, in a speech celebrating the rentrée of the
Imperial Court in December 1855, similarly insisted that it was the influ-
ence of the clergy which had kept Brittany free of unrest in 1848, and that
‘religious faith is for us the best guarantee of order, peace and happiness’.90
In addition to serving God’s purpose, as the state prosecutor at Bourges
pointed out, ‘Everyone understands that in the face of an inevitably
unequal distribution of wealth, charity is not only a duty of humanity, but
an element of social security.’91
In His wisdom, God had provided the rich with the opportunity to
achieve salvation by alleviating the suffering of the poor through human
sympathy, moral leadership and material assistance. Frédéric Ozanam, one
of the founders of the Société de Saint-Vincent de Paul, distinguishing
between ‘charity’ and mere ‘philanthropy’, condemned the latter because
it lacked the spiritual dimension.92 Pastoral letters and sermons frequently
reminded the better-off that charity was a voluntary act, under the impul-
sion of conscience, leading to the construction of a moral community in
which the better-off could exercise a reformative influence over the poor,
and which provided a means of revealing their own love of God. The rich
had responsibilities towards those less fortunate than themselves and were
promised that charitable activity would ease their path towards Salvation.
Charity was not something to which its recipients had any right, however.
While they might earn God’s blessing by accepting submissively the place
in society He had chosen for them, questioning His Judgement ­represented
blasphemy and exposed the transgressor to both human and divine
retribution.93
As the President of the conférence of the Société de Saint-Vincent de
Paul at Morlaix in Brittany reminded its members in 1857, ‘the objective
of the Society’s founders … was not so much to offer greater assistance to
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    281

the unfortunate, but to give to men of the world, to men engaged in pub-
lic life, a means of working for their own sanctification, that is for their
own moral and religious improvement, through charity and works of
mercy’.94 By means of the love of Christ and mutual respect, charity would
reinforce the faith of the donor and encourage the recipient to return to
the faith.95 According to the parish priest at Le Blanc, in the diocese of
Bourges, the rich ‘occupy on earth a providential place compared to the
poor; they are indebted to God who has allowed them their good fortune;
they must in return assist those who suffer’.96 In this Christian-conservative
conception of ‘Providential’ inequality ‘[which] is the essence of human
nature’97—the suffering poor adopted the role of passive and grateful
recipients in hope of Eternal Salvation.
In religious terms, charity represented an act of redemption. Seeking to
comfort Juliette de Robersart during a cholera epidemic, Louis Veuillot
reminded her that not only was this ‘the moment to place yourself in the
hands of God’ but additionally an opportunity ‘to assist the poor. Fear
might persist, but at the last moment the poor will, in their turn, assist us
in the person of … Jesus Christ, victor over death, and we will pass through
the door of judgement almost without thinking about it.’98 ‘The rich’ were
thus ‘necessary, not only for the good that they do, but additionally for the
examples they give, which are the most appropriate to ensure enjoyment of
the gift of poverty’.99 He did, however, occasionally despair. In 1866, he
complained that too many members of the social elite did little, in spite of
the ever-present threat of death and the final Judgement. Their inactivity
threatened to result in ‘the triumph of the devil’.100 Fortunately, the poor
were always present—as passive instruments, offering opportunities for the
good works which would earn God’s blessing.101
For the rich, charitable activity was a means of ‘legitimising one’s posi-
tion as a member of the ruling class’.102 It provided a means of self-­
affirmation, of self-justification, of gaining recognition, and of enhancing
a family’s sense of respectability and social status (often by appearing on a
list of charitable subscribers). In allowing the ‘identification of the rich and
powerful with the good’, it offered a means of accumulating social and
(even if indirectly) political capital.103 The poor, in their turn, rewarded
those who provided assistance by accepting the love of Christ, and offer-
ing gratitude and prayers.104 The establishment of this circular relationship
between rich and poor enhanced the prospect of salvation for both. In
practical terms, by reducing the sense of desperation among the poor,
assistance also reduced the likelihood of crime or of collective protest.105
282   R. PRICE

Never, according to a repeatedly reprinted pamphlet by the Abbé

Mullois, had the richer classes proved more fraternal and more altruistic
towards the less fortunate.106 The impact of industrialization and the influx
into the towns of desperately poor and vulnerable people from the coun-
tryside had been highlighted in 1834 by Villeneuve-Bargemont in his
Traité d’économie politique chrétienne.107 Awareness of the ‘social problem’
had, within a constricted ideological-religious framework, been consider-
ably enhanced among the Catholic elite during the 1840s by enquiries
associated with the journal Annales de la charité, established by Armand
de Melun in 1845, and with the Société d’économie charitable (1846).
The proper conduct of Christian charity was also widely debated during
the long mid-century crisis and following poor harvests between
1853–1856. Writing in the Journal des Economistes, A.E.  Cherbuliez
sought to marry Christian precepts of Divine Providence with liberal eco-
nomic theory. He insisted that charity ‘must, in order to be in harmony
both with the religious principles which inspire it, and with those of eco-
nomic science, endeavour to restore the morality of those living in misery,
and to combat the discouragement, lack of foresight, and the vicious incli-
nations which might otherwise develop, by applying to such good works
the direct and personal influence of one man on another’.108 The govern-
ment engineer and eminent social observer, Frédéric Le Play, the best-
known theorist of this kind of neo-feudal, counter-­revolutionary Catholic
paternalism, insisted that social relationships must be based on those of
the family—on affection, mutual obligation and respect for paternal
authority.109 Social order depended upon reverence for hierarchy, on
acceptance, by the ‘superior classes’ of their paternalistic responsibilities
towards the ‘inferior classes’ and by the latter of their subordinate position
within what appears to have been conceived of as an essentially master/
servant relationship.110
In 1856, Le Play founded the Société d’Economie sociale as a sort of
think tank. Its objective was to ‘establish a more prosperous future for the
working classes through the conscientious study of their condition past
and present, as a means of placing comfort within the grasp of the classes
with a little money, and necessities within the grasp of the poorest’, and
above all of ‘raising the people towards God through well-being and grati-
tude’.111 The Society reflected the emergence of a social Catholicism
directed not simply at providing assistance but to securing a permanent
improvement in the living conditions of the poor and in social relation-
ships and thus combating both the selfish individualism associated with
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    283

liberalism and the immoral temptations of socialism, as well as the pros-

pect of class conflict.112 Increasing prosperity would also provide a grow-
ing financial surplus to underpin three basic forms of activity—assistance
to the poor, contributions to the construction and renovation of churches,
and donations in support of religious good works. His pessimistic view of
mankind encouraged Le Play to insist that religious belief and respect for
the Ten Commandments were the only means of ensuring peace in
society.113
The paternalistic ideas applied to the rapidly developing urban-­industrial
world drew heavily on conservative theological/ethical ideals derived from
idealized conceptions of rural society in which the philanthropic activities
of the wealthy both supported the pastoral work of the parish clergy and
reinforced their own social influence.114 In the cities, the place of the
châtelain should be assumed by the parish priest, involving himself fully in
the activities of the municipal bureaux de bienfaisance, in parish mutual aid
societies, lay associations like the Société de Saint-Vincent de Paul, and
supported by the ladies of the parish, collecting donations and distributing
food and clothing together with moral injunctions to the ‘deserving’ and
submissive poor. According to an anonymous Parisian priest in a letter to
Archbishop Sibour in 1849, these activities would ‘establish relations
between the poor and the largest possible number of laymen; and rein-
force links between these and the parish clergy… The object is to increase
the influence of the priest, to reinforce the authority of his word, and the
reign of the laws of his God… ’, and to ensure that, ‘in every case it is the
clergy, … offering guidance or counsel to those engaged in good works,
who will gain the glory and honour for these good works’.115
In a prize-winning essay on Le Salut des campagnes, published in 1855,
the Abbé Bardin furthermore observed that ‘to assist the unfortunate has
always been the way to win them over, and the care of the poor, which
represents one of the great obligations of the priest … becomes the basis
of [his] influence, and the most active ingredient in his zeal for the sancti-
fication of souls’. In mobilizing resources, as another prize-winner, the
Abbé Laveau, pointed out, ‘if the notables of the area are for us, we will
find in them a support which will multiply by a hundred our strength and
means’.116
In response to a growing concern that landowners were deserting the
countryside for the temptations of Paris and abandoning their social
responsibilities and duty to assist the clergy, the Œuvre des campagnes,
established in 1857 by the Abbé Vandel and the Comtesse Auguste de la
284   R. PRICE

Rochejaquelein, presented a call for repentance, devotion and charity.117 A

return to the land was predicated as a means of regaining lost influence
and of re-establishing traditional hierarchical social relations. Concern
with the interests of agriculture should replace the habits associated with
luxury and idleness, and with high society. Landlords were encouraged to
take a lead in agricultural improvement—to provide work, increase pros-
perity and encourage peasants to stay on the land.118 Sharing these objec-
tives, Mgr Dupanloup would in 1863 establish the Académie Sainte-Croix
to bring together landowners and senior government officials in the
Orleans diocese—men he judged to be given to idle leisure—in order to
‘encourage study, the development of talent, and to shape men of capacity
and conviction, a society of friends and emulators…’, who would discuss
history and literature and the interests of religion, while avoiding divisive
political debate.119 This was typical of the charitable, learned and agricul-
tural societies and salons so vital to regular social networking, and in which
invaluable social and cultural capital might be accumulated by priests and
laymen.120
The Bulletin published by the Œuvres des campagnes also insisted that
church attendance by landowners was a vital means of setting a good
example. Thus, in 1868—‘People are impressed by what they see: “These
are educated men”, they say; “they must know what they are doing. They
are rich and do not practise religion out of personal interest. They practise
because they believe and believe because it is true.” This is the sort of
reasoning one encounters amongst simple country folk. Their convictions
develop according to the conduct of people they see and honour.’121 As
well as setting a good example, landowners were also advised to supervise
their dependents closely, ‘with all necessary tact but also with authority’.
Daily prayers by the assembled family and its servants were also recom-
mended and they should all be expected to attend Sunday church ser-
vices.122 The clergy assumed that without the example set by those in
authority, there was every danger that irreligion and moral disorder would
spread.123 Just as in the Bible, ‘the organization and direction of good
works’ was defined as a male responsibility, while ‘charitable action was
largely the responsibility of women’.124
The initiatives taken were largely local in character. Prominent Roman
Catholic laymen were likely to be members of the Société de Saint-Vincent
de Paul, founded in 1833 as a means of supplementing the work of the
parish clergy and religious orders and encouraging a sense of responsibility
among social elites towards the less fortunate members of society. By
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    285

1844, the Société was composed of 141 conférences and had 4561 active
members.125 Membership of a deliberately non-political charitable associa-
tion offered opportunities for cooperative networking. It also provided a
means of participating in the ‘crusade’ against impiety.126 By 1860, the
Société had 32,500 activists in France, organized in some 1300 conférences,
with a coordinating Conseil supérieur in Paris.127 Mgr Marguerye, Bishop
of Autun, typically waxed lyrical about the ‘chères conférences’ which repre-
sented ‘la gloire du catholicisme’ and through which the ‘rich’ distributed
‘their largesse and their charitable exhortations’. The Société brought
together men of every political persuasion ‘on the neutral ground of char-
ity and the practice of religious obligations’, to engage in a ‘variety of
commendable works’. Indeed, he added, ‘What an admirable means of
ensuring that the poor love and bless the rich, when they see a young man,
a well-known magistrate, a man highly placed by his dignity, talent or
birth, occupy himself with their family and their children… This is the true
means of helping the poor, of calming their discontent, of improving their
moral and physical conditions.’128 The entrepreneurial Abbé Mullois even
established a new periodical—Le Messager de la charité—in order to popu-
larize charitable giving and to ‘bring men closer together in order to bring
them closer to God’.129
In the capital, the most active conférences of the Société were located in
the aristocratic faubourg Saint-Germain and the wealthy bourgeois par-
ishes on the right bank of the Seine—most notably La Madeleine and
Saint-Roch. They attracted men with substantial wealth, together with
the leisure time and religious faith necessary to sustain commitment and
perform leading roles. In comparison, in much of central, northern and
eastern Paris, professional and businessmen needed to devote their time
to their careers, and might have felt overwhelmed by the scale of pov-
erty.130 According to recent research by Brejon de Lavergnée, some 20%
of Parisian members were nobles, a further 30% belonged to the ‘leisured’
classes, including landowners with urban residences, rentiers, and senior
government officials, and 25% were members of the liberal professions.
Additionally, the conférences offered a means by which successful shop-
keepers, clerks, and artisans (20% of the Parisian membership) might
reinforce their social status, particularly in the poorer areas.131 It was
expected that each member would visit two or three families, and prob-
ably more in time of crisis and intense hunger like 1846 and 1847. Faced
with an influx of migrants from the provinces and from the city centre
areas cleared by Baron Haussmann’s reconstruction, the conférences in
286   R. PRICE

working-class suburbs like Clignancourt or Belleville, where few individ-

uals were able and willing to commit themselves to charitable activity,
were likely to be overwhelmed—in spite of the efforts of wealthy inner-
city parishes like La Madeleine to provide additional resources by trans-
ferring funds and adopting families.132 By 1854, the Société was present
in half the parishes of Paris and its suburbs, with 1800 members, orga-
nized into 56 conférences. Some 5700 poor families received regular vis-
its.133 In 1870, there were 124 groups in the city, with at least 2000
activists. The Société was present in every parish although the number of
active members rarely exceeded 30–40.134 The primary aim of the con-
férence of the Parisian parish of Saint-Augustin was defined as being ‘to
preserve or to re-awaken … the sentiments of order, of probity, and of
religion’.135
Outside Paris, the Société de Saint-Vincent de Paul was largely urban
and might be found particularly in the regions of faith. It was similarly
dominated by members of the ‘leisured’ classes.136 Those notables resident
for part of the year in the capital, as well as former students influenced by
their experiences in the city, were particularly influential in the establish-
ment of provincial conférences.137 They provided behavioural models for
the growing number of bourgeois families attracted by the ultramontane
devotions of a revived Catholicism. The experience of dealing with the
supplicant poor and the habitual employment of the language and ges-
tures characteristic of a sense of superiority additionally promoted self-­
confidence.138 In and around rapidly industrializing textile centres like
Lille and Lyon, the fervent Catholicism of both traditional notables and
leading industrialists, as well as a growing awareness of intense and threat-
ening poverty, combined to encourage charitable activity. It also secured
the greater integration of old and new elites, facilitated the division of
labour between the leading male philanthropists and their womenfolk,
active within supportive comités des dames, and provided a mechanism for
reinforcing their influence.139
The Society’s adherents were hostile to what they perceived to be the
creeping bureaucratization and secularization of the municipal bureaux
de bienfaisance in which they also often participated, and most certainly
to socialist notions of an Etat-Providence.140 They sought to personalize
charity by regularly visiting the ‘deserving’ poor, the sick and infirm of
the parish, in their homes and, with the assistance of members of reli-
gious orders like the Filles de la charité, distributed food, clothing, heat-
ing fuel, advice on hygiene and morality, and, above all, knowledge of the
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    287

Love of God.141 It was assumed that the poor judged the rich harshly and
envied their possessions only because they did not know them.142 An
association like that of Notre-Dame de Bonne Garde at Nantes offered a
corrective, taking as its objective the need to ‘protect the innocence of
young female domestics and workers from all the dangers which threaten
them in the middle of a great city’. Among its organizers were the repre-
sentatives of the local aristocracy, inspired by an idealized conception of
master-servant relationships which associated the devotion, love and
affection expected from servants with the paternalism of their masters.143
The association offered ‘saines récrèations’ and spiritual instruction.
Taking as a precept the passage in Saint Paul’s letter to the Ephesians—
‘Servants, obey your masters’, its regulations recommended that domes-
tics ‘attach themselves to their masters and serve them, not in proportion
to the wages they receive but from love of Jesus Christ… They should
not challenge the instructions of their master or mistress; they should
never murmur in p ­rotest when they are given a command or some
advice… Above all, they should take care to say nothing unfavourable
about their master.’144 It was further assumed that observation of daily
religious practices within the household (or indeed on the estate, in the
office or factory) ‘induces a state of mind in which the established struc-
tures of authority and even modes of exploitation appear to be in the
course of nature’.145
It was particularly important to protect the young from moral corrup-
tion. The Œuvre des apprentis, founded by Armand de Melun in Paris in
1854, provided evening classes for 800 and by 1870 was able to bring
together 3300 young workers for Sunday worship. The parallel Œuvre du
patronage des jeunes ouvrières offered similar support to young girls.146
As well as technical instruction, these groups offered wholesome enter-
tainment, religious retreats and prayer meetings. In Marseille the Œuvre
de la jeunesse ouvrière similarly sought to protect young workers from
temptation, especially those without families in the city, and to find them
work once they had completed their apprenticeships.147 Authorized in
1861 by the Prefect of Bas-Rhin, following a careful police investigation,
the ‘Statuts de l’association catholique des ouvriers de Strasbourg’ defined
its goals as ‘at the same time religious, educational and recreational’.
Political discussion was strictly forbidden. Its 130 members were provided
with study and games rooms which would remain open between 8 a.m.
and 9.30 p.m. on weekdays and, following religious services, from 4 p.m.
to 9.45 on Sundays. Members should be at least 17  years old and be
288   R. PRICE

recommended by their employers and ‘personnes charitables’. The admin-

istrator of the association would be a priest assisted by an elected commit-
tee. In this case the authorities had initiated an inquiry by the local
commissaire de police because of the appointment of a Jesuit as director. As
the Bishop of Strasbourg, however, pointed out, the association ensured
that ‘Young men, instead of passing their evenings in the cabaret or bras-
serie, or in even worse places, gather together in a place known to the
police, and there, under the eyes of honourable and sympathetic men,
they talk, laugh, and sing; they listen to instructive lectures or the reading
of an edifying story; and sometimes enjoy a modest refreshment, always
without alcohol, and which bears no resemblance to the disgusting orgies
to which they might be invited elsewhere.’148
Closely associated with the Société de Saint-Vincent de Paul, and simi-
larly spreading from Paris into the provinces, was the Œuvre des Saintes-­
Familles, which attempted to encourage church attendance by offering
services specifically for the poor in the hope of overcoming any embarrass-
ment caused by their ragged clothing, and to counter their inability to
comprehend sermons directed at the better educated.149 It also sought to
reinforce self-discipline and to encourage thrift and mutual assistance as
did the Société de Saint-François-Xavier (1840) which attracted some
25,000 members during the 1850s.150 The objective of the Société de
Saint-François-Régis (1826) was to encourage co-habiting couples to
overcome the obstacles formed by the legal formalities and costs associ-
ated with a Christian marriage, and by 1870 it could claim the credit for
having organized 50,000 weddings since its foundation.151
According to Mgr de Ségur, charity, in all its forms, should be concen-
trated on the ‘good’, on the humble victims of age and infirmity, on the
chronic sick and bereaved, and on those who accepted their situation with
resignation to God’s will and gratitude towards their benefactors. First of
all, the ‘deserving’ poor had to be identified among those families whose
misery could not be blamed on idleness, waste or vice. The bishop esti-
mated that 19 out of every 20 poor people did not deserve aid. These
were the ‘ungrateful and wicked’ whose poverty was due to ‘laziness,
debauchery, drunkenness, love of pleasure’, and who ‘blamed God when
they ought to blame themselves’.152 It was assumed that regular visits to
the homes of the poor were essential. This was where a greater under-
standing of the problems of poverty might be gained, and the location in
which the faith of the poor, as well as habits of cleanliness, order, and civil-
ity in their everyday lives, might most efficaciously be reinforced. The
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    289

Comte de Falloux, an early member of the Société de Saint-Vincent de

Paul, insisted in his memoirs that ‘When one has always had shelter, a
home and bread, one cannot judge the poor. It is essential to look more
closely at misery in order to understand it better, as well as the variety of
reasons for either irritation or the heroism of calm resignation.’ In
working-­class quartiers, where members of the clergy were not necessarily
welcome, dedicated laymen might more easily gain admittance to the
homes of the poor.153
Such intrusive and judgmental activities clearly represented an affirma-
tion of social and moral superiority, evident in the oft-repeated expression
of disgust at the living conditions of the poor and the stench of poverty.
Invariably, the conditions imposed upon the recipients of assistance were
strict. For one thing, resources were limited. In Paris, the Société de Saint-­
Vincent de Paul accumulated money through subscriptions, donations,
legacies, lotteries, bazaars, charitable sermons, concerts, balls and fêtes.154
The various conférences raised an exceptional 300,000 francs a year by
1860 but were only able to offer assistance to around one (strictly defined)
indigent family in ten and provide for a quarter of its needs.155 As the
Prefect of Loire-Inférieure, Chevreau concluded, ‘the conférences, no
doubt achieve much good… It is worth noting, however, that they limit
themselves to assisting only a privileged, selected portion of the poor’,156
and particularly those employees and tenants, as well as paupers and the
old and infirm, for whom regular church attendance and deferential
behaviour were the indispensable means of acquiring respectability and
gaining assistance.157 Additional resources were provided by some 9336
communal bureaux de bienfaisance.158 These were usually controlled by
Catholic laymen inspired by a patriarchal vision of social relations, assisted
by the parish clergy and nuns. While indicative of virtue, membership of
the various charitable organizations could easily become a means of affirm-
ing and reinforcing social status.159
The terms on which public assistance might be granted are evident in
the instructions circulated by the Prefect of the Moselle in 1853. Malher
insisted that help should be denied to those who did not possess a certifi-
cate of morality from their local mayor; to households including children
over 14 who had not received their first communion or not been vacci-
nated against smallpox; to those who frequented a cabaret or had a reputa-
tion as a querelleur; were guilty of ‘idleness; who refused any job offer;
ill-treated their wives or children; kept dogs; refused to allow the entry
into their homes, at any time of day or night, of a member of the bureaux
290   R. PRICE

de bienfaisance’, or one of the ‘sisters or charitable ladies distributing assis-

tance on behalf of the local bureau’; or for failure to follow advice on the
maintenance of ‘order and cleanliness’ in the home.160 Assistance must
always be provided in kind. In the parish of Les Ecorces, in the uplands of
the Doubs, where the Abbé Guinard established a charitable association,
its statutes typically stipulated that ‘one should never give money to the
poor [for] fear that they will use it badly … and so as not to encourage
their habitual and fatal penchants for intemperance and laziness’.161
The eminent Catholic layman, Armand de Melun, while accepting that
the State might, in exceptional circumstances, supplement the resources
available for public assistance, as a means of preventing disorder, neverthe-
less emphasized that poverty and inequality were part of the Divine Plan,
a means of testing the faith of both poor and rich.162 He insisted that
mutual aid societies independently established by workers or peasants rep-
resented a potentially dangerous threat to the vitality of both paternalistic
societies and the more traditional parish confraternities.163 The Abbé
Lafforgue at Bours (Hautes-Pyrénées) even claimed that their inspiration
was ‘satanic’.164 In his conclusions to the influential report of the parlia-
mentary Commission de l’Assistance established in 1850, that arch-cynic
Adolphe Thiers similarly insisted that the resources for assisting the poor
should be the product of voluntary donations—an act of ‘virtue’ not one
of necessity. The alternative, a tax designed to raise revenue for public
assistance, was incompatible with ‘respect for property [and] individual
liberty’. The eminent churchman, Bishop Dupanloup shared these views.
Although he criticized the indifference of the wealthy, he could still main-
tain, even at the height of the textile crisis caused in the 1860s by the
American Civil War, that although ‘the State must assist private charity in
periods of great distress … I do not believe that the State should provide
for everyone… This would result in a financial scheme which posed a
frightening threat to liberty, in place of dependence on personal virtue and
family responsibility.’ He concluded—‘We must stop wishing to give to
the State and to taxation, a role in the relief of misery … which it is impos-
sible and immoral for it to take on’, and which would represent a threat to
private property and, thus, indirectly to religion itself by negating the
essentially personal, human character of the relationship between donor
and recipient.165
Although a great deal has been written, in recent years and in increas-
ingly positive terms, about charitable activity as an altruistic manifestation
of Christian compassion and generosity, it should not be forgotten that
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    291

the activists remained a small, if dedicated, minority. Many, if not most,

Catholic notables were uninterested, influenced by liberal values, or hos-
tile to charitable handouts. The existence of poverty was seen as God’s
will, and as a manifestation of the laziness and of the moral inadequacy of
the poor themselves. In both rural areas and urban neighbourhoods, fami-
lies might in any case have adopted forms of inter-dependence and of
reciprocal assistance which went unrecorded and have largely been ignored
by historians.166 Charity might alternatively be perceived to represent an
indispensable means of inculcating a spirit of resignation, of obviating the
need for social reform, and of defending social order against the menace
of revolution.167 It might be considered as a form of social control, justify-
ing and reinforcing unequal social relationships and marking out a path to
salvation based on dominance/dependency, fully consistent with a com-
mitment to counter-revolution.168

7.3   Popular Religion

Much of what we assume we know about the mass of the population is
obtained through the hegemonic processes of cultural mediation engaged
in by their social ‘superiors’, the confident tone of which often conceals a
limited and condescending familiarity and understanding.169 The possibil-
ity also needs to be borne in mind that ‘every source of knowledge about
women has been contaminated by misogyny and sexism’.170 The ‘silence
of the people’ makes it extremely difficult to gain insights into the outlook
of the masses and to assess the degree to which the relatively autonomous
development of religious discourse might have been possible, as well as the
extent to which major socio-economic and political changes affected peo-
ple’s religious sensibilities and perceptions of their world. Contemporaries
and historians have nevertheless attempted to identify distinct geographi-
cal and cultural milieux—often small in size—and to define the varied
chronology of change.

7.3.1  Religious Practice in Rural France

In most areas the influence of the clergy probably reached a peak during
the Second Empire when growing prosperity made possible the massive
programme of church construction and restoration in which so many
devout communities took great pride. A distinction might, however, be
made between areas of fidelité and religious fervour and those of relative
292   R. PRICE

indifference.171 High levels of religious enthusiasm and practice, and of

loyalty to the Church, appear, perhaps unexpectedly, to have been identi-
fied as characteristic of areas in the north and east with good communica-
tions, concentrated habitat, relatively advanced economic development,
and high levels of literacy, conditions often presented by religious sociolo-
gists as contributing to rapid ‘de-christianization’, but in which the enthu-
siastic ultramontane clergy of the nineteenth century were able to build
upon the structures and missionary zeal of their post-Tridentine predeces-
sors. Such loyalty was often characteristic of sociétés d’encadrement, with
hierarchical social structures in which influential elites, whether landown-
ers or manufacturers, lent support to the Church. Although we should not
slip into geographical determinism,172 the religious institution similarly
served as the essential focus of community life in bocage areas of the
arrondissements of Laval and Château-Gontier (Mayenne), the western
part of the Sarthe, in most of Brittany, western parts of Normandy, and the
southern Massif Central, with their dispersed settlements, fields enclosed
by high hedges, and poor rural roads; areas additionally characterized by
the large families, delayed marriage, sexual restraint and frequent celibacy,
which combined to enforce familial solidarity and to preserve traditional
hierarchies, as well as by an isolation which reduced the inward flow of
the new ideas which might have challenged established norms of
behaviour.173
Many of the areas in which traditional religious faith was preserved
were also characterized by a linguistic particularism, perceived to have
reinforced physical and cultural isolation. The survival of Breton, Basque,
Catalan, Flemish, German or French dialects meant that while Latin was
employed for religious services and French for official business, the local
language or dialect might remain in use for confession and daily inter-
course. In the frontier department of the Nord, high levels of religious
practice were characteristic of Flemish-speaking areas around Dunkirk and
Hazebrouck—but also of French-speaking areas around Lille and other
industrial centres. The authorities were certainly convinced of the links
between counter-revolutionary ‘fanaticism’ and ignorance of the French
language and efforts to exclude regional languages from the public sphere
would gradually reduce their status and popularity as well as posing a
threat to the spiritual life they had encompassed.
Bastions of the faith also continued to flourish in ‘backward’ upland
areas in central France where, as in the Haute-Loire, parish priests recruited
from among the ‘classes inférieures’, poorly educated, but invested with
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    293

considerable authority by their functions exercised ‘tyrannical’ power over

their flocks.174 Religious vocations were numerous, and the sheer weight
of numbers, the long periods individual priests spent in particular parishes,
together with their own relatively humble origins, helped ensure that they
remained close to the people and were well placed to sustain their sacred
authority.175 The continued residence of supportive elites and official rec-
ognition of the clergy’s role in the distribution of charity and in education
also substantially reinforced its influence.176 The proliferating numbers of
teaching sisters—as well as the lay institutrices they trained—encouraged
Mgr Dupanloup to proudly affirm in 1867 that ‘young girls are brought
up on the knees of the Church’.177
In the most propitious circumstances, in rural Brittany, for example,
daily life was ‘impregnated’ with Christian practices and religious obser-
vance was virtually universal. In the negative perception of the Interior
Minister, the Marquis de La Valette, in December 1866, this reflected a
situation, comparable only with that of rural Ireland, in which ‘the peasant
is ignorant and superstitious’.178 In many communes, even the mayors
deferred to the clergy.179 Numerous religious ceremonies provided occa-
sions for celebration and manifestations of popular sociability. Missions,
pilgrimages and processions in which the local authorities, gendarmes and
soldiers, together with robed penitents, girls dressed in white, and the
faithful, followed the clergy and the parish banners, demonstrated the
strength of Catholicism.180 In Morbihan and Ille-et-Vilaine the clergy
could still expect to receive regular offerings in kind—almost akin to the
tithe abolished in 1789—from grateful parishioners.181 In the wider west,
shared memories of the chouannerie, the struggle fought under the leader-
ship of its nobles and priests against the ‘Godless’ Revolution and the
centralizing and secularizing tendencies of the revolutionary state remained
potent.182 In the Vendée, in the 1860s, the clergy were accused of becom-
ing ‘more and more demanding and domineering’.183 In the south-east, in
parts of the Gard, Tarn and Tarn-et-Garonne, and in the north-east, gen-
erations of religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants, and in
Alsace, additionally, hostility towards Jews, similarly helped to maintain
solidarity and religious enthusiasm in rival confessional communities
through the oral transmission, within families, of remembered events, as
well as the more structured and deliberate activities of the clergy and influ-
ential lay notables.184 The Revolution had similarly served to integrate
individuals into particular ideological communities. The ‘terror’ and civil
war had forged a sense of collective identity which would be preserved as
294   R. PRICE

a ‘memory’ by successive generations The short-term impact—the ‘shock’

of the revolutionary crisis—thus had long-term consequences.185
Although much of the rural population—peasants (small landowners,
tenant farmers, labourers) and artisans—continued to inhabit relatively
closed worlds and mental universes, the process of penetration by exter-
nal influences was nevertheless accelerating.186 Religious practice had
long tended to be relatively low in areas where the development of com-
munications and commercial activity, and the mobility of people, facili-
tated the spread of ideas and the establishment of alternative value
systems, and wherever the creation of the conditions conducive to
greater individual independence weakened familial and community pres-
sure. The Second Empire, as a result of the improvement of rural roads,
rail construction and the growing integration of the countryside into an
increasingly urban-­dominated world, would be characterized by devel-
opments which, on the one hand promoted religious renewal, but on the
other, exacerbated the difficulties of pastoral care. The missionary Abbé
Vandel observed in 1857 that the inhabitants of the prosperous agricul-
tural dioceses of Paris, Versailles, Beauvais, Meaux and Orleans were
tending to ‘detach themselves from Christianity and establish a habitual
state of religious indifference’.187 The entire diocese of Orleans was, in
this respect, a disaster area, with, in 1850, only 7.3% of men and 31.5%
of women receiving Easter communion.188 The situation was similar in
the neighbouring diocese of Chartres, where it was claimed that in some
parishes the only man receiving communion was the instituteur, and
even he might well have succumbed to pressure from the schools’
inspector.189
In such regions the parish priest was expected to restrict himself to his
spiritual duties (narrowly defined) and to avoid ‘interference’ in the day-­
to-­day life of the community. In spite of ceremonies designed to impress
the young, first communion, at the age of 12, marked both the passage
into adulthood and, for many, particularly young men, the end of regular
church-going. In many parishes—though far from all—there was some
kind of a concept of a religious/secular divide, with the population exhib-
iting ‘an extreme half-heartedness’ towards religion and the mayors them-
selves often ‘peu religieuse’.190 The parish priest at La-Selle-en-Hermois
(Loiret) even complained (in 1850) that his parishioners ‘have certain
habits linked to religion. They recite prayers, but they do not pray; they
assist at mass, but they never hear it; they believe in one God, who they
fashion themselves; they pray to God with fervour when they are ill, when
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    295

they believe themselves to be bewitched, when their animals are sick; they
ask God for temporal gifts, but never for spiritual gifts.’191
The traditional agrarian order was also increasingly upset by the grow-
ing absenteeism of landowners as well as by the migration of young p ­ eople,
the latter desperate to find a better life and anxious to escape from authori-
tarian social relationships which rural elites and the clergy generally
assumed that the poor had entered into freely.192 The absence of powerful
landowning elites was an important permissive factor. It weakened sup-
port for the clergy. There were also frequent complaints about alternative
and often competing opinion leaders largely identified with an anti-clerical
rural bourgeoisie. The parish priest at Saint-Sulpice d’Excideuil
(Dordogne) was only one of the many who complained, in 1841, that ‘the
bourgeoisie make it a point of honour to express contempt for religion
and its ceremonies’, adding that ‘if there are a few bourgeois in a parish,
they make a display of never going to church, of criticising the priest…
Constant sarcasm has the effect of destroying the simple and naïve peas-
ant’s respect for the religion of his fathers!’193
Among the population of the Cambrèsis and southern Hainaut, areas
of fidelité in the department of the Nord, memories of the high rents and
the tithes demanded before 1789 by wealthy landowning abbeys remained
strong among the large numbers of small peasant proprietors, who had
acquired former monastic property, and who remained suspicious of the
clergy.194 In the Tarn, another department with generally high levels of
religious practice, in the 1860s, church attendance was relatively low
around the little towns of Gaillac and Castelnau-de-Montmirail where
small-scale vine cultivation predominated, as well as in forested zones with
poor soils in the extreme north-west of the department, populated by
indigent woodcutters, isolated from the care of the Church.195 Dissent was
also evident in isolated and impoverished communities in which mission-
ary activity had been less intense or less effective in the previous century.
In the Limousin, populations with low levels of education and culture had
remained unresponsive. They provided few priests themselves and often
continued to identify the parish clergy with the exactions of the Ancien
régime.196 The authorities also complained about the negative influence of
temporary migrants—peasant-workers employed in the building industry
in Paris or Lyon.197
In between the zones of fervour and those of relative indifference, out-
lined above, there was a large intermediate area stretching from the north-­
east to the south-west, and including the Mediterranean coast.198 In the
296   R. PRICE

Var, in a ‘good’ parish such as Correns, in 1864, 23% of the men and 96%
of women were Easter communicants, while in a ‘bad’ parish like
Mazaugues, attendance was as low as 3.5 and 21.1% respectively.199 There
were also signs that other traditional requirements were not being
observed. The delays between birth and baptism were increasingly pro-
longed. In the town of Béziers—a dynamic centre of the wine trade—the
proportion of infants baptised within the three days stipulated by the
Church fell from 60% in 1822 to 42% in 1852, while remaining at 75% in
the nearby woollens centre of Lodève, and at 80–90% in the surrounding
countryside.200
In both town and country, women were more likely than men to go to
church, and were therefore more susceptible to the influence of the clergy
and particularly that of their confessors.201 In a process known to histori-
ans as one of ‘sexual dimorphism’, men and women thus associated them-
selves with somewhat different sub-cultures.202 Nationally, 30% of men
and over 70% of women were likely to receive their Easter communion. In
those regions in which levels of religious practice were highest, virtually
every woman regularly attended mass, made their confession, and received
communion, while in areas of relative indifference women, together with
their younger children, still provided the vast majority of worshippers.
Indeed, gender disparities were especially evident in regions with low
overall levels of practice. In particularly unfavourable circumstances, in a
diocese like that of Orleans, only a quarter to half—varying between par-
ishes—of the women over 21, were in receipt of Easter communion by the
late 1860s, although women still made up 82% of the pascalisants. Mgr
Dupanloup complained that congregations were almost entirely made up
of women and children.203 The ‘feminization’ of religion was evidently
well underway and, given the role of women in bringing up the young, the
clergy were determined to maintain this privileged relationship.204
Conditions were changing, and with increasing rapidity; religious faith
nevertheless continued to influence the ways in which most of the popula-
tion viewed the universe.

7.3.2  Popular Practices and the Struggle for Survival

Ultimately life or death still appeared to depend on the will of God. Poor
harvests and epidemics continued to provoke panic well into the nine-
teenth century. Illness and accidents, fires and storms were all too com-
mon reminders of the fragility of human existence.205 Among the
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    297

impoverished masses, in a world of back-breaking labour, pain and suffer-

ing and of unremitting physiological and psychological misery, private
prayer, together with public worship, offered consolation in the form of
‘an ensemble of beliefs, practices and traditional prejudices transmitted
from one generation to another; a singular mixture of religion and super-
stition…’,206 representing the faith of communities with ‘little political
power … little economic prosperity … little cultural mastery’, for whom
religion was a means of supporting life on earth as well as offering salva-
tion in the hereafter.207 Self-control, family values, neighbourliness and
sobriety were encouraged by the clergy, supported by local notables, and
by the close surveillance possible in small communities. The threat of
informal sanctions, in concert with the gradual penetration of the legal
system, gradually, however, reinforced respect for community and official
norms.208
Much of the population was thus attracted to religion by its practical
efficacy, and to the Church by the external forms of religious practice
and the sense of spiritual community produced by Sunday worship, pro-
cessions and pilgrimages and les grands offices on Palm Sunday, Easter,
Pentecost, All Souls and Christmas. The agrarian and liturgical cycles
were closely related. Each of the major religious festivals marked a stage
in the work of the fields and invited God’s blessing.209 In addition, by
means of an annual fête, a parish celebrated its continued existence and
expressed gratitude to its patron saint by carrying images and relics in
procession. This opportunely combined an act of religious dedication
with an occasion for celebratory dancing and feasting and of escape from
an otherwise endless routine. Sunday was similarly the weekly day of rest
as well as prayer. For peasants who believed in the Bon Dieu who com-
manded the elements and could choose to safeguard the life and health
of humans and animals and ensure bountiful harvests, the customary
rites performed by the clergy appeared indispensable.210 Rogation pro-
cessions in Spring and Summer, when the fields were blessed, were an
essential means of safeguarding the crop.211 Etienne Bertin, the central
character of Emile Guillaumin’s realist novel La vie d’un simple (1904)
had long given up on confession and communion but still ‘I tried to
please the Master of the Elements and seldom missed the ceremonies
when the success of the crops was the object’. He would never have
taken a risk and failed to sprinkle the haylofts with holy water before
storing his fodder, or forgotten to make the sign of the cross over the
first sheaf at harvest.212
298   R. PRICE

When drought threatened, as in 1854, Mgr Jacquemet, Bishop of

Nantes, advised his flock that ‘it seems that God wishes to make us
­remember that we depend upon His powerful hand and that we must
never weary of seeking recourse to his kindness by prayer’.213 In the hope
of propitiating the Lord, a procession took place on 21 May 1861 from
Taillebourg (Charente-Inférieure) to a holy well at Saint Savinien. The
crowd sang hymns, the parish priest provided a sermon, and the parish
banner was plunged into the water in supplication. After the clergy had
left, the crowd bathed in the stream and drank its reputedly miraculous
water. The civil authorities were not amused. The Paris Prefect of Police
complained about the participation of the clergy in practices he judged to
be ‘unworthy of an enlightened religion’, and which could only ‘maintain
misleading illusions’, while ‘profoundly irritating those people who do not
share such outdated beliefs’—presumably including himself.214
Many village priests probably felt obliged to compromise with the val-
ues of their parishioners if they were to retain any influence over them.215
Their own recruitment from rural communities impregnated with folk-
loric practices made interaction between a clerical orthodoxy and popular
belief all the more likely.216 Frequently accredited with magical powers, the
priest was himself often regarded as the most powerful of sorcerers, a man
whom it was prudent not to alienate. He was valued by his parishioners
not only as God’s representative but as a sort of magician performing rit-
ual gestures and employing Latin, a divinely inspired language which few
understood. Indeed, its use was justified by the Bishop of Valence, Mgr
Chatrousse, precisely because recourse to ‘the vulgar language … would
be the end of the respect owed to the mysteries’ [of religion].217 In an
under-medicalized society threatened by inexplicable events, the sick and
their families continued to look towards the priest and prayer for both
comfort and cure.
In addition to the priest, it was above all the Virgin Mary, so close to
Christ, and a potent symbol of love and perfection, who offered herself—
through prayer and supplication—as a exceptionally efficacious intercessor
with God. Her cult became the basis for personal faith as well as for daily
worship.218 A multitude of saints—often unknown outside a particular
locality and unrecognized by the Church—also provided lines of commu-
nication with the deity. The saints were personages favoured by their asso-
ciation with a tradition of miracles and cures and made more easily
accessible through wooden or plaster images. To the dismay of many
priests, they were often seen less as intercessors, than as themselves the
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    299

practitioners of magical acts.219 The popularity of individual saints might

be enhanced by particular events or threats. The cult of Saint Roch, the
traditional source of protection against plague, was thus revived by the
intense anxiety aroused by the first cholera epidemic in 1832, and during
successive outbreaks in 1849 and in 1854, when in his purple robes,
Archbishop Sibour visited the impoverished faubourgs Saint-Marceau and
Saint-Antoine in Paris and was welcomed by large crowds anxious to
secure his blessing and protection.220
A vital element in the appeal to any saint was performance of the appro-
priate ritual gestures, from making the sign of the cross as a prelude to
prayer, or, as in Berry, before changing one’s shirt.221 In an age when the
threat of illness or injury, afflicting people or livestock, was constant, and
medical or veterinarian care expensive, often ineffective, and frequently
unavailable, and when affliction might well be regarded as God’s punish-
ment, rituals, employed since pagan times, had considerable appeal. So
too did recourse to ‘wise’ men and women, or to the advice offered in
many of the pamphlets distributed by peddlers throughout the country-
side, both of which, in addition to suggesting herbal cures, were likely to
call upon the saints, a host of whom were available, to offer assistance to
those in distress.222 In 26 parishes of the diocese of Blois, for example, 23
saints were invoked against fever in the middle of the century and others
for more specific complaints—Saint Mame against colic, Sainte Apolline
or Saint Laurent against toothache, Saint Cloud in case of boils, Saint
Léonard to assist with childbirth, Saint Criard when babies cried at night.
Saint Yves offered protection against diseases affecting sheep, while Saint
Eloi served as the protector of horses.223 In the Châteaubriant area, prayers
to Saint-Gobrien offered cures for human ‘maux d’entrailles’, those to
Saint-Mathurin protected cows and warded off storms, although in the
latter case ringing church bells was generally regarded as more effica-
cious.224 In vine-growing areas, protection against hail was particularly
important.225 Groups suffering from particular insecurity, like miners,
were especially likely to wear protective medals, to enthusiastically cele-
brate their patron Sainte Barbe, and be concerned to ensure that they
would ultimately receive ‘proper’ funerals.226 The annual blessing of the
sea in fishing communities represented both a response to the very real
fear of sudden death by drowning and concern about the consequences of
not receiving the last sacrament or a Christian burial.227
Prayers for Divine assistance might be reinforced by processions and
pilgrimages.228 The faithful, usually led by parish priests, carrying crosses
300   R. PRICE

and banners, and singing hymns, processed to holy places, including

churches or chapels but also the wayside crosses—so common in areas like
Flanders; to wells and springs associated with miraculous cures; or to
stones or trees with mysterious silhouettes; associated with the legend of a
noteworthy bon saint. Over time, a hierarchy of pilgrimages had evolved,
in relation to the supposed efficacy of a specific saint or shrine, or the
importance of the miracles associated with a special location. On arrival at
the place of pilgrimage, it might be judged necessary to bathe afflicted
parts of the body in spring water, drink ‘holy’ water, rub parts of religious
statues, or touch sacred stones in the hope, for example, of increasing the
fertility of both women and the fields.229 Frequently too, soil or grains of
stone from a venerated shrine or, increasingly, religious medals, were car-
ried away in the hope that these amulets would provide continued protec-
tion. Subsequently, gratitude could be expressed in the form of ex-votos.
These might take the form of a silk ribbon draped over a ‘holy’ tree or
rock, or the presentation to a chapel of paintings depicting scenes of
miraculous rescue or redemption, replaced, especially from the 1870s, by
a marble plaque inscribed with a brief standardized expression of
gratitude.230
The clergy were, however, frequently discomforted by the complex
mixture of the sacred and profane accompanying such events as the Breton
pardon, in which the faithful carried statues of the saints in procession
before engaging in an often drunken celebration.231 Far to the east, in the
Ain, the clergyman at Dompierre-sur-Veyle observed that during the feast
days of Saint Blaise, patron of farmers and Sainte Agathe, protector of
women, ‘the men chase the women like dogs after bitches’. In a letter
written in January 1858, he complained that ‘Every year, I anticipate these
days with dread, although I have not felt able to refuse to say mass and to
bless their bread. Would it be right to refuse? Some priests have tried, but
this has not prevented disorders, on the contrary, blasphemy against reli-
gion and insults to the priest have increased, and in some communities
they have gone so far as to mimic the benediction.’ His colleagues were
divided over how to respond—‘some say that it is necessary to tolerate an
evil to avoid even greater ones, others insist that it is essential to strike
heavy blows against great evils, and that only by doing so will we be able
to destroy these abuses’.232
The determination of many priests to eliminate popular ‘superstition’
and to regularize religious practices was, however, increasingly evident.233
The final imposition of the Roman liturgy during the 1850s and 1860s,
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    301

might arouse generally short-lived resentment where it threatened the cel-

ebration of traditional local festivals, but otherwise represented an e­ ffective
means of imposing uniformity and order.234 In Grandru—in the Beauvais
diocese—there was no place for the traditional prayer to Saint Médard, the
parish patron, in the revised order of service.235 In the Breton department
of Côtes-du-Nord, the religious authorities, during the nineteenth cen-
tury, insisted on the rededication of 110 of the area’s 400 parishes to saints
recognized by the Church, most commonly Saint Peter—in place of myth-
ical figures from the Celtic past.236 Chapels were constructed at popular
places of pilgrimage to allow the clergy to play a more effective pastoral
role; ‘ancient’ wooden statues, considered by some to possess magical
powers, were replaced by manufactured plaster images.237
Questions were also posed concerning the continued practice of exor-
cism to combat demoniacal possession of both animals and people.
Impossible to count, such practices—described in a report to the Emperor
by the inspector general of gendarmerie, General de la Ruë, as ‘unbeliev-
able in our epoch’—and the publicity they received, illustrated the com-
plex tensions between popular beliefs, orthodox religion, and the more
secular standpoints of government officials.238 Terrified by an outbreak of
hydrophobia at Murat in the Cantal in 1864 peasants, hoping to prevent
the police from shooting their dogs, muzzled the animals and took them
to a chapel on a rock just outside the town, famous for a miraculous key,
which it was believed could prevent la rage. There the sexton applied the
red-hot key to the dogs’ foreheads, the priest pronounced exorcism, made
the sign of the cross over the animals and, shouting ‘Heli! Heli! Heli!’,
anointed each dog with holy water—receiving in return a fee of 15–20 cen-
times. The dogs could then, it was assumed, be taken back to their villages
and released from their muzzles and chains. The authorities, concerned
that this would lead to the further spread of hydrophobia, insisted that the
bishop stop the practice.239
In the same year the exorcism of an individual who claimed to be pos-
sessed by a demon was even conducted in the chapel of the diocesan
seminary at Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne (Savoie). The bishop expressed
­
pride in the successful outcome of the proceedings and in the ability of the
Church to sustain ‘the relationships between the visible and invisible
worlds’. This, he concluded, would eliminate the ‘superstitious’ practices
associated with spiritualism, such as ‘turning tables or automatic writing’.
General de la Ruë, however, referring to the event as ‘un scandale reli-
gieux’, maintained that exorcism was part of ‘a comedy planned with the
302   R. PRICE

goal of affirming the authority of the clergy’ over an ‘essentially supersti-

tious’ local population.240
The dramatic events in 1857 at Morzine, a desperately impoverished
commune of some 2000 souls further north in the Alps, had already
attracted widespread attention. Women and especially young girls had, it
was claimed, experienced severe convulsions during which they had
shouted ‘filthy words’; an abandonment of normal social constraints which
for local priests represented clear proof of demonic possession. By 1861,
the disorder in the village seemed sufficiently serious to require the pres-
ence of gendarmes and two companies of infantry. The senior army officer
in the department believed that a plot had been organized by the local
curé. The gendarmerie commander advised that ‘the illness having its ori-
gins in the influence of the priests, that is where we should search for a
remedy’. He recommended the immediate replacement of the local clergy
with ‘men … more resistant to all superstition’, as well as a ban on the
practice of exorcism. Many of the women affected were dispatched to
lunatic asylums. These measures appeared to calm the community, at least
until the end of 1863, when the incidence of convulsions again increased,
disturbing some 150 women. On 24 April 1864, the commune was visited
by the Prefect of Haute-Savoie, accompanied by five medical experts.
Seven women experienced renewed and violent attacks while being inter-
viewed in the local school. According to the official report, ‘their contor-
tions were frightening: they fell over backwards, rolled on the ground,
broke the furniture in the room and shouted: bastard of a prefect, wolves,
bastard doctors. No, you are not powerful enough to free the girl from the
Devil—only the clergy can save the girl.’ Then, one of the women smashed
a window with her fist and as blood flowed profusely she was dragged
outside by two gendarmes and deposited, unconscious, at the foot of a
stone cross. The prefect and a doctor who attempted to restore order were
attacked by another group of women.
The population subsequently focused its hopes on a pastoral visit by the
Bishop of Annecy. It was widely assumed that a dignitary of the Church,
and thus a man ‘more powerful than other priests’, would be able to finally
exorcise the demons. On 30 April, at five in the evening, the arrival of Mgr
Magnin was greeted with church bells and fireworks. Escorted by the
communal council, he processed to the village square where a large crowd
had gathered. At this moment several women experienced convulsions
and others ran to the cemetery. There, some 80 women and girls ‘went
into a horrible state: their hair in disorder, they rolled on the tombs,
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    303

shouting: ‘wolf of a bishop, we must tear out his eyes, he does not have
the power to cure the girl, he is unable to free her from the devil’. Within
the parish church other women tried to prevent the bishop from reaching
the altar. He had to be protected by gendarmes while he prayed. On the
following day—a Sunday—the bishop processed to the church to the
sound of bells, fireworks, and the screams of ‘les convulsionnaires’.
The ‘scientific’ explanation subsequently provided by Dr Constans,
Inspecteur-général du service des aliénés, who visited Morzine on several
occasions, was that the women were suffering from a form of ‘hystéro-­
démonpathie’—the result of the ‘superstitious beliefs’ characteristic of the
‘unenlightened spirit of the inhabitants’. He reported that ‘all of them
experience the sensation of a body agitating in their stomachs, rising to
their throats and smothering them, strangling them: according to them
this was one or several devils’, their presence ‘attributed to a glance, a
touch, and a curse from one individual—who they accused of sorcery—to
another’. The spread of the ‘malady, itself occasioned sentiments of intense
anxiety and further mutual denunciations’, the result, according to
Constans, of all manner of rivalries and ‘petites haines’. The situation had
not been helped by a hapless local doctor who, himself convinced of the
efficacy of exorcism, had sent his patients to the parish priest. Dr Constans,
as a ‘scientist’, denied that such practices could have been effective, claim-
ing that the exorcisms had only reinforced ‘the over-excitement of the
sick’. The colonel commanding the 26th Legion of gendarmerie main-
tained that the women were competing to produce the most spectacular
convulsions and to appear ‘the most possessed by the demon’. In his view,
the disease spread by imitation and the desire for attention, and the visit of
the bishop had only encouraged a violent recrudescence. Those women
judged to be the worst afflicted were dispersed to hospitals throughout
the region. Others who left the village rather than face the shame and
misery of incarceration as lunatics were only allowed to return following a
medical examination. Constans also pointed to the actions of Julienne L’s
father. He had grabbed his daughter by the hair, and threatened to slit her
throat with an axe unless the convulsions ceased. Another father had
achieved the same positive result by promising his daughter a new dress.
Efforts were also made to entertain and divert the population with music
provided by a military band, while a religious mission which, Constans
claimed, had only agitated the population, was suspended. The authorities
linked the waves of hysteria to the priest’s ‘exaggerated’ sermons and to
the religious festivals promoted by ‘young and ardent’ missionaries. The
304   R. PRICE

collective trauma might indeed be taken to represent the sense of guilt and
anxiety aroused by pressure on women in the confessional to achieve
moral perfection. Untoward behaviour might then spread through a pro-
cess of imitation among those sharing similar aspirations and anxieties.241
When ‘hysteria’ again manifested itself during Holy Week in 1866, Dr
Constans reported that the number of convulsionnaires had been restricted
to 25, compared with 120  in 1863, by limiting the length of religious
services and rapidly excluding the sick. He was convinced that the only
long-term remedy was to reduce the isolation of this impoverished com-
munity, stimulate its economy and increase its prosperity.242 Historians
considering similar situations have wondered whether such behaviour was
a manifestation of personal psychological disturbance or represented cul-
turally specific performances within a dysfunctional community. They have
emphasized the ‘indebtedness, dispossession, malnutrition and disease’,
the constant physiological and psychological distress, the anxiety and
apprehension characteristic of impoverished upland communities, as well
as the ‘unstable gender relations’ caused by the absence of male migrant
workers.243 To this might be added the harsh ‘religion of fear’ preached by
priests competing for influence, and themselves susceptible to magic and a
belief in demons.

7.3.3  Industrialization, Urbanization and Faith

Complex processes of cultural inter-change existed between urban centres
and their rural hinterlands as part of a centuries-long process of urbaniza-
tion in which the growing interdependence of town and country ensured
that cultural change in urban areas influenced belief systems over increas-
ingly wide rural areas.244 It was in the cities, together with rural areas close
to the most active lines of communication, that the dominance of human
life by natural, divine forces had first become less evident and secular pre-
occupations had been reinforced at the expense of spiritual concerns.
Social pressures for religious conformity had become less intense and anti-­
clerical sentiments more easily expressed. It should not be forgotten, how-
ever, that the larger cities (and especially Paris, Lyon, Marseille and
Toulouse), as well as being associated with scepticism, were also the
dynamic centres of bishoprics, religious organizations, of missionary and
teaching orders, and influential lay associations like the Société de Saint-­
Vincent de Paul. In regions with low overall levels of religious practice,
such as the dioceses of Paris, Limoges, Sens and Soissons, the cities
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    305

frequently had higher (although still relatively low) rates of religious par-
ticipation than the surrounding rural areas.245 Significant variations in reli-
gious practice could also be observed between and within towns, and
explained not only in relation to their socio-economic structures but also
by the characteristics of the wider cultural regions to which they belonged
and the structure of rural-urban migration.
While making these distinctions, it is important, however, to remember
that virtually the entire population—as a result of childhood socialization,
reinforced by religious instruction—adhered to Christianity, and con-
formed to fundamental community expectations concerning performance
of the rites of passage. Religious practice and contact with the clergy were
everywhere preserved. Virtually every parish contained, in varying propor-
tions, the fervent believers so treasured by the clergy, some of them tor-
mented souls determined to secure Eternal Salvation, frequently confessing
their ‘sins’, seeking absolution and receiving Holy Communion, as well as
those who, although perhaps less devout, were nevertheless sincere in
their faith.246 The ‘rites of passage’ which sanctified the key moments in
people’s lives—baptism, marriage, the last rites and burial—were almost
universally respected, and the major religious festivals—Christmas, Easter,
the Feast of the Assumption and All Saints—celebrated. To practise reli-
gion in a ‘de-christianized’ community nevertheless clearly meant some-
thing very different from church-going in a centre of intense faith.
Although historians have recently become far less likely to simply asso-
ciate industrial development and urbanization with ‘de-christianization’, it
seems clear that the urban situation was unstable and, from the point of
view of the Church, dangerous.247 Overall, the number of parishioners per
priest rose from 1600 in 1802 to 2956 by 1861248 and it was assumed in
the Ministère des Cultes that the excessive scale of parishes explained ‘le
peu d’influence du clergé’.249 In Paris, the situation was made particularly
difficult by the predominance until late in the century of immigration
from the already ‘de-christianized’ area of the Paris basin. A marked con-
trast developed between fervent quartiers and milieux—and especially the
more prosperous western areas of the capital, and the eastern, more
working-­class arrondissements of the city and its suburbs into which migra-
tion was particularly substantial.250 Moreover, the clergy and lay charitable
activity were concentrated in the city centre while the burgeoning suburbs
were neglected.251 Nevertheless, J-O.  Boudon estimates—and the point
needs to be stressed—that 80% of the population retained some links with
the Church and were inspired by at least a latent faith. Religion continued
306   R. PRICE

to offer consolation and a means of coping with the spiritual distress asso-
ciated with widespread material deprivation and constant insecurity
endured by the 67% of the population of Paris (some 635,000 people),
estimated by Husson, the Prefect of the Seine, to be close to destitution
following the poor harvests in 1845–46, and particularly the 395,000 who
actually satisfied the humiliating formalities which were a prelude to
receipt of assistance.252
Boudon distinguishes between four groups in Paris in 1850–60—the
devout (c.5%); regular worshippers (c.10%); those who had ceased to
regularly receive communion but respected the rites of passage (c.65%);
and the detached (c.20%). The more fervent groups were largely made
up of women who, along with small groups of men, constituted a reli-
gious elite, which played a leading role in the life of every parish. While
the churches were often full, the proportion of the growing population
attending religious services nevertheless declined almost constantly. A
survey by the clergy of Easter communicants in 1854 suggested that
even in the city’s western arrondissements only some 20–30% of those
eligible received communion, while in the eastern areas dominated by
artisans and workers the proportion fell to less than 10%. Considerable
alarm was aroused by the collapse of Easter communion in working-class
parishes like Saint-Eloi where less than 10% of those aged over 13
attended, and in the future 12th arrondissement where practice fell
below 5%.253 The growing delay between birth and baptism was further
cause for concern—representing as it did ignorance/indifference/rejec-
tion of the prescription that in order to secure their salvation infants
should be baptized no more than three days after birth.254 Reporting on
the situation in 1865, the Abbé Meignan observed that the vast majority
of workers were increasingly detached from the Church. As social segre-
gation within the city increased, the emergence of a working-class sub-
culture and peer pressure ensured that very few men ever went to church,
leaving religion to a small minority of fervent women and their chil-
dren.255 In the working-class parish of Saint-­Bernard de la Chapelle in
1866, out of a population of some 42,000, only 60–80 men received
Easter communion.256 The man who went to church regularly could eas-
ily become a figure of fun.257
In the Paris diocese as a whole, the worst parishes were Bobigny and
Clamart in the city suburbs where in 1854 only 1.3% (four people) and
0.7% of parishioners respectively received Easter communion. Although
virtually every death was followed by a religious interment, rejection of
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    307

the last rites was becoming more common. According to the priest at La
Courneuve, only the poorest, those in receipt of charity, felt obliged to
accept the priest into their homes. Elsewhere in these eastern suburbs of
the capital, the situation might not be as dire, but only a small minority
could be expected to take part in religious activities regularly.258 In a rela-
tively ‘good’ parish like Orly, a quarter of the population attended mass,
and three-quarters the various religious festivals, with virtually the entire
population turning out for the celebration of Christmas, Pentecost, and
the fête-dieu. Even then, the parish priest deplored the general ‘ignorance
of the principles of the Christian religion’.259
In other growing urban centres, religious practice similarly reflected the
history of the wider surrounding cultural regions from which most immi-
grants came, as well as existing socio-professional structures and relation-
ships. Especially from mid-century, as local cultures were undermined,
major distinctions between social groups also became increasingly evident.
In Lyon, Lille and Saint-Etienne, as in Paris, marked contrasts could
increasingly be drawn between the old city centres, with their established
parish structures and more settled populations, and the newer suburbs
with a rapidly growing population poorly integrated into increasingly
over-burdened parishes. In Marseille, a city once famed for the intensity of
popular religiosity, the imperial years represented a significant period of
transition as attendance at mass fell from 46% to 31% of the population,
between 1841 and 1862, and to below 25% in the poorer quartiers. The
interval between birth and baptism, seen by religious sociologists as an
indicator of religious commitment, also widened. In the 1820s, 80% of
babies had been baptized within three days of birth; by 1860, the propor-
tion had fallen to 40% and would continue to decline, with especial ­rapidity
during the 1870 and 1880s.260 This reflected the growing heterogeneity
of the city, as its socio-economic structures were transformed, and in-­
migration developed from a wider and more diverse circle of cultural and
linguistic regions, creating a population more difficult to integrate into
the life of the Church, and for much of which religious practice had little
bearing on daily life. Until the late 1850s, fishermen (only too aware of
the ‘perils of the sea’) as well as the old corporation of stevedores remained
faithful to their religious traditions. The attack by the Compagnie des
docks on restrictive practices led, however, to a decline in the power and
prestige of the corporation and to an influx of newcomers into a formerly
relatively closed group of workers. As the cultural unity of dock workers
declined, so too did religious practice. By the end of the 1850s, only
308   R. PRICE

around 8.5% of men received Easter communion, although in the indus-

trial parishes of the rapidly growing port city, like Saint-Mauront, Saint-­
Lazare, Saint-Adrien and La Capelette, mass participation in the eight-day
cycle of processions held annually in each parish to celebrate its fête-dieu
revealed a widespread religiosity among workers.261 The clergy might take
comfort from crowded churches and the incessant activity required to
minister to the faithful, and the numbers attending Sunday mass certainly
appear to have grown from around 57,000 in 1825, to 73,000 in 1841
and 86,000 by 1862, but this represented a constantly declining propor-
tion of a rapidly increasing population.262
Writing about the textile operatives of Rouen, Alphonse Audiganne, a
particularly well-informed observer, insisted that they retained ‘a basic
knowledge of religion’, and respected the rites of passage. Indeed, he
observed, ‘one sees workers, even the poorest, use their last resources to
suitably dress their sons and daughters for their first communions’. He
added, however, that their engagement with religion risked degenerating
to no more than ‘une formalité banale’.263 In similar terms, the state pros-
ecutor at Montpellier felt obliged to agree with the local bishop, Mgr
Thibault, that, in spite of enthusiastic popular participation in the various
religious fêtes, ‘without renouncing the semblance of piety, without losing
… the external respect for holy things, religion is, in reality, nothing more
than a dead faith and an indifferent practice’.264 Local tradition often sus-
tained pre-Christian magico-religious beliefs and a ‘routinized faith’ influ-
enced by Catholic theology and practices.265
The Church, as an institution, failed sufficiently to adapt to a develop-
ing suburbanization, to the mushrooming of new housing particularly
around railway stations and factories and to the rapid transformation of
many rural into industrial communes. Within the course of a single gen-
eration, situations and attitudes could undergo substantial change. Many
workers, especially among the first generation of migrants, nevertheless
retained the religious traditions and habits of their rural past, particularly
in small towns in which notables and individual priests were able to exert
a personal influence. Thus, high levels of religious practice were to be
found among such otherwise isolated groups as the large number of
Flemish-speaking immigrants arriving to work in the textile mills and iron-
works of the Lille area in the 1830s and 1840s,266 as well as recent in-­
migrant textile workers in the mushrooming towns of Roubaix and
Tourcoing, and in the dispersed manufacturing communities in the Lys
valley—at a time when, in the more established communities in Lille,
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    309

practice had already significantly declined.267 Even in Lille, however,

around 15% of male workers still received Holy Communion in 1855.268
Periodically, the fear aroused by cholera inspired huge processions through
the streets of the city’s poverty-stricken industrial suburbs. In Wazemmes,
on 16 September 1866, the little houses were decorated with flowers and
their windows illuminated with candles in supplication to Saint Roch and
to the Virgin Mary.269 There was also widespread appreciation of the
efforts of priests, nuns, and Catholic doctors, to combine medical care
with prayers for the poor and sick.270
Contrasts might also be drawn between the relatively low levels of reli-
gious practice among miners employed in the established coalfield in the
Nord where, during the Second Empire, conformity appeared to turn
towards indifference, and those employed in the more recently developed
mines in the Pas-de-Calais (or Carmaux in the south), where they remained
closer to their rural roots.271 Even there, however, according to Mgr
Parisis, priests faced serious difficulties ministering to ‘these new agglom-
erations so rapidly established by industry, made up of strangers, unknown
to each other, unknown to us, and invariably more attracted to evil,
because they are unknown’.272 In other developing industrial centres,
including the southern textile towns of Lodève, Mazamet, Castres,
Bédarieux and Millau, where they enjoyed the support of paternalistic
employers, an energetic clergy was nevertheless able to exert considerable
influence.273 At Le Creusot, the major mining-metallurgical complex in
central France where, in the 1840s, 57% of the adult population received
Easter Communion, and although this was already 10% lower than in
neighbouring rural areas, workers remained strongly attached to a com-
munity of faith.274 Often deeply religious themselves, the patronat in such
company towns, as well as in major textile centres like Lille or Mulhouse,
supported by their wives and daughters, were committed to the perfor-
mance of good works. In such circumstances, church attendance increased
the likelihood of obtaining work and secours and, for the more ambitious
workers, of securing promotion to supervisory functions.275 The ‘bons
ouvriers’ in every community retained their faith and were respectful
towards those who provided work and devoted themselves to easing the
misery of the poor. The skilled and ambitious were often grateful for sub-
sidized housing, garden allotments and schools.276 Although religious
commitment might have varied considerably, it seems clear that relatively
few workers were entirely divorced from the ministrations and influence of
the Church.
310   R. PRICE

7.4   Conclusion
The continued influence of the Church as an institution depended on its
capacity for institutional reconstruction and doctrinal innovation to
meet the needs of a rapidly changing society and, at the same time, to
stimulate popular religiosity. The clergy became less confrontational in
their attempts to combat ‘superstitious practices’. They accepted increas-
ingly that many popular beliefs and practices might well be conducive to
enhancing the piety of participants, as well as providing opportunities
for the public affirmation of the Church’s presence. In spite of frequent
pessimism, all was far from lost as the Church reaffirmed its dynamic role
at the centre of Christian civilization. Priests could not fail, however, to
be aware of increasingly vocal currents of both popular and intellectual
dissent.

Notes
1. D. Nash, ‘Reconnecting religion with social and cultural history: secular-
ization’s failure as a master narrative’, Cultural and social history, 2004,
p. 323. On these distinctions see D. Javel, Transmettre la foi, pp. 9–10;
P. Loupès, ‘Introduction’ to M. Agostino, F. Cadilhon, P. Loupès, (eds)
Fastes et cérémonies. L’expression de la vie religieuse, 16e–20 siècles, Pessac,
2000, p. 9; D. Kalifa, ‘Lendemains de bataille. L’historiographie française
du culturel aujourd’hui’, Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, 2013,
p. 67.
2. A.  Walch, La spiritualité conjugale dans le catholicisme français (16e–20e
siècles), 2002, p. 477.
3. See e.g. Prefect Jura to MJ et des C., 12 Aug. 1864, AN F19/5857.
4. See e.g. M. Lagrée, ‘Histoire religieuse, histoire culturelle’, in J-P. Rioux,
J-F. Berstein, (eds) Pour une histoire culturelle, 1997, p. 397.
5. See e.g. M. Launay, ‘Une chrétienté sous le Second Empire: le diocèse de
Nantes’, in Centre vendéen de recherches historiques, Christianisme et
Vendée. La création au 19e siècle d’un foyer du christianisme, La Roche-sur-
Yon, 2000, p. 377.
6. C. Langlois, ‘Indicateurs du 19e siècle. Pratique pascale et délais de bap-
tême’, in Joutard, (ed) Histoire de la France religieuse, vol. 3, pp. 229–233;
F. Charpin, Pratique religieuse et formation d’une grande ville. Le geste de
baptisme et sa signification en sociologie religieuse (Marseille 1806–1958),
1964.
7. Mentalités, religion et histoire en Haute-Bretagne au 19e siècle. Le diocèse de
Rennes (1815–48), 1978, p. 460.
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    311

8. See e.g. P. Lévêque, La Bourgogne de Lamartine à nos jours, Dijon, 2006,

p. 391; D. Paul, Paysans du Bourbonnais. Une société rurale face au change-
ment, 1750–1880, Clermont-Ferrand, 2006, pp. 360–8.
9. L. Pinard, Les mentalités religieuses du Morvan au 19e siècle (1830–1914),
Château-Chinon, 1997, pp. 66–67.
10. C.  Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans au milieu du 19e siècle, 1964,
pp. 412–13.
11. See e.g. J-M. Morin, ‘L’archipel catholique en France’ La vie des idées fran-
çais, 2 Feb. 2015.
12. See especially articles collected in Le Bras, Introduction à l’histoire de la
pratique religieuse en France, 2 vols., 1942–45 and Etudes de sociologie reli-
gieuse, 2 vols., 1955–6.
13. G.  Spiegel, ‘Comment on A crooked line’, American historical review,
2008, p.  414. See also J-M.  Donegani, La liberté de choisir. Pluralisme
religieux et pluralisme politique dans le catholicisme contemporaine, 1993,
pp.  25–27; L.  Hincker, Citoyens-combattants à Paris, 1848–51, 2008,
pp. 19 note 28, 320–1; P. Steege et al, ‘The history of everyday life: a sec-
ond chapter’, Journal of Modern History, 2008, pp. 361–7.
14. H.  McLeod, Secularisation in western Europe, 1848–1914, 2000, p.  3;
B. Dumons, ‘Histoire sociale et histoire religieuse, deux sœurs ennemis?
Un essai de relecture historiographique pour la France contemporaine’,
Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 2000, pp. 563–4.
15. M.  Lagrée, Religion et modernité. France 19e–20e siècles, Rennes, 2002,
p. 41.
16. J.  Delumeau, ‘L’historien chrétien face à la déchristianisation’, in
Delumeau, L’historien et la foi, 1996, p. 53.
17. M. Haugaard, Power. A reader, Manchester, 2002, p. 11.
18. McLeod, Secularisation, pp.  11–12; Nash, ‘Reconnecting religion with
social and cultural history’, pp. 304–6.
19. Rowan Williams, Why study the past? The quest for the historical church,
2005, p. 89.
20. R.  McKitterick, ‘Great light’, Times Literary Supplement, 22 May 2009,
p. 9.
21. A. Dupront, ‘La religion, anthropologie religieuse’, in J. Le Goff, P. Nora,
(eds) Faire de l’histoire, vol. 2, 1974, p. 105. See also G. Le Bras, Etudes de
sociologie religieuse vol. 1, 1955, p. 224.
22. A. Percheron, ‘La transmission des valeurs’, in F. de Sigly, (ed) La famille,
l’état des savoirs, 1992, p. 186.
23. M. Lagrée, Religion et cultures en Bretagne 1850–1950, 1992, p. 234; T.
van Osselaer, The Pious Sex: Catholic construction of masculinity and femi-
ninity in Belgium, c.1800–1940, Leuven, 2013, Introduction; C. Harrison,
Romantic Catholics: France’s post-revolutionary generation in search of a
modern faith, 2014, pp. 1–27.
312   R. PRICE

24. Y-M. Hilaire, ‘Notes sur la religion populaire au 19e siècle’, in G. Dubosq,

B. Plongeron, D. Robert, La religion populaire, 1979, p. 194.
25. J.  Léonard, Archives du corps. La santé au 19e siècle, Rennes, 1986,
passim.
26. E. Dianteill, ‘Pierre Bourdieu et la religion’, Archives de sciences sociales des
religions’, 2002, p. 2.
27. I. Saint-Martin, Voir, savoir, croire. Catéchismes et pédagogie par l’image au
19e siècle, 2003, pp. 227–9, 463, 500.
28. See also N.  Fahmy-Eco, ‘Ultramontanisme, idéologie et classes sociales’
Revue d’histoire de l’amérique français, 1975, p. 57.
29. R. Price, People and Politics in France, 1848–70, Cambridge 2004. Chap.
1; See also W. Sewell, Logics of history. Social theory and social transforma-
tion, 2005, pp. 140–6.
30. See also P. Bourdieu, ‘Structures, habitus, power: the basis for a theory of
symbolic power’, in N. Dirks, G. Eley, S. Ortner, (eds) Culture/power/his-
tory, 1993, pp. 184–9; A. Nugues-Bourchat, La police et les Lyonnais au
19e siècle. Contrôle social et sociabilité, Grenoble, 2010, pp. 415–16.
31. R. Odchigue, ‘Church power, people power. Hegemonies and resistances’,
in S.  Bullivand et  al., (eds) Theology and Power Mahwah, N.J., 2016,
p. 112.
32. N. Chomsky, Knowledge of language, 1986, p. 286.
33. S. Heywood, ‘Les petits garçons modèles. La masculinité catholique à trav-
ers l’œuvre de la Comtesse de Ségur’, in R. Revenin, (ed) Hommes et mas-
culinités de 1789 à nos jours, 2007, pp. 217–18; T. van Osselaer, P. Pasture,
Christian Homes: religion, family and domesticity in the 19th and 20th
Centuries, Leuven, 2014, pp. 8, 49.
34. View of Acad. rector Allier, 4 Jan 1860, quoted by P. Zind, L’enseignement
religieux dans l’instruction primaire publique en France de 1850 à 1873,
Lyon, 1971, p. 183. Consider the case of Alexis de Tocqueville, reviewed
by J. Goldstein, ‘Toward an Empirical History of Moral thinking: the case
of racial theory in mid-nineteenth century’, American Historical Review,
2015, p. 11.
35. See e.g. C. Johnson, Becoming Bourgeois. Love, kinship and power in provin-
cial France, 1670–1880, 2015, p. 13.
36. 14 August 1854, AN F1CIII Nord 14.
37. ‘Rapport du Comité d’économie sociale’, Bulletin de la Société industrielle
de Mulhouse, 1849, p. 121.
38. On the definition of social elite, see Price, People and politics in France,
Chap. 1.
39. J-F. Galinier-Pallerola, La résignation dans la culture catholique en France
(1870–1919), 2007, pp.  131, 139, 153–4, Osselaer, Pasture, Christian
Homes, pp. 27–8.
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    313

40. C.  Langlois, ‘Catholicisme, douleur et dolorisme (19e–20e siècles): la

modernité de Pie XII’, in Le continent théologique. Explorations historiques,
Rennes, 2016, pp. 83–4.
41. Letter of 27 July, 1853, AN 246AP28.
42. Letters of 23 and 26 June, Ibid.
43. Letters of 22 Oct. 1865 and 26 Feb. 1868, in R. Mortier, (ed) Propos
d’amour et de religion. La correspondance entre Louis Veuillot et la Comtesse
Juliette de Robersart, 2006, pp. 262–3, 397.
44. Quotations from C.  Langlois, ‘Histoire, spiritualité et anthropologie.
Femmes en prière, saints en competition’, in B. Pellistrandi (ed), L’histoire
religieuse en France et en Espagne, Madrid, 2004, pp. 430–1.
45. C. Muller, Dieu est catholique et alsacien. Le vitalité du diocèse de Strasbourg
au 19e siècle, I Strasbourg, 1987, pp. 454–5; see also M. Launay et al La
noblesse nantaise au 19e siècle, Nantes 2000, pp. 13–14.
46. C.  Langlois, ‘Catholicisme, douleur et dolorisme (19e–20e siècles): la
modernité de Pie XII’, in Le continent théologique. Explorations historique,
Rennes, 2016, pp. 86–7.
47. P. Ariès, ‘Attitudes devant la vie et devant la mort du 17e au 19e siècle’
Population 1949, p. 463; R. Betrand, ‘L’histoire de la mort, de l’histoire
des mentalités à l’histoire religieuse’, Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France,
2000, pp. 557–560.
48. T.  Kselman, Death and the Afterlife in modern France, 2014, p.  94;
S. Heywood, Catholicism and children’s literature in France. The Comtesse
de Ségur (1799–1874), 2011, p. 42.
49. Quoted by J-P. Soulet, Les Pyrénées au 19e siècle I 1987, p. 187.
50. G. Cuchet, ‘La carte de l’autre vie au 19e siècle. L’au-delà entre espaces
réel et symbolique’, Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 2007, Mis en
ligne le 19 nov. 2010, consulté le 4 juillet, 2017.
51. Quoted by G. Cuchet, Le crépuscule du purgatoire, 2005, p. 26.
52. Cuchet, Le crépuscule, pp.  24–5; P.  Boutry, ‘Les mutations du paysage
paroissial. Reconstruction d’églises et translation de cimetières dans les
campagnes de l’Ain au 19e siècle’, Ethnologie française, 1985, pp. 26–7.
53. E.g. T. Blott, Reconstruire l’Eglise après la Révolution: le diocèse de Bayeux
sous l’épiscopat de Mgr Charles Bruault (1802–23). 1997, pp. 326–9.
54. P. Ariès, L’homme devant la mort, 1977, p. 510; R. Bertrand, ‘L’histoire de
la mort, passim.
55. Rapport trimestriel … Académie de Douai, 15 April 1858, AN F17/2649;
see also T. van Osseler, The Pious Sex: Catholic constructions of masculinity
and femininity in Belgium, c.1800–1940, Leuven, 2013, p. 775.
56. Lettres d’Alfred Motte-Grimonprez n.d, n.p. 1952?, p.  55. See also
J-P. Hirsch, ‘Retour sur l’ancien esprit du capitalisme’, Revue d’histoire du
19e siècle, 2001, p. 9.
314   R. PRICE

57. Op. cit., pp. 65–6.

58. Undated letter—probably early March 1848, ibid., p. 244.
59. Letter of 18 May 1847, ibid., p. 205.
60. A. Martin-Fugier, La vie élègante ou la formation du Tout-Paris, 1815–48,
1993, pp. 159–162.
61. See e.g. Y.  Marec et  al., La Normandie au 19e siècle. Entre tradition et
modernité, Rennes, 2015, p. 263f.
62. PG Toulouse, date illegible but 1856, AN BB30/388.
63. R. Aminzade, ‘Breaking the chains of dependency: from patronage to class
politics, Toulouse, France, 1830–72’, Journal of urban history, 1977,
p. 490.
64. J. McMillan, ‘Louis Veuillot, L’Univers and the ultramontane network’, in
D. Bates et al., (eds) Liens personnels, réseaux, solidarités en France et dans
les îles britanniques (11e–20e siècles), 2006, pp. 230–2; B. Marchand, Les
ennemis de Paris. La haine de la grande ville des Lumières à nos jours,
Rennes, 2009, p. 64.
65. Letter to Juliette de Robersart, 1 Dec. 1865, in Mortier, (ed) Propos
d’amour et de religion, 2006, p. 273.
66. See e.g. Abbé Goubely to sous-préfet Aubusson, 24 Dec. 1851, AN
F19/5817.
67. See e.g. Prefect Aisne to MC, 29 March 1858, AN F19/5863.
68. Petition from local inhabitants to MJ et des C., n.d.; Baron Reille, deputy
of Tarn to MC, 10 Feb. 1870, AN F19/5773.
69. See e.g. L. Pinard, Les mentalités religieuses du Morvan au 19e siècle (1830–
1914), Château-Chinon. 1997, pp. 70–1.
70. J.  Maurain, La politique ecclésiastique du Second Empire de 1852 à 1869,
1930, p. 860.
71. Academic rector, 3 July 1858, AN F17/2649.
72. M. Brejon de Lavergnée, La Société de Saint-Vincent-de-Paul au 19e siècle.
Un fleuron du catholicisme sociale, 2008, pp. 206–7.
73. Quoted by D. Moulinet, ‘Mgr Gaume: une vision intransigeante des évé-
nements contemporains’, in L. van Ypersele, A-D. Marcelis, (eds) Rêves de
chrétiente, réalités du monde. Imaginaires catholiques, Louvain-le-Neuve,
2001, p. 177.
74. Quoted by R. Aubert, Le pontificat de Pie IX (1846–70), 1952, pp. 108–9.
75. Quoted by H. de Changy, Le movement légitimiste sous la monarchie de
juillet, Rennes 2004, p. 339.
76. Quoted by M.  Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes sous le Second Empire, II,
Nantes, 1983, p. 531.
77. Prefect Orne to MJ et des C., 22 June 1865, AN F19/5860.
78. G.  Cholvy, ‘L’émergence d’un laïcat catholique: le premier 19e siècle’,
Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 2000, pp. 279–280.
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    315

79. Quoted G. Gabbois, ‘Vous êtes presque la seule consolation de l’Eglise’. La foi
des femmes face à la déchristianisation de 1789 à 1880’, in J. Delumeau,
(ed) La religion de ma mère. Les femmes et la transmission de la foi, 1992,
p. 320.
80. R. Gibson, ‘Le catholicisme et les femmes en France au 19e siècle’, Revue
d’histoire de l’Eglise de France 1993, p. 18.
81. See e.g. A.  Walch, La spiritualité conjugale dans le catholicisme français
(16e–20e siècles), 2002, pp. 411, 478–9; D-M. Dauzet, La mystique bien
tempérée. Ecriture féminine de l’expérience spirituelle, 19e–20e siècles, 2006,
pp. 20–1; and B. Smith, Ladies of the leisure class. The bourgeoises of north-
ern France in the 19th century, Princeton, 1981, pp. 97–8.
82. Quoted by F. Mayeur, L’éducation des filles, 1979, p. 52.
83. H.  Mills, ‘Negotiating the divide: women, philanthropy and the public
sphere in 19th century France’, in F. Tallett, N. Atkin, Religion, society and
politics in France since 1789, 1991, p. 33.
84. See e.g. P.  Boutry, Prêtres et paroisses au pays du curé d’Ars, 1986,
pp. 590–3.
85. Quoted by Y. Fumat, ‘La socialisation des filles au 19e siècle’, Revue fran-
çaise de pédagogie, 1980, p.  43. See also T. van Osselaer, The pious sex:
Catholic construction of masculinity and femininity in Belgium, c.1800–1940,
Leuven, 2013, passim.
86. J-P. Chaline, Les bourgeois de Rouen: une élite urbaine au 19e siècle, 1982,
pp. 306–7.
87. S. Reymond, ‘L’Œuvre des Dames de Calvaire: charité, devotion et élit-
isme à Lyon au 19e siècle’, Cahiers d’histoire, 2002, pp. 65–7.
88. See also P.  Boutry, ‘Dieu’, in J-G.  Sirinelli, (ed) Histoire des droites en
France, III, 1992, p. 211.
89. Quoted by Brejon de Lavergnée, La Société, p. 558.
90. M. Lagrée, M. Denis, Aspects de la vie religieuse en Ille-et-Vilaine (1815–48),
Thèse de 3e cycle, Univ. de Rennes 2, 1974, p. 447.
91. PG Bourges, 4 April 1867, AN BB30/387.
92. Letter to Abbé Alphonse Ozanam, 28 Jan. 1848, in Lettres de Fr. Ozanam,
vol. III, 1978, pp. 372–3.
93. See C. Duprat, Usage et pratiques de la philanthropie. Pauvreté, action soci-
ale et lien social à Paris au cours du premier 19e siècle, I, 1996, p. vi;
T.B. Smith, ‘The Ideology of Charity, the Image of the English Poor Law
and Debates over the Right to Assistance in France, 1830–1905’, Historical
Journal, 1997, passim.
94. V. Rogard, Les catholiques et la question sociale, 1997, pp. 35–7.
95. PG Limoges to G. des S., 27 Nov. 1868, AN F19/5817.
96. Letter from parish priest at Blanc to Archbishop of Bourges, 21 Oct. 1856,
AN F19/5795.
316   R. PRICE

97. Circular from Bishop of Auch, 5 March 1850, AN F19/2494.

98. Letters of 31 Oct. 1865 and 24 July 1866, in Mortier, (ed) Propos d’amour,
pp. 254, 313.
99. Letter to Juliette de Robersart, 1862, ibid., p. 33.
100. Ibid., 2 Sept. 1866.
101. View also expressed in report of Commission départementale de la Manche
to Commission d’assistance publique dans les campagnes, 1872, AN
C.3081.
102. A. Martin-Fugier, La vie élégante, p. 162.
103. M. Warner, Alone of All her Sex: cult of the Virgin Mary, 1976, p. 117.
104. See also Brejon de Lavergnée, La Société de Saint-Vincent-de-Paul,
pp.  587–9; J.  Delumeau, ‘L’historien face à la déchristianisation’, in
Delumeau, (ed) L’historien et la foi, p. 94.
105. M.  Brejon de Lavergnée, ‘Ville et charité. Une sociologie des hommes
d’œuvres au 19e siècle. Paris 1840–70’ Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de
France, 2008, pp. 66–8; N. Petiteau, Elites et mobilités: la noblesse d’Empire
au 19e siècle, 1997, p. 426; R. Price, ‘Poor relief and social crisis in mid-
nineteenth-century France’, European studies review, 1983, pp. 423–454.
106. Confiance! Il y aura pain pour tous 4e ed., 1854, pp. 25–6.
107. D.  Pelletier, Le catholicisme social en France (19e–20e siècles). Une
modernité paradoxale’, in Pelistrandi, L’histoire religieuse en France et en
Espagne, p. 372; J-B. Duroselle, Les débuts du catholicisme social en France,
1822–70, 1951, pp. 59–70.
108. Vol. 28, 1851, p. 217.
109. J-P. Burdy, ‘Paternalismes industriels. Les rapports sociaux dans le bassin
de la Loire au 19e siècle’, in S. Michaud, L’Edification. Morales et cultures
au 19e siècle, 1993, p. 36. See also D. Pelletier, ‘Le catholicisme sociale en
France’, in B. Pellistrandi (ed), L’histoire religieuse, p. 370.
110. J-W. Dereymez, ‘Frédéric Le Play, réformateur chrétien’, in B. Plongeron,
P. Guillaume, (eds) De la charité à l’action sociale: religion et société, 1995,
pp. 151–8; M. Nouvel, Frédéric Le Play. Une réforme sociale sous le second
empire, 2009, pp. 109–117.
111. Quoted E.  Anceau, Les députés du Second Empire. Prosopographie d’une
élite du 19e siècle, 2000, p. 375.
112. Duroselle, Les débuts du catholicisme social, p. 24; P. Pierrard, L’Eglise et les
ouvriers en France (1840–1940), 1984, p. 188.
113. See e.g. A. de Magnitot, Préfet de la Nièvre, De l’assistance et de l’extinction
de la Mendicité, 1855, p. 153; J-B. Martin, La fin des mauvais pauvres de
l’assistance à l’assurance, Seyssel, 1983, pp. 15–16.
114. See circular from Bishop of Bourges, 6 Feb 1854, AN F19/2508; R. Price,
‘Poor relief and social crisis’ pp.  429–438; G.  Procacci, Gouverner la
misère. La question sociale en France 1789–1848, 1993, pp.  230–1;
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    317

A. Gueguen, ‘Pouvoirs centraux et locaux face à la misère en Mayenne au

milieu du 19e siècle’, Mayenne, 1990, pp. 153–6; Y-M. Hilaire, ‘L’Eglise
et les très pauvre dans la première moitié du 19e siècle’, in R. Rémond,
(ed) Démocratie et pauvreté, 1991, pp. 291–2.
115. Quoted by Y. Daniel, La religion est. perdue à Paris, 1978, pp. 65–6.
116. Marcilhacy, Le diocese d’Orléans, p. 170, 190.
117. E. Mension-Rigou, Le donjon et le clocher. Nobles et curés de campagne de
1850 à nos jours, 2004, p. 34–38.
118. See also C-I.  Brelot, La noblesse réinventée. Nobles de Franche-Comté de
1814 à 1870, II 1992, pp. 622–5.
119. M-C.  Saison, La bonne société orléanaise, 1850–1914, Orleans 2008,
pp. 26–7.
120. See e.g. S. Gicquel, ‘De la charrue à la plume: les prêtres et l’agriculture
dans les diocèses de Saint-Brieuc et de Vannes au 19e siècle’, in
F.  Quellier,G.  Provost, (eds) Du ciel à la terre. Clergé et agriculture,
16e–19e siècles, Rennes, 2008, pp. 267–8.
121. Quoted by E. Mension-Rigau, le donjon et Le clocher, pp. 117, 118.
122. Abbé Vandel, ‘Allocution aux associés’ 1857, quoted by ibid., p. 119.
123. E.g. circular published following provincial synod held at Avignon 23 Dec
1849, in G. Cholvy, Religion et société au 19e siècle. Le diocese de Montpellier,
II, Lille, 1973, pp. 646–7.
124. Bulletin 1866, quoted by Mension-Rigau ibid.
125. See e.g. Cholvy, ‘Les associations de laïcs en France (19e–20e siècles) in
Pelistradi op.  cit., pp.  288–9; Brejon de Lavergnée, La Société de Saint-
Vincent-de-Paul, pp. 81–103.
126. Frédéric Ozanam, letter of 7, Aug. 1846, quoted by Brejon de Lavergnée,
La Société, p. 171.
127. Maurain, Politique ecclésiatique, p. 555.
128. Bishop of Autun to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 1 Sept. 1854, AN 246AP24.
129. Abbé Mullois, editorial in Le messager de la charité, 12 March 1854.
130. M.  Brejon de Lavergnée, ‘Ville et charité. Une sociologie des hommes
d’œuvres au 19e siècle, 1840–70’, Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France.
2004, pp. 93–104.
131. M. Brejon de Lavergnée, ‘La Société de Saint-Vincent-de-Paul à Paris au
19e siècle (1833–71). Prosopographie d’une élite catholique fervente’.
Revue d’histoire du 19e siècle, 2006, pp. 2f.
132. Brejon de Lavergnée, La Société, pp. 292–3, 296.
133. J-O.  Boudon, Paris, capitale religieuse sous le Second Empire, 2001,
pp. 139–140.
134. Brejon de Lavergnée, La Société, pp. 301, 333.
135. Quoted by Brejon de Lavergnée, La Société, p. 551.
318   R. PRICE

136. J-B.  Duroselle, Les débuts du catholicisme social, p.  550; See also PG
Poitiers? April 1860, AN BB30/385.
137. Brejon de Lavergnée, La Société, p. 140f.
138. E.  Macknight, ‘A theatre of rule? Domestic service in aristocratic house-
holds under the 3rd Republic’, French history, 2008, pp. 330–1.
139. Pierrard, La vie ouvrière à Lille, pp.  382–418; Chaline, Les bourgeois de
Rouen, pp. 266–8. B. Angleraud, Lyon et ses pauvres. Des œuvres de charité
aux assurances sociales, 1800–1939, 2011, p. 121.
140. See e.g. J-L.  Marais, ‘Les pauvres de la paroisse et/ou les pauvres de la
ville’, in J-G. Petit, Y. Marec, (eds) Le social dans la ville en France et en
Europe (1750–1914), 1996, pp. 189–191.
141. See e.g. V. Rogard, Les catholiques et la question sociale. Morlaix 1840–1914.
Rennes, 1997, pp.  38–9; P.  Secondy, La persistance du midi blanc.
L’Hérault (1789–1962), Perpignan, 2006, pp. 69–70.
142. Point made by Abbé Mullois, Confiance! Il y aura du pain pour tous, little
pamphlet in 32o, 4e edition, Paris, Chez Vives, Doyen et Giret, 1854,
p. 28.
143. D. Hopkin, ‘Intimacies and Intimations: storytelling between servants and
masters in 19th century France, Journal of Social History, 2016, p. 4.
144. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes, II, pp. 631–2; see also report on the Assoc.
of Ste.-Anne at Bayonne PG Pau, date indecipherable, AN BB30/384;
P. Michel, ‘La Maison rustique des dames ou l’édification domestique’, in
S. Michaud, (ed) L’Edification, 1993, p. 109.
145. E.P. Thompson, ‘Patrician society, plebeian culture’, Journal of social his-
tory, 1974, p. 388.
146. Boudon, Paris, p. 142.
147. Prefect Bouches-du-Rhône to MJ et des C., 6 April 1861, AN F19/5822.
148. Statutes enclosed with report from Prefect Bas-Rhin to Min. de l’I.P. et des
C., 29 April 1861; see also Bishop of Strasbourg to Min. de l’I.P. et des C.,
5 May 1861; Le Supérieur des Pères de la compagnie de Jésus de la
Résidence de Strasbourg à M.le Préfet du Bas-Rhin, n.d., AN F19/6288.
149. Boudon, Paris, pp. 144–6.
150. Duroselle, Les débuts du catholicisme social, p. 548.
151. Boudon, Paris, p. 151.
152. Quoted by J-F. Galinier-Pallerola, La résignation dans la culture catholique
en France (1870–1945), 2007, pp. 288–9.
153. Mémoires d’un royaliste, vol. 1, 1888, p. 169.
154. PG Paris, 4 May 1854, AN BB30/432.
155. Brejon de Lavergnée, La Société, pp. 152–3, 288–9.
156. Report on June 1854, AN F1 CIII Loire-Inférieure 8.
157. The view of e.g. PG Angers, 29 Jan. 1858, AN BB30/407.
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    319

158. The figure for 1847—Baron de Watteville, Rapport à son excellence le

Ministre de l’Intérieur sur l’administration des bureaux de bienfaisance et
sur la situation du paupérisme en France, 1854, p. 11; R. Price, ‘Poor relief
and social crisis, p. 438.
159. See T. Smith, ‘The ideology of charity’, passim.; Price, People and politics,
p. 27.
160. Circular of 20 Aug. 1853, AN F8/210.
161. Quoted by V. Petit, ‘Le clergé contre l’ivrognerie. La campagne du Père
Ducreux dans le montagnes du Doubs (1864–9)’, Histoire et sociétés rura-
les, 2000, p. 107.
162. J.  Lalouette, ‘Charité, philanthropie et solidarité en France vers 1848.
Pour une histoire des mots et des doctrines’, in J-L. Mayaud, (ed) 1848,
2002, pp. 205, 208; Cholvy, Religion et société I, p. 520; Duroselle, Les
débuts du catholicisme social, Part I.
163. A. de Melun, ‘Rapport à l’Empereur’, 1861, in F. Chavot, ‘Les sociétés de
secours mutuels sous le Second Empire’. Cahiers d’histoire de l’Institut
Maurice Thorez, 1977, p. 20.
164. Petition from habitants de la commune de Bours to MC, 13 Dec. 1869;
see also Vicar-general de Tarbes to MJ et des C., 21 Jan., AN F19/5865.
165. Quoted Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans, pp. 34–5. See also Smith, ‘The
ideology of charity’, pp. 1006f.
166. Point made by A. Corbin, Archaisme et modernité en Limousin au 19e siècle
1, 1985, pp. 517–18.
167. On historiography, see J. Prévotat, ‘L’Eglise a-t-elle trahi les pauvres? Le
19e siècle français’ Communio, 1986, pp. 29–31.
168. ‘Rapport de la Commission de l’Assistance et de la Prévoyance publique,
1850’, in Discours parlementaires de M. Thiers, vol. 8, 1880, pp. 459, 465;
see also R. Plessix, ‘Pauvreté et assistance dans le Maine, 1780–1860’, in
A. Gueslin, P. Guillaume, (eds) ‘De la charité médiévale à la sécurité soci-
ale’, 1994, pp. 57–8.
169. P. Karila-Cohen, ‘Le Christ s’est arrêté à Origny. Le temps, l’enquête et
l’administration’, in A-E. Demartini, D. Kalifa, (eds) Imaginaire et sensi-
bilités au 19e siècle. Etudes pour Alain Corbin, 2005, pp.  103–109;
M.  Offerlé, ‘De l’histoire électorale à la socio-histoire des électeurs’,
Romantisme, 2007/1, pp. 63–5.
170. L. Alcoff, ‘Cultural feminism versus post-structualism: the identity crisis in
feminist theory’. In Dirks et  al, Culture/power/history, p.  96. See also
A.  Corbin, ‘L’opinion publique ou l’état des esprits du Premier Empire à
l’introduction du suffrage universel’, in J-N.  Jeanneney, (ed) L’opinion.
Information, rumeur, propagande, Blois, 2008, pp. 72–4, 80–83.
171. See R. Price, A Social History of Nineteenth-Century France, 1987, Chap.
7 Religion, including map of ‘Religious vitality of dioceses of France’,
p. 289.
320   R. PRICE

172. See warning by P.  Lévêque, Une société en crise. La Bourgogne de la

Monarchie de Juillet au Second Empire II 1983, p. 725.
173. See also C.  Langlois, ‘Une France duelle? L’espace religieux contempo-
raine’, in Joutard, (ed) Histoire de la France religieuse, III, pp. 317–19.
174. Academic rector Clermont, 6 Jan. 1859, AN F17/2649.
175. See e.g. C. Estève, ‘1848–49 dans le Cantal. Un prêtre entre en politique,
l’Abbé Thouzery’, in J-E. Iung, (ed) Fidélité républicaine et monde rural,
1848–51, Aurillac, 1996, p. 236.
176. See e.g. Sous-préfet Avallon to Prefect Yonne, 24 Jan. 1860, AN F19/5861;
Hilaire, La vie religieuse des populations … d’Arras, II, p.  606; Launay,
‘Une chrétienté sous le Second Empire: diocèse de Nantes’, p. 377.
177. Quoted by F. Mayeur, ‘L’éducation des filles en France au 19e siècle’, in
Ecole française de Rome, problèmes d’histoire de l’éducation, Rome 1988,
p. 81; see also C. Martin, ‘L’instruction des filles en Haute-Garonne dans
la première moitié du 19e siècle’ Annales du Midi, 1979, pp. 501–7.
178. MI to MC, 22 Dec. 866, AN F19/1937.
179. Cabinet du Min. de l’I.P. et des C., ‘Réponses aux notes remises par
l’Empereur au MC sur l’attitude du clergé’, Dec. 1861. AN F19/5605.
180. M. Denis, ‘L’épanouissement de la vie religieuse et intellectuelle’, in Denis,
Geslin, La Bretagne, p. 599.
181. Lagrée, Religion, p. 107.
182. See also Y-M. Hilaire, ‘La pratique religieuse en France de 1815 à 1878’,
Information historique, 1963, passim.
183. PG Poitiers, 15 April 1868, AN BB30/385.
184. A. Encreve, Protestants français au milieu du 19e siècle. Les réformes de 1848
à 1870, Geneva 1982, p. 8.
185. See also M. Lagrée, (ed) Chocs et ruptures en histoire religieuse. France 18e–
19e siècles, Rennes, 1998, p. 14.
186. Lagrée, Aspects de la vie religieuse, pp. 21–9.
187. Quoted by Mension-Rigou, Le donjon et le clocher, p. 71.
188. F. Boulard,(ed) Matériaux pour l’histoire religieuse du people français, 19e–
20e siècles, I, 1982, p. 248; also Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans, p. II.
189. FJ-C. Farcy, Les paysans beaucerons au 19e siècle, II, Chartres, 1989, p. 887.
190. Prefect Seine-et-Marne to Min. de l’I.P., 8 May 1856, AN F19/5823.
191. Quoted by Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans, p. 370.
192. R. Price, ‘The onset of labour shortage in nineteenth-century French agri-
culture’, Economic history review, 1975, pp. 265–274.
193. Quoted by P.  Boutry, ‘Industrialisation et déstructuration de la société
rurale’, in Joutard, (ed) Histoire de la France religieuse, Iii, p. 274.
194. P.  Foucault, ‘Le clergé concordataire du Maine entre notabilité, élite et
insignifiance’, in F. Pitou, (ed) Elites et notables de l’ouest 16e–20e siècles.
Entre conservatisme et modernité, Rennes, 2003, pp. 101–2.
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    321

195. J. Faury, Cléricalisme et anticléricalisme dans le Tarn, p. 416.

196. PG Limoges, 13 April 1867, AN BB30/378.
197. See e.g. Baronne de Monville to Emperor, 15 Nov. 1853, AN F19/5817;
A.  Chatelain, Les migrants temporaires en France de 1800 à 1914, Lille
1977, II, p. 1084.
198. See e.g. Boulard, (ed) Matériaux pour l’histoire religieuse, p. 13f; Gibson,
Social history, pp. 159, 191.
199. E. Constant, Le département du Var sous le Second Empire et au début de la
3e République, Doc. ès lettres, Univ. de Provence-Aix 1977, p. 686.
200. G. Cholvy, Religion et société au 19e siècle. p. 571.
201. See e.g. sous-préfet Audemer to Prefect Eure, 1 April 1858, AN F1 CIII
Eure 13; Boulard, Matériaux, I, p. 13.
202. C. Langlois, ‘Catholicisme, féminité et sacralité’, in Le continent théologique,
pp. 266–7.
203. Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans sous l’épiscopat de Mgr Dupanloup, p. 314.
C. Langlois, ‘Indicateurs du 19e siècle. Pratique pascale et délais de bap-
tême’, in Joutard, (ed) Histoire de la France religieuse, III pp. 233–4. See
Farcy, Paysans beaucerons II, p. 891 re. neighbouring diocese of Chartres.
204. See e.g. Cholvy, ‘Réalités de la religion populaire’, in Dubosq et  al., La
religion populaire, p.  160; A.J.  Tudesq, ‘L’élargissement de la noblesse
dans la 1re moitié du 19e siècle’, in Les noblesses européenes au 19e siècle,
Rome 1988, p. 129.
205. R.  Price, The Modernization of Rural France. Communication networks
and agricultural market structures in nineteenth century France, 1983,
pp. 100–125.
206. E.  Sevrin, ‘Croyances populaires et médecine supernaturelle en Eure-et-
Loir au 19e siècle’, Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 1946, p. 2.
207. J. Bauberot, ‘Conversions collectives au protestantisme et religion popu-
laire en France au 19e siècle’, quoted in Dubosq et al., La religion popu-
laire, p. 159.
208. See e.g. A. Le Douget, Violence au village. La société rurale finistérienne
face à la justice (1815–1914), Rennes, 2014, pp. 243–4.
209. Y-M. Hilaire, ‘L’Eglise dans le monde rural. Le 19e siècle’, Recherche soci-
ale, 1971, pp. 7–8.
210. see e.g. M-P. Guérin, ‘La paroisse de Guémené-Penfao au 19e siècle’, in
Eglise et société dans l’ouest atlantique du moyen âge au 20e siècle, Nantes,
2000, pp. 180–3.
211. See e.g. P.  Lévêque, La Bourgogne de la Monarchie de Juillet au Second
Empire, Thèse pour le doctorat d’Etat, Univ. de Paris I, 1976, pp. 710–24.
212. English edition, with introduction by E. Weber, 1983. See also S. Russell,
Agriculture, prosperity, and modernization of French rural communities,
1870–1914. Views from the village, Lampeter, 2004, passim.
322   R. PRICE

213. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes, II, p. 544.

214. Préfet de police, chargé de la Direction-générale de la Sûreté publique to
MC, 3 June 1861, AN F19/5852.
215. See e.g. Y. Le Gallo, Clergé, religion et société en Basse-Bretagne de la fin de
l’Ancien Régime à 1840, Vol. II, 1991, p. 961.
216. See e.g. T. Kselman, Miracles and prophecies in nineteenth century France,
New Brunswick, 1983, pp. 23, 146.
217. Quoted B. Delpal, Entre paroisse et commune. Les catholiques de la Drôme
au milieu du 19e siècle, Valence, 1989, p. 74.
218. See e.g. G-G. Lesart, Notre-Dame du Doute. Le culte mariale en Franche-
Comté (du 19e siècle au début du 20e siècle), Besançon, 2016, p. 60.
219. G. Tavard, La Vierge Marie en France aux 18e et 19e siècles, 1998, p. 96;
J-J. Loisel, ‘Piété populaire et pouvoirs diocésains. Blois au 19e siècle’, in
G. Chaix, (ed) Le diocèse, 2002, p. 263.
220. Bourdelais, Raulot, Une peur bleue, pp. 222–3; A. Thuillier, Economie et
société nivernaise au début du 19e siècle, 1974, annex VI; S.  Horvath-
Peterson, ‘Abbé Georges Darboy’s Statistique religieuse du diocèse de Paris
(1865)’, Catholic historical review, 1982, p. 419.
221. G.  Cholvy, Christianisme et société en France au 19e siècle (1790–1914),
2001, p. 104.
222. See e.g. R. Jonas, France and the cult of the Sacred Heart, 2000, pp. 18–20.
223. G. Dupeux, Aspects de l’histoire sociale et politique du Loir-et-Cher, 1962.
224. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes, II, p. 903.
225. P.  Goujon, Le vigneron citoyen. Mâconnais et Châlonnais (1848–1914),
1993, p. 37.
226. Hilaire, L vie religieuse des populations du diocèse d’Arras, p. 1025.
227. Musée de l’histoire de France, De la Concordat à la rupture: un siècle de vie
religieuse en France, 1801–1905, 2001, p. 110 re. Painting by Jules Gaildrau
entitled La bénédiction de la mer au Pollet.
228. See also Chap. 4 Missions and pilgrimages.
229. E.g. N-J. Chaline, ‘Pratique et vie religieuse en Haute-Normandie aux 19e
et 20 siècles’, in M.  Bée et  al., Mentalités religieuses dans la France de
l’ouest, Etudes d’histoire serielle, Caen, 1976, pp. 89–95.
230. B. Cousin, Le miracle et le quotidien. Les ex-voto provençaux images d’une
société, 1983, p. 267.
231. See e.g. description by Delarue miller at Fougères, AN C.1156 Agricultural
enquiry 1870; also A. Burguière, Bretons de Plozévet, 1975, pp. 254–5.
232. Quoted by Boutry, Prêtres et paroisses, pp. 482–3.
233. G. Cholvy, ‘Religion populaire et intériorisation du christianisme: les pesan-
teurs de l’historiographie’, in G. Duboscq, B. Plongeron, D. Robert (eds),
La religion populaire, 1979, pp. 179f.; L. Pérouas, Culte des saints et anti-
cléricalisme, 2002, pp. 85–8.
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    323

234. See e.g. vicar-general, diocese of Meaux to MC, 27 May 1862, AN

F19/5823.
235. Pétition des habitants de Grandrû, département de l’Oise … en vue
d’obtenir le remplacement du Desservant, sent to MJ et des C., 17 Oct.
1867, AN F19/5786.
236. M. Lagrée, Religion et cultures en Bretagne, 1850–1950, 1992, p. 299.
237. See e.g. Prefect Calvados to MC re. parish of Cesny-Bois-Halbout, 16
Sept. 1865, AN F19/5783; Vicar-General diocese of Meaux to MC, 27
May 1862, AN F19/5823.
238. General de la Ruë, Inspecteur général de la gendarmerie to MC, ? June
1863, AN F19/5605.
239. PG Riom to Garde des Sceaux, 30 Jan. 1865, AN F19/5659.
240. General de la Ruë, Note pour l’Empereur, 28 April 1864; PG Chambéry
to Garde des Sceaux, 28 April and 28 June; MI to MJ et des C., ? May;
Bishop of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne to MC, 31 May; AN F19/5659.
241. See also R. Harris, ‘Possesion on the Borders: the mal de Morzine in 19th
century France,’ Journal of Modern History, 1997, passim; B. Levack, The
Devil within: possession and exorcism in the Chistian west, 2013, pp. 135–6.
242. MG to Min. de l’I.P. et des C., 15 June 1861; Prefect Haute-Savoie to
M.C., 29 June; PG Chambéry to Garde des Sceaux 31 May, 1 June 1864;
OC gendarmerie détachement de Morzine to colonel commanding 26th
Légion de gendarmerie, 20 June; Bishop of Annecy to MC, 20 July;
Colonel commanding 26th Légion to MG, 17 May 1866; MI to MJ et des
C., 13 June; Prefect Haute-Savoie to MJ et des C. 22 June, 3 July and 23
Nov.; Dr.Kuhn to Prefect Haute-Savoie, 26 June, AN F19/5801; Dr.
A.  Constans, Relation sur une épidemie d’hystero-démonopathie en 1861,
Paris, Delahaye, 2nd ed., 1863., pp. 32–6, 126.
243. Harris, Lourdes, p. 29. See also M. Bailey, Fearful Spirits, Reasoned Folies:
the boundaries of superstition in late medieval Europe, 2013, p. 1; Levack,
The Devil within, p. 30.
244. Lévêque, Société en crise, p. 730.
245. T.  Kselman, ‘The varieties of religious experience in urban France’, in
H. McLeod, (ed) European religion in the age of the great cities, 1830–1930,
1995, p. 168.
246. Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans, p. 328.
247. Compare e.g. J.  Bruhat, ‘Anticléricalisme et mouvement ouvrier avant
1914’, Le mouvement social, 1966, pp.  62–100 with F-A.  Isambert,
Christianisme et classe ouvrière, 1961, passim.
248. M. Crubellier, Histoire culturelle de la France, 1974, p. 146.
249. Cabinet du ministre … ‘Réponses aux notes remises par l’Empereur …
1856. AN F19/5605.
250. Boulard, Matériaux, p. 65.
324   R. PRICE

251. Point made by OC 1er Légion de gendarmerie, 28 Jan. 1870, SHAT

G8/176.
252. Rapport à M. le Préfet de la Seine sur le service de la distribution des bons
supplémentaires du prix du pain delivers aux indigents et aux familles néces-
siteuses de la ville de Paris en 1846 et 1847, 1848, p. 8.
253. Boudon, Paris, capital religieuse, pp. 254–6.
254. G. Jacquemet, ‘Déchristianisation, structures familiales et anticléricalisme’,
Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 1984, pp. 72–3.
255. Boudon, Paris, capital religieuse, pp. 215–16.
256. Ibid., p. 254.
257. See e.g. M.  Segalen, Mari et femme dans la société paysanne, 1980,
pp. 160–1.
258. J-O. Boudon, Paris, pp. 256–8.
259. Ibid., pp. 260–1.
260. F.  Charpin, Pratique religieuse et formation d’une grande ville, pp.  50,
54–5.
261. W.  Sewell, Structure and mobility. The men and women of Marseille,
1820–70, Cambridge, 1985.
262. Charpin. Pratique religieuse, p. 164.
263. A. Audiganne, Les populations ouvrières et les industries de la France dans le
movement social du 19e siècle, I, 1854, p. 70.
264. Report to MJ, July 1858, AN BB30/380.
265. R. Briggs, Popular Religion’, in W. Doyle, (ed) The Oxford Handbook of the
Ancien Régime, 2014, p. 314.
266. M-J. Lussien-Maisonneuve, ‘Contribution de la Flandres aux développe-
ments néo-gothiques de la ville et de la vie artistique en France septentrio-
nale au 19e siècle’, in J. de Maeyer, L.  Verpoest, (eds) Gothic revival.
Religion, architecture and style in western Europe. 1815–1914, Leuven,
2000, p. 173.
267. G. Cholvy, Y-M. Hilaire, Histoire religieuse de la France contemporaine, I,
Toulouse 1985, Chap. 8.
268. G. Cholvy, Etre chrétien en France au 19e siècle, 1790–1914, 1997, p. 242.
269. P. Pierrard, Les diocèses de Cambrai et de Lille, 1978, pp. 242, 247.
270. J. Léonard, Médecins, malades et société dans la France du 19e siècle, 1992,
pp. 53–5.
271. P. Pierrard, Les diocèses, p. 248.
272. 28 Oct. 1857, quoted Hilaire, La vie religieuse des populations du diocese
d’Arras, p. 1030.
273. Faury, Cléricalisme et anticléricalisme, pp. 417–18.
274. Leveque, Bourgogne, pp. 732–3. See also M-C. Cartayrede, ‘Aux frontières
de la paysannerie: l’Eglise et les ouvriers d’Aubin (1825–70)’, in
F.  Bédarida, J.  Maitron, (eds) Christianisme et monde ouvrier, 1975,
p. 282.
   THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION    325

275. See e.g. A. Lanfrey, ‘Eglise et morale ouvrier. Les congréganistes et leurs
écoles à Montceau-les-Mines’, Cahiers d’histoire, 1978, p. 69.
276. See e.g. Audiganne, Les populations ouvrières, p.  98, 135, 145; Hilaire,
op. cit., p. 1023; Faury, Cléricalisme et anticléricalisme, p. 42.
 CHAPTER 8

Anti-Clericalism

8.1   Introduction
The increasingly triumphalist ultramontane sensibility and aggressive
commitment to ‘the rule of Christ on earth’ manifested by numerous
priests during the Restoration and throughout the authoritarian Papacy of
Pius IX undoubtedly inspired re-Christianization. It also, however, stimu-
lated negative reactions. These varied in kind and intensity. Many practis-
ing Catholics resented the Church’s increasingly all-embracing and
dogmatic claims. Liberals and democrats disapproved of the close associa-
tion between the Church and both the imperial regime and the restored
monarchy. They were convinced that faith was a matter for the individual
conscience, anxious to restrict priests more exclusively to their sacerdotal
functions, and suspicious of the influence exercised by confessors over
their womenfolk.1 The ‘Jesuit myth’ developing in pamphlets, cartoons,
songs and poetry during the Restoration and particularly the reign of
Charles X, encapsulated many of these liberal and democratic concerns.2
Anti-clericalism was moreover almost a reflex action on the part of families
which had rallied to the First Republic or had been condemned from the
pulpit for purchasing biens nationaux confiscated from the Church, as well
as of those peasants who, in some regions, remained afraid of the reimpo-
sition of seigneurial dues and the tithe and resented the assertive attitudes
or the ‘greed’ of the clergy.3

© The Author(s) 2018 327

R. Price, Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67196-3_8
328   R. PRICE

The 1830 Revolution had been followed by a wave of anti-clerical and

iconoclastic protest in Paris and the provinces as unpopular priests were
excluded from their parishes, and the crosses erected by religious mis-
sions together with other symbols of the alliance between the Bourbons
and the Church during the Restoration were smashed or displaced.4
Although, in 1848 the apparent initial rapprochement between the
Republic and the Church was, on both sides, often sincere, and the new
republican Provisional Government was clearly anxious to avoid a repeti-
tion of the disastrous conflict with the Church which had so scarred the
first revolution, this could not prevent the localized re-emergence of
tension between individual priests and their parishioners as well as suspi-
cion of the counter-­revolutionary proclivities of the Church, culminat-
ing in its enthusiastic support for the December 1851 coup d’état.
Gradually, an increasingly unbridgeable gulf emerged between radically
different visions of the universe, making it difficult for some (probably a
small minority of the population) to sustain even the vestiges of their
religious faith.

8.2   Opinion Leaders?

Although it is difficult to characterize beliefs in social terms, it does appear
that a division existed between socially and politically conservative groups
enjoying mutually supportive relationships with the Church, including the
landowning nobility and a clerical bourgeoisie—likely to consist of both
traditional landowning elements and state officials as well as successful and
status-conscious businessmen; and an indifferent or anti-clerical, politi-
cally liberal or democratic bourgeoisie, more likely to include ‘newer’ ele-
ments—landowners, members of the liberal professions, small businessmen
and artisans—and suspicious of the pretensions of the clergy.5 The strug-
gle for local power between and within these groups, inaugurated by the
Revolution, continued throughout the century.
In these circumstances the groundswell of ‘spontaneous’ anti-­
clericalism, which had been evident since time immemorial, was given
voice in numerous popular gatherings, in cafés and work-places, and
most notably by the habitués of such middle class meeting places as cer-
cles and masonic lodges, the latter repeatedly condemned by the Church,
and described by the Pope in 1865 as the ‘synagogue of Satan’.6 They
were identified by the Alsatian clerical newspaper the Volksfreund in
1860 as lawyers, notaries, clerks and teachers, innkeepers, and readers of
  ANTI-CLERICALISM   329

liberal-­democratic Parisian newspapers like Le Siècle or the local Courrier

du Bas-­Rhin, to which many cafés and lodges subscribed, and described
as happy to while away their time over drinks, cards or billiards and by
making fun of the local clergy, as well as engaging in more serious politi-
cal and philosophical debate.7
The liberal and republican press provided a link between an intellectual,
politicized criticism of the Church as an impediment to progress, and a
more popular anti-clericalism. Its readers claimed to respect the moral
force of science and were committed to the further development of Liberty
and Progress. In Le Siècle they might gleefully read a satirical caricature of
Louis Veuillot’s dreams of a new Inquisition which predicted the excom-
munication of engineers and industrialists and their condemnation to
eternal damnation on the grounds that ‘industry is essentially Protestant,
and … every Protestant destined for the fires of Hell. Catholicism, of
which we are the most illustrious representatives on earth, can only love …
the labour of the fields, and this is easily comprehensible: the peasant is
ignorant, superstitious, easy to lead. He believes in all our miracles’. (24
November 1854). An affirmation of support for the Papacy by Mgr
Dupanloup in the clerical newspaper L’Ami de Religion, was condemned
as potentially dangerous because it had been ‘sent to country priests, ped-
dled from sacristy to sacristy, transmitting ignorance to the ignorant’. The
likely outcome was that ‘soon they will believe that the Pope has been
attacked, that he has been crowned with thorns, that he has been whipped,
that he is a martyr, and every Catholic will protest about persecution’.8 It
was the readers of such newspapers, a disgusted public prosecutor assumed,
who might be led, as at Le Vernet (Ariège) on 19 September 1869, in the
case of three intoxicated young men, to express their contempt for a pro-
cession in honour of Notre-Dame de la Salette by continuing to wear their
hats and smoke their cigarettes, pulling faces and mocking the partici-
pants.9 These were the sort of ‘opinion leaders’ identified by the Abbé
Debeney in a pamphlet on Les soirées au village (1853), as ‘usually a young
ignoramus, a real pillar of the cabaret, conceited, always changing his
mind, a village lawyer’.10
The social status, education, and access to information of many profes-
sional men appeared to validate their expression of disdain for the views of
priests they perceived to be half-educated peasants. The Abbé Constant, a
friend of the socialists Flora Tristan and Alphonse Esquiros, was briefly
imprisoned for representing his contempt for the clergy in a series of dia-
logues published as the Bible de la liberté (1841). ‘Listen to them speak’,
330   R. PRICE

he advised, ‘and learn from this disagreeable and monotonous noise. They
pray as they sleep, and make sacrifices as they eat. These are machines for
consuming bread, meat, wine, and for delivering words devoid of sense.’
He had also imagined a dialogue between parents anxious about their
son’s future—‘he is feeble in mind and body, and his heart reveals no sign
of life.’ Their conclusion? ‘We’ll make him a priest and he can live off the
altar.’11 In his Roman d’un enfant, Pierre Loti would similarly remember
with horror ‘the boredom of Sunday sermons; the emptiness of those
prayers, carefully prepared and delivered with the usual unction and ges-
tures’.12 The widely read historian Jules Michelet ridiculed the efforts of
the clergy, supported by the State, to dominate the streets. Observing a
procession in Nantes in 1852, he wrote that ‘the singers were mostly shrill
boys, badly dressed and at that unfortunate age when the voice breaks …
The priests busied themselves, coming and going like inspectors … instead
of inspiring order and calm by their reverential attitudes. However, most
shocking of all was the rude discordance of the military band, violent,
imperious and barbaric in the midst of what should have been a moving
ceremony, devoted to the adoration of the Virgin by the virgins, by a mass
of beloved children, under the eyes of their parents.’13
The immense popularity of Ernest Renan’s, Vie de Jésus (1863) revealed
something of the attractiveness of such views and further encouraged their
spread. In place of the divine Christ, he described an incomparable prophet
entirely committed, as the Sermon on the Mount proved, to justice, char-
ity and the highest moral standards, and to ‘a religion without priests and
the external practices of devotion, but based on the sentiments of the
Heart, and on the intimate relationship of the conscience with the celestial
Father’.14 The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church were reduced to
a fraudulent human construct, a means of ensuring its domination.
According to Alphonse Chadal, writing to the influential anti-clerical his-
torian Edgar Quinet, Renan’s work even penetrated the countryside. He
referred to instances of the collective purchase of copies by peasants ‘barely
able to read’ but hungry for knowledge. Posing the question—‘What will
they … read in Renan’s book?’, he concluded simply ‘that Jesus is not
God, that the curé has misled them, if not himself’.15
Moreover, if Renan admired Christ, and was convinced of the social
utility of religion, others were more doubtful. The outlook of intellectual
anti-clericals was increasingly devoid of their previous sympathy for
Christian beliefs. An alternative philosophical position was developing,
based upon a rationalist dogma and an almost mystical faith in progress
  ANTI-CLERICALISM   331

and in the emancipation of Man through science and education. Auguste

Comte’s influential positivist theories had already defined theology as the
product of a primitive stage in man’s understanding of the world. Leading
literary critics like Saint-Beuve also attracted a considerable audience.16
Religion per se, rather than simply the Church, was associated with a
destructive obscurantism. The socialist writer Proudhon, who had initially
been motivated by religious faith in 1846, demanded to know why a sup-
posedly all-powerful God failed to prevent evil. Subsequently, his Jesus
would be described as an egalitarian socialist although his claim to be the
Messiah, together with the ‘miracles’, suggested to Proudhon that he was
something of a charlatan.17 Those republicans and socialists like Louis
Blanc who, in 1848, sought inspiration from the life of Christ, the humble
carpenter, were to be thoroughly alienated by the counter-revolutionary
stance adopted by the Church.18
In terms deliberately calculated to be offensive, writers with liberal or
republican sympathies were increasingly likely to denounce belief in mira-
cles, and such vital elements of the Christian faith as the Resurrection, as
absurdities, the products of hallucination or deliberate falsification by the
disciples. The initial response to the news of the revelation at La Salette in
the local Grenoble republican newspaper Le Censeur was thus to dismiss
this ‘stupid invention accepted due to the imbecility of some and exploited
through the charlatanism of others’.19 The Journal de Rouen spoke for
many of its middle-class readers in complaining that, after the ‘bouffon-
nerie de la Salette’, Lourdes represented an ‘insult to the progress of
Science and an outrage to human Reason’.20 It was no more than a fraudu-
lent money-making scheme.21 The ironical response of liberal and moder-
ate republican newspapers like Le Siècle and Le National was more
restrained but equally contemptuous. The republican writer Allain-Targé
simply proclaimed that ‘it is no longer possible to be intelligent and
Catholic’.22 The Syllabus of Errors and the Declaration of Papal Infallibility
would provoke similar scorn.23
In his Grand Dictionnaire universel, the first volume of which appeared
in 1866, Pierre Larousse insisted that ‘the times of blind faith have passed
without return’. Many of the contributors shared his scepticism and anti-­
clericalism, pointing out the patent absurdity of such Christian dogma as
Original Sin, transubstantiation, the Incarnation, the Resurrection,
Heaven and Hell.24 The rituals and iconography developed over centuries
by the Church were ridiculed. The image of Jesus Christ with his chest
open to expose his beating heart was clearly bizarre. Visions of the Virgin
332   R. PRICE

Mary, as well as the miracles associated with them were also contemptu-
ously dismissed as the products of fraud and idiocy.25
As medical science developed, growing tension would also become evi-
dent between some members of an increasingly self-confident medical
profession and priests suspicious of the ‘materialistic atheism’ of the medi-
cal faculties.26 There were frequent complaints about interference by the
clergy, and especially nuns, in medical matters, as well as criticism of the
‘charlatanism’ and ‘autorité déspotique’ exercised by the nursing sisters and
their rejection of modern medical practices.27 Celibacy, which for the
Church represented the unalloyed devotion and moral superiority of its
clergy, appeared unnatural to many laymen. In La Bible de la liberté,
Constant regretted that ‘a priest is … necessarily a man without love. He
is thus lower than an animal, because the animal enjoys affection and sym-
pathy.’28 In denouncing the dangers inherent in an ‘unnatural’ state, the
article on ‘celibacy’ in Larousse’s Grand Dictionnaire universel warned
that ‘the difficulty of living in a condition of absolute continence can lead
to crimes against oneself or against others’.29
The practice of confession also remained a major issue. According to Dr
Francisque Bouvet, ‘there is no more striking and scandalous social antith-
esis … than to see youthful bachelors share the most intimate secrets of
women of all ages. In these supposedly sacred meetings, there is … neither
respect nor decency, nor security for anyone; there are no guarantees for
the priest himself; the purity and consideration which his ministry demands
might well suffer’. The threat—to both parties—of sexual arousal seemed
only too evident.30 Men, in particular, might decide not to admit to
embarrassing ‘sins’ or else routinely confess to innocuous transgressions,
or even avoid the confessional altogether, for greater or lesser periods. A
certain M. Guillaume from Dijon, in March 1848, described confession as
a ‘moral inquisition’, which by revealing the most intimate family secrets
to the clergy, increased their influence and power. In his letter to Carnot,
the new republican Education Minister in 1848, he condemned their
‘jesuitisme’, ‘bigotisme’ and ‘hypocrisy’.31 Jules Michelet claimed that the
clergy had established themselves as rivals to the husband and father.
Combining misogyny with an obsessive anti-clericalism, he stressed the
dangers inherent in a situation in which an impressionable young woman
was questioned about her sexual activity by a young and celibate priest
who possessed, furthermore, the ability to ‘reign over a soul … and
through the magic key which opens the world to come, is also able to
work on the heart’.32 He went on to describe a woman returning home
  ANTI-CLERICALISM   333

following confession—‘head lowered, bowed down with fear, broken. She

can see nothing, other than Hell, the eternal flames.’33 Even while affirm-
ing his continued faith, Charles Souvestre, in an editorial in the liberal
Bonapartist newspaper, L’Opinion nationale, expressed his concern that
their religious upbringing would ensure that wives ‘fail to understand their
husbands’ ideas’ and lead them to raise children ‘without character and
without beliefs, able to see in the great events of their epoch only the
works of the Devil, able to make for themselves only an empty and puerile
existence, a mixture of bigotry and vanity’.34
Some eminent liberals, including Edouard Laboulaye (L’Etat et ses lim-
ites, 1863) and Duc Victor de Broglie (Vues sur le gouvernement de France,
1870) called for the disestablishment and the freeing of both Church and
State from the restrictions imposed and tensions caused by the Concordat.
The liberal Catholic, Armand Wallon, in a lengthy petition to the Senate
in March 1867, would condemn the Syllabus of Errors as the ‘crédo du
parti ultramontane’ and an attempt by the Pope to impose his spiritual
authority on society. He warned furthermore, that this was only the begin-
ning. Wallon predicted that the formal declaration of Papal Infallibility, so
contrary to the traditions of the Gallican Church and to the dignity of
French bishops, would soon follow. He claimed that that these innova-
tions, motivated by ‘an intolerable spirit of domination’, represented not
only an assault on the historic privileges of the Church of France, but were
incompatible with the rights of the State.35 They threatened to allow for-
eign congregations, ‘fanatics’, the right to define what was taught in
French schools, and to influence morality, politics and law. The ultimate
aim, he claimed, was the creation of a theocracy and the inevitable result
would be to reinforce schism, hatred and conflict.36
Going further, the historians Michelet and Quinet insisted that
Protestantism was a faith more favourable to the spread of literacy and
better adapted to the demands of modernity. The Reformation, in their
eyes, had represented a stage on the road to freedom.37 Inspired by mem-
ories of past persecution, as well as current hostility, Protestants and Jews
remained firmly attached to the emancipatory principles of 1789, and sus-
picious of a Catholic Church which claimed a monopoly of ‘truth’ and
denied the validity of religious liberty.38 Other leading liberal and republi-
can personalities, including Alphonse de Lamartine, Edgar Quinet, Victor
Hugo, and Jules Simon adopted a kind of vague spiritualism. Flaubert’s
creation—the pharmacist Homais in Bouvard et Pécuchet—probably
expressed the author’s own attitudes—‘I have a religion … I believe in a
334   R. PRICE

Supreme Being, in a Creator who has placed us down below to fulfil our
duties as citizens and fathers: but I do not need to go to church … and
fatten, out of my pocket, a pile of jokers who eat better food than us. One
is able to honour God just as well in a wood, in a field, or even in contem-
plating the heavens like the ancients.’ The historian Hippolyte Taine, was
nevertheless quite cynically convinced of the social utility of religion.
Travelling through France in the early 1860s in his capacity as an examiner
of applicants for admission to the military academy at Saint-Cyr, Taine
recorded in his diary his belief that ‘the salient feature of the Church in
France is to be a temporal institution, a governmental machine’. Of the
northern town of Douai, he observed: ‘Considerable clerical influence
here, on the rich especially … without religion where would we be? … In
effect it serves as an intellectual gendarmerie.’39

8.3   Popular Anti-Clericalism

Historians have tended to focus on the easily accessible published works of
‘free-thinkers’ and neglect the more diffuse hostility of the popular classes
towards the clergy.40 Those engaged in hard physical labour, and who
struggled to make ends meet, might well discuss the perceived shortcom-
ings of the pastoral care they received, the sermons they listened to, the
pamphlets they read, and envy the parish priest’s comfortable existence. In
their response to the 1848 enquiry into working conditions, the delegates
of the Rennes cabinet makers complained about priests who satisfied ‘out-
ward appearances only, where we are searching for life’, who offered
‘Words in place of actions’, when ‘we ask for nothing better than to live
according to Christ’s law.41 The tailors claimed that ‘the moral and reli-
gious education of workers in the towns … is almost non-existent because
those charged with this mission fanaticize instead of instructing and rein-
forcing [the faith]; they substitute the letter which suffocates, for the spirit
which revives and the acts which unite’.42
The greater respect invariably shown by the clergy towards ‘rich’ local
notables might arouse further resentment.43 Almost instinctively priests, in
seeking to protect the faithful, worked closely with the circle of well-off
parishioners represented in both the municipal council and the fabrique,
together with those who provided employment and sought to create a
disciplined working environment, and who otherwise offered support for
parish and charitable activity. City centre churches with their splendid dec-
oration and ceremonies, and a sense of decorum designed for the social
  ANTI-CLERICALISM   335

elites, left the poor feeling uncomfortable. They were conscious of their
shabby appearance and resented the patronizing attitudes of both bour-
geois worshippers and priests. Indeed, Fortoul, the Ministre des Cultes,
complained to the Archbishop of Paris in 1855 that together with ostenta-
tious services, pew rents, which obliged those who could not afford to pay
them to stand at the back of the church, were driving workers away. He
observed that, as a result, the Church was increasingly unable to fulfil its
obligations as one of the guarantors of social order.44
The apparent greed of the clergy was frequently commented upon by
workers, even when priests were only requesting payment of the fees to
which they were legally entitled. In the case of funerals, the administra-
tion des pompes funèbres, which in the larger cities enjoyed a monopoly,
together with the clergy and parish sexton, would discuss the form and
cost of burial in particular cases, influenced by the diocesan tariff des
pompes funèbres. This defined the characteristics of funeral ceremonies in
terms of the number of priests present, the size of the choir and the num-
ber of candles, as well as the fees payable. Families were able to choose the
form of burial their social situation required from a complex cahier des
charges.45 The wealthy were buried with considerable pomp and ceremony,
particularly in cathedrals and substantial parish churches; the less well-off
made do with what they could afford and frequently suffered from the
condescending manner with which they were treated, all of which, at a
time of great emotional turbulence aroused considerable antipathy.
Unequal treatment in the face of death was only too evident. In the Paris
diocese in 1840, a first-class funeral might cost 2000 francs, requiring the
services, among others, of 22 priests, 6 singers, and a hearse pulled by 4
horses.46 Those who could afford to might pay for a sixth-class funeral
which included a low mass and in 1864 cost between 51 and 61 francs.
The poor, however, commonly made do with cursory ninth-class funerals,
costing only 16 francs.47 The clergy could also conduct a simple church
service, known as the ‘service des pauvres’, without fee, but would not
accompany the deceased to the common grave set aside for paupers, where
the body would instead be received by the chaplains known as the aumo-
niers des dernières prières, established by the future emperor in 1852.48 In
the 1840s, 66% of those inhumed in Paris are estimated to have been
buried in common graves.49 The presence of members of mutual aid soci-
eties might compensate, in part, for this neglect of the poor, but even
then, the President of the Société de secours mutuels de l’Union d’Aix-­
les-­Bains felt bound to complain to the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chambéry
336   R. PRICE

in 1864 about the ragged appearance of the mortuary cloth which covered
the coffins of dead paupers. He regarded this as an insult to the dignity of
the deceased.50 Particular instances of unequal treatment could also arouse
anger, as when, for example, the clergy at Etaples (Pas-de-Calais) refused
to allow a religious funeral for a poor working-class woman who had killed
herself, while celebrating with great pomp a rich suicide.51
Although generally joyful occasions, the conduct of weddings might
also arouse umbrage. In Lille, where couples frequently co-habited to
avoid the cost of a formal wedding a popular song pointed out that:

For the poor, as for the rich,

The Church does nothing for nothing;
When a priest says a prayer
He has to be paid, whatever.52

The profoundly anti-clerical novelist Emile Zola sought to illustrate the

point in L’Assommoir, when the roofer Coupeau announced that although
‘he certainly had no liking for those black crows, the priests … a marriage
without a mass … wasn’t a real marriage’. He was prepared to spend his
last 6 francs on ‘a low mass at the altar of the poor’. Of course, this distinc-
tion reinforced his antipathy towards the clergy, as did the ceremony,
­conducted with apparent indifference by a priest hastily performing a rit-
ual, with scarce concern for the feelings of a couple trying hard to do what
was proper, but lacking experience of religious ceremony and ill at ease.53
The clergy made insufficient effort to understand, much less sympa-
thize with the problems faced by workers. Repeated denunciations of
working-class ‘immorality’, ‘idleness’ and ‘laziness’, were all too likely to
arouse resentment.54 Significant cultural differences were evident between
the men, trained from youth to be priests, however humble their origins,
and most of their ill-educated parishioners. Orthodox theology taught
that work was God’s punishment for the sins of Adam and poverty an
inescapable feature of a God-given social order. The anonymous priest
who wrote a pamphlet entitled De la question du paupérisme, published in
Paris in 1842, thus expressed his confident belief that ‘Poverty … is not an
evil … It accounts for and produces dependence; it serves as the basis for
authority and consolidates it; without it, there would be no inequality of
wealth or intelligence, and none of the unity which results from devotion
and sacrifice; poverty augments courage, it illustrates merit, it operates
marvels.’ He further distinguished between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ poverty. The
  ANTI-CLERICALISM   337

former encouraged respect for authority and a sense of duty; the latter led
to ‘materialism’, ‘pauperism’ and revolt against Man and God.55 The par-
ish priest of Saint-Etienne in Lille represented a similar outlook in a ser-
mon preached in 1862, concluding that ‘we must reject this stupid and
violent equality, the dream of evil or insane levellers: God does not hate
the society He has created, with its ranks, its hierarchy, its precedences.’56
Influential laymen delivered similar messages, habitually employing a
discourse of obedience which focused on the responsibilities of the domes-
tic servant or worker towards his or her ‘master’ and drawing analogies
with the relationship between a child and its parents. The honorary presi-
dent of the fraternity of the Œuvres de Saint Joseph, addressing its mem-
bers in December 1853, following their annual procession through the
centre of Nantes—band at their head—in celebration of the saint’s feast
day, told them to take pride in their refusal to listen to those who preached
subversion—to ‘those miserable troublemakers who, in promising them
happiness, push them into the abyss of vice, misery and bitter regrets, and
even into sacrificing their life or liberty in the midst of insurrection’. They
must appreciate the gift of ‘religion [which] consoles you when you are
exhausted, when you are suffering, and which helps you to patiently bear
this life of labour and misery in the hope of a better life, of a precious
reward for all your sorrow’.57
Sermons insisting on the need for resignation to one’s earthly lot in
return for the promise of Divine bliss might—or might not—encourage
quietism. Workers were thus reminded in a diocesan manual published in
Paris in 1863 that ‘it is necessary … to work in a spirit of penitence and
submission to the will of God’.58 The parish priest at Saint-Bruno des
Chartreux, near Lyon, adopted similar language to advise the young
women employed in a silk mill that ‘the more you work, the more you will
erase your sins’. He called for ‘obedience founded on Christian humility’
in their relations with their employers.59 Furthermore, religion offered
consolation to the families of workers who died in work-place accidents.
When five men were killed in the sugar refinery at Bresles in November
1855, their funeral was attended by the Bishop of Beauvais and the Prefect
of the Oise, as well as by their employer, all of whom made speeches and
looked to God’s blessing, as well as reminding the mourners of the
Emperor’s concern for the poor and afflicted.60
Aspirations for greater security and prosperity were condemned fre-
quently by priests obsessed with the dangers of ‘materialism’, with declin-
ing church attendance, growing ‘indifference’ and the spreading practice
338   R. PRICE

of birth control.61 There was little evidence of a willingness to understand

the pressure to earn a living which kept many workers and peasants away
from church on Sunday.62 The clergy instead constantly called for the vol-
untary renunciation of Sunday work by employers, shopkeepers, and those
they employed. Time free from labour would allow church attendance and
spiritual enlightenment, as well as physical repose. It would enhance fam-
ily life and prevent moral brutalization.63 In a pastoral letter in 1860, Mgr
Pie declared that the great lesson of 1848 was that ‘Sunday work is in no-­
one’s interest … for, in demoralizing the worker, in over-exciting the pas-
sions and greed, it prepares society for those violent convulsions, those
riots and revolutions, which are the most determined enemies of property,
justice, order and authority’.64
An obsession with saving souls, together with an often unsympathetic
moral rigourism, ensured that priests were often feared and, sometimes,
despised rather than respected. Even the Archbishop of Montpellier, Mgr
Le Courtier, was concerned that relentless proselytizing by nursing sisters
frequently led to a failure to respect the ‘dignity’ of their poor patients.65
The authoritarian paternalism and missionary zeal of so many priests
could easily offend the egalitarian sentiments of skilled workers rather
than reawaken their piety. In an illicit pamphlet distributed in the Lille
area around 1855, the exiled republican Bianchi railed against the clergy
and the message they delivered which, ‘in promising to the poor, in an
unknown heaven, infinite happiness and life eternal, condemns them,
whilst they wait, to die of hunger in this real life’.66 For those who insisted
that the purpose of life was human happiness, acceptance of the doctrine
of Original Sin, the depravity of man, and the need constantly to prepare
for death, proved difficult. Anthime Corbon, the owner of a small engi-
neering workshop and author of Le secret du peuple de Paris (1863),
expressed his bitter resentment of the clergy’s stress on the unimportance
of life in this world and their dismissal of work—in which he took such
pride—as simply God’s punishment for original sin. He claimed that for
many of his skilled craftsmen, ‘the earth is no longer a place of exile for
the human race, but a domain to transform. It should no longer be
regarded as a prison in which man eternally expiates original sin, but a
workshop open to his inventive genius. It is not in mortifying ourselves,
in diminishing ourselves, and by incessant appeals for mercy that we can
make ourselves acceptable to God, but in developing all our faculties and
in applying them to the task of transforming the environment in which we
live …’. Corbon maintained that anti-clericalism was so commonplace in
  ANTI-CLERICALISM   339

the workshops that ‘the very rare faithful on whom the Church might
count are no less exposed to derision than are the very rare opponents of
democracy’.67 Although church attendance was regarded as perfectly
acceptable for women—the ‘weaker’ sex—and indeed offered a means of
safeguarding their virtue, always providing of course that the clergy
behaved with propriety, religion hardly seemed compatible with male
virility or with ‘respect humain’.68
While the Bishop of Nevers, Mgr Dufêtre, felt able in 1854 to claim
that charity through its benevolence and sincerity ‘never causes irrita-
tion’,69 the stigma attached to the selective and condescending way in
which assistance was distributed, and to the deference required from its
recipients might further increase hostility towards the clergy. At Bernay in
Normandy, members of the Société de Saint-Vincent de Paul concluded
that close association with the clergy hindered their efforts to reach ‘the
pauper class, ill disposed already [and which] accepted, all too readily, the
prejudices against the cassock and everything which hinted of the cassock,
predisposing them to reject our exhortations in assuming that they were
dictated by the ecclesiastical authorities!’70 The determination of the
better-­off believers who became ‘honorary’ members of mutual aid societ-
ies or of affiliates of the Société to exclude workers from decision-making
also aroused considerable irritation.71 The leading Nantes republican, Dr
Guépin, thus condemned the medieval precepts of a Christian charity
which ‘debases the poor man and encourages him to hold out his hand’;
which ‘engenders idleness … multiplies beggars’ and ‘creates the ­falsehood
of prayers mumbled with the aim of exploitation.’72 Amongst Parisian
revolutionary socialists, in the agitated early months of 1870, it had
become common to denounce the alliance between the magistrature, the
clergy and the army which provided ‘the three bases of modern despotism
… The clergy shackle the intelligence of the people; in preaching abnega-
tion it fastens the chains of its slavery, giving to its social inferiority, to its
misery, to its subjection, a form of divine consecration.’73
Similar sentiments might be expressed in rural areas. In some isolated
regions, old animosities certainly lived on. At a time in 1868 when food
prices were rising, Louis Carrère, petitioning the Emperor from Lomné in
the Pyrenees, claimed that the clergy were not only speculating on prices
but that ‘for some time our priests have not been prepared to spend five
minutes on the road in order to convey a body [to the church] without
being paid, and this has caused a sensation in our very religious region’.
He also resented the 50 centimes priests demanded from those about to
340   R. PRICE

receive their first communion, as well as the special collections—10 cen-

times a time—for ‘this, that and the other’, all of which were contributed
by the faithful in hope of avoiding mortal sin. Carrère contrasted the situ-
ation of ‘those accursed curés, who don’t know what to choose to eat, with
poor people not knowing what to do to obtain 25 centimes to buy a litre
of maize flour’, and quoted the proverb—‘those who do nothing eat the
grain, those who work eat the straw’. Better, he concluded, for the gov-
ernment to spend its money on teachers, road repair workers and rural
postmen.74 In the Dordogne, and throughout the south-west, in the
Maconnais and Morvan in the centre-east, and in other parts of central
France, nobles and clergy were still suspected of plotting to reclaim their
former privileges.75 As late as May–June 1868, disorders would occur in
the Charentes, beginning at Chevanceaux when crowds of peasants tried
to smash a newly erected stained glass window bearing the arms of the
Marquis de Lestranges which it was said heralded the re-establishment of
the ancien régime. The ‘news’ spread rapidly and windows and furnishings
bearing the image of the fleur de lys were destroyed in other churches. The
authorities’ constant anxiety concerning the potency of rumour was cer-
tainly justified.76
More generally, urbanization, industrialization, improved communica-
tions, the spread of literacy, and changing economic structures threatened
to destabilize belief systems and social relationships, to weaken local cul-
tures and community relationships, and make religion less relevant to
people’s daily lives. A greater sense of security developed as a result of
improved communications and the disappearance of dearth after mid-­
century, as well as the declining impact of epidemics. Together with the
stimulus to agricultural innovation afforded by the commercialization and
monetization of the economy, this led to a decline in the appeal of popular
magico-religious practices and in the influence the clergy had managed to
gain from them. Sometimes, traditional practices simply appeared unnec-
essary. Deeper ploughing, the increased use of fertilizers, improved veteri-
nary care and the selective breeding of animals must have made it seem a
little pointless to put branches of consecrated boxwood in the corner of a
field to ensure a good harvest, or in the cowshed to ward off disease.
Prayers to the bons saints like Saint-Viatre in the Sologne became irrele-
vant as the marshes were drained, quinine became available and malaria
disappeared. Such practices lost their utilitarian value and were abandoned.
Many of the seasonal rites which survived lost their original significance
and became forms of entertainment or games for children.
  ANTI-CLERICALISM   341

The clergy had hoped that, by reducing the obsessive need of the poor
to make ends meet, growing prosperity might have allowed more time for
the cultivation of spirituality.77 There were disturbing signs, however, that
industrial development and the commercialization of farming resulted in
wider contacts, rising incomes, and greater material comfort, as well as the
ability of peasants to purchase land or else migrate to the towns. Traditional
conceptions of a God-ordained universe as well as established social rela-
tionships appeared under threat.78 A new rationality became evident in the
spread of birth control, regardless of clerical prohibitions, and in the rural
exodus which revealed the growing interest of the young in urban life and
mores and gradually reduced the vitality of village life. These centuries-old
trends, rapidly accelerating during the critical years of the Second Empire.
were well underway in the Paris region when Mgr Clausel de Montals,
retiring Bishop of Chartres, warned in his farewell message to his clergy in
1852 that ‘religion is only practised by a very small number; mockery and
public indifference are the share of all the others’.79 Processes misleadingly
assumed to involve ‘de-christianization’ were evident in most areas
although ‘detachment’ probably offers a more accurate description.80 If
the ‘rites of passage’ were still overwhelmingly respected, there appeared
to be a real danger of indifference turning into irreverence.81

Notes
1. C.  Pellissier, Les sociabilités patriciennes à Lyon du milieu du 19e siècle à
1914, Doc. de l’Univ.de Lyon II, 1993, pp. 985–1011; M. Sacquin, Entre
Bossuet et Maurras: l’antiprotestantisme en France de 1814 à 1870, 1998,
pp. 89–108.
2. G. Cubitt, The Jesuit myth. Conspiracy theory and politics in 19th century
France, Oxford, 1993, passim; M,Hartman, ‘The Sacrilege Law of 1825 in
France: a study in anticlericalism and mythmaking’, Journal of Modern
History, 1972, pp.  21–3; D.  Colon, ‘Le mythe de la Congrégation: les
Jésuites et les élites des grandes écoles au 19e siècle’ in J-P. Chaline, (ed)
Elites et sociabilité en France, 2005, pp. 171–5.
3. See e.g. Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans au milieu du 19e siècle, 1964,
pp. 478–9.
4. R.  Price, ‘Popular disturbances in the French provinces after the July
Revolution of 1830’, European Studies Review, 1971, pp. 345–6; R. Price,
The Church and the State in France, 1789–1870. ‘Fear of God is the Basis of
Social Order’. 2017, Chap. 3.
5. See e.g. distinctions made by Bishop of Luçon in letter to Min. de l’I.P. et
des C., 14 February 1856, AN F19/5819.
342   R. PRICE

6. E.  Anceau, Les députés du Second Empire, 2000, p.  364; see also
S. Hazareesingh, V. Wright, Francs-Maçons sous le Second Empire. Les loges
provinciales du Grand-Orient à la veille de la 3e République, Rennes, 2001,
p. 164.
7. F. Igersheim, Politique et administration dans le Bas-Rhin, 1848–70, 1993,
p. 326.
8. Copy in AN F19/5609. See also Cour impériale de Paris, Procès de Mgr
Dupanloup, Evêque d’Orléans, Brussels, Librairie polytechnique de
A. Decq, 1860, p. 45.
9. PG Riom to MJ, 4 October 1869, AN F19/5830.
10. Quoted by P.  Boutry, ‘Industrialisation et déstructuration de la société
rurale’ in Joutard, Histoire de la France religieuse, III, p. 275.
11. Procès de la Bible de la Liberté, Paris, Pilot, 1841, pp. 18, 14.
12. Quoted by M. Crubellier, L’enfance et la jeunesse dans la société française,
1800–1950, 1979, p. 190.
13. Quoted by M. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes sous le Second Empire, I, Nantes,
1983, p. 476.
14. E. Renan, Vie de Jésus, 1863, p. 85.
15. Quoted by P.  Boutry, ‘“Vertus d’état et clerge intellectuel”: la crise du
modèle sulpicien dans la formation des prêtres français au 19e siècle’ in
Ecole française de Rome, Problèmes d’histoire de l’éducation, Rome, 1988,
p. 226.
16. See H.  McLeod, Secularisation in western Europe 1848–1914, 2000,
pp. 154–5.
17. B. Voyenne, Proudhon et Dieu, le combat d’un anarchiste, 2004, pp. 55–60;
J. Grévy, ‘Jésus des anticléricaux et les libres penseurs’, in G. Cholvy, (ed)
Figures de Jésus-Christ dans l’histoire, Montpellier, 2000, p. 69.
18. J. Lalouette, La république anticléricale, 2002, pp. 22–23.
19. Quoted by R. Bourgeois, Le fait de La Salette, 1846, 2006, p. 99.
20. 25 Dec. 1864, quoted by J-P. Chaline, La bourgeoisie rouennaise au 19e
siècle, Doc. d’Etat, Univ. de Paris IV, 1979, p.  975; see also J.  Bouflet,
P.  Boutry, Un signe dans le ciel. Les apparitions de la Vierge, 1997,
pp. 13–14.
21. T.  Kselman, Miracles and prophecies in 19th century France, Brunswick,
N.J., p. 52.
22. Letter of Dec. 1864 in La République sous l’Empire. Lettres 1864–70, 1939,
pp. 8–9.
23. See e.g. A. Joskowicz, The Modernity of Others: Jewish anti-Catholicism in
Germany and France, Stanford, 2013, p. 27.
24. Hazareesingh, Wright, Françs-maçons, pp. 170–179; P. Boutry, ‘La gauche
et la religion’ in J-J.  Becker, G.  Candar, (eds) Histoire des gauches, I,
L’héritage du 19e siècle, 2004, p. 329.
  ANTI-CLERICALISM   343

25. See e.g. J. Lalouette, La république anticléricale, pp. 164–6.

26. H. Guillemain, ‘Devenir médecin au 19e siècle. Vocation et sacerdoce au
sein d’une profession laïque’, Annales de Bretagne, 2009, pp. 117–121.
27. See e.g. J. Léonard, Les médecins de l’ouest au 19e siècle, vol. 3, Lille, 1978,
pp. 1285–1302; O. Faure, ‘Les religieuses hospitalières entre médecine et
religion en France au 19e siècle’, in I. von Bueltzingsloewen, D. Pelletier,
(eds) La charité en pratique. Chrétiens français et allemands sur le terrain
social 19e–20e siècles, Strasbourg 1999, p. 51.
28. Procès de la Bible de la Liberté, p. 15.
29. Quoted by Lalouette, La république anticléricale, p. 135.
30. De la confession et du célibat des prêtres, Paris, Revue indépendante, 1845,
p. 299, quoted by Boutry, Prêtres et paroisses au pays de curé d’Ars, 1986,
p.  441. See also S.  Fath, ‘Entre colporteur et confesseur: le choix des
femmes en Picardie au milieu du 19e siècle’, in G. Cholvy, (ed) La religion
et les femmes, Montpellier, 2002, p. 157.
31. Letter of 5 March 1848, AN F19/5728.
32. Du prêtre, de la femme, de la famille, 1845, pp. 264–5.
33. Quoted by J-P. Moisset, ‘Michelet, la femme et le prêtre’, in G. Cholvy,
(ed) La religion et les femmes, p. 141.
34. Quoted by P.  Zind, L’enseignement religieux dans l’instruction primaire
publique en France de 1850 à 1873, Lyon, 1971, p. 220.
35. Pétition au Sénat, 17 March 1867, AN F19/1939.
36. Pétition au Sénat, 2 November 1867, ibid.
37. See e.g. M.  Lagrée, ‘Religion et monde moderne’ in B.  Pellistrandi, (ed)
L’histoire religieuse en France et en Espagne, Madrid, 2004, p. 471; Boutry, ‘La
gauche et la religion’, in Becker, Candar, (eds) Histoire des gauches, pp. 324–5.
38. A. Encreve, ‘Protestantisme et bonapartisme’, Revue d’histoire du 19e siè-
cle, 2004/1, pp. 112–13; E. Mension-Rigau, Le donjon et le clocher. Nobles
et curés de campagne de 1850 à nos jours, 2004, p. 285 on the anti-Protes-
tant attitudes of the Œuvre des campagnes.
39. H.  Taine, Carnets de voyage. Notes sur la province (1863–65), 1897,
pp. 8–9, 344–5.
40. See e.g. R. Rémond, L’anticléricalisme en France de 1815 à nos jours, 1976,
p. 15; G. Weill, ‘L’anticlericalisme sous le Second Empire’, Revue des études
napoléonniennes, 1915, pp.  59; J.  Lalouette, La libre pensée en France,
1848–1940, 1997, p. 84; J.  Baubérot, ‘Sécularisation et laïcisation. Une
trame décisive’, in B. Pellistrandi, (ed) L’histoire religieuse, p. 318.
41. AN C954.
42. AN C954 II.
43. S.  Commissaire, Mémoires et souvenirs, Lyon 1888, pp.  36–7; Bishop of
Saint-Dié to MC, 9 March 1855, AN F19/5776; see also T.  Kselman,
‘The varieties of religious experience in urban France’, in McLeod, (ed)
European religions in the age of the great cities, 1830–1930, 1994, p. 171.
344   R. PRICE

44. Boudon, Paris, p. 316.

45. See e.g. Archbishop of Paris to MC, 16 April 1860, AN F19/5482.
46. J-P. Moisset, ‘Les finances de la culte catholique dans les paroisses urbains’
in P. Boutry, A. Encrève, (eds) La religion dans la ville, 2003, pp. 104–9.
47. Directeur de l’octroi de Paris, Rapport … 26 July 1864, AN F19/5842.
48. Archbishop of Paris to MJ et des C., 20 Jan. 1867, AN F19/5842.
49. C. Duprat, Usages et pratiques de la philanthropie, 1996, p. 41.
50. Letter of 22 Oct. 1864, AN F19/5801.
51. MC, Réponses aux notes remises par l’Empereur au MC sur l’attitude du
clergé, Mars 1863, AN F19/5605.
52. P. Pierrard, La vie ouvrière à Lille sous le Second Empire, 1965, p. 363.
53. For a critical assessment of the value of the Rougon-Maquart cycle to his-
torians, see C.  Charle, ‘Zola et l’histoire’, and P.  Boutry, ‘Zola,
l’anticléricalisme et l’antichristianisme des années 1860 aux années 1880’
in M. Sacquin, (ed) Zola et les historiens, 2004.
54. I. Saint-Martin, Voir, savoir, croire. Catéchismes et pédagogie par l’image au
19e siècle, 2003, p. 522.
55. Published chez Debécourt, rue des Saints-Pères, Paris.
56. Quoted by P. Pierrard, Vie ouvrière, p. 376.
57. Quoted by Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes, II, p. 631, n109.
58. Quoted by Saint-Martin, Voir, savoir, croire, p. 521.
59. Quoted by G. Mas, ‘Internat et travail chrétien au milieu du 19e siècle’, in
O.  Faure, B.  Delpal, (eds) Religion et enfermements (17e–20e siècles),
Rennes, 2005, p. 97.
60. Moniteur de l’Oise, 30 Nov. 1855, AN F19/5786.
61. See e.g. B. Ratcliffe, C. Piette, Vivre la ville. Les classes populaires à Paris
(première moitié du 19e siècle), 2007, p. 466, 487.
62. See e.g. F. Boulard, J. Remy, Pratique religieuse urbaine et régions culturel-
les, 1968, p. 128.
63. S. Blenner-Michel, ‘Sanctifier le dimanche ou le vain combat de l’épiscopat
français au 19e siècle’, Histoire, économie et société, 2009, pp.  36–41;
M. Brejon de Lavergnée, ‘Le repose du dimanche: un exemple de lobbying
catholique en France au milieu du 19e siècle’, ibid., p. 30.
64. Seconde instruction de Mgr Pie sur la loi du Dimanche, carême 1860, AN
F19/5748.
65. G.  Cholvy, Religion et société au 19e siècle. Le diocese de Montpellier, II,
Lille, 1973, p. 1326; see also R. Price, ‘Poor relief and social crisis in mid-
nineteenth century France’, European studies review, 1983, pp. 446–7.
66. ‘L’ouvrier manufacturier dans la société religieuse et conservatrice’
included in the Almanach de l’exil (1855).
67. A. Corbon, Le secret du people de Paris, 1863, pp. 301–2.
  ANTI-CLERICALISM   345

68. Ibid., p. 386; see also e.g. M. Boivin, Le mouvement ouvrier dans la région
de Rouen, Vol. I, 1989, p.  146; R.  Price, ‘Poor relief and social crisis’,
pp. 447–8.
69. A. de Magnitot, De l’assistance et de l’extinction de la mendicité, 1855,
pp. 401–2—emphasis in the original.
70. Quoted by M. Brejon de Lavergnée, La Société de Saint-Vincent-de-Paul
au 19e siècle. Un fleuron du catholicisme social, 2008, p.  202. See also
Brejon de Lavergnée, ‘Ville et charité. Une sociologie des hommes
d’œuvres au 19e siècle (Paris, 1840–70)’ Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de
France, 2008, p. 80.
71. S. Kale, Legitimism and the reconstruction of French society, 1852–83, 1992,
p. 160.
72. Quoted by Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes, II, p. 638.
73. A. Vermorel, Le parti socialiste, Paris, 1870.
74. Date of receipt stamped—Cabinet de L’Empereur, 23 March 1868, AN
F19/5865.
75. See e.g. L.  Pinard, Les mentalités religieuses du Morvan au 19e siècle
(1830–1914), Château-Chinon, 1997, p. 211.
76. PG Bordeaux, 9 July 1868, AN BB30/385; ibid., 27 July 1868, AN
BB18/1767; A.  Corbin, Le village des cannibales, 1991, pp.  10–31;
F. Pairault, ‘Anticléricalisme et bonapartisme dans les Charentes: les trou-
bles religieux de 1868’, Revue de la Saintonge et de l’Aunis, 1993 passim;
F. Ploux, De bouche à oreille. Naissance et propagation des rumeurs dans la
France du 19e siècle, 2003, pp. 206–211.
77. E.g. response to 1848 Enquête. from Villeneuve-sur-Yonne, AN C968.
78. E.g. Acad. de Clermont 3 April 1858 re Cantal and Creuse AN F17/2649.
79. Quoted by J-C.  Farcy, Les paysans beaucerons au 19e siècle, II, Chartres,
1989, p. 884.
80. G.  Cholvy, Christianisme et société en France au 19e siècle, 1790–1914,
2001, p. 120.
81. See e.g. Rapport trimestriel. Académie de Dijon, re. Aube, AN F17/2649;
F. Chauvaud, Les passions villageois au 19e siècle. Les émotions rurales dans
les pays de Beauce, du Hurepoix et du Mantois, 1991, p. 138.
 CHAPTER 9

Conclusion

The centuries-long process of post-Tridentine reform had nevertheless

enjoyed considerable success. The clergy had struggled to purify the faith,
reinforce their own influence, and to impose ‘decent behaviour’ on the
population.1 Influenced by Romanticism, and a desperate response to
Revolution, ultramontane priests and an educated laity had subsequently
promoted a more emotional, mystical and militant affirmation of the mys-
teries of the Christian faith designed to encourage ‘re-christianization’ by
means of a reaffirmation and strengthening of popular piety combined
with a reinforcement of clerical control.2 Modification of the forms of
devotion ensured a focus on Jesus and the Holy Family, and particularly
on the Virgin Mary; on the more frequent practice of communion; the
organization of numerous pious associations; and the publication of pious
works and reproduction of images intended to stimulate devotion in the
home and church. Considerable efforts were made to preserve the young
from the spirit of scepticism and to ensure that religious faith offered guid-
ance in every sphere of human activity. An idealized popular vision of
Rome and the Papacy was also conceived, inspired by the historical tri-
umph of Christianity over paganism, and reinforced by an intense, and
increasingly popular determination to support the cause of an embattled
Papacy and Universal Church, inaugurating in many regions a dynamic
religious revival, the long-term impact of which was still evident in the
1950s and beyond.3

© The Author(s) 2018 347

R. Price, Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67196-3_9
348   R. PRICE

To a substantial degree, the Church managed to restore the spiritual

damage inflicted by the revolution(s). Success was most likely among
nobles; a conservative bourgeoisie; women and peasants, and in regions
with already high levels of religious practice, in which the clergy could
expect considerable communal support. Taking place over generations,
these developments rarely, however, took a simple linear form. Moreover,
once a critical threshold had been passed, and the social pressure for reli-
gious conformity had weakened, recovery would prove far more difficult
than it had previously been.4 The revival of the revolutionary menace in
1848 provided further evidence of a world in flux. It, however, reinforced
the intransigent determination of the Church and of its clergy and laity to
defend their particular perception(s) of social ‘reality’, to conserver le bien,
and safeguard the established social system. These were the vital means of
protecting the universal ‘moral order’ necessary for the transmission of
religious ‘truth’. This required a constant struggle against the competing
discourses set in motion by Reformation, Enlightenment and Revolution.
According to Louis Veuillot: ‘Two powers exist and are in conflict in
the modern world: Revelation and Revolution.’5 His friend, Donose
Cortès, the widely read Spanish theologian and diplomat, insisted that
‘free parliamentary discussion was incompatible with the quest for truth
and sure to lead to social ruin’ through the publicity accorded to debates
in the press, and the accelerated circulation of ‘erroneous’ ideas. He added
that there could be no compromise in the battle with Satan. An ‘immense
abyss, absolute antagonism’ existed between modern civilization and
Christianity.6 As the Church endeavoured to sustain its influence, Pius IX,
in the encyclical Quanta cura and the Syllabus of Errors, would forcefully
denounce ‘the principal errors of our times’. His initiatives would rein-
force the interaction between the theological/ideological and political/
diplomatic strategies of the Church and thus the political importance of
religion.7
The long-maturing Syllabus of Errors had represented an uncompro-
mising condemnation of ‘progress, liberalism and modern civilization’.
The Pope had furthermore assured Catholics, in a sermon delivered in the
Sistine Chapel on 17 June 1869, that just as God had ‘destroyed the first
revolutionaries, the demons’, so He would destroy the latest manifestation
of revolution, ‘socialism, which condemns and denies religion, morality
and God himself’.8 The constitution Pastor aeternus voted on 18 July
1870 by the Vatican Council moreover demanded that Catholics accept
the ‘duty of hierarchical subordination and of true obedience not only in
  CONCLUSION   349

questions concerning faith and morality but also those which touch on the
discipline and government of the Church’. It confirmed the accumulation
of power by the Pope and the small group of men who as members of the
curia advised His Holiness and sought to impose his wishes.
Even at this moment of apparent triumph, well-informed French com-
mentators nevertheless wondered whether ‘the religious reaction which
occurred after 1848’ was ‘as profound as one would have wished, and
whether it does not reduce itself to an honest illusion with which the
clergy, in good faith, has been taken in’.9 Industrialization, the commer-
cialization of agriculture, migration, urbanization and the complex
changes in mentalities, the cultural revolution, which was part of these
processes, threatened to reduce popular dependence on religious ideals
and on the Church which promoted them. Indifference and ‘materialism’
appeared to be spreading. The context within which the Church operated
was changing, gradually, but more rapidly than ever before. Coming to
terms with these developments would inevitably prove difficult. Indeed, as
the beatification of Pius IX in 2000, and proclamation of the ‘heroic vir-
tues’ of Pius XII in December 2010, seemed to indicate, the hierarchical
structure of the Church and the authoritarian nature of its God-given
leadership encouraged a dangerous long-term conservatism.
Understanding the past is a problem, both for the Christian, inspired
by notions of the expression of God’s goodness, and for the non-believer
concerned by the apparent chaos of events. Nevertheless, one of the clear
lessons of history, and indeed of contemporary politics, is that religious
beliefs serve as a powerful motivating force. Religion can offer love and
inspiration. Religion can also serve as a negative influence, an obstacle to
‘reason’, equality, and human fulfilment, anti-democratic, homophobic,
and committed to the subordination of women. The Roman Catholic
Church itself can be perceived as a divinely inspired institution or else as
an all too fallible human creation. Whichever view is correct, it is impos-
sible to ignore the claim—affirmed with such clarity by Pius IX—that it is
only through submission to the authority of the Pope, as the representa-
tive of the Divine Will, that sinful humans can find Truth, and with it, real
liberty, genuine happiness, and Eternal Salvation. It is through the con-
tinuing effort to achieve these objectives that the Church manifests itself
in society, firm in the belief that the restoration of its influence and power
is part of the Divine Plan. It is, however, difficult to avoid concluding in
the light of an analysis of events in France during a revolutionary century
that, in spite of the efforts of numerous good and caring priests, as an
350   R. PRICE

institution, the Church largely existed in and for itself, concerned to estab-
lish and to preserve bureaucratic and hierarchical structures; to impose the
authority of a leader who assumed a quasi-divine status in representing the
Word of God; and to engage in a self-centred alliance with social and
political conservatives and authoritarian leaders committed to
counter-revolution.

Notes
1. See e.g. M. Lagrée, M. Denis, Aspects de la vie religieuse en Ille-et-Vilaine,
1815–48, Thèse de 3e cycle, Univ. de Rennes 2, 1974, p. 398; M. Launay,
‘Les procès verbaux de visites pastorales ans le diocèse de Nantes au milieu
du 19e siècle’, Annales de Bretagne, 1975, p. 192; S. Milbach, Prêtres histo-
riens et pèlerinages du diocèse de Dijon, Dijon, 2000, p. 82.
2. Milbach, Prêtres historiens, pp. 331–2.
3. See e.g. Horaist, B., La dévotion au Pape et les catholiques français sous le
pontificat de Pie IX (1846–78) d’après les archives de la Bibliothèque
Apostolique Vaticane, Rome, 1995, p. 15; C. Amalvi, ‘Le mythe de Rome
dans la littérature catholique destinée aux écoles et aux foyers chrétiens de
1830 à 1930’, in H.  Multon, C.  Sorrel, (eds) L’idée de Rome: pouvoirs,
représentations, conflits, Chambéry, 2006, pp. 111–116.
4. E.g. C.  Marcilhacy, Le diocèse d’Orléans au milieu du 19e siècle, 1964,
pp.  338, 573; P.  Lévêque, ‘Conservatisme sans cléricalisme. L’évolution
politique du châtillonnais aux 19e et 20e siècles’, in A.  Faure, A.  Plessis,
J-C. Farcy, (eds) La terre et la cité. Mélanges offerts à Philippe Vigier, 1994,
pp. 334–5.
5. L’illusion libérale (1866) quoted by P. Colin, L’audace et le soupçon. La crise
du modernisme dans le catholicisme français 1893–1914, 1997, p. 52.
6. Essai sur le catholicisme, le libéralisme et le socialisme, 1851, quoted by
R. Aubert, Le pontificat de Pie IX(1846–70), 1952, p. 226; C. Clark, ‘From
1848 to Christian Democracy’, in I. Katznelson, G. Stedman Jones, (eds)
Religion and the political imagination, Cambridge, 2010, p. 204.
7. See also J. de Maeyer, V.  Viaene, (eds) World views and worldly wisdom.
Religion, ideology and politics, 1750–2000, Leuven 2016, p. 9.
8. Printed in L’Univers, 24 June 1869.
9. Academic Rector of the Académie of Clermont, Report of 17 April 1858,
AN F17/2649.
 Appendices

Approaches
The literature on religious history is vast. For centuries, it was largely con-
fused with Church or ecclesiastical history, and dominated by theological
considerations—with Divine Revelation rather than the course of human
history. The partial opening of the Vatican archives in 1883 by Pope Leo
XIII certainly did much to encourage study of the Roman Catholic Church
as well as the integration of history and theology. The Pope was convinced
that an honest search for the ‘truth’ would confound liberal critics and
that it was the responsibility of Catholic historians to ‘energetically endeav-
our to refute lies and falsehoods, through recourse to the sources, whilst
constantly bearing in mind that the first law of history is never to lie; the
second is not to be afraid to speak the truth’. His Holiness was convinced
that ‘History has proclaimed that in spite of conflicts and violent assaults,
the Roman pontificate has always remained victorious, whilst its adversar-
ies, disappointed in their hopes, have only provoked their own ruin.’1
Historiographical fashions, however, change. Academic historians have
long challenged the dominance of theologians and are today far less likely
to engage in the search for religious truth. Nevertheless, the responses to
a questionnaire from Jean Delumeau asking fellow Catholic historians
whether their religious beliefs influenced their practice suggests that a
committed Catholic historian, a believer in the Divine origins of the

© The Author(s) 2018 351

R. Price, Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67196-3
352   APPENDICES

Church, and in the infallibility of its popes, might be reluctant to engage

in a critical approach to the history of the Church as a fallible human
institution.2 Thus, one contributor, Pierre Pierrard, the distinguished his-
torian of working-class Lille, insisted that ‘objectivity’ did not mean ‘neu-
trality’.3 Many edifying works continue to appear, posing as histories, but
in effect often continuing an age-old tradition of hagiography, their objec-
tive being to represent a life characterized by ‘qualities, which are those of
a saint, of an individual in direct relation with the divinities’.4 The numer-
ous biographies of Pius IX frequently exhibit these characteristics, present-
ing the figure of the pope martyr et héroique, angélique and innocent.5
While clearly sensitive to the problem, and insisting that ‘theological inter-
ests’ should not be allowed ‘to settle historical questions’, Rowan Williams,
when Archbishop of Canterbury, hoped to read Church history in a man-
ner which is ‘theologically sensitive’, looking to the past ‘for what feeds
and nourishes belief now’.6 In contrast, the historian Jean Quéniart felt
bound to assert that ‘History is the science of man and of society: God is,
if I dare say, outside its field of competence.’
To some degree, since the late 1920s, the edifying and primarily insti-
tutional histories or biographies favoured by Catholic historians, often
themselves members of the clergy, have gradually fallen by the wayside,
and been replenished by more questioning, objective and ‘scientific’
approaches. The range of subjects studied and of interpretative models
employed has been broadened.7 A major stimulus to change was initially
provided by the eminent Catholic religious sociologists Gabriel Le Bras
and the Abbé Boulard, prompted by concern about the apparent decline
of religious practice and influenced by the pioneering study of ‘clericalism’
in western France by the political sociologist André Siegfried, but also in
Le Bras’ case, by contact with his one-time colleagues at the University of
Strasbourg, Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre—founders of the Annales
School. Influenced by Durkheim’s sociology, they were committed to the
study of collective mentalities in evolving material and social environ-
ments, to the history of religion rather than ‘Church history’.8 They were
interested in the study of the thoughts and aspirations, the hopes and
fears, and the piety of ordinary men and women over la longue durée.9 The
establishment of the journal Archives de sociologie religieuse (later Archives
de sciences sociales de religion) in 1956, associated with Michel de Certeau,
further represented this determination to adopt a social and cultural his-
tory approach to the study of religious institutions and practice which
should combine theology, historical and religious sociology, demographic
  APPENDICES 
   353

history and historical anthropology to set the social context for developing
religious belief systems.10
It was evident moreover that the character and intensity of religious
belief and practice varied considerably between regions—often small in
scale—as well as between social and cultural milieux, genders and genera-
tions. The diocese, normally co-existing with the administrative depart-
ment, and incorporating within itself substantial geographical, social and
cultural diversity, appeared to be an ideal unit of analysis. The combined
resources of the diocesan and departmental archives—both offering evi-
dence of close State supervision of the clergy—provided a tempting range
of sources for research. In 1962, the first part of the seminal dissertation
by Christiane Marcilhacy on Le diocèse d’Orléans sous l’épiscopat de Mgr
Dupanloup (1849–78)—subtitled Sociologie religieuse et mentalités collec-
tives—was published, followed two years later by Le diocèse d’Orléans au
milieu du 19e siècle. Les hommes et leurs mentalités. Together with
L. Pérouas, Le diocèse de La Rochelle de 1648 à 1726. Sociologie et pastorale,
published in the same year, these studies provided evidence of the
­continuing development of new approaches to the history of religion. A
series of diocesan studies followed, which similarly combined religious and
social history.11 To these might be added more broadly based regional
studies organized around the study of geography, economy, society,
mentalities—including religion and politics.12 Gérard Cholvy, echoing the
totalizing ambitions of the leading academic patrons Fernand Braudel and
Ernest Labrousse, saw his task as being to develop ‘a problematic which
seeks to reveal the impact of transformations of the material, intellectual or
social civilisation on the lives and mentalities of believers’.13 Labrousse
himself was convinced of the need to study ‘the religious dimension of
human life, essential to comprehension of the total, indivisible being that
social history aims to understand’.14
The Marxisant approaches favoured by students of Braudel and
Labrousse, nevertheless, and for a variety of intellectual and institutional
reasons, fell from favour. Although one should not ignore the valuable
research conducted, or the often refined analysis found in much of this
work, the tendency towards reductionism evident in studies which anal-
ysed religion in large part as a representation of economic and social struc-
tures and relationships—of class—and often as a manifestation of
backwardness was increasingly questioned.15 There had been a marked
tendency to assume that ‘the dwindling social significance of religion is the
inevitable consequence of the process of social development in modern
354   APPENDICES

societies’.16 In Western Europe, religion was widely perceived to have

become increasingly ‘marginalized’ or at least ‘diluted’.17 However,
debates founded on once central linear and monolithic and essentially
teleological concepts like ‘secularization’, ‘de-christianization’ and ‘mod-
ernization’—associated with the improvement of communications, grow-
ing urbanization, wider literacy, and politicization—were increasingly
subjected to a ‘revisionism’ stimulated in large part by diocesan studies
which had identified complex, inter-related and geographically diverse
processes of religious decline and revival.18 Within this perspective, reli-
gious institutions and the interaction between elite and popular religiosity
might be considered as agents of modernity rather than features of
backwardness.19
Influenced by largely Italian anthropological approaches as well as by
the work of historians of the medieval and early modern periods, modern
historians also began to take a greater interest in religious culture—in the
‘specific actions, motivations and experience of individual and groups’, in
beliefs and faith, religious art and buildings, and in parish life.20 By the
mid-1970s, Alphonse Dupront and Jean Delumeau were calling for an
attempt to understand the beliefs of men and women in the past, for a
greater comprehension of l’homme religieux, which would necessarily
employ a much wider range of sources.21 The focus subsequently again
shifted towards ‘history from below’ as well as social and cultural history.22
Ralph Gibson underlined the pressing need to ask such fundamental ques-
tions as ‘What does being a Christian mean? By what kinds of behaviour
can the historian recognise a Christian in societies of the past?’23 Growing
interest in women’s history and in the impact of the Church’s teachings
on sexual relations were also evident in the pioneering works of Claude
Langlois, Le catholicisme au féminin. Les congrégations françaises à supéri-
eure générale au 19e siècle (1984) and Le crime d’Onan. Le discours
catholique sur la limitation des naissances (2005). At the same time a
renewal of the history of the institutional Church was evident, involving,
for example, an emphasis on prosopography in place of biography in
J-O.  Boudon, L’épiscopat français à l’époque concordataire, 1802–1905
(1996), as well as in his study of Paris, capitale religieuse sous le Second
Empire (2001). This is not to deny the considerable value of such classic
institutional histories as Jean Maurain’s—La politique ecclésiastique du
Second Empire de 1852 à 1869 (1930) and R. Aubert’s, Le pontificat de Pie
IX (1952), and their contribution to debates on religion and political
power, nor can it do more than hint at the path forward.
  APPENDICES 
   355

Sources
In writing this book the most significant single source has been the archives
of the Ministère des Cultes. Organized by diocese, these provide evidence
of the routine activity of bishops and their clergy, and, crucially, of their
relationships with each other, as well as with officialdom and the laity.24
The essential weakness of this material is a tendency to focus on the nega-
tive. Letters, petitions and reports from communities, private individuals,
and officials were all too likely—given their high expectations—to com-
plain about parish priests who were judged to be failing in their duties. A
far more positive representation of the Church, and of its theology and
pastoral activities, was, however, provided by numerous pastoral letters,
sermons—although going beyond printed texts to the less eloquent, more
homely spoken version is inevitably difficult; spiritual guides; and debates
on theological, liturgical and organizational issues; in pamphlets, newspa-
pers, journals, and books; in innumerable obituaries; as well as in social
enquiries. I originally planned to make use of a selection of diocesan
archives but finally determined that I could more effectively take advan-
tage of centralized archival sources supplemented by the numerous doc-
toral theses and published studies of particular dioceses.
A dialectic, or complex of dialectics, developed between an authoritar-
ian Pope, his bishops and priests, and between members of the clergy,
representatives of the State, and the laity in general. Although the Vatican
archives have not been directly consulted, Papal instructions, as well as the
convoluted politics of the Roman curia, have certainly been taken into
account. The information derived from clerical sources has also been sup-
plemented with the letters and publications of those who possessed the
leisure, literary skills and self-awareness which encouraged them to com-
mit to paper definitions of their own beliefs and descriptions of relation-
ships with the Church and individual priests. Educated laymen might
indeed adopt leadership roles not entirely compatible with the claims to
superior status invoked by the clergy. The main problem is the silence of
the masses—letter writing, much less memoirs are rare, and probably
unrepresentative, although much can be gleaned from a mass of appar-
ently unlikely sources.
The development of the ‘information state’ obsessed with ‘public opin-
ion’ ensured regular and detailed reporting by government agents and
especially those employed by the ministries of the Interior, Justice, War
and Education, as well as Cultes. Prefects and state prosecutors, academic
356   APPENDICES

rectors and schools inspectors, the commanders of military divisions and

of gendarmerie legions—together with their subordinates (and particu-
larly mayors)—were all required to provide reports on the political situa-
tion, economic conditions, on social relationships and religious life,
particularly during periods of political tension, and in response to the
introduction of manhood suffrage in 1848. The effectiveness of these
bureaucratic reporting systems of course varied. Indeed, each of these
sources of information has its shortcomings. All are more or less partial
and based upon a mass of preconceptions which are not always clearly
evident. Reports on the ‘popular classes’ were all too likely to be obfus-
cated by social distance, mutual suspicion, linguistic differences, and
assigned ‘codes’ and ‘roles’ and by stereotyped perceptions of the ‘other’.25
A prefect’s reports and actions might combine the demands of administra-
tive routine with the reflexes of a practising member of the Church. The
‘procédures d’élaboration de ce savoir’ and their internal logic need
repeatedly to be defined.26 Established procedures to a large degree deter-
mined the form, structure, regularity and language of official documenta-
tion. The obligation to write ensured that many reports were repetitive
and conformist ‘rapports sur rien’, employing an orthodox discourse and
drawing upon an administrative ‘memory’ in an attempt to impress supe-
riors. Reports from the state prosecutors (procureur généraux) to the
garde des sceaux (or Minister of Justice) appear to have been the most
carefully prepared. Taken together with various, less regular, social enqui-
ries—these diverse sources at least allow for an accumulation of detail and
variation in the source and scale of observation.27 The determination of
the Bonapartist regime to appear accessible to its citizens also made it pos-
sible for quite humble citizens to avail themselves occasionly—as a ‘rèmede
extrême’—of the right to petition ministers or even the Head of State.28
At the very least, the adoption of a multiplicity of ‘frames of reference’
offers the historian a means of comparing, contrasting and assessing the
potential value of particular reports.29 Every source needs to be carefully
‘deconstructed’ if we are to consider seriously what religion meant and
how it influenced conduct, i.e. the relationship between dogma and prac-
tice. The more sustained and refined analysis of ‘text’—whatever its
form—demanded by the ‘linguistic turn’—offers insights into the nature
of discourse and the everyday use of language vital in the analysis of the
diffusion (and reinterpretation) of religious ideas from theologians,
through institutional networks of priests, to the ‘people of God’. This
might be seen to justify the author’s frequent recourse to quotation.
  APPENDICES 
   357

Select Bibliography

Unpublished Primary Sources

1. Archives Nationales
Series BB: Justice
BB II 1118—results of plebiscite of 21–22 December, 1851
BB18: correspondance générale
BB30: Rapports des procureurs généraux
Series C: Assemblée Nationale
C930, 934–942 Enquiry into the events of May and June 1848:
evidence
C943–69 Enquête sur le travail agricole et industriel. Décret du 25 mai
1848
C1157–61 Agricultural enquiry 1870
C3078–81 Public assistance
Series F: Administration
F1a 10: Proclamations et actes publics des préfets à l’occasion des évé-
nements de décembre 1851 et janvier 1852
F1cIII: Correspondance des préfets
Police générale
F7: rapports et correspondance reçus par le ministère de l’Intérieure
3909–4210: correspondance des préfets
F11: Subsistence
2734 Enquête agricole 1866
F12: Commerce and Industry
2370–4 Wages, living standards
2337–8, 2446, 7600 economic effects of 1848 revolution
2495–6 economic situation 1849–51
3109–21 reports of worker delegates to Exposition universelle 1867
4651–2 Strikes: Second Empire
F17: Education
2649 Rapports trimestriels de l’état politique, moral et religieux,
1858–9
9109–14 Preparation and implementation of 1833 and 1850 laws
9146 Popular literature
9279–80, 9312–3, 9373–4 Reports of academic rectors and school
inspectors
358   APPENDICES

10758–85 Teachers mémoires on needs of primary education in rural

communes
F18: Press
294 Situation de la presse départementale 1868
297 Inspection générale de l’imprimerie, de la librairie et du colportage
F19: Cultes
1850–1857 Administration centrale des cultes
1872–1900 Législation et réglementation
1936 Relations entre la France et le Saint-Siège
1987–2007 Journaux et correspondance
5448–5501 Mandements épiscopaux et lettres pastorales
5599–5600 Police des cultes. Généralités. Restauration
5601–5603 Monarchie de Juillet
5604 Seconde République
5605–5609 Second Empire
5659–5947 Classement par diocèses 1830–1880
6286 Congrégations religieuses
F70: 422 Voyages de l’Empereur
O: Maison de l’Empereur
297, 305 Presse parisienne
Series AB
AB XIX 159–178 Papers confiscated from the Tuileries Palace in 1870
687–9 Collection Duménil: popular newspapers, almanacs, etc.
1707–8 telegrammes 18–20 June 1870
3320–1 diverse, including letters from Blanc, Thiers, Veuillot, etc.
Series AD
AD XIX S 1–7 Paris Prefecture of Police: administration; subsistence
1858–60
AD XIX H 48 Rapport à S.M. l’Empereur sur l’état de l’enseignement
primaire … 1863
Series AP (Private Papers)
44 AP 1 Persigny
43 AP Faucher
45 AP 1–3, 6–11, 23–4 Rouher
116 AP 1 Maurin
246 AP Fortoul
271 AP 4–5 Barrot
400 AP 41–44, 54, 67, 69, 93, 129, 139, 144, 150 Bonaparte family
639 AP 1 Cremieux
  APPENDICES 
   359

2. Archives de la Préfecture de Police

Aa 427–429 Evénements divers 1848
432 workers associations and secret societies
433 events of December 1851
434 attentats et complots Second Empire

3. Archives du Service historique de l’Armée de Terre

E5 153–159 Correspondance générale, 1846–7
F1: Correspondance militaire générale: République de 1848
9 Correspondance générale 16–30 juin 1848
16–17 Rapports des 5 jours (1848–49)
51–54 Correspondance générale 2 December 1851–January 1852
G8: 1–176 Correspondance générale Second Empire

4. Bibliothèque Nationale
n.a.f. 23064–6 Persigny papers
n.a.f. 20617–9 Thiers papers

5. National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth

Nassau William Senior papers A36, 39–40; C75, 83–4, 132, 214, 249,
260, 267, 332–3, 256, 367, 445, 450–1, 479, 707, 745, 817

6. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Labadie collection of material on ‘Nineteenth Century French Political
Trials’

7. Published Primary Sources

Official Publications, Collections of Documents

Assemblée nationale, Rapport de la commission d’enquête sur l’insurrection

qui a éclaté dans la journée du 23 juin et sur les évènements du 15 mai, 2
vols, 1848.
Assemblée nationale, Enquête parlementaire sur l’insurrection du 18 mars
1871, Versailles, 1872.
Assemblée nationale, Enquête parlementaire sur les actes du Gouvernement
de la Défense nationale, 1876 7 vols.
Chesseneau, G., (ed) La Commission extra-parlementaire de 1849, Orleans,
1937.
360   APPENDICES

Conseil municipal de Paris, Projet de circonscription des paroisses de Paris.

Rapport fait au nom de la Commission spéciale par M. Bonjean, Paris,
Vinchon, 1855.
Cour impériale de Paris, Quelques extraits des Mystères du Peuple par
Eugène Sue soumis à la Cour pour la défense de M.de la Chatre appelant
du jugement du 25 septembre 1857 qui l’a condamné à raison de la pub-
lication de cet ouvrage, Paris, 1857.
Cour impériale de Paris, Procès de Mgr Dupanloup, Evêque d’Orléans,
Brussels, Librairie polytechnique de A. Decq, 1860.
Cour impériale de Paris, Deuxième procès des ouvriers typographes en 1re
instance et en appel juillet 1862, 1862.
Cour impériale de Paris, Affaire du Comité électoral dite des Treize.
Réquisitoire et réplique de M. le Procureur Général Marnas, 1864.
Cour impériale de Paris, Chambre des Appels correctionnels. Audience du 9
mai 1867, 1867.
Cour impériale de Paris, Les procès de presse depuis la loi du 11 mai 1868
jusqu’à 1 janvier 1869, 1869.
Documents pour servir à l’histoire du Second Empire: circulaires, rapports,
notes et instructions confidentielles, 1872.
Edelston, T.H., (ed) Napoleon III. Speeches from the throne, Cambridge,
1931.
Gréard, O., L’enseignement primaire à Paris et dans le département de la
Seine de 1867 à 1877, 1878.
Magnitot, A. de, Préfet de la Nièvre, De l’assistance et de l’extinction de la
Mendicité, 1855.
Maurain, J., (ed) Le Saint-Siège et la France de décembre 1851 à avril 1853.
Documents inédits, 1930.
Ministère de l’agriculture …, Enquête agricole, 37 vols, 1867–72.
Ministère de l’Instruction Publique, Etat de l’instruction primaire en 1864
après les rapports des Inspecteurs d’Académie, 2 vols, 1866.
Procès des accuses du 13 juin 1849 précédé du procès du citoyen Huber
(affaire du 15 mai 1848) devant la haute cour de justice, Paris: chez
Ballard, 1849.
Procès-verbaux du Gouvernement provisoire et de la Commission du pouvoir
exécutif, 1950.
Papiers et correspondance de la famille impériale, 2 vols, 1871.
Papiers sauvés des Tuileries, Holt, R., (ed) 1871.
Papiers secrets et correspondance du Second Empire, Poulet-Malassis, (ed),
1873 (2nd ed.).
  APPENDICES 
   361

Pièces saisies aux archives de la police politique de Lyon. Publiée par ordre du
Conseil municipal, Lyon, 1870.
Rapport de la Commission de l’Assistance et de la Prévoyance publique,
1850’, in Discours parlementaire de M. Thiers, vol. 8, 1880.
Rapport à M. le Préfet de la Seine sur le service de la distribution des bons
supplémentaires du prix du pain delivers aux indigents et aux familles
nécessiteuses de la ville de Paris en 1846 et 1847, 1848.
Robert, C., (secrétaire-général du Ministère de l’Instruction publique) De
l’ignorance des populations ouvrières et rurales de la France et des causes
qui tendent à la perpétuer, Montbéliard, 1862.
Watteville, Baron de, Inspecteur général des établissements de bienfai-
sance, Rapport à son excellence le Ministère de l’Intérieur sur
l’administration des bureaux de bienfaisance et sur la situation du pau-
périsme en France, 1854.

8. Newspapers and Periodicals
L’Ami du peuple, Annales de l’agriculture française, Annales des ponts et
chaussées, Bulletin de la Société Franklin, Le Constitutionnel, L’Ere nou-
velle, La Gazette de France, La Gazette des Tribunaux, Journal
d’agriculture pratique, Journal des chemins de fer, Journal des
Economistes, La Liberté (Rouen), Le Monde, Moniteur industriel, La
Mutualité, Le National, Le Peuple, La Presse, La Réforme, Le
Représentant du Peuple, La Révolution démocratique et sociale, Le Revue
des Deux Mondes, Le Siècle, L’Union, L’Univers, La Voix du Peuple, La
Vrai République.

9. Contemporary books and pamphlets

(place of publication Paris and London unless otherwise stated)

About, E., La question romaine, 1859.

Allain-Targé, H., La république sous l’Empire. Lettres 1867–70, 1939.
Albiot, J., Les campagnes électorales 1851–69, 1869.
Anon, De la question du paupérisme sous le point de vue politique et social,
ou Mémoire à l’occasion de la statistique des pauvres, Paris, chez
Debécourt, 1842.
Anon, L’Armée et le socialisme, simples réflexions sur la question du moment,
par un paysan qui a été soldat, 1849.
Anon, Le Socialisme c’est la famine, Bordeaux, 1849.
362   APPENDICES

Anon, La solution donnée par le Président de la République aux sinistres

complications qui pressaient la France avant le 2 décembre 1851, peut-elle
être considérée comme définitive?, 1852.
Anon, Vive l’Empire, 1852.
Anon, De l’enquête agricole par un médecin de campagne, Châteauroux,
1866.
Anon, De la nécessité d’un Nouveau coup d’état avant le couronnement de
l’édifice, 1869.
Anon, Rapport à l’Empereur sur le moyen d’assurer le succès des élections,
1869.
Anon, Etat de l’ignorance dans le département de la Loire, 1870.
Anon, Circulaire en faveur du plébiscite, Rive-de-Gier, 1870.
Anon, Appel aux électeurs de la 3e circonscription de l’Ain, Lyon, 1870.
Apponyi, R., De la révolution au coup d’état, Geneva, 1948.
Arago, E. et al, Manifeste de la gauche, 1870.
Arnaud, F., La révolution de 1869, 1869.
Audiganne, A., Les populations ouvrières et les industries de la France dans
le mouvement social du 19e siècle 2 vols, 1854.
‘B’., Notes et reflexions pour M. le Comte de Chambord, 1870.
Baillès, Mgr., Instruction pastorale de Mgr l’évêque de Luçon sur l’Index des
livres prohibés’, Paris, Lecoffre, 1852.
Bonnet, A., Enquête sur la situation et les besoins de l’agriculture, Dijon, 1867.
Barrot, O, Mémoires posthumes vols II, III, IV, 1875–76.
Bastelica, A., Avertissement aux travailleurs électeurs de Marseille. Le suf-
frage universel et la révolution, Marseille, 1869.
Baudry, E., Les paysans aux élections de 1869, 1869.
Benoist, J. Confessions d’un prolétaire, 1968.
Benoist, M. de, Utopies d’un paysan, Clermont-Ferrand, 1867.
Bergier, J. Le journal d’un bourgeois de Lyon en 1848, n.d.
Bersot, E, La presse dans les départements, 1867.
Blanc, L., Les prochaines élections en France, London, 1857.
Blanc de St-Bonnet, De la Restauration française. Mémoire au clergé et à
l’aristocratie, 1851.
Blanqui, A., ‘Les populations rurales de la France en 1850’ Annales pro-
vençales d’agriculture 1851.
Bonsens, M., Dialogues électoraux. L’ouvrier, le bourgeois, le paysan, 1869.
Boucher de Perthes, J. Misère, émeute, choléra, Abbeville, 1849.
Brame, J., De l’émigration des campagnes, Lille, 1859.
Bugeaud, Marshal, Veillées d’une chaumière de la Vendée, Lyon, 1849.
  APPENDICES 
   363

Camp, M. du, Souvenirs d’un demi-siècle 2 vols, 1949.

Carcy, F. de, Mémoires, Metz, 1979.
Castel, M., Les grèves et l’assassinat de M. Watrin, Saint-Etienne, 1866.
Castellane, Maréchal de, Journal, vols IV, V, 1897.
Chaline, (ed) Deux bourgeois en leur temps: documents sur la société rouen-
naise du 19e siècle, Rouen, 1977.
Chanpreau, R.P., Méditations à l’usage des maisons d’éducation I 1857.
Chassay, Abbé, La femme chrétienne dans ses rapports avec le monde, 1851.
Chaudey, G., L’Empire parlementaire est-il possible?, 1870.
Chevalier, M., Des forces alimentaires des états et des devoirs du gouverne-
ment dans la crise actuelle, 1847.
Cheysson, E., Le Creusot, conditions matérielles, intellectuelles et morales de
la population, institutions et relations sociales, 1869.
Clarentie, J., La volonté du peuple, 1869.
Cochin, A., Paris, sa population, son industrie, 1864.
Combes, A. and H., Les paysans français, 1855.
Comité électoral de la rue de Poitiers, Simples réflexions morales et poli-
tiques, 1849.
Commissaire, S., Mémoires et souvenirs, 2 vols, 1888.
Commune révolutionnaire …, Lettre au Peuple, London, 1852.
Constans, Dr. A., Relation sur une épidemie d’hystero-démonopathie en
1861, Paris, Delahaye, 2nd ed., 1863.
Corbon, A., Le secret du people de Paris, 1863.
Cottin, P., De l’enseignement primaire dans les campagnes et de son influ-
ence sur la vie politique des populations, 1868.
Cyprien de Bellisses, M., Le SUFFRAGE UNIVERSEL dans le départe-
ment de l’Ariège, 1869.
Darboy, G., Statistique religieuse du diocèse de Paris, 1856.
Darboy, Mgr., Mandement pour le carême et le jubilé de l’année 1865, Paris,
Le Clère, 1865.
Darboy, G., ‘Un journal inédit de Mgr Darboy (années 1854–62)’,
J. Didier, (ed), Melanges de science religieuse, 1973.
‘Le journal de Mgr Darboy au Concile du Vatican (1869–70)’ Revue des
sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 1970.
Darimon, A., Histoire du second empire 6 vols, 1884–89.
Déguignet, J-M., Mémoires d’un paysan bas-breton, 1834–1905, An Here,
2000.
Deseilligny, J-P., L’influence de l’éducation sur la moralité et le bien-être des
classes laborieuses, 1868.
364   APPENDICES

Deslignières, H., Entretiens politiques du village. Le Second Empire devant

l’opinion publique et le suffrage universel, 1869.
Duchêne, G., L’Empire industriel. Histoire critique des concessions finan-
cières et industrielles du Second Empire, 1869.
Dumay, J., Mémoires d’un militant ouvrier du Creusot (1841–1905),
Grenoble, 1976.
Dupanloup, Mgr., Réponse de plusieurs évêques aux consultations qui leur
ont été adressées relativement aux élections prochaines, 1863.
Dupanloup, Mgr., L’athéisme et le péril social, 1866.
Dupanloup, Mgr., M. Duruy et l’éducation des filles, 1867.
Dupont, P., Sue, E., Schoelcher, V., Le républicain des campagnes, 1849.
Duruy, V., Notes et souvenirs, 2 vols, 1901.
Duvivier, J-H., L’Empire en province, 1861.
EDHIS, Les républicains sous le Second Empire, n.d.—major collection of
pamphlets, manifestos etc.
Faucher, L., Correspondance, 2 vols, 1867.
Falloux, Comte de, Memoirs 2 vols, London, 1888.
Ferry, J., La lutte électorale en 1863, 1863.
Ferry, J., Discours et opinions, I 1893.
Filippi de Fabj, F., L’opposition dans la Seine. Aux ouvriers de Paris, 1869.
Flaubert, G., Correspondance IV Janvier 1869–décembre 1875, 1998.
Fortoul, H., Journal 2 vols ed. G. Massa-Gille, Geneva, 1989.
Franqueville, Comte de, Souvenirs intimes de la vie de mon père, 1878.
Freycinet, C. de, Souvenirs 1848–78, 1912.
Gambetta, Delescluze, Le comité des députés de la Gauche et des délégués de
la presse démocratique A L’ARMÉE, 1870.
Garnier, J., Le droit au travail à l’Assemblée nationale, recueil complet de
tous les discours prononcés dans cette mémorable discussion, 1848.
Gastineau, B., La vie politique et le journalisme en province, 1869.
Gaume, J-J., La Révolution, recherches historiques sur l’origine et la propa-
gation du mal en Europe depuis la Renaissance à nos jours, 1856.
Gaume, Abbé, La situation. Douleurs, dangers, devoirs, consolations des
catholiques dans les temps actuels, 1860.
Gellion, Dangleur, Ce qu’on dit au village, 1869.
Ginoulhiac, Mgr., Lettre-circulaire … sur les accusations portées dans la
presse contre l’Encyclique de N.S.P.le Pape et le Syllabus, Grenoble,
Baratier frères, 1865.
Goncourt, E. and J., Journal II 1864–78, 1956.
Goulhot de Saint-Germain, M. de, Etudes sur les campagnes, 1859.
  APPENDICES 
   365

Gretry, A. (1805–1872), ‘Journal de ma vie et autres textes’ in G. Cuchet,

Penser le christianisme au 19e siècle, Rennes, 2017.
Guéronnière, Comte A. de la, Enquête parlementaire. La voix de la France,
1869.
Guillaumin, H., La vie d’un simple. Mémoires d’un métayer, 1904.
Guiral, P., Brunon, R., (eds) Aspects de la vie politique et militaire en
France au milieu du 19e siècle à travers la correspondance reçue par le
Maréchal Pelissier (1828–64), 1968.
Guizot, F., Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de mon temps, vol. 8, 1867.
Guizot, F., Lettres à sa fille Henriette, 1836–74, Paris, 2002.
Haussmann, Mémoires, 3 vols, 1890–93.
Hugo, V. Napoleon the Little, London, 1852.
Husson, A., Les consommations de Paris, 1856.
Instruction pastorale de Mgr. l’Evêque d’Amiens sur le Pouvoir à l’occasion
du rétablissement de l’Empire, Amiens, 1853.
Instruction pastorale sur le danger des mauvaises lectures, et mandement de
Mgr l’évêque de Moulins pour le saint temps de carême, Moulins, 1864.
Keller, E., L’Encyclique du 8 décembre 1864 et les principes de 1789, 1866.
Kerry, Earl of, The secret of the coup d’état, 1924.
Kahan-Rabecq, M-M., L’Alsace économique et sociale sous le règne de Louis-­
Philippe, I 1939.
Lacombe, C. de, Les préfets et les maires, 1869.
Lamartine, Correspondance d’Alphonse de Lamartine, (ed) A. de
C. Croisille, vol. V, 2002.
Laurent de Villedeuil, P., Oeuvres de Emile et Isaac Pereire, 4 vols, 1919–20.
Laurier, C., Simple entretien avec un préfet de l’Empire, 1867.
Lecanu, A., La révolution par le suffrage universel, 1869.
Lecouteux, E., L’agriculture et les élections de 1863, 1863.
Léger, Abbé, Réponse touchant la liberté de conscience et des cultes. Le
progrès, la civilisation, les aspirations nationales, et le pouvoir temporel du
Pape, Nîmes, Soustelle, imprimeur de Mgr l’Evêque, 1865.
Lejean, C., Alexandre, C., Correspondance (1846–69). Deux républicains
bretons dans l’entourage de Lamartine et de Michelet, 1993.
Lemain, Les Abbés, Lettre aux israélites sur l’attitude qu’il leur convient de
prendre à l’égard de la souveraineté temporelle du Pape, Paris, Douniol,
n.d.
Le Play, F., Les ouvriers européens: étude sur les travaux, la vie domestique et
la condition morale des populations ouvrières de l’Europe, 1855.
Le Play, F., La réforme sociale en France, 1868.
366   APPENDICES

Lucas, A. Les clubs et les clubistes, 1851.

Magen, H., Histoire de la terreur bonapartiste, Brussels, 1852.
Malcaze, E., Les agitateurs, 1869.
Manning, Cardinal, Le centenaire de Saint Pierre et le Concile Général.
Lettre pastorale à son clergé par S.E.  Mgr. le Cardinal Henry-Edward
Manning, Archevêque de Westminister, Paris and Lyon, Girard, 1869.
Manzut, Le paysan socialiste, 1869.
Marqfoy, G., De l’abaissement des tarifs des chemins de fer en France, 1863.
Martinelli, J. Un mot sur la situation, Bordeaux, 1848.
Marx, K, The Eigtheenth Brumaire of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte.
Maupas, M. de, Mémoires sur le Second Empire, 2 vols, 1884.
Meirieu, Mgr., Entretiens sur l’Encyclique de sa sainteté Pie IX, Digne,
Guichard; Paris, Repos, 1865.
Mérimée, P., Correspondance générale …Vols. I, II 1850–1855, Toulouse
1947, 1953.
Michelet, J., Du prêtre, de la femme, de la famille, 1845.
Michon, Abbé, De la crise de l’Empire, 1860.
Mimerel, A., Du pauperisme dans ses rapports avec l’industrie, Lille, n.d.
Modeste, V., De la cherté des grains et des préjuges populaires, 1862.
Moilin, T., La liquidation sociale, 1869.
Montalembert, Comte de, L’Eglise libre dans un Etat libre, Brussels, 1863.
Montalembert, C. de, Catholicisme et liberté. Correspondance inédite avec
le Père Lacordaire, Mgr de Mérode et A. de Falloux (1852–70), 1970.
Montigny, L., Lettres à un électeur rural, 1869.
Moreau-Christophe, Du problème de la misère et de sa solution chez les peo-
ples anciens et modernes, III 1851.
Motte-Grimonprez, A., Lettres n.d., n.p., 1952?
Mullois, Abbé, Confiance ! Il y aura du pain pour tous, 1854.
Nadaud, M., Mémoires de Léonard, ancien garçon maçon, 1976.
Normanby, Lord, Journal of the Year of Revolution, 2 vols, London, 1851.
Ollivier, E., L’Eglise et l’Etat au Concile du Vatican I 1879.
Ollivier, E., L’Empire libéral, 17 vols, 1895–1918.
Ollivier, E., Journal 1846–1869, 2 vols ed. Zeldin, T., Troisier de Diaz, A.,
1961.
Ordinaire, E., Des candidatures officielles et de leurs conséquences, 1869.
Ozanam, Lettres de Fr. Ozanam, vol. III, 1978.
Persigny, Mémoires du duc de …, 1896.
Perdiguier, A., Compagnon du Tour de France et représentant du peuple,
1805–75, 1981.
  APPENDICES 
   367

Petitin, A., (Prefect Haute-Savoie), Discussion de politique démocratique,

1862.
Pichat, O., L’Empereur devant le peuple, 1870.
Pie, Mgr., Allocution prononcée par Mgr. l’Evêque de Poitiers à la suite du
service funèbre célébré dans sa cathédrale à l’intention du Général La
Moricière, Poitiers, 1865.
Pinet, A., L’enseignement primaire en présence de l’enquête agricole, 1873.
Pompery, E. de, La question sociale dans les réunions publiques.
Revendication du prolétaire, 1869.
Poulot, D., Le sublime ou le travailleur comme il est en 1870 et ce qu’il peut
être, 1980.
Pradié, P., La question religieuse en 1682, 1790, et 1848 et historique complet
des travaux du comité des cultes de l’Assemblée constituante de 1848,
Paris, 1849.
Prévost-Paradol, L., Du gouvernement parlementaire. Le décret du 24
novembre, 1860.
Prévost-Paradol, L., La France nouvelle, 1868.
Procès de sociétés secrètes. Etudiants et ouvriers, 1867.
Proudhon, P-J., La révolution sociale démontrée par le coup d’état, 1852.
Proudhon, P-J., Les confessions d’un révolutionnaire, 1929.
Pyat, F. et al, Lettre à Marianne, London, 1856.
Quinet, E., L’enseignement du people suivi de la Révolution française,
1850.
Raess, Mgr., Lettre de Mgr. l’Evêque de Strasbourg à son excellence M. le
Ministre de la Justice et des Cultes à propos de l’Encyclique du 8 décembre
1864, Strasbourg, Le Roux, 1865.
Rapports addressés à son éminence Mgr. le Cardinal de Bonnechose,
Archévêque de Rouen sur l’inspection des églises de son diocèse pendant les
années 1862 et 1863, Rouen, 1864.
Rémusat, C. de, Mémoires de ma vie vols IV, V, 1962.
Renan, E., Vie de Jésus, 1863.
Renouvier, C. Manuel républicain de l’homme et du citoyen, 1848.
Réunion des journalistes conservateur des départements, 7–10 octobre
1869. Hôtel du Louvre, Paris, Déclaration, 1869.
Reybaud, L., Le coton, 1863.
Reybaud, L., Le fer et la houille, 1874.
Rivière, A., Les petites misères de la vie politique en Touraine, Tours, 1863.
Robert, C., Les améliorations sociales du Second Empire, 1868.
Robert, C., La suppression des grèves par l’association aux bénèfices, 1870.
368   APPENDICES

Robitaille, Abbé, Traité historique et dogmatique de la définition de la

dogme de l’Immaculée Conception de la très sainte Vierge, Arras, 1857.
Romieu, M., Le spectre rouge de 1852, Berlin, 1851.
Saint-Léger, V. et  al, Discours prononcés au meeting industriel de Lille,
Lille, 1869.
Say, H., ‘Misère ou charité’, Journal des Economistes, 1847.
Sand, G., Correspondance, Vol VIII G. Lubin, (ed), 1978.
Sand, G. et le prince Napoléon. Histoire d’une amitié 1852–76, (ed)
B. Hamon, Vendoeuvres, 2008.
Schmit, J., Aux ouvriers: Du pain du travail et la vérité Bordeaux n.d.
Sections parisiens fédérés de l’Internationale et de la Chambre fédérale des
sociétés ouvrières, Manifeste antiplébiscitaire, 1870.
Ségur, Mgr Gaston de, Le Pape, 1860.
Ségur, Mgr Gaston de, La Révolution, 1861.
Ségur, Mgr Gaston de, Le Pape est infaillible, 1870.
Sempé, J., Grèves et grévistes, 1870.
Senior, N.W., Journals kept in France and Italy from 1848 to 1852, 2 vols,
London, 1871.
Senior, N.W., Conversations with M.  Thiers, M.  Guizot and other
Distinguished Persons during the Second Empire 2 vols, London, 1878.
Sibour, Mgr., Mandements, lettres et instructions pastorales de Mgr. Sibour,
Archevêque de Paris, 1853.
Simon, J., La politique radicale, 1868.
Société industrielle de Mulhouse, Rapport du Comité d’économie sociale’
Bulletin, 1849.
Society of Arts, Reports of artisans selected by a committee appointed by the
Council of the Society of Arts to visit the Paris Universal Exhibition,
London, 1867.
Taine, H., Carnets de voyage. Notes sur la province (1863–65), 1897.
Talès, M., L’Empire, c’est la souveraineté du peuple, 1852.
Tallon, E., Les intérêts des campagnes, 1869.
Tardif, J-A., Le réveil de l’opinion. Antagonisme des idées fusionnistes, cés-
ariennes et radicales, Marseille, 1865.
Tartaret, (ed) Exposition universelle de 1867. Commission ouvrière. Recueil
des procès-verbaux des assemblées générales des délègues et des membres des
bureaux électoraux, 1868.
Ténot, E., Le suffrage universel et les paysans, 1865.
Ténot, E., Paris en décembre 1851: Etude historique sur le Coup d’Etat,
1868.
  APPENDICES 
   369

Ténot, E., La province en décembre 1851, 1868.

Thiers, A., ‘Rapport de la Commission de l’Assistance et de la Prévoyance
publique, 1850’ in Discours parlementaires de M. Thiers, vol. 8, 1880.
Thiers-Dosne Correspondance 1841–65, 1904
Thomas, E. Histoire des Ateliers nationaux, 1848.
Tocqueville, A. de, Oeuvres complètes vols I, VI(1), VII, VIII(2), VIII (3),
IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XV (2), XIX 1959f.
Tocqueville, A. de, Correspondance and conversations of Alexis de Tocqueville
with N.W. Senior from 1834 to 1859, I 1872.
Tolain, H., Quelques vérités sur les élections de Paris (31 mai 1863), 1863.
Truquin, N., Mémoires et aventures d’un prolétaire, 1977.
Turgan, V., Les grandes usines, VII, 1867.
Valori, C. de, La fusion et les partis, 1849.
Vée, M., Considérations sur le décroissement graduel du paupérisme à Paris
… et les causes des progrès moraux et économiques des classes ouvrières,
1862.
Vermorel, A., Le parti socialiste, 1870.
Véron, Dr. L., Mémoires d’un bourgeois de Paris vol. V, 1856.
Veuillot, E., Louis Veuillot, 3 vols, 1904–06.
Veuillot, L., Le parfum de Rome, 1851.
Veuillot, L., Odeurs de Paris, 1867.
Veuillot, L., Propos d’amour, de religion, de politique et de littérature. Le
correspondance entre Louis Veuillot et la comtesse Juliette de Robersart
(1862–69), R. Mortier, (ed), 2006.
Villermé, L-R., Tableau de l’état physique et moral des ouvriers dans les
manufactures de coton, de laine et de soie, 1840.
Vitu, A., Les réunions publiques à Paris, 1868–69, 1869.
Vitu, A., Les réunions électorales à Paris, 1869.

10. Secondary Sources (see also footnotes)

Abbott, E., Histoire universelle de la chasteté et du célibat, Saint-Laurent,
Quebec, 2001.
Agostino, M., ‘Les ordinations aux 19e et 20 siècles: les enseignements de
l’évolution d’un rituel. L’exemple du diocèse de Bordeaux’, in
M.  Agostino, F.  Cadilhon, P.  Loupés, (eds) Fastes et cérémonies.
L’expression de la vie religieuse, 16e–20e siècles, Pessac, 2003.
Agulhon, M., et al, La politisation des campagnes au 19e siècle, Rome,
2000.
Airiau, P., L’Eglise et l’Apocalypse du 19e siècle à nos jours, 2000.
370   APPENDICES

Airiau, P., L’antisemitisme catholique en France aux 19e et 20e siècles, 2002.
Airiau, P., ‘La formation sacerdotale en France au 19e siècle’, Archives de
sciences sociales de religion, 2006.
Airiau, P., ‘Le prêtre catholique: masculin, neutre, autre? Des débuts du
19e au milieu du 20e siècle’ in R. Revenin, (ed) Hommes et masculinités
de 1789 à nos jours, 2007.
Alfani, G., Castagnetti, P., Gourdon, V.,(eds) Baptiser. Pratique sacramen-
tal, pratique sociale, 16e–20e siècles, Saint-Etienne, 2009.
Amadieu, J-B., ‘La littérature française du 19e siècle à l’Index’, Revue
d’histoire littéraire de la France, 2004.
Anderson, R., Education in France, 1848–70, 1975.
Anceau, E., Les députés du Second Empire, 2000.
Anceau, E., Napoléon III, 2008.
Anceau, E., ‘Nouvelles voies de l’historiographie politique du Second
Empire’, Parlement[s], 2008.
Angelier, F., Langlois, C., (eds) La Salette. Apocalypse, pèlerinage et littéra-
ture (1846–1996), Grenoble, 2000.
Aprile, S., et al, (eds) Comment meurt une république. Autour du 2 décem-
bre 1851, 2004.
Artiaga, L., ‘Histoires religieuses francophone et proto-histoire de la cul-
ture médiatique’, Revue d’histoire du 19e siècle, 2003.
Artiaga, L., ‘La Sacra Congregation Indicis et l’histoire culturelle française
au 19e siècle’ in G.  Pizzorusso, O.  Poncet, M.  Sanfilippo, (eds) Gli
archivi della Santa Sede e la storia di francia, Viterbo, 2006.
Artiaga, L., Des torrents du papier. Catholicisme et lectures populaires au 19e
siècle, Limoges, 2007.
Aston, N., Christianity and revolutionary Europe, c.1750–1830,
Cambridge, 2002.
Aubert, R., Le pontificat de Pie IX (1846–70), 1952.
Aubert, R., Vatican I, 1964.
Aubert, R., ‘Motivations théologiques et extra-théologiques des partisans
et des adversaires de la définition dogmatique de l’infaillibilité du pape
à Vatican I’ in E. Castelli, (ed) L’infaillibilité, 1970.
Auzet, D-M., La mystique bien temperée. Ecriture féminine de l’expérience
spirituelle, 2006.
Avanzini, G., et al, Pédagogie chrétienne, pédagogues chrétiens, 1996.
Basdevant-Gaudemet, B., Le jeu concordataire dans la France du 19e siècle,
1988.
Bédarida F., et al, Christianisme et monde ouvrier, 1975.
  APPENDICES 
   371

Bercé, F., Viollet-le Duc, 2013.

Blenner-Michel, S., ‘Sanctifier le dimanche ou le vain combat de l’épiscopat
français au 19e siècle’, Histoire, économie et société, 2009.
Bleton-Ruget, A., ‘1848 et l’introduction du suffrage universel: enjeux
politiques et techniques électorales’ in Bleton-Ruger, Wolikow, S., (eds)
Voter et élire à l’époque contemporaine, Dijon, 1999.
Blott, T., Reconstruire l’Eglise après la Révolution: le diocèse de Bayeux sous
l’épiscopat de Mgr Charles Bruault (1802–23), 1997.
Bonafoux-Verrax, C., ‘La périodisation en histoire religieuse’ in D. Avon,
M. Fourcade, (eds) Mentalités et croyances contemporaines, Montpellier,
2003.
Bordet, G., La grande mission de Besançon, janvier-février 1825. Une fête
contre-révolutionnaire, néo-baroque ou ordinaire?, 1998.
Boudon, J-O., ‘Le Saint-Siège et les nominations épiscopales en France au
19e siècle, à partir des sources romaines’, Archivum historiae pontificial,
1992.
Boudon, J-O., L’épiscopat français à l’époque concordataire, 1802–1905,
1996.
Boudon, J-O., Paris, capitale religieuse sous le Second Empire, 2001.
Boudon, J-O., Napoléon et les cultes, 2002.
Boudon, J-O., ‘Un diocèse sans frontière: le diocèse de cour sous le sec-
ond empire’ in G. Chaix, Le diocèse.
Boudon, J-O., ‘Etre chrétien dans une ville déchristianisée: Paris au 19e
siècle’ in Boudon, F. Thelamon, (eds) Les chrétiens dans la ville, Mont-­
Saint-­Aignan, 2006.
Boudon, J-O., Religion et politique en France depuis 1789, 2007.
Boudon, J-O., ‘Napoléon III et la religion’ in P. Milza, (ed) Napoléon III,
l’homme, le politique, 2008.
Boudon, J-O., (ed) Le Concordat et le retour de la paix religieux, 2008.
Boudon, J-O., Mgr. Darboy (1813–71), 2011.
Boulard, F., ‘La déchristianisation de Paris. L’évolution historique du
non-conformisme’, Archives de sociologie de religion, 1971.
Boulard, F., (ed) Matériaux pour l’histoire religieuse du peuple français
(19e–20e siècles) vol I, 1985.
Boulard, F., Hilaire, Y-M., (eds) Matériaux pour l’histoire religieuse du
peuple français 19e–20e siècles, vol 2, 1987.
Bourgeois, R., Le fait de La Salette, 1846, Grenoble, 2006.
Bourguignat, N., ‘Le maire nourricier: renouvellements et déclin d’une
figure tutélaire dans la France du 19e siècle’, Le mouvement social, 2008.
372   APPENDICES

Bourillon, F., ‘Grands travaux et dynamisme urbain: Paris sous le Second

Empire’, in Faure, Plessis, Farcy, (eds) La terre et la cité.
Boutry, P., Cinquin, M., Deux pèlerinages au 19e siècle. Ars et Paray-le-­
Monial, 1980.
Boutry, P., Prêtres et paroisses au pays du curé d’Ars, 1986.
Boutry, P., ‘Religions populaires et religions dissidents. Les mutations des
croyances’ in Joutard, (ed) Histoire de la France religieuse.
Boutry, P., Vincent, B., (eds) Les chemins de Rome. Les visites Ad Limina à
l’époque moderne dans l’Europe méridionale …, Rome, 2002.
Boutry, P., Encrève, A., (eds) La religion dans la ville, 2003.
Brejon de Lavergnée, M., La Société de Saint-Vincent-de-Paul au 19e siè-
cle. Un fleuron du catholicisme social, 2008.
Brejon de Lavergnée, M., ’Le repos du dimanche: un exemple de lobbying
catholique en France au milieu du 19e siècle’, Histoire, économie et
société, 2009.
Brejon de Lavergnée, M., Tort, O., (eds) L’union du trône et de l’autel?
Politique et religion sous la Restauration, 2012.
Brice, C., Miccoli, G., (eds) Les racines chrétiennes de l’antisémitisme poli-
tique (fin 19e–20e siècle), Rome, 2003.
Brisac, C., ‘Repéres pour l’étude de l’iconographie du vitrail du 19e siè-
cle’, Annales de Bretagne, 1986.
Brodeur, R., Caulier, B., (eds) Enseigner le catéchisme: autorités et institu-
tions, 16e–20 siècles, Laval, 1997.
Broers, M., The Politics of Religion in Napoleonic Italy. The war against
God, 1801–14, 2002.
Brunet, M., Le curé et ses ouailles, Canet, 2003.
Bruter, A., ‘Un laboratoire de la pédagogie de l’histoire: l’histoire sainte à
l’école primaire (1833–82)’, Histoire de l’éducation, 2007.
Bueltzingsloewen, I. von, Pelletier, D., (eds) La charité en pratique.
Chrétiens français et  allemands sur le terrain social: 19e–20e siècles,
Strasbourg, 1999.
Burton, R., Holy tears, holy blood. Women, Catholicism, and the culture of
suffering in France, 1840–1970, 2004.
Büttgen, P.  ‘Théologie politique et pouvoir pastoral’, Annals. Histoire,
sciences socials, 2007.
Cabanel, P., Cadets de Dieu. Vocations et migrations religieuses en Gévaudan
18e–20e siècles, 1997.
  APPENDICES 
   373

Cabanel, P., ‘L’église catholique et l’état: concordats et séparations en

France et en Europe’, in Cabanel, (ed) Religion et culture dans les socié-
tés et dans les états européens de 1800 à 1914, 2001.
Caron, J-C., Luis, J-P., (eds) Rien appris, rien oublié? Les restaurations
dans l’Europe postnapoléonienne (1814–30), Rennes, 2015.
Case, L.M., French opinion on war and diplomacy during the Second
Empire, Philadelphia, 1954.
Centre vendéen de recherches historiques, Christianisme et Vendée. La
création au 19e siècle d’un foyer du catholicisme, Le Roche-sur-Yon,
2000.
Chadwick, O., A history of the popes, 1830–1914, Oxford, 1998.
Chaix, G., (ed) Le diocèse. Espaces, représentations, pouvoirs (France, 15e–20e
siècles), 2002.
Chaline, J-P., Les bourgeois de Rouen: une élite urbaine au 19e siècle, 1982.
Chaline, N-J., ‘La construction des églises paroissiales aux 19e et 20e siè-
cles’, Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 1987.
Changy, H. de, Le mouvement légitimiste sous la Monarchie de Juillet,
Rennes, 2004.
Chappey, J-L., ‘Catholiques et sciences au début du 19e siècle’, Cahiers
d’histoire, 2002.
Charle, C., Les hauts fonctionnaires en France au 19e siècle, 1980.
Charon-Bordas, J., Les sources de l’histoire de l’architecture religieuses aux
Archives nationales de la Révolution à la séparation, 1994.
Charpin, F., Pratique religieuse et formation d’une grande ville. Le geste de
baptisme et sa signification en sociologie religieuse (Marseille 1806–1958),
1964.
Chauvaud, F., ‘La parole captive. L’interrogatoire judiciaire au 19e siècle’,
Histoire et archives, 1997.
Chiron, J-F., ‘Une barrière éternelle. L’autorité de l’église dans la défini-
tion du dogme au 19e siècle’, Recherches de science religieuse, 2006.
Cholvy, G., Religion et société au 19e siècle. Le diocèse de Montpellier, 2 vols,
Lille, 1973.
Cholvy, G., ‘Du dieu terrible au dieu d’amour: une évolution dans la sen-
sibilité religieuse au 19e siècle’ in Actes du 109e CNSS, 1984.
Cholvy, G., ‘Les missions intérieures catholiques dans les campagnes en
Europe aux 19e et 20e siècles’ in Massaut, Henneau, La christianisation
des campagnes.
374   APPENDICES

Cholvy, G., ‘L’émergence d’un laïcat catholique: le premier 19e siècle’,

Revue d’histoire ecclésiatique, 2000.
Cholvy, G., (ed) Figures de Jésus-Christ dans l’histoire, Montpellier, 2000.
Cholvy, G., (ed) La religion et les femmes, Montpellier, 2002.
Cholvy, G., Frédéric Ozanam. L’engagement d’un intellectuel catholique
au 19e siècle, 2003.
Cholvy, G., Hilaire, Y-M., Histoire religieuse de la France contemporaine
(1800–80), Toulouse, 1985.
Cholvy, G., Chaline, N-J., (eds) L’enseignement catholique en France aux
19e et 20e siècles, 1995.
Christophe, R., Minnerath, R., Le Syllabus de Pie IX, 2000.
Clark, C., ‘The new Catholicism and the European culture wars’ in Clark,
W.  Kaiser, (eds) Culture wars. Secular-Catholic conflict in nineteenth-­
century Europe, Cambridge, 2003.
Clark, C., ‘From 1848 to Christian Democracy’ in Katznelson, Stedman
Jones (eds) Religion.
Colin, P., L’audace et le soupçon. La crise de modernisme dans le catholi-
cisme français, 1997.
Comby, J., (ed) Théologie, histoire et piété mariale, Lyon, 1997.
Constant, E., Le département du Var sous le Second Empire et au début de
la 3e République, Doc. ès lettres, Univ. de Provence-Aix, 1977.
Coppa, F., The modern Papacy since 1789, 1998.
Coppa, F., ‘Italy: the Church and the Risorgimento’, in Gilley, Stanley, The
Cambridge history of Christianity.
Corbin, A., Archaïsme et modernité en Limousin au 19e siècle, 2 vols, 1975.
Corbin, A., Les cloches de la terre. Paysage sonore et culture sensible dans les
campagnes au 19e siècle, 1994.
Corbin, A., et al, (eds) Les usages politiques des fêtes aux 19e et 20e siècles,
1994.
Corbin, A., et al, Les femmes dans la cité, 1997.
Corbin, A., Le monde retrouvé de Louis-François Pinagot. Sur les traces
d’un inconnu 1798–1876, 1998.
Corbin, A., (ed) Histoire du christianisme, 2007.
Cottret, M., Galland, C, (eds) Les damnés du ciel et de la terre, Limoges, 2010.
Couray-Bapsolle, G., Patrimoine religieux en Languedoc-Roussillon
(1789–1914), 2005.
Cubitt, G., The Jesuit myth. Conspiracy theory and politics in 19th century
France, Oxford, 1993.
  APPENDICES 
   375

Cubitt, G., ‘God, man and Satan: strands in counter-revolutionary thought

among 19th century French Catholics’ in Tallett, Atkin, Catholicism in
Britain and France.
Cuchet, G., ‘The revival of the cult of Purgatory in France (1850–1914),
French history, 2004.
Cuchet, G., Le crépescule du purgatoire, 2005.
Darmon, J-J., Le colportage de librairie en France sous le Second Empire,
1972.
Daumard, A., La bourgeoisie parisienne de 1815 à 1848, 1963.
Dauzet, D-M., La mystique bien tempérée. Ecriture féminine de l’expérience
spirituelle, 19e–20e siècles, 2006.
Delhommeau, L., ‘Un évêque légitimiste sous le Second Empire: Mgr
J-M-J.  Baillès, évêque de Luçon’, in L’histoire des croyants, mémoire
vivante des hommes. Mélanges Charles Molette, II, Abbeville, 1989.
Deloyé, Y., ‘Socialisation religieuse et comportement électoral en France’,
Revue française de science politique, 2002.
Deloyé, Y., Les voix de Dieu. Pour une autre histoire du suffrage électoral: le
clergé catholique et le vote 19e–20e siècles, 2006.
Déloye, Y., ‘Les métamorphoses des violences religieuses. L’exemple des
catholiques français entre opposition intransigeante et intégration à la
communauté politique’ in J-C. Caron et al (eds) Entre violence et con-
ciliation. La résolution des conflits sociopolitiques en Europe aux19e siècle,
2008.
Delpal, B, Entre paroisse et commune. Les catholiques de la Drôme au milieu
du 19e siècle, Valence, 1989.
Delumeau, J., ‘Déchristianisation ou nouveau modèle de christianisa-
tion?’, Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 1975.
Delumeau, J., (ed) La religion de ma mère. Les femmes et la transmission de
la foi, 1992.
Delumeau, J., ‘L’historien chrétien face à la déchristianisation’ in
Delumeau, (ed) L’historien et la foi, 1996.
Démier, F., La France de la Restauration (1814–30). L’imposible retour du
passé, 2012.
Désert, G., Une société rurale au 19e siècle: les paysans de Calvados,
1815–95, 3 vols, Lille, 1975.
Desmons, E., ‘Ledru-Rollin et l’expédition de Rome. De l’apologie de la
légalité romaine à la proclamation de la république insurrectionnelle’,
Revue française d’histoire des idées politiques, 2005.
376   APPENDICES

Dioudonnat, P-M., Paroles d’évêques, 19e–20e siècles. Une anthologie du

cléricalisme français, 2005.
Dougherty, P.,‘The Parisian Catholic press and the February 1848
Revolution’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 2005.
Dousset, C., ‘Entre tolérance et violence: la Révolution française et la
question religieuse’ in Bertrand, M., Cabanel, P., (eds) Religions, pou-
voir et violence, Toulouse, 2004.
Droulers, P., Action pastorale et problèmes sociaux sous la Monarchie de
Juillet chez Mgr Astros, archevêque de Toulouse, 1954.
Droulers, P., ‘L’épiscopat devant la question ouvrière en France sous la
monarchie de juillet’, Revue historique, 1963.
Dumons, B., ‘Histoire sociale et histoire religieuse, deux sœurs ennemis?
Un essai de relecture historiographique pour la France contemporaine’,
Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 2000.
Dumons, B., ‘Lyon, Rome de France? Une utopie intransigeante (19e–20e
siècles)’ in Dumons, Hours, B., (eds) Ville et religion en Europe du 16e
au 20e siècle, Grenoble, 2010.
Dumoulin, C., Un séminaire français au 19e siècle: le recrutement, la for-
mation, la vie des clercs à Bourges, 1978.
Dupeux, G., Aspects de l’histoire sociale et politique du Loir-et-Cher, 1962.
Duprat, C., Usages et pratiques de la Philanthropie. Pauvreté, action sociale
et lien social, à Paris, au cours du premier 19e siècle, 1996.
Durand, J-D., (ed) Histoire et théologie, 1994.
Duroselle, J-B., Les débuts du catholicisme social en France, 1822–70, 1951.
Duveau, G., La vie ouvrière en France sous le Second Empire, 1946.
Ebel, E., Police et société. Histoire de la police et de son activité en Alsace au
19e siècle, Strasbourg, 1999.
Encreve, A., Protestants français au milieu du 19e siècle. Les réformes de
1848 à 1870, Geneva, 1982.
Epp, R., Le mouvement ultramontain dans l’église catholique en Alsace au
19e siècle, 2 vols, Strasbourg, 1975.
Estève, C., ‘1848–49 dans le Cantal. Un prêtre entre en politique: l’Abbé
Thouzery’ in Jung, J-E., (ed) Fidélité républicain et monde rural,
1848–51, Aurillac, 2001.
Estève, C., A l’ombre du pouvoir. Le Cantal du milieu du 19e siècle à 1914,
Clermont-Ferrand, 2002.
Fahmy-Eco, N., ‘Ultramontanisme, idéologie et classes sociales’, Revue
d’histoire de l’amérique français, 1975.
Farcy, J-C, Les paysans beaucerons au 19e siècle 2 vols, Chartres, 1989.
  APPENDICES 
   377

Farcy, J-C., ‘Le temps libre au village (1830–50)’ in Corbin, A., (ed)
L’avènement des loisirs, 1850–1960, 2001.
Farcy, J-C., Kalifa, D., Luc, J-N., (eds) L’enquête judiciaire en Europe au
19e siècle. Acteurs. Imaginaires. Pratiques, 2007.
Fath, S., ‘Entre colporteur et confesseur: le choix des femmes en Picardie
au milieu du 19e siècle’ in Cholvy, La religion et les femmes.
Faugeras, M., La reconstruction catholique dans l’ouest après la Révolution.
La diocèse de Nantes sous la monarchie censitaire, Fontenay-le-Comte,
1964.
Faugeras, M., ‘Les fidélités en France au 19e siècle. Les zouaves pontifi-
caux (1860–70)’ in Fidélités, solidarités et clientèles, Nantes, 1986.
Faure, A., Plessis, A., Farcy, J-C., (eds) La terre et la cité. Mélanges offerts
à Philippe Vigier, 1994.
Faure, O ‘Les religieuses hospitalières entre médecine et religion’ in
Bueltzingsloewen, Pelletier, La charité en pratique.
Faure, O., Delpal, B., (eds) Religion et enfermements, 17e–20e siècles,
Rennes, 2005.
Faury, J., Cléricalisme et anticléricalisme dans le Tarn (1848–1900),
Toulouse, 1980.
Fitzpatrick, B., Catholic Royalism in the department of the Gard 1814–52,
1983.
Fitzpatrick, B., ‘The emergence of Catholic politics in the Midi, 1830–70’
in Tallett, Atkin, Religion, society and politics.
Ford, C., ‘The use and practice of tradition in the politicization of rural
France during the nineteenth century’ in Agulhon et al, La politisation
des campagnes.
Foucart, B., Le renouveau de la peinture religieuse en France, 1800–60, 1987.
Foucart, B., Hamon, F., (eds) L’architecture religieuse au 19e siècle. Entre
éclectisme et rationalisme, 2002.
Foucault, P., ‘La formation du clergé dans le Maine au 19e siècle’ in
Guillemain et al, La foi dans le siècle.
Foucault, P., ‘Le clergé concordataire du Maine entre notabilité, élite et
insignifiance’ in Pitou, F., (ed) Elites et notables de l’ouest.
Fouilloux, E., ‘Intransigence catholique et monde moderne (19e–20e siè-
cle)’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 2001.
Fouilloux, E., Hours, B., (eds) Les jésuites à Lyon, 16e–20e siècles, Lyon,
2005.
Fourn, F., ‘1849–51: l’anticommunisme en France. Le spectre rouge de
1852’ in Aprile et al, Comment meurt une république.
378   APPENDICES

Frétigné, J-Y., Jankowiak, F., (eds) La décadence dans la culture et la pensée

politique, Rome, 2008.
Froeschlé-Chopard, M-H., Espace et sacré en Provence, 16e–20e siècles,
1994.
Fumate, Y., ‘La socialisation des filles au 19e siècle’, Revue française de
pédagogie, 1980.
Fureix, E.,‘Le deuil de la Révolution dans le Paris de la Restauration
(1814–16)’, in Mollier, et al, Repenser la Restauration.
Fureix, E., (ed) Iconoclasme et révolutions, 2014.
Fureix, E., Jarrige, F., La modernité désenchanté. Relire l’histoire du 19e
siècle français, 2015.
Gabbois, G., ‘Vous êtes presque la seule consolation de l’Eglise. La foi des
femmes face à la déchristianisation de 1789 à 1880’ in J.  Delumeau,
(ed) La religion de ma mère.
Gaboriaux, C., La République en quête de citoyens. Les républicians français
face au bonapartisme rural (1848–80), 2010.
Gadille, J., La pensée et l’action politiques des évêques français au début de la
3e République, 1967.
Gadille, J., ‘Emile Ollivier et l’Eglise catholique’ in A. Troizier de Diaz,
Regards sur Emile Olliver.
Gagneux, Y., Reliques et reliquaires à Paris: 19e–20e siècles, 2007.
Gaillard, J., Paris, la ville, 1977.
Gaillard, L., La vie ouvrière et les mouvements ouvriers à Marseille de 1848
à 1879, Doc. d’Etat, Université d’Aix, 1972.
Galinier-Pallerola, J-F., La résignation dans la culture catholique en France
(1870–1945), 2007.
Gastaldi, N., ‘Sources et instruments de recherche pour l’histoire reli-
gieuse aux Archives nationales’, Gazette des archives, 1994.
Gaudemet, J., Administration et Eglise: du Concordat à la séparation …,
1987.
Gaudin, O., ‘La presse catholique sarthoise de la Monarchie de Juillet au
Second Empire’, Annales de Bretagne, 2001.
Gaveau, F., ‘La tournée ou l’enquête? Les gardes-champêtres et l’enquête
judiciaire sous la monarchie de juillet’ in Farcy et  al, L’enquête
judiciaire.
Gay, J., ‘Les secours aux indigents et l’assistance publique à Paris, 1830–70’
Mémoires de la Société pour l’histoire … des anciens pays bourguignons,
1994.
  APPENDICES 
   379

Gerson, S., ‘A world of their own: searching for popular culture in the
French countryside’ French politics, culture and society, 2009.
Geslot, J-C., Victor Duruy. Historien et ministre (1811–94), Villeneuve
d’Ascq, 2009.
Gibson, R., Les notables et l’Eglise dans le diocèse de Périgueux, Doc. de 3e
cycle, Univ. de Lyon, 1979.
Gibson, R., ‘Hellfire and damnation in nineteenth century France’,
Catholic historical review, 1988.
Gibson, R., ‘Le catholicisme et les femmes en France au 19e siècle’ Revue
d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 1993.
Gibson, R, A Social History of French Catholicism 1789–1914, 1989.
Gibson, R., ‘Théologie et société en France au 19e siècle’ in J-D. Durand,
(ed) Histoire et théologie.
Gibson, R.,‘The Christianisation of the countryside in Western Europe in
the 19th century’ in J-P. Massaut, M-E. Henneau, (eds) La christianisa-
tion des campagnes, Rome, 1996.
Gicquel, S., ‘Fallait-il épouser les idées de son temps pour réaliser une
belle carrière au sein du clergè des diocèses de Vannes et de Saint-Brieuc
au 19e siècle?’ in F. Pitou, Elites et notables de l’ouest.
Gicquel, S., Prêtres de Bretagne au 19e siècle, Rennes, 2008.
Gildea, R., Education in provincial France, 1800–1914, Oxford, 1983.
Gilley, S., Stanley, B., (eds) The Cambridge history of Christianity: world
Christianities c.1815–1914, Cambridge, 2006.
Girard, L., (ed) Les élections de 1869, 1960.
Girard, L., Nouvelle histoire de Paris. La Deuxième République et le Second
Empire, 1981.
Girard, L., Les libéraux français, 1814–75, 1985.
Girard, L., ‘Jules Ferry et la génération des républicains du Second Empire’
in Furet, F., (ed) Jules Ferry, fondateur de la République, 1985.
Glaudes, P., ‘Joseph de Maistre face à la Restauration’ in Mollier et  al,
Repenser la Restauration.
Gouda, F., Poverty and Political Culture. The rhetoric of social welfare in
the Netherlands and France, 1815–54, Lanham, Maryland, 1995.
Gough, A., ‘The conflict in politics: Bishop Pie’s campaign against the
19th century’ in Zeldin, Conflicts in French society.
Gough, A., Paris and Rome. The Gallican Church and the Ultramontane
Campaign, 1848–59, Oxford, 1986.
Goujon, B., Monarchies postrévolutionnaires, 1814–48, 2012.
380   APPENDICES

Gourdon, V., Georges, C., Labéjoh, N.,‘L’ondoiement en paroisse à Paris

au 19e siècle’, Histoire urbaine, 2004.
Grandcoing, P., Les demeures de distinction. Châteaux et châtelains au 19e
siècle en Haute-Vienne, Limoges, 1999.
Grévy, J., ‘Jésus des anticléricaux et des libres penseurs’ in Cholvy, Figures
du Christ.
Grévy, J., Le clericalisme? Voilà l’ennemi, 2005.
Grévy, J., ‘L’anticléricalisme au village’, in J-C. Caron, F. Chauvaud, (eds)
Les campagnes dans les sociétés européennes (1830–1930), 2005.
Grew, R.,‘Liberty and the Roman Catholic Church in nineteenth century
Europe’ in Helmstadter, R., (ed) Freedom and Religion in the Nineteenth
Century, Stanford, 1997.
Greyerz, K. von, Religion and Culture in Early Modern Europe, Oxford,
2008.
Gross, M., The War against Catholicism. Liberalism and the anti-catholic
imagination in 19th century Germany, Ann Arbor, 2005.
Grzymala-Busse, A., Nations under God: how churches use moral authority
to influence policy, Princeton, N.J., 2015.
Guénel, J., La dernière guerre du pape. Les zouaves pontificaux au secours
du Saint-Siège, 1860–70, Rennes, 1998.
Guérin, E., ‘Un projet de fondation en 1856: le rôle de Mgr. Angebault’
in Mélanges Charles Molette, vol. 2, Abbeville, 1989.
Guérin, M-P., ‘La paroisse de Guémené-Penfao au 19e siècle’ in Eglise et
société dans l’ouest atlantique du moyen âge au 20e siècle, Nantes, 2000.
Gueslin, A., Gens pauvres, pauvres gens dans la France du 19e siècle, 1998.
Gueslin, A., Guillaume, P., (eds) De la charité médièvale à la sécurité soci-
ale, 1994.
Guillaume, P., Médecins, église et foi, 1990.
Guillemain, H.; Tison, S; Vivier, N.; (eds) La foi dans le siècle. Mèlanges
offerts à Brigitte Waché, Rennes, 2009.
Guillemin, H., Histoire des catholiques français au 19e siècle, Geneva, 1947.
Gut, P., ‘Une polemique de la presse parisienne au cours de l’année 1856:
la question romaine’, Rassegna storica del Risorgimento, 1971.
Hallade, S.,(ed) Morales en révolutions. France, 1789–1940, Rennes, 2015.
Harrigan, P., ‘Church, state and education in France from the Falloux to
the Ferry laws: a reassessment’ Canadian Journal of History, 2001.
Harris, R., Lourdes. Body and spirit in the secular age, 1999.
Harris, R., The Man on Devil’s Island, 2010.
  APPENDICES 
   381

Harrison, C., The Bourgeois Citizen in 19th Century France. Gender, socia-
bility and the uses of emulation, Oxford, 1999.
Harrison, C., ‘Zouave stories: gender, catholic spirituality, and French
responses to the Roman Question’, Journal of modern history, 2007.
Haugommard, S., Les églises du diocèse de Nantes au 19e siècle. Des édifices
pour le culte, des monuments pour un reconquête, Rennes, 2015.
Hazareesingh, S.; Wright, V., Francs-maçons sous le Second Empire, Rennes,
2001.
Hazareesingh, S., The Saint-Napoleon. Celebrations of sovereignty in 19th
century France, 2004.
Hazareesingh, S., ‘Religion and politics in the Saint Napoleon festivity,
1812–70: anti-clericalism, local patriotism and modernity’, English
Historical Review, 2004.
Hazareesingh, S., ‘Les fêtes du second empire: apothéose, renouveau et
déclin du mythe monarchique’ in Becquet, Frederking, La dignité du
roi.
Heckmann, T., ‘Dieu et le roi: la Vendée légitimiste au milieu du 19e siè-
cle’, Centre vendéen des recherches historiques, Christianisme et Vendée.
Hedley, D.,‘Theology and the revolt against the Enlightenment’ in Gilles,
Stanley, (eds) The Cambridge History of Christianity.
Heimann, M., ‘Catholic revivalism in worship and devotion’ in Gilley,
Stanley, (eds) The Cambridge history of Christianity.
Hérisson, A., ‘Louis Veuillot, L’Univers et l’intervention des Laïcs dans les
affaires de l’Eglise de France au milieu du 19e siècle’, Revue d’histoire de
l’Eglise de France, 2014.
Hérisson, A., ‘Une mobilisation international de masse à l’époque du
Risorgimento: l’aide financière des catholiques français à la papauté
(1860–70), Revue d’histoire du 19e siècle, 2016.
Hermont, D., ‘Destructions et vandalisme pendant la Révolution fran-
çaise’, Annales E.S.C., 1978.
Herten, B. van der, ‘La Révolution française: prélude à la fin des temps,
Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 1994.
Heywood, C., Childhood in nineteenth-century France, 1988.
Heywood, S., ‘Les petits garçons modèles. La masculinité catholique à
travers l’œuvre de la Comtesse de Ségur’ in Revenin, Hommes et
masculinités.
Heywood, S., Catholicism and Childrens Literature in France. The Comtesse
de Ségur (1799–1874), Manchester, 2011.
382   APPENDICES

Heywood, S., ‘The Apostolate of the Pen’: Mgr. de Ségur and the mobiliza-
tion of Catholic opinion in Second Empire France’ French History,
2012.
Hilaire, Y-M., ‘La pratique religieuse en France de 1815 à 1878’,
Information historique, 1963.
Hilaire, Y-M., ‘L’Eglise dans le monde rural. Le 19e siècle’, Recherche
social, 1971.
Hilaire, Y-M., La vie religieuse des populations du diocèse d’Arras,
1840–1914, Doc. d’Etat, Univ. de Paris IV, 1976.
Hilaire, Y-M., ‘Notes sur la religion populaire au 19e siècle’ in Plongeron,
La religion populaire.
Hilaire, Y-M.,‘L’Eglise et les très pauvres dans la Ire moitié du 19e siècle’
in R. Rémond, (ed) Démocratie et pauvreté, 1996.
Hilaire, Y-M., ‘L’évolution religieuse du littoral à l’époque de Napoléon
III’, Cahiers du Littoral, 2001.
Hilaire, Y-M., Histoire de la papauté, 2003.
Hollander, P.d’, La bannière et la rue. Les processions dans le centre-ouest au
19e siècle (1830–1914), 2003.
Hollander, P.d’, ‘Religion, identité et espace urbain à Limoges aux 19e et
20e siècles’ in Dumons, Hours, Ville et religion.
Horaist, B., La dévotion au Pape et les catholiques français sous le pontificat
de Pie IX (1846–78) d’après les archives de la Bibliothèque Apostolique
Vaticane, Rome, 1995.
Horvath-Peterson, S., ‘Abbé Georges Darboy’s’Statistique religieuse du
diocèse de Paris; (1856)’, Catholic history review, 1982.
Horvarth-Peterson, S., Victor Duruy and French education, 1984.
Houte, A-D., ‘Apprendre à enquêter dans la gendarmerie du 19e siècle’ in
Farcy et al, L’enquête judiciaire.
Hubscher, R., L’agriculture et la société rurale dans le Pas-de-Calais du
milieu du 19e siècle à 1914, Doc. d’Etat, Univ. de Paris, 1978.
Humbert, G., ‘Jalons chronologique pour une histoire de la pénétration
en pays francophones de la pensée et des oeuvres d’Alphonse de Liguori’,
in J. Delumeau, (ed) Alphonse de Liguori, 1987.
Huot-Pleureux, P., Le recrutement sacerdotal dans le diocèse de Besançon de
1801 à 1860, Besançon, 1968.
Igersheim, F., Politique et administration dans le Bas-Rhin 1848–70, 1993.
Isser, N., Antisemitism during the French Second Empire, 1991.
Jacquemet, G., ‘Déchristianisation, structures familiales et anticlérical-
isme’, Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 1984.
  APPENDICES 
   383

Jacquet-Francillon, F., Instituteurs avant la république, La profession

d’instituteur et ses représentations, de la Monarchie de Juillet au Second
Empire, Villeneuve-d’Ascq, 1999.
Jankowiak, F., ‘Fides ex Auditu. L’Eglise et les moyens de communication
sociale à l’époque contemporaine’, L’Année canonique, 1999.
Jankowiak, F., ‘La curie romaine et le gouvernement de l’Eglise
(1850–1914) dans l’historiographie française depuis 1850’, Rassegna
storica del Risorgimento, 2003.
Jankowiak, F., La curie romaine de Pie IX à Pie X. Le gouvernement central
de l’Eglise et la fin des Etats pontificaux 1846–1914, Rome, 2007.
Jankowiak, F., ‘Décadence et société parfaite dans l’ecclésiologie du 19e
siècle’ in Frétigné, Jankowiak, La décadence.
Javel, D., Transmettre la foi au diocèse d’Avignon, 19e–20e siècles, Avignon,
2000.
Jennings, J., Revolution and the Republic. A history of political thought in
France since the 18th century, Oxford, 2010.
Jolicoeur, N., La politique française envers les états pontificaux sous la
Monarchie de Juillet et la Seconde République (1830–51), 2008.
Jonas, R., France and the cult of the Sacred Heart, 2000.
Joutard, P., (ed) Histoire de la France religieuse vol. 3. Du roi Très Chrétien
à la laïcité républicaine 18e–19e siècles, 1991.
Jucquois, G., Sauvage, P., L’invention de l’antisémitisme racial. L’implication
des catholiques français et belges, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2002.
Judic, M., ‘Instruire les filles de la campagne en Loire-Inférieure’, in
Avanzini et al, Pédagogie chrétienne, pédagogues chrétiens.
Julia, D., ‘Le catholicisme, religion du royaume (1715–1789)’, in Joutard,
(ed) Histoire de la France religieuse vol. 3.
Julia, D., ‘Un passeur de frontières. Gabriel Le Bras et l’enquête sur la pra-
tique religieuse en France’, Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 2006.
Kahan, A., Tocqueville, Democracy and Religion. Checks and balances for
democratic souls, Oxford, 2015.
Kaiser, W., ‘Clericalism—that is our enemy: European anticlericalism and
the culture wars’, in Clark, Kaiser, (eds) Culture wars.
Kale, S., Legitimism and the reconstruction of French society, 1852–83,
1992.
Kalifa, D., ‘Enquête et culture de l’enquête au 19e siècle’, Romantisme,
2010.
Kalman, J., Rethinking Antisemitism in 19th Century France, Cambridge,
2009.
384   APPENDICES

Karila-Cohen, P., ‘Le Christ s’est arrêté à Origny. Le temps, l’enquête et

l’administration’, in Demartini, A-E., Kalifa, D., (eds) Imaginaire et
sensibilités au 19e siècle. Etudes pour Alain Corbin, 2005.
Karila-Cohen, P., L’état des esprits. L’invention de l’enquête politique en
France (1814–48), Rennes, 2008.
Katznelson, I., Stedman Jones, G., (eds) Religion and the Political
Imagination, Cambridge, 2010.
Kaufman, S., Consuming visions. Mass culture and the Lourdes shrine, 2005.
Kerouanton, J-L., ‘La reconstruction des églises du Choletais au 19e siè-
cle: représentation catholique, architecture en vendée angevine’, Centre
vendéen de recherches historiques, (ed) Christianisme et Vendée.
Kertzer, D., The unholy war: the Popes against the Jews, New York, 2001.
Kirschleger, P.-Y., ‘Répondre au Jésus de Renan’ in Cholvy, Figures du
Christ dans l’histoire.
Krauskopf, C., ‘La haine de la Commune: un exemple provincial’ in
F. Chauvaud, L. Gaussot, (eds) La haine. Histoire et actualité, Rennes,
2008.
Kselman, T., Miracles and prophecies in nineteenth century France, New
Brunswick, 1983.
Kselman, T., ‘The varieties of religious experience in urban France’ in
McLeod, H., European Religion in the Age of Great Cities, 1830–1930,
1995.
Kselman, T., ‘The dechristianisation of death in modern France’, in
McLeod, H., Ustorf, W., (eds) The decline of Christendom.
Kselman, T., ‘Claude Langlois’s vision of 19th century French Catholicism’,
Historical reflections, 2013.
Lagoueyte, P., ‘Le rôle des femmes dans les élections législatives sous le
Second Empire’, in Corbin et al, Femmes dans la cité …
Lagrée, M., Mentalités, religion et histoire en Haute-Bretagne au 19e siècle.
Le diocèse de Rennes (1815–48), 1978.
Lagrée, M., Religion et cultures en Bretagne 1850–1950, 1992.
Lagrée, M., (ed) Les parlers de la foi. Religion et langues régionales, Rennes,
1995.
Lagrée, M., (ed) Chocs et ruptures en histoire religieuse. France 18e–19e
siècles, Rennes, 1998.
Lagrée, M., La bénédiction de Prométhée. Religion et techniques, 19e–20e
siècles, 1999.
Lalouette, J., La libre pensée en France, 1848–1940, 1997.
Lalouette, J., ‘L’anticléricalisme’ in Pellistrandi, (ed) Histoire religieuse.
  APPENDICES 
   385

Lalouette, J., La république anticléricale, 2002.

Lalouette, J., ‘La politique religieuse de la Seconde République’, Revue
d’histoire du 19e siècle, 2004.
Lalouette, J., La séparation des églises et de l’Etat. Genèse et développement
d’une idée 1789–1905, 2005.
Lamberts, E., (ed) The Black International. The Holy See and militant
Catholicism in Europe, Brussels, 2002.
Langlois, C., ‘Les tiers-ordres dans le diocèse de Vannes’ in Langlois,
P.  Wagret, (eds) Structures religieuses et célibat féminin au 19e siècle,
Lyon, 1972.
Langlois, C., Le catholicisme au féminin. Les congrégations françaises à
supérieure générale au 19e siècle, 1984.
Langlois, C., ‘Une France duelle? L’espace religieux contemporain’, in
Joutard, (ed) Histoire de la France religieuse.
Langlois, C., ‘La conjoncture mariale des années 40’ in Angelier, Langlois,
La Salette.
Langlois, C., ‘Histoire, spiritualité et anthropologie. Femmes en prière,
saints en competition’ in Pellistrandi (ed), L’histoire religieuse.
Langlois, C., Le crime d’Onan. Le discours catholique sur la limitation des
naissances, 2005.
Langlois, C., Catholicisme, religieuses et société. Le temps des bonnes sœurs,
2011.
Langlois, C., Tackett, T., Vovelle, M., Bonin, S., Bonin, M., Atlas de la
Révolution française, vol. 9, Religion, 1996.
Laroche, C., ‘Les enjeux multiples de l’architecture religieuse du second
19e siècle en France’ in Foucart, Hamon, L’architecture religieuse.
Latreille, A., ‘La pensée catholique sur l’Etat depuis les dernières années
du 19e siècle’ in Nédoncelle, L’ecclésiologie au 19e siècle.
Laugerud, H., Ryan, S., (eds) Devotional cultures of European Christianity,
1790–1960, Dublin, 2012.
Launay, M., Le diocèse de Nantes sous le Second Empire, 2 vols, Nantes,
1983.
Launay, M., Le bon prêtre. Le clergé rural au 19e siècle, 1986.
Launay, M.,‘Les jubilés dans la France de l’ouest au 19e siècle’, in Maes
et al, Jubilé et culte marial.
Launay, M., Les séminaires français aux 19e et 20e siècles, 2002.
Launay, M., Le ciel et la terre. L’Eglise au village (19e siècle), 2009.
Le Bas, A., Des sanctuaires hors les murs. Eglises de la proche banlieue parisi-
enne 1801–1965, 2002.
386   APPENDICES

Le Bras, G., Introduction à l’histoire de la pratique religieuse en France, 2

vols, 1942–45.
Le Bras, G., Etudes de sociologie religieuse, 2 vols, 1955–56.
Le Douget, A., Violence au village. La sociéte rurale finistérienne face à la
justice (1815–1914), Rennes, 2014.
Le Gall, L., L’électeur en campagnes dans le Finistère. Une seconde
République de Bas-Breton, 2009.
Le Gall, L., ‘L’élection au village dans la France du 19e siècle’, Revue
d’histoire du 19e siècle, 2011.
Le Gallo, Y., Clergé, religion et société en Basses-Bretagne, 1991.
Lehning, J., Peasant and French. Cultural contact in rural France during
the 19th century, Cambridge, 1995.
Lenaiaud, J-M., ‘Les constructions d’églises sous le Second Empire’,
Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 1979.
Leniaud, J-M., L’Administration des cultes pendant la période concorda-
taire, 1988.
Leniaud, J-M., Les cathédrales au 19e siècle. Etude du service des édifices
diocésains, 1993.
Leniaud, J-M., Viollet-le-Duc, 1994.
Leniaud, J-M., ‘Variations sur le néo-gothique’ in J. de Maeyer,
L. Verpoest, (eds) Gothic revival.
Leniaud, J-M., ‘Quelques hypothèses sur l’aménagement intérieur de
l’édifice cultuel au 19e siècle’ in Ypersele, Marcelis, Rêves de
chrétienté.
Leniaud, J-M., La révolution des signes. L’art à l’église (1830–1930), 2007.
Leniaud, J-M., ‘Le budget des cultes: un outil de gouvernement?’ in
Leniaud, (ed) Le budget des cultes, 2007.
Lerch, D.’ ‘Imagerie populaire et antisémitisme: le Haut-Rhin en 1848’,
Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1988.
Lerch, D., ‘L’image dans l’imagerie pieuse en Alsace (1848–1914)’ in
S. Michaud et al, (eds) Usages de l’image au 19e siècle, 1992.
Lesart, G-G., Notre-Dame de Doute. Le culte marial en Franche-Comté
(du 19e au début du 20e siècle), Besançon, 2006.
Leuillot, P., ‘Politique et religion. Les élections alsaciennes de 1869’,
Revue d’Alsace, 1961.
Levack, B., The Devil within: possession and exorcism in the Christian west,
2013.
Lévêque, P., Une société en crise. La Bourgogne de la Monarchie de Juillet
au Second Empire, (1846–52), 2 vols, 1983.
  APPENDICES 
   387

Levillain, P., Boutry, P., Fradet, Y-M., (eds) 150 ans au cœur de Rome. Le
séminaire français, 1853–2003, 2004.
Lewis, A., ‘A turbulent priest? The Forbin-Janson affaire (1824–39)’
French History, 2005.
Lia Bonella, A., et al, (eds) Roma fra la Restaurazione e l’Elezione du Pie
IX, Rome, 1997.
Limouzin-Lamothe, R., Leflon, J., Mgr Denys-Auguste Affre, archevêque
de Paris (1793–1848), 1971.
Locke, R., French Legitimists and the Politics of Moral Order in the Early
Third Republic, 1974.
Lonjon, A.,‘Identification et catègorisation: les élites catholiques du Pas-­
de-­Calais au 19e siècle’ Siècles, 2004.
Lyon-Caen, J., ‘Un magistère social: Eugène Sue et le pouvoir de
représenter’, Le mouvement social, 2008.
Macknight, E., ‘A theatre of rule? Domestic service in aristocratic house-
holds under the 3rd Republic’, French history, 2008.
Maes, B., Moulinet, D., Vincent, C., (eds) Jubilé et culte marial, Saint-­
Etienne, 2009.
Maeyer, J. de, Verpoest, L., (eds) Gothic revival. Religion, architecture and
style in western Europe, 1815–1914, Leuven, 2000.
Magraw, R., ‘The conflict in the village: popular anticlericalism in the
Isère, 1852–70’ in Zeldin, Conflicts in French society.
Manceau, J., Monseigneur Marie-Dominique-August Sibour, Archevêque de
Paris (1848–57), 1987.
Marais, J-L.,‘Les pauvres de la paroisse et/ou les pauvres de la ville’ in
Petit, J-G., Marec, Y., (eds) Le social dans la ville en France et en Europe,
1750–1914, 1996.
Marchand, E., Tochon, M., La Salette dans la France de 1846, 2007.
Marcilhacy, C., Le diocèse d’Orléans sous l’épiscopat de Mgr. Dupanloup,
1849–79, 1962.
Marcilhacy, C. Le diocèse d’Orléans au milieu du 19e siècle, 1964.
Marec, Y., Pauvres et philanthropes à Rouen au 19e siècle, Rouen, 1981.
Marec, Y. et al, La Normandie au 19e siècle. Entre tradition et modernité,
Rennes, 2015.
Martin, J-C., (ed) Religion et révolution, 1994.
Martin, P., Une religion des livres, 2003.
Marx, J., ‘La Salette dans la théologie politique légitimiste’ in Dierkens,
A., (ed) L’intelligentsia européenne en mutation (1850–75): Darwin, le
Syllabus et leurs conséquences, Brussels, 1998.
388   APPENDICES

Marx, J., Le péché de la France. Surnaturel et politique au 19e siècle,

Brussels, 2005.
Mas, C-F., ‘Internat et travail chrétien au milieu du 19e siècle’ in Faure,
Delpal, Religion et enfermement.
Massaut, J-P., Henneau, M-E., (eds) La christianisation des campagnes,
Rome, 1996.
Matsumoto-Best, S., Britain and the Papacy in the age of revolution, 2003.
Mattard-Bonucci, M-A., Antisémythes. L’image des juifs entre culture et
politique (1848–1939), 2005.
Maurain, J., La politique ecclésiastique du Second Empire de 1852 à 1869,
1930.
Maurain, J., Un bourgeois français au 19e siècle: Baroche, ministre de
Napoléon III, 1936.
Maurer, C., ‘Dieu dans la ville. Les catholiques et la demande sociale
urbaine en Allemagne et en France au 19e siècle …’, Revue d’Alsace,
2008.
May, A., ‘The Falloux law, the Catholic press, and the bishops: crisis of
authority in the French Church’, French historical studies, 1973.
Mayaud, J-L., Les secondes républiques du Doubs, 1986.
Mayeur, F., ‘L’éducation des filles en France au 19e siècle’ in Ecole fran-
çaise de Rome, (ed) Problèmes d’histoire de l’éducation, Rome, 1988.
Mayeur, F., ‘La formation des institutrices avant la loi Paul Bert’ in Cholvy,
Chaline, L’enseignement catholique en France.
Mayeur, F., ‘L’Eglise catholique devant l’éducation et l’instruction’ in
Avanzini, Dubois et al, Pédagogie chrétienne, pédagogues chrétiens.
Mayeur, J-M., ‘Jules Ferry et la laïcité’ in F. Furet, (ed) Jules Ferry fonda-
teur de la République, 1985.
Mayeur, J-M., ‘Politique anti-congrèganiste et séparation des églises et de
l’Etat’, Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 2006.
Mayeur, J. Viaene, V.,  (eds) World views and worldly wisdom. Religion,
ideology and politics, 1750–2000, Leuven, 2016.
McBrien, R., (ed) The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism,
New York, 1995.
McMahon, D., Enemies of the Enlightenment. The French counter-­
Enlightenment and the making of modernity, Oxford, 2002.
McLeod, H., Secularisation in Western Europe, 1848–1914, 2000.
McLeod, H., Ustorf, W., (eds) The decline of Christendom in Western
Europe, 1750–2000, Cambridge, 2004.
McManners, J., Church and state in France, 1870–1914, 1972.
  APPENDICES 
   389

McManners, J., Church and society in 18th century France vol. I The cleri-
cal establishment and its social ramifications, Oxford, 1999.
McMillan, J., ‘Religion and gender in modern France’in Tallett, Atkin,
Religion, society and politics.
McMillan, J., ‘Louis Veuillot, L’Univers and the ultramontane network’ in
D.  Bates et  al, (eds) Liens personnels, réseaux, solidarités en France et
dans les îles britanniques (11e–20e siècles), 2006.
McPhee, P., The Politics of Rural Life: political mobilisation in the French
countryside, 1846–52, 1992.
Ménager, B., La vie politique dans le département du Nord de 1851 à 1877,
Doc. D’Etat Univ. de Paris IV, 1979.
Mension-Rigau, E., Le donjon et le clocher. Nobles et curés de campagne de
1850 à nos jours, 2004.
Merriman, J., The Margins of City Life. Explorations on the French urban
frontier, 1815–51, Oxford, 1991.
Meslin, M., ‘La question romaine: la papauté et la structuration du cathol-
icisme’ in Meyer, F., Milbach, S., (eds) Les échanges religieux entre
l’Italie et la France, 1760–1850, Chambéry, 2010.
Miccoli, G., ‘Racines chrétiennes et contribution catholique à l’essor de
l’antisémitisme politique’, in Mattard-Bonucci, Antisémythes.
Michaud, S., (ed) L’Edification. Morales et cultures au 19e siècle, 1993.
Milbach, S., Prêtres historiens et pèlerinages du diocèse de Dijon, Dijon,
2000.
Milbach, S., ‘Les catholiques libéraux et la Révolution française autour de
1848’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, 2010.
Milbach, S., Les chaires ennemies: l’Eglise et la liberté d’enseignement secon-
daire dans la France des notables (1830–50), 2015.
Mills, H., ‘Negotiating the divide: women, philanthropy and the public
sphere in 19th century France’ in Tallett, Atkin, Religion, society and
politics in France.
Moisset, J-P., Les biens de ce monde. Les finances de l’Eglise catholique au
19e siècle dans le diocèse de Paris (1802–1905), Bordeaux, 2004.
Moisset, J-P., ‘Les finances de la culte catholique dans les paroisses urbains:
l’exemple de Paris au 19e siècle’ in Boutry, Encrevé, La religion dans la
ville.
Moisset, J-P., ‘La place du budget des cultes dans le financement du
catholicisme: l’exemple du diocèse de Paris’ in Leniaud, Le budget des
cultes.
Mollier, J-Y., Reid, M., Yon, J-C., (eds) Repenser la Restauration, 2005.
390   APPENDICES

Moulinet, D., ‘Mgr Gaume: une vision intransigeante des évènements

contemporains’ in Ypersele, Marcelis, Rêves de chrétienté, réalités du
monde.
Moulinet, D., ‘Pèlerinages mariaux en France aux 19e–20e siècles’ in
Maes et al, Jubilé et culte marial.
Moulinet, D., ‘Visages du Christ au 19e siècle, chez plusieurs théologiens
catholiques français’ in Cholvy, Figures du Christ.
Moulinet, D., ‘Un réseau ultramontain en France au milieu du 19e siècle’,
Revue d’histoire ecclésiatique, 1997.
Muckensturm, S., ‘La quantification d’un phénomène social: l’indifférence
en France dans la 1re moitié du 19e siècle’, Histoire, économie, et société,
2000.
Muller, C., Dieu est catholique et alsacien. Le vitalité du diocèse de Strasbourg
au 19e siècle 2 vols, Strasbourg, 1987.
Multon, H., ‘Un vecteur de la culture politique contre-révolutionnaire,
La décadence dans la littérature apocalyptique’, in Frétigné, Jankowiak,
La décadence.
Multon, H., Sorrel, C., (eds) L’idée de Rome: pouvoirs, représentations,
conflits, Chambéry, 2006.
Multon, H., ‘Concurrence dévotionnelle ou recomposition des croyances.
Quelques réflexions sur le culte marial et la culture des saints dans le
catholicisme du second 19e siècle’, Società e storia, 2007.
Nash, D., ‘Reconnecting religion with social and cultural history:
Secularisation’s failure as a master narrative’, Cultural and social history,
2004.
Nédoncelle, M., (ed) L’ecclésiologie au 19e siècle, 1960.
Nicolas, G., ‘Les instituteurs sous le Second Empire. Pour une approche
régionale des mémoires de 1861: l’exemple de l’académie de Rennes’,
Histoire de l’éducation, 2002.
Nicolas, G., Le grand débat de l’école au 19e siècle. Les instituteurs du
Second Empire, 2004.
Nouvel, M., Frédéric Le Play. Une réforme sociale sous le second empire,
2009.
Offerlé, M., ‘De l’histoire électorale à la socio-histoire des électeurs’
Romantisme, 2007.
O’Malley, J., ‘Catholic Church History: 100 years of the discipline’,
Catholic Historical Review, 2015.
Osselaer, T. van, The Pious Sex: Catholic construction of masculinity and
femininity in Belgium, c.1800–1940, Leuven, 2013.
  APPENDICES 
   391

Osselaer, T. van; Pasture, P., Christian Homes: religion, family and domes-
ticity in the 19th and 20th centuries, Leuven, 2014.
Ormières, J-L.,’Falloux et les catholiques libéraux’ in ‘Catholiques entre
monarchie et république. Mgr Freppel et son temps’, 1995.
Palluel-Guillard, A.,‘Les missions en France sous la Restauration’ in Sorrel,
C., Meyer, F., (eds) Les missions intérieures en France et en Italie du 16e
au 20e siècles, Chambéry, 2001.
Pascale, J., Les ecclésiastiques parlementaires français, 1848–1977, Pontoise,
1988.
Paubert, L., ‘Les catholiques et la Seconde République dans le Morbihan
et le Finistère (printemps 1848–autumne 1851)’, Bulletin de la Société
archéologique du Finistère, 2003.
Paubert, L., ‘Les catholiques et l’élection présidentielle du 10 décembre
1848 dans le Morbihan et le Finistère’, Annales de Bretagne, 2000.
Pelletier, D., ‘Le catholicisme social en France (19e–20e siècles). Une
modernité paradoxale’ in B. Pelistrandi, (ed) L’histoire religieuse.
Pelletier, D., ‘Les pratiques charitable françaises entre histoire sociale et
histoire religieuse’ in I. von Bueltzingsloewen, D.  Pelletier, (eds) La
charité en pratique.
Pelletier, G., Rome et la Révolution française: la théologie et la politique du
Saint-Siège devant la Révolution française (1789–99), Rome, 2004.
Pellistrandi, B., (ed) L’histoire religieuse en France et en Espagne, Madrid,
2004.
Percheron, A., ‘La transmission des valeurs’ in F. de Singly, (ed) La famille,
l’état des savoir, 1991.
Pérouas, L., ‘Ostensions et culte des saints en Limousin. Une approche
ethno-historique’, Ethnologie française, 1983.
Pérouas, L., Culte des saints et anticléricalisme, 2002.
Pérouas, L., Le catholicisme en Limousin aux 19e et 20e siècles à travers sa
presse, Treignac, 2000.
Pérouas, L., d’Hollander, P., La Révolution française: une rupture dans le
christianisme? Le cas du Limousin (1775–1822), Treignac, 1988.
Perreau-Saussine, E., ‘French Catholic Political Thought from the decon-
fessionalisation of the state to the recognition of religious freedom’ in
Katznelson, Stedman Jones, (eds) Religion.
Petit, A., ‘Le clergé paroissial à Paris: 1840–70’ in Boutry, Encrève, La
religion dans la ville.
Petit, V., ‘Le clergé contre l’ivrognerie. La campagne du Père Ducreux dans
les montagnes du Doubs (1864–69)’, Histoire et sociétés rurales, 2000.
392   APPENDICES

Petit, V., Eglise et nation. La question liturgique en France au 19e siècle,

Rennes, 2010.
Petit, V., Catholiques et comtois. Liturgie diocésaine et identité régionale au
19e siècle, 2011.
Petit, V., ‘Théologie et politique. Prier pour le souverain en France au 19e
siècle’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiatique, 2011.
Petit, V., ‘Saint Napoléon, un saint pour la nation. Contribution à
l’imaginaire politique français’, Napoleonica. La revue, 2015.
Petit, V., ‘Religion, culte, liturgie et processus de civilisation dans la France
du 19e siècle’, Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 2015.
Pichot-Bravard, P., Le pape ou l’empereur. Les catholiques et Napoléon III,
Perpignan, 2008.
Pierrard, P., La vie ouvrière à Lille sous le Second Empire, 1965.
Pierrard, P., ‘Le roman pieux ou d’édification en France au temps de
l’Ordre moral (1850–80)’ in Dubosq, Plongeron, Robert, Le religion
populaire.
Pierrard, P., Les diocèses de Cambrai et de Lille, 1978.
Pierrard, P., L’Eglise et les ouvriers en France (1840–1940), 1984.
Pierrard, P., La vie quotidienne du prêtre français, 1801–1905, 1986.
Pierrard, P., Les laïcs dans l’Eglise de France, 1988.
Pinard, L., Les mentalités religieuses du Morvan au 19e siècle (1830–1914),
Château-Chinon, 1997.
Pirotte, J., ‘Refaire la chrétienté d’outre-mer. Les métamorphoses d’un
projet de conquête (19e-milieu du 20e siècles) in Ypersele, Marcelus,
Rêves de chrétienté.
Pizzoruso, G., Poncet, O., Sanfilippo, M., (eds) Gli archivi della Santa
Sede e la storia di Francia, Viterbo, 2006.
Pitou, F., (ed) Elites et notables de l’ouest, 16e–20e siècles. Entre conserva-
tisme et modernité, Rennes, 2004.
Plongeron, B., (ed) La religion populaire, 1976.
Plongeron, B., Guillaume, P., (eds) De la charité à l’action sociale: religion
et société, 1995.
Plongeron, B., Des résistances religieuses à Napoléon (1799–1813),
2006.
Ploux, F., De bouche à oreille. Naissance et propagation des rumeurs dans la
France du 19e siècle, 2003.
Ploux, F., ‘Luttes de faction à la campagne. L’exemple du Lot au 19e
siècle’, Histoire et sociétés rurales, 2004.
  APPENDICES 
   393

Ploux, F., ‘Les curés historiens de village et les tentatives de restauration

de l’autorité cléricale après la Révolution’, le mouvement social, 2008.
Polistena, J., The religious paintings of Eugène Delacroix (1798–1863): the
initiator of the style of modern religious art, Lewiston, 2008.
Pollard, J., Money and the Rise of the Modern Papacy, Cambridge, 2005.
Poncet, O., La nonciature de France (1819–1904) et ses archives, Vatican
City, 2006.
Portier, P., ‘Catholicisme et politique dans la France contemporaine, Un
état de recherche’ in Pellistrandi, L’histoire religieuse.
Poulat, E., ‘Contre-révolution et religion, pour une contre-histoire de la
contre-révolution: la généalogie d’une tradition catholique’ in Martin,
Religion et révolution.
Pourcher, Y., ‘Les vocations sacerdotales et religieuses en Lozère aux 19e
et 20e siècles’, Le monde alpin et rhodanien, 1985.
Prévotat, J., ‘L’Eglise a-t-elle trahi les pauvres? Le 19e siècle français’
Communio, 1986.
Price, R., The French Second Republic. A social history, 1972.
Price, R., ‘Poor relief and social crisis in mid-19th-century France’
European Studies Review, 1983.
Price, R., A social history of 19th century France, 1987.
Price, R., The French Second Empire. An anatomy of political power,
Cambridge, 2001.
Price, R., People and Politics in France, 1848–70, Cambridge, 2004.
Price, R., Documents on the Second French Empire, 1852–1870, 2015.
Price, R., The modernization of rural France: Communications networks
and agricultural market structures in 19th century France 2018.
Priest, R., The Gospel according to Renan. Reading, writing and religion in
19th century France, Oxford, 2015.
Primi, A., ‘Le coup-d’état selon Hernance Lesguillon, femme de lettres:
un espoir de progrès social et de régénération chrétienne’, in Aprile
et al, Comment meurt une république.
Quellier, F., Provost, G., (eds) Du ciel à la terre. Clergé et agriculture,
16e–19e siècles, Rennes, 2008.
Quéniart, J., ‘Enseigner l’histoire religieuse, risques et enjeux’ in
Delumeau, L’historien et la foi.
Raphael, P., Gontard, M., Un ministre de l’Instruction publique sous
l’Empire autoritaire. Hippolyte Fortoul, 1851–56, 1972.
Ratcliffe, B., Piette, C., Vivre la ville. Les classes populaires à Paris (1re
moitié du 19e siècle), 2007.
394   APPENDICES

Rémond, R., ‘Droite et gauche dans le catholicisme français’, Revue fran-

çaise de science politique, 1958.
Rémond, R., L’anticléricalisme en France de 1815 à nos jours, 1976.
Revenin, R., (ed) Hommes et masculinités de 1789 à nos jours, 2007.
Reverso, P., ‘La Révolution romaine de 1848–49 dans la presse catholique
française’ in Reverso, (ed) La République romaine de 1849 et la France,
2008.
Reymond, S., ‘L’Oeuvre des Dames de Calvaire: charité, devotion et élit-
isme à Lyon au 19e siècle’, Cahiers d’histoire, 2002.
Riall, L. ‘Martyrs Cults in Nineteenth-Century Italy’, Journal of Modern
History, 2010.
Richard, E., ‘La presse marseillaise et l’encyclique Quanta cura’ in Etudes
d’histoire provençale, Gap, 1971.
Robert, V., Les chemins de la manifestation, 1848–1914, Lyon, 1996.
Rochefort, F., ‘Religions, genre, et politiques laïques en France, 19e–20e
siècles’, French politics, culture and society, 2007.
Rogard, V., Les catholiques et la question sociale. Morlaix 1840–1914.
L’avènement des militants, Rennes, 1997.
Rogers, R., Les bourgeoises au pensionnat. L’éducation féminine au 19e
siècle, Rennes, 2007.
Rogers, R., ‘L’impensable mixité de l’enseignement secondaire féminin
en France au 19e siècle’ in Rogers, (ed) La mixité dans l’éducation,
2004.
Rohr, J., Victor Duruy, ministre de Napoléon III. Essai sur la politique de
l’instruction publique au temps de l’Empire libéral, 1967.
Roquette, A., Mgr. Frayssinous, grand maître de l’Université sous la
Restauration, 2007.
Rupke, N., ‘Christianity and the sciences’ in S. Gilley, B. Stanley, (eds) The
Cambridge history of Christianity.
Sacquin, M., Entre Bossuet et Maurras. L’antiprotestantisme en France de
1814 à 1870, 1998.
Sacquin, M., (ed) Zola et les historiens, 2004.
Saint-Martin, I., Voir, savoir, croire. Catéchismes et pédagogie par l’image
au 19e siècle, 2003.
Saint-Martin, I., ‘Variations sur le texte et l’image dans les albums et man-
uels d’instruction religieuse (1800–1914)’ in A. Charon et al (eds) La
mis en page du livre religieux, 2004.
Saint-Martin, I., ‘Les représentations des juifs dans la première éducation
religieuse’, in Mattard-Bonucci, (ed) Antisémythes.
  APPENDICES 
   395

Saint-Martin, I., Art chrétien/art sacré. Regards du catholicisme sur l’art.

France, 19e–20e siècles, Rennes, 2014.
Savart, C., Les catholiques en France au 19e siècle: le témoignage du livre
religieux, 1985.
Savart, C., ‘Le livre religieux’ in H-J. Martin, R. Chartier, (eds) Histoire
de l’édition française III Le temps des éditeurs. Du Romantisme à la Belle
Epoque, 1985.
Schaefer, R., ‘Program for a new Catholic Wissenschaft: devotional activ-
ism and Catholic modernity in the 19th century’, Modern intellectual
history, 2007.
Schatz, K., La primauté du pape, 1992.
Schneider, R., ‘La réception du Concordat dans les deux diocèses et sa
continuité’ in Mgr. J. Doré, Mgr. P. Raffin, Le bicentaire du Concordat,
Strasbourg, 2001.
Schwartz, L., Isser, N., ‘Some involuntary conversion techniques’, Jewish
social studies, 1981.
Secondy, L., ‘Place et role des petits seminaires dans l’enseignement secon-
daire en France aux 19e siècle’, Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 1980.
Secondy, P., La persistance du Midi blanc. L’Hérault (1789–1962),
Perpignan, 2006.
Segalen, M., Mari et femme dans la société paysanne, 1980.
Sevrin, E., Mgr. Clausel de Montals, II 1955.
Sevrin, E., Les missions religieuses en France sous la Restauration, 2 vols,
1948 1959.
Sewell, W., Logics of history. Social theory and social transformation, 2005.
Sicard, G., ‘L’Offensive de laïcisation de 1870–71’, Revue de l’histoire de
l’Eglise de France, 1995.
Sigly, F. de, (ed) La famille, l’état des savoirs, 1992.
Simpson, M., ‘Serving France in Rome: the Zouaves pontificaux and the
French nation’, French History, 2013.
Singer, B., Village notables in 19th century France. Priests, mayors, school-
masters, Albany, N.Y., 1983.
Sorrel, C., (ed) L’anticléricalisme croyant (1860–1914), Chambéry, 2004.
Soulet, J-F., Les Pyrénées au 19e siècle, 2 vols, 1987.
Sperber, J., ‘Churches, the faithful, and the politics of religion in the
Revolution of 1848’ in D. Dowe et al, Europe in 1848, 2001.
Stengers, J.,‘Les pratiques anticonceptionnelles dans le mariage aux 19e et
20e siècles: problèmes humains et attitudes religieuses’, Revue belge de
philologie et d’histoire, 1971.
396   APPENDICES

Sutherland, D., (ed) ‘Claude Langlois’s Vision of France: regional iden-

tity, royal imaginary, and holy women’, Historical Reflexions, 2013.
Tackett, T., Langlois, C.,‘Ecclesiastical structures and clerical geography
on the eve of the French Revolution’, French historical studies, 1980.
Tackett, T., La Révolution, l’Eglise, la France. Le serment de 1791, 1986.
Tallett, F., Atkin, N., (eds) Religion, society and politics in France since
1789, 1991.
Tallett, F., Atkin, N., (eds) Catholicism in Britain and France since 1789,
1996.
Mgr. Tauran, L-J., ‘Le Concordat de 1801: valeur et continuité’ in Doré,
Raffin, Le bicentaire du Concordat.
Tavard, G., La Vierge Marie en France au 18e et 19e siècles, 1990.
Taylor, T., ‘So many extraordinary things to tell: letters from Lourdes
1858’, Journal of ecclesiastical history, 1995.
Thibon, C., Pays de Sault. Les pyrénées audoises au 19e siècle: les villages et
l’Etat, 1988.
Thuillier, G., Pour une histoire du quotidien au 19e siècle en Nivernais,
1977.
Tillier, A., Des criminelles au village. Femmes infanticides en Bretagne
(1825–65), Rennes, 2001.
Tort, O., ‘Les stratégies des légitimistes sous le Second Empire ou le tri-
omphe de l’irrésolution’, Parlement[s], 2008.
Troisier de Diaz, A., (ed) Regards sur Emile Ollivier, 1985.
Truesdell, M., Spectacular politics. Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte and the fête
impériale, 1849–70, 1997.
Tudesq, A.J., L’Election présidentielle de Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, 10
décembre 1848, 1965.
Tudesq, A.J., Les grands notables en France (1840–49): Etude historique
d’une psychologie sociale, 2 vols, 1964.
Tulard, J., (ed), Dictionnaire du Second Empire, 1995.
Turner, B., The Religious and the Political. A comparative sociology of reli-
gion, Cambridge, 2013.
Vandeplas, B., ‘L’attitude de l’église cantalienne en 1848 d’après les man-
dements épiscopaux’, Revue de la Haute-Auvergne, 1998.
Verboeven, T.,‘The satyriasis diagnosis: anti-clerical doctors and celibate
prists in 19th century France’, French History, 2012.
Verjus, A., ‘Le suffrage universel, le chef de famille et la question de
l’exclusion des femmes en 1848’ in Corbin et  al, Femmes dans la
cité …
  APPENDICES 
   397

Viaene, V., Belgium and the Holy See from Gregory XVI to Pius IX
(1831–59). Catholic revival, society and politics in 19th century Europe,
Brussels, 2001.
Viaene, V., ‘The Roman question, Catholic mobilisation and Papal diplo-
macy during the pontificate of Pius IX’ in E. Lamberts, (ed) The Black
International.
Viaene, V., ‘International history, religious history, Catholic history: per-
spectives for cross-fertilization’, European history quarterly, 2008.
Vicaire, M., ‘Les ouvriers parisiens en face du catholicisme de 1830 à
1970’, Revue suisse d’histoire, 1951.
Vigier, P., La Seconde République dans la région alpin, 2 vols, 1963.
Vigier, P., ‘Le bonapartisme et le monde rurale’ in K.  Hanmer,
P. Hartmann, (eds) Der Bonapartismus, Munich, 1977.
Vigier, P. et al, Maintien de l’ordre et police en France et en Europe au 19e
siècle, 1987.
Villette, V., Apprendre à voter sous la 2e République, 2013.
Vincienne, M., Courtois, H., ‘Notes sur la situation religieuse de la France
en 1848’, Archives de sociologie des religions, 1958.
Vivier, N., ‘La foi dans le siècle’, in Guillemain, et al La foi dans le siècle.
Vogler, B., ‘Catholiques et protestants alsaciens entre deux langues et
deux nations de 1815 à 1945’ in M. Lagrée, (ed) Les parlers de la foi.
Vovelle, M., Les âmes du purgatoire ou le travail du deuil, 1996.
Voyenne, B., Proudhon et Dieu, le combat d’un anarchiste, 2004.
Wahl, A., Petites haines ordinaires. Histoire des conflits entre catholiques et
protestants en Alsace, 1860–1940, Strasbourg, 2004.
Walch, A., La spiritualité conjugale dans le catholicisme français (16e–20e
siècles), 2002.
Winock, J-M., ‘Louis Veuillot et l’antijudaïsme français lors de l’Affaire
Mortara’ in Brice, Miccoli, Les racines chrétiennes de l’antisémitisme
politique.
Wynants, P., ‘La christianisation des campagnes par l’enseignement popu-
laire au 19e siècle. Etude de cas: les écoles des Sœurs de la Providence
et de l’Immaculée Conception’ in Massaut, Henneau, (eds) La chris-
tianisation des campagnes.
Ypersele, L. van; Marcelis, A-D., (eds) Rêves de chrétienté, Réalités du
monde. Imaginaires catholiques, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2001.
Zeldin, T.,‘The conflict of moralities’ in Zeldin, (ed) Conflicts in French
Society: anti-clericalism, education and morals in the 19th century,
1970.
398   APPENDICES

Zind, P., L’enseignement religieux dans l’instruction primaire publique en

France de 1850 à 1873, Lyon, 1971.
Zind, P., ‘Le religion dans les lycées sous le regime de la loi Falloux,
1850–73’ in Baker, Harrigan, The making of Frenchmen.

Notes
1. ‘Lettre de N.T.S.P. le Pape Léon XIII à Nos chers Fils les cardinaux de la
Sainte Eglise Romaine, Antoine de Luca, vice-chancelier de la S.E.R.,
J-B.  Pitra, bibliothécaire de la S.E.R., Joseph Hergenroether, préfet des
archives du Vatican’, Revue des questions historiques, 34 1883, quoted by
P. Boutry, ‘Papauté et culture au 19e siècle. Magistère, orthodoxie, tradi-
tion’, Revue d’histoire du 19e siècle, 2004/1 pp. 56–8.
2. J. Delumeau, ‘L’historien chrétien face à la déchristianisation’ in Delumeau,
(ed) L’historien et la foi, 1996, p. 83.
3. P. Pierrard, ‘Pour une histoire sans frontières’ ibid., p. 222.
4. B. Gille, Histoire des techniques, 1978, p. 46 referring to the divination of
great inventors and quoted by M.  Lagrée, La bénédiction de Prométhée.
Religion et techniques, 19e–20e siècles, 1999, p.  378. Recent examples of
hagiography include J-M. de Réville, Le saint curé d’Ars, 1986 and
M. Périsset, La Vie extraordinaire du saint curé d’Ars, 1986.
5. Examples from F. Jankowiak, La curie romaine de Pie IX à Pie X. Le gou-
vernement central de l’Eglise et la fin des Etats pontificaux 1846–1914,
Rome 2007, pp. 87–8.
6. Williams, Why study the past? pp. 2–3.
7. See also C.  Langlois, ‘Un historien devant la théologie’ in Langlois, Le
continent théologique Explorations historiques, 2016, pp. 26–7.
8. L. Febvre, Philippe II et la Franche-Comté, la crise de 1567, ses origines et ses
conséquences. Etude d’histoire politique, religieuse et sociale, 1911;
A. Siegfried, Tableau politique de la France de l’ouest sous la 3e République,
1913; M. Bloch, Les rois thaumaturges, 1924.
9. O’Malley, ‘Catholic church history’ p. 16.
10. C. Bonafoux-Verrax, ‘La périodisation en histoire religieuse’ in D. Avon,
M.  Fourcade, (eds) Mentalités et croyances contemporaines, Montpellier,
2003, p. 68; G. Alfani, P. Castagnetti, V. Gourdon, (eds) Baptiser. Pratique
sacramental, pratique sociale, 16e–20e siècles, Saint-Etienne, 2009,
pp. 10–11.
11. P. Huot-Pleureux, Le recrutement sacerdotal dans le diocèse de Besançon de
1801 à 1660, Besançon, 1968; M. Faugeras, La reconstruction catholique
dans l’ouest après la Révolution. La diocèse de Nantes sous la monarchie
censitaire, Fontenay-le comte, 1964; M. Launay, Le diocèse de Nantes sous
  APPENDICES 
   399

le Second Empire, 2 vols, Nantes, 1983; C. Langlois, Le catholicisme au

féminin. Les congrégations françaises à supérieure générale au 19e siècle,
1984; M.  Lagrée, Mentalités, religion et histoire en Haute-Bretagne,
1977; Y-M. Hilaire, La vie religieuse des populations du diocèse d’Arras,
1840–1914, Doc. d’Etat, Univ. de Paris IV, 1976; G. Cholvy, Religion et
société au 19e siècle. Le diocèse de Montpellier, 2 vols., Lille, 1973;
R. Gibson, Les notables et l’Eglise dans le diocèse de Périgueux, Doc. de 3e
cycle, Univ. de Lyon, 1979.
12. See e.g. G. Dupeux, Aspects de l’histoire sociale et politique du Loir-et-Cher,
1962; P.  Barral, Les Perier dans l’Isère au 19e siècle, 1964; P.  Vigier, La
seconde République dans la région alpine, 2 vols., 1953; A. Armengaud, Les
populations de l’est Aquitain au début de l’époque contemporaine (vers1845-
vers 1871), 1961; A. Corbin, Archaïsme et modernité en Limousin au 19e
siècle, 2 vols., 1975; P. Levêque, Une société en crise. La Bourgogne de la
Monarchie de Juillet au Second Empire (1846–52), 2 vols. 1983.
13. G. Cholvy, Religion et société au 19e siècle, I, p. 4.
14. L’histoire sociale. Sources et méthodes, 1967, p. 288.
15. See e.g. B.  Dumons, ‘Histoire sociale et histoire religieuse, deux sœurs
ennemis? Un essai de relecture historiographique pour la France contem-
poraine’, Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 2000, pp. 563–4.
16. As is pointed out by McLeod, Secularisation p. 3. See also L. Riall, ‘Martyrs
cults in 19th century Italy’. Journal of modern history, 2010, p. 16.
17. M. Lagrée, Religion et modernité, p. 41.
18. J. Delumeau, ‘L’historien chrétien face à la déchristianisation’ in Delumeau,
L’historien et la foi, p. 53.
19. McLeod, Secularisation, pp. 11–12; D. Nash, ‘Reconnecting religion with
social and cultural history: Secularisation’s failure as a master narrative’,
Cultural and social history, 2004, pp. 304–6.
20. R. Harris, Lourdes. Body and spirit in the secular age, 1999, p. xvi. See also
e.g. P. Boutry, Prêtres et paroisses au pays du curé d’Ars, 1986; B. Delpal,
Entre paroisse et commune. Les catholiques de la Drôme au milieu du 19e
siècle, Valence, 1989; C.  Langlois, ‘Trente ans d’histoire religieuse.
Suggestions pour une future enquête’, Archives de sciences sociales des reli-
gions, 1987, passim; R. Bertrand, ‘L’histoire de la mort, de l’histoire des
mentalités, à l’histoire religieuse’, Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France,
2000, p. 555.
21. See e.g. A. Dupront, ‘La religion, anthropologie religieuse’ in J. Le Goff,
P.  Nora, (eds) Faire de l’histoire, vol 2, 1974, p.  105; Jean Delumeau,
‘Déchristianisation ou nouveau modèle de christianisation?’, Archives de
sciences sociales des religions, 1975, p. 4.
22. E.  Larkin, The pastoral role of the Roman Catholic Church in pre-famine
Ireland, 1750–1850, Washington, D.C. 2006, p. x.
400   APPENDICES

23. R. Gibson, ‘The Christianisation of the countryside in Western Europe in

the 19th century’ in J-P. Massaut, M-E. Henneau, (eds) La christianisation
des campagnes, Rome 1996, p. 491.
24. Series AN F19. See also C. Muller, Dieu est catholique et alsacien. Le vitalité
du diocèse de Strasbourg au 19e siècle Vol. II, Strasbourg, 1987, p. 775.
25. F. Chauvaud, ‘La parole captive. L’interrogatoire judiciaire au 19e siècle’,
Histoire et archives, 1997, passim.
26. A. Corbin, Le monde retrouvé de Louis-François Pinagot. Sur les traces d’un
inconnu 1798–1876, 1998, p. 249.
27. See e.g. the Enquête sur le travail agricole et industriel, prescribed by a
decree of 25 May 1848, which posed a question on religion; M. Vincienne,
H.  Courtois, ‘Notes sur la situation religieuse de la France en 1848’,
Archives de sociologie des religions, 1958, pp. 104–118.
28. See e.g. petition from mayor Monléon–Au citoyen Président de la
République française, 10 Jan. 1849, AN F19/5761.
29. See R.  Price, The French Second Empire. An anatomy of political power,
Cambridge, 2001, pp.  84–90; J-C.  Farcy, Les rapports des procureurs
généraux de la cour d’appel de Dijon (décembre 1849–juillet 1870), Dijon
2003, pp.  14–18; G.  Nicolas, Le grand débat de l’école au 19e siècle. Les
instituteurs du Second Empire, 2004, p.  34; P.  Karila-Cohen, L’état des
esprits. L’invention de l’enquête politique en France (1814–48), Rennes,
2008, passim; and ‘Etat et enquête au 19e siècle: d’une autorité à l’autre’,
Romantisme, 2010, p.  26; F.  Ploux, ‘Enquêtes sur les conflits villageois
dans le Quercy du 19e siècle’ in J-C.  Farcy, D.  Kalifa, J-N.  Luc, (eds)
L’enquête judiciare en Europe au 19e siècle, 2007, p. 339; B. Lepetit, ‘De
l’échelle en histoire’ in J.  Revel, (ed) Jeux d’échelles. Le micro-analyse à
l’expèrience, 1996, p. 83. See also Note 31.
 Index1

A Anceau, Eric (historian), 205n68,

Abbatucci, J.P. (Justice Minister), 195 316n111, 342n6
Abortion, 115 Ange, Abbê (missionary), 185
Absentee landowners, 295 Angels, 94, 126, 151, 186, 217, 272,
Absolution, 115, 120, 127, 171, 222, 279
229, 269, 305 Anti-clericalism, 237, 327–345
Abuse of children disorders, 340
its impact, 236, 238, 242, 249 Anti-semitism, 175–177, 179, 180
Acton, Lord (historian), 102 Antonelli, Cardinal (papal secretary of
Adam and Eve, 30, 73, 85, 121, 151, state), 96
152, 169, 186, 192, 193, 236, Apparitions, 86, 145–150, 165n214
336 Apponyi, Comte (Austrian diplomat),
Ad limina, visits, 84 362
Administration des cultes Architecture, church, 48, 50
budget des cultes, 386, 389 Aristocrats and religion, 25, 48, 99, 100,
police des cultes, 358 144, 183, 215, 271, 278, 285
Agricultural societies, 284 Associations, devotional, 143
Agriculture, innovation in, 340 Attendance, church
Alacoque, Marguerite Marie canonical obligations, 266
(visionary), 88 Easter communicants, 139, 266, 296
Allain-Targê, H. (writer), 331 impact of revolution on, 123, 139,
Alzon, Abbé d’, missionary, 79, 129 183
Amulets and medals, 300 sources, 266

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s) 2018 401

R. Price, Religious Renewal in France, 1789-1870,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67196-3
402   INDEX

Audiganne, Alphonse (political Bécel, Mgr., Bishop of Vannes, 17

economist), 253n80, 308, Bonald, de Louis, Mgr., Archbishop
324n263, 325n276 of Lyon, 16, 80, 97, 98, 145,
Augier, Emile (playwright), 197 178, 196
August 15, feast of Assumption and Bouvier, Mgr., Bishop of Le Mans,
celebration of Saint-Napoléon, 22
128, 138, 188, 198, 305 Brossais-Saint-Marc, Mgr.,
Augustine, Saint, 12, 121 Archbishop of Rennes, 98
Caverot, Mgr., Bishop of Saint-Dié,
247
B Chatrousse, Mgr., Bishop of
Bacciochi, Princess, 17 Valence, 298
Balzac, Honoré de (novelist), 23, 177, Clausel de Montals, Mgr., Bishop of
196, 199, 200 Chartres, 124, 153
Baptism, 114, 115, 132, 178, 219, Clermont-Tonnerre, Duc de, Mgr.
220, 225, 266, 267, 296, de, Archbishop of Toulouse, 15
305–307 Coeur, Mgr., Bishop of Troyes, 80
Baroche, Jules (Minister of Justice and Cousseau, Mgr., Bishop of
Public Worship), 92 Angoulême, 157n59, 181, 198
Barrot, Odilon (politician), 358, 362 Darboy, Mgr., Archbishop of Paris
Baudelaire, Charles (poet), 195 (1863–71), 19
Becdelièvre, Marquise de, 277 David, Mgr., Bishop of SaintBrieuc,
Belleville, programme, 23, 286 100, 130
Bells, church, 52, 56, 87, 217, 219, de Bruillard, Philibert, Mgr., Bishop
225, 229, 275, 276, 299, 302, of Grenoble, 144, 145
303 Delalle, Mgr., Bishop of Rodez, 75,
Bianchi, Alphonse, 338 93, 180
Biblical criticism, 135, 198 Devie, Mgr., Bishop of Belley, | 119
Bishops, appointment of Doney, Mgr., Bishop of Montauban,
Affre, Mgr., Archbishop of Paris 96, 173, 248
(1840-48), 77, 181 Donnet, Mgr., Archbishop of
Allou, Mgr., Bishop of Meaux, 39, Bordeaux, 17
94 Dreux-Brézé, Mgr., Bishop of
Angebault, Mgr., Bishop of Angers, Moulins, 93
380 Dufêtre, Mgr., Bishop of Nevers,
Arbaud, Mgr., Bishop of Gap, 121 339
Astros, Mgr., Archbishop of Dupanloup, Mgr., Bishop of
Toulouse, 182 Orleans, 25
authority under terms of Concordat Epivent, Mgr., Bishop of Aire, 93,
(1801), 10 98, 126
Baillès, Mgr., Bishop of Luçon, 37, Fillion, Mgr., Bishop of Le Mans,
84, 171 93, 225
  INDEX 
   403

Forbin-Janson, Mgr., Bishop of Mathieu, Mgr., Cardinal Archbishop

Nancy, 172 of Besançon, 80, 93, 95, 178,
Forcade, Mgr., Bishop of Nevers, 199
99, 247 Mazenod, Mgr., de, Bishop of
Foulquier, Mgr., Bishop of Mende, Marseille, 65n161
95 Meirieu, Mgr., Bishop of Digne, 16
Fournier, Mgr., Bishop of Menjaud, Mgr., Bishop of Nancy,
Montpellier, 13 16, 172, 272
Gerbet, Mgr., Bishop of Perpignan, Morlot, Mgr., Archbishop of Paris
39, 89 (1857-63), 16, 18, 77
Gignoux, Mgr., Bishop of Beauvais, Papal confirmation, 18, 39
17, 98 Parisis, Mgr., Bishop of Arras, 79,
Ginoulhiac, Mgr.,Bishop of 193, 200, 210n157, 309
Grenoble, 94, 146 Pie, Mgr., Bishop of Poitiers, 12,
Gousset, Mgr., Cardinal-Archbishop 30, 34, 96, 98, 123, 141, 222,
of Reims, 126, 157n70, 277, 338
213n211, 222 Place, Mgr., Bishop of Marseille,
Gros, M., Mgr., Bishop of Versailles, 100
170 Plantier, Mgr., Bishop of Nîmes, 84,
Jacquemet, G., Mgr., Bishop of 95, 171, 182, 192
Nantes, 141, 189, 193, 298 Raess, Mgr., Bishop of Strasbourg,
Landriot, Mgr., Bishop of La 10, 48, 87, 98
Rochelle, 95 Ramadié, Mgr., Bishop of
Laurence, Mgr., Bishop of Tarbes, Perpignan, 98, 249
147, 186 Regnault, Mgr., Bishop of Chartres,
Lavigerie, Mgr., Bishop of Nancy, 22, 124, 184
Archbishop of Algiers, 81, Régnier, Mgr., Archbishop of
100 Cambrai, 133, 192
Le Breton, Mgr., Bishop of Le Puy, Salinis, Mgr., Bishop of Amiens, 77
76 Sibour, Mgr., Archbishop of Paris
LeCourtier, Mgr., Bishop of (1848-57), 14
Montpellier, 93 social origins, 15
Le Mée, Mgr., Bishop of Saint- status, 244, 355
Brieuc, 34 Thibault, Mgr., Bishop of
Lyonnet, Mgr., Bishop of Valence, Montpellier, 113, 308
Archbishop of Albi, 99 Tour-d’Auvergne, Cardinal-Bishop
Mabile, Mgr., Bishop of Versailles, of Arras, 25, 215
96 Wicart, Mgr., Bishop of Laval, 196
Magnin, Mgr., Bishop of Annecy, Blanc, Louis (socialist), 331
302 Blanqui, Adolphe (political
Marguerye, Mgr., Bishop of Autun, economist), 190, 209n137
285 Bluth family, 179
404   INDEX

Bonaparte, Louis-Napoléon Carrère, Jean, (roadworker), 154n16,

See also Napoleon III 218, 219, 256n138
Bonjean, Louis (conseiller d’état), Catechisms, 3, 33, 80, 108n76, 114,
272 118, 119, 129, 130, 132–134,
Book and pamphlet publication, 86 151, 158n89, 171, 177, 184,
Bossuet, Mgr., (1627-1704), bishop 220, 223, 240, 243, 244,
and theologian, 77, 78 251n32, 269
Boudon, J-O. (historian), 14, 59n23, Catechizing, 30, 118–119, 130, 132
59n31, 59n33, 60n37, 60n42, Catholics, democratic, 2, 327, 349
60n44, 60n46, 60n48, 60n49, Catholics, liberal, 89, 100, 178, 198,
61n70, 61n81, 62n96, 62n98, 333
64n146, 66n187, 66n191, Catholics, social, 282
66n192, 69n242, 69n245, Cazaubon, Marie, 222, 252n46
69n247, 69n251, 105n36, Celibacy, 10, 21, 45, 121, 218, 236,
109n103, 109n105, 251n18, 238, 292, 332
305, 306, 317n133, 318n146, Censorship, 194–201
318n149, 318n151, 324n253, legislation on, 197
324n255, 324n258, 344n44, Ceremonies, religious, 188, 218, 219,
354, 633n123 293, 336
Brame, Caroline, 278 Chambord, Comte de, 362
Brejon de Lavergnée, M. (historian), Chant, Gregorian, 54, 80
206n87, 207n96, 285, 314n72, Charitable societies
315n89, 316n104, 316n105, association de Saint-François-
317n126, 317n130–132, deSales, 172
317n134, 317n135, 318n137, Oeuvre des apprentis, 287
318n155, 345n70 Oeuvre des Campagnes, 135
Brige, Marquis de, 227 Oeuvre des Saintes-Familles, 288
Broglie, Albert de, 278 Société de charité maternelle, 279
Broglie, Victor, Duc de (politician), Société d’économie charitable, 282
333 Société d’économie sociale, 282
Bureaux de bienfaisance, 44, 283, 286, Société de Saint-François-Régis,
289, 290 288
Businessmen and religion, 136 Société de Saint Vincent de Paul,
135
Charity, 28, 31, 43, 44, 149, 179,
C 188, 191, 193, 201, 215, 216,
Café sociability, 279 227, 230, 231, 233, 279–291,
Canon law, 17, 30, 35, 36, 114, 170, 293, 307, 315n93, 330, 339
216, 220, 248 objectives, 201, 280, 281, 284
Carnival, 188, 224, 234 Charles X, King of France, 1824-30,
Carnot, Hippolyte, (interior minister), 327
332 Cherbuliez, A., (economist), 282
  INDEX 
   405

Chevalier, Michel, (political recruitment, 4, 15, 21, 22

economist), 363 respect for, 37, 153, 233, 274,
Childbirth, 45, 272, 279, 299 297
Childhood socialization, 117, 130, responsabilities, 20, 48, 51, 113,
305 131, 148, 220, 233, 283, 284
Children, treatment of, 236 sense of superiority, 286
Cholera, 85, 86, 120, 123, 143, 150, social origins, 15
216, 217, 229, 240, 280, 281, untenured, 20
299, 309 vocations, 24, 25, 190, 293
Church and counter-revolution, 1, 350 Clericalism, 352
Church and politics, 2, 91, 173, 191, Cochin, Augustin, (politician and
333 writer), 363
Church and State, 11, 13, 14, 90, 92, Combalot, Abbé, (preacher), 126,
99, 118, 333 127, 172
regime legitimization, 14 Comité des cultes (1848), 367
Churches, interior decoration, 50, 57, Commission du colportage, 194
334 Commune, Paris (1871), 274
renovation and construction, 57 Communications revolution, 74, 182
Church, Roman Catholic Communion, first, 119, 120, 132,
centralization of authority, 2, 11, 73 177, 184, 220, 232, 267, 289,
finance, 23, 53 294, 308, 340
organization, 2, 45, 47, 173, 289, Comte, Auguste, (philosopher), 331
347 Concordat (1516), 11, 13, 18, 29, 35,
pre-revolutionary, 20 92, 170, 333
Civil Constitution of the Clergy Concordat, Napoleonic
(1790) disciplinary measure against clergy,
emigration, 1 35
marriage, 239 organic articles implementing
persecution of priests, 84, 170, 247 Concordat, 92
Civility, encouraging public, 186 retention by Monarchy, 11, 18
Classical literature, 197 retention by Second Republic, 18
Clergy Confession, 3, 31, 41, 113–115,
careers, 15, 16, 21, 29, 133 120–123, 125, 126, 132, 133,
curés, tenured clergy, 20, 222 145, 147, 155n38, 187, 201,
indecent assaults by, 238, 241 216, 217, 221, 222, 226, 241,
influence on parishioners, 226, 233 250, 269, 277, 292, 296, 297,
instruction of, 4, 119 332, 333
numbers, 21, 23, 40, 121, 134, Confessional, 53, 120, 122, 156n51,
148, 222, 283, 293, 295, 341 170, 186, 222, 223, 238, 243,
ordinations, 21, 22 247, 293, 304, 332
in Paris, 18, 29, 50, 51, 140, 275, Confirmation, 18, 39, 114, 119, 120,
305, 306, 335 139, 148, 220, 246
406   INDEX

Confiscation of Church property, 171, Death, 46, 57, 73, 77, 114–116, 126,
327 127, 129, 146, 169, 171, 177,
Congrégation de l’Index, 200 192, 217, 219, 221, 234, 236,
Congrégation des Rites, 200 239, 255n118, 269, 272–274,
Congregation of the Holy Office, 122 276, 278, 281, 296, 299, 306,
Conseil de fabrique(parish council), 335, 338
227, 275 last rites, 115, 116, 217, 219, 221,
Conseil supérieur de l’Instruction 274
publique, 285 Deblaye, Abbé, (historian), 36, 199
Conservative propaganda, 133 Dechristianization, 61n79, 88,
Consolation, 33, 44, 45, 61n79, 87, 159n94, 255n118, 315n79
147, 217, 226, 272–275, 297, campaign of (1793), 88
306, 315n79, 337 Deference, 14, 78, 191, 233, 276,
Constans, Dr, 303, 304, 323n242 280, 339
Constituent Assembly (1848), 24 Déguignet, J-M. peasant, 116
Constitution (1848), 348 Delangle, C-A. (interior minister), 179
Constitutional Church, 97 Democracy, 127, 182, 339
Contraception, 45, 115, 123, 181, Demons, 126, 132, 143, 171, 274,
188, 223 301–304, 348
Corbon, Anthime, (artisan), 338, Denier de Saint-Pierre, 231
344n67 De Saint-Bonnet, Blanc (theologian),
Cortès Donoso, Spanish diplomat, 348 82
Councils, municipal, 36, 43, 52, 56, Devoille, Abbé, (writer), 191
131, 187, 225, 227, 229, 334 Dimorphism, sexual, 296
Council, Vatican, 4, 16, 97–102, 348 Dioceses, 12, 77, 114, 177, 218, 277,
Counter-Reformation, 1, 9, 56 335, 353
Counter-revolutionary ideology, 2, Disease
282 in animals, 340
Coup-d’état (2 December, 1851) in humans, 299
critics of, 100 Dis-establishment of the Church, 333
support for, 328 Divine Providence, 102, 167n243, 282
Crisis, mid-century, 82, 85, 88, 282 Doctrine, 4, 12, 19, 26, 73–112, 116,
Crosses, wayside, 142, 300 123, 128, 131, 170, 189, 190,
Cultural change, 2, 128, 304 192, 193, 197, 198, 272, 338
Cures, miraculous, 145, 147, 300 Dress, 28, 31, 78, 186, 187, 189, 218,
Curia, Papal, 11, 80, 92 279, 303, 308
Drought, 298
Drouyn de Lhuys, Edouard,
D (diplomat), 79
Dancing, 126, 186–188, 221, 235, Drumont, Edouard, (anti-semite), 179
279, 297 Dumas, Alexandre, (novelist), 200
Darwin, Charles, 198 Duruy, Victor, (education minister),
Dead, cult of, 117, 274 133, 198
  INDEX 
   407

E F
Ecole des Carmes, 19, 32, 77 Faith, religious, 354
Education transmitting belief, 329
control over, 132 Falendre, Marquis de, 277
Falloux law (1850), 43 Falloux, F.-A.-P., Comte de, education
Guizot law (1833), 43 minister, 43, 92, 100, 109n100,
language of instruction, 133, 265 130, 137, 162n146, 195, 276,
lay teachers, 27, 131, 132 289
objectives, 11, 27, 40, 131, 190 Family socialization, 275
as a political issue, 135 Félix, Père, (preacher), 190
primary instruction, 130 Female sociability, 278
republican criticism, 137, 331, 332 Feminization of church, 47, 122, 151
role of teaching orders, 27, 43 Fénelon, Mgr., archbishop and
secondary instruction, 27 theologian (1651–1715), 138
Education and religion, 11, 13, 90, Ferlay, Prefect of Drôme, 149
97, 131, 133, 195, 197, 227, Ferrari, Mgr., Papal nuncio, 18, 19,
266, 270, 275, 331 41, 89, 93, 145
Education and socialization of girls, Ferry, Jules, (politician), 364, 379,
218, 270, 275 388
Elections Festivals, religious, 116, 297, 303,
influence of clergy, 180 305, 307
Influence of Roman Catholic laity; Fête de l’empereur, 188, 198
women and elections, 4, 349 Fishermen, 226, 307
Elites, definition of Flaubert, Gustave, (novelist), 195,
education of, 40, 270, 293 196, 199, 211n178, 333
religious beliefs, 265, 266 Folkloric practices, 298
social networking, 265 Fortoul, Charles, 14, 16, 18, 49, 56,
Empire, Second 57, 79, 80, 272
regime liberalization, 14, 49 Fortoul, Hippolyte, (minister of
responsibilities of Senate, 14 education and religious affairs),
role of ministers, 179 66n189, 77, 272, 335
support from clergy, 13, 309 Francis II, Austrian Emperor, 97, 99
Encyclicals, Papal Franco-Italian Convention (1864),
Mirari vos, 90 89
Pastor Aeternus, 348 Franco-Prussian war (1870), 102
Quanta cura, 89, 90, 93, 348 Fraternities, religious, 86, 138
Qui pluribus, 26, 89 Frayssinous, Mgr., (Minister of
Enlightenment, the, 75, 194, 236 education and religious affairs),
Esquiros, Alphonse, (writer), 329 47, 198
Eugènie, Empress, 36, 147 Fréchon, Abbé, deputy, 24
Exorcism, 301–303 Freedom of worship, 169
Expiation, 120, 272, 280 French garrison in Rome, 89, 102
Ex-votos, 300 Freppel, Abbé, (preacher), 183
408   INDEX

Funerals, 125, 171, 217, 219, 231, Heaven, 12, 57, 82, 87, 93, 116, 117,
232, 239, 272, 299, 335, 336, 122, 125, 126, 129, 141, 142,
377 149, 151, 153, 169, 193, 198,
cost of, 231, 239 269, 272–274, 279, 331, 334,
338
Hell, 73, 116, 117, 125, 126, 128,
G 129, 135, 142, 169, 185, 197,
Galbin, Abbé, missionary, 187 274, 329, 331, 333
Gallicanism, 19, 79, 82, 90, 93, 95, Heresy, 10, 55, 74, 81, 92, 153,
97, 100, 101, 111n141 169–181, 219
Gaulle, Josephine de, (novelist), 136 Hilaire, Y-M., (historian), 60n63,
Gaume, Abbé, 75, 169, 181, 197, 277 63n125, 163n171, 163n173,
Gender, 4, 5n14, 117, 266, 268, 296, 167n245, 209n149, 210n157,
304, 353 217, 250n15, 250n17, 252n53,
Generation, 10, 40, 45, 123, 268, 312n24, 399n11
274, 297, 308, 311n23 History, biblical, 130
Geography, religious, 198, 353 History, lessons of, 74–76, 349
Godichaux, Pêre, missionary, 188 Holy Family, cult of, 122, 129, 143,
Gougenot des Mousseaux, Roger, 152, 275, 347
(theologian), 180 Hugo, Victor, (writer), 196, 199, 333
Gramont, Duc de, Ambassador to Husson, A., prefect of Seine, 306
Papacy, 178 Hymns, 84, 130, 134, 139, 151, 298,
Greed, criticism of clerical, 123, 125, 300
192, 193, 236, 239, 249, 327,
335, 338
Gregory XVI, Pope (1831-46), 79, I
89, 90, 175, 181, 182, 199 Iconoclasm, 328
Guéranger, Dom, 54, 80, 278 Iconography, religious, 55, 151, 331
Guillaumin, Emile, (novelist), 297 Illness, 116, 125, 218, 242, 296, 299,
Guizot, François, (politician and 302
historian), 43, 129, 195, 277 Illuminations, 140
Immaculate Conception, 78, 85, 87,
146, 147, 150–152, 200
H Imprimator, 199
Habitat structures, 267 Index of forbidden books, 196, 200
Hagiography, 35, 75, 134, 149, 352, Indulgences, Papal, 116, 137
398n4 Industrialization, attitudes towards,
Harris, Ruth, (historian), 67n199, 181, 282, 304, 340, 349
146, 163n176, 165n201, impact of, 282
165n204, 323n241, 399n20 Infallability, Papal, 19
Haussmann, G-E., Prefect of Seine, Information, official, 17
49, 197, 287 Investigations of priests, 246
  INDEX 
   409

J Lamartine, Alphonse de, (republican

Jansenism, 93 politician, poet and historian),
Jean-Paul II, Pope, 103 199, 333
Jérôme, Prince, 81, 82 Lambruschini, Mgr., Prefect of Roman
Jesuit myth, 327, 341n2 Congregation des Etudes, 32
Jews, 93, 95, 123, 127, 136, 139, Lamennais, Felicité de, Abbé,
175–180, 184, 203n39, 204n56, (preacher), 76, 98, 178
293, 333 Landlords, 284
July Monarchy Languages, use of, 28, 50, 132, 134,
catholic opposition to, 204n60 292
government support for Church, Larousse, Pierre, dictionary editor,
19, 49, 51, 57, 79, 85 331, 332
June insurrection (1848), 359 La Salette, (Isère) visions, 71n288, 85,
87, 108n78, 143–146, 148, 150,
151, 158n79, 164n184,
K 164n186, 164n188, 164n191,
Keller, Emile, deputy, 36, 220 329, 331, 342n18
Kolb-Bernard, Charles, deputy, 306 Last judgement, 113
Latin, use of, 79, 132
La Tour d’Auvergne, Prince de,
L foreign minister, 25, 72n303,
Laboulaye, Edouard, (lawyer, 205n74, 215
academic), 333 La Valette, Marquis de, interior
Labouré, Catherine, visionary, 24, 86, minister, 293
135, 184, 191, 225, 242, 294 Le Bras, G., religious sociologist,
Lacordaire, H-D., Abbé, (preacher), 103n1, 267, 311n12, 311n21,
275 352
Lagrée, Michel, (historian), 59, Ledru-Rollin, Alexandre, republican
60n60, 60n63, 63n115, 64n129, politician, 375
68n226, 71n284, 160n113, Léger, Abbé, canon lawyer, 48, 170,
160n116, 160n117, 162n157, 202n4, 209n136
163n168, 163n172, 164n178, Legitimistm, 29, 40, 77, 86, 90, 113,
165n199, 165n216, 166n227, 118, 135, 144, 146, 153,
167n247, 168n176, 206n80, 164n186, 166n236, 180, 192,
206n83–206n85, 255n124, 266, 195, 200, 213n219, 219, 270,
310n4, 311n15, 311n23, 276, 277, 281
315n90, 320n181, 320n185, Le Play, Frédéric, (engineer,
320n186, 323n236, 343n37, sociologist), 181, 205n71, 282,
350n1, 398nn4, 399n17 283, 316n110
Laity, influence of catholic, 2, 3, 10, 13, Liberalism, 81, 82, 90–92, 94, 102,
28, 56, 61n72, 96, 102, 140, 152, 103, 175, 180, 183, 283, 348,
201, 243, 276, 347, 348, 355 350n5
410   INDEX

Liberty, definitions of, 11, 90 320n191, 321n203, 323n246,

Libraries, parish, 137 341n3, 350n4, 353
Liguori, Saint Alphonse, 120, 128, Maret, Abbé (theologian), 19, 91, 97,
158n79, 252n43 99, 111n164
Lille (Nord), religious practice, 60n63, Marriage, 23–25, 45, 46, 49, 114,
63n115, 136, 152, 160n115, 121, 187, 189, 223, 239, 267,
193, 209n151, 210n152, 272, 276, 277, 279, 288, 292,
210n159, 278, 286, 292, 305, 336
307–309, 317n123, 318n139, Marriages, mixed, 170, 171
321n197, 324n269, 336–338, Masonic lodges, 180, 328
343n27, 344n52, 344n65, 352, Mass, 2, 11, 16, 21, 23, 32, 35,
399n11 41–43, 45, 47, 54, 56, 79,
Liturgical changes, 54, 80 83–86, 91, 98, 114, 116, 124,
Living standards, 136, 267 132, 134, 135, 138, 142, 144,
Loti, Pierre, (novelist), 56 147, 149, 151, 153, 172, 189,
Louis XIV, King of France, 77, 172, 195, 198, 231, 232, 235, 267,
200 269, 271, 274, 276–278, 291,
Louis XVI, (1774-91), 88 294, 296–298, 300, 307, 308,
Execution of, 88 330, 335, 336, 355, 356
Louis XVIII, King of France Master-servant relationships, 192, 282,
(1814/14-24), 2 287
Lourdes (Hautes-Pyrénées), visions, ‘Materialism,’ 76, 91, 98, 102, 124,
5n17, 67n199, 71n284, 87, 143, 169, 175, 181–189, 194, 271,
146–148, 150, 151, 163n176, 337, 349
164n181, 165n200, 165n201, Maupas, C-E.de (Prefect of Police,
165n205, 165n208, 165n211, police minister), 210n174
274, 323n243, 331 Maurain, Jean (historian), 59n34,
60n56, 106n50, 107n70,
112n170, 204n48, 205n68,
M 211n188, 255n124, 257n170,
Maistre, Joseph de (philosopher and 276, 314n70, 317n127, 354
diplomat), 76, 98, 170 Media, 2, 83, 138
Malines Congress (1863), 89 Melun, A. de (political economist),
Manning, Cardinal (Archbishop of 189, 192, 278, 282, 287, 290,
Westminister), 99 319n163
Marcilhacy, Christiane (historian), Memorials, 101, 116, 274, 276
60n54, 61n82, 62n95, 62n104, Memories, 2, 50, 55, 74, 75, 137,
64n135, 64n138, 70n270, 144, 170, 171, 267, 270,
71n284, 157n61, 163n172, 293–295, 333, 356
207n94, 210n168, 250n2, Men and religion, 10, 14, 18, 24, 37,
255n122, 267, 311n10, 42, 45, 93, 122, 140, 151, 186,
317n116, 319n165, 320n188, 215, 216, 275, 278, 306, 308, 349
  INDEX 
   411

Mérimée, Prosper (writer, inspector of Catholic opposition to, 39

historical monuments), 48 Italian policy, 39, 81
Michelet, Jules (historian), 195, 196, public opinion, 148
330, 332, 333 Napoléon, Prince, 368
Migne, Abbé (publisher), 30, 33, 136, Napoléon, Saint, feast day of, 337
138, 162n151172 Newman, Cardinal (theologian), 103
Migration, 45, 305, 349 Newspapers
temporary, 191, 295 Ami de la Religion, L, 164n192,
Miners, insecurity, 299 167n243
Miracles, 87, 143, 144, 146, 147, Assemblée nationale, L, 135
151, 298, 300, 329, 331, 332 Censeur, Le (Grenoble), 331
Misogyny, 187, 291, 332 Civiltà cattolica, 83, 100, 102, 178
Missions, religious, 28, 141, 303, 328 Constitutionnel, Le, 197
Monarch, Christian, 12, 14, 194 Correspondant, Le, 135
Montalembert, Vicomte Charles de Courrier du Bas-Rhin, le, 329
(deputy), 48, 77, 89, 92, 100, Gazette de France, La, 101, 135
104n18, 109n100, 112n165, 278 Monde, le, 109n111, 135, 173, 279
Montalivet, Comte de (interior National, Le, 331
minister), 47 Opinion nationale, L, 333
Montpellier (Hérault) (religious Progrès de l’Ouest, Le, 136
practice), 170 Siècle, Le, 197, 329, 331
Monville, Baronne de, 35, 321n197 Union, L, 135
Morality, teaching, 114, 266 Univers, L, 34, 75, 77–79, 81, 83,
‘Moral order’, 3, 43, 82, 122, 130, 92, 98, 100, 104n9, 135, 147,
153, 169–213, 237, 348 148, 172, 173, 182, 189, 198
Morny, Charles Duc de (statesman, Volksfreund, Der, 328
speculator), 183 Nobles, 24, 40, 47, 180, 272, 276,
Mortality, infant, 114, 272 279, 285, 293, 340, 348
Mortara affair, 178 Novels, 23, 136, 177, 195, 196, 200,
Morzine (Haute-Savoie) convulsions, 278, 297
302 Nuncio, Papal, 18, 19, 41, 89, 93,
Motte-Grimonprez, Alfred 145
(businessman), 274
Mulhouse (Haut-Rhin) (religious
practice), 175 O
Music, church, 225 Obituaries, 215, 355
Mutual aid societies, 283, 290, 335, 339 Obré, Abbé (candidate for Episcopal
office), 15, 17
Ollivier, Emile (minister des cultes),
N 18, 100, 111n152, 111n164
Naples, Kingdom of, 149 Oral tradition, 269
Napoléon III and Church Orders, religious
412   INDEX

assumptionist, 129, 179 Parishioners, 22, 23, 33, 35, 36, 38,
Congrégation des Pères de Sion, 39, 54, 57, 84, 100, 114–116,
179 124, 126, 133, 142, 149, 150,
Dames de la Calvaire, 279 175, 184, 215–218, 221–223,
Dames du Sacré-Coeur, 42, 273 226, 229–231, 233–236, 239,
Filles de la charité de Saint-Vincent- 244, 248, 293, 294, 298, 305,
de-Paul, 44, 86, 286 306, 328, 334, 336
Frères des écoles chrétiennes, 41, Parish priests, 12, 16, 17, 22, 23, 27,
244 30, 31, 33, 35–38, 42, 45, 53,
re-establishment, 169 55–57, 75, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 96,
social activity, 76, 93, 94, 189, 192, 97, 100, 115, 119–121, 123, 125,
196, 197, 270, 271, 276, 282, 133, 137, 139, 144, 146, 149,
291, 335, 336 150, 171, 176, 177, 180, 181,
Society of Jesus (Jesuits), 29, 40, 183, 185–187, 189, 191, 196,
41, 142, 275 198, 201, 215–217, 219–222,
Society of Mary (Marists), 79 224–235, 238–246, 250, 266,
Soeurs de la Doctrine chrétienne, 131 276, 277, 281, 283, 292, 294,
Soeurs de l’instruction chrétienne de 298, 303, 306, 307, 334, 337, 355
Saint-Gildas, 45 Paris, religious practice, 288–289, 295
Soeurs gardes-malades de Notre- diocese of, 294, 330–334
Dame Auxiliatrice, 125 Party of order, 40
Ordination, 10, 21, 22, 24, 32, 38, Pastoral care, 3, 4, 11, 12, 22, 31, 34,
42, 97, 114 35, 45, 51, 83, 113–167, 294, 334
Organic articles, 53, 81, 92, 95, 139 Paternal authority, 83, 122, 174, 282
Ozanam, Frédéric (social Catholic), Patrizi, Mgr. (Prefect of Congregation
192, 280, 317n126 of Rites), 97
Peasants
attitudes towards, 327
P and religion, 47, 135, 295
Panthéon, 14 Peddlers and distribution of
Papacy pamphlets, 194, 299
authority, 77, 82 Penance, 114, 116
hostility to concordat, 175 Perdiguier, Agricole (artisan), 60n113,
Papal curia, 11, 80, 92 133
Papal States Pereire, Isaac (financier, deputy), 180
in 1848, 89 Perfect society, 12, 74, 94, 169–190
collapse of (1870), 4 Persigny, Duc de (interior minister),
defence of, 93 56, 57, 195, 210n174
Paray-le-Monial (Saône-et-Loire) Petitions, 36, 38, 96, 100, 115, 116,
(visions), 88, 143, 153 173, 216, 227, 234, 333, 355, 356
Parishes Pew rents, 52, 56, 227, 230, 231, 335
Parish councils (fabriques), 36, 54, Philanthropy, 155n24, 280
57, 140, 228, 230 Pietri, P-M. (Prefect of Police), 40
  INDEX 
   413

Piety, 3, 17, 28–31, 38, 45, 48, 50, Providence, Divine, 33, 74, 102, 282
54, 55, 77, 85, 131, 138, 141, Provisional Government (1848), 328
148, 151, 153, 215, 278, 285, Prussia, relations with, 99
308, 310, 352, 338347 Publishers, Catholic, 135, 136
Pilgrimages, 80, 86, 116, 138, Purgatory, 83, 116, 117, 137, 273
141–152, 293, 297, 299–301
Pius IX (1846-1878)
beatification, 349 Q
personality cult, 82–85 Quinet, Edgar (historian), 330, 333
resistance to reform, 82
views on education, 26
Pius VII (1800-1823), 82, 175 R
Police des théâtres, 197 Ratisbonne, Abbé, (priest, missionary),
Politicization, 268, 354 179
Poor, attitudes towards Ravignan, Père de, (Jesuit preacher),
‘deserving,’ 216, 275, 283, 286, 288 274
Popular classes and religion, 42, 47, 139 Rayneval, Alphonse de, (diplomat),
Popular protest, 234 78, 104n23
Popular religion, 147, 291–309 Reading, 12, 31, 34, 78, 79, 96, 114,
Poverty, 25, 41, 123, 143, 190–192, 137, 194, 196, 216, 278, 288
281, 285, 286, 288–291, 309, 336 Reformation, 1, 41, 51, 75, 169, 170,
Prayer, power of, 83, 97, 298 267, 333, 348
Priests Counter-Reformation, 1, 9, 56
dignity, 31, 232, 235, 247 Relics, holy, 140, 188
fees, 23, 56, 117, 227, 231–233, Religion and politics, 353, 354
239, 335 Religion and science, 197
Le bon prêtre, 24, 33, 215–218, 249 Religion, influence of, 276
moral failings, 236–248 reception of Church’s message, 4,
prosecution of, 237, 247, 248 265
relations with laity, 2, 10, 102, 152, Religious beliefs
347 geographical variation, 267
stipends, 35, 230, 231 practice, 265, 266, 271, 308, 351,
transfers, 36, 38, 39, 226, 237, 241, 353
242, 246, 248, 249, 277 Religious sociology, 267, 292, 307, 352
Prince-impérial, baptism of, 188 Rémusat, Charles de, (politician), 277
Processions, religious, 13, 138 Renan, Ernest, 89, 135, 141, 196,
Property, private, 82, 231, 290 199, 330, 342n14
Protectionists, 3, 11, 86, 98, 130, Resignation, 192, 218, 271, 272, 288,
143, 169–213, 246, 299, 300 289, 291, 337
Protestantism, 25, 75, 170, 172, 173, Restoration (1814/15-30), 2, 14, 15,
175, 271 20, 24, 29, 47–49, 51, 53, 56,
Proudhon, P-J. (socialist), 75, 177, 80, 91, 117, 118, 120, 128, 175,
195, 196, 331 275, 291, 327, 328, 349
414   INDEX

Revolution, 1789 Sacred Heart of Jesus, cult of, 88, 128

explaining events, 74, 124, 293, 349 Sacrements, Holy, 140
expulsion of clergy, 236 Saints, cults of, 140
memories, 2, 170, 293, 333 Saint-Sulpice, Parisian church, 18, 137
threat posed, 178 Salvation, 10, 28, 30, 73, 90, 114,
Revolution, 1830, 2, 86, 328 118, 120, 128, 143, 144, 173,
legitimist protest, 86 190, 193, 218, 274, 278, 280,
Revolution, February 1848 281, 291, 297, 305, 306, 349
Catholic responses, 275 Sand, Georges (novelist), 57, 200
discontented priests, 84, 239 Sardou, Victorien, (playwright), 197
Right to work, 190 Satan, 2, 12, 74, 82, 83, 95, 102, 126,
Rites of passage, 114, 267, 305, 306, 128, 143, 150, 152, 169, 174,
308, 341 178, 189, 328, 348
Rochejaquelein, Auguste de la, Secularization, 3, 29, 33, 51, 91, 103,
Comtesse, 284 268, 271, 286, 310n1, 354
Roman expedition (1849), 79, 195 Ségur, Comtesse de, (writer), 136,
Roman Question, 80, 101 161n140, 177, 312n33, 313n48
Roman Republic (1798), 18 Ségur, Mgr. Louis-Gaston, Comte de,
Roman Republic (1849), 195 theologian, 9, 58n2, 74, 80, 153,
restoration of Pope, 18 189, 288
Rome Seminaries
Eternal city, 12, 84, 102 French seminary in Rome, 32, 78
fall of (1870), 32, 100, 101 instruction provided by, 28, 29, 32
Rouen (Seine-Inférieure), (religious petits séminaires, 27–29
practice), 308 Sermons, 3, 33, 74, 82, 86, 104n10,
Rouland, Gustave, ministre des cultes, 112n174, 114, 120, 123–129,
19, 147, 179, 201, 210n157 133, 134, 141, 142, 147, 150,
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, (philosopher), 172, 175, 177, 183–188, 193,
196 196, 198, 199, 215, 225, 226,
Roussel, Napoléon, (writer), 174 234, 242, 245, 269, 275, 280,
Ruë, General de la. Inspector-general 288, 289, 298, 303, 330, 334,
of gendarmerie, 301, 323n238, 337, 348, 355
323n240 Servants, domestic, 245, 318n138,
Rumours, 18, 28, 38, 222, 224, 230, 337
235–238, 242, 243, 246, 340 Shaming tactics, 222
Rural society, changing, 190, 283 Simon, Jules, (republican politician),
333
Simultaneum, 172
S Sin, mortal and venial, 73, 121, 123,
Sabbath, respecting the, 123, 183 129, 171, 177, 222, 223, 340
Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, Sociability, popular, 293
178 Social Catholicism, 282
Sacred Congregation of Rites, 79 Social doctrine, Catholic, 192
  INDEX 
   415

Social fear, 130, 181 Theology, 2, 4, 30, 31, 50, 75, 77, 78,
Socialism, attitudes towards, 266 99, 114, 120, 121, 127, 128,
Socialists, Christian, 75, 137, 175, 147, 192, 198, 308, 331, 336,
195, 331, 339 351, 352, 355
Social order, 76, 93, 94, 128, 189, Thiers, Adolphe, (historian and
192, 196, 197, 270, 271, 276, politician), 193, 195, 290
282, 291, 335, 336 Tithe, 293, 295, 327
‘Social problem,’ 282 Tocqueville, Alexis de, (politician and
Sorbonne theological faculty, 91 writer), 312n34
Sources, archival, 355 Toleration, religious, 170
Sovereignty, popular, 76, 97, 99, 170, Tourism, 143
194 Toussenel, Alphonse, (writer), 178
State and Church, 14, 20, 50, 95, Trappist monasteries, 39, 248
194, 265 Trent, Council of (1545-63), 1, 271
State and poverty, 191, 290 Tristan, Flora, (socialist), 329
State-church relations, 265
Strauss, David, theologian, 198
Sue, Eugène, (novelist), 177, 195, U
211n180 Ultramontanism, 11, 19, 58n7, 77,
Suffrage, manhood, 95, 356 84, 104n14, 172
threat and opportunity, 95 ‘Universal’ suffrage, 2, 95
Superstition, 127, 128, 149, 150, 271, Université, 198
297, 300, 302 Urbanization, 33, 48, 181, 268,
Swetchine, Sophie de, socialite, 278 304–309, 340, 349, 354
Syllabus of Errors and its impact, 33, 49, 340
official ban on publication, 85, 89, Urban poverty, 191
97
responses to, 85, 95, 331
V
Vandalism, 47, 48
T Vatican Council (1870), 4, 16,
Taine, Hippolyte, (historian), 334, 97–102, 348
343n39 Vatican, Papal residence, 4, 79, 97,
Teaching orders, expansion of 102, 355
female orders, 41, 42 Veillée, 186, 221
quality of instruction, 30 Vendée, civil war in, 293
Technology, religion and, 182, 183 Veuillot, Louis, (journalist), 47,
Telegraph, 2, 11, 83, 182 64n139, 79, 81, 83, 92, 102,
Temporal power, of Pope, 77, 82, 105n30, 106n57, 135, 136, 147,
102, 176 172, 178, 179, 181, 182, 189,
Terror, revolutionary, 293 198, 204n55, 204n58, 273, 276,
Theatre, 13, 125, 186, 189, 197, 279 281, 313n43, 314n64, 329, 348
416   INDEX

Vianney, Abbé, (parish priest), 126, Wallon, Armand, (politician), 333

218, 223 War, and defeat (1870), 102
Vicars-general, 13, 14, 16, 18, 93 Weddings, 49, 187, 231, 232, 288,
Villeneuve-Bargemont, Alban de, 336
social Catholic, 181, 205n71, 282 Wives, duties of, 122, 221
Villermé, L-R. (economist), 181, Women and politics, 191, 349
205n71 Women and religion, 32, 45, 117,
Viollet-le-Duc, (architect), 49, 51, 54, 122, 268, 273, 279, 284, 291,
55, 69n241, 70n258 296, 300, 306, 337, 339, 349,
Virgin Mary, devotion to, 53, 55, 352, 354
68n216, 85, 88, 116, 128, 143, Work, 3, 13, 14, 20, 30, 31, 34,
146, 147, 149–151, 153, 278, 48–51, 53, 56, 73, 78, 80, 81,
279, 298, 309, 347 83, 87, 98, 102, 116, 119, 121,
Visions, 2, 12, 55, 80, 85, 86, 88, 122, 129–131, 134–138, 140,
103n5, 114, 117, 123, 128, 129, 169, 173, 178, 180, 182–185,
135, 136, 146–149, 152, 190–200, 216, 217, 222, 225,
158n83, 177, 289, 314n73, 328, 229, 230, 232, 233, 249, 275,
331, 347 277, 281–285, 287, 297, 308,
Visitations, Episcopal, 139, 267 309, 328, 330, 332–334,
Vocations, religious, 24, 26, 45, 293 336–338, 340, 347, 352–354
Voltaire, (writer, historian, Workers and Catholicism, 48, 136,
philosopher), 127, 196 138, 176, 181, 199, 271, 290,
308, 309

W
Walewski, Alexandre, (foreign Z
minister), 252n60 Zola, Emile, (novelist), 336