1. I decided to post the first paragraphes of the essay "YET ANOTHER EFFORT, FRENCHMEN, IF YOU WOULD BECOME REPUBLICANS" by Marquis de Sade. It's included into his scandalous novel "Philosophy in the Bedroom" but in the times of the Revolution is was published as a single pamphlet and, as far as I know, it was very popular (BTW maybe somebody have more precise information about the impact of this text on the revolutionary France than I have?). I think it could add another dimension to the first reading.
"I am about to put forward some major ideas; they will be heard and pondered. If not all of them please, surely a few will; in some sort, then, I shall have contributed to the progress of our age, and shall be content. We near our goal, but haltingly: I confess that I am disturbed by the presentiment that we are on the eve of failing once again to arrive there. Is it thought that goal will be attained when at last we have been given laws? Abandon the notion; for what should we, who have no religion, do with laws? We must have a creed, a creed befitting the republican character, something far removed from ever being able to resume the worship of Rome. In this age, when we are convinced that morals must be the basis of religion, and not religion of morals, we need a body of beliefs in keeping with our customs and habits, something that would be their necessary consequence, and that could, by lifting up the spirit, maintain it perpetually at the high level of this
precious liberty, which today the spirit has made its unique idol.
Well, I ask, is it thinkable that the doctrine of one of Titus' slaves, of a clumsy histrionic from Judea, be fitting to a free and warlike nation that has just regenerated itself? No, my fellow countrymen, no; you think nothing of the sort. If, to his misfortune, the Frenchman were to entomb himself in the grave of Christianity, then on one side the priests' pride, their tyranny, their despotism, vices forever cropping up in that impure horde, on the other side the baseness, the narrowness, the platitudes of dogma and mystery of this infamous and fabulous religion, would, by blunting the fine edge of the republican spirit, rapidly put about the Frenchman's neck the yoke which his vitality but yesterday shattered.
Let us not lose sight of the fact this puerile religion was among our tyrants' best weapons: one of its key dogmas was to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. However, we have dethroned Caesar, we are no longer disposed to render him anything. Frenchmen, it would be in vain were you to suppose that your oath-taking clergy today is in any essential manner different from yesterday's non-juring clergy: there are inherent vices beyond all possibility of correction. Before ten years are out—utilizing the Christian religion, its superstitions, its prejudices—your priests, their pledges notwithstanding and though despoiled of their riches, are sure to reassert their empire over the souls they shall have undermined and captured; they shall restore the monarchy, because the power of kings has always reinforced that of the church; and your republican edifice, its foundations eaten away, shall collapse".
The full text of essay can be found here (PDF) starting from p. 91.
2. Couple of days ago I've come across the book by Peter Kropotkin "The great French revolution". I haven't read it yet but I think it could be interesting to compare Kropotkin's anarchistic point of view with other perceptions of the Revolution.
"I am about to put forward some major ideas; they will be heard and pondered. If not all of them please, surely a few will; in some sort, then, I shall have contributed to the progress of our age, and shall be content. We near our goal, but haltingly: I confess that I am disturbed by the presentiment that we are on the eve of failing once again to arrive there. Is it thought that goal will be attained when at last we have been given laws? Abandon the notion; for what should we, who have no religion, do with laws? We must have a creed, a creed befitting the republican character, something far removed from ever being able to resume the worship of Rome. In this age, when we are convinced that morals must be the basis of religion, and not religion of morals, we need a body of beliefs in keeping with our customs and habits, something that would be their necessary consequence, and that could, by lifting up the spirit, maintain it perpetually at the high level of this
precious liberty, which today the spirit has made its unique idol.
Well, I ask, is it thinkable that the doctrine of one of Titus' slaves, of a clumsy histrionic from Judea, be fitting to a free and warlike nation that has just regenerated itself? No, my fellow countrymen, no; you think nothing of the sort. If, to his misfortune, the Frenchman were to entomb himself in the grave of Christianity, then on one side the priests' pride, their tyranny, their despotism, vices forever cropping up in that impure horde, on the other side the baseness, the narrowness, the platitudes of dogma and mystery of this infamous and fabulous religion, would, by blunting the fine edge of the republican spirit, rapidly put about the Frenchman's neck the yoke which his vitality but yesterday shattered.
Let us not lose sight of the fact this puerile religion was among our tyrants' best weapons: one of its key dogmas was to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. However, we have dethroned Caesar, we are no longer disposed to render him anything. Frenchmen, it would be in vain were you to suppose that your oath-taking clergy today is in any essential manner different from yesterday's non-juring clergy: there are inherent vices beyond all possibility of correction. Before ten years are out—utilizing the Christian religion, its superstitions, its prejudices—your priests, their pledges notwithstanding and though despoiled of their riches, are sure to reassert their empire over the souls they shall have undermined and captured; they shall restore the monarchy, because the power of kings has always reinforced that of the church; and your republican edifice, its foundations eaten away, shall collapse".
The full text of essay can be found here (PDF) starting from p. 91.
2. Couple of days ago I've come across the book by Peter Kropotkin "The great French revolution". I haven't read it yet but I think it could be interesting to compare Kropotkin's anarchistic point of view with other perceptions of the Revolution.
What would he think of the USA today? Probably return to his grave in horror....
ReplyDeleteI think Sade would deny the whole contemporary world: all the possibilities for liberation are absorbed by repressive powers...
DeleteThanks Gleb!
ReplyDelete{It's hard to shock Sade, but I think the US could do it!}
This one’s been earmarked for the anthology of political writings…
In a strange way his premise regarding theology is parallel with what Fourier suggested a decade or two later:
“In this age, when we are convinced that morals must be the basis of religion, and not religion of morals, we need a body of beliefs in keeping with our customs and habits”
It’s interesting to compare this with the passages from Fourier on pages 174-77 and 183-188—most of the socialisms developed before Marx framed themselves in Religious terms. I doubt it was a conscious debt—I can’t imagine Fourier reading Sade—but by the 1830s people in the avant-garde were reading Sade in Fourier in relation to each other…
He was right on in his contention that the Clergy would soon be instrumental in re-establishing the Monarchy. Them and their “clumsy histrionic from Judea…”
Please do keep us informed of what you find in the Kropotkin—I’d like to include some of his writing in Vol. III of the reader, and haven’t actually read him yet so suggestions would be great. Is the translation you’re reading in English or in Russian?
Thanks, Olchar! I've never read the books by Fourier, only the articles about him (shame on me!), so it would be illuminating for me to read his pieces at last.
DeleteAs soon as you mention the relation between Sade and Fourier, I recall the Barthes' book "Sade, Fourier, Loyola", so maybe the pair "Sade-Fourier" is characteristic for the French culture, for the French world-view. I feel something important at this point.
I think it's a good idea to include Kropotkin's text into the anthology, because his book consist of short chapters on very certain topics - and that perfectly fits the form of anthology. I'll try to choose the best from his work to publish here.
I'm reading Russian translation of his book.
Thanks for linking the Kropotkin book, I'd like to read it too... I've heard from a few people that his The Conquest of Bread is one of the more important anarchist texts to be familiar with but I haven't read that yet either...
ReplyDeleteI guess it's interesting that Sade tried to use the shadow of resurgent monarchy to whip up public activity. Of course, beyond his desire for attention as a figure in the Republican movement, I think he was quite happy that social and economic divisions continued to cast people into the roles of prostitutes, maids, and other marginalized positions from which they would have little recourse in society.
(Why is he so renowned just for telling the Church where to stick it? Some people say "fuck the police" and mean "fuck the police." Others say it and mean "fuck anyone who can make my actions have consequences.")
As far as I know, Conquest of Bread is highly respected among anarchists. I've read some extracts from it's Russian version (it have the other caption in Russian - "Bread and Freedom" and published 8 years after the French version, so I think there are some differences between French/English and Russian versions) and found them very live and powerful.
DeleteWell, it's difficult to argue about the personality of Sade, but I notice that people often tend to fuse his personality and his writings (BTW, the same thing with Sacher-Masoch). As you know, he was jailed after the revolution because he has never gave a death sentence while working in the Piques section, besides of it there is only two cases of sexual abuse made by Sade, and he wrote very warm letters to his family, it seems that he was fond of his children. So I think Sade divided his phantasmal lust for abuse with everyday sexual and social practice. Who knows, maybe he was the real humanist in his heart. But maybe I am wrong and the "real" Sade was a sadist.
Oh, only two. Well, okay then.
Delete(said no one ever.)