On April 3, 1856, Duke Victor de Broglie (1785-1870) delivered a speech before the plenary session of the French Academy on the occasion of his reception in this prestigious scientific institution. In “Memories”[1] accordingly, in the electronic archive of the relevant institution, the speech, which is the subject of this article, reveals to the reader the complexity of the outstanding personality of the French political life of the 19th century and beyond. The stormy French and European XIX century, which was punctuated by periods of peace, as well as conflicts not only external, but also enter muroswith regime change and political rule, sometimes traumatic, of a revolutionary nature.

Before making some observations on the actual language so characteristic of the moral and political conduct of Duke Victor de Broglie, I think it necessary to reflect on the terms of the motto of the article, slander against truth. Every word of Duke Victor de Broglie’s speech is an expression of openly expressed truth and conviction, devoid of hypocrisy, solemnity or empty verbal forms without meaning, clothed in chivalry and altruism so rare today… The speech to Duke Victor de Broglie is a lesson in character, unshakable faith in own actions, the ability to speak and assert one’s life creed, almost impervious to slander, insult or ingratitude. Why not, combining a sincere sense of patriotism with personal and institutional respect. In this sense, the words in the speech that illuminates his choice, one of the regime established in 1830, confirm, I think, the above: “I say this to testify the truth. I am not going to either regret or deviate from the path chosen in that era. I took up what I thought was fair and necessary. If I was wrong, I’m still wrong“…. Perseverance, courage, dignity and loyalty.

The speech leaves the impression of a moral and political testament. WE in 1856 Duke Victor de Broglie also voluntarily retired from active political life. He was part of the generation that fought against the monarchical absolutism of kings Louis XVIII (1814-1824) and Charles X (1824-1830), both of the Bourbon branch (family). At the same time, as a political goal and form, it was somehow found during the regime of the “July Monarchy” (1830-1848), which came to power after the “July Revolution” (1830, “3 Glorious Days”/”Les Trois Glorieuses”) and the accession to the French throne of Louis-Philippe d’Orléans, king and representative of the d’Orléans branch. The latter was the last French king and his wife, Queen Marie-Amelie, the last queen of France.[2]

The figure and action of Duke Victor de Broglie means honor and consistency. It is an honor that he did not abandon the regime of the Orleans monarchy[3] (being a minister, president of the Council of Ministers, parliamentarian, ambassador in London) and directly, with decency, measure, but unwavering loyalty, stated this aspect, including in a speech delivered on the occasion of a reception at the French Academy (“I will not speak of this prince: I would not be allowed to do him justice. Having had the honor of serving him for so many years, I would not dare to mention his friendship… Retaining in the memory of his figure an unnecessary and undeserved loyalty in view of my age, I confidently await the verdict of history: history will tell us whether 18 years of peace, which he offered us, was the price of honor or the interests of the state, if his wisdom is not a part of the prosperity, the fruits of which we are reaping with our own hands today, if the army he formed proved France worthy of the mission») and consistency, because, as the previous statements show, he did not deviate from his convictions, from what he considered the formation and structure of a statesman: the symbiosis between culture and politics. Yesterday and today, the full and correct establishment of democracy is necessarily connected with the formation of a political person, and formation means culture. This is a credo handed down over time by a French politician of the first half of the 19th century: “There was a time when France was associated with the work of the legislature, it was inspired by debates in consultative meetings, where the public interfered in state affairs, perhaps even a little too much. At that time, literature and politics were connected; there was a close union between them. Called to the arena of state affairs by public opinion through the choice of the prince or the people, cultural figures became statesmen and, dare I say it, statesmen worthy of the name… They printed public documents and papers. and official documents, the character of respectability and authority, sobriety and measure, austere simplicity, which together clarify and guide spirits, rising to the heights of history“.

Duke Victor de Broglie’s courage goes even further through the proud and bold assertion of his personality. Reading the following excerpt from the speech, one is left to wonder whether the disarming sincerity and perhaps loaded ego, a hypocritical modesty aimed at reflecting a famous statement in history: “Man is given words to hide his thoughts” (Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord). Duke Victor de Broglie’s statements are eloquent: “I don’t even have the right to be modest in front of you. Why did you accept me into your ranks? Where does this chance come to me, in the twilight of life and in the darkness of withdrawal from public life?”. We find the same expressions in the courage of his own exposure in the city: “I, gentlemen, am the latest product of this free exchange between literature and politics; the last in chronological date, but also in merit, the last vestige of what no longer exists. The French Academy, which does not forget anything, adopting the last components of the past, thus rises above the fickleness of times and spirits.

Much of Duke Victor de Broglie’s speech centers around his predecessor, Louis de Beaupois, Comte de St. Auler[4], an aspect that once again proves his character and especially his chivalry. Note that the prestigious cultural forum accepted a new member only after his death. Undoubtedly, respect for history, doubled by a desire to transmit teachings of legacy value, lay at the heart of this Praise the emotional reply of the Duc de Broglie to his predecessor in academic dignity, the Comte de St. Auler. Praise which is structured around the same values ​​of life in which the waves of history are, after all, nothing more than experiences of continuous maturation for great spirits: “He was born in 1778. We lost him in 1854. During this time, three-quarters of a century, he witnessed the decay of our old monarchy, the course of the first constitutional monarchy, the first republic, the first empire, then that of the second and third constitutional monarchies, the second republic, finally he saw the ripening and birth of the second empire. Eight governments, nine revolutions, if we take into account the events of 1815. Happy is he who, in this long series of vicissitudes, alternately victim, actor and witness, reaches the end of his journey, not regretting what he has experienced, not denying what he has achieved, not looking at the hopeless future!. Before the reader, the words from the speech of Duke Victor de Broglie become pages of history in which the French Revolution, the Directorate and the Consulate, the empire of Napoleon I, the Bourbon Restoration, the “100 days” of the same Napoleon I, the second Restoration, the de Bourbon kingdom (Louis XVIII and Charles X respectively), aspirations to a new despotism are blocked no return possible of that time, the July Revolution and Louis-Philippe d’Orléans, the Revolution of 1848, the Republic and the Empire of Napoleon III, etc. But above all, eloquence in writing a portrait of the predecessor (so opposite to the universal, ubiquitous and rather unfairly named reflex). damnatio memoriae….), in which you can recognize the credo of the political generation: “In debates from the rostrum of the Assembly, he represented together the energy of a citizen, the brilliance of a statesman, the elegance and urbanism of a man of the world, from the arrogance of a nobleman to the fraternal solidarity of a deputy. In all problems and in all cases justice and honesty could be counted on him… An ardent Catholic, as I witnessed him indignantly and persistently condemning the brutality of the Gard against the Protestants… Moderate in feelings and speech, I saw, how he defended in delicate circumstances the right to free speech, the inviolability of speech! Hostile to any form of personal ambition, animosity or prejudice, a man of the team, I have seen him take his place on the opposition bench if current politics seemed to compromise the cause in which he believed, the cause of loyalty, earnestness, moderation. , but equally true freedom.”

According to the read speech, the same Praise he dramatically transforms, emphasizing the revolutionary trauma of 1848, which was deeply felt by the supporters of the constitutional monarchy represented by Louis-Philippe d’Orléans. Most likely, this was the cause of the recall in the block from managing the affairs of state of a political generation (this is the case of Duke Victor de Broglie, as well as Francois Guizot) with dignity and decency. However, the suffering remained, the disappointment of failure deemed undeserved by the decision-makers of the time, especially since the present (the post-1848 climate) offered no serious reason for satisfaction. History (“the teacher of life”), however, has the ability to interpret all these aspects differently over time, through calmness and objective analysis, especially after all the waves of protest have subsided considerably and the imperatives of reality have replaced the imperatives of reality. sometimes unrealistic generosity of immediate claims aspirations. In the following lines, the story, with its traumas and lessons, is articulated around the figure of Comte Saint-Oler in the words of Duke Victor de Broglie, offering the reader a testimony to the world of yesterday and a message for the world of tomorrow: “What Cicero said about Crassus, and Tacitus about Agricola, we cannot say about him. He was not given to die in time. Misfortunes, ready to fall on his loved ones and homeland, did not pass him by. Before all that was dearest to him had been repeatedly struck down, he had seen the collapse of the government he had faithfully served in his mature years; it has witnessed the disappearance of the generous institutions, the labors and pride of our best years. Less fortunate than the two great Romans, he witnessed the siege of the sanctuary of the laws, the attack of armed hands, the civil war that laid waste our cities, the persecution of the first men of the state, the outcasts and fugitives. I stop, gentlemen! I have neither the right nor the intention to continue. This would mean going beyond the assigned mission. He ceased to appear in public life when the events of 1848 severed the last ties between my predecessor and the state. In his isolation, with that regret which does not deceive and cannot be forgotten, he saw with sadness but without emotion the desolation of customs and morals, souls and ideas, the work of political turbulence; more precisely, he noted what he had already noticed, what is always visible in these cases: forgotten ingratitude of the past, indifference to principles, haste to set fire to what was admired yesterday, ardor and aggressiveness in expression, thirst for gold, luxury and lack of work. The reader may recognize not only the unhappiness against the revolutionary year 1848, but perhaps even more, perhaps, against the revolutionary acts and excesses of the vast movement represented by the moment of 1789, together with the years that followed. And the examples can be continued… Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro