L'affaire Liebknecht

Charles Péguy

On Tuesday evening, December 5, the Congress held its sixth session. Guesde¹, who had led the mass movements of more than five hundred mandates without leaving his bench as a simple delegate, at the foot of the tribune, Guesde, whom we had guessed for three days, in the movements of the masses, to be like a mysterious power, humble and superb, common and authoritarian. Guesde, whom his adversaries had repeatedly demanded, but who had kept to himself until then, was speaking for the first time. Bushy of hair and beard, with a grating and sick voice, he spoke with the look of a believer. Never did a man in this stormy assembly inspire so much narrow love, arouse such furious reprobation. But even the reprobation, hateful and violent in word and gesture, was respectful in attitude. Guesde felt it and, like an old wrestler, obviously wanted to tame the room. Without that he would not have coldly and ardently heaped up demagogic provocations. He came to speak of the international consultation opened at _ la Petite République _ on the Dreyfus affair and the Millerand² case. He therefore pronounced the names of Schönlank³, of Bebel⁴, of Liebknecht.⁵ Here a rumor, and in the confused rumor a cry, not very loud, rather an affirmation than a provocation: _Down with Liebknecht! _ I jumped, it was so unexpected. This exclamation, uttered quietly, was instantly and distinctly heard throughout the room. Immediately, a formidable clamor of reprobation and horror broke out, gradually polarizing on the left, where it disciplined itself to the tune of the Lampions: At the door! At the door! The cry had been uttered a few tables ahead of me. At the very first moment, in the turmoil, in the scandal of the startle, I say to myself, because the Congress had already taken on the aspect of a public meeting several times, and more than one person, no doubt, said to themselves: “Look! there is a snitch in the room. We’re going to kick him out.” Then, immediately, thinking that there were delegated citizens there and not ordinary citizens, whom the classic informer was not to be feared, “He is undoubtedly a poor, fellow delegate from the province, ignorant of customs, propriety, protocol and all respect. He will pay dearly for his ignorance. I had beside me a student from Ain or Jura, from Lyons, a Germanist, as they are improperly called, or a friend of the Germanists. The Germanists have an admirable ability not to “crowd,” to find themselves alone. My comrade had not moved amid all the uproar: “It was Joindy⁶ who shouted that…Let him…He must know what he’s saying…Let him explain himself…” I did not believe him. I didn’t believe it was Joindy, a man familiar with proprieties. The tumult continued, spontaneous for many believers, instinctive, habitual for many simple men, desired, caressed, commanded by certain tacticians. The whole standing left booed the right and blamed it. Little by little the uprising won over the center and, out of complacency, several delegates from the right itself. — It was Joindy, my comrade was right. Joindy to the podium. Wise words. Quivering assembly, ready to pounce. Guesde had sat down, his face shaken, immutable with horror. Joindy, very dignified, came to speak of Liebknecht’s hateful feelings against those… As Joindy’s sentence progressed, as one felt the proper name arrive, Guesde was seized with this trembling which marks religious horror. Sitting as he was, he was frantically shaking his forearms, fists clenched, in a frightening rhythm of increasing speed. This gesture was not new to me. I was looking in vain for where I had seen him when a flash of memory showed me Mounet⁷ in Joad⁸ opposite Athalie and Mathan. It is indisputable that Guesde equaled Mounet in the expression of divine anger and religious horror: the same stupor of the face, and the same panting of the chest. I am not saying this to diminish Guesde. On the contrary. Art, at this depth, is almost indistinguishable from life. I was resolutely hostile to Guesde. I was watching him, so to speak, which is a bit cowardly, when one is comfortably seated on one’s bench and the man being watched exposes himself to the tribune. I watched him with passionate attention. However, at no time during this scene, I had the impression that he was playing comedy. I confess that I don’t even know if he was playing tragedy. As reason regained its rights, the almost universal reprobation diminished. The address of congratulations and sympathy to the revered dean was not unanimous. The expulsion was far from being universally voted. We inquired. We were familiar with Drumont’s article. The next day we glued and nailed la Libre Parole to the posts of the gymnasium. We read it a lot. Public opinion was coming to its senses. Many delegates blamed congressional intolerance. Here is the official account of this incident: _Jules Guesde. — … There was unanimity, I insist; the question was posed to the German Socialist-Democratic proletariat, which through Schönlank, Bebel, Liebknecht… (Rumor) _ Citizen Joindy. “Down with Liebknecht!” _A violent clamor then occurs. The greater part of the delegates are agitated and protest vehemently; they are indignant, they whistle, many cries of “Long live Liebknecht! To the door! Exclusion!” are heard, part of the room intones the Internationale. A large number of delegates, at the head of whom is Citizen Lafargue, rush to the tribune, which is immediately invaded. A most violent tumult continued for several minutes. When silence is more or less restored, the Citizen President rises. _

---

The Citizen President⁹. — In the name of the whole bureau, and I can say in the name of the unanimity of the congress, we protest against the odious interruption which we heard just now. (Loud applause from a large number of benches) On behalf of the office, we propose that you vote for an address of congratulations and sympathy to German democracy and in particular to its revered dean Liebknecht. (Live and unanimous applause. — New cries: Long live Liebknecht!) I have received the following proposal from Citizen Delory and several of his colleagues: “We demand the expulsion of the insulter from Liebknecht. (Long applause) — I think that before voting on this proposal, as you are going to be judges, you will want to hear who you want to expel. (Various movements. —Cries: Yes! Yes!) _Citizen Joindy immediately presented himself at the tribune. New and violent tumult. _

Citizen President. — Since you have to judge on such a serious question as that of the expulsion of a delegate, I ask you to listen to him in the greatest silence, to make no interruption, and to let citizen Joindy explain himself. . (A long movenent)

_Citizen Joindy. — I affirm, in the serious circumstances which bring me to this rostrum, I affirm the purest internationalist feelings there are. (Various movements. — Applause) — I affirm that what brought us all to this congress was the obligation to fight together against all the reactionary forces which, until recently, were leagued against us. I affirm that the greatest danger, from my point of view, was, in France, the allied reaction to anti-Semitism, and when, in the Intransigeant and in the Libre Parole of today (noise) , I saw the hateful sentiments of Liebknecht affirmed against those… (Violent rumor. — New cries: The expulsion!) _ _I am ready to bow before the decision of the congress; what I said is enough. Now judge me and judge yourselves! (Various movements and noises.) _ The Citizen President. — I put to the vote the exclusion of Citizen Joindy. _The exclusion of citizen Joindy is voted by a strong majority. Again part of the room intones V Internationale. New uproar. _ Citizen Faberot: Allow me to say a few words to you. I assure you that the words I have to pronounce are not in contradiction with the union of all socialists, whoever they may be, when they are pure. (Brait) It would be very extraordinary if for a simple interruption (Lively protestations)… This is where we recognize some of you: they do not want at any price to find a way to agree to fight together against all reactions, including clerical reaction. (Rumor) Let me tell you my thoughts in a few words, citizens, I too went through this ordeal of expulsion. (New rumor) I saw a sincere man speaking a little fiery word… (Noisy interruptions) I refer to the Complete Official Stenographic Record for the strong and harsh words still uttered by Citizen Fabérot. I refer to the same minutes for the allusions to this incident made at the following meetings. Guesde resumed his speech. There was another poignant moment when, beginning again in more or less the same terms, he read the same three names falling regularly on the subdued assembly, as in the course of an ordinary speech: I was telling you about the negation that came from Germany under the triple signature of Schoenlank, Bebel and Liebknecht, about the same reply sent from Italy by Ferri and by Labriola;… _ Here is a translation of the articles written by Liebknecht. The Viennese publisher had prefaced the first of these articles with the following lines: “The leader of the German Social Democracy, who in his old age as well as in his youth struggled and suffered for truth and justice in serious fights, Wilhelm Liehknecht gives me the pleasure of declaring himself in my sheet on the Dreyfus affair, with the unreserved frankness that has always been his own. ¹⁰ When I had collected this information, I went to find the internationalist moralist revolutionary socialist doctor and I said to him: “Citizen doctor, my friend the provincial citizen would like to know what this internationalism is which does not prevent shouting ; Down with Liebknecht! this internationalism which then asks that we send an address of congratulations to the revered dean. » The citizen doctor read very attentively the different documents of the trial and answered me: “Simple citizen, you will tell your friend the provincial citizen that we are internationalists. By this we mean that socialists are mutually friendly across bourgeois borders; all socialists are friends among themselves in the vast world; we are all in fact preparing for the same social revolution, that is to say the same advent of universal justice and universal truth. War is bourgeois: no orator will ever say it so forcefully, will demonstrate it so peremptorily as the citizen Jean Jaurès did in the great speech he gave on March 7, 1890, in the bourgeois Chamber of Deputies, in the discussion of the bill fixing the budget of the Ministry of War. You will find this speech on page 396 of the book entitled: _ Action Socialiste. War is bourgeois. Peace is socialist. — We are internationalists. We mean by this, for example, that the French who prepare the social revolution in France are the friends of the Germans who prepare the social revolution in Germany, and we mean conversely that the German citizens who prepare the social revolution in Germany are the friends of the French citizens. who are preparing the social revolution in France. “But, citizen doctor, if the German citizen comrades are the friends of the French citizen comrades, can they thus, thoughtlessly or unjustly, play into the hands of the enemies of the French citizen comrades?” — It is not a question of playing the game or not playing the game. The German comrades have the right and the duty to proclaim the truth about French affairs, just as we have the right and the duty to proclaim the truth about German affairs. “So they have to be careful when they talk about French affairs?” “They always have to be careful.” “But for business, if there is any, where the truth itself is irrelevant, where interest is at stake?” “Simple citizens, we are internationalists. We in no way mean by this that it is the French who have to prepare the social revolution in Germany, or the Germans the social revolution in France. We do not allow French citizens to throw themselves recklessly through the Social Revolution in Germany, conversely we do not allow German citizens to come unjustly through the Social Revolution in France, or even through the French Republic. Otherwise, citizen, we would replace direct and respectful nationalism with the opposite and reciprocal nationalism. This is obviously not how the International can become the human race. “However, citizen doctor, la Petite République has opened an international consultation on these two questions: _Can the socialist proletariat, without failing in the principle of the class struggle, intervene in the conflicts of the various bourgeois factions, either to save political freedom or, as in the Dreyfus affair, to defend humanity? _ Second question: To what extent can the socialist proletariat participate in bourgeois power; and is the principle of the class struggle opposed absolutely and in all cases to the taking of partial possession of ministerial power by the socialist party? _ “You have an excellent memory, citizen, but that’s not what la Petite République has done best. Don’t believe that la Petite République is an authority for me. I recognize no authority but that of reason. Jaurès and all of us, socialist Dreyfusards and Dreyfusard socialists, we were obviously right in the Dreyfus affair. Our demonstrations were good, that is to say, we demonstrated what needed to be demonstrated. I stop there. Not that I trust myself. But I trust reason. I am no more presumptuous than the surveyor, but I am no less certain than him when I hold the truth. When I consider how few people in France could even have suspected what the Dreyfus Affair was, when I consider how many French citizens were deceived, duped or deluded, I feel no need to seek advice. to foreign citizens, or to have me punished by them. Have you read the consultations obtained from the best international socialist theorists and activists? I stopped after the first ones: those who were right didn’t make us any more right, and those who were wrong didn’t make us right. Basically, among those that I read, I noticed two tendencies: some treated the questions by unproven abstract theoretical propositions, one did not see how these propositions joined the particular reality in question; some dealt with this reality, but knew it less well than us. “It is certain, doctor, that there is in the articles of Liebknecht, if it is permissible to speak thus, a certain ignorance, and even I would dare to say, if the author were not a revered dean, a certain lack of understanding of the subject. “Although the author is the doyen of German Social-Democracy, although he seems to be the doyen of universal socialism, I dare say,” said the doctor. And first of all, citizen, don’t always oppose me with that word dean, which I don’t like. It’s a word with several meanings, and words with several meanings arouse in me a natural repulsion. I don’t like rich people. A dean is, if you like, the oldest man in his company. Thus a man is the dean of the municipal councilors of France and the colonies if he is the oldest among the municipal councilors of France and the colonies, or else, because it is necessary to distinguish again, if he has been for the longest time city ​​councillor. On the other hand, a man is dean of certain companies when his colleagues or some superior authority has conferred on him the deanship. This collation can be done by seniority, choice, or randomly. This is the case with all ranks. I believe that there are priest-deans. There are Deans in the different Faculties. The excellent M. Himly was dean in the old Sorbonne. It is in his capacity as dean that the severe and yet smiling M. Alfred Croise presides over the attack and defense of theses. And then you guess what happens: Liebknecht is the dean of German social democracy, the dean of international socialism. As I do not suppose that our German comrades instituted the deanship, it meant first either that Liebknecht was the oldest socialist in the world, or else that he was the oldest citizen of the world in socialism, or both at the same time. But I forgot to warn you that often, in the ceremonial history of companies, in receptions, in opening sessions, in inaugurations, in congresses, in banquets, the dean acts and speaks in the name of the company itself, officially or unofficially, whether he is dean of age, or of functioning, or of dignity. The dean thus becomes a man who always has an individual value and on certain occasions a corporate value. Under the cover of the same name designating the same functions, a confusion is established little by little in the spirits. The dean of the age assumes the consideration which we attribute to dignities, a respectable and conservative feeling; the senior dignitary puts on the respect we give to the age of people and to the age of service, a second feeling no less respectable and no less conservative. A second confusion is established in the spirits. Sometimes the dean speaks and acts as a simple individual, sometimes he speaks and acts as a functionary. The individual assumes the authority of the official. Liebknecht writes his articles as a private citizen. This does not prevent the Viennese publisher from announcing them and commenting on them as coming from the head of the German Social Democracy. When they have crossed the—bourgeois—frontier, there is no longer any question of the dean. Looks like the French. Our respected dean, as that brave Gérault says, who is always afraid of hurting his comrades. It is a pity that the comrades do not reciprocate. Conversely, when one attacks the dean, when one responds to the dean, when one defends oneself against the transcontinental attacks of the dean, everyone believes that the very company of which he is the dean is threatened, everyone flies to the aid. Thus, at this session of the Congress, the Citizen President imagined that the switch would be appropriately answered if an address were sent to the German Social Democracy and to its venerable dean. What confusion! German social democracy had never been questioned. The revered dean had never been implicated. Citizen Liebknecht had been implicated. We vote on that. By acclamation, of course. Those who voted for approved of Liebknecht and disapproved of Joindy. Those who voted against approved of Joindy, disapproved of Liebknecht as dean, no longer venerated him, finally seemed to be attacking German social democracy itself all together, which is a big piece. How convenient! You, for example, who like German Social Democracy and who don’t like Liebknecht, how did you vote? “I voted against.” “Even against the proof?” “I don’t remember if there were two ordeals. There was an extraordinary hubbub, an intense emotion and one that rather harms memory. I seem to remember that the Citizen President announced the motion for reparation. Immediately most of the delegates, especially on the left, frantically raised their red cards at arm’s length, like little children stretching their hands out to a menacing grandfather. They didn’t think that this time it was the grandfather who had started by throwing his grandchildren to the wolves. When I say I voted down, I mean I didn’t raise my arms frantically. I don’t think we thought of making a counter-proof. I do not remember. We had to think of everything and everyone, at the same time, in Guesde, in Joindy, in Liebknecht. Not to mention the initial stupor. Believe me that it was inevitable that the motion for reparation should be carried off with speed and enthusiasm. On a cold winter’s night, on a dark December night, it is sweet to send a token of sympathy to the German Social-Democracy and its venerable dean. ‘That’s easier than going to Armenia. “Doesn’t it seem to you, citizen doctor, that this commitment of the party in the person and in the name of its venerable dean imposes on him at least some moderation?” “We will come to that, citizen; but if you find that I am too long, you had only to come to consult.—So is it true that Citizen Liebknecht is the oldest or most senior citizen of international socialism? I do not know. We don’t know all the articulate men, we don’t know all the socialist and revolutionary militants. It may very well be that there is in some country lost to tyranny, in Russia or in France, a poor invenerated man whom the bourgeois have domadene, because he was a socialist and revolutionary, for longer more harm than they have nothing to do with Citizen Liebknecht. Not that I have for a moment the temptation not to estimate the value of Citizen Liebknecht’s work. But, as the ancients said, as long as a man is not dead, no one can say that he is the one who has suffered the most and the longest for the social revolution.” “I suppose that when one venerates in Liebknecht the dean of universal socialism, one understands by that that he is the dean of the age and of the services of the great militants, of the socialist leaders: but who does not see, citizen, to which aristocracies , and, I fear, to what oligarchies would lead us the attribution of a certain respect to certain militants whom we would name our leaders.” “I come where you expect me. Since, in fact, Liebknecht is revered as the doyen of socialist democracy, why hasn’t he brought some temperament into the expression of his thought? “That was the meaning of the question I had allowed myself to ask you.” “I don’t think one should ever bring any temperament to the expression of one’s thoughts. One must strive to think according to the truth. If Liebknecht had tried to think according to the truth, no doubt he would have succeeded, and he would not have needed to bring a temperament to the expression of his thought. I will not have the patience to critique these three articles in detail. They should be read in the text. Have you at least presented me with a good translation, an exact translation? “She is only too exact, in the sense that we preferred her to be attentive and heavy than alert and easy.” “What strikes me most in Liebknecht’s articles is this ignorance and lack of intelligence that you have mentioned. It is not immoral to be ignorant and unintelligent of a subject, when one has not been able to have knowledge and understanding of it; in particular it is not surprising that these citizens born and cultured in foreign countries have neither known nor heard of the Dreyfus affair. But it is immoral to deal with subjects you do not know. This immorality becomes luxurious when nothing committed the author to treat the subject.” “I notice in these articles very little of what we call bad faith when we see it—which is much more frequent—in a bourgeois author. I modestly and provisionally define this bad faith mi certain vain desire that one has to be right all the same.” “I cannot help noticing in these articles a certain resemblance to that very French spirit of which Citizen Rochefort ¹¹once gave us the best samples and of which poor Rochefort now gives us the caricature. It’s the same jumping, hooked, sometimes witty nonsense. Give someone some quotes from this Liebknecht and ask who it is from. It will seem to him more like Rochefort than Drumont. — Are not Liebknecht and Rochefort somewhat contemporaneous? “I believe that Liebknecht left with a good intention. It is certain that we had in France some bad Dreyfusards, a very small number, anti-Semites and nationalists upside down, who had put their passions on this side. We have had a very large number of bad Dreyfusards abroad. These more or less reactionary nationalists hated France because it is the France of the Revolution. They found it ingenious to use the Dreyfus Affair to manifest this hatred. This was not reason enough for foreign democrats to become fiercely anti-Dreyfusards. It is as if we are singing the praises of England because all the professional French militarists make enthusiastic proclamations in favor of the Boer militias. It is human to have the temptation to always contradict the wicked and the criminals: but we must have the courage and the will to speak like them when it pleases their combinations to speak the truth. We must resist disgust. Liebknecht had all the more the duty and the facility to speak with the bad German nationalist Dreyfusards that he spoke all together and without any doubt with the intellectual elite of France, of Europe, of the world, with all the true socialists, with all true revolutionaries, with all German social democracy. — I call the intellectual elite of a country or of the world the whole of those who work well in the intellectual part, just as the manual elite is made up of all the manual workers who work well, each in his part. “Reacting against the passions by which the bad foreign Dreyfusards hated France, Liebknecht loved her as never the good Frenchmen, had they not yet become socialists, consented to being loved. “More deeply, it seems to me that I see in these articles an even more serious and foreign strangeness: that of mentality. It seems to me that Liebknecht does not have the mind set as we have now. This can be seen above all in the extraordinary ease of reconciliation with citizens who have been declared vile. That’s what deceived good Gérault-Richard. The dean sent him expressions which naturally led one to think that he had never had printed in German what _ Action française had subsequently printed in French. We, if we treated people like the dean treated us, we wouldn’t think of reconciling with them later. A fortiori would we not have the idea of ​​reconciling ourselves with them at the same time. The Dean’s foreign mentality enabled the anti-Dreyfusard liars to play us the best trick they have played on us since the start of the campaign. They simply wrote the truth, gave a true translation, and we, discounting the protests and sentimental protests of the translated, registering the professional falsity of the translator, we falsely argued that a true translation was falsity. It pains me. What deceived us was also the abruptness and violence of the dean. We are so well warned and we guard ourselves so well in France against a certain hypocrisy, against a certain aspect of duplicity, flexible, Catholic, Jesuit, that we are rather inclined to imagine that abruptness and brutality are the necessary mark of the franchise. “Then you think, Citizen Doctor, that we shouldn’t have shouted: ‘Down with Liebknecht!’ “ I do not say that. If abruptness and brutality are not the necessary mark of frankness and truth, they are often the expression of it. If Citizen Joindy thought that adoration in the name of Liebknecht should be put down, he did well to shout: Down with Liebknecht! this Congress shouted: _Down with Jaurès! _Really if they thought that the reputation of Jaurès should be brought down, they did well to shout: down with Jaurès! That was much better than cutting Jaurès off by chanting to him to the tune of Lampions: Galliffet! Galliffet! seeing that Jaurès is perfectly innocent of the crimes committed by General de Galliffet,¹² seeing that he even never belonged to any ministry where General de Galliffet had the portfolio of war. Above all, it was much better than doing like that Guesdist, a man named Rolland, or Roland, I believe, who in the provinces elegantly won a seat, im mandate of delegate to an independent by praising Jaurès that the independent did not would have ever wanted to do, since he was independent. -“Those who think and want Ion to put down veneration in the name of Liebknecht, citizen doctor, should they cry out: _Down with Liebknecht!” _At the great international congress of 1900, when Liebknecht has come from Germany to Paris with his wife and children, as he says, when he is there, in the hall and on the platform, and wants to speak, will it be necessary Why should they shout to him: Down with Liebknecht! and prevent him from speaking? I heard some citizens, very angry after the expulsion of Joindy, who said: “We will prevent Liebknecht, during the Exhibition, to attend the great Universal Congress.” “Let us never listen, citizen, to the advice of anger.” Anger often advises retaliation, which is bourgeois. The National Congress overstepped by expelling Citizen Joindy: the International Congress would overstep by inconveniencing Citizen Liebknecht. Let’s avoid revenge. Even avoid punishing. An illegitimate obstruction is powerless to compensate for an illegitimate exclusion. The law, violated twice in the opposite direction, is not restored for that and is not better off for it. We must let Citizen Liebknecht arrive in Paris, stay, sit, speak, preside as a simple citizen. —Only, if he himself oversteps, or if, by his presence or by his speech, he gives a pretext to anti-Semitic demonstrations, we must prevent him from overstepping. “How to do it, citizen, without shouting: _Down with Liebknecht! _ “It seems to me that the value of a cry varies with the person thus acclaimed or condemned. Unbelievers do not cry _down with God! _when a procession passes. They refuse to bend their knees and keep their hats on their heads as the Blessed Sacrament passes. This prosaic and impolite gesture has a very strong meaning. If we refuse the acclamation in the name of Liebknecht, we will have, given the habits, organized a great demonstration with regard to him, the only one which is just and which is in conformity with the truth, since, if we say nothing to him, it will is that we will have no compliments to pay him. It seems impossible to me to shout _Down with Liebknecht! I don’t know why, it’s a difficult action to imagine, and actions that are difficult to imagine don’t happen easily. At most one could shout silence! to all those who would attempt an anti-Semitic demonstration on his behalf. If it is true that the silence of peoples is the lesson of kings, the dean will know perfectly well what that means. — In the extreme, one can shout: Vive Zola!¹³ “I am sure that all the French comrades will make these reflections, and it is not them that I fear for Liebknecht. But how will we be able to prevent, how will he be able to prevent the professional anti-Semites from cheering him at the station or in the street, from making a show of respectful sympathy at his expense? With a revolutionary handshake, I left the doctor saddened by this hypothesis, a little embarrassed to have answered my question badly enough. The citizen doctor having thus taught me what internationalism is, I conclude from his distinctions that I should appreciate citizen Liebknecht exactly as if I myself were a German comrade, without establishing between Liebknecht and myself a border of respect. I resolved to go and ask the Germanist citizen what he knew of Liebknecht and of his position in the German Social Democracy. I had vaguely heard it said that his fellow citizens had much more respectful friendship for his person and for his word and for his services than for his thought. I thought I remembered that already, during the affairs of Armenia, the dean had not been able to discern where humanity was. The Germanist citizen received me rather badly. According to him, the Joindy incident did not have the importance that I attributed to it. The Germanist thus created a slight confusion. He imagined that I was asking him what he thought of what I was asking him, while I was asking him what I was asking him. However, I am sending the present notebook to the Germanist citizen, so that he can find there on the Joindy incident the information he has not yet given me on the history of Liebknecht. The Germanist citizen having thus given me some leisure, I went to see the bourgeois conservative monarchist reactionary doctor. He is a man of good advice: when he is happy with us, I begin to be suspicious. I gave him the information I had. As he progressed in his wise and slow reading, his calmly wrinkled face lit up: “Monsieur le citoyen,” he said with the amiable gentleness that I dread, “it is with an age-old pleasure that I see the solid and conservative principles, which you call reactionary, so powerfully rooted in the hearts of the citizens you call revolutionaries. I will not reproach you for having expelled Mr. Joindy: we have instituted, to ensure the silence and the good order of our deliberative assemblies, censorship with temporary exclusion. You censored, you temporarily excluded: you did well. It is impossible for an Assembly to have the means to work if it is at the mercy of disturbers. I will not reproach you for having defended Mr. Liebknecht: we have established laws which protect Mr. President of the Republic and Their Majesties the foreign Sovereigns. You imitate us. I do not blame you. You are right. It is essential that the greats of this world are not at the mercy of disruptors. Otherwise, how could they keep the world; how could they keep society, if they were not kept themselves. And then, you invited Mr. Liebknecht to come to the Exhibition; Monsieur Millerand will receive him on the threshold of the Exhibition, will show him the Palais des Congrès. You cannot displease him. Shout Down with Liebknecht! _A socialist! It is a little known if Monsieur Loubet shouted: Down with the Shah of Persia! No, that is not done. I went away feeling how much the somewhat heavy irony of this last doctor was excessive.

Footnotes

1. Jules Guesde, a French Socialist who had corresponded with Marx. ↩

2. Alexandre Millerand was a French politician and member of the government who caused a debate about the the presence of the bourgeois in government. ↩

3. Bruno Schönlank was a German journalist and politician. ↩

4. August Bebel was a German socialist. ↩

5. Karl Paul August Friedrich Liebknecht, a German socialist and lawyer. ↩

6. Émile Joindy ↩

7. Paul Mounet was a famous French Actor. ↩

8. Joad is a character in Jean Racin’s play, Athalie. ↩

9. Arthur Groussier ↩

10. Péguy includes here three articles published in die Fackel(Vienna), edited by Karl Kraus. Trois articles parus dans die Fackel (la Torche) N°‘18, 19 et 21, the end of September, the beginning of october, the end of October 1899. These three articles had been reunited in a special brochure. The French translation came from this brochure. ↩

11. Victor Henri Rochefort was a French journalist and writer who was sympathetic to the commune in 1871 but later turned rightwing and became an anti-Dreyfusard. ↩

12. Gaston Alexandre Auguste, Marquis de Galliffet, a General in Napoleon III’s army who participated in the suppression of the commune and later became Minister of War in Waldeck-Rousseau’s cabinet. ↩

13. Liebknecht had written in Die Fackel that Zola “played a purely ridiculous role”. ↩