Diary of Marie Bashkirtseff
CZENUKFR

Tuesday, 16 November 1880

I fear I exaggerated the other day regarding the Church; I had holy remorse, and it was by a thread that I did not rise from my bed to come make amends here, for the Church serves to make God known, the Church has done enormously for morals, the Church has carried to the savages the name of God and civilization. Without offending God, I believe one could have civilized without Catholicism, but still... The Church has been used like feudalism, and like it, it has had or nearly had its day. There are too many things inadmissible and revolting, without being odious, however, in Catholicism. The divine has been mixed with flat legends, [blacked-out word: and] there are too many enlightened people now for the pious lies to be respected. But it is an epoch of transition that we are passing through, [blacked-out word: and that] unfortunately the masses are not yet sufficiently educated not to pass from the wholesome superstitions to contempt and the negation of God.
When I sometimes dream of possible encounters in life with Cassagnac, I do not see how his clericalism and his monarchism would agree with me.
He could confess to me that he is playing a role, and that would be enough for me. There are men sincerely [blacked-out word: religious] but [blacked-out words: who are] monarchists, unless... that... [cancelled words: his country needs monarchy]... For there are people who believe monarchy is necessary to the prosperity of certain countries... why, I was not thinking of that the other day when I said [blacked-out words: that one must have a servant's soul to] love monarchy.
Let us suppose a country where constitutional monarchy — of course — makes the people happy; well, the proudest and noblest man can sincerely adhere to it and even have a certain sincere attachment to the family that has represented his country for centuries. But from that to this servile attachment to a race is far!
I [blacked-out words: do not say] that I find it good to be a monarchist, as I have just said above, but after all one can admit that one may be sincerely attached to it and believe in it in one's heart of hearts under the above conditions. It is certainly not in France that this is possible, nor that there is a monarchy one can in good conscience prefer to the Republic. And is there even a candidate who is not debased or dishonored? Monsieur de Chambord. And the Orleans who inevitably follow him.
But after all, the Orleans, patiently tolerated for centuries, could become "that family that represents the country" of which I was just speaking.
And the platitudes that a court obliges — that would be the sacrifice of one's personal pride that one would make to the country. No doubt. But what is the use of all that when there is the Republic, which has all that is good in bourgeois monarchy and has nothing of what is bad in it — which is the finest and noblest of governments.
There is in short something revolting in the sovereign honors rendered to a puppet monarch by a minister or by a man of state of genius, who whatever he does will always be the servant of the worthless, foolish, and perhaps imbecile monarch.
No, you see, Cassagnac and I shall not speak of it. I leave him his monks and his priests since he scatters upon them the sentiment one owes to God, but politics, no! In short, do not mock my lucubrations; I explain myself badly, and besides these are only gropings.