Tuesday, 16 November 1880

I fear I went too far the other day about the Church; I felt a pious remorse, and I very nearly got out of bed to come and make amends here, for the Church serves to make God known, the Church has done a great deal for morals, the Church has carried the name of God and civilisation to the savages. Without offending God, I believe one could have civilised without Catholicism, but still... The Church has been used like feudalism, and like it, it has had or nearly had its day. Yet there are too many inadmissible and revolting things in Catholicism, though they are not odious. The divine has been mixed up with insipid legends, 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, and that unfortunately the masses are not yet educated enough to keep from passing from wholesome superstition to contempt for God and denial of Him.
When I sometimes dream of possible encounters in life with Cassagnac, I do not see how his clericalism and his monarchism could be reconciled with me.
He could confess to me that he is playing a role, and that would be enough for me. There are men sincerely religious but who are monarchists, unless... that... 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 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 it is a long way from that to this servile attachment to a bloodline!
I 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 one candidate who is not debased or dishonoured? Monsieur de Chambord. And the Orléans, who inevitably follow him.
But after all, the Orléans, patiently tolerated for centuries, could become “that family that represents the country” of which I was just speaking.
And the servilities a court demands would be the sacrifice of one’s personal pride made 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 honours paid to a puppet monarch by a minister or by a statesman 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.