1  

Elvan Sahin

Education in France

Sarah Kolopp

15.12.2013

History and The Nation: The Speeches of High School Graduation Ceremonies in France,

1870 - 1900

“French history is the most powerful and most complete school of patriotism.”1

This is how M. Cresson, professor of history in Collège de Chalons conceptualized

history’s place in the national curriculum of 1879. At that time in France he was not

alone in his thoughts. With the establishment of the Third Republic in the aftermath of

the 1870 defeat the political elite, intellectuals and scholars became occupied with

concepts of patriotism, nation, and identity and the way in which history played a role in

these concepts. From 1870s onwards in France, creation of a national discourse,

education, and development of history as a discipline were three trends that progressed at

the same time, feeding each other and influencing each other. In this paper I set out to

discover one facet of this contingent relationship by analyzing four speeches that were

given by professors in French high school graduation ceremonies in the 1870s and 1880s.

Eugen Weber in his mass study on rural France showed that after 1870 a process

of change began that transformed the “the country of savages” into “the nation of

Frenchmen”. Putting modernization at the center of his analysis, he argued also for the

important role of education in this process of change. He saw the school as “a major

agent of acculturation: shaping individuals to fit into societies and cultures broader than

                                                                                                               1 M. Cresson, Discours prononce a la Distribution des Prix du Collège de Chalons (Chalons Sur Marne: Imprimerie T. Martin, 1879), 6. Translated from the original French, “L’Histoire de France est l’école la

  2  

their own, and persuading them that these broader realms are their own, as much as the

pays they really know and more so.”2 Since its publication, Weber’s linear view of top-

down change has been challenged widely in all domains as well as in the historiography

of education. Weber was right to argue that there was a systematic state investment in

education under the Third Republic and that this became an indispensable component of

circulation of national discourses. On the other hand, historians like Jean-Pierre Chanet

and Anne-Marie Thiesse introduced detailed analyses that revealed the functioning of the

republican school system and the relation between regions –les petites patries- and the

nation -la grande patrie- thus introducing a more accentuated account than that of

Weber’s.

Jacques and François Furet, have left great contributions to the field showing how

France learned to read and write; Jacques and Mona Ozouf researched how teachers were

formed and what did the profession meant for them; and Mona Ozouf showed how the

field of education became a political battlefield for competing ideologies. Historians like

Christian Amalvi and Robert Gildea have studied the multiplicity of collective memories

– the battles over history so to speak - and the formation of a French political culture in

its wider context. Finally, Isabel DiVanna by building on the work of Charles-Olivier

Carbonell has offered a detailed study of how history as a discipline occupied a prime

position in the construction of a national identity and how; consequently, it became a

prime concern in the educational agendas. According to DiVanna, the positivist historians

                                                                                                               2 Eugen Weber, Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870-1914 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1976), 330-331.

  3  

of nineteenth century France developed a discourse of national history in their works that

had its impacts on the pedagogy of history.3

In this paper my aim is also to analyze how history was mobilized, in the early

Third Republic, as a tool and a narrative in national identity politics. As Christian Amalvi

states I also wish to discover how “a certain idea of France” was formulated.4While

relying heavily on the arguments put forward by the valuable historians mentioned above

I would like to offer an explanation, first, by focusing on secondary education rather than

primary education. Primary education as the subject of Ferry laws that made it free,

mandatory and secular also became the subject matter for many historians. Secondary

education, which remained a paying elite institution, seems to escape large-scale

scholarly scrutiny. In general the secondary school of the Third Republic remained an

institution that confirmed the hierarchy of classes rather than blurring the boundaries. The

high schools in this sense remained a lieu de l’entre soi bourgeois, not only through the

population that they welcomed but also through the post-graduation trajectories that they

promised. However, it is precisely because of this fact that I believe in the importance to

carry the same questions historians asked in the context of primary education to the

context of secondary education. How specific was the formulation of the discourse of the

“national” in French high school and what role does history play in it?

Secondly, in terms of sources I use speeches delivered at graduation ceremonies

rather than focusing on textbooks and political writings of historians. Textbooks, the most

                                                                                                               3 For a detailed discussion and a full list of the historians associated with the scientific positivist approach that has been grouped under école méthodique see Charles-Olivier Carbonell, Histoire et Historiens. For a more recent critical and complementary approach see DiVanna, Isabel. Writing History in the Third Republic. 4 Christian Amalvi, De L'art Et La Manière D'accommoder Les Héros De L'histoire De France. Essaies De Mythologie Nationale (Paris: Albin Michel, 1988), 19. Translated from the original French, “Un certain idée de France”.

  4  

famous ones being written by historians like Lavisse, give us a clear idea that history had

a prime role in education to the “national”. Nevertheless, as Mona Ozouf mentions in her

preface to Jean-Pierre Chanet’s work, one of his biggest contributions has been to show

how class practices of the schoolteachers became personalized and how they deviated

from general instructions of the state.5 Anne Marie Thiesse states that “age of the nations

is the time of the educators”, a claim I believe gives the educators the agency in forming

their own strategies like Chanet did.6Thus, how did the national discourse of identity that

expressed itself through education of history in textbooks found its way in France? In

what ways did the schoolteachers reproduce the arguments and pass them to their

students? One way is of course to follow Chanet’s footsteps and look at in-class

practices. Another opportunity is, as I offer in this paper, to look at the speeches delivered

at graduation ceremonies and to see how the speakers articulated their discourse.7 By

using these texts I show how history articulated a civic and moral project – educating

“good citizens” but also dedicated and committed national elites. My argument is that the

language used in these speeches signals the importance given to history in the process of

forming future distinguished national elites. The educational programs of the secondary

schools confirmed that their students received a distinguished classical education.

However, as the speeches reveal this classical, universal function of history in secondary

education was not in contrast with the civic function of history, a function usually

attributed only to primary education. Moreover, the interactive nature of these sources,

meaning they were constructed speeches for the special purpose of being articulated in

                                                                                                               5 Jean François Chanet, L'école Républicaine Et Les Petites Patries (Paris: Aubier, 1996) 6 Anne-Marie Thiesse, Faire Les Français: Quelle Identité Nationale? (Paris: Stock, 2010), 64. Translated from the original French, “L’âge des nations, c’est l’ère des enseignants.” 7 For such a study in the context of girl’s education in the nineteenth century France see for example Rebecca Rogers, From Salon to Schoolroom.

  5  

front of a live audience also permits one to elaborate on how the speakers constructed

their public. This public, as I will show, was an important public because they had the

potential to become the future contributors or decision makers of the French Republic.

I take four speeches delivered at the high school graduation ceremonies that date

from 1878, 1879, 1880 and 1884. It is also significant to state that the schools that I

choose to focus on are all situated outside Paris. I believe this geographical focus may

help to show the extent of the diffusion of general ideas. It is important to take into

account the particularities of the people delivering the speeches, as I believe that

schoolteachers constituted a middle level in between the Parisian political elite and the

citizens. Only the speech from 1878 is delivered by a deputy – M. Hugot - rather than a

schoolteacher, but he can still be considered a part of this middle level because he was a

provincial deputy. By using these speeches, I look at the production of discourse but also

reproduction of it. Even though we do not have detailed information about their

background we might guess that they went through a similar system of secondary

education, though one should mark that their years of formation would fall into the era of

the Second Empire.

By analyzing the language of the speeches we can see how history as a discipline

was mobilized to formulate a specific national discourse in education. It is interesting to

see how the “uses” of history are exemplified and articulated in different forms. In order

to this I will first analyze the most common themes that recur in these speeches. History

is firstly, used as a source of emulation; secondly, reflects continuity and unity and

finally, affirms the love for the country. After discussing these main themes I will,

analyze how the civic mission that is attributed to history takes on a specific meaning in

  6  

the context of secondary education. In this second part I will first concentrate on several

examples of differences and than will elaborate on the specific importance of the event of

the graduation ceremony. I argue that even though these speeches reflect a common trend

at the time, the context of secondary education assigned history a more particular role

besides the general aim. The discourse of history in graduation ceremonies meant that it

was invaluable for the young public at the ceremony, the young public who would

become the future servants of the state, situation that entailed more than being simple

citizens.

I

History as Source of Emulation

I mentioned in the beginning of this paper that M. Cresson, professor of history in

Collège de Chalons, referred to history as the greatest school of patriotism. Thus, what

did the students learn from history? First and foremost, it is possible to argue that in all

the speeches analyzed in this paper, history was represented as a pool of French heroes.

As Anne Marie Thiesse argues “national history presents itself as a repertory of resources

in subjects of reflection and action, and as a survey of civic lessons.”8 In the speeches the

acts of the heroes of the past were either linked to the present duties of the students as

future members of the nation or these acts were presented as a proof for the evasive

nature of the present problems. If needed these students would also become heroes,

sacrifice their blood for their country or simply contribute to the progress of French

civilization. History, for the speakers, was a source of emulation; a tool that they could

use to extract examples for their moral and civic messages.

                                                                                                               8 Anne-Marie Thiesse, Faire Les Français: Quelle Identité Nationale? (Paris: Stock, 2010), 45. Translated from the original French, “l’histoire nationale se présente comme un répertoire de ressources en matière de réflexion et d’action, un recueil de leçons civiques”

  7  

One of the best examples supporting the use of history as a tool to overcome the

present day crisis presents itself in M. Cresson’s speech. According to M. Cresson French

civilization was going through a hard time – referring to the aftermath of the debacle - but

one shouldn’t worry about this. He said, “the reader who runs through the pages of our

history is simply surprised by the number of heroes France has nurtured and by the

uninterrupted sequence of martyrs she aroused.”9 Kings who made France were presented

as the heroes of French civilization. More importantly in his speech France itself became

an allegory of emulation, as France the child of civilization would reclaim again its status

as the leader of the European civilization. “History is a resurrection”, concluded M.

Cresson.10 Thus in his speech the history of France was the very source of hope for the

future and the students by following its example would also contribute to the French

greatness.

The notion of hope was also present in M. Hugot’s speech that he delivered in

1878 at the ceremony of Collège de Semur. He referred to the Gaules who minted the

word Hope in their coins and concluded, “[…] I am delighted in repeating this word of

our ancestors, which this time the future will ratify: Hope! Hope.”11 Moreover he stated

that he trusted the students who already possessed the knowledge of good examples

through their education to render France strong and invincible.12In a similar way M.

Tyssandier, professor of philosophy, in his speech at the ceremony of Collège de Bernay

in 1884 – six years after M. Hugot – evoked the duties of the students towards the state.                                                                                                                9 M. Cresson, Discours, 7.Translated from the original French, “Le lecteur qui parcourt les pages de notre histoire est justement frappe du nombre de héros que la France a enfantes et de la suite ininterrompue de martyrs qu’elle a suscites.” 10 10 M. Cresson. Discours , 14. Translated from the original French, “L’Histoire est une résurrection...” 11 Hugot, Anatole. Discours prononcé par M. Hugot... à la distribution des prix du collège de Semur, le 5 Août 1878. (1878), 8. . Translated from the original French “... que je me plais a répéter ce mot de nos ancêtres que l’avenir ratifiera cette fois: Esperance! Esperance.” 8 12 Ibid.

  8  

To understand the necessity of one’s duties “it is enough to cast a glance over our history

of France in order to find the most eloquent examples of all the rules [duties].”13For

instance, Joan of Arc was one of those heroes who constituted an example to how “the

patriotism, a feeling that sleeps inside all of us can be mobilized to the point of heroism at

times of danger”14. M. Lehugeur, professor of history in Lycée D’Angers in his speech

from 1880 remarked that “history is not only a course for your minds, it is also a lively

source which you must go back to strengthen your souls, in order to be ready for all the

services that France demands from you.”15 For Suzanne Citron “the defense of the

country is the first duty” and “most of the heroes that were for presented for children’s

admiration convey thus a warrior moral which has nothing to do with the defense of

human rights.”16 Many speakers seem to take up this principle even though in M.

Tyssandier’s speech it is possible to read his initial concern for humanity in the wake of

the question of war as a sensibility towards human rights as well. Overall, history was a

tool to explain the present and inject hope for the future by bridging the past with the

present through heroes of the French history. M. Cresson claimed that “the genius of

history was that of France” and that even after nine years France was recovering from the

                                                                                                               13 Tyssandier, Léon. La Patrie et l'Etat, discours prononcé le 3 août 1884 à la distribution des prix du collège de Bernay (Eure,)(1884),15-16. Translated from the original French “Il suffit de jeter un coup d’oeil sur l’histoire de notre France pour y trouver des exemples de patriotisme plus éloquents que toutes les règles.” 14 Ibid. Translated from the original French “Ainsi, messieurs, le sentiment patriotique qui sommeille au fond de nous peut s’élever jusqu’a l’héroïsme a l’heure du danger.” 15 Ibid. 14, Translated from the original French “L’Histoire n’est pas seulement un sujet d’étude pour vos esprits, c’est aussi la source vive ou il faut retremper vos amés, pour être prêt a tous les services que la France réclame de vous.” 16 Suzanne Citron, Le Mythe National: L'histoire De France En Question (Paris: Ed. Ouvrières, 1991), 44.: “La défense du pays est le premier des devoirs” and “La plupart des héros présents a l’admiration des enfants véhiculent donc une morale guerrière qui n’a rien a voir avec la défense du droit”

  9  

defeat of 1870.17 Thus students were to follow the footsteps of the past heroes to confirm

the glorious future that awaits France.

History as Proof of Continuity and Unity

History was the endless source of heroes and events that constituted an example

for the students only because history represented continuity from times immemorial. In

this line of thinking M. Cresson referred to the kings of France not only because they

were great heroes but also because their succession and ability to keep the French

civilization alive demonstrated the indestructible continuity of French history. According

to him “thus strong and mature from the earliest times, France delivered the eternal fight

of civilization and liberty”.18 Therefore as Anne Marie Thiesse mentions the main point

of narratives of history of the nation “underlines national unity, and social communities

who throughout the centuries resist against forces of enslavement and disassociation”.19

The same discourse of resistance and civilization was also present in M. Lehugeur’s

speech at Lycée d’Angers in 1880 however in the context of regional history, a point

which I will discuss in detail later. Furthermore, according to Thiesse the legitimacy of

the nation “no longer descends from the skies: it is anchored in the depths of time.”20The

direct reference to Gaules as ancestors of the French, for example in M. Hugot’s speech

can be seen as an inclination to break the celestial legitimation of the French nation by

showing its pre-Catholic roots. As Christian Amalvi argues in his case study of

                                                                                                               17  M. Cresson, Discours, 15.Translated from the original French, “La Genie de l’histoire c’est celui de la France meme”.  18 M. Cresson, Discours, 11. Translated from the original French“Ainsi forte et mure de bonne heure, la France a livre le combat éternel de la civilisation et de la liberté.” 19 Anne-Marie Thiesse, Faire Les Français: Quelle Identité Nationale? (Paris: Stock, 2010), 42.: “Le fil conducteur de ces récits souligne donc l’unité de la nation, communauté transsociale qui au long des siècles, résiste contre les forces d’asservissement et de dissociation” 20 Anne-Marie Thiesse, Faire Les Français: Quelle Identité Nationale? (Paris: Stock, 2010), 37.: “Elle ne descend plus des cieux: elle est ancrée dans les profondeurs du temps”

  10  

Vercingétorix, the French republicans represented the Gaules as ancestors in order to

break the catholic narrative of the nation.

Education ensured the transfer of history in between generations and this transfer

was what injected hope to the future. Secondly, history was a lesson to be learned in

order to avoid the same mistakes in the future. Therefore, as M. Tyssandier proclaimed,

“history teaches us how to form national unity.”21 More importantly history ensured unity

in the difficult time that France was going through. The principles of this unity is

summarized by M. Cresson:

The real citizen overcomes the narrow circle where his interests grow restless; he

remembers that he is a part of a big family living in the same land, following the

same rule of laws, accomplishing the same task, protecting the stock of national

traditions like a sacred legacy and finally walking towards a collective future

following the traces of the past generations.22

The most interesting point in this definition is the reference to family, a point that Thiesse

also mentions: “The metaphor of family united by the transmission of a material and

symbolic patrimony through generations is therefore frequent.”23 While in M. Cresson’s

speech (1879) the transmission of patrimony remains mostly symbolic in M. Lehuguer’s

speech (1880) the transmission takes its material form as well: “[…] go see the enormous

                                                                                                               21 Tyssandier, Léon. La Patrie et l'Etat , 7. Translated from the original French,“L’histoire nous apprend comment se forme l’unité nationale.” 22 22 M. Cresson, Discours , 6. Translated from the original French ,“ Le vrai citoyen franchit le cercle étroit ou s’agitent ses interets; il se souvient qu’il fait partie d’une grande famille, habitant la même contrée, obéissant aux mêmes lois, accomplissant la même oeuvre, gardant comme un legs sacre le dépôt des traditions nationales, cheminant enfin vers un avenir commun, sur les traces des générations passées.” 23 Anne-Marie Thiesse, Faire Les Français: Quelle Identité Nationale? (Paris: Stock, 2010), 38.:“La métaphore de la famille unie par la transmission a travers les âges d’un patrimoine matériel et symbolique est donc fréquente.”

  11  

rocks which decorate our fields, the dolmens of Saumur or of Gennes […].”24 Thus the

speeches are not only sources of discursive reproduction but also witnesses of

particularities in the national discourse.

In short, ancestors of France that one learned through education of history were

the sources of awakening for unity. Moreover unity came from the realization of common

goals as a community. In Suzanne Citron’s words “history of France also draws its

coherence of being a nation from its unity and indivisibility.”25In other words, the

representation of an unbreakable continuity and unity of French history became one of

the main elements of French identity and community.

History as Verification of amour de la patrie

Suzanne Citron mentions “the use of the word patrie spreads inseparably from the

love that one attributes to it.”26 History did reflect continuity and unity in national history

and this verified the love of France. Therefore, M. Tyssandier takes M. Cresson’s above-

mentioned definition of unity one step further:

The patrie is therefore the extension of the family; it is not only constituted by a

community of interests, values of neighborhood, unity of language but it also

assumes love which can ascend to the point of sacrifice in the situation of need.”27

                                                                                                               24 Paul Lehuguer. Excursions historiques en Anjou : discours prononcé à la distribution des prix du lycée d'Angers (Chaussée St. Pierre: Imprimerie Lachese et Dolbeau, 1880), 6. Translated from orginal French, “[…] Allez voir ces énormes pierres qui se dressent dans nos champs, les dolmens de Saumur ou de Gennes. […]” 25 Suzanne Citron, Le Mythe National: L'histoire De France En Question (Paris: Ed. Ouvrières, 1991), 25.:“L’histoire de France tire aussi sa cohérence d’être celle de la nation dans son unité et son indivisibilité” 26 Ibid., Translated from the original French, “L’usage du mot patrie se propage, inséparable de l’amour qu’on lui porte.” 27 Tyssandier, Léon. La Patrie et l'Etat, 7. Translated from the original French, “la patrie est donc l’extension de la famille; elle est constituée, non-seulement par la communauté d’intérêts, par le voisinage, par l’unité de langage, mais elle suppose l’amour, qui pourra s’élever au besoin jusqu’au sacrifice.”

  12  

Moreover giving references to the Revolution and explaining one’s duties – paying taxes,

conscription and voting - towards the state, he associates the patrie with the state. In his

view “the most humble ones can become great citizens when they love the state.”28 As

Suzanne Citron argues “[…] one does not always make a distinction between the pays,

state and nation. State designates the government, the institutions of the government; it

confounds with the notion of the administrated pays.”29 For M.Hugot, in his speech of

1878 at Collège de Semur, the love for the country was hidden in history itself.

Furthermore, M. Cresson affirmed that knowledge of history unearthed this love

naturally.

On the other hand, in certain speeches history became not only an affirmation of

the nation but also of the region. Anne Marie Thiesse in her analysis of regionalism in

France argues that in the national discourse France had two identities. One was the idea

of one and indivisible France, the other the idea the idea that diversity constituted

France’s singularity.30 Hence, the petite patrie exists in harmony with the grande patrie.

When M. Hugot asks: “ The patrie isn’t it, actually, the great friendship that contains all

the other [small] ones who depend each other at bad as well as good times, that makes

them more thick and dense in order to make them one single body at times of danger?” he

seems to be defining exactly this conception of the petite et grande patrie.31 Given the

fact that M. Hugot was the only one among the speakers who was a deputy instead of a

                                                                                                               28 Ibid., 19. “Les plus humbles peuvent devenir des grands citoyens quand ils aiment l’Etat.” (T, 19) 29 Suzanne Citron, Le Mythe National: L'histoire De France En Question (Paris: Ed. Ouvrières, 1991), 25. Translated from the original French, “… On ne distingue pas toujours entre pays, Etat, nation. L’état désigne le gouvernement, les institutions de gouvernement, il se confond avec la notion de pays administrer.” 30 Anne Marie Thiesse, “Les deux identités de la France”, Modern & Contemporary France, 9:1, 9-18 31 Hugot, Anatole. Discours, 2. Translated from the original French, “La Patrie, n’est-ce pas, en effet, la grande amitié qui contient toutes les autres, qui relie entre elles dans la mauvaise comme dans la bonne fortune, qui les serre et les condense pour n’en faire, au moment du danger, qu’un seul et même faisceau?”

  13  

professor may explain this exact similarity with the official discourse. However, his use

of the notion of friendship (amitié) may be read as a personal way of interpreting the

official discourse.

One another important speech is that of M. Lehugeur’s speech from Lycée

d’Angers dating 1880. Different from all other speeches, M. Lehuguer chose to

concentrate on regional history and identity and to articulate the love of patrie through

the local. According to Anne Marie Thiesse the regional identities are in perfect harmony

with the nation and “constructed like miniature versions of national identity.”32 We can

see the echoes of this argument when M. Lahuguer claims “Anjou is a little France.”33

Thus this speech went beyond the initial triangle of nation, education and history and in

this way permits one to comment on regionalism and how it was accommodated within

the discourse of nation. In this speech all the particularities of national history discussed

above are repeated through the lens of the nation. M. Lahuguer was eager to celebrate the

local as well as the nation: “Have the cult of these local glories, love Anjou for all that it

reminds you in a similar way that you love France for all that this word speaks to your

soul.”34Anne Marie Thiesse elsewhere argues that the promotion of the local history was

reserved for the domain of the primary school, and the national level was the realm of

secondary education. 35 As a high school teacher, M. Lahuguer, agrège de l’histoire,

preferred to evoke local sentiments and consciousness in his students’ minds, showing

                                                                                                               32 Anne Marie Thiesse, “Les deux identités de la France”, Modern & Contemporary France, 9:1, 9-18, 15. 33 Paul Lehuguer. Excursions, 5. Trasnlated from the original French, “L’Anjou est une petite France”. 34 Ibid., 14. Translated from the original French, “Ayez le culte de ces gloires locales, aimez l’Anjou pour tout ce qu’il vous rappelle, comme vous aimez la France pour tout ce que ce mot dit a votre âme.” 35  Anne-Marie Thiesse, Ils Apprenaient La France: L'exaltation Des Régions Dans Le Discours Patriotique (Paris: Maison Des Sciences De L'homme, 1997), 10.

  14  

that the distinction Thiesse refers to was not a definite one. It is possible to see cases in

secondary education that promoted the petite patrie in the name of the grande patrie.

To sum up, history – local and national - served to the great love of France. As

M. Lahuguer concluded:

You will love your country as much as to the degree of your knowledge of its

past, with its glories and sufferings; you will be dedicated to progress as much as

to the degree in which you followed its long birth.” 36

II

The Public of the Speeches

As I mentioned in the introduction, the studies that concentrate on the relationship

between nation, history and education tend to focus on primary education. Scholars

usually emphasize the way in which secondary education of the Third Republic

confirmed class differences. In the second place, they refer to the fact that the

pedagogical program was based on humanities and especially on knowledge of classics

and the use of Latin as the main language. Pierre Albertini argues that resting on the

promotion of general culture, the secondary education “targeted precision and

abstraction.”37 Marie Christine Kok Escalle shows that until the reform of 1902 the

education of history in the secondary education remained unattached to the pragmatist

use of history.38Overall while the historiography of French education and history affirms

                                                                                                               36 Paul Lehuguer. Excursions, 14. Translated from the original French, “Vous aimerez votre pays d’autant mieux que vous connaitrez son passé, avec ses gloires et ses souffrances; vous serez d’autant plus dévoues au progrès que vous aurez suivi le long enfantement. ” 37Pierre Albertini, L'ecole En France Du XIXe Siècle a Nos Jours: De La Maternelle a L'université (Paris: Hachette, 2006), 90. Translated from the original French, “L’enseignement secondaire reste alors fondamentalement lie a sa norme de culture générale, telle qu’elle s’est définie a la fin du 19eme siècle: il vise a l précision et a l’abstraction. ” 38 Marie-Christine Kok,-Escalle, Instaurer Une Culture Par L'enseignement De L'histoire France 1876 - 1912: Contribution a Une Sémiotique De La Culture (New York: P.Lang, 1998), 69.

  15  

the existence of themes analyzed in this paper as legitimate functions of history in

education, it also tends to present a strict difference between the goals of the primary and

secondary education. The common belief is that while history had a moral and civic

function in primary education, its function in secondary education remained to be

universal that adhered to the selfless principals of humanity and classics.

I agree that especially in terms of the public that these two institutions

accommodated there was as strict segregation even though there might have been limited

instances of social mobility.39 In the speeches this difference based on class became clear,

as the speakers knew exactly what they could communicate with their public. Therefore

the difference in between the subjects taught became clear in the language of these

speeches with heavy references to ancient Greece and Rome. In some cases the speakers

even used Greek and Latin phrases, a situation that most certainly one wouldn’t

encounter in a primary education setting.

For instance, M.Cresson, chose to open his speech in Collège de Chalons by

projecting back to the ancient Greek festivities where victory of the state was celebrated.

He had the aim to “light a pure and productive flame in [students] hearts, a passion that

will constitute the greatness and dignity of [their] life”40. This passion was the love of

France and this is a sort of love that can be found in ancient Greece. Therefore we see

that in high school teachers’ language, emulation took a more sophisticated form. Firstly,

history France was a source of emulation for the students; secondly, history of antiquity

was a source of emulation for the history of France itself. Moreover by setting ancient

                                                                                                               39 For a study on opportunities of social mobility for classes moyennes see Robert Gildea, Education in provincial France. 40 M. Cresson, Discours, 5. Translated from the original French, “... je voudrais aussi, jeunes gens, allumer dans vos coeurs une flamme pure et féconde, une passion qui fera la noblesse et la dignité de votre vie: l’amour de la France.”

  16  

Greece as the place of example M. Cresson took those great Greek heroes as an example

for himself and set to apply their method to France, the situation that they were currently

in. Hence we see that history was a source of emulation in a complete sense as it provided

an example not only to the audience but also to the writer of the speech. In a similar way,

M. Tyssandier associated his situation with antiquity stating, “the republics of the

antiquity taught their children, in schools to understand and love the State.”41 Speakers

knew that their public would be receptive of such references as the students went through

such an education. Thus, they used this form of distinction in their speeches. On the other

hand, it seems that references of antiquity were used as a form of self-identification and

prestige for the speakers themselves. They put themselves in the shoes of their Greek

counterparts and took over the burden of transmitting love of the country and civilization

to their audience, an audience who was educated in classics.

Nevertheless, even though the Greek references definitely demonstrated elitist

tones, the message in these speeches did not differ completely from the functions

attributed to primary education. More than adhering to universal, selfless principals the

discourse of history also embodied the civic and moral function. History was an

indispensible tool that was used to evoke feeling of patriotism in students’ minds. In this

regard I would claim that when it came to the diffusion of national discourse, education

did not have a strict double character. The elites needed the same sort of education as

much as the popular classes. On the other hand I would suggest that in the minds of the

speakers their audience was very different than the popular classes. The sophisticated

references to the subjects that are only thought in high schools are one example of this

                                                                                                               41 Tyssandier, Léon. La Patrie et l'Etat, 1. Translated from the original French, “Les Républiques de l’antiquité apprenaient aux enfants, dans les écoles, a connaitre et a aimer l’Etat.”

  17  

difference in public. Moreover, one can argue that the aim to provoke national sentiments

for a public of primary education and secondary education differed as well.

The Good Citizen and the National Elite

Marie Christine Kok Escalle mentions, “in the secondary education history had a

function of developing intelligence, judgment and reason.”42 She compares this function

with the civic function of the primary education. Furthermore, Anne Marie Thiesse

mentions that secondary school did not have a professional aim.43 However the language

of the speeches gives us clues that the speakers envisioned a certain type of future for

their students. It is true that as graduates of primary education they are not only to

become good citizens. On the other hand they had the potential to become more: the

future national elite. From this point view I argue that the speeches suggest that history

had both a civic function and also a function that Escalle argues for. Since one cannot

become a national political elite without being a good citizen but also without being

equipped with tools of judgment and reason.

M. Tyssendier I believe makes a point on this character of secondary education

for students when he reminds them that “By instituting universal suffrage, France, has

calls all her sons to the honor of choosing their representatives in the government of

public affaires.”44 Universal suffrage is on the other hand a common duty, and the

students present in the ceremony can even go further than just voting. He further

develops the idea to the point to suggest that his audience might even occupy the ranks of

                                                                                                               42 Marie Christine Kok, Escalle, Instaurer Une Culture Par L'enseignement De L'histoire France 1876 - 1912: Contribution a Une Sémiotique De La Culture (New York: P.Lang, 1998), 230. :“dans le secondaire l’histoire a pour fonction de développer l’intelligence, le jugement et la raison.” 43 Anne-Marie Thiesse, Faire Les Français: Quelle Identité Nationale? (Paris: Stock, 2010), 75. 44 Tyssandier, Léon. La Patrie et l'Etat, 18. Translated from the original French, “En instituant le suffrage universel, La France a appelé tous ses fils à l’honneur de choisir leurs représentants dans le gouvernement de la chose publique.”

  18  

those chosen by universal suffrage: “I sketch, Gentlemen, the duties of the simple citizen.

How much harder this responsibility becomes when one is invited to take up the perilous

honor of the government!”45

As I stated above the knowledge of history confirms the love of nation, assures

that the students have the best interest of the nation at their hearts through emulation and

that they transfer the continuity of the nation to the future. The knowledge of history

assures that the students are the part of the nation. Now that they posses this knowledge

they can become a good citizen, a servant of the state, and the architect of its future. As

M. Cresson states:

You will follow France, my dear students, in this new road that was assigned to

her by experience and you prepared by your concrete studies will become useful

citizens, daring and disciplined soldier, all off you will have an important place

among the artisans of her great future by having different titles.46

The fact that such a functionalistic view of history is taken up as the subjects of

graduation ceremony speeches, I believe also enhances the symbolic value of the

messages it conveyed. Graduation ceremonies were the beginning of the students’ new

life and the speakers seem to have wanted to make sure what kind of shape this life

would take. It is as if the speakers wanted to link the destiny of their audience with the

destiny of France. The importance of history that occupied a prime position in these

subjects had the function to dictate the students the role that was expected from them

                                                                                                               45 Ibid., 18. Translated from the original French, “J’esquisse, Messieurs, les devoirs du simple citoyen. Combien la charge déviant plus lourde quand on est appelé au perillieux honneur du gouvernement!” (T 18) 46 M. Cresson, Discours,15. Translated from the original French, “Vous suivrez la France, chers élevés, dans cette voie nouvelle que l’expérience lui a enseignée, et, vous préparant par des études solides a devenir des citoyens utiles des soldats intrépides et disciplines, vous compterez tous, a divers titres, parmi les artisans de sa grandeur future.”

  19  

upon graduation. Therefore, it is possible to indicate that these speeches firstly, affirmed

the education that the students received by making sure that they heard the importance of

the national history one last time. Secondly, this historical discursive language made sure

that the students also understood their future trajectories, now that they had the possibility

to become a part of the political decision making process in forming even further French

citizens.

Conclusion: The History of the Republic

As Suzanne Citron argues, “inheritor of the Revolution, the Republic identifies

itself with France. It invents a historiographical logic which helps it to appropriate the

past: history of France is that of the nation, made by the kings, produced in 1789 and

definitely republic in 1879.” 47The speeches studied in this paper I believe demonstrated

such a concern towards history and the nation. Moreover it is possible to argue that these

speeches conveyed a republican history that was concerned with reinstituting the French

identity in a certain way.

In this paper I did not engage with debates and struggles that were present in the

nineteenth century historiography precisely because the sources that I took constituted a

homogeneous group. However taking only four speeches cannot of course lead one to a

complete conclusion on the arguments presented in this paper. It is important to note that

there was a larger struggle of French identity, which for example Christian Amalvi calls

the “franco-french wars” or more generally what we can identify as the culture wars.48

                                                                                                               47 Suzanne Citron, Le Mythe National: L'histoire De France En Question (Paris: Ed. Ouvrières, 1991), 24. Translated from the original French, “Héritière de la Révolution, la République s’identifie à la France. Elle invente une logique historiographique qui lui permet de se réapproprier le passé: l’histoire de France est celle de la nation, enfantée par les rois, accouchée en 1789, définitivement république depuis 1879.” 48  See for example: Chaitin, D. Gilbert, The Enemy Within: Culture Wars and Political Identity in Novels of French Third Republic

  20  

This was the struggle to construct a republican national history as opposed to a catholic

narrative or a right wing national narrative and schools were the main battlefield.49The

speeches I took in this study were situated on the republican side of the narrative, even

though they also represented small differences in the way in which they represented the

republican discourse.

Perhaps Lavisse is among the most studied and most citied nineteenth century

historians on nation, history and education. Indeed according to Pierre Nora isn’t he the

national schoolteacher of France, and isn’t his history of France one of the biggest

memories of the French nation? According to DiVanna “following the Comtean tradition,

but also the overarching nineteenth- century tradition using the social sciences to project

the future, Lavisse as a pedagogue, put forward a vision of France.”50 His symbolic

mentor Michelet on the other hand, was the one who put forward the idea of le peuple de

France, the romantic vision of French nationalism. The speeches studied in this paper are

located in between the romanticism of Michelet and the positivism of Lavisse. In this

regard they demonstrate a transitional period, a period where ideas about nation were in

circulation and in progress. They also demonstrate that these ideas were in the minds of a

group larger than the great names of nineteenth century historiography and politics. This

group consisting of teachers and provincial deputies communicated these ideas with the

students of the secondary education, the future elites of the Republic. The speeches

analyzed here showed the dissemination of a republican vision of the nation and history,

even  though  the  latter  was  not  monolithic. Nevertheless, the time studied here was not

                                                                                                               49  For the debate on religion and republic see Ozouf, Mona. L’Ecole, L’église et la République. For the new right wing and its take on nation and education we can turn to Maurice Barres and his Novel of National Energy 50 Isabel DiVanna, Writing History in the Third Republic (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Pub., 2010), 173.

  21  

a unified time in terms of discourse. Even within the republican discourse the limited

number of speeches analyzed here provided a glimpse to the different ways of

formulating an idea.

  22  

Bibliography

Primary Sources Hugot, Anatole. Discours prononcé par M. Hugot... à la distribution des prix du collège

de Semur, le 5 Août 1878, 1878 M. Cresson, Discours prononce a la Distribution des Prix du Collège de Chalons.

Chalons Sur Marne: Imprimerie T. Martin, 1879 Paul Lehuguer. Excursions historiques en Anjou : discours prononcé à la distribution des

prix du lycée d'Angers. Chaussée St. Pierre: Imprimerie Lachese et Dolbeau, 1880 Tyssandier, Léon. La Patrie et l'Etat, discours prononcé le 3 août 1884 à la distribution

des prix du collège de Bernay (Eure), 1884 Secondary Sources Albertini, Pierre. L'école En France Du XIXe Siècle a Nos Jours: De La Maternelle a

L'université. Paris: Hachette, 2006. Amalvi, Christian. De L'art Et La Manière D'accommoder Les Héros De L'histoire De

France. Essaies De Mythologie Nationale. Paris: Albin Michel, 1988. Carbonell, Charles-Olivier. Histoire Et Historiens: Une Mutation Idéologique Des

Historiens Français : 1865-1885. Toulouse: Privat, 1976. Chaitin, Gilbert D. The Enemy Within: Culture Wars and Political Identity in Novels of

the French Third Republic. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2009. Chanet, Jean Francois. L'école Républicaine Et Les Petites Patries. Paris: Aubier, 1996. Citron, Suzanne. Le Mythe National: L'histoire De France En Question. Paris: Ed.

Ouvrières, 1991. DiVanna, Isabel. Writing History in the Third Republic. Newcastle upon Tyne:

Cambridge Scholars Pub., 2010. Furet, François, and Jacques Ozouf. Lire Et écrire: L'alphabétisation Des Français De

Calvin à Jules Ferry. [Paris]: Éditions De Minuit, 1977. Gildea, Robert. Education in Provincial France: 1800-1914 : A Study of Three

Departments. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. Gildea, Robert. The past in French History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

  23  

Kok, Marie Christine, Escalle. Instaurer Une Culture Par L'enseignement De L'histoire France 1876 - 1912: Contribution a Une Sémiotique De La Culture. New York: P.Lang, 1998.

Nora, Pierre. Les Lieux des Mémoires. Paris : Gallimard, 1984-1992. Ozouf, Jacques, and Mona Ozouf. La République Des Instituteurs. [Paris]: Gallimard,

1992. Ozouf, Mona. L’École, L'Église Et La République: 1871 - 1914. Paris: Colin, 1963. Rogers, Rebecca. From the Salon to the Schoolroom: Educating Bourgeois Girls in

Nineteenth-century France. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005.

Thiesse, Anne-Marie. Faire Les Français: Quelle Identité Nationale? Paris: Stock, 2010. Thiesse, Anne-Marie. Ils Apprenaient La France: L'exaltation Des Régions Dans Le

Discours Patriotique. Paris: Maison Des Sciences De L'homme, 1997. Weber, Eugen. Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870-

1914. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1976.