The Letter in Flora Tristan's Politics, 1835-1844

The Letter in Flora Tristan’s Politics, 1835–1844 Máire Fedelma Cross The Letter in Flora Tristan’s Politics, 1835–184...

Author: Maire Cross

59 downloads 946 Views 631KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Letter in Flora Tristan’s Politics, 1835–1844 Máire Fedelma Cross

The Letter in Flora Tristan’s Politics, 1835–1844

This page intentionally left blank

The Letter in Flora Tristan’s Politics, 1835–1844 Máire Fedelma Cross

© Máire Fedelma Cross 2004 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted her right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2004 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN 0–333–77264–4 This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cross, Máire. The letter in Flora Tristan’s politics, 1835–1844/Máire Fedelma Cross. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–333–77264–4 (alk. paper) 1. Tristan, Flora, 1803–1844 – Correspondence. 2. Feminists – France – Correspondence. 3. France – Politics and government – 1830–1848. 4. Letters – Women authors. I. Title. HQ1615.T7C77 2003 305.42092—dc22 2003062671 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 Printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham and Eastbourne

Contents

Acknowledgements

vii

Preface

viii

1 Reading Flora Tristan Political controversy Fascination for Tristan the feminist, traveller and narrator New biographical dimensions through correspondence Epistolary survival of political context Tristan sources lost and found

1 1

9 22 23

2 The Making of a Utopian Correspondent French society and mainstream politics The impact of 1789 on Tristan’s political ideas Class formation and class consciousness Epistolary evidence of political awareness in the 1840s Protest politics and the growth of literacy Flora Tristan’s political and epistolary apprenticeship Methodology in epistolary analysis Letters to Flora Tristan

33 33 37 42 43 46 51 61 63

6

3 Speaking from the Heart: The Dichotomy of the Letters in the 1843 and 1844 Correspondence Dimensions of political letters to a woman activist Historical dimension of Tristan’s political letters Response to Flora Tristan’s letters Epistolary community of support Epistolary creativity Rival socialist networks and initiatives Variety of style

73 82 87 90 101 102 104 106

4 Conflicts of Authority in the Epistolary Creation of Union ouvrière Letters of investigation

116 118

v

vi

Contents

Letters from notables Letters from a widening circle Epistolary authority in politics

135 149 158

5 Utopia in Flora Tristan’s Letters Utopian inspiration for correspondence Tensions of pragmatism and vision Gender presence in Tristan’s utopia

164 164 167 178

Bibliography

185

Index

195

Acknowledgements

My interest in Flora Tristan’s correspondence began over a decade ago. The completion of this book has been a long process as anyone in my entourage will testify. My list of thanks to those who helped bring my book to life by their kindness and understanding is therefore very long; I cannot include everyone but would particularly like to name the following. Part of the research for my project was made possible by funding for research visits to France and international conferences from the British Academy, the Arts and Humanities Research Board and most recently the Leverhulme Trust. I am grateful to the French department and the Humanities Research Institute in the University of Sheffield for technical and material support, particularly to Judith Brookes, Michael Pidd and Louise Lyle. Thanks to Timothy Baycroft, Mario Longtin and Wendy Michallat for reading early drafts. I am indebted to my colleagues for their moral support that has sustained me in moments of high anxiety. I especially appreciate the energizing discussions with David Walker, Guy Austin and Renate Günther. My deepest gratitude goes to Conrad Smith for the proof-reading and word-processing of the final manuscript. Any remaining weakness in the book is entirely my own. Archive and library staff in France have been particularly helpful and made me feel most welcome. I would also like to pay tribute to my friends in France for their marvellous company during my long stints in the library: Pierre and Malo Clerc in Castres and in Paris, Nigel Turner, Bernard and Marcia Scholl, Claude Duvivier, Catherine and Alain Collomp, Jacqueline and Michel Guillemain. Above all, to Claire Guichard whose generosity knows no bounds and whose networking skills are second to none, I wish to dedicate this book. Finally to my long-suffering family who has lived through the consequences of another ‘permanent’ feature of an impossible deadline, what can I say but thanks. You make it all worth while. MÁIRE FEDELMA CROSS

vii

Preface

The aim in this study has been to contextualize Flora Tristan’s politics and to present a close reading of some of her letters. I have opted for a qualitative rather than quantitative methodological approach as it is impossible to incorporate the bulk of her letters in a collective overview just as it is impossible to extrapolate much about the correspondents, many of whom are completely unknown. Each letter has an individual context. The sample of letters chosen is therefore representative in style and content of the types of letters written to and by Flora Tristan during the mid-1840s. I have opted to cite some letters in full to provide a flavour of the source. These letters, which are quoted verbatim, are written according to the norms of mid-nineteenth-century France; custom and practice of punctuation and spelling were very different. For instance capitalization of nouns was not consistent, full stops were used rarely and accents were frequently omitted. I maintained the spelling and adhered to the punctuation of the writer wherever possible, thus giving the reader access to the original text preserved in the archives. Once published, the letters were ‘tidied up’ by Puech and Michaud, thereby removing a layer of authenticity of the epistolary voice. In my references I cite the archive source first and then the published version, where relevant, in order to give an indication of previous scholarly work on the correspondence. MÁIRE FEDELMA CROSS

viii

1 Reading Flora Tristan

Je n’ai pas le temps seulement d’écrire ce journal tant j’ai affaire. – Mon travail, ces lettres et réponses aux ouvriers, les courses, etc. Quelle vie ! (Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, le 28 février, 1843)

Political controversy Flora Tristan always boasted of her unusual parentage and took pride in her exotic Andalusian appearance, attributing it to her Spanish-Peruvian ancestry; she also came from a mixed ethnicity in political and cultural terms. Her father’s family enjoyed the privileges of upper-class politics in Aréquipa where her uncle was a senior statesman. Her Parisian mother Thérèse Laisney had met Don Mariano de Tristan in Bilbao where she was in exile from revolutionary Paris. It was in Paris that Flora Tristan was born in 1803 and where she married, published and gained an entry into political circles. She started her writing career there after returning from Peru where she had witnessed the political instability of a country newly emancipated from Spain. Tristan’s husband, André Chazal, came from an artistic background. From their mismatched liaison had come two sons who left no trace and a daughter Aline Chazal who married the republican journalist Clovis Gauguin. Their son, the artist Paul Gauguin, never knew his maternal grandmother; his own mother had been 18 years of age when she lost her mother in 1844 and she in turn died in July 1867 at the age of 42 when Paul was a young man of 19 years. The memory of his grandfather artist André Chazal was blanked out as a persona non grata since he had served a long jail sentence for the attempted assassination of his estranged wife. Family memories of Flora Tristan were therefore unpalatable for any inclusion 1

2


in Paul Gauguin’s memoirs as they contained rather too many skeletons. All the more interesting that rather than recall personal memories Gauguin summarized his grandmother’s political activities. His observations began with her unconventionality; he pointed out that PierreJoseph Proudhon had called her a genius, that she had invented ‘un tas d’histoires socialistes’, among them the workers’ union, that the grateful workers had erected a monument to her in the cemetery at Bordeaux where she was buried, that she probably did not know how to cook and that she was a socialist bluestocking, an anarchist. He recollected that her beauty was renowned and that she had spent her fortune on the cause of the workers and had travelled a great deal.1 Flora Tristan deserves to be remembered for her ancestry to Paul Gauguin. She began her professional life as a colourist in an artist’s atelier. An autodidact, she classed herself as an artist when she became an author. She made a name for herself in more ways than Gauguin could recall. A contemporary of Charles Fourier, Robert Owen and Karl Marx, she was indeed one of the earliest thinkers to put forward a definite plan for an all-inclusive proletarian international. For this she can rightfully claim a place among the forerunners of socialist thought. There are, however, a number of other achievements as well as some ‘skeletons’ in the political archives. In her own time Flora Tristan achieved ill repute. A campaigner for women’s rights, she heedlessly flouted conventions of her gender and position in society. Although a priest had married her parents, their union had not been legally ratified and in the eyes of the law she was an illegitimate pretender to her deceased father’s name and fortune. Unhappily married, she escaped the matrimonial home taking her three children with her. She struggled to be legally separated from her husband at a time when divorces were unavailable. Indeed, according to the Napoleonic Civil Code, rights of civil independence or equality were forbidden to women at this time: under the legal guardianship of their husband, women had no rights over their children. Adultery was punishable to varying degrees of harshness according to who committed it: it could land women in prison while judges tended to be lenient if husbands killed their errant wives. In an attempt to gain financial independence for herself and her children she travelled alone in 1830 to Peru, the home of her late father’s aristocratic family. After an unsuccessful claim to her inheritance, she returned to France to write her uncompromisingly frank biography, Pérégrinations d’une paria, including intimate details of her failed marriage and of the affair with the ship’s captain en route to Peru. This book achieved some notoriety through the attack

Reading Flora Tristan 3

which it provoked on her person. Her estranged husband began to pursue her and ultimately shot her at point-blank range outside her home in Paris. Flora Tristan survived the attack and enjoyed sensationalist coverage at the trial which condemned her husband to lifelong penal servitude. Significantly Paul Gauguin spoke of the area of Tristan’s political unconventionality where her politics could be taken for heroism. He summed up her literary achievements and her personal struggles in the word ‘bluestocking’ – a word that had unsavoury connotations in Gauguin’s time. Nowadays Flora Tristan’s role as the early feminist writer with an unconventional background is often given a saintly image. Gauguin’s reference to her ‘anarchist’ socialism is a misnomer as she was never in league with Proudhon, the father of French anarchism. He was correct in referring to Tristan’s final years when she became an ardent socialist and campaigned to unite the workers of France and beyond into one workers’ union. In her last book, Union ouvrière, she set out her proposal for the organization of work and the working classes. She took her idea and toured around France, meeting workers and employers in every city, town and hamlet she visited, in an effort to make converts of them. She endured ridicule, resentment and rejection. But she also met with gratitude and devotion in many places where men and women were crying out for a new faith to bring them a ray of hope. The monument Gauguin mentioned was erected by the workers in October 1848 during the first months of the new republic in recognition of her devotion to their cause. He did not know of her journal that charts the progress of her Tour de France – a unique first-hand account of workingclass militancy in France at a crucial moment in time, only four years before the overthrow of the July Monarchy in 1848. It is also a singular record of the conditions of the working classes in provincial nineteenthcentury France. It equally charts her progressively delusional state and her intense struggle to complete the task she had set herself. Above all, Flora Tristan’s unconventionality was that she believed she had been chosen by God, distinguished by him to do his work for the people of France. Over the course of her diary which ends with her premature death in 1844, she wrote of her immersion in a world of militant fanaticism, convinced that she was the second Messiah. She claimed often that hers was a lone voice; in fact she was one of many in a million journeys in the voyage to utopian socialism. The political skeletons lie in the pages of her diary and in her letters to her correspondents, some of which Gauguin may well have seen, during the campaign to create the workers’ union. Since Gauguin’s fleeting glimpse of his grandmother’s politics a more substantial picture has emerged thanks to the work of

4


scholars of feminism and socialism, of nineteenth-century France, Peru and London whose society she described in Promenades dans Londres. The approaches to Flora Tristan studies reflect evolving historiographical fashions of succeeding generations. Momentous changes have occurred in analytical methods from empirical, Marxist, psychoanalytical, postmodern, to ‘new’ history. Feminist writing (given a boost in the 1970s and 1980s) has been used to read her works as semi-autobiographical or as testimony to her own personal politics, themselves significant attributes. Feminist politics tried to escape from the constraints of patriarchal discourse by closely implicating the personal with the political. In addition to the place of her political aspirations as an inherent part of her biography, Flora Tristan’s social observations are recognized to be of intrinsic interest, but if she is quoted it is in fleeting references. She has achieved the status of a kind of cultural Ordnance Survey trig point in studies of nineteenth-century French society. In works on city flâneurs, travellers, prostitutes, women in the city, her name is cited in many studies of mid-nineteenth-century Europe and now Latin America. The literary techniques of this energetic writer have come under closer examination, particularly in respect of her travel work Pérégrinations d’une paria.2 Although it is the least cited of her works the novel Méphis is seen as a daring piece of literary expression, ‘both the most audacious in its political and sexual content, and the most clichéd in its use of romantic language’.3 Although her works are not extensive, when they are combined with her unusual circumstances they become powerful statements to make her worthy of extensive biographical study. As a traveller she has always been recognized as an astute observer of economic and social conditions of her day. The story of this woman, a victim of the oppressive legal restrictions over women, who threw herself into emancipatory politics for the workers, was an ideal icon for feminists anxious to reclaim women’s history. Added to which the traveller offered exotic accounts for storytelling. Indeed her story has been reproduced in a summary in anthologies in several disciplines – literary, biographical, sociological and geographical.4 Flora Tristan is known first and foremost as a passionate woman of letters who devoted herself to a social cause. The political schemes Flora Tristan devised and the origins of her ideas have been thoroughly analysed in amateur and scholarly works beginning with her disciple Eléonore Blanc.5 Jules-L. Puech, Maurice Agulhon, Dominique Desanti and François Bédarida are among the most notable of French history scholars to have pioneered ways of looking at Flora Tristan’s achievements in politics.6 She has aroused even more interest from literature specialists,


most notably Stéphane Michaud, Lucette Cyzba and more recently Evelyne Bloch-Dano.7 Outside France her life story has attracted interest from scholars in English-, German- and Spanish-speaking countries.8 Two Peruvian nationals and specialists of nineteenth-century France, writers Mario Vargas Llosa and Alfredo Bryce-Chenique, have shown an interest in claiming her Peruvian heritage.9 At the beginning of the twenty-first century readers are now the beneficiaries of the increasing availability of Flora Tristan’s major works in paperback French editions, admittedly limited in editorial content,10 and in translation into English, German and Spanish.11 The wider picture is one of an extraordinary character and her achievements. The content of her diary and letters provide telling details of Tristan’s personality. Taking a close-up view of Tristan we see why she has an idiosyncratic reputation, not least as a remarkable woman who achieved much in a very short political moment; but she succeeded in antagonizing many by her arrogance and egocentrism. Her passionate disposition made her a difficult political ally for workers whose realism about politics clashed with her utopian idealism. In politics, therefore, Flora Tristan is almost too hot to handle. It is tempting for scholars to gloss over the unsavoury side of politics and present the ideal of a woman devoting her wealth and energy to a worthy cause. Throughout her political career she actively sought reassurance from peers yet wished to be seen to be acting alone; she had a preference for intellectual independence over political compromise yet hungered for collaboration; she declared her intention of avoiding violence and revolution while at the same time acting to subvert the status quo; she treasured her personal privacy in relationships yet made authorial revelations about her dysfunctional family and she challenged the moral authority of leading public figures while demanding their respect. Since her death, much has been written about her life as a socialist and feminist campaigner. Her actions with utopian socialists and workers with whom she corresponded have also been appreciated in the light of her contribution to socialism. She had a short-lived but intense political career. Because of her direct style of communication, the iconoclastic nature of Tristan’s reputation with her peers is nowhere more evident than in her correspondence. This study of the use of the letter in Tristan’s politics is intended to examine at close hand some of the skeletons in Tristan’s idealism. Without detracting from her achievements but recognizing the personality, it hopes to produce a balanced picture of the nitty-gritty detail of Tristan’s politics and thereby contribute to recent scholarly achievements in Tristan studies.

6


Fascination for Tristan the feminist, traveller and narrator The most striking feature about studies of Tristan since the 1980s is the suitability of her main texts for different approaches that have evolved in what can be described loosely as cultural studies. The fascination with Flora Tristan has been centred on her life circumstances and a textual analysis of her main works as they have been published or republished. There has been a preference for analysis of her earlier works, Pérégrinations d’une paria, Méphis, Promenades dans Londres, and to a much a lesser extent Union ouvrière and her diary published posthumously for the first time in 1973 as Le Tour de France. A selection of some surviving letters written by Tristan was published as an edited collection in 1980. The extent of recent interest in Tristan can be seen principally in three areas: feminist fiction, traveller’s tales and autobiographical expression. Academic scholarship in these areas has been particularly prolific in North America, where the multidisciplinary dimensions to these genres have been further enhanced by gender studies readings. Pérégrinations provides the main hub for the interplay of individual enhancement through travel and textual analysis.12 Méphis, the only surviving novel Tristan wrote, is the obvious choice for her work in fiction.13 Promenades dans Londres adds a further dimension to the travel writer turned social observer.14 Towards the end of her life Tristan was absorbed by a specific campaign of political mobilization. Writing was still her prime concern, this time for political purposes. It was both an essential element of her political expression in her journal and a means for action in her propaganda work, Union ouvrière.15 It was while publishing this that she corresponded with a heterogeneous social group – fellow travellers, writers, workers or socialist intellectuals. Her journal was published posthumously as Le Tour de France. It would seem that in recent Tristan studies trends have moved the spotlight away from her direct action as a socialist activist although the political contextualization of early feminism and socialism is never absent. Between 1992 and 2002 six Flora Tristan biographies were published.16 During the same period scholarly articles have been published in several countries. Because access to primary sources on Tristan did not alter, the historiography of Tristan biographies reflects the changing fortunes of socialist and feminist ideas rather than the presentation of additional major archival sources. The first major biographer, Puech, was the most comprehensive in his use of primary sources.17


Because he had access to her letters and her diary that he had amassed, his biography has served as the filter through which all others have operated. The biographical works since the 1980s share a similar conventional chronological pattern, dividing her early life as a victim of circumstances from her later years as a mature writer. Puech’s approach was that of a socialist historian: he established the historical narrative on which to establish the nature of Tristan’s development as a socialist in relation to two groups of her contemporaries, namely the utopian socialist thinkers from outside the working class and advanced thinkers from within the working class. He was critical of Tristan in her failure to achieve more, attributing any hurdles in communication with her fellow militants to her character defects. His empirical biography included in an appendix correspondence to Tristan from worker activists, then prominent but who have since become relatively obscure. They include Jules Vinçard, Achille François, Pierre Moreau, Belnot, Agricol Perdiguier, Coutant, Louis Vasbenter, Joseph Reynier and Hugont.18 He did not give an analytical critique of the letters per se, referring only to their contents. Subsequent to Puech’s publication more of Tristan’s personal and political letters have come to light. Puech’s biography pre-dates the mid-twentieth-century decline and return of the historical biography. According to Jo Burr Margadant, in the second half of the twentieth century interpretative approaches to history drawn from the social sciences seemed to drown out individual life stories in academic history.19 However, further biographies appeared in the 1970s and 1980s enlivened by new developments in feminism and gender studies. The life story of liberation of unsung heroines from the past was simultaneously a key element for biography and more importantly the driving force that enabled women to discover their present state of oppression. Already throughout the 150 years after her death, as the aspiration for gender equality developed into a collective consciousness and movement, the emphasis in Tristan’s tale was on her extraordinary life story of a woman in a man’s world, the validity of her thought as a political process and the practicability of her actions as achievements. Consequently she was interpreted alongside fellow ‘utopian’ socialists or compared to other women. Biographical approaches that Margadant and other scholars have adopted attempt to validate the whole political experience and avoid placing their subject into an artificial anachronistic analysis of feminism or in a saintly hue of feminist victim or martyr. According to Desanti, Flora Tristan’s thoughts are more in tune with this era than with her contemporaries: ‘C’est donc de notre temps que sa

8


vie posthume commence.’20 The tools of analysis currently in vogue in cultural, gender and social history applied to her writing as political discourse may do justice to the epistolary sources. The discovery of the history of women’s struggle for emancipation in the 1970s did lead to publishers’ recognition of Tristan as a commercial viability and to closer scholarly examination of her life; the feminist approach was interested mainly in (her)story. By 1840 Flora Tristan’s declared ultimate goal of the salvation of humanity included men and women, an androgynous humanity according to some, and was not of interest to many feminists who preferred to concentrate on women whose literary output was significant or challenged the republican terms of its gendered suffrage reform.21 Gender studies have enriched our understanding of nineteenth-century politics and provided further openings in interdisciplinary analysis. There has also been a shift of emphasis in looking at leading female figures. Instead of accepting a binary categorization of women either as radical feminists demanding all rights for women or as supposedly less radical women who desired only to serve the republic as model mothers, Whitney Walton suggests there were more subtle readings of women’s actions and lives to be made.22 Subtle readings of Tristan’s political letters are necessary. The most recent contribution in biography is from Susan Grogan, who subscribes to the ‘new biographical approach’. She constructed a more thematic division in her biography without adhering to a strict chronology, naming her chapters after the many roles ascribed to or appropriated by Tristan. Still she portrays her in the role of saving woman at the climax of her career when she was cut off in her prime. Grogan reminds us of the many dimensions to her ‘melodramatic performance’ when she was a ‘socialist organizer’ and ‘a strong woman’ whose tour also had a ‘strong spiritual dimension’.23 In her breakaway from the limitations of the conventional biographical study Grogan’s objective was to come to terms with gaps in historical evidence as well as to find an original approach with which to portray the complex relationship between self-portrayal and myth creation. She wished to avoid the limitations of this individual’s story, constrained on the one hand by literary, cultural and political standards and on the other by the amount of evidence missing.24 Given the fragmented nature of Tristan’s life and work and the changes in scholarly emphasis, it is hardly surprising that Tristan’s story is open to interpretation. While her public life was relatively short, she is a truly nomadic subject as multiple readings interpret her circumstances and symbolic world. For this reason the whole life story seems to


act as the binding force for the fragmented parts. Within all the biographies including Grogan’s, Tristan’s life experience is self-contained as if it were a hermetically sealed unit. Her correspondents are outsiders. The 1843 and 1844 campaign that involved many others has been rather cramped for investigative purposes as it has been interpreted as a culmination of a process of militancy.25 The episode of her campaign for a workers’ union has often been interpreted as the climax of personal fulfilment from initial self-discovery and pain of early social and gender rejection to maturity through the construction of a joint programme of liberation of women and workers. The emphasis of self-fashioning of the personage through writing presents Tristan as a literary figure before she became a political agent. Her political agency is obscured first by the emphasis on her self-expression and then on her achievements as a selffashioned redemptress as the woman messiah for the workers. As a result of these layers much is assumed about how this political agent succeeded in engaging briefly but simultaneously with a number of other activists scattered throughout France. If we peel back these layers we can simultaneously view a broader scene of the socialist network in construction and examine in microscopic detail Tristan’s personality. There is an opportune moment to concentrate on the significance of Tristan’s political dialogue that has been toned down by the explorations into new areas of psychoanalysis and literary discourse. A refocusing of attention upon Tristan’s direct political action will pair the letter genre with the circumstances of her militancy. Political epistolary dialogue opens new opportunities to assess Tristan without undermining the achievements in other areas. Rather this will serve as a contribution to our understanding of gendered political communication in mid-nineteenth-century France.

New biographical dimensions through correspondence Whereas previously associated with straight history, the fortunes of biographical studies have revived within cultural studies. There has been a shift in emphasis on to the individual’s perception of the world. As Margadant explains: Roughly speaking, the demise of biography on the front line of academic history dates from post-Second World War, when leading historians shifted the plot line of the past away from acts by major figures in public life to external forces identified as shaping influences on the actions and choices of agglomerated individuals. Grouped under the collective rubrics representing their presumed social

10 The Letter in Flora Tristan’s Politics, 1835–1844

identity, these new historical actors included classes; occupational groups; women; ethnic, racial and religious minorities; sometimes whole communities or societies, sometimes simply crowds. Initially, interpretations of collective experience located the origin of shared identities in the material circumstances of life, a position identified with but not monopolized by Marxist historians.26 The creators of new approaches to biographical studies have sought to redefine the individual’s vision of their surroundings by analysing their symbolic world. In doing so the danger remains that the individually centred biographical approach might underscore the bigger story or the collective approach. The neglect of the wider picture is the reason for the search for alternative stories to the biographical study in history; the wheel almost comes full circle. Yet there is no denying that the shift in the analysis of the collective picture towards a cultural interpretation of the individual’s relationship to their surroundings has brought out Tristan’s agility as a writer. Nevertheless the collective context in history is still more than relevant to Tristan studies if we are to appreciate fully her political communicative agility. The methods in symbolically derived interpretations could be applied to Tristan’s groups as well as to her as an individual. Tremendous scope exists for a place for epistolary studies to bridge the gap between the individual-centred biography and the wider-embracing ‘people’ studies, particularly in the case of Tristan where she was the recipient of letters from groups. The story of Tristan’s political campaign could be enhanced and not hampered by the constraints of an individual’s life history. What of journal articles where thematic studies of Tristan have been developed to a highly sophisticated degree? The interesting outcome of thematic studies is the obvious suitability of Tristan’s major works for several disciplines in modern cultural studies, especially those that favour an interdisciplinary approach. Among the articles on Tristan, a good proportion reflects the fascination for her geographical mobility and resulting written output.27 This has brought her to the attention of a number of feminist scholars working on the history of Latin American feminism.28 The autobiographical genre has also been examined from a literary and post-colonial perspective.29 Allegorical interpretations of her journeys, views and actions abound.30 Less spectacular is an article on an assessment of her ‘achievements’ through her choice of educational reform, as it does not do justice to the importance of this theme in her political thought.31 The location of Tristan studies in these areas rather than specifically in


the history of political militancy is a reflection of recent trends in feminist studies. Many North American authors have made a big contribution to gender studies in ethnographical and cultural studies through adherence to Tristan’s published texts. None mentions the letters as an integral or even marginal part of Tristan’s creativity in fiction, travel or autobiographical sources. When writing my doctoral thesis in the 1980s I began my work on Flora Tristan by tracing the way she had interpreted and lived the relationship between socialism and feminism.32 I am fascinated by her political performance but have always tended to shy away from portraying the nasty side of her character as if it were a betrayal of her ideals; the political skeletons were best kept as such. Nonetheless her political life remains fascinating to me but of seemingly less interest to other scholars. Although new studies are constantly appearing, interdisciplinary articles have continued to keep her political ideas in the background, or restrict them to a particularly gendered context or else consider them as serving her own psycho-political drive.33 Less common is any interpretation of her work as simply representative of sociopolitical thinking.34 Politics is of course a vast area: among the themes in Tristan’s work that I have already developed are her understanding of the nature of propaganda for campaign35 and the awareness of the revolutionary heritage of 1789, the right to resist oppression and the use of violence to bring about change.36 Her plea to workers to organize into a workers’ union has a counter-revolutionary discourse to her contemporary radical republican thinkers: to construct an alternative forum for inclusion of the marginalized members of society and thereby avoid the violence and breakdown of law and order feared by those in power. The letters written are in a sort of political limbo, not quite in the period usually associated with the growth of new ideas that emerged during the early years of the July Monarchy from 1830 to 1835 when the September Laws were introduced to severely curtail the press and political associations. During those early Orleanist years Saint-Simonianism was at its height in social action, industrial unrest had produced workers’ spontaneous direct action, most notably by Lyons weavers, and secret societies led by Armand Barbès, Auguste Blanqui and Louis Blanc were plotting to overthrow the monarchy. Tristan’s planned actions of 1843 and 1844 preceded the series of reformist meetings organized as banquets in the campaign for the suffrage that eventually caused the downfall of Louis-Philippe in February 1848. No doubt more could be written on many aspects of the woman of letters, but it is time for Tristan the epistolary politician to catch up with


the traveller and narrator. New methods may well have been applied to the latter two aspects of her work but not yet to the work of the woman militant who corresponded with letter-writers from all over France in 1843 and 1844. It is time to place the early life and persona in the background, with this output, the result of her public actions, in the foreground. Flora Tristan successfully negotiated and sustained a working relationship with known and little-known political contacts. The thematic articles have produced a similar pattern of analysis in biographical studies: the individual is to the fore, the collective story is in the background. The new approaches to the writing of Tristan the individual woman have produced a paradoxical outcome. She is seen both as an exception and as a prototype for the development of gender or feminist methodology in women’s writing in fiction, autobiography and travel. Placed in a particular genre such as travel writing, Tristan’s lone story, whether as an outcast in search of her identity or as a highprofile woman messiah, is inevitably to the fore, in second place to the genre under discussion. In feminist studies of travel writing the genre is appropriated as a specific instrument of liberation for women. There is a serious corpus on gender specificity to travel writing.37 Comparing the work of two women pilgrims in similar situations of unhappy marriage, in nineteenthcentury Peru, Francesca Denegri claims: The more conventional narratives of journeys abroad undertaken during this age of imperial exploration were firmly placed within the authoritative discourses of scientific investigation, that of ethnological and historical research, or indeed that of commercial mapping. The accounts written by these (male) travellers were permeated with a clear sense of progress towards a concrete, measurable, and final goal. By contrast, the narratives of Gorriti and Tristan portray their respective travels not as teleological movement, where the emphasis is on reaching an ultimate objective (that is, a final point of arrival), but more as an act of survival, where by contrast the focus is on motive, on getting away (that is, on the point of departure).38 If this focus can be applied to her politics then the act of writing Union ouvrière and corresponding can be seen as more important than any final achievement. Tristan’s self-discovery and social emancipation are emphasized in all studies of Pérégrinations. Interpreting the effect of journeys gives a voice to Tristan’s political self-discovery and maturity but it does not have dialogue with her encounters as the main focus.


The collective dimension of Tristan’s politics has little chance of emerging in studies that restrict their investigation to a single work. In an article on George Sand, Flora Tristan and the Tour de France, Mary Rice-DeFosse claims that journeys illuminate the interconnections and points of rupture in social thought: Tristan, like Pierre Huguenin [the journeyman in Sand’s novel Le Compagnon du Tour de France], was educated through her travels … Her travels functioned as a pragmatic means through which she could reach thousands of French workers with her message, including the women who had been excluded from the ancient tour de France.39 The travel motif is interpreted as an educational experience that can be considered as a metaphor for ‘democratic national consciousness that might bridge’ the gap between Paris and regions and between working classes and upper classes. In Tristan’s political work travel produced letter writing. The tour de France can also bridge the gap between theory and practice. What was meant to be an education of the workers became a process of education for Tristan. Here the workers are represented by Perdiguier or the fictitious Pierre Huguenin. The workers’ voices are silent yet their presence is vital to Tristan’s work. In fact the workers’ voices are also to be heard through their correspondence. Travel tales of Tristan have been spun around personal adventure and experimentation in social observation. In a recent study of Nécessité de faire bon accueil aux femmes étrangères, I have suggested that the achievement in travel can be exaggerated as a female achievement.40 Marjorie Agosin tells us: Historically, travel has been a metaphor for women’s true liberation. For women, travel presupposes fear, danger, and adventure, all emotions that were prohibited to women.41 She portrays Tristan as one with an indomitable will that overcame the constriction of domesticity and found true, divine freedom. Her work on Peru is considered to have had an important impact in the Peru of the 1800s, representing the emergence of women on the international scene.42 This is rather an overstatement as the work was outlawed by the Tristan family and not available in Peru until late in the twentieth century, through the women’s liberation movement of a neighbouring country, Chile.43 What is significant, however, is that the traveller’s engagement with her surroundings has emphasized her mobility but


not her political communication; as a result of her displacement one kind of mobility led to another, geographical to intellectual through to political, part of which was epistolary dialogue. Political communication has been engulfed even more in scholarly articles by the cumulative role of femme messie foisted on Tristan’s politics by readings of her fictional, autobiographical and travel works even if the synthesis of utopian socialism and feminism is considered in these interpretations.44 To what extent did this feature in the epistolary dialogue? The emphasis on this role has always been from the perspective of Tristan’s self-fulfilment. If it was vital for Tristan’s self-construction in politics how high a profile did the woman messiah role feature in the workers’ correspondence? Did they pay any attention to Tristan’s aspirations as a political leader? How did they cope with this difficult woman? Did their correspondence have an impact on her perceptions of the workers as portrayed in her replies and in her diary? Politics in the biographical studies are centred on the evolution of Tristan the person; from that perspective the political communication between herself and militants is subsumed and so far has not been taken outside the parameters of the life story. Tristan’s correspondence can facilitate a textual study of the political campaign outside the confines of biography or thematic analysis and within the context of a constructed dialogue resembling conversations and meetings about a very specific campaign. Tristan’s fragmented reputation in politics stems from three factors. First, her nomadic existence denied her a secure archival legacy. Little of her work has survived compared, for instance, to that of her contemporary, the novelist George Sand.45 Such was her reputation that Sand’s correspondence was carefully preserved, published and translated shortly after her death.46 Tristan’s letters were scattered and the surviving elements remained unpublished for many years. This contrast raises the issue of quantity in archival papers and the significance of gaps. In spite of the relative paucity of Tristan sources, the less prolific and lesser-known of the two has, according to Leslie Rabine, possibly become ‘more readable for us today’.47 Second, to add to the problem of the lack of sources there is a question of her position in both the feminist and socialist canon. The feminist socialist agenda that Tristan was proposing was controversial with her contemporaries and her successors in those movements. Her position has straddled feminist and socialist movements. She did not quite fit into any particular movement. Added to which, she was breaking out of the parameters of her social position. For instance Rabine rightly


suggests that there was a paradox for women writers such as Tristan: Feminist writers who are excluded from active participation in society would be the ones who could attempt a (more or less) thorough opposition to its ideology, and also the ones who would not be permitted to express such an opposition. Their use of language and form imitates by necessity the language and form of the ideology that negates their powers of creativity.48 Third, political activism is judged by results. Tristan made a fleeting appearance in French politics. There is little to show for the extent of her brief but close involvement with socialist activists until we reach for the letters. By contrast the letters are an extraordinary source through which to read socialist politics of 1843 and 1844. Feminist scholarship of the 1970s made a major breakthrough when it identified this vicious circle of exclusion, of constraint, subversive writing and marginalization. It provided new ways of reading works by lesser-known women writers such as Daniel Stern, Hortense Allart and Flora Tristan who were able to challenge and break with established ideas in their writing: More than George Sand’s novels, the fictional works of Stern, Allart, and Tristan reveal what women thought and felt in a period when women were forbidden from voicing their thoughts, denied political and legal rights, and excluded from all but the most marginal cultural activity.49 Tristan’s role in politics began as that of an outsider to the social class that became the object of her fixation. She had to write to workers asking for admission to their circles. While there is no denying that women were barred from political activity in the 1840s, as were most French men, and that Flora Tristan’s output was marginal, the way she succeeded in expressing her political opinions and in engaging directly in politics was highly original. As much of the work in gender and feminist analysis has shown, she transgressed social gender boundaries but it could be said that more attention has been paid to the act of transgression of the boundaries than to what she achieved by so doing. This study examines the level of political communication within the confines of her correspondence, thereby moving back from the deadend debate on exclusion. A perspective of feminist and socialist studies that emphasizes the victim status cannot easily move on to the


proactive status that Tristan achieved in the last two years of her life in 1843 and 1844. The victim had become a player and a communicator in politics and her letters are a testimony to the transformation. While we must take into account the gender differences of social mobility in the France of the 1840s, in gender studies the emphasis in textual analysis has now shifted away from earlier feminist preoccupations of identifying women’s oppression and their articulation of it to a more pragmatic study of the forms of expression of gendered social relationships in cultural, political and social spheres. One such sphere that for long went unnoticed was the participation by Sand and Tristan in the ‘upsurge of interest in the tour de France’.50 The bulk of correspondence that Tristan received concerned political communication arising from this occasion of structured political networking. The investigation into epistolary communication around the tour of France will show that by definition the genre of letter writing was more pragmatic and more social than the previous forms of writing with which Tristan experimented. It was focused, but in freer form. Letter writing became a direct means of political expression beyond many of the constraints of class and gender, accessible where other forms of expression were not. It was a truly democratic and subversive form of writing. It did not depend on publishers’ whims but on the individual and group response through the postal service. Epistolary techniques are all-pervasive in literary studies but the application of gender and political dimensions to their analysis is relatively recent. This is even more true in this case because the dimension of the correspondence has not yet percolated through to Tristan studies, where the emphasis has been on other genres. Without the letters evidence of political negotiation remains scanty and this work attempts to redress the balance in an appreciation of Flora Tristan’s political life. Letters are liable to the quirks of survival. Some of Tristan’s letters relating to her personal circumstances written during the course of her life have been preserved and included as the only historical primary source in her biography. For instance, the first two mentioned are vital evidence of the literacy progress made by Tristan. They were preserved in her husband André Chazal’s papers. Early letters share the theme of Tristan’s family situation and difficulties. Some letters have been mentioned in all three areas of fictional readings, travellers’ tales and autobiographical writings. Peruvian family letters to her uncle, Don Juan Pio de Tristan, are the proof of her pariah status. However in politics the genre can be considered as a natural for a contextual register. The letters under scrutiny in this work are not fictional nor are they autobiographical; they are crucial


evidence of the accumulated experience of the writer and traveller-turned militant. A political study of her legacy uses the letters for a different purpose: it considers the dialogue that emerged in correspondence as a political space for communication. The letters assist the understanding of Tristan in a geographical and figurative sense but they open out to a wider expression of political literacy. They involve her audience. They provide tangible evidence of the crucial part of her political activity, a response to her politics. A study of Tristan’s 1843 and 1844 correspondence complements what has been covered in recent studies discussed earlier, none of which treat the political years between 1840 and 1844 in any significant detail. Puech reported from first-hand sources by including large extracts of the diary and some of the accompanying correspondence to which he alone had access. Since this material has come to light it is possible to focus more specifically on Tristan’s part in the development of political communication. These years were vital and productive in the spread of French thinkers’ ideas but few studies exist of how grass-roots politics reacted to them in a practical way. What can be gained from close scrutiny of the correspondence? The spectre of Tristan’s impossible side lurks among the political skeletons. Contrary to what she would have claimed, Tristan’s own personality was problematic. An important theme of this chapter therefore is the paradox of her reputation. How to handle Flora Tristan? As Grogan states, Flora Tristan is known as an obscure woman activist and utopian socialist, yet her reputation has been secured by abundant Tristan literature in a curious conjuncture of remembering and forgetting. She enjoyed the limelight of a brief political career and succeeded in building up political contacts over a wide area and in several organizations. Grogan suggests that Tristan was the author of her own mythology. She provides a multiple reading of Tristan’s persona by presenting the images she projected of herself in her writing, posing in different roles from social pariah to messiah and mother of the workers. Grogan’s conclusion is that there are several life stories about Flora Tristan and that the gaps in our knowledge will always leave an uncertainty about her. She proposes such a biographical ambiguity as a positive interpretation of Tristan’s life. As a historian of the new moral order for women proposed by utopian socialists, Grogan’s perspective is that of a constructor of new cultural history that can encompass multiple readings and a gender dimension. This articulation of the complexity of Tristan’s personality is a welcome addition to the more conventional approach by other biographers who derive from Puech’s account and merely


emphasize the extraordinary personality and life circumstances of Flora Tristan and place the political aspect tantalizingly in the background. Even further in the background are the correspondents who engaged in epistolary dialogue with her, thus enabling her to shape her political action. Why are Flora Tristan’s politics obscured by her life story or mentioned only in passing?51 While it is clear that the nature of her subversive and marginal politics determined Flora Tristan’s position in historical significance it is nevertheless the case that her political reputation can only emerge in the telling of the complex context that was France of the July Monarchy. Tristan was a nomad in Parisian circles and in socialist politics. Her correspondence is testimony to this mobility. The most nomadic and scattered aspects of her work are her output and action in her final years and are to be used as a feature of importance, not as a weakness. Given the parsimony of major texts the corpus of correspondence produced by her political activity is all the more significant as historical evidence. A full study of the impact of correspondence on her actions can and should be attempted now. Lack of sources is no longer a problematic issue, neither is neglect. Her correspondence can be scrutinized as primary evidence of the spread of ideas. Evidence exists in the letters to explain how her action as a socialist was received. To date political studies have been limited to explaining her political trajectory as an extension of the drama of her earlier years although she has never been considered as anything other than a socialist activist of the 1840s. Studies have been carried out on Tristan’s politics in relation to her own life experience, which entails a birth-to-death account. Peru, the formative moment for her feminism, visits to London, are seen as the education into socialism. Yet, once drafted, the publication of her programme Union ouvrière became her obsession to the exclusion of all else. No further novels were produced. The last work, a journal, became a personal testimony to her political campaign but was only published a century and a half after her death. It remains to be seen just how her politics developed as an interaction with the socio-political context of her day. This work will undertake such a review with the help of the correspondence that is a very specific type of political evidence. Methodology has evolved in order to make this possible. With the construction of new methods of analysis in gender and cultural studies, it is an opportune time to turn to this hitherto unexploited source. My hypothesis is that the letters can provide a unique insight into the transformation of Tristan into a full-time political pedagogue because they played a key role in the process.


This can broaden the ways of reading her work without the trappings of the personality question that has dominated most academic approaches to date. Since she was mythologized as a woman messiah almost as soon as she died, her actual role in empowering political mobilization is difficult to assess as she does not fit easily into existing categories of analysis either as a socialist, feminist, thinker, writer or activist. She was a bit of everything. The myths have multiplied, as there is a certain fragility about the historical persona, the ‘ombre toujours frémissante de Flora Tristan’.52 Other than her works, sources that comment on her brief political activism of the early 1840s exist but they are scattered. Periodicity is critical in our assessment of Tristan’s political legacy. Four years after her death the July Monarchy was overthrown in 1848 and French politics had moved on dramatically from reformism, or bourgeois reactions to laissez-faire by their interventionist philanthropic schemes based on a belief of class harmony and the worker movements preaching self-help and class solidarity, to the more formal political stage with the implementation of universal suffrage. This period of her militancy was incredibly rich in grass-roots activism. Flora Tristan’s politics pertain to this stratum of relatively neglected political activism of the late July Monarchy and as a result the extent of her legacy has yet to be fully assessed. This work proposes to use her correspondence as a springboard from which to analyse the state of French political militancy within the network she created. The way Tristan communicated with her fellow militants through letters can throw light on political literacy in France at grass-roots level. Although Flora Tristan put to good use many of the letters she received by citing them in her works, and although her biographers have cited many of Tristan’s letters, they have yet to be examined as a corpus. There are therefore two angles of equal interest: the use of epistolary sources in politics as a new way of assessing literacy and political communication at the grass roots in a critical stage of the development of socialism. The two combined can assist in developing a new methodology in the study of Flora Tristan. This is a timely development for Tristan studies and is the second aim of this study. It is an attempt to find an alternative to the personal biographical approach that has been so thoroughly explored in recent years. Interesting as it may appear, there is a limit to which Flora Tristan’s life can be scrutinized further without additional fresh material. The medium of letters has been chosen as Tristan wrote and received many as a result of becoming involved in politics. The discourse within


this correspondence becomes the focus and her life story the background. The letters lend themselves to a new thematic analysis of Flora Tristan’s contribution to political literacy. The chapters are organized into recurring political themes and significant epistolary exchanges about specific incidents that occurred during the last two years of her life, beginning with her union ouvrière campaign in Paris in 1843 and her subsequent tour of France in the summer of 1844. In the correspondence between Tristan the militant and her supporters and detractors a pattern of relationships emerged. Such a study will throw further light on Tristan’s creativity, this time in the wider context of French grassroots politics of the July Monarchy. In turn this raises questions of her gendered militancy but specifically within the political context. The existence of letters will not reveal new factual elements to the riddles of Tristan biography. They do not solve any of the many mysteries about her circumstances. More often than not, when her work has been confined to her life story blanks are drawn on many questions: it is not really known how poor she was; she herself destroyed all evidence of her early travels as a lady’s companion in England. The circumstances of her parentage have been questioned;53 her personal income has been cited as if to challenge her authenticity as a socialist.54 She had a complex personality.55 By contrast, a direct reading of the unexpurgated source of letters and a contextualization of the cultural, social and political circumstances of these letters could go some way to appreciating the complexity of Flora Tristan’s politics. With the emphasis on the political discourse of these epistolary sources and their context, we gain a valuable insight into Tristan’s politics at their most intense and most influential. To read her correspondence throughout this period of intense political militancy is to witness intimately the instant reactions of an innovative activist, almost as if we were overhearing a conversation, albeit in snatches: all the more so as it goes on right until the moment when she ceased both writing and campaigning very shortly before her death on 14 November 1844.56 The emphasis will be on the reactions to her political militancy. They therefore add a new dimension to our understanding of Tristan’s impact, the extent of which has been considered difficult to quantify or else questioned or dismissed. Isolating Tristan’s correspondence does not detract from analysis by her biographers. The contention of this work therefore is that the letters are as noteworthy as the rest of Tristan’s writing. Coming simultaneously from multiple sources they form a unique corpus with which to assess political literacy in France. Letters are a two-way communication


process. Flora Tristan’s fragility in politics can be transformed into something quite substantial as we examine how her ideas and energy radiated from her letter-writing pen in direct response to what she received in the post. The post energized her. Biographical studies of political figures have always been in vogue although they receded with the shift in emphasis in political history where there developed social history of the greater number. Biographical studies revived again in cultural history and have been important for feminist history and gender studies.57 The notion that women (as individuals and as a social entity) were neglected by mainstream history was fundamental to the feminism of the early 1970s. That time saw a revival in the posthumous fortunes of Flora Tristan whose career between 1840 and 1844 could match that of Marx’s in commitment to organization of the proletariat. Indeed their paths crossed briefly in the city of Paris.58 Why have the political dimensions been downplayed by scholars, ignored by others or mentioned only in the safe confines of the biography? On the one hand, the originality of the terms of her liberation is a distraction from her political exchanges with other groups. On the other hand, she is a minor political figure whose life story must be explained: any attempt to situate her in a thematic context of politics or history requires at least a brief biography. The consequence of this is that her story is so complex it has been impossible to digest briefly. Unravel one part of her life story and it has to be revealed in its entirety. The biographical approach has its value but in Flora Tristan’s case it now seems to be having a detrimental effect on our understanding of her achievements and her contribution to July Monarchy politics. Feminist scholars included her writings as an example of the ‘first generation’ of women writers whose lives were transformed by writing and by emancipation movements particularly of the Saint-Simonian era. As feminist and gender studies matured in analytical processes beyond the woman–victim story it was time to move on. Fictional, autobiographical and travel writing became the focus of interest in Tristan’s output but less so politics. This biographical textual analysis has coincided with recent trends in feminist and historical scholarship. Political history has now gravitated towards the cultural and epistolary artefacts. By unravelling July Monarchy socialist politics from the biographical threads imposed on Tristan’s political versatility we examine the discourse of the political in her many received letters. The time has come to return to examine in a closer light the impact of Tristan’s politics. It goes without saying that this exercise will contribute to enriching Tristan studies. The 1990s saw a regression of political–social history. It is opportune to undertake a textual analysis of epistolary sources.


Epistolary survival of political context Letters are the ephemeral documents in archival terms. Their survival depends on many circumstances. In this case the circumstances were of the most nomadic: the departure from Paris in April 1844 after a year of correspondence and contact with militants, weeks on the move with many poste restante addresses, the death of the letter-writer in Bordeaux and not in her home in Paris – her nomadic existence was at its peak when she was receiving the greatest number of letters. Nonetheless we cannot know how representative the surviving archives are. By definition, letters are meant to travel, to be nomadic. Letters from Tristan’s pen flowed to many of her contemporaries whose archives were preserved more assiduously, particularly if theirs was not such a peripatetic existence. Yet letters are created in two directions. Tristan received many replies and she attributed considerable importance to them. We have evidence of this from her diary. Ironically because she led such a nomadic existence, the necessary circumstances were created for a sustained correspondence to take place. By travelling to Peru, London and around France, and by becoming engaged in political action, Tristan had generated an active correspondence, culminating with her communications for her tour of France. By engaging in a campaign of seeking workers she inadvertently initiated a new kind of success. The letters are a testimony to this. In many cases on a whim of the descendants, one side of carefully preserved correspondence can be lost.59 The initial outcome of Tristan’s illness and premature death in Bordeaux was the removal of her papers including her letters and diary from her tour of France to Lyons. Had she remained well and continued her tour back to Paris there may have been many more letters but they might well have been dispersed later and followed the same fate as her papers from previous times. The whereabouts of Tristan’s papers, including drafts from earlier works or letters from family and friends, is not known. As with the bulk of the millions of letters written in the nineteenth century there has been a haphazard cull of many and a chance survival of some. That Tristan attached political importance to the letters generated by the tour of France is known by her references made in her journal. They were indeed very special, as this study will reveal. Given the volume of letters that were written in the nineteenth century, the availability of an epistolary archive is not rare but its emergence is particular and out of the ordinary. This begs the question: what is extra-ordinary in a routine political epistolary dialogue of obscure


activists? Or what is ordinary about any correspondence? This book is an attempt to present the characteristics of Tristan’s letters. When we look closely at the circumstances of the establishment of the epistolary archive we discover that Tristan the correspondent was aware that she had the makings of a political weapon in the letters; their survival is not purely accidental as Tristan had ambitions to put them to political use by publication. Her political ambitions were being channelled through others’ writing as a full-time militant in 1843 and 1844. Reflecting on her encounters she knew she could reproduce her own experience to good effect in several ways: as an empowerment of her own political choice, as an illustration of the impact of socialist ideas on the grass roots. We can read them as stark evidence of the reception to her ways when creating an imagined and real political community.

Tristan sources lost and found In the final section of our review of research on Tristan we return to the two names that are to the forefront of research on Flora Tristan’s epistolary creativity. These are the Tristan archivist Jules-L. Puech, historian of French socialism, and Stéphane Michaud, Sorbonne professor and literary connoisseur of nineteenth-century romanticism, leading editor of Tristan’s works in France. It was Puech who acquired the papers from the family of Eléonore Blanc. Puech was therefore in a position to present Tristan’s unpublished diary and letters of 1843 and 1844 as a major component of his biography. Michaud carried further the pioneering work of Puech by being the first to assemble Tristan’s letters for publication. First, he produced an edition of Tristan’s letters in 1980, some of which were simply referenced citations from Puech’s biography and from Tristan’s works. He had also traced some letters from Tristan to correspondents that Puech had not seen. The Michaud collection of letters ranges from the first letters written to her husband André Chazal, preserved in the Chazal papers, to the letters written during her political campaigns. With the donation of the Puech papers to public archives that included Tristan’s letters dating from 1843 and 1844, Michaud was able to produce a second edition of Tristan correspondence in 1995, and a third edition in 2003 to coincide with the bicentenary of Tristan’s birth. In the 1995 and 2003 editions he left the selection from the early years unchanged but included some of the two-way correspondence of the last two years.60 In his choice of letters from the Puech papers he gave priority to presenting a sample of letters from known activists among


her correspondents. A fully annotated edition of Tristan correspondence has yet to be established. Michaud has re-presented the letters as of interest about the lone pariah Flora Tristan, but leaves the reader free to interpret the texts and make connections between the correspondents. In his 1995 and 2003 editions there is a general section on archival history of the letters but there is no individual annotation of the source of each letter. Michaud’s editions have enabled Tristan scholars to reassess her political career in ways that were not possible previously.61 Puech made a major contribution in the rescue of minor socialist figures from obscurity. So extensive was Tristan’s correspondence that his biography is a major source for the earlier editions of the main biographical history of the workers’ movement, the Maitron dictionary.62 As mentioned earlier in the section on biographies of Tristan, having established the detail of the socialist network and Flora Tristan’s relationships with certain minor national figures, Puech did not undertake any extensive analysis of the political content or the cultural discourse of the letters as primary documents in their own right. That has become an interest for late twentieth-century and early twenty-first-century readers. When Michaud pieced together a first publication of Flora Tristan letters in 1980, he recognized the dispersal of archival sources: ‘Réunir la correspondance de Flora Tristan peut passer pour un défi.’; by presenting a large number of citations of letters along with the details and texts of letters he had traced he highlighted the extent of the missing gaps: ‘Aussi une grande partie de son œuvre a-t-elle véritablement fait naufrage.’63 Like Puech, he stressed the importance of the letters as biographical evidence of Tristan’s extraordinary lifestyle, personal intimacy and public career. For instance, where there is little evidence of Tristan’s professional activities between 1821 and 1833 we can only note the dramatic change in Tristan’s writing style. Here the letters come into their own as prima facie evidence that between the ages of 17 and 30 Tristan underwent an intellectual education. That she destroyed other evidence of her activities including the years spent in a lowly position as a lady’s companion has left scholars fumbling in speculation as to the motives for this desire for obscurity. Michaud is primarily interested in the complex personality of Flora Tristan. The letters, he rightly claims, give her a voice. He stressed the factors of her itinerant life (travel, family woes) that made it unlikely for her to have an archive; the desire for solitary and independent existence meant that she did not benefit from the protection of a strong family base or school or sect of socialism that could have presumably rescued her papers from being consigned to oblivion. Yet it was thanks to her few disciples – by disciples we mean those who lovingly cared for her in her


last moments: the Lemonnier family in Bordeaux and the Blanc family in Lyons – that some of her papers survived. In Tristan’s writing career unresolved mysteries remain about the possible disappearance or production of major works; however there is no mystery to the content of the letters. It derives from her political campaign. Their publication has brought an authenticity to her voice in a way that other types of documents may not. In the introduction to his first edition of the letters Michaud recalled the intensity of her demands in her dedication to the cause of the workers: Ce qu’elle ne cesse de réclamer de ceux qu’elle fréquente tient en peu de mots : justice, intelligence, reconnaissance de l’altérité. A quoi il convient d’ajouter amour. Car tel est le foyer d’où rayonne toute son œuvre. Un amour qui est force d’affranchissement, qui a valeur universelle.64 This invasive love of humanity is stressed again in the introduction to the 1995 edition: En ces temps de lutte aux côtés de la classe ouvrière, scellée par la publication de l’édition populaire des Promenades dans Londres (1842) puis de l’Union ouvrière (1843), la signature « votre sœur en l’humanité » place le contact avec chaque correspondant sous l’égide d’un projet d’émancipation qui ne se borne pas aux limites d’une communauté restreinte (famille, groupe social, nation, etc.). Il se veut héritier du Jésus de l’Evangile et des idéaux de la Révolution.65 This absolute ideal is in stark contrast to the conflictual side of the epistolary relations that develop. Michaud attributed her innovative quality among French and English socialists to her decision to talk directly to the people: Mais la grande nouveauté de Flora Tristan, et que les socialistes anglais, venus enquêter sur le continent en 1840, ne sauraient encore percevoir, consiste à dépasser le cadre de la bourgeoisie. Sa doctrine mord dans le peuple. A la date à laquelle elle entreprend de parler aux ouvriers, le seul qui commençait véritablement à avoir une audience populaire était Cabet.66 Although individualistic and stubbornly independent of other groups he suggests that she was no less a creature of her time, susceptible to the


new ideas of many. Careless of her own personal effects she excelled at networking.67 Reckless of others’ feelings she could be very cutting in her remarks, but, says Michaud, she had contradictions like every other political militant. ‘Sa mécanique passionnelle se laisse difficilement acclimater … Pourquoi Flora Tristan échapperait-elle seule aux contradictions ?’68 While Michaud has considered her lifetime’s correspondence in both editions he recognized that the outstanding moment of networking was around 1843 and 1844 but he sees this in the context of her writing career and in the multiplicity of roles that she has played: L’attention, comme il est naturel, se concentre sur la grande période de la vie de l’auteur, les années 1843–1844 … Il n’est peut-être pas de meilleur accès au mouvement des idées sociales à la veille de 1848 que de suivre, dans les documents qui l’expriment, un destin hors du commun. L’exception tient à la multiplicité des vies que la femme se choisit – successivement (ou conjointement) journaliste, romancière, femme d’action.69 The multiplicity of roles that Tristan played was remarkable in itself. Chapter 2 establishes the breeding ground for the epistolary dialogue. With the possibility of examining the surviving two-way correspondence, we can focus on Tristan’s versatility of discourse and ideology over and above her reputation of role agility. It is not until we look at what was happening in France in the 1840s that we can appreciate how unique her networking was. This was the time of the creation of socialist ideas and the creation of social experimental groups in Britain, France and Germany. Michaud emphasizes Tristan’s unique ability for absorbing the diversity of these ideas. Her correspondence is a testimonial to this fluidity. Two-way correspondence is a way of integrating the individual into the sociopolitical context. Chapter 3 discusses the discourse of the letters written from the heart. The letters reveal how she could talk to the workers as an outsider all the while negotiating her way round the sectarian tendencies of the different groups and the fact that she was remote in class and gender terms. In Chapter 4 we see how letter writing played a crucial role in the successful birth of an idea that became a book and a political project. While Puech established the extent of her networking in his 1925 biography and its significance was recognized by Michaud in his production of her surviving correspondence the question remains of how she achieved this fluidity. How did she contrive to build up such a network? Behind this question are many others regarding the link between theory and practice. The utopian dreams were too vague,


claimed Tristan. The message of deliverance to humanity should be taken directly to the workers. The utopian dimension of her political ambitions features in the final chapter. Because Tristan’s union ouvrière campaign came to an abrupt end, the success of her communication floundered and vanished. However her key demand for the workers, the right to work, featured very briefly in the early months for the new social republic in 1848. Tristan’s dream of economic freedom and gender equality was just as much a utopian dream as the campaign for votes for women of 1848. Utopianism signified impossibility. The letters that emerged from her experience of trying to organize meeting the people she wished to help are critical to this concept. They provide an insight into the dichotomy between theory and practice of the mid-1840s. While it is recognized that Flora Tristan was a precursor in socialist terms how she became a precursor has rarely been spelt out. The letters are the point of contact between the proponent of a scheme and the reception of it.

Notes 1. Paul Gauguin, Avant et Après, Paris, 1923, p. 133, cited in Gerhard Leo, Flora Tristan, La révolte d’une paria, Paris, Les Editions de l’Atelier, Editions Ouvrières, 1994, p. 188. André Breton also quotes Gauguin’s connection in his presentation of Tristan’s correspondence, ‘Flora Tristan, sept lettres inédites’, Le Surréalisme même, 3, automne 1957, pp. 4–12. For details of Gauguin’s maternal background see David Sweetman, Paul Gauguin, A Complete Life, London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1995, pp. 6–44. 2. See Kathleen Hart, ‘An I for an Eye: Flora Tristan and Female Visual Allegory’, Nineteenth Century French Studies, 26 (1–2), Fall–Winter 1997–8, pp. 52–65. 3. Leslie Rabine, ‘Feminist Writers in French Romanticism’, Studies in Romanticism, 16, Fall 1977, pp. 491–507, p. 504. 4. See Alice Gérard et al., Villes et sociétés urbaines au XIXe siècle, Paris, Armand Colin, 1992, pp. 104–6; Andrew Lees, Cities Perceived. Urban Society in European and American Thought, 1820–1940, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1985, pp. 61–2. 5. Eléonore Blanc, Flora Tristan, Lyons, chez l’auteur, 1845. 6. Jules-L. Puech, La Vie et l’œuvre de Flora Tristan, Paris, Marcel Rivière, 1925; Maurice Agulhon, Une ville ouvrière au temps du socialisme utopique. Toulon de 1815 à 1851, Paris and The Hague, Mouton, 1977; Dominique Desanti, Flora Tristan, La femme révoltée, Paris, Hachette Littérature, 1972 (nouvelle édition, Flora Tristan, 1980, nouvelle préface, 2001); Flora Tristan, Promenades dans Londres, édition établie et commentée par François Bédarida, Paris, Maspéro, 1978. 7. Stéphane Michaud republished the Michel Collinet 1973 edition of Flora Tristan’s diary Le Tour de France in two volumes, Paris, Maspéro, 1980. Lucette Cyzba, ‘Flora Tristan : de la révolte à l’apostolat du « Tour de France »’, in La femme au XIXe siècle, Lyons, Presses universitaires de Lyon, 1978, pp. 29–54; Evelyne Bloch-Dano, Flora Tristan : La Femme–Messie, Paris, Bernard Grasset, 2001.

28 The Letter in Flora Tristan’s Politics, 1835–1844 8. See Magda Portal, Flora Tristán, la precursora, Ensayo, Lima, 1945; Magda Portal, ‘Ma découverte de Flora Tristan’, in Stéphane Michaud (ed.), Flora Tristan : Un fabuleux destin, Actes d’un Colloque, Dijon, Presses universitaire de Dijon, 1985, pp. 11–18; Ana de Miguel and Rosalía Romero (eds), Flora Tristan, Feminismo y Socialismo, Madrid, La Catarata, 2003; Gustavo Bacacorzo, Flora Tristan: personalidad contestatoria universel, Lima, Biblioteca Nacional del Perú, 2000, 2 vols; Gerhard Leo, Aufruhr einer Paria : Das abenteurliche Leben der Flora Tristan, Berlin, Dietz, 1990. 9. See interview with Vargas Llosa by Christophe Mercier, ‘Vargas Llosa : Attention chef d’œuvre’, Le Point, 1550, 31 mai 2002, pp. 112–13, 115–16; « L’Autre Peruvien », interview with Alfredo Bryce-Echenique by Michel Braudeau, Horizons, Le Monde, 1–2 septembre 2002, p. 9; Raphaëlle Rérolle, ‘Les Mystères de la création’, Le Monde des livres, 2 mai 2003, p. I; Stéphane Michaud, ‘La Rencontre de Mario Vargos Llosa et de son héroïne’, Le Monde des livres, 2 mai 2003, p. IV. My thanks to Pascal Mercier and Douglas Johnson for sending me these articles. 10. See the recent Côté-femmes electronic re-editions cited in the bibliography. 11. For translations see the bibliography. 12. Lloyd Kramer, ‘Victor Jacquemont and Flora Tristan: Travel, Identity and the French Generation of 1820’, History of European Ideas, 14 (6), 1992, pp. 789–816; Martin J. Scurrah, ‘From Wandering Pariah to Union Organizer: The Influence of Flora Tristan’s Voyage to Peru on her Life and Work’, in Alun Kenwood (ed.), Travellers’ Tales Real and Imaginary in the Hispanic World and its Literature, Melbourne, Vox Hispania, pp. 22–35. 13. See Pascale Hustache, ‘Méphis, entre roman populaire et roman moral’, in Stéphane Michaud (ed.), Flora Tristan, George Sand, Pauline Roland. Les femmes et l’invention d’une nouvelle morale, 1830–1848, Paris, Créaphis, 1994, pp. 49–59. 14. Flora Tristan, Promenades dans Londres, first published in Paris, H.-P. Delloye, 1840, subsequently in 1842 by R. Bocquet. For re-editions and translations see the bibliography. 15. Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Paris, Prévot, 1843; second edition, 1844. 16. In chronological order: Máire Cross and Tim Gray, The Feminism of Flora Tristan, Oxford, Berg Publishers, 1992; Sandra Dijkstra, Flora Tristan. Feminism in the Age of George Sand, London, Pluto Press, 1992; Leo, Flora Tristan. La Révolte d’une paria; Susan Grogan, Flora Tristan. Life Stories, London, Routledge, 1998; Bloch-Dano, Flora Tristan : La Femme–Messie, Paris, Bernard Grasset, 2001; Desanti, Flora Tristan, La femme révoltée (1972, nouvelle édition 1980, nouvelle préface 2001). 17. Puech, La Vie et l’œuvre de Flora Tristan. 18. Puech, La Vie et l’œuvre de Flora Tristan, pp. 439–86. 19. Jo Burr Margadant (ed.), The New Biography. Performing Femininity in Nineteenth-Century France (Studies on the History of Society and Culture), Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, University of California Press, 2000, p. 1. 20. Desanti, Flora Tristan. La femme révoltée, p. 315. In the first edition, Flora Tristan. La femme révoltée, of 1972, this author also suggested her moment of posterity was only just beginning: pp. 312–15. 21. See Joan Wallach Scott, Only Paradoxes to Offer. French Feminists and the Rights of Man, Cambridge, Mass. and London, Harvard University Press, 1996.

Reading Flora Tristan 29 22. Whitney Walton, Eve’s Proud Descendants. Four Women Writers and Republican Politics in Nineteenth-Century France, Stanford, Calif., Stanford University Press, 2000, p. 2. 23. Grogan, Flora Tristan. Life Stories, p. 186. 24. Ibid., p. 215. 25. Tristan has figured in collections of famous people where her politics are presented as a life summary in one chapter with little room for new analysis. Michel Winock, ‘Une femme invente la classe ouvrière : Flora Tristan’, in his Les Voix de la Liberté. Les écrivains engagés au XIXe siècle, Paris, Seuil, 2001, pp. 222–34. 26. Margadant, The New Biography, pp. 3–4. 27. See for instance, H. M. Adrien, ‘Processus de réécriture : un palimpseste candide de l’ivraie et de l’Himalaya dans Pérégrinations d’une paria de Flora Tristan’, Dalhousie French Studies, 45, Winter 1998, pp. 29–39; Francesca Denegri, ‘Desde la Ventana: Women “Pilgrims” in Nineteenth-Century LatinAmerican Travel Literature’, Modern Languages Review, 92 (2), 1997, pp. 348–62; Kathleen Hart, ‘Rêveries des promeneuses solidaires: Flora Tristan and the French Autobiographical Tradition’, French Forum, Nicholsville, Kentucky, 19 (2), 1994, pp. 133–48; Kathleen Hart, ‘ “There shall be earthquakes, in diverse places”: Volcanic Terror in Flora Tristan’s Pérégrinations d’une paria’, in John T. Booker and Allen H. Pasco (eds), The Play of Terror in Nineteenth-Century France, Cranbury, NJ, Mississauga, Ontario and London, Associated University Press, 1997, pp. 45–57; Hart, ‘An I for an Eye: Flora Tristan and Female Visual Allegory’. 28. Marjorie Agosin, ‘Introduction’, in Marjorie Agosin and Julie H. Levison (eds), Magical Sites. Women Travelers in 19th Century Latin America, Buffalo, NY, White Wine Press, 1999, pp. 11–20; Jill S. Kuhnheim, ‘Pariah/Messiah. The Conflictive Social Identity of Flora Tristan’, in Doris Meyer (ed.), Reinterpreting the Spanish American Essay. Women Writers of the 19th and 20th Centuries, Austin, University of Texas Press, 1995, pp. 27–36. 29. Eileen Boyd Sivert, ‘Flora Tristan: The Joining of Essay, Journal, Autobiography’, in Ruth-Ellen Boetcher Joeres and Elizabeth Mittman (eds), The Politics of the Essay. Feminist Perspectives, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1993, pp. 57–72. 30. Mary Rice-DeFosse, ‘George Sand, Flora Tristan and the Tour de France’, in Tamara Alvarez-Detrell and Michael Paulson (eds), The Traveler in the Life and Works of George Sand, Troy, NY, Whitston, 1994, pp. 90–6. 31. Margareth Levitta Baldi, ‘Education et Société dans l’œuvre de Flora Tristan’, Studi dell’ Instituto Linguistico (Florence), 6, 1983, pp. 223–43. This account of the theme of education in Tristan’s life’s work draws heavily on the familiar sources of G. D. H. Cole, History of Socialist Thought, Vol. 1: The Forerunners 1789–1850, London, Macmillan, 1953, pp. 183–8 (translated by the author into French from the Italian version, Storia del pensiero socialista. I precursori 1789–1850, Rome, Laterza, 1978), and Puech’s biography, La Vie et l’œuvre de Flora Tristan. 32. See Cross and Gray, The Feminism of Flora Tristan. 33. Dijkstra, Flora Tristan. Feminism in the Age of George Sand. 34. Marie-Claire Hoock-Demarle, ‘The Nineteenth Century: Insights of Contemporary Women Writers’, in Avriel H. Goldberger (ed.), Woman as


35.

36.

37. 38. 39. 40.

41.

42. 43. 44.

45.

Mediatrix: Essays on Nineteenth-Century Women Writers, Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, 1987, pp. 1–12. Máire Cross, ‘Flora Tristan’s Socialist Propaganda in Provincial France, 1843–1844’, in Bertrand Taithe and Tim Thornton (eds), Propaganda. Political Rhetoric and Identity 1300–2000, Stroud, Sutton Publishing, 1999, pp. 151–65. Máire Cross, ‘Flora Tristan, un exemple à suivre ? Itinéraire d’une femme engagée dans la Cité’, in Femmes dans la Cité 1815–1871, sous la direction d’Alain Corbin, Jacqueline Lalouette and Michèle Riot-Sarcey, Paris, Créaphis, 1997, pp. 319–33; Máire Cross, ‘A Conflict of Interests: Gender, Class and Revolutionary Violence in Flora Tristan’s Campaign 1843–1844’, in Jan Windebank and Renate Gunther (eds), Violence and Conflict in the Society of Modern France, Lampeter, Mellen Press, 1995, pp. 21–35. Sara Mills, Discourses of Difference. An Analysis of Women’s Travel Writing and Colonialism, London and New York, Routledge, 1991. Denegri, ‘Desda la Venta: Women “Pilgrims” in Nineteenth-Century LatinAmerican Travel Literature’, pp. 349–50. Rice-DeFosse, ‘George Sand, Flora Tristan, and the Tour de France’, pp. 93, 95–6. See Máire Cross, ‘Interpreting Flora Tristan as a Nomadic Subject’, paper presented at an interdisciplinary conference, ‘Women in Motion’, Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada, 23–25 May 2003, publication forthcoming. Agosin and Levison, Magical Sites. Women Travelers in 19th Century Latin America, p. 12. See also Meyer, Reinterpreting the Spanish American Essay. Women Writers of the 19th and 20th Centuries, pp. 27–36. Agosin and Levison, Magical Sites. Women Travelers in 19th Century Latin America, p. 65. See Portal, ‘Ma découverte de Flora Tristan’, in Michaud (ed.), Flora Tristan : Un fabuleux destin, pp. 11–18. See Mary Rice-DeFosse, ‘Reconsidering Flora Tristan’s Narrative Art’, Women in French Studies, 3 (4), 1995, pp. 45–54; Margaret Talbot, ‘An Emancipated Voice: Flora Tristan and Utopian Allegory’, Feminist Studies, 17 (2), Summer 1991, pp. 219–39; Sandra Dijkstra, ‘The City as Catalyst for Flora Tristan’s Vision of Social Change’, in Susan Merrill Squier (ed.), Women Writers and the City, Essays in Feminist Literary Criticism, Knoxville, University of Texas Press, 1984, pp. 13–34; Florence Gabaude, ‘Les Pérégrinations d’une paria : initiation, observation, révélation’, The French Review, 71 (5), April 1998, pp. 809–19; Jeanne Kabulis, ‘Why the Novel? Towards a Reconsideration of Le Romanesque in Flora Tristan’s Méphis ou le prolétaire’, Nineteenth-Century French Studies, 27 (1–2), Fall–Winter 1998–9, pp. 38–50; Marie Maclean, ‘Flora Tristan: Pariah, Peregrina’, Romance Studies, 21, Winter–Spring 1992–3, pp. 7–13; Cross, ‘Flora Tristan, un exemple à suivre ?’ in Corbin et al., Femmes dans la Cité, pp. 319–33; Catherine Nesci, ‘Flora Tristan’s Urban Odyssey. Notes on the Missing Flâneuse and her City’, Journal of Urban History, 27 (6), September 2001, pp. 709–22. Misconceptions exist about the Sand–Tristan relationship. Sand is reproached by Desanti and Bloch-Dano for being unsympathetic to Tristan because of her neglect of her daughter. George Sand contributed generously to Tristan’s workers’ union fund and somewhat truculently wrote letters of


46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

52.

53.

54.

55. 56.

57.

58. 59.

60.

61. 62.

63.

introduction for her acquaintances in French provincial towns for Tristan’s tour of France. See Letters of George Sand, translated and edited by Raphaël Ledos de Beaufort, 3 vols, London, Ward and Downey, 1886. Rabine, ‘Feminist Writers in French Romanticism’, p. 491. Ibid., p. 507. Ibid., p. 491. Rice-DeFosse, ‘George Sand, Flora Tristan, and the Tour de France’, p. 90. See Peter Ackroyd, London. The Biography, London, Vintage, 2001, pp. 376, 444; Alain Pessin, Le Mythe du peuple et la société française du XIXe siècle, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1992, pp. 1–29; Christine Fauré, La démocratie sans les femmes, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1985, p. 21. Attributed to A. Breton by Evelyne Bloch-Dano, Flora Tristan : La Femme– Messie, p. 9 although the phrase does not appear in his introduction to ‘Flora Tristan, sept lettres inédites’. See Michel Clévenot, Un siècle cherche sa foi : le XIXe siècle, Paris, Editions Retz, 1992, pp. 44–53, for a short biographical chapter wherein he speculates that Flora Tristan’s father was the Latin American liberator Simon Bolivar. See Francis Ambrière, ‘Qui était Flora Tristan ?’, 1848 Révolutions et mutations au XIXe siècle, 1988, pp. 21–35. Grogan has investigated the personal papers of the maternal and paternal sides in order to establish the extent of the childhood deprivation Tristan is said to have endured. See Grogan, Flora Tristan. Life Stories, pp. 16–19. Dijkstra, Flora Tristan. Feminism in the Age of George Sand, and Desanti, Flora Tristan, 2001. I do not propose to construct an imaginary conversation in the form of selfstyled reincarnation- and sex-obsessed Robert Rimmer, Here We are Again! Bob Rimmer – Resonating with Margaret Fuller and Flora Tristan, Then and Now, San Jose, New York, Lincoln and Shangai, Writers Club Press, 2001. See Susan Grogan, ‘ “Playing the Princess”. Flora Tristan, Performance, and Female Moral Authority during the July Monarchy’, in Margadant, The New Biography. Performing Feminity in Nineteenth-Century France, pp. 72–98. See the Daniel Armogathe and Jacques Grandjonc Introduction to their edition of Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Paris, Des femmes, 1984, pp. 22–5. For examples of the hazards of survival of personal correspondence see Caroline Bland and Máire Cross (eds), Gender and Politics in the Age of LetterWriting 1750–2000, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2004. Michaud first signalled this source in a footnote in his ‘Deux Interprètes de la révolution : Flora Tristan et Pauline Roland’, in Marie-France Brive (ed.), Les femmes et la Révolution française, 3 vols, Actes du Colloque international, Toulouse, Presses Universitaires du Mirail, 1991, vol. 3, pp. 185–200, p. 197. See Máire Cross, ‘The Correspondence of a “Sister in Humanity” ’, in Bland and Cross (eds), Gender and Politics in the Age of Letter-Writing. For the latest edition see Le Maitron. Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier français, sous la direction de Claude Pennetier, CD-ROM, Paris, Editions de l’Atelier, 1997. Stéphane Michaud, Flora Tristan, Lettres, réunies, présentées et annotées par Stéphane Michand, Paris, Seuil, 1980, p. 9.

32 The Letter in Flora Tristan’s Politics, 1835–1844 64. Ibid., p. 13. 65. Stéphane Michaud, Flora Tristan, La Paria et son rêve, Correspondance établie par Stéphane Michaud, Fontenay-aux-Roses, E. N. S. Editions, 1995, pp. 6–7. 66. Michaud, Flora Tristan, Lettres, p. 16. 67. Remarks from her diary indicate that she received news of her forthcoming eviction from her Paris flat while she was on her tour of France in July 1844. See Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France. Journal inédit 1843–1844, Préface de Michel Collinet, Notes de Jules L. Puech, Edition de la Tête de Feuilles, 1973, p. 227. 68. Michaud, Flora Tristan, La Paria et son rêve, p. 9. 69. Ibid., pp. 8–9.

2 The Making of a Utopian Correspondent

Aprés dîner je réponds à Vinçard une lettre de 4 grandes pages, et de bonne encre ! – C’est de cette façon qu’il faut leur parler. Nous allons voir ce qu’il va répondre. (Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, le 22 mars, 1843) The political circumstances of Flora Tristan’s era together with her use of the letter form as a writer and as an activist ensured a successful launch of Union ouvrière both as a political programme and as a publication. It is therefore essential to present the tensions of the historical context of 1840s France to understand the origin of Flora Tristan’s politics. The historical background to Flora Tristan’s politics is vast, particularly as we wish to contextualize the epistolary study outside the biographical sphere. It can be classified in the following categories: the state of French society and mainstream politics, by far the most general backdrop; the history of ideas since 1789 (socialism and feminism), an equally colossal setting; class formation and class-consciousness referring to the identity of the French working class in historical studies; the state of protest politics and the growth of literacy, both part of more recent developments in historical and cultural studies.

French society and mainstream politics The century following the 1789 revolution was to a certain extent notoriously unstable; those in power were constantly reminded of the fragility of their position with political violence threatening to topple every new regime.1 As a result the successive regimes mistrusted parliamentary opposition and repressed any popular incidents of unrest with severity, particularly after the attempted assassination of Louis-Philippe 33


in 1835. Ironically the first half of the nineteenth century in French politics saw the growth of liberalism as an inspiration for good governance particularly in the area of economic policy. Tristan’s political career in the early 1840s coincided with the Guizot years of government stability. François Guizot and his fellow politicians considered that the revolutionary process was over and the duty of the Orleanist King Louis-Philippe and himself was to consolidate the constitutional monarchy for the benefit of the middle classes. After 1840, when he was appointed to lead the government, the hopes of liberals and radicals that suffrage would be extended to create a more inclusive and representative democracy were increasingly frustrated. There began a concerted effort to unite those wishing for reform behind a suffrage movement that became increasingly radical as the decade wore on. By 1848 suffrage for all men was at the top of the list of political demands from the new regime. In his study of the originality of politics in the period from 1814 to 1848, Pierre Rosanvallon regrets the underestimations of the significance of the Guizot ministry in the years 1840 to 1848 as a political moment. It was a ‘temps faible de l’histoire, et de pensée simultanément, voué à un statut secondaire, mis sans dommage entre parenthèses’.2 The shadow of the 1789 revolution hung over the nineteenth century like an ugly pall of smoke or like a faded dream depending on whether revolution was considered a curse or a blessing. The July Monarchy is often seen as a failed attempt at a compromise between the ultra-royalists who cursed all the political changes brought about by the revolution and the democratic republicans who revered the new political structures heralded by the First Republic. The memory of the regime of a juste milieu is further overshadowed by other revolutionary moments; the political institutions that evolved at other times such as the Second or Third Republics dwarf the July Monarchy and dominate nineteenth-century political studies. The perception of the first half of the nineteenth century is seen as one of a transient stage in politics.3 Tristan’s era is almost a dull moment in comparison to the heady days of 1848 or is viewed as part of a wider pattern of progressive thinking that started with the Enlightenment philosophers as precursors and thinkers of new social ideas, the utopian socialists working towards the achievement of late nineteenth-century democracy. The notion of ideas in transition was applied equally to the utopian socialists who, it was said, preceded Marxism.4 The political institutions of the period are seen as a first step, and a rather limited one, towards democratic institutions. In retrospect the July Monarchy is viewed as a time of apprenticeship for democracy when retracted suffrage was a stepping stone between the absolutism of

The Making of a Utopian Correspondent 35

the ancien régime and the representative government of the republican institutions of the late nineteenth century.5 The early nineteenth century contributed to the development of modern politics by thinking out the major political experiences of 1789 to 1814. The 1789 revolution had caused a break in the way politics was considered. Reason and logic were henceforth to be applied in the search for an ideal regime. ‘Terminer la Révolution, construire un gouvernement représentatif stable, établir un régime garant des libertés fondé sur la Raison.’6 Whatever the reason for Guizot’s refusal to countenance political reform, the resulting opposition focused on the question of electoral reform for the middle classes with some demanding universal – masculine – suffrage thereby including the labouring classes, or the people. The longer Guizot held out against electoral reform the stronger the demand became for masculine suffrage, expressed as universal suffrage. The Tristan correspondence provides evidence of the impact of electoral aspirations from among the workers, many of whom saw it as the key to the success of the implementation of reforms that would specifically benefit the workers. Tristan, however, held very different views on electoral reform. In her programme for the implementation of a workers’ union written into her book Union ouvrière she envisaged a highly restricted political representation of one person, a defender to represent the working class. For Rosanvallon the achievements of the Guizot ministry of 1840–8 may well have been understated by historians but in other domains there were dramatic developments. In defence of the Guizot years Francis Démier considers that they cannot be described as conservative since the decade of the 1840s was a watershed for French society in economic and cultural as well as political aspects.7 Démier summarizes the main social changes that were occurring imperceptibly – the modernization of French industry, the widening of cultural horizons – with the greater education and professional training of the French labour force. These developments are highly significant for the context of Tristan’s letters which are evidence of this imperceptible mutation and indeed of developments in politics when liberalism was put to the test with new forms of left-wing opposition – the birth of radicalism, the growth of associations to counter the effects of unfettered economic laissez-faire and the spread of French socialism from thought to action. Démier highlights the class differences in socialist militancy: Ces socialismes, réunis d’abord par le rejet du libéralisme des notables et élaborés par des personnalités dont aucune n’est véritablement


issue des rangs du monde ouvrier, n’en connaissent pas moins un succès important chez les travailleurs.8 He cites the written word as a major feature of the spread of socialism in the workers’ milieu, a world quite distinct from the bourgeois circles: Par une presse à bon marché, par la diffusion d’un grand nombre de brochures, se créent des réseaux socialistes dans le monde ouvrier.9 In recent studies of the press, associations and other forms of cultural sociability, the same trend emerges, that of increasing intellectual mobility for all classes and above all a great thirst for consumption of the written word.10 The expansion of the press and printed material is testimony to the desire for communication through knowledge.11 In a survey of recent studies of new forms of cultural expression, while the evidence presents a picture of an accelerating progress in political literacy, letters are not specifically mentioned although clearly the spread of epistolary communication contributed to the growth of political opposition alongside the distribution of pamphlets and informal meetings.12 Historical accounts summarize the Guizot years’ most outstanding feature as one of no movement by contrast with developments in French politics immediately after the downfall of the monarchy in February 1848. At the microscopic level of the development of political communication ideas were buzzing all around. The revolutionary moments took many by surprise though there were many hints at the disasters to come for Louis-Philippe in Tristan’s correspondence. In formal institutional, electoral and government terms the period can be presented as one of stalemate between opposition groups (mouvement) and the majority (resistance) in politics. Flora Tristan figures as part of the opposition to the July Monarchy establishment though not in an electoral context. Among the extraparliamentary opposition groups were republicans and socialists. Although republicanism activism was outlawed there developed a steady growth in numbers of radicals who covertly preferred a republic as an ideal regime but channelled their energies into calls for an extension of suffrage. If the word ‘republic’ sent a shudder down the spines of the establishment the new term ‘socialism’ was a relatively unknown factor of opposition yet equally feared. Republicanism and socialism mingled in the plans of some activists but not in Flora Tristan’s. Just as the ideologues of the 1789 revolution purported that perfectibility of the political system was possible, the new socialists’ ideology of the 1830s proposed that society was an


organism whose mechanisms could be altered if they failed to provide adequately for all its members. In many cases but not all, socialists, disappointed by the failure of republican individualism, turned their backs on political reform. Electoral reform was not a priority. In some instances republicans disliked socialist ideology that had condemned economic liberalism and proposed the right to work as an unfinished part of the 1789 revolution, as the bitter disputes of 1848 would soon reveal.13 Studies of the spread of ideas of the period through cultural activities such as correspondence reveal a complex picture of July Monarchy politics when these new concepts of the right to have a political voice and the right to work spread into current discourse. In addition new developments sprang out of existing structures. The period saw old forms of labour organization adjusting to new industrial practices. The best-known traditional structure of Compagnonnages provided Flora Tristan with some of her best contacts.14 Socialist intellectual thinkers, working-class activists and republican democrats not only coexisted but also intermingled to a greater extent than they were given credit for.

The impact of 1789 on Tristan’s political ideas Looking at the rate of circulation of new ideologies and the manner in which they spread the July Monarchy was a time of effervescence in French politics with the first publications of feminism also appearing.15 To date studies of socialism have usually been either on feasibility of individual projects or more often on how the theory developed and improved in the long term. For the 1840s generation in Europe, the exciting developments occurring simultaneously in France, Prussia and Britain were crucial for understanding the origins of socialism; the combination of political and economic circumstances which gave thinkers in these three countries insights into social experiences were proclaimed to be an integral part of a wider picture.16 Often questions are posed about the theory and practice of ideas. But an equally important dimension to the history of ideas, in particular that of socialism, is the link between thinkers’ production of theories and the implementation of these theories and the communication between the two. This link involves ordinary human beings whose history has not been recorded. The history of socialism is overshadowed by the story of the big figures of Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen and their role as precursors to Marx. Studies of their influence remain restricted for the most part to how they contributed to the progress of, or perfection of, a socialist system.17


Marc Angenot recalls the all-embracing optimism that utopian thinkers shared whether they were part of an obscure sect or as a mass party. The technique of seeing society in a global vision with its past almost became a permanent feature of socialism as did the dogmatism of the many sects, ‘diversement établies en contre-sociétés militantes sinon marginalisés en groupuscules repliées sur la certitude de posséder seuls la vérité des choses’.18 The grandiose scale of the utopian thinkers described by Angenot contrasts sharply with the image of the painful conflicts of the grass roots. In his chapter on ‘Les premiers défricheurs du socialisme’, Jean Bron explains that social and economic transformation provoked by industrialization produced new theories of capitalism and theories of society: A cette époque, presque tout est à inventer, tant la situation est nouvelle par rapport à celle des siècles passés et l’on comprend que la recherche socialiste se soit déroulée, d’emblée comme une marche à l’étoile à travers une forêt touffue. Des zones sont défrichées, des pistes explorées, des chemins de traverse empruntés qui ne menaient à rien, mais lentement avance un front pionnier.19 Bron reminds us of the permanent and bitter struggle of the grass roots: ‘L’histoire du Mouvement ouvrier français est essentiellement l’histoire d’un combat permanent.’20 Constantly adjusting to social and economic circumstances the struggle is carried out on a daily basis: Ecrite dans le combat et modifiée par lui, l’histoire du Mouvement ouvrier est faite de la vie quotidienne des travailleurs, de la lente prise de conscience de leur appartenance à une classe asservie au capitalisme libéral, des idéologies qui animent leur action et lui ouvrent des perspectives, de l’organization qu’ils se donnent progressivement et qui leur permet des victoires plus certaines.21 In the mid-1840s the most important socialist group was the Cabetist group in Paris and Lyons around the paper Le Populaire, along with the Fourierists around the Démocratie pacifiste. Some of the militants shared the desire to set up model communities but what penetrated through to the workers’ milieu was a new vision of the French Revolution. The year of 1789 was reinterpreted for its social and democratic ambitions and a rejection of the liberalism of July Monarchy political notables: Par étapes s’est donc constituée tout au long des années 1840, une puissante opposition dont le poids n’est nullement traduit dans les


instances politiques du régime guizotiste. Elle va de grands notables qui prennent leurs distances avec une monarchie qui se confond dans leur esprit avec le règne de l’argent et semble reconstituer autour d’une « féodalité financière » une nouvelle société d’ordre, à un courant socialiste qui considère le libéralisme comme un agent de destruction et d’oppression dans la société.22 The assimilation of the new idea of the right to work, the organization of labour, the right to form associations were the new demands which took root in the 1840s before surging to the fore in 1848: Trois grands problèmes émergent de ce mouvement : celui de la question sociale, liée à l’apparition du prolétariat ; celui de la fracture qui oppose désormais dans le camp des vainqueurs de 1830 les « petits » et les « gros » ; celui de la réforme électorale comme nécessité, réforme qui va d’un simple abaissement du cens au suffrage universel.23 In political terms Flora Tristan was at the crossroads of many new aspects of the July Monarchy. Her legacy is part of a diverse culture whose wealth has not always been recognized. In the political discourse of the July Monarchy, it was common to find the opposing interpretations of 1789 that have so marked the past in France. Those who believed the revolution was an aberration, allied with those who grudgingly accepted it as a necessary evil, were in power under the Bourbons. Those who accepted it but as a completed process after 1830 were the July Monarchy rulers. Then there were those who considered it to be an incomplete process and even went so far as to suggest that it was permanently and intrinsically incomplete. The writings of Flora Tristan contributed to the latter interpretation. On the question of rights she was quite categorical: proletarians and women had yet to achieve or be granted their 1789. She had an ambiguous attitude to the question of violence. She was unequivocal, however, in her evangelical interpretation of the revolutionary process as a humanitarian ideal. Three terms were important for her message: equality, unity and a universal law of love. Her message was a derivation of the message of Jesus: to love God in humanity. From 1840 until her death she became more and more dogmatic that she had the true message for the working class, that it should be the instrument of its own salvation by accepting her leadership. Couched in the discourse of the 1789 revolution her message became dangerously subversive, but for Tristan the attraction of revolutionary language was second to this self-liberation. She recognized the subversive power of political violence when she warned the ruling


classes that unless the workers’ demands were taken seriously the consequences would be dire. Her diary and letter writing provided her with a political freedom of expression and a social mobility unavailable in other forms. Above all it was in her discourse about rights, social classes and women that she insisted that the revolution had to be taken further. One of the trends in the history of women in French politics has been to view it as a long-term development from 1789 when a discourse of rights became political currency to 1944 when the principle of women’s franchise was finally recognized in law. There was opposition to the idea of women in politics in France and this has to be taken into account to explain the exceptional nature of Tristan’s politics, but opposition was more ideological than physical. The discourse about women’s roles in society was varied in the letters. On the ‘woman question’ as it was known there were those who were either against any female role in public or for a strong female role in the workers’ union, or else for or against her female role as apostle; there were letters from women who were against female workers’ emancipation and who resented Tristan’s interference in their family by making demands on their husbands’ militancy. The general trend of wishing to eliminate women from the public sphere did not always correspond with reality. New socio-cultural opportunities developed independently of this ideological opposition. If the means of letter writing were at their disposal there was nothing to physically stop workers writing to Tristan or to prevent Tristan from replying. In the history of feminism in France there is plenty of evidence of political misogyny. However the extent of the response from men and women to Tristan the organizer flies in the face of any antagonism to her once in her political role. It is extremely difficult to nuance this ideological opposition to women in politics. Faced with the evidence from Flora Tristan’s 1843 and 1844 campaign it was possible for a woman not only to participate in but to organize and lead a campaign. On the other hand writing letters was a gendered activity. Tristan received few letters from women, a pattern that fits with a national trend according to a survey carried out on a sample of the 1847 postbag.24 Flora Tristan’s feminism occurred between the two moments when political opposition to women was articulated, the 1789 and the 1848 revolutions, during which moments decisions were made regarding women’s position in politics and society. The Napoleonic Code is often cited as a consequence of 1789 even though it came into effect in 1803. There has been a strong emphasis on two supposed characteristics of French feminism: the strength of the ‘equality versus difference’ debate in French tradition and the question of exclusion from a definition of


universalism. Tristan’s union ouvrière does not quite fit into either of these traditions. Her programme had a socio-economic agenda for equality, in contrast to Olympe de Gouges’s campaign for women’s civic rights or to the Jeanne Deroin and Pauline Roland demand for women to be included in ‘universal suffrage’ in 1848. The long-term view of women and the vote has seen the dominance of the suffrage story over economic and social affairs of the nineteenth century although the question of women at work aroused equally strong passions.25 The question of women’s emancipation was mentioned but was not the main issue in her correspondence. However it was aired articulately. The two aspects affecting women in the epistolary debate in 1843 and 1844 were women’s place at work and in politics. Of these the attacks against the notion of a role for women in politics were by far the most scathing. A powerful weapon of opposition to women in politics was that of public mockery. Any woman who dared act differently outside the norms faced anything from moral reprobation to varying degrees of ridicule à la Charivari. Although not forbidden, epistolary communication took place against a backdrop of political, socio-economic and cultural factors affecting participation in politics. These were: opposition to political militancy from public authorities, the length of the working day, the pace of development of the postal service and what I have termed political literacy (this includes cultural literacy). There is no evidence to suggest that gender hindered or advanced this political communication. It coloured it. In a political chronology of socialism Flora Tristan’s campaign fits in between two bigger stories, the libertarian movement of the early years of the July Monarchy from 1830 to 1835, whose story is dominated by the Saint-Simonian experience under the leadership of Prosper Enfantin, and the social experiment of the Second Republic in 1848 where the right to work was given its first official recognition by the state if only briefly. Tristan’s utopia was in the shadow of those of the big names who preceded her: Saint-Simon, Fourier, Etienne Cabet, Owen and Louis Blanc. The republican agenda was officially dead during the years of 1843 and 1844 but its spectre haunted the authorities and from remarks made in her diary it was apparent to Tristan that it was far from dormant. The reaction of the authorities to her campaign when they confiscated her papers showed that the public authorities in the mid-1840s were nervous of worker militancy and their potential attraction towards revolutionary overthrow of the status quo. The years 1840 and 1841 had seen some bitter social disputes and local uprisings throughout France.26 With the threat of insurrection quashed, the parliamentary


stability of the Guizot government lulled senior politicians and statesmen into a false sense of security. Historians concur that this decade was momentous for the spread of republican, democratic and socialist ideas among the lower classes. Literacy was spreading through reading newspapers and writing letters. Many of Tristan’s correspondents were associated in some way with the expanding print industry.27 Since France is the cradle of successful and unsuccessful revolutions the politics of republican ideology and revolutionary zeal have influenced the telling of the story of France’s turbulent past. Because Marxist historians led the history of nineteenth-century France in France at least until François Furet’s challenge in the late twentieth century, class politics dominated accounts of grass-roots history.28 The question was always treated from a collective angle. Which workers became politicized and how? Was it more likely to be artisans, unskilled workers? Which workers joined in the campaign for an extension of suffrage? Which workers took to the streets in February 1848 alongside their fellow bourgeois citizens to overthrow the detested monarchy, this time for good? Where did the lower orders gain their political education? How did they strive to protect their own interests during the Orléans monarchy? The search for answers to these questions has produced a lively debate. However, due to the division of labour between thought on the one hand and social politicization on the other, questions remain. How did socialist thinkers’ ideas penetrate through to those whose lives were in need of improvement, to the people, that is, the majority of the French? How were they interpreted by the grass roots? Records of dialogue between an agitator and fellow militants such as that present in Tristan’s correspondence can give us a rare insight into these questions. It is a record of the interface of utopian vision and prosaic or practical discussion about its implementation. The letters studied here are written by activists, committed to furthering the cause of socialism. They had come into contact with Flora Tristan, one among many socialist activists. They did not represent a closed Tristan sect. The letters hail from many provincial towns and cities. Therefore the political correspondents were aware of other schemes or were part of other organized groups, newspapers, or unions. Many were able to compare her proposals to others.

Class formation and class consciousness It is traditionally asserted that the specificity of the French experience in mid-nineteenth-century politics was an advanced political consciousness


despite the less advanced industrial revolution: Although England led the way in the growth of ‘modern industry’ it was in France that the potential political consequences of industrialization appeared most threatening, or most liberating, depending on one’s perspective. The French Revolution placed the democratic vision at the centre of European political life. Socialism and workingclass revolution initially burst onto the European scene in France.29 The tendency to view the July Monarchy as a transitional period in a maturing process of political modernization affects the study of the working class; there is a preference for placing republicanism as the defining term. Looking at the maturing of republicanism from 1830 (and recognizing the male gendered limits30 ) which finally produced a consensus of support from heterogeneous groups by 1871, Ronald Aminzade suggested the success of the republic lay in the necessary radical republican synthesis of liberals and socialists. The Tristan letters are a fine example of the articulation of this synthesis in the making in the France of the 1840s. For Aminzade, republicanism emerged as a unifier in spite of local differences of politics. Egalitarianism, the vital ingredient for the renewal of democracy and republicanism, came from the socialist tradition: The republican civic vision is based on universal values while the socialist and feminist traditions recognize the need to acknowledge class and gender differences in order to empower oppressed groups who can create a world in which universal bonds of humanity can become meaningful. In mid-nineteenth century, the contradiction between universalism and particularism was evident in the tension between working-class autonomy and republican solidarity. Working-class republican militants tempered their pursuit of the class interests of the oppressed with recognition of the need to build a civic community that transcended the particular interests of workers.31

Epistolary evidence of political awareness in the 1840s Tristan’s letters and diary are a testimony to multiple differences of political awareness in the mid-1840s. She, however, was not so concerned with promoting republicanism. Her preoccupation was politicization of the working class without reference to politics as Aminzade understood them. Her ‘grandiose’ (and dogmatic) ideal, however, that set her on


a pedestal in her own eyes and in the eyes of some correspondents, though by no means all, was something that republicanism did favour: humanity. She found there was a potential for consensus around the ultimate goal of republicans, socialists, liberals, and religion: creating a social utopia for the perfection of human existence.32 The French specificity of class formation defied the basic Marxist assumptions that class-consciousness and class formation were the direct consequence of economic circumstances. As a result historians of France have preferred to assess the points of difference between artisan and enlightened bourgeois and their collaboration in the construction of political discourse.33 The relevant question for the letters is: who creates political discourse and how? Where and when does this construction take place outside the revolutionary moments of 1830 and 1848? Much attention has been devoted to the transformation of political institutions at revolutionary moments or the spectacular but spontaneous participation of grass-roots movements at such times, less to the mundane aspects in between such turmoil. Roger Gould asks the question: how revolutionary are the French? Perhaps no nineteenth-century society inspired more fear among conservatives, or hope among revolutionaries, than France.34 He too suggests that French workers’ advanced class politicization inspired Marx to announce the impending proletarian revolution. Equally there was the belief that political upheavals were a result of degeneration: Although other commentators on the right saw less evidence of cognition in the popular agitation of the period, viewing it instead as social disintegration brought on by drink and general moral decline among the ‘inferior classes’, they were no less apprehensive about France’s future.35 Radical activists on the other hand saw revolutionary events as ‘an enlightened endorsement by workers – not just in France but throughout Europe – of their plans to overthrow and remake the social and political order’.36 The long view of the nineteenth century is that the ultimate outcome of a century-long set of transformations was a politicized working class and one conscious of itself as a class. In analysis of class formation historians often focus on the century overview and on whole social groups


without specifying gender. Paradoxically they focus on moments of revolution: The central expression (and source) of this emerging consciousness is taken to be social protest; and the revolutionary upheavals of 1830, 1848 and 1871 (as well as 1831 and 1834 in Lyon) are therefore seen as critical moments in a protest that also depended, naturally, on strikes, the formation of producers’ cooperatives and resistance societies, and public demonstrations.37 Our epistolary study analyses a microcosm of political consciousness at a specific moment that was not during a ‘revolutionary upheaval’. Political activism is more difficult to assess at such times: Although contemporary feminist and poststructuralist scholars … have begun to chip away at this class-centered account, their arguments have concentrated on the culture and conflict of everyday life. Perhaps because of their apparent resonance with the rhythms of the class-formation narrative, revolutionary upheavals have remained relatively untouched by this critical enterprise.38 Tristan’s correspondence is an appropriate forum for examining political awareness and militancy in everyday situations that have a classformation narrative. They redress the balance and examine in detail political discourse that is relatively remote from revolution. The letters inform us of the growth of political awareness that was critical for the formation of class and gender relations in the long term. In William H. Sewell Jr’s account of the emergence of class-consciousness in France between 1830 and 1848 he argues that class-consciousness did not grow with the industrial revolution but was an inherent part of the corporate idiom of pre-1789.39 In 1830 workers were not quite ready to articulate class aspirations as a single identity during the overthrow of the Bourbon Monarchy. In 1848, however, the overthrow of the Orléans regime immediately provoked a massive class-consciousness movement. According to Gould class-consciousness was an issue that had receded once again by 1871. His hypothesis is that 1871 was much more the revolt of city dwellers against the French state than of workers against capitalism. The majority of insurgents were indeed workers, and the French state was among other things a staunch defender of capitalism. The two revolutions had different orientating axes. That of 1848 saw direct confrontation between the state and a movement for social and


political change. The question of the right to work was as absent from 1870 and 1871 as it was present in 1848. Gould asks why class interests and struggles shifted so much from 1848 to 1871. Letters are an ideal way of reading evidence of class conflict. In searching for reasons for participation in protest, Gould believes there is a variable character of participation. Identities are gradually formed through solidarity in associations and moments of social conflict: An appeal to solidarity will only succeed to the degree that the collective identity it involves classifies people in a way that corresponds to their concrete experience of social ties to others.40

Protest politics and the growth of literacy Flora Tristan came and went at a brief specific political moment. She was not a central part in her correspondents’ lives; she disappeared as quickly as she appeared on the political scene. But she created a rare momentary opportunity to express discontent and channelled the desire to act. Critical events (increasing pauperization, increasing political awareness) had set the stage for mobilization. Flora Tristan helped to foster but did not create collective identities where none existed before. Moreover, writing a letter to Flora Tristan did not exclude other forms of activism or communication. Gould reminds us of two formative influences in the studies of political identity and protest, Marx and Thompson. Tristan’s letters do not fit easily into one of the two polarized categories of activism that had been devised by Marxist bipolar predetermination of the class struggle, either revolutionary or trade union consciousness. They are more suited to categories devised by historian E. P. Thompson who influenced studies of working-class history by recognizing the diversity of working-class experience in nineteenthcentury Europe. This diversity of expression was labelled as contributing equally to the class struggle. For Thompson and other social historians: broadside sheets, ballads, friendly societies, absenteeism, forms of recreation and styles of speech – all manner of words and deeds could be labelled as protest and registered as weapons in the fight against industrial capitalism.41 One of the key political rights of socialist militants’ deliberations in the 1840s was the right to work. The merging of formal political


discourse with a social substantive demand was a major feature of the 1848 revolution. Andrew R. Aisenberg raises the question of the polemical debate in the currency of rights in the political sense and in the social meaning: For some historians, Third Republic social reform effected the fusion of political (formal) and socioeconomic (substantive) equality that had eluded earlier, unsuccessful Republican experiments. For others, the moralizing terror of social reform betrayed its function as an instrument of social control that served to reconcile labour to its unequal position in a bourgeois social order rather than to create equal equality.42 His method of investigation into the merging of ideology and social reform is to present a textual analysis of the language of players in his story: scientists, professionals and government officials.43 In the complex process by which class and gender relationships developed, the story through letters is more one of immediacy, of a particular moment in time. Political literacy, that is, the ability to read, write and exchange written political information, spread dramatically during the July Monarchy. Illiteracy was an impediment to politicization as formal schooling developed very gradually. However this did not prevent the thirst for reading among workers and among women. Doctors, intellectual workers and skilled craftsmen were in a privileged political position as they were literate. The production of letters among a group of political activists is a combination of two social factors: literacy and the postal service. The ability of anyone to correspond depended on their having access to reading and writing skills, preferably themselves or someone in their social vicinity. These skills were provided by educators and could not be taken as given in the mid-nineteenth century; after all the law imposing universal compulsory free secular schooling did not come on to the statute books in France until 1880. Less than ten years earlier, countries united in an international postal law signed in Berne on 9 October 1874.44 For David Vincent literacy in modern Europe came of age with this achievement for civilization: every inhabitant of every country from Sweden to Greece and from Russia to Ireland was to be linked together in a common system at a flat rate of postage. What today seems matter of fact was considered an achievement for humanity’s well-being. Roger Chartier’s edited collected work on the letter in nineteenthcentury France provides some interesting factual background on the development of the postal service as a nationwide organization. Figures


on this period are available thanks to the official compilation of the postal system in 1847 giving evidence of growth of activity in mid-1840s France. It was after all in the state’s interest to compile statistics about use of the postal service: with the monopoly over distribution it raised revenue.45 Although the debate was raging in parliamentary circles and the press about the introduction of a uniform tariff for letters to replace the charge based on the distance between sender and receiver, the intention of the compilation of statistics was to establish a directory of the postal addresses of every single inhabited building including rural areas. The previous 1835 version of Le Dictionnaire des postes was hopelessly outdated. Since 1830 postal rounds had been established which required the naming of buildings. Britain had introduced the uniform tariff of the prepaid penny stamp in 1839; France followed in 1849. Studies of 1847 figures recorded all post over two weeks, but only of rural France. Then a category was given to each place and building. The title of the new document was Les lieux habités de France. Although the term ‘dictionary’ was not used, it was intended that the findings should be part of a Dictionnaire des postes. Precedents of postal dictionaries existed such as the one produced by Guyot in 175246 where the intention of the survey was to collect figures to make the postal service more efficient, to ensure safe and prompt delivery of letters. The same intention could be applied to the 1847 survey. It did not engage with the debate of how to charge for the postal service but it was preoccupied with the remit of a rapidly developing service: Des bureaux de poste sont créés chaque année : en dix ans, entre 1835 et 1845, leur nombre s’élève de 2 200 à plus de 3 300, ce qui entraîne un remaniement des circonscriptions postales ; près de 10 000 communes sont concernées.47 Epistolary communication can be identified as an emerging form of new political sociability, the study of which has not yet been established. Fragmentation of historical approaches is significant for the creation of a fertile breeding ground for epistolary studies, although they are notable for their absence in the following examples.48 We have already mentioned how Furet challenged traditional Marxists and argued that history should not be interpreted mechanistically in terms of class struggle. Instead he offered a theory about the transmission of ideas in the public space, describing the channels or mechanisms by which the revolutionary ideology came to permeate French society through


cafés, salons, Masonic lodges and sociétés de pensée, and argued that centres of democratic sociability came into being. In addition to suggesting new political spaces Furet’s revisionism set the agenda for a new kind of history scholarship. He challenged historians committed to class analysis to rethink their assumptions and he provoked further questions particularly about gender and about discourse. With her new critique of revolutionary ideology from a gender perspective, Joan Wallach Scott disturbed the allocation of Left and Right etiquettes.49 Traditionally, as Ronald Schechter points out, there were very clear disciplines or fields of inquiry in intellectual, social, cultural, gender or religious history. Nowadays most creative historians have combined disciplines. For example Colin Jones combines economic history with the history of communication and postmodern understandings of political language. Socialists of the July Monarchy engendered the 1848 revolution. Flora Tristan played a role in politicizing future actors of the revolution. Ideas in Tristan’s letters are certainly important for an understanding of the origins of the 1848 revolution. Moreover they illustrate how gendered socialist ideas generated and spread. Schechter’s essay illustrates the differences of interpretation of the precise relationship between ideas and the events known as the French Revolution.50 Relationships between ideas and events are not straightforward. Unlike Furet, Keith Michael Baker criticized historians for treating ideas as though they were objects capable of influencing action.51 He argued that the perceived influence of ideas on events is the illusion of hindsight. For Baker it was the interaction between competing discourses that defined the political culture out of which the Revolution emerged. The gender historian Scott, Schechter reminds us, relied upon discourse analysis for her critique of 1789. Revolutionary discourse defined citizenship in universal terms when it suggested that all individuals were endowed with the right to share in the creation of the laws to which they would be subject, but was contradictory as it suggested it only applied to a certain category of citizen, white men.52 The rather off-putting language of discourse analysis has been criticized for its impenetrability and its lack of concern for action in history. As Schechter indicates, discourse analysis is in danger of reducing the revolution to nothing but a linguistic event.53 While new approaches to history have invigorated epistolary studies it does not follow that there is an obligation to concentrate on a textual analysis of the Tristan correspondence. Defining the political relations between individuals and groups and identifying their ideological and social origins is equally important for our understanding of the corpus.


During the early 1840s socialists were exploring ways of implementing their ideas. They were also defining what they understood by issues such as political organization, rights, socialism and emancipation for women. The main subject of our analysis is the content of the letters wherein there is evidence of political attitudes to Tristan’s ideas and choices of organization and of the self-image of the worker intellectuals. Tristan’s letters are an example of the notion of the creation of a political public space following the Habermas concept, that is, a metaphorical space between the state and civil society.54 In the Habermas definition of l’opinion publique from the eighteenth century onwards there is an emergence of a reasoned and logical political opinion in some political space between the top layer of the formal political institutions already in place and private individuals’ expression of their opinions collectively in public. Letters were created within that privileged political space. The growth of political literacy brings back the essential class question. How did the lower classes become political? Jürgen Habermas’s public space is a useful one for our purpose of defining exactly what Tristan achieved in her letters as une sœur en l’humanité, that is, as a woman political activist. She contributed to the construction of this public opinion.55 Private individuals came together to discuss matters of political importance and eventually to criticize the politics of the state and promote revolutionary ideology. The exchange of the written word, printed and handwritten, was the breeding ground for this cerebral activity that took place in the institutions of salons, cafés, academic associations, reading circles, journals and at a distance thanks to epistolary dialogue. The social space that Tristan created was for correspondents marginalized from the new but mainstream public space culture. In tracing the new history of the history of ideas Schechter shows the versatility of approaches. He recalls the work of Chartier who also considers the public sphere as a crucial object of investigation. He identified discordances between ‘the discourses which present the social world and propose its reorganization’ and the ‘practices’ such as the exclusion of the uneducated from the public sphere which created new differentiations and divisions. Other scholars mentioned for their combination of intellectual and social history by placing the history of political ideas in the context of specific social practices are Daniel Mornet and Robert Darnton.56 The above historical context conveys the shift in focus in historical studies and some of the very complex issues in contemporary and past studies of French politics. In spite of the wide remit the letter genre was not specifically mentioned. Nevertheless in the brief review of


traditional and new historical approaches to the history of ideas, methods applied to the study of political communication open ways of evaluating the study of the letter in Flora Tristan’s politics. We now turn to the politics of our subject and introduce her by demonstrating the interplay of correspondence in her early writing.

Flora Tristan’s political and epistolary apprenticeship Flora Tristan’s politics stem from her merging of personal familial experience with her escape from its domestic constraints by travelling and writing. As a woman traveller–writer she consciously gendered her politics. She sought to express points of conflict in women’s lives in a systematic way and projected her geographical mobility on to political thinking. From her earliest writing she deftly handled class, gender and race tensions in such a way as to deflect from her position as an exceptional woman writer and reflect on the general context. The idea of creating an organization and corresponding with its members came to Flora Tristan at the very start of her writing career. In her brochure Nécessité de faire un bon accueil aux femmes étrangères Tristan put forward a proposal to set up an organization to assist women travellers.57 She presented the statutes of the proposed organization and its remit. An association which provided accommodation, advice, information services and trustworthy contacts would not only free women from present discomfort but would be of benefit to the whole of humanity. Although short the brochure was literally the starting point for Tristan’s politics. It situates her (in her own words) in relation to her contemporary activists with whom she would engage in correspondence some years later. The programme for women was to be more than a practical suggestion for easing travel difficulties. It was her template for political action. Her final work, Union ouvrière (published in 1843 and 1844), was on a grander scale, this time a class-specific project to create a workers’ union. In both cases Tristan was convinced that a single-issue targeted plan was more likely to succeed in obtaining the emancipation and freedom of women than the all-embracing schemes of her contemporaries: ‘Mais le défaut de notre époque est de vouloir trop généraliser : de cette manière, on perd de vue les moyens de réalisation.’58 They are more likely to fail, as they are impossible to implement: ‘On rêve des systèmes parfaits, mais qu’on ne pourra peut-être mettre à exécution que dans deux siècles.’59 Impatient for change in 1835 Tristan reprimanded her fellow socialists who talked about the need for reform but did nothing. Her critique was based on the contrast between on the one hand the increasing social


and economic opportunities for the wealthy few of the new age and on the other the deprivation of the majority and their lack of access to the advantages of progress brought about by economic transformation and the 1789 revolution, two historical landmarks of progress frequently mentioned throughout her subsequent work. She envisaged the opportunities for women’s emancipation with this increase in mobility and internationalism: Mais il serait trop long de vouloir énumérer ici tous les avantages que procurent les voyages, en entretenant des relations continuelles entre les nations, et en hâtant le moment où tant de nations rivales arriveront à n’être plus qu’une seule famille. Les femmes sont aussi une partie active dans les voyages, et si elles ne peuvent pas, autant que les hommes, être utiles à la science, c’est du côté des mœurs que leur esprit d’observation rend leur utilité prépondérante.60 Her gender-specific demand for the inclusion of women in reform remained consistent as it also featured in her project of union ouvrière. In 1835 the Flora Tristan recipe for change was to work out a general rule for her fellow women in the most practicable and inclusive way possible. The benefits of her proposal were not confined to women; one half of humanity was unequal to the other, but it was in the interest of the whole of humanity to reform this unequal relationship. She called upon men to unite: Mes frères, abjurons toute odieuse rivalité, tout égoïsme de famille ou de nation ; que notre volonté ferme et constante nous fasse chercher le bonheur, qui, jusqu’alors, n’a été qu’un rêve, dans l’amour et l’union ! Travaillons-y d’un commun accord, et nous le trouverons. Hommes, nous vous le répétons, nous pouvons faire plus que Dieu ; étendons notre philanthropie universellement, et ne formons plus qu’une seule et même famille.61 Nationalist and internationalist perspectives were an essential part of Flora Tristan’s feminist socialist beliefs from the outset and subsequent to this brochure. Most significantly Union ouvrière calls for an international organization of workers four years before Marx’s Communist Manifesto. The latter makes no reference to women; Union ouvrière includes them at the heart of her programme. In 1843 the call for unity of all workers extended to all social activists who might differ on specific or practical issues. Tristan expected them to


rally in the name of humanity. The political transition from writing the travel brochure to corresponding about a workers’ union took place over nine years of networking in Paris and beyond. In her brochure calling for a reform of society Tristan invited readers to respond by letter to be sent care of her publisher: Les personnes qui désireraient faire partie de la Société pour les Étrangères, et qui voudraient se mettre en rapport avec l’auteur du projet de cette Société, trouveront son adresse chez l’imprimeur.62 The idea of corresponding with persons of like mind was apparently not unusual. The early brochure therefore contains the kernel of her originality: society was unjust and the best way to overturn injustice was through a practical self-help association of solidarity. Although she had turned her hand to other writing genres between 1835 and 1843 Tristan’s method of a creation of a public organization to counter the oppression of an unjust economic and social system was to be consistent. At the same time the trickiest questions for any social activist arose: how to implement reform of society and how to achieve revolutionary change without violent upheaval of the kind experienced in the 1789 revolution. Questions relating to the method of change of society overshadowed the letters she wrote and received. If Tristan’s opinions had already been shaped by the time she published her early travel brochure we have no indication if she received many letters in response to her suggestion for setting up an association for travelling women. In 1835 she was yet to make her reputation. In 1843 the question of the methods of reform still haunted her. The utopia was as elusive as ever. The letters of the earlier period are missing but those of the later period are not. What had altered was that by 1843 Tristan had established her reputation as a writer. As a woman author Tristan the letter-writer now received many answers. Even more significant for subsequent readership the later correspondence has survived. Tristan’s call for progress and harmony among nations epitomized the spirit of her age. This new form of faith in the potential virtue of humanity expressed in the brochure also permeates the spirit of the letters alongside a deep pessimism that reform is impossible. Tristan’s optimistic faith in humanity based on international fraternity was to contrast sharply with the ferocity of the political differences among activists that she encountered: N’étions-nous pas hommes avant que d’être Anglais, Italiens ou Français? Les limites de notre amour ne doivent pas être les buissons


qui entourent notre jardin, les murs qui enceignent notre ville, les montagnes ou les mers qui bordent notre pays. Désormais notre patrie doit être l’univers. Jésus a dit : Vous êtes tous frères ! Faisons que la différence de nos costumes, de nos mœurs, en raison de chaque climat, au lieu d’être un motif de dispute et de haine continuelles, devienne une école mutuelle où chacun ira puiser la perfection.63 The letter would become the ideal vehicle in which contentious ideas could find expression. She presented it as a text within a text thereby retaining her voice as a rhetorical device. Flora Tristan made further use of the letter form in her first major work Pérégrinations d’une paria, a study of unequal relationships and exploitation in Peruvian society. Political relations were further complicated by colonial powers’ gains over indigenous populations: Le Pérou était, de toute l’Amérique, le pays le plus avancé en civilisation, lors de sa découverte par les Espagnols ; cette circonstance doit faire présumer favorablement des dispositions natives de ses habitants et des ressources qu’il offre. Puisse un gouvernement progressif, appelant à son aide les arts de l’Asie et de l’Europe, faire reprendre aux Péruviens ce rang parmi les nations du Nouveau Monde ! C’est le souhait bien sincère que je forme.64 Tristan addressed her preface to the Peruvians in the form of a letter remarking on the unhealthy class divisions: J’ai dit, après l’avoir reconnu, qu’au Pérou, la haute classe est profondément corrompue, que son égoïsme la porte, pour satisfaire sa cupidité, son amour du pouvoir et ses autres passions, aux tentatives les plus anti-sociales ; j’ai dit aussi que l’abrutissement du peuple est extrême dans tous les races dont il se compose.65 She held education as the key reform, crucial for their progress and suggests as much in a formal style that nevertheless brings her close to her audience: Lorsque l’universalité des individus saura lire et écrire, lorsque les feuilles publiques pénétreront jusque dans la hutte de l’Indien, alors rencontrant dans le peuple des juges dont vous redouterez la censure, dont vous rechercherez les suffrages, vous acquerrez les vertus qui vous manquent.66


Having paid homage to the same Peruvians she was about to condemn in her work, she signed off as ‘Votre compatriote et amie, Flora Tristan, Paris, Août, 1836’.67 The letter gave her the opportunity to present an explanation for her rather disingenuous critique: Ceux d’entre vous qui liront ma relation en prendront d’abord de l’animosité contre moi, et ce ne sera que par un effort de philosophie que quelques uns me rendront justice … J’ai vécu parmi vous un accueil tellement bienveillant, qu’il faudrait que je fusse un monstre d’ingratitude pour nourrir contre le Pérou des sentiments hostiles. Il n’est personne qui désire plus sincèrement que je le fais votre prospérité actuelle, vos progrès à venir. Ce vœu de mon cœur domine ma pensée, et, voyant que vous faisiez fausse route, que vous ne songiez pas, avant tout à harmoniser vos mœurs avec l’organisation politique que vous avez adoptée, j’ai eu le courage de le dire, au risque de froisser votre orgueil national.68 When Tristan also included letters relating to personal circumstances in her study of Peru she did so to present a scenario on which she could pass judgement. After visiting the country she found much to criticize. She presented the proposition that Peruvian society was going the wrong way and simultaneously voiced an answer to the counterargument that could be levelled against her ingratitude, that she means only the best for Peru.69 The letter form was therefore a significant cultural entity for her in social and personal documents. We shall never know exactly how Flora Tristan gained her political and cultural education as there is no record of her schooling. Through her travel experiences, however, she absorbed more than new physical sensations: the early examples of letters indicate that she had acquired an ability to write in an organized way, and had had a political education that enabled her to comment on world affairs – on the state of the new world and its relationship to European civilization, on the state of English culture and on capitalism, not to mention her knowledge of France. Take for instance her style in 1837 and 1838 in two letters to an English architect, published in the Revue de Paris. She begins her letter: J’ai trouvé les maisons de Londres bien distribuées relativement aux usages du pays : pour la vie parisienne, elles seraient fort incommodes. Leur extérieur n’a aucun caractère : il faut multiplier les écriteaux, les noms, les numéros et les affiches partout, pour qu’on puisse se reconnaître. Le voyageur né sur les rives du Bosphore, dans


les champs d’Athènes, ou sous le ciel qui inspira Michel Ange, qui arriverait pendant une belle nuit dans une ville anglaise s’imaginerait à voir cette uniformité de constructions, que la cité où il se trouve est une création fantastique de quelque génie morose et mathématicien, et qu’elle est habitée par des automates.70 The points she made were all about her supposed first impressions of London. We do not know how she was able to speak with some authority on English history and architectural history, only that she had visited England as an employee before coming as a freelance visitor with a political agenda. Personal details are banished in the sober style of her social commentary in the letters. She claims to enjoy the immense dimensions of grandeur of the parks and palaces but intends to discuss more than the buildings and public spaces. The critique of English society is the central focus in her architectural study. Behind the façade of magnificent buildings and the model of civil engineering, which Flora Tristan acknowledged to be remarkable, are social and educational deprivation, deep class divisions and poor taste in modern design: Vos parks, situés tous au West-End, paraissent avoir été destinés presque uniquement à l’aristocratie. La partie la plus populeuse de la ville est entièrement privée de promenades. Vos nombreux et magnifiques squares n’admettent dans leurs bosquets que les propriétaires des maisons qui les entourent. Regent-Park n’est qu’une suite de squares, et dans cette immense ville de Londres, Saint-James et HydePark, situés à six ou sept milles du centre, sont les seuls lieux plantés d’arbres où le peuple puisse se promener. D’un autre côté, comme il faut payer pour être admis à voir vos églises ou monumens publics, vos musées ou exhibitions, les ouvriers, les prolétaires, se trouvent exclus de toute communication avec les chefs-d’œuvre des arts. Je crois que cette séparation d’avec tout ce qui est en progrès, ce défaut de contact avec les classes supérieures, maintiennent chez vous le peuple dans la rudesse, et apportent un grand obstacle à ce qu’il se forme un goût national. Vous êtes parvenus, par l’action de vos nombreuses banques, par la division du travail et vos perfectionnemens en mécanique, à fabriquer à meilleur marché qu’aucune autre nation ; mais sous le rapport du goût, vos ouvriers sont inférieurs à ceux du continent, et je viens, je pense, d’en indiquer la cause. Il ne suffit pas d’avoir des écoles gratuites pour les enfans du pauvre ; si on veut réellement leur amélioration, il faut les admettre à toutes les sources d’instruction. A quoi pourrait leur servir de savoir lire, si l’entrée des


bibliothèques leur est interdite ; de savoir dessiner, s’ils ne peuvent se former le goût dans les musées par l’étude des monumens?71 Tristan’s perception about class access to cultural space was even more acutely felt given her revelations about travel as a woman in her early writing. Her critique of the positive and negative aspects of another country is a technique Alexis de Tocqueville was using that same decade. De la démocratie en Amérique contains a veiled indictment of French society. In her articles on London, Flora Tristan did not elucidate why she presented a critique of London in the form of a letter but in her closing paragraph positioned herself the writer as visitor with a fresh pair of eyes: J’avais commencé ma lettre avec l’intention de ne vous entretenir que d’architecture ; mais, étant à Londres pour la première fois, je suis assaillie par une foule d’idées et ne peut m’arrêter à une spécialité.72 This stance is a false one entirely contrived for writing purposes. She was unable to restrict herself to the subject of architecture as she had been to London several times and knew exactly what was behind the lavish exteriors of London banks and industrial machines: power of wealth and the power to exclude. Her letters preceded a longer study of London society. Tristan elaborated on her motivation for writing on such a topic in her preface to her Promenades dans Londres. She warned French workers to avoid similar mistakes. The travelogue, a new form of writing, had been successful for relating her Peruvian travels. In both works she dedicated her work to the very people she was criticizing. Through her travels Flora Tristan was conscious that she had witnessed the modernization of the nation-state system under a liberal democracy. She deduced that progress was impossible within a confined inward-looking nation state but that new ideas in sciences and improved relationships between the sexes could only flourish in an atmosphere of openness and trust between nation states. Included on her agenda was an aspiration to see the abolition of slavery and the oppression of women and an aspiration to an international movement of solidarity and peace. Flora Tristan was not alone in bringing a message of international cooperation and solidarity. The writings of many of her contemporary socialists, now obscure, were imbued with a quasi-religious discourse: Pierre Leroux occupe une place à part parmi les prophètes et les apôtres du socialisme français. Les socialistes de nos jours évoquent


assez rarement son autorité ; il semble que la tendance philosophique de son esprit, son indication mystique, aient détourné de lui des réflexions toujours hâtives des militants, sans pourtant avoir par compensation retenu bien longtemps l’attention des philosophes. Injustes et ingrats ont été ses continuateurs.73 Although she was fluent in the use of religious metaphors Tristan’s style of correspondence demonstrates a practical sense of organization that distinguished her from contemporary idealistic socialists. The link between utopian socialism and internationalism is in some ways much stronger than the links between scientific socialism and internationalism. Certainly each type of socialism developed a rhetoric and idealistic discourse around a topic that became one of the great myths of the Left in the twentieth century. The utopians’ discourse of harmonious relations among classes and nations was replicated in the sentiments that inspired the founders of the Second and Third International Workers’ Associations who relished the concept of universal peace and solidarity. The concept of international fraternity echoed the precepts of the French Revolution and is equally associated with those socialists who contested the selfishness of individualism of the same revolution. The same early socialists who proposed class collaboration strove for cooperation on an international basis as did the later socialists who believed that class struggle would culminate in a final struggle leading to the conquest of power by the international proletariat. The influence of the internationalist and technocrat Saint-Simonians on Tristan is evident from the early work onwards, from the completion of the travel brochure to her correspondence in 1843. At its most idealist and abstract level, the discussion in the correspondence concerns the practical applicability of the ideals of progress and humanity. However other ideals also influenced Tristan. The Saint-Simonian quasi-religious notion of humanity, relating to the wider community, altered as the dialogue progressed. We shall see that the concept of the interest of humanity was displaced by the interests of the particular and the whole working class or le peuple became the focus of interest. At its most practical and mundane the discussion in the correspondence concerned issues among worker activists. This produced a distortion of the ideal of love of humanity. In taking the side of the working class or the people, socialists could develop a hatred for its oppressors, the bourgeoisie. Saint-Simonians had developed what they believed would be a new religion; Christianity was outmoded in the organization of the Catholic Church. It should be the role of the Saint-Simonians to create a new


society to replace the old archaic institutions and outdated beliefs. After Christ and Saint-Simon, Saint-Simonians proclaimed a new international religion and guide for humanity. Technology, enlightened capitalism and the emancipation of women were the new precepts. The leaders of one Saint-Simonian sect went out in search of followers for their new-found truth, going from Paris to the provinces, abroad to the New World and the Old, to Russia and Egypt, in search of new outlets for their spiritual renewal. Although the spiritual renewal remained limited to the select few, this provided the basis for great successful technological collaboration; the future Suez Canal was the outcome. Saint-Simonians were unquestioning in their assumption of the superiority of the French education system. They were part of an age where France was intellectually and scientifically dominant. Flora Tristan was among those who considered the new values of the 1789 revolution to be an exportable asset for emerging nations. She also considered that women and the working class should be entitled to the benefits reaped by the bourgeoisie. In the correspondence of 1843 and 1844, however, the wider horizon was often blotted out by concern for the workers’ ignorance and apathy. International socialism provides an important link between the Tristan epistolary archives and the historical continuity of ideas. Together with his wife Marie-Louise, Jules-L. Puech, who consolidated the archives and kept the memory of Tristan alive, formed part of the pacifist internationalist fraternity of the inter-war period. Marie-Louise Puech corresponded with Beatrice Webb in an effort to track down those persons Flora Tristan met with in London who probably introduced her to the Chartists and the Owenites. Tristan was able to comment authoritatively on their programmes in her Promenades dans Londres. In the same work she mentioned Anna Wheeler on the occasion of her visit to a prison in London. Although crucial for providing introductions or sending messages in support of international solidarity, letters and contacts could be easily self-censored. Flora Tristan left no record of how she knew Anna Wheeler, nor did she really acknowledge her help in her work. Yet contacts made across frontiers of nation states fostered the principle of internationalism in a very real way. A letter illustrates this: Messieurs, Nous suivons avec intérêt et sollicitude la direction pratique que vous avez imprimée aux idées Sociales, et nous désirons depuis longtemps vous témoigner combien nous nous associons de cœur et d’intelligence à tous les efforts que vous faites pour le triomphe des


croyances qui nous sont communes. Un de vos compatriotes qui n’en applaudit pas moins vivement que nous à vos travaux et à vos succès, Monsieur Doherty, vient de nous annoncer qu’il allait se rendre au grand Congrès des Socialistes anglais. Les soussignés saisissant cette occasion avec empressement, chargent M. Doherty dont nous avons pu apprécier le zèle et les lumières, de vous transmettre l’expression de leurs vœux et de leur sympathie. Ils regrettent que le temps ne leur ait pas été donné de faire apposer à côté de leur signature celles des nombreux partisans de votre cause. Nous désirons ardemment établir entre les Socialistes de la France et de l’Angleterre des rapports directs, et nous prions M. Doherty de s’entendre avec vous sur les moyens qu’il y aurait à prendre pour assurer réalisation de ce projet. Vos coopérateurs sympathiques en France. [26 signatures including that of Flora Tristan.]74 The conference to which the letter refers was held in Leeds in May 1840. In the development of feminist and gender history, letters provide vital clues of the networking of activists. In this case Flora Tristan was one of 26 in Paris who followed the Owenite activities with great interest. The letter has been preserved because of this networking. The contents of a letter in the Puech archives in France are illustrative of the fragility of links between generations and across national boundaries. Although the document has a tenuous link with the person of Flora Tristan, there is a direct intellectual and ideological association. The letter dated 8 May 1924 sent from the London School of Economics in London reads as follows: Dear Madame Puech, I very much regret that I know nothing whatever about Mrs. Wheeler to whom you refer, nor do I know of anyone likely to remember the Chartist movement. Yours very truly, Beatrice Webb (Mrs Sidney Webb)75 Searching for past links and points of contact between acquaintances and associations can be futile as the above example illustrates. Nonetheless, thanks to the efforts of Marie-Louise Puech and countless other women, a strong women’s pacifist movement existed in France, after and even during the First World War. It is not by chance that she and Hélène Brion, imprisoned in 1917 and 1918 for her pacifist activities, intent on achieving women’s emancipation for their own generation as well as contributing to the pacifist movement, performed this


role by keeping the collective memory of feminism alive when virtually no one else was interested. Hélène Brion’s work on Flora Tristan is quite inaccurate even in its title, but it did serve the purpose of reminding her fellow socialists that a woman produced a plan for an international association of workers before that of Karl Marx.76 The links between British and French socialists and feminists go back considerably; Flora Tristan was part of the circle of intellectuals who moved from France to England and from one group to another. She was in contact with Robert Owen and his followers, and Charles Fourier and his followers, in particular Pierre Leroux, Victor Considérant, Prosper Enfantin and other leading lights of the burgeoning social movement, with Pauline Roland, Eugénie Niboyet, George Sand and many more leading intellectuals. More significantly for her epistolary dialogue she wrote to the group referred to traditionally by socialist historians as the labour aristocracy, among them Pierre Moreau, Jules Vinçard, Agricol Perdiguier, Jacques Gosset, Joseph Reynier and Louis Vasbenter. By mixing with this elite and by contributing to the proliferation of socialist theories in her writing, Flora Tristan developed her own practical suggestion for implementing the great ‘Social Ideas’ as they were referred to in the letter above: Union ouvrière is the work which contains reference to a great universal association of the working class. The internationalist theme was the central part of a plea for greater freedom for women. While her remarkable journal provides her account of the campaign of 1843 and 1844, Tristan’s letters provide an even closer glimpse of the mentality of this network and an opportunity to judge the response to the harbinger of international socialism.

Methodology in epistolary analysis At first sight methodology in recent epistolary analysis is notable for its absence of prerequisite structures.77 There is scope for creativity, variety and openness of the ways in which scholars present their case studies. Each example of an individual’s correspondence creates its own methodology with the possibility of using a combination of empirical observation, postmodern intertextuality and structural synthesis. Epistolary studies are the beneficiaries of an interdisciplinary approach; the openness makes for an indefinable nature of the genre that compares with the equally elusive task of tracing gaps in epistolary archives. After examining several case studies it is apparent that the genre offers a flexibility of approach unparalleled in analytical writing.78 By definition the circumstances of every set of letters are unique so that the only point


of commonality is that of their singularity. Each set of letters requires a tailor-made analysis found from within the epistolary communication.79 Handwriting varies, as does the writing style of each letter-writer. In epistolary studies practices have evolved from the studies of literary correspondence and other cultural textual analysis. For instance, letters more than any other genre are a site for self-reflection and selfconstruction. They are important for autobiographical studies where the replies from correspondents act as a mirror reflecting the opinions of the letter-writer back to them, thereby testing their self-awareness: The notion that letters have a special function as autobiographical, introspective, revelatory texts has a long tradition … critics therefore often identify how ‘certain letters came to act as key cultural sites for the construction of the self’. However, letters, like any other texts, construct selves in dialogue with others, in particular the perceived recipient.80 Since the epistolary document is a legitimate site for authorship, the letters of unknown letter-writers are worth airing as entities even if through the medium of the central character, Flora Tristan. While some of these literary techniques may be useful here the Tristan political letters have a social entity rather than a biographical one. The style of writing is of significance as a sociolinguistic clue to the cultural identity of the political milieu; the polemical factors that produced the correspondence are of considerable significance. The historical context is vital for an explanation of the politics of these letters. It gives the specificity of the network of Tristan’s epistolary communication and explains the political procedures she established as the correspondence developed. Tristan’s correspondence has a definite cultural hue deriving from the political discourse constructed within the letter space. The extent of political awareness affected the correspondent’s ability to engage in dialogue and sustain discussion. The subject matter was closely allied to the life and experience of the working class, its own oppression. The success of this dialogue depended on the correspondents’ acceptance of Tristan’s identification of the problem and the agenda she wished to impose on them. This was a lot to ask of the relationships established between the correspondents within the epistolary space. The success of the relationships depended on the political forces at work and the socio-economic circumstances.


Letters to Flora Tristan The letters written to Tristan that are the subject of this study are taken from a particular collection and have a specific identity because of the circumstances of their preservation as well as for their content. Established as an archive in Castres in 1990, they were handed over to Eléonore Blanc whose family treasured them (together with Tristan’s journal) and presented them to Puech in 1911 for his historical study of her life and work. The letters and the journal had formed an important combined element in Tristan’s work as she had intended to merge the letters she had received with her diary in a publication of her study of the French working class. However Puech separated the letters from her journal. He sold the manuscript of the diary together with a prepared transcript ready for publication to the Institute of Social History in Amsterdam in 1935 on the understanding that they would publish it. From his own papers it is clear he was extremely upset and disappointed when the Institute misplaced the diary. The 1939–45 war had interrupted normal business; papers had been put into storage as a precaution and somehow the diary was mislaid. In the event the Puech transcript of the diary was not retrieved until after his death in 1956 and published by Michel Collinet in 1973. Perhaps understandably, after his experience with the journal, Puech carefully retained the remaining Tristan papers in his possession and the Puech family handed them to the Centre Jean Jaurès in Castres, his local town. Most of the letters from the Puech archive date from 1843 and 1844 and are written to Flora Tristan. Puech included a selection of these in his biography (18 in an appendix) and cites a further significant number of letters in footnotes. Michaud selected 43 letters to Tristan in his 1995 and 2003 edited collections of Tristan’s correspondence. The 2003 edition has an introduction by the Peruvian author Vargos Llosa and three additional letters to Tristan but otherwise few alterations to the 1995 edition.81 The letters included in the appendix of Puech’s biography, La Vie et l’œuvre de Flora Tristan, are from the year 1843. He was interested in the two-way correspondence to establish the working relationship between Flora Tristan and Parisian workers’ leaders in 1843. This is indeed one of the most intense moments in Flora Tristan’s political campaign. Although there are many letters to choose from, it is impossible to do justice to more than a few. I have found the most pertinent way of examining them in a political context is to follow the moments when Tristan succeeded in producing her book. The correspondence was live


politics. I too have restricted my choice of letters but have included a variety of style. The themes of the surviving 1843 letters to Tristan were around her attempt to organize the publication of her book Union ouvrière and to start implementing its proposal for a new organization throughout France. Through already-existing committees in Paris she suggested forming a committee for the proposed organization also known as the union ouvrière. She used this term therefore in a three-dimensional capacity: the concept, the book and the organization, all referred to as union ouvrière, the workers’ union. It was this three-dimensional political campaign that generated the bulk of Tristan’s surviving correspondence. In contrast to the 1843 letters which only survived because they accompanied Tristan on her tour of France, the 1844 letters were written while on the move. They are in connection with the organization of the campaign tour of towns of France, ending only with her death in Bordeaux on 14 November 1844. She received letters right up until then but no Tristan letters have come to light after the onset of her illness in late September. The first stage of Flora Tristan’s epistolary network began in Paris. With Flora Tristan at the epicentre the letters of the first months of 1843 are from a close-knit community of activists. The number of correspondents was small at this time. This period is characterized by the longest and the most sustained epistolary exchanges. The second stage from June to November 1843 dates from the publication of Union ouvrière and the organization of a song contest. This widens the network when Tristan received letters from a wider group, geographically and politically. This stage is the most conflictual but the most prolific since the letters received and exchanged concern some of the liveliest debates. The third stage is when the epicentre moved around France from April to September 1844. The epistolary dialogue continued in full flow after Tristan left Paris, a strong indication of the efficiency of the French postal service as well as the spread of her influence as she continued to receive letters this time about the organization of her propaganda work as well as about her ideas. During the third stage the hard core of the earlier correspondents from the socialist workers’ network was eclipsed by a new set of provincial epistolary communicators, many of whom were not workers. The geographical mobility generated the need for further correspondence as Tristan organized meetings of key activists and sympathizers in each town and wrote as a follow-up to meetings that had taken place. The final stage was in September 1844 when disciples were corresponding about the success of Tristan’s campaign and reporting on their


need to communicate with one another. Just at that point the epicentre ceased to exist. The Tristan network folded but the individuals continued as political activists as other opportunities arose for political debate and sociability particularly during the heady days of the Second Republic scarcely four years later. The subjects covered in the 1843 letters ranged from the distribution of Union ouvrière to surveys of Promenades dans Londres, organizations of meetings, creations of circles for the union, letters of introduction, praise for the female messiah, disapproval of women in politics and the promotion or impossibility of fraternity of the union. The 1844 letter themes are on the campaign in motion, the power of social, religious and police control of political activism, the illpreparedness of workers to receive ideas and propaganda and respond, the nobility of the task she is accomplishing and, the most vexing for some, the question of the exclusion of the bourgeoisie from the workers’ circles, the implications of political activism for workers. In her diary Tristan referred ninety times to her letters or to the activity of letter writing. She noted her pleasure and displeasure at receiving letters and lamented the lack of time and energy required to keep up the correspondence. The exchange of letters reveals that the religious intensity expressed by Tristan was not uncommon. The revolutionary language of spiritual love of humanity was a shared discourse. Those workers more susceptible to the socialist–religious discourse found a soulmate in Flora Tristan. It seemed to embody a common language across gender and class and was articulated more frequently in the hopes for the future than the more practical question of the workers’ palaces about which the correspondents are more than silent. The euphoric language of le printemps de la fraternité was spurned by subsequent generations of socialists and republicans.82 Tristan has a rare combination of religious euphoria around love of humanity and a practical sense of her organization. It was a necessary ingredient to rally the workers to her cause. Proudhon aptly expresses the cynicism about the lovers of humanity in a letter: Je vois peu de monde et m’éloigne autant que je puis des réunions publiques. Cabet est ici en ce moment. Ce brave homme me désigne déjà comme son successeur à l’apostolat, je cède la succession à qui m’en donnera une tasse de café. Il se prêche en ce moment je ne sais combien d’évangiles nouveaux, évangile selon Buchez, évangile selon Pierre Leroux, évangile selon Lamennais, Considérant, Mme George Sand, Mme Flora Tristan, évangile selon Pecquer et encore bien d’autres. Je n’ai pas envie d’augmenter le nombre de ces fous ; aussi je


produis un effet mirobolant sur ceux qui me voient pour la première fois quand ils viennent à s’apercevoir que j’ai le sens commun.83 Tristan was not alone in acting as a socialist workers’ champion. The letters help us to quantify her contacts. The image of female messiah came from the Saint-Simonians yet there was more support from that quarter for her idea of gender equality in principle at least. The high esteem of Tristan as a woman leader in the correspondence was symbolized in song and maternal imagery. The sociétaires are the most active in looking for financial support and in founding the circles. The letters indicate that there were missed opportunities in Tristan’s politics. How to interpret these is not easy. Puech’s account of the tour de France is based largely on the text of Tristan’s diary although he used an abundance of local newspapers and local archives to verify her visits. When examining the letters in parallel he expected some of her contacts to bear more fruit than they did. For instance he expressed surprise that she did not contact Moreau in Auxerre because the epistolary contact had been so positive. As Michaud points out, however, Tristan and Moreau did not expect to meet in Moreau’s home town when she passed through as he had arranged to be in Paris. Puech would have liked Tristan to have collaborated more with Niboyet. He also regretted the non-appearance of the book she had announced as forthcoming. That she also relied heavily on her contact Perdiguier is mentioned only fleetingly in her diary. The hazard of meetings is put down to failed communication. The missed opportunities are part of the hazard of political communication. Epistolary contact was no guarantee of success. The individual was surpassed by group activity in the publication of Union ouvrière. The task of printing took up a lot of epistolary time and energy in 1843 and 1844, part of the practicalities of the campaign. In her diary Tristan acknowledged the need for contacts: Ce M. Rosenfeld m’est précieux, il n’est pas ouvrier et vit parmi eux, de manière que je m’adresse à lui comme bourgeois et il me rend compte de tout ce que font les ouvriers. Dieux est si bon pour moi il m’envoie toujours de fidèles serviteurs.84 We have the idea of the wording of her letters of request for help from the following draft of a letter: Je viens réclamer de votre bonté vraiment fraternelle, l’accomplissement de la promesse que vous m’avez faite de me donner des lettres


d’introduction faites de manière à m’aider dans la mission apostolique et difficile que je vais entreprendre, je joins ici la liste des villes que je vais visiter – Si par vos amis vous pouvez m’avoir aussi quelques lettres, principalement pour des chefs d’usine, je vous prie de me les avoir c’est un service dont je vous serais très reconnaissante.85 The letters were sent in several social directions, to activists in touch with workers and organizing their own kind of workers’ groups, to bourgeois in industry who would cooperate in her study of the conditions of workers by opening their factory gates to her and to enlightened bourgeois willing to help raise funds and distribute the book. In turn Tristan received letters from a variety of people; paradoxically few of them were genuine workers, as their illiteracy excluded them from this epistolary forum. There were insurmountable cultural barriers between Tristan and those she considered most in need of help. This chapter has discussed the shape of the historical context of French politics during the July Monarchy that determined Flora Tristan’s image as a socialist activist. Revolutionary, democratic and socialist parlance mingled in an increasingly expanding public space where the voices of the little people could be heard. The evolution of historical methods together with the circumstances of the letter archive has ensured further outcomes for Tristan studies. The following chapter continues the study of Flora Tristan’s politics with a qualitative survey of the access to political expression through letters to remote contacts in gender and class terms. Notes 1. See D. L. L. Parry and Pierre Girard, France since 1800, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 53–4. 2. Pierre Rosanvallon, Le Moment Guizot, Paris, Gallimard, 1985, p. 12. 3. See Philip G. Nord, The Republican Moment: The Struggle for Democracy in Nineteenth-Century France, Cambridge, Mass. and London, Harvard University Press, 1995. 4. Rosanvallon, Le Moment Guizot, pp. 13–15. 5. Ibid., p. 12. 6. Ibid., p. 26. 7. Francis Démier, La France du XIXe siècle 1814–1914, Paris, Seuil: Points Histoire, 2000, p. 189. 8. Ibid., p. 207. 9. Ibid. 10. See Maurice Agulhon, Le Cercle dans la France bourgeoise, 1810–1848, étude d’une mutation de sociabilité, Paris, A. Colin, 1977; James Smith Allen, In the Public Eye. A History of Reading in Modern France 1800–1940, Princeton, NJ


11.

12.

13. 14.

15.

and Oxford, Princeton University Press, 1991; François Furet and Jacques Ozouf (eds), Lire et écrire. L’Aphabétisation des Français de Calvin à Jules Ferry, Paris, Éditions de Minuit, 1977; Françoise Paren-Lardeur, Les Cabinets de lecture : la lecture publique à Paris sous la Restauration, Paris, Payot, 1982; David S. Kerr, Caricature and French Political Culture 1830–1848: Charles Philipon and the Illustrated Press, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2000; Jeremy D. Popkin, Press, Revolution and Social Identities in France, 1830–1835, University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002. Alan Baker, Fraternity among the French Peasantry: Sociability and Voluntary Associations in the Loire Valley, 1815–1914, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999; Jean-Claude Caron, Générations romantiques. Les étudiants de Paris et le quartier latin 1814–1851, Paris, Armand Colin, 1991; Jean-Pierre Chaline, Sociabilité et érudition : les sociétés savantes en France, XIXe–XXe siècles, Paris, Éditions du CTHS, 1995; Ronald Gosselin, Les Almanachs républicains. Traditions révolutionaires et culture politique des masses populaires de Paris, 1840–1851, Paris, Éditions l’Harmattan and Sainte-Foy, Canada, Presses de l’Université Laval, 1992; Carol E. Harrison, The Bourgeois Citizen in Nineteenth-Century France: Gender, Sociability and the Uses of Emulation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999. In a study of the café as a social–political venue, Flora Tristan gets a mention as one who recognized its significance for the labouring classes whose poor housing offered them no alternative space. See W. Scott Haine, The World of the Paris Café: Sociability among the French Working Class, 1789–1914, Baltimore, Md and London, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996, pp. 9–10. See Maurice Agulhon, 1848 ou l’apprentissage de la république, 1848–1852, Paris, Éditions du Seuil, 1973. Among the numerous studies of labour movements in nineteenth-century France, for a survey of the evolution of labour organizations see William H. Sewell Jr, Work and Revolution in France, The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848, Cambridge, London and New York, Cambridge University Press, 1980; Cynthia Maria Truant, The Rites of Labor. Brotherhoods of Compagnonnage in Old and New Regime France, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1994; Lynn Hunt and George Sheridan, ‘Corporatism, Association, and the Language of Labor in France, 1750–1850’, Journal of Modern History, 58, December 1986, pp. 813–44. See also Jean-Pierre Bayard, Le Compagnonnage en France, Paris, Payot, 1977; Roger Magraw, A History of the French Working Class, Oxford, Blackwell, 1992, 2 vols; Jacques Rancière, La Nuit des prolétaires, Paris, Fayard, 1977; Claude Willard (ed.), La France ouvrière : histoire de la classe ouvrière et du mouvement ouvrier français, Vol. 1, Paris, Éditions sociales, 1993. A contemporary of Puech produced a comprehensive study of 1830s feminism that emerged specifically from the new socialist movements. See Marguerite Thibert, Le Féminisme dans le socialisme français de 1830 à 1850, Paris, M. Giard, 1926. See also Laure Adler, A l’aube du féminisme : les premières femmes journalistes 1830–1850, Paris, Payot, 1979; Claire Goldberg Moses, French Feminism in the Nineteenth Century, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1984; James F. McMillan, France and Women 1789–1914. Gender, Society and Politics, London and New York, Routledge, 2000.

The Making of a Utopian Correspondent 69 16. See Michel Winock, Le Socialisme en France et en Europe : XIXe–XXe siècle, Paris, Éditions du Seuil, 1992. 17. As an example of such work among many others see Jonathan Beecher, Charles Fourier, The Visionary and His World, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, University of California Press, 1986. Beecher’s objective is to establish a full picture of a complex man and the full logic of his even more complex philosophy and socialist programme, which remained theoretical and obscure although preserved for later generations to interpret. Fourier did not try to create a mass movement, nor did he have extensive contact with his contemporaries. Beecher’s comprehensive study includes detailed annotation of contact between Fourier and his contemporaries, particularly with the Saint-Simonians, and gives a mention of his encounter with Flora Tristan, p. 479. For a similar approach on the Saint-Simonians see Robert B. Carlisle, The Proffered Crown. Saint-Simon and the Doctrine of Hope, Baltimore, Md and London, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987. 18. Marc Angenot, Les grands récits militants des XIXe et XXe siècles. Religions de l’humanité et sciences de l’histoire, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2000, pp. 7–8. See also Jacques Valette et al., Les Utopismes sociaux : Société d’histoire de la révolution de 1848 et des révolutions du XIXe siècle, Paris, CDU and SEDES, 1981. 19. Jean Bron, Histoire du mouvement ouvrier français, 3 vols. Vol. 1: Le Droit à l’existence, du début du XIXe siècle à 1884, Paris, Les Éditions ouvrières, 1968, p. 80. 20. Bron, Histoire du mouvement ouvrier français, Vol. 1, p. 11. 21. Ibid., p. 12. 22. Démier, La France du XIXe siècle 1814–1914, p. 207. 23. Ibid. 24. See Danièle Poublan, ‘Affaires et passions. Des lettres parisiennes au milieu du XIXe siècle’, in Roger Chartier (ed.), La correspondance. Les usages de la lettre au XIXe siècle, Paris, Fayard, 1991, pp. 373–406, pp. 380–1. 25. See Katherine Blunden, Le Travail et la vertu. Femmes au foyer : une mystification de la Révolution industrielle, Paris, Payot, 1982. 26. Jean-Claude Caron, L’été rouge. Chronique de la révolte populaire en France (1841), Paris, Aubier, 2002. 27. See Dean de la Motte and Jeannene M. Przyblyski (eds), Making the News. Modernity and the Mass Press in Nineteenth-Century France, Amherst, University of Massachusetts Press, 1999. 28. For an introduction to his interpretation see François Furet, ‘Interpreting the French Revolution’, in Ronald Schechter (ed.), The French Revolution, The Essential Readings, Malden, Mass. and Oxford, Blackwell, 2001, pp. 35–51. 29. Ronald Aminzade, Ballots and Barricades. Class Formation and Republican Politics in France 1830–1871, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 3. 30. Ibid., pp. 262–3. 31. Ibid., pp. 264–5. 32. The religious inspiration was in fact current terminology as Berenson describes very fully though he ignores the sisterly element. The development of an evangelical Christian discourse was critical for Flora Tristan. See


33.

34.

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

49.

50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

55.

Edward Berenson, Populist Religion and Left-wing Politics in France 1830–1852, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1984. See Mark Traugott, Armies of the Poor: Determinants of Working-Class Participation in the Parisian Insurrection of June 1848, Princeton, NJ and Guildford, Princeton University Press, 1985; New Brunswick, NJ and London, Transaction Publishers, 2001 (with new introduction); Robert Vincent, Les Chemins de la manifestation, 1848–1914, Lyons, Presses universitaires de Lyon, 1996. Roger Gould, Insurgent Identities. Class, Community, and Protest in Paris from 1848 to the Commune, Chicago, Ill. and London, University of Chicago Press, 1995, p. 1. Ibid, pp. 1–2 Ibid, p. 2. Ibid. Ibid., p. 3. Sewell, Work and Revolution in France, pp. 194–5. Gould, Insurgent Identities, p. 18. Ibid., pp. 19–20. Andrew R. Aisenberg, Contagion, Disease, Government and the Social Question in Nineteenth-Century France, Stanford, Calif., Stanford University Press, 1999, p. 1. Aisenberg, Contagion, Disease, Government and the Social Question in Nineteenth-Century France, pp. 13–14. David Vincent, The Rise of Mass Literacy. Reading and Writing in Modern Europe, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2000. The same goes for literacy providers and statistics. See Vincent, The Rise of Mass Literacy. Cécile Dauphin, Pierrette Lebrun-Pezerat and Danièle Poublan, ‘L’enquête postale de 1847’, in Chartier (ed.), La Correspondance, pp. 21–119, p. 27. Ibid. I have used the following recent review of historiography of the revolution which summarizes some of the most significant developments in history in recent years and recalls some of the traditional approaches: Schechter (ed.), The French Revolution. The Essential Readings. Schechter, The French Revolution, p. 6. Other gender history scholars Schechter does not mention are Joan Landes, Sheila Rowbotham and Barbara Taylor. Schechter, The French Revolution, p. 10. Keith Michael Baker, ‘On the Problem of the Ideological Origins of the French Revolution’, in Schechter, The French Revolution, pp. 55–74. Schechter, The French Revolution, p. 11. Ibid., p. 13. The seminal work of Jürgen Habermas, that has been influential on many scholars, is Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit, Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, Neuwied, Hermann Luchterhand Verlag, 1962. Landes has already taken Habermas to task for the absence of a consideration of gender relations in this space and used Tristan as an example of someone who contributed to a gendered construction of the public sphere. See Joan B. Landes, Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution, Ithaca, NY and London, Cornell University Press, 1988, pp. 189–200.

The Making of a Utopian Correspondent 71 56. Schechter, The French Revolution, p. 17. 57. Flora Tristan, Nécessité de faire un bon accueil aux femmes étrangères, Paris, 1835, édition présentée et commentée par Denys Cuche, Paris, L’Harmattan, 1988, pp. 56–7. 58. Ibid., p. 56. 59. Ibid. 60. Ibid., p. 69. 61. Ibid., p. 83. 62. Ibid., p. 85. 63. Ibid., p. 83. 64. Flora Tristan, Pérégrinations d’une paria 1833–34, Paris, Indigo & Côté-femmes éditions, 1999, p. 8. 65. Ibid., p. 7. 66. Ibid., p. 8. 67. Ibid. 68. Ibid., p. 7. 69. Rhetorical devices in the letters correspond to those presented by Marc Angenot in political brochures. See his La Parole pamphlétaire, Paris, Payot, 1982 and 1995. 70. Flora Tristan, ‘Lettres à un architecte anglais’, Revue de Paris, Vols 37–8, 1837, pp. 134–9, 280–90, p. 139. 71. Ibid., Vol. 38, pp. 287–8. 72. Ibid., p. 290. 73. Jules-L. Puech, ‘La Tradition socialiste en France et la Socété des Nations’, Paris, Garnier Frères, 1921, p. 11. 74. Letter aux Socialistes de la Grande Bretagne, meeting in Conference, from Paris, 11 May 1840, cited in Stéphane Michaud, Flora Tristan, Lettres, réunies présentées et annotées par Stéphane Michaud, Paris, Seuil, 1980, pp. 121–2. 75. Fonds Jules-Louis Puech, Bibliothèque de Castres, France. 76. Hélène Brion, Flora Tristan, la vraie fondatrice de l’Internationale, Époˆne, Seine et Oise, L’Avenir Social, 1919. 77. For case studies of political letters see Caroline Bland and Máire Cross (eds), Gender and Politics in the Age of Letter-Writing 1750–2000, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2004. 78. There is a long tradition of collection, preservation, publication and translation of correspondence since the history of writing began. Limiting the study to the context of the nineteenth century one can find many examples at all levels of society. Although of interest in different ways, edited collections of letters exist of both leading and obscure figures in politics and the arts. While the letters of the famous speak for themselves or serve as background, the genre has also enabled scholars to rescue figures from obscurity, in particular radical women. See Christoph Lohmann (ed.), Radical Passion: Ottilie Assing’s Reports from America and Letters to Frederick Douglass, New York, Peter Lang, 1999. The healthy state of contemporary epistolary studies is testimony to the fact that there is an intrinsic interest in collections of particular and unusual settings. See for instance, Christian Garaud and Janine Irigoin (eds), Une amitié de jeunesse : 148 lettres inédites (1886–1900), Berne, Peter Lang, 1999; Virginie Buisson, Lettres retenues. Correspondances censurées des déportés de la Commune en Nouvelle-Calédonie, Paris, Le Cherche


79.

80.

81.

82. 83. 84. 85.

midi éditeur, 2001. For the use of letters in a biographical study of nineteenth-century romantic artist Fromentin see Barabara Wright, Eugène Fromentin: A Life in Art and Letters, Oxford, Peter Lang, 2000. Having attended two excellent conferences on letters, in Warwick in 1996 and in Paris in 1997, in search of a ‘ready-made’ recipe or a ‘safe environment’ in which I could place my sample of letters I concluded that this question, and that of potential comparison with other correspondence, was not an appropriate starting point. See Rebecca Earle (ed.), Epistolary Selves: Letters and Letter-writers, 1600–1945, Aldershot, Ashgate, 1999; Sonia Anton, ‘La lettre, approches pragmatiques’, Compte-rendu of conference organized by José-Luis Diaz and Jürgen Siess, Association interdisciplinaire de recherche sur l’epistolaire, Revue de l’Aire, 23, automne–hiver 1999, pp. 58–9. Christa Hämmerle in Bland and Cross, Gender and Politics in the Age of LetterWriting, p. 202, refers to Carolyn Steedman, ‘A Woman Writing a Letter’, in Earle, Epistolary Selves: Letters and Letter-writers, pp. 111–34. For a recent novel of Flora Tristan and Paul Gauguin’s life stories told in parallel with chapters alternating between each life and where the Tristan diary is the main source of inspiration see Mario Vargas Llosa, El Paraíso en la otra Esquina, translated from Peruvian Spanish by Albert Bensoussan assisted by Anne-Marie Casès as Le Paradis – un peu plus loin, Paris, Gallimard, 2003. See Marcel David, Le Printemps de la fraternité : genèse et vicissitudes, 1830–1851, Paris, Aubier, 1992. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Lettre à M. Maurice, datée de Lyon, 27 juillet 1844, Correspondance, Vol. II, Paris, 1875, p. 130. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France. Journal inédit 1843–1844, Préface de Michel Collinet, Notes de Jules-L. Puech, Edition de la Tête de Feuilles, 1973, p. 14. Draft of a letter without an indication of the intended addressee, written on the back of a letter sent by M. Brisson, Ponts et Chaussée (Civil Engineer), Saint Quentin, dated 14 February 1844, Fonds Puech, Castres.

3 Speaking from the Heart: The Dichotomy of the Letters in the 1843 and 1844 Correspondence

… nous ne savons point faire de belles phrases mais c’est notre cœur qui parle. (Letter from Martin Legrain to Tristan, 23 July 1844) In Chapter 1 a case has been made for studying Flora Tristan’s politics outside the biographical framework but within the specific context of her correspondence. It was suggested that the epistolary framework could also provide the necessary methodology. In Chapter 2 the historical context of Tristan’s nomadic politics is described as the ‘breeding ground’ for the correspondence. This third chapter examines the discourse of the epistolary exchanges in a selection of Tristan’s correspondence. As this study is aiming to move beyond both the Tristan-centred biographical approach and the history of the major thinkers of utopian socialism the discursive content of the letters is invaluable; even with gaps they are evidence of the immediate impact of a campaign at a very precise moment in grass-roots socialism. The letters are the archaeological site for the mentalities of her correspondents. As with the remains of ancient history the letters give us fleeting glimpses, producing as many questions as answers. The Tristan letters are communications about a shared experience in worker militancy. More formal than conversations, their discourse about politics is nevertheless on a personal level. The personalities of the letter-writers shine through their styles; the activist’s letter is not as spontaneous as a friendly epistle: composed to compensate for a physical separation it can reveal an ideological or social gulf. In Flora Tristan’s 73


case, the class and gender distances from her correspondents became apparent in the discourse of the ‘written conversations’ that gradually unfolded in her letters. The correspondents used a rhetorical style to enable them to cross the class and gender boundaries. The addresses by many complete strangers to Tristan about her work were motivated by theoretical interest in her work and by practical matters. The Tristan political letters rarely mixed another register. No questions pertain to leisure or friends; no passing remarks about the weather. Enquiries about her health only began when her illness became an issue for the progress of the project in the autumn of 1844. Discussions about the theoretical and practical implementation of the project are the overarching themes. In her correspondence dating from early 1843, Tristan, the successful author of Pérégrinations d’une paria and Promenades dans Londres, was writing begging letters. First, as she was conducting research she wished to obtain recently published works by reformers on the proposals to form workers’ groups. Second, she required contacts in organizations. Tristan’s imperious style clashes with her dislike of being in a position of requiring help. As soon as she had acquired her information to assume a knowledgeable position her outlook on the question changed and she considered herself to be the expert; by the summer of 1844 she wrote to her disciple Eléonore Blanc in Lyons to give advice on reading specifically for political training. The transition in her role from student to expert did not take long. Soon she was telling workers what to do and think. The response from the worker correspondents is eloquent in diplomacy dealing with Tristan the mother of humanity. With their specific epistolary style the letters could not in any sense be considered literary; many of the writers were barely literate. The precise textual outline, however, enabled even the least literate to respond to Tristan’s request for assistance. The following example is one of the least sophisticated letters Tristan received. The French is regional (spelling, capitalization and punctuation in everyday use in the French language was not standardized until the end of the nineteenth century) yet their practice of exchanging letters is clearly an established one and there is a collective decision to act immediately. As soon as these Compagnons received a letter from their fellow workers in Paris telling them of her visit, they wasted no time in proposing a meeting with her: Madame Nous avons l’honeur de vous écrire aux sujet d’une Lettre que nous avons reçu de nos compagnons de Paris qui nous fait un sensible

Speaking from the Heart 75

plasir en aprenant que vous désiriai voir les compagnon charpentiers de Bordeaux : Insi Madame nous sommes en atandant votre visite dont vous nous ferez un grand plesir de nous voir d’après ce que nos frere de Paris nous ont écris insi nous somme en atandant votre visite cest après midi sur les trois ou quatre heure nous vous prions de nous excuser si nous vous avons pas fait reponce plutot car nous avons recu la présent léttre que dans la matinée nous sommes en vous atandant nous avons l’honeur de vous saluer Compagnons charpentiers de Bordeaux.1 The Bordeaux Compagnons were clearly as anxious to contact Tristan and meet her as she was to meet workers face to face. A second example of nineteenth-century regional or colloquial nonstandard style was also written on behalf of a group. It reports on the idea and disagreement about class collaboration within the workers’ circles formed to promote Tristan’s union ouvrière. The letter is cited verbatim from the original manuscript to give an idea of the sociolinguistic regional and colloquial shape of the discourse: Madame tristan Je voudre vous esprimer les mot que je vous adresse dune manière plus convenable, mes malheureusement je ne le puis Je [illegible] encor à Marseilles à la fin dout jai toujours été presen au reunion qui ont ulieux en votre presence & à votre apcence, pour lors j’ai connu de tout cequil sé passer Des affere mon force de venir abité toulon le premié jour de mon arive jai été che no frere unioniste. il mon reçu dun chœur qui les quarecterisa tous. vautre Belle idee de lunion leur fai déployer toute leur amitié fraternelle. nous avons reçu une lettre de vous qui nous a coses Bien de charme den les loyal paçage de vous continuon chaque jour nous les aprecion que mieux. nous avons vu avec pene que nos frere de telle telle ville malereusement non pas su comprendre que vous voulé leur Bonneur il faux espere que plutar il reviendron de leur ereur.2 A diplomatic transcription into contemporary French reads: Madame Tristan Je voudrais vous exprimer les mots que je vous adresse d’une manière plus convenable, mais malheureusement je ne le puis. Je serai encore à Marseille à la fin d’août. J’ai toujours été présent aux réunions qui


ont eu lieu en votre présence & à votre absence, pour lors j’ai connu de tout ce qu’il s’est passé. Des affaires m’ont forcé de venir habiter Toulon. Le premier jour de mon arrivée j’ai été chez nos frères unionistes. Ils m’ont reçu d’un cœur qui les caractérisa tous. Votre belle idée de l’union leur fait déployer toute leur amitié fraternelle. Nous avons reçu une lettre de vous qui nous a causée bien de charme dans les loyaux passages de vous. Continuons chaque jour nous les apprécions que mieux. Nous avons vu avec peine que nos frères de telle et telle ville malheureusement n’ont pas su comprendre que vous voulez leur bonheur. Il faut espérer que plus tard il reviendront de leur erreur. Bordure was reporting to the author of the beautiful idea cited in the discussions that took place in his group after Tristan left his town of Toulon. He was clearly enthusiastic and committed to continuing her work, persuading his fellow activists to accept the terms of membership of the circle. The letter is mostly taken up with that question with one telling opening sentence on the author’s expression of his stylistic limitations. We can deduce that membership of the new circles was a contentious issue: the author is intent on conveying the message to Tristan and not by his writing style. The correspondent provides evidence of the expanding access to forms of sociability in meetings for those who had the means of literacy. They needed to convey the result of their deliberations. We find similar enthusiasm expressed in an eloquent style from a more scholarly correspondent: Madame J’ai l’honneur de vous adresser une [section] du journal où se trouve le 1er. article du compte-rendu de l’ouvrage sérieux dont je vous ai parlé. Vous le lirez, et demain j’attends vôtre critique. Quant à moi, je suis très heureux, Madame, d’avoir eu l’occasion de me rapprocher de vous, ou l’on rencontre une âme ardente pour le bien, et un esprit assez élevé pour montrer à ceux qui souffrent, la lumière qui doit les sauver ; je sympathise avec l’idée féconde qui préside au magnifique plan que vous nous proposez. à coup sûr, Madame, le palais de l’industrie qu’il s’agit d’édifier sera une des plus puissantes créations de l’esprit humain et l’honneur le plus grand dont la civilisation des temps ait jamais pu se glorifier … Tout cela sera à vous, Madame, je comprends tout le dévouement qui vous anime, en vue d’une mission et si haute et si sainte. Veuillez agréer ici Madame, les hommages respectueux avec lesquels j’ai l’honneur d’être vôtre tout Dévoué Le Dctr. JULES DAMIAN.3


The doctor correspondent hails Tristan as a fellow philanthropist in particular for the proposal for a palace to house the young, the old and the infirm. He echoes terms used by Tristan when referring to her political engagement, a saintly and noble mission. This rhetoric pleased Tristan; she would have been even more pleased if the worker activists would treat her with such deference. More interestingly for us, worker activists responded to ‘Madame’ in their own fashion and retained the class distance in subtle ways. The political letter includes dialogue from all political terrain, both formal and informal, the pays légal, the pays réel, from the marginal perspective and the view from the centre, from the loyal to the subversive voices in politics. However, these areas are usually segmented just as the marginal voices of Tristan’s correspondence did not frequent the social circles of the members of parliament. Furthermore the activists were minor figures on the edges of socialist politics. A letter from the context of the pays légal – written by a member of the executive, legislature or judiciary, by a centrally based ruler of a state or of government, by a civil servant or by an elected member for parliament – was related to the shoemakers of Marseilles writing enthusiastically to Flora Tristan only to the extent that they were communicating ideas about the political processes in its widest meaning. The term ‘political’ is related to all matters pertaining to the question of power relationships and the distribution of power in society and the desire to influence any decision-making process in political and socio-economic relations. The exchange of letters has always been an inherent part of politics: official communication over a distance between individuals and organizations has been the norm for business and state affairs and state politics as far back as ancient history. The nineteenth century in France saw impressive changes that impacted on political letters: the rapid extension of literacy over a short period, the creation of a nationwide public postal service and the extension of politics into the abstract imagined community of the lower classes whose forms of cultural and political expression had hitherto rarely been written down or heeded. In January 1843, when Tristan had decided to move to direct action in the socialist milieu, the process of writing was her strongest weapon but she needed to do more than find a reading audience. In her search for disciples she created a public stage for her message in an epistolary forum. In our time we have no difficulty in imagining the concept of creating a virtual community of correspondents over the Internet. As a known writer Flora Tristan succeeded in eliciting a response from a close-knit community of leading worker activists and like-minded


thinkers. She had acquired a literary reputation but this was not sufficient for her satisfaction. She had a restless political yearning to embrace a worthy cause, feelings she had expressed in the first of her surviving political letters addressed to Fourier in 1835 and on which occasion there is no record of a response. By 1843, however, Tristan succeeded in establishing and sustaining a dialogue over 21 months. In his biography Puech stressed that evidence of her works based largely on autobiographical material must be taken with some qualification. Although he cited many letters as evidence of the progress of her apostolate, he suggested that she was as interested in this role for its virtue as for the happiness of the workers: Les lettres qu’elle … écrivait sont très émouvantes, quand on se représente la réalité des circonstances : Flora Tristan se dévoue, mais elle s’admire de se dévouer à ce peuple « si brute, si ignorant, si vaniteux, si déagréable à frayer, si dégoûtant à voir de près ». (Journal, 16 avril 1843)4 He saw the letters as remarkable but his main interest was to detect her original way of thinking and to find commonality and differentiation among thinkers. However, given the lack of evidence he recognized the futility of such a speculative undertaking and suggested: Au lieu de rechercher ce qu’elle put recevoir de chacun d’eux, ce qui d’ailleurs expose à des suppositions fallacieuses, nous verrons, à propos de tel et tel objet, les conceptions qu’elle en retient et si celle-ci nous rappellent les conceptions d’autres penseurs.5 The same doubt surrounds the letters that survive. Speculation is tempting because of gaps in knowledge of the grass-roots activists in comparison to the major socialist thinkers, Fourier, Saint-Simon and Owen. In addition to gaps in our knowledge, ambiguity and uncertainty surround what has actually survived. Puech noted for instance that none of the activists who had encountered Flora Tristan in 1843 or 1844 mentioned her in their memoirs.6 She had made a brief appearance in their lives but not a lasting impression. A letter could be highly significant for one correspondent and insignificant for another.7 Grogan recognized the hazard of speculation in her assessment of the surviving correspondence between Tristan and Olympe Chodzko.8 The problem for the would-be epistolary scholar is that there is no


way of assessing the representative accuracy of the surviving correspondence: Tristan’s relationship with Olympe was one of the most interesting of all her friendships. However, trying to understand what Olympe meant to Flora poses a particular problem. The apparent intimacy between them may reflect Olympe’s special place in Flora’s life. Alternatively, it may reflect the chance survival of an unrepresentative collection of correspondence which gives it an exaggerated importance compared to other relationships … If letters from later years have almost certainly disappeared, then, so too, have letters from other friends.9 Grogan rightly reminds us of the impact on any analysis of the haphazard nature of epistolary survival and of the limitations of reading a partial correspondence: We are left with a glimpse into moments of a particular friendship which leaves much hidden, about this relationship as well as others.10 However, taking into account the missing evidence, the letters are the authentic and direct voice of the writers at a very specific moment of their political engagement and whose words were not otherwise read or heard. The letters give subjective impressions. The Compagnons from Bordeaux and the doctor from Montpellier expressed their enthusiasm for Tristan in different ways. The question of ‘subjective’ or biased opinions in the letters about Tristan and by Tristan remains but is viewed rather differently from when the letters were first read. Puech considered that the diary and other autobiographical sources that survived provide a biased view of Tristan’s ‘feminine’ outlook. His interpretation of her unreliability of judgement was part of her ‘female’ weakness. In his preface he stated: Les documents autobiographiques y sont d’un intérêt primordial. Malheureusement il n’est guère possible de les accepter sans réserve. Inédit, le journal intime que Flora Tristan semble avoir redigé toute sa vie ne nous est pas parvenu dans son ensemble ; elle en a utilisé une partie dans certains de ses livres mais c’est ici qu’il convient de se montrer circonspect et quelque peu sceptique ; la véracité de Flora Tristan y apparaît parfois douteuse ; sa mentalité, son sexe, son


tempérament, les circonstances la portent trop souvent à voir la réalité sous un certain angle qui peut-être la déforme.11 The contemporary biographer enjoys the challenge of deconstructing such personalized accounts, ‘deformed’ texts. The specific angle that Puech took for female unreliability reveals more than Tristan bargained for and is of the greatest interest because it reveals the mentality of the correspondents that is otherwise no longer accessible. With their specific discourse about a woman trying to gain access to a socially different world the letters’ view is partial, but therefore unique. Michaud discusses the tension in the relationship between Tristan and her correspondents where class and gender differences are bound to clash: Le heurt est rude. L’aristocratique Flora, « paria-archiduchesse » disait Ganneau, ne tolère aucune objection. Elle ne les sollicite que pour mieux accabler le correspondant dont la bonne foi s’est laissée surprendre.12 Unlike Deroin, Pauline Roland and Niboyet who were more accepted by the proletarian milieu, Michaud sees Flora’s fiery temperament and aristocratic origins as a barrier to making close alliances with her targeted audience: fermée aux voies propres de l’association ouvrière, rebelle aux lenteurs de la démocratie, insensible enfin aux remontrances amicales comme à l’ironie affectueuse de ses partenaires, la messagère s’épuise à crier à la vanité.13 While the letters indicate that the particulars of Tristan’s personality are inseparable from her treatment of her correspondents, this chapter encompasses the social and gender gulfs between Tristan and her correspondents as it was verbalized by both sides. The personalities of Tristan’s correspondents are portrayed equally by the discourse of the letters. The replies to her programme for a workers’ union include letters of all hues, strongly either supporting or condemning her politics but in every case vindicating her style as a letter-writer. Political discourse thrives on disagreement. Flora Tristan provoked strong reactions as the responses to her letters indicate. There are various ways of searching the content of the letters for signs or clues about the meaning of the relationships between Tristan and her correspondents. It is harder to present a definition of, to typify or


schematize a Tristan letter. It is easier to eliminate what Tristan correspondence is not. The letters do not fit into the category of the imaginary literary genre such as the epistolary novel – Balzac’s Mémoires de deux jeunes mariées – or the satirical strategy of philosophers – Pascal in Lettres provinciales, Montesquieu in Lettres persanes, or Voltaire in Lettres philosophiques. Whether imagined or real, letters share the traits of literary texts and of pragmatic approaches that treat them as a flowing text between at least two parties: a written conversation. We can therefore analyse the interaction between correspondents as a political encounter. The specifics of Tristan’s project produced a focused yet multi-toned conversation between herself and several correspondents, many of whom knew one another, with the result that the responses were equally focused and yet diverse in reactions. Although concerned with abstract notions of politics, the letters contain intense emotions: there is irritation or even anger, rejection, pessimism, optimism, eulogy, and a desire to be coherent and knowledgeable. Indifference to Tristan can be eliminated, as political apathy is the antithesis to the writing of a political letter. As with political meetings these records of ‘written meetings’ had a variety of outcomes: agreement or disagreement. Since we are not in a position to know how incomplete or complete the letter archive is, we can only judge the surviving letters as a possible representative selection of reactions. Negative and positive reactions to her programme created opportunities for additional letters. Either the writers wrote to disagree in which case other letters were exchanged to debate this disagreement, or delight in the common cause elicited further harmonious correspondence. As a result the political epistolary relationship was cemented by meetings and practical action was organized. In many cases the letters give an indication of the outcome, whether positive or negative. Where there are letters, therefore, we are in a position to read the texts and to assess their outcome. The certainty of reading the texts of correspondence that exist is in sharp contrast to the uncertainty of the missing letters. Speculative suggestions could be offered as to why any correspondence strand fizzled out, whether because of an impasse in a proposal or discussion or a missed opportunity to continue the political relationship or simply because of complete disagreement. In political terms speculation could give completely the wrong picture of the development of political alliances and ideas. In literary textual analysis an imaginary reading of a letter could become part of the interpretation of the text. In politics however, for the purpose of an archaeological dig, it is preferable to avoid imaginary or speculative conclusions. The study is focused on a close reading of the existing letters.


Dimensions of political letters to a woman activist Let us start by contextualizing briefly the limitations and possibilities of the political letter for a woman activist in mid-nineteenth-century France. The use of the letter in politics has altered as often as has the term ‘political’. State censorship of correspondence played an important part in controlling content and expression of any person suspected of subversion. Take the example of Manon Roland’s political correspondence from 1790 to 1793 to illustrate another example of a political letter that has acquired a new significance with the development of gender terms of analysis.14 Although supposedly behind the scenes as she had no official role in politics, Manon Roland’s relations with leading Girondins thrust her to the heart of politics, chiefly through her epistolary activity. In turn she was subject to state control whereby her letters were heavily censored but not destroyed. The result for us is a unique witness to a significant moment in French history through the eyes of an outsider who was a close spectator of events. Brigitte Diaz introduces her thus: Elle accède à la politique par la médiation épistolaire puisque son sexe, elle le sait, lui interdit toute action directe dans les affaires de la cité. Et quand l’obscure citoyenne qu’elle était deviendra l’épouse du ministre de l’Intérieur et la campagne de lutte des apôtres de la République, la lettre restera, du moins le prétend-elle, la seule modalité d’action politique qu’elle s’autorise.15 Manon Roland’s letters comment on events as they unfolded at dramatic moments of the revolution. She wrote about political repression closing in on her family on 5 September 1792, year IV, from Paris: Nous sommes sous le couteau de Robespierre et de Marat ; ces gens-là s’efforcent d’agiter le peuple et de tourner contre l’Assemblée nationale et le Conseil. Ils ont fait une Chambre ardente ; ils ont une petite armée qu’ils soudoient à l’aide de ce qu’ils ont trouvé ou volé dans le chateau et ailleurs, ou ce que leur donne Danton qui, sous main, est le chef de cette horde. Croiriez-vous qu’ils avaient lancé un mandat d’arrêt contre Roland et Brissot, comme suspects d’intelligence avec Brunswick, et qu’ils ont été retenus que par une sorte de crainte ? Ils s’en sont tenus à vouloir mettre les scellés sur leurs papiers … ils se sont contentés d’emporter les lettres en anglais qu’ils n’avaient pu entendre. S’ils eussent exécuté leur mandat d’arrêt, ces


deux excellents citoyens auraient été conduits à l’Abbaye et massacrés avec les autres.16 In this example Manon Roland was writing to Girondin allies in the provinces begging them to come to the rescue of their Parisian compatriots. In the end the provincial help was not forthcoming. State control of papers included deep suspicion of personal correspondence particularly where travel was concerned as the Roland and Tristan experiences testify. In Roland’s case the possession of letters in a foreign language was enough to arouse suspicion. When Tristan was travelling through provincial France organizing meetings of workers she became the object of suspicion to local authorities whose task it was to keep the peace. In theory individual freedom was considered to be an inalienable individual right by 1844. However this did not extend to the practice of correspondence when Flora Tristan found herself subject to political censorship in Lyons. Naturally she wrote a letter in protest to the editor of a leading newspaper that published it on 12 May 1844: Je viens vous prier de vouloir bien me prêter l’appui de votre journal pour faire connaître un fait qui m’est personnel, et cependant qui peut être considéré comme général, puisque en moi la liberté individuelle se trouve attaquée. Jeudi matin, le commissaire de la police centrale s’est présenté chez moi porteur d’un mandat de perquisition. Il s’est emparé de tous mes papiers, manuscrits, lettres à moi adressées, et jusqu’à celles que j’étais en train d’écrire à deux de mes amis.17 In Tristan’s case the severity of the police brought dividends: publicity in the press and sympathy from unknown supporters who, inspired by Union ouvrière, informed her by letter of their desire to contribute to the cause: Madame, Votre admirable petit volume sur l’Union Ouvrière m’est tombé, hier, entre les mains, par le plus grand des hasards. – Je l’ai lu avec le plaisir le plus vif. – Pendant le cours de cette lecture, je n’avais qu’un désir, celui de vous voir le plus promptement possible, pour vous demander la permission d’unir mes faibles efforts dans cette généreuse entreprise, à la puissance des vôtres. – Le livre achevé, je courus chez vous, rue du Bac. – Comme je le craignais, on me dit que vous étiez absente … M. Laure eut la bonté de me donner votre adresse. J’en profite aujourd’hui … J’ai lu, avec peine, dans les


journaux, que la police avait visité vos papiers. J’espère qu’elle n’y aura rien trouvé qui pût l’inquiéter. – Il me semble que votre intention est de laisser la politique en dehors de l’Union Ouvrière ; et c’est, bien certainement, le parti le plus sage. – … Combien je serais heureux de vous voir, de vous demander quel sont les moyens de travailler, sous votre direction, à votre œuvre généreuse !18 In the following example a Lyons correspondent reflected on the question of individual freedom that the police raid had raised: Madame J’ai appris hier par les journaux que vous aviez eu à Lyon, une visite domicilaire. Cela est fâcheux dans l’intérêt de la cause que vous servez, parce que désormais, la police se mêlera de toutes vos démarches. Mais cela est un avertissement, qui, je l’espère, n’aura pour vous et pour vos amis aucune suite désagréable, quoiqu’il arrive, recevez l’assurance de mon amitié sincère, et de la sollicitude que votre situation exposée me fait ressentir. Vous êtes au commencement des mille tracasseries et des mille entraves qui obstruent le chemin de l’apostolat.19 In contrast to Tristan’s publicly expressed indignation where she claimed her right to privacy for her papers, the correspondent offers a word of political caution. Suggesting that Tristan was risking her political freedom by campaigning in France he sympathized but warned that she should expect to be pestered by setbacks and disturbances of such kind in her apostolate. After all political freedom was not a luxury the governments of France were prepared to tolerate given the nature of their fragility. It was not in the interests of the government to grant political freedom of expression, even in correspondence. Assuming that it did exist elsewhere in another age or in another country he warned: Nous ne sommes pas dans un pays où l’on puisse librement parler au peuple, ainsi que cela se fesait autrefois dans l’Orient, et même à Rome sous les Empereurs. Ce qui est possible en Angleterre ne l’est pas non plus en France ; et malgré tout son génie, O’Connell n’eût pas fait chez nous un meeting, sans rencontrer au second un commissaire de police et une escouade de sergents de ville. Voilà le terrain sur lequel vous marchez ; et cet état de choses n’est pas près de finir : car plus les gouvernements se succèderont avec rapidité plus ils enchaîneront la liberté individuelle et politique, crainte de renversement.20


He reminded her of the political limitations of the workers’ abilities directly related to the rate of literacy. Access to written forms of political discourse was through a network that excluded workers: Le seul moyen de prédication libre qui nous reste, c’est la Presse, et malheureusement, le peuple, l’ouvrier, ne peut pas s’abonner aux journaux, et ne va pas dans les cabinets de lecture. Aujourd’hui, pour communiquer avec le peuple, pour catéchizer en grand, il faut être riche et user sa fortune à imprimer et à distribuer gratis, des livres et des journaux. Autrement, la masse populaire ne sera jamais qu’une poussière incohérante et vile, foulée aux pieds de tous les fripons et de tous les tyrans. Je crois encore que les révolutions matérialistes n’aboutiront à rien. En ne prêchant que le bonheur de la terre, en n’excitant que la fureur de la jouissance, on trouve des bêtes féroces affamées, mais très peu de héros et de martyrs.21 The workers are represented in a specifically political way, merged here alongside ‘le peuple’. The person writing is assuming the role of intermediary between Flora Tristan and the intended audience of ignorant workers who cannot possibly read her works. The bulk of the letters are situated at this level; somewhere between the activist prima donna and the masses are a network of correspondents interpreting the works of the utopian socialist thinkers and their applicability. While Tristan was indignant about the freedom to correspond politically in private, reactions from her correspondents to political militancy were different: they were only too conscious of betrayal by agents provocateurs. The ending of this example is indicative of the question of mutual trust and confidentiality required for epistolary communication to function successfully among like-minded activists in a politically repressive regime, though admittedly not as draconian to its enemies as the 1792 regime. The letter-writer astutely put two messages into one in his postscript. He wanted to place the messenger above suspicion and for a good reason. Trust was needed among contacts in the exchange of letters. Second, he was sending another helper for her cause: Celui qui vous remettra cette lettre est un de mes amis, honnête et galant homme, Veuillez le recevoir avec bienveillance.22 From the address on the letter we can also deduce that it was delivered by hand to Tristan. As a result of the fear of political repression some groups were more on their guard than others about the possibility of


political machinations. Tristan found herself outmanoeuvred in Lyons during her brief absence from the city when she went campaigning in Saint-Étienne and Roanne. Accusations of spying and slander against Tristan arose with the result that a bitter argument took place among her Lyons contacts. In the account in her diary Tristan ensured that she had ‘the upper hand’ in the affair. She was in the right, a victim of slander. Her voice was superior to all other voices speaking to the workers and the stupidity of the workers had them taking the side of the journalist who had been suspicious of her motives. Furthermore her endurance of politicians’ pettiness and workers’ imbecility crucified her. In the following extract of her diary it is clear that she had prepared to make public in her little book her version of events: Il se passe au sujet de cette calomnie de Rittier quelque chose d’épouvantable comme inintelligence du peuple. – Que Rittier, qui est furieux du succès que j’obtiens, me calomnie, cela se conçoit qu’il ne voie pas qu’en disant que je suis une agente secrète du gouvernement – il fait acte d’imbécilité, cela se conçoit encore. Les petites passions vaniteuses et méchantes privent l’homme de son bon sens le rendent imbécile et insensé. – Mais que les ouvriers, eux qui n’ont aucun des motifs qui aveuglent Rittier, eux, ajoutent foi aux calomnies de Rittier, qu’eux après m’avoir lu et surtout entendu ! puissent une seconde penser que je suis une agente secrete, cela, voyez-vous, dépasse en inintelligence, en imbécilité, en aveuglerie tout ce qui a pu être imaginé jusqu’à présent ! – Ah c’est de pareilles gens que j’ai mission d’éclairer ! Oh ! Jésus, mon pauvre frère, que tes grandes douleurs doivent te sembler petites comparativement aux miennes ! … On a décidé que j’irai lundi chez Rittier avec les ouvriers. J’y vais non pas pour faire plaisir aux aveugles qui veulent que je me défende de cette absurde accusation, mais seulement pour donner à la calomnie de Rittier une certaine consistance afin de pouvoir prouver sa bêtise, son aveuglement, dans le petit livre. Il vient de dire à Castel qu’il est furieux contre moi parce que je viens empêcher la révolution, qu’avec les prêches pacifiques je viens châtrer les ouvriers de Lyon et autres stupidités de ce genre.23 (Emphasis added) The exaggeration in her discourse about the workers underlines the essential fact for us, the depth of Tristan’s illusion about her messianic role. She considered she was above workers and other activists on her political wisdom and above Jesus in her martyrdom. Although she was


free to divulge her opinions about activists and the workers in her journal, however, she could not censor the letters she received other than by destroying them. She retained the letters and annotated them in a similar frame of mind to when she was arguing with Rittier. There is a shared similarity of intimacy between political letters composed in response to events as they unfold and the same events written up contemporaneously in a diary. However, unlike memoirs written after the event, the letter-writer is the insider and composing a text to be read instantly. The content is related to the present context. For that reason the correspondent is as partial as the memoir-writer or would-be historian. However the political letter is focused on the immediacy of the task in a unique way. The political letter begins from nowhere and has no precedent or ending planned. The readers of epistolary collections, however, have the benefit of hindsight. This knowledge highlights our understanding of the text. In the case of revolution we are only too aware of the fact that Manon Roland, together with her Girondin friends and Jacobin enemies, would not be rescued but would finish on the guillotine in 1793. In Tristan’s case we know that her influence as a personality faded in spite of the strength of her conviction that she was a political force to be reckoned with. History relates much about the political fate of the project of the workers’ union: the right to work became a key demand of the Left in 1848 and was inscribed into the reform programme of the new Second Republic after Tristan’s disappearance.

Historical dimension of Tristan’s political letters Despite the difference of historical context between letter-writers as political observers such as Manon Roland and Tristan, they share a common intensity of concentration on their self-defined role or the task defined by others. Tristan was not a key witness to momentous political events in France to the same extent as was Manon Roland in 1789. She attempted to become a political actor, however, seeking dialogue and sharing her passion for politics with other women who also had similar reasons for letter writing: political passion, political journeys – in their case exile and prison – and political involvement. As a result of their political activism some letters of Deroin and Pauline Roland, actors in radical movements of the 1848 revolution and Second Republic, survived.24 Louise Michel corresponded copiously as a Communarde and anarchist activist during the early decades of the Third Republic.


Since Flora Tristan was politically active within the lifespan of one regime, the July Monarchy, her letter-writing era under consideration was one of relatively stable but conservative politics of a restrictedsuffrage constitutional monarchy. Significant change was afoot in economic and social relations however. Her radical politics belong to social movements, the undercurrent of party politics, known as le mouvement social in contemporary France. Although there were political changes of regime during her lifetime Tristan did not set down observations of the 1830 revolution, as that preceded her politicization. She did refer in derogatory terms to the government leader François Guizot and King Louis-Philippe but as a marginal she was sceptical of the relevance to workers of party politics of the regime that had been established in 1830. Her criticism of the political establishment is more vociferous in her diary where the acrimonious attacks focus on those upholding the status quo as well as those fellow campaigners for the cause of the workers. Tristan also denounced less tangible political concepts of greed, exploitation, poverty and ignorance. Although she would always remain a marginal in politics, by 1843 Tristan’s political agenda was not as an onlooker but as a would-be actor. Through her own political education she was aware of the importance of Manon Roland’s part in the revolution and recommended her memoirs as essential reading to her pupil Eléonore Blanc: vous commencez donc par l’histoire de la révolution de 89 – Il est urgent de la connaître parfaitement ! et pour cela il faut l’étudier dans les journaux et écris du tems. – Lisez donc le Moniteur, le père Duchène et tous les petits journaux de cette époque – les écrits de Marat, de Robespierre, de St Juste, etc, etc. … Il ne faut pas oublié de lire les mémoires politiques de Madame Roland.25 Nevertheless, the focus of the Tristan correspondence was not on the political stage of revolutionary politics, neither was it on the stage of any formal constitutional definition of legal representation and government of the status quo. It was centred on a social welfare programme of self-help for the immediate alleviation of poverty of those excluded from any formal political actions. At least one correspondent, Hugont, read more into the project than Tristan intended. The formation of a workers’ union could be the power base from which to demand reforms of a democratic nature: à l’union ouvrière la mission de nous apporter tout ce qui manque, à elle la mission de faire tomber les haines et les rivalités les unes contre


les autres, à elle à nous instruire à nous moraliser, car qu’est ce qui nous fait regarder avec mépris ce que nous devrions honorer, ce n’est que le manque d’instruction qui nous abrutit, donc quand elle sera constitué, qu’elle aura détruit les préjugés et le fanatisme, nous pourrons réclamer le droit au travail et l’organisation du travail, nous pourrons réclamer le vote universelle et nos droits de citoyen et quand une voix un million de fois répétée sera entendu : liberté, égalité pour tous, au peuple le droit de vote, ces hautes sommités sociales trembleront et se hateront d’accorder notre demande. Alors il ni aura plus le motif plausible pour nous oter nos droits nous aurons une instruction à notre porté qui nous mettra à même de juger ceux que nous nommerons pour nous représenter devant la nation … Laissez donc préparer le peuple, faites donc une révolution par l’intelligence si vous voulez obtenir des résultats satisfaisants et durables, enfin, etc.26 He connected the rights of man, the right to work and the right to vote, with the essential right to education. He emphasized the distance between classes by evoking the suspicion with which the educated treated the ignorant masses. The destructive rivalry among different socialist projects that Tristan had witnessed in Paris and Lyons should be driven away by the workers’ union. He advised her to contribute to the enlightenment of the people as the most effective way to obtain satisfactory results in her activism. The right of citizenship would be achieved through education. The term le peuple is specifically mentioned as political currency for the masses, the intended targets for her project. In the examples of letters and Tristan’s diary cited so far opinions were strongly expressed in relation to Tristan’s position. Using a rhetorical style of rights the latter correspondent nudged Tristan’s workers’ union beyond the organization of labour to a wider perspective that she would not entertain. The writers saw their relationship with Tristan as one clearly distinct: the ‘nous’ is clearly a demarcation in class terms. The letters using ‘nous’ came from individuals and from groups. The letters’ formal style, similar to a public speaking style, made them appropriate for public consumption. Since the practice of sharing letters was current and reading them aloud was a common form of sociability, the content of the letters was also shared and their mood often reflected a group impression. In contrast to the abstract and impersonal nature of Tristan’s correspondence, the letters of another marginal epistolary network are highly intimate. With its emphasis on personal and social regeneration the Saint-Simonian movement put a further significance on circulating


letters in order to maximize readership and to add meaning to gestures, as Bernadette Louis points out: Il était habituel dans le groupe saint-simonien de faire circuler les lettres, et de les recopier partiellement ou intégralement pour en donner lecture à un tiers, pratique conforme aux tentatives de transparence relationelle.27 The Saint-Simonian correspondence provides evidence of their attempts to put into practice their new theories of social regeneration. The followers grouped around the Polytechnicien Enfantin who had pronounced a new emancipatory role for women and their emancipation from former subjugation as the Saint-Simonian legacy made a practice of publicly exchanging letters. Earlier the Saint-Simonian newspaper Le Globe had solicited letters from correspondents on social questions. For the Enfantin followers economic and political considerations were given second place in their correspondence. By way of comparison with the Tristan correspondence there is a similar concentration and intensity of purpose in these letters as they are focused on the newspaper and the leader Enfantin (and pivotal figure in many of the confessions) also channelled much of the correspondence. However, many of them are highly introverted, focusing on the intense personal relations among the group.28

Response to Flora Tristan’s letters While we cannot be sure if Tristan retained all her letters, particularly from those who criticized her severely, there is sufficient evidence in the archived correspondence to know that she retained some fault-finding letters. The majority of correspondents wrote to contribute something even if only to qualify her points or reproach her for inaccuracy. The letters can be taken as un bloc to the extent that they were written during a relatively short period to one activist about her specific proposals. Nonetheless opinions stated in one letter are highly individual and each one representative of a very specific political position. Where there is common ground is where the correspondents saw themselves in relation to Tristan and her attempt to gain access to their world. The ‘nous’ was quite specific as we shall see in the following example. Vasbenter wrote to Flora Tristan in June 1843 in answer to the request for his opinion on her proposal for a workers’ union. Here we have an


example of one of the longest and most sophisticated letters Tristan received and the most articulate in political terms. A printworker member of the Lyons committee of Moreau’s Union, he was one of the first to support Proudhon from among militant ouvriers. Subsequent to writing to Tristan he was expelled from Lyons for leading a strike and led the left wing of the Parisian printworkers against the Atelier group. He played a leading part in the Paris riots of February 1848 that led to the overthrow of the July Monarchy. He ran the paper Le Représentant du peuple, was imprisoned under the press repression laws and exiled to London after the 2 December coup where he worked with Leroux, Louis Blanc and Martin Nadaud to achieve socialist unity over and above divisions among the many socialist sects. It is obvious from the opening lines of the following example that he considered Tristan’s project as one among many: n’étant jamais resté indifférent aux systèmes posés tant de fois pour améliorer la condition précaire du travailleur : vous même, Madame, comptant sur moi pour vous aider dans votre œuvre.29 Vasbenter’s reply to Tristan was measured and cleverly argued. He gave a methodical account of his disagreement. Vasbenter was very dubious about the feasibility of a unified organization and the potential success of an altruistic notion as a rallying force: N’en appelons donc pas au dévouement, toutes les oreilles resteraient sourdes. Appelons-en à l’égoïsme et vous verrez se mouvoir, tressaillir contre cette masse inerte. Je n’entends pas dire que l’on doive renoncer à la régénération au contraire, mais il faut cacher le but afin de n’effrayer ni les faibles, ni les puissants, ni les trembleurs … Chercher le but à l’aide des moyens, c’est là le problème.30 Practical incentives were needed to entice support for the implementation of her project rather than expecting the workers to answer a call for union. Other broader themes were of equal concern to him: the question of suffrage and women’s role in public. In her programme Tristan had proposed an equal role for genders but did not address the question of universal suffrage. Instead she had proposed one defender for the working class. Vasbenter disagreed strongly on these two issues of principle. In his letter Vasbenter began by establishing the class distance of their correspondence. For Vasbenter, Tristan, like the Saint-Simonians, was an


outsider to the working class with whom he clearly identified judging by his ‘nous’: votre livre sur l’union ouvrière qui m’a donné une preuve touchante de vos sympathies pour nous.31 The ‘nous’ expressed his strong class identity but he had to treat carefully the lady author who believed she was coming to rescue the workers. The fact that she had written a union proposal had made it obvious that she discounted anything that had been proposed previously as inadequate. Her scheme had been attacked and Vasbenter was prepared to defend her: Peiné mais non surpris de la manière peu convenable par laquelle vous avez été reçue par les hommes qui marchent en tête de la démocratie ; indigné de la conduite récente du journal l’Atelier à votre égard, je me suis doublement cru autorisé à venir protester contre de pareils procédés, tout en me réservant la faculté de vous dire franchement mon opinion sur votre projet.32 This was a gentle opening gambit as Vasbenter was about to give Tristan his own critique. In a disarming manner he further ensured he would not cause offence by heightening his working-class origins. The rhetorical device of creating the illusion of a lack of eloquence was to stress that Vasbenter was far from illiterate as the letter illustrated to great effect: J’ose espérer, Madame, que vous ne prendrez pas en mauvaise part mes observations. Si parfois, dans l’exposition qui va suivre, je m’écartais de la modération dans la forme, oh ! Madame, excusezmoi ! Ouvrier de très bonne heure, je n’ai pas eu le temps d’apprendre à donner à mes phrase les tours de rhetorique ; je ne connais d’autre langage que celui qui est inspiré par une forte conviction.33 Having begun with a fine example of a captatio benevolentiae, he then proceeded to dispute totally the basis of her book and programme: Je suis en désaccord complet avec la base de votre système. – Aujourd’hui, il y a deux écoles bien distinctes : l’école politique et l’école sociale ; toutes deux semblent vouloir marcher l’une sans l’autre, et c’est un grand tort.34


He believed that suffrage reform was vital ‘pour sortir de l’impasse’ of increasing social and economic inequality. Her mistake, he said, was to ignore that question: ‘Que peuvent les réformateurs sociaux sans les réformateurs politiques ? Rien.’ More seriously he found her wanting in her understanding of the question of property and inequality. Vous reconnaissez le droit de propriété foncière, de propriété du capital ; vous en concluez à la propriété des bras : selon cette [idée?] génératrice, c’est tout à fait logique. Mais à présent, reste à prouver si la propriété est dans les conditions d’une organisation sociale juste, équitable.35 For Vasbenter Tristan was correct to identify property as the source of injustice: Si nous voyons bien, et vous l’observez vous-même dans votre ouvrage, la propriété se constitue, s’améliore par le travail de l’ouvrier. Or, si l’ouvrier constitue la propriété, l’améliore, ajoute à sa valeur, qui profite de cette constitution, de cette amélioration ? A coup sûr, ce n’est pas l’ouvrier.36 He gave clues about his knowledge and culture when he compared Tristan accurately with other leading thinkers. He remarked on the similarity of her suggestions for a redistribution of wealth with the maxims of Saint-Simon and Fourier. None of them was attacking the root of inequality. Vasbenter’s sophistication of debate was quite exceptional: Vous établissez pourtant en principe l’inégalité de traitement. Vous dites, à la page 40 de votre livre : « il est temps enfin qu’on en vienne à rétribuer les services selon leur utilité ». N’est-ce pas, sous une autre forme, la maxime de Fourier : « à chacun selon son capital, son travail et son talent », ou encore l’axiome semblable de Saint Simon : « à chacun selon sa capacité, a chaque capacité selon son œuvre ». Est-il possible de se tromper sur cette interprétation ? n’est-ce pas l’inégalité des conditions proclamées ? Et l’état actuel, qui est l’inégalité, n’est-il pas l’état le plus injustifiable ?37 While he wanted more radical reforms to eradicate the exploitation of the workers he was adamant that social and political questions should


form part of the same campaign: Mais il faut absolument que les novateurs en matière sociale ne séparent pas leur cause de celle des novateurs politiques. L’exclusion doit se blâmer, de quelque côte qu’elle vienne.38 Vasbenter’s letter is radical in political terms and reveals a complex understanding of the issues at stake. We must apply the understanding of politics of the time when we come to understand the contradiction in his political thinking that reflects common thinking of the time.39 Adamant though he was about the merging of social and political issues in the struggle against exclusion he was equally adamant against a public role for women: ‘Je proteste contre l’exercice public de son autorité’. He considered that a woman’s role was in the home but that she should not be entirely subjugated to a man: La vie de la femme est la vie de ménage, la vie domestique, la vie intérieure. Non que je prétende qu’elle doive servir en esclave son maître, non qu’elle soit entièrement soumise aux volontés de l’homme, à ses caprices, loin de moi une pareille idée.40 He condescendingly agreed, however, that women’s education would be beneficial for the amount of intelligence she possessed: Comme vous, Madame, je comprends tout le bien qui résulterait d’un nouveau système d’éducation et d’instruction pour la femme. L’instruction qu’elle reçoit actuellement est pitoyable. Comme vous je crois que la femme possède une grande somme d’intelligence.41 Furthermore, he said, in her role as an educated housewife, a woman would not be subservient to her tutor, and could exert a positive influence in her own right but within the family boundaries: Par sa nouvelle éducation, par une instruction large qui la rendrait égale à l’homme, elle exercerait sur lui une légitime et salutaire influence et, ses idées ne différant guère de celles de son tuteur, il n’y aurait pas asujetissement pour la femme à ce que l’homme la représentât, du moins tacitement, devant la socété civile.42 After pronouncing his opinion on the woman question and condemning her to a shadowy home existence, Vasbenter moved on to the


next questions. He disagreed strongly with the appointment of a defender to represent the workers in parliament. This was not democratic, he argued. Furthermore he dismissed the use of Daniel O’Connell as a role model: his campaign for enfranchisement of religious dissenters including Catholics in Ireland could not be compared to France where a whole class was disenfranchised and where national unity was not the same problematic issue. He considered her suggestion for the provision of old-age pensions as unappealing for the workers who lived for the moment and did not plan for the long term: A l’heure qu’il est on ne calcule guère pour la vieillesse, pour l’infirmité, on est venu à un scepticisme poussé jusqu’à l’imprévoyance. L’actualité voilà le fait, l’avenir vient après.43 Vasbenter was a most articulate correspondent. His letter was a highly sophisticated response far removed from the ignorant mass of workers. His worker persona is a social construct. His awareness of the consequences of Tristan’s proposals was sharp and he had a clear idea of where he disagreed with Tristan. The letter form facilitated his opportunity for stating his disagreement without ceremony and without inhibitions. By contrast Tristan’s comments on his letter are almost perfunctory and, more seriously, she falls into the trap of judging Vasbenter in the manner in which he had portrayed himself: Voici un garçon qui n’est pas bête, et qui cependant n’a pas compris un mot de mon idée – Je suis persuadée que si je lui parlais, je lui ferai comprendre – Ces pauvres ouvriers ils sont tellet [tellement] habitués à se considérer comme rien dans l’Etat, qu’ils ne conçoivent pas comment ils pourront se constituer.44 She treats him condescendingly as a ‘garçon’, inferring he is one of those stupid workers, when clearly he is not. She would have preferred to exercise her charms of persuasion in a face-to-face meeting with him. She claims his lack of ease is a lack of confidence. The letter conveys confidence, however. Vasbenter’s discomfort was at the beginning of the letter when he was preparing to dare to contradict the lady bountiful who was not one of his class. He had clearly found a voice to demand rights for workers in mainstream opposition political discourse of social republicanism and not in the margins where Tristan’s scheme would have him stay. From Vasbenter’s second letter to Tristan the following year in May 1844 we read that he found the differences between them


too great and in the most formal and correct manner declined to meet her when she was in Lyons: Vous voudrez bien m’excuser si je ne me rends pas à votre gracieuse invitation. Ne partageant, sous aucun point de vue, les idées que vous émettez dans votre livre; ne pouvant en aucune manière participer aux projets qui sont le but de votre voyage, je crois devoir m’abstenir de tout entretien qui pourrait vous faire perdre un temps utile. Toutes les objections que m’avait suggéré votre ouvrage, je crois les avoir communiquées dans la lettre que je vous écrivais, il y a quelques mois. Depuis ma manière de voir n’a pas changé.45 Vasbenter is a realist; he wishes to spend his time usefully. He makes it clear that he is not a man of passion. Here there is a clash of reality versus utopia: Mes idées, en fait de réformes politiques et sociales, étant le résultat de la réflection et de l’étude, et non du sentiment, je vous prie de croire, Madame, que rien de ce que j’ai lu de vos théories ne saurait ébranler mes principes. Ainsi Madame, excusez-moi de vouloir éviter une entrevue qui n’amènerait aucun rapprochement entre nous.46 This time he specified the greatest point of difference between them, the political question. In answer to this refusal Tristan scrawled a cryptic and condescending comment on his letter, ‘Cette lettre est délicieuse – c’est bien d’un républicain.’ Her name-calling of an activist who turned his back on her project implies much that is unsavoury for the image of the woman messiah that Vasbenter has simply not swallowed. There is no mention of Vasbenter in her diary although there are frequent references to activists with whom she strongly disagreed. By then Tristan had encountered republican democrat groups which were campaigning to get support from ‘the people’ or ‘workers’ for the cause of masculine suffrage. From the above examples we can see that Tristan had a social construct of the worker. She used the term to imply a social distance between herself and her correspondents when there was a lack of ideological empathy. Vasbenter used it in a different manner; as a term of social identity he was proud of being a worker. The style and sophistication of the content of Vasbenter’s letter indicate clearly that the term ‘worker’ is more complex if ambiguous in terms of political literacy in correspondence. It draws attention to the fluidity of class and political literacy. On the one hand are the illiterate masses unable to partake in


political discussions by reading and writing, exploited as workers, remote from socialist politics but the object of their attentions: on the other the articulate socialist worker, self-educated, speaking from experience, who distrusted the attentions of an ideological and passionate outsider such as Flora Tristan. We can contrast the focus of the realist Vasbenter with a rather different, equally lengthy letter that articulates a very different style. Compare the clarity of Vasbenter’s realism with the exalted tone of Lallemant who is illogical, obtuse and absorbed in religious sentiment, but no less committed to broadcasting his principles. Both debate crucial concepts that had a significant influence on Tristan in different ways. Little is known of this cloth merchant from Dijon. His first of three letters to her began thus: Madame Si j’étais philantrope, je vous dirais que la fonction que vous vous êtes choisie, vous conduira à la gloire la plus éclatante ; et j’assaisonnerais mes compliments des louanges les plus hyperboliques, que je puiserais dans le dictionnaire si le cœur me faisait défaut. Mais je ne suis pas philantrope ; je vous dirai donc simplement que la portion de votre carrière où vous entrez si franchement, m’apparait comme la phase de votre vie où vous jouirez le plus de ce bonheur que les chrétiens espèrent dans l’autre vie.47 Like Vasbenter, Lallemant distances himself from Tristan by claiming he is not what she is, a philanthropist. He compares Tristan’s work with that of her contemporaries: car vous êtes dans le vrai, car le peuple vous attend : car vous accomplissez l’œuvre grande, sainte, divine, conçue par les révélateurs : L’association universelle car votre plan renferme : La fraternité universelle selon Jésus ! L’amour universel selon Enfantin ! L’association universelle selon Fourrier ! L’unité universelle selon Dieu !48 However, there the similarity between the two correspondents ends. Lallemant places Tristan on a remote pedestal as if she were a Jeanne d’Arc or a Madonna figure. Instead of criticizing the practicalities of Tristan’s idea he sanctified it: La contemplation de la face de Dieu ! car Dieu est vrai, juste, grand, universel : Dieu est bon, aimant, harmonieux. Et ce que vous entreprenez est vrai, juste, grand, universel, bon, aimant, harmonieux ! Car Dieu


a foi en lui, Dieu est libre ; Et vous marchez avec votre foi et dans votre liberté ! … Oui ! Madame, c’est dans votre foi que vous devez puiser vos inspirations, c’est aussi dans votre foi que vous trouverez votre récompense. Avec la foi, vous ferez le tour du monde ; avec la foi, vous remuerez le monde ; avec la foi vous pourrez changer la face de l’humanité.49 He equated her role with one or two historic martyred leaders: Cependant, je ne vous dirai pas, marchez le succès est certain ; car si je sais ce qu’un homme peut faire, comme par exemple : Jésus qui expire sur un gibet, Enfantin qui dépose humblement le travestissement dont il s’était affublé à Ménil-montant Napoléon mourant sur un rocher. Un roi pressurant son peuple travailleur, pour répandre ses faveurs sur un peuple oisif.50 Contrary to Vasbenter, Lallemant welcomed the role of a woman leader but only within a gender-specific role and attached to genderspecific values. Manly values being associated with military values of honour and glory give freedom; women’s attributes of love and faith are quite different but nevertheless somehow bring freedom: Si, dis-je, je sais ce qu’un homme peut faire à lui seul ; j’ignore complettement ce qu’une femme peut faire toute seule, surtout quand elle marche comme vous, Madame, avec sa foi, dans toute sa liberté. … Un jour le hazard me plaça en face de l’héritier de la couronne, je lui dis que la devise d’un homme devait être : Honneur, Patrie, Liberté ! Aujourd’hui, je n’aurais pas la force de dire cela â un homme, tant cette belle maxime est impuissante chez l’homme pour le bonheur du genre humain. aujourd’hui, je n’ai que le courage de dire aux femmes : Amour, Foi, Liberté !51 The discourse on sentiment was the nurturing ground for Tristan’s passion for the working-class cause. In a similar manner to Vasbenter women are allotted a social role. Amongst the screeds he had written on faith and love of humanity Lallemant did mention the term ‘workers’. For Lallemant they are almost indistinguishable from a more abstract but equally oppressed people. Lallemant tries to bridge the class and gender gap between eux/‘them’ and nous/‘us’ by mingling them in with ‘peuple’: Voilà votre devise, Madame, elle est écrite non sur votre écu, vous n’avez rien à combattre : mais elle est gravée dans votre cœur car vous


avez beaucoup à aimer ; et vous aimez les ouvriers et les ouvrières, vous aimez le peuple : le peuple, c’est le mendiant et le roi ; le peuple, c’est la reine et la prostituée ; le peuple, c’est vous, moi, eux tous.52 Having presented the image of the loveless and leaderless crowd he encouraged her to set out on her journey of faith and love. Tristan’s love for humanity would suffice to overcome any hurdles: Partez, Madame, partez ! les ouvriers et les ouvrières vous attendent : partez, et travaillez sans relâche ! partez, Dieu est avec vous ! A vous et à toutes les femmes je souhaite Liberté, foi et amour. C’est tout ce que peuvent faire les hommes en général, et en particulier Votre serviteur LALLEMANT.53 Tristan found the letter from Lallemant to be of symbolic importance as it was the first one she had received since the start of her tour of France. She identified immediately with the missionary zeal of the letter by using similar discourse: Cette lettre est la première qui me soit adressée depuis ma mission apostolique sur mon œuvre et elle vient d’un homme et d’un St. Simonien. – Ceci est un fait remarquable et bon à mentionner.54 In addition to Tristan’s comments written directly on to the letter, she left an indication of her reaction to Lallemant the Saint-Simonian in her diary: Pérelle, l’ouvrier saint-simonien de Lyon, connaît Lallemant, le marchand de toile de Dijon, ce sont des fous aux yeux de leurs contemporains et dans l’avenir ils seront considérés comme des hommes supérieurs ayant compris les premiers l’avènement de la femme. – Honneur aux fous !55 Significantly she did not record the receipt of her letter from Vasbenter. However she did comment at length on her encounters with the democrats during her tour whose politics she claimed to despise. Indeed she was highly critical of their pursuit of political reform in preference as a tactic over social reform. The two examples presented give an indication of the key terms in the discourse of some of the letters sent. It is important to recall why Vasbenter would take the trouble to write to Tristan when he disagreed so radically with her programme. Although he disagreed with the idea of


women in public affairs he replied because she mattered politically. After all she was already an established intellectual figure in socialist circles in Paris. While it is true to say that Flora Tristan was embarking on a new political campaign and moving into the new territory of socialist militancy, her condemnation of the exploitative class system in England had gone before her in her publication of Promenades dans Londres. We have seen that she had established her reputation with Parisian socialists and workers who could read. For some correspondents the new work she proposed was an extension of her successful study of society in London. The ideal correspondent was fully informed of this context. From Lyons, journalist Reynier wrote: permetez-moi de vous remercier de l’attention que vous avez eue que de m’adresser votre Brochure, je vous en remercie. Je puis vous assurer quelle est entre bonne main. Depuis longtemps, l’auteur des Promenades dans Londres avait aquis toute ma simpatie, et sans vous connaitre je m’étais déjà classé au nombre de vos admirateurs.56 Furthermore Reynier clearly understood the implications of a woman venturing to take on the combined task of liberating women and workers: Jai compris Madame tout ce qu’avait d’énergie et d’indépendance un cœur de femme qui n’a pas craint de briser les entraves et les préjugés dont son sexe est en bute chaque fois qu’il veut sortir de la sphère Etroite de la famille, du ménage, ou notre société batarde la tient comprimé, pour soccuper de la grande et pénible tache de l’affranchissement de la femme et du travailleur.57 In receipt of such encouragement Flora Tristan valued these letters and intended to exploit them as further material for her propaganda work as well as evidence for her research on the politicization of the working class. Convinced of the worthiness of her new-found role and of the recognition workers would grant her as a saviour, she was optimistic that further letters would be forthcoming and formally recorded their reception as the start of something unique. On the second letter from workers that Tristan noted in her diary from Gosset dated 22 January 1843, Tristan numerically incorporated her own comments within the text: Madame, Je ne sais comment vous Exprimer le regret que j’Eprouve de ne pouvoir me rendre aujourd’hui chez vous ainsi que me


l’indique votre honorée. le premier instant que j’aurai sera pour aller vous remercier du Courage que vous avez eû de me lire. (1) Comme vous me le dites, croyez madame que L’ors-qu’il s’agit d’amélioration sociale Si je ne sais un ne peux me faire comprendre qu’imparfaitement mon Cœur est animé du meilleur instinct c’est pourquoi j’Eprouverai un Grand plaisir à vous communiquer a vous (2) femme de Génie qui s’interesse a l’humanité tout ce que je n’oserais Ecrire dans crainte de critique (3) Je suis avec le plus profond Respect Madame votre tout Dévoué et Respectueux serviteur J. Gosset.58 Tristan referenced her comments to them as follows: (1) cette phrase annonce de la modestie l’est-il réellement ? (2) il y a la de la flatterie je n’aime pas cela – (3) ici je trouve de la vanité c’est mauvais.59 The correspondents who took the time to write to Tristan had various ways of coping with her forceful personality. Rather than form the close alliance that she supposedly sought they maintained their independent position by using a ceremonial style in their letters. Their rhetorical discourse maintained the formality required between hard-nosed realists and an intellectual Parisian who had suddenly taken an interest in their affairs. Tristan’s method of responding to her correspondence was not systematic. Intent on using the letters as material she had to find tactical ways of coping with criticism when it occurred. By the time she received Vasbenter’s critical letter there was no going back. She had set up an epistolary dialogue with activists who had already formed their own versions of socialism and as a result held strong views, whether in agreement or in disagreement. The community of individuals was determined to preserve its political identity particularly when exchanging letters. Let us turn now to the general features of the corpus of letters.

Epistolary community of support The first most singular characteristic of the correspondences is the compact focus of the letters on an ambitious scheme, the creation of a community of support for her workers’ union. As with any event that has yet to happen there is speculation and debate. The scheme itself was incomplete in all specific details, but with an imagined palace. It was also open-ended. On Tristan’s side however, this lack of precision did not reduce the impact of the epistolary raison d’être, the pursuit of the


distribution of her book in 1843 and, in 1844, the formation of groups or circles in every main town of provincial France to work towards a single workers’ union. On the correspondents’ side the motivating factor to correspond was to express an opinion on the specifics of Tristan’s proposal. So far we have discussed examples of letters from workers educated to varying degrees and persons interested in the plight of workers. In the following example the correspondent is pleased to find a kindred spirit whose idea of a palace for workers fills him with admiration: Quant à moi, je suis très heureux Madame, d’avoir eu l’occasion de me rapprocher de vous, ou l’on rencontre une âme ardente pour le bien, et un esprit assez élevé pour montrer à ceux qui souffrent, la lumière qui doit les sauver ; je sympathise avec l’idée féconde qui préside au magnifique plan que vous nous proposez. à coup sûr, Madame, le palais de l’industrie qu’il s’agit d’édifier sera une des plus puissantes creations de l’esprit humain et l’honneur le plus grand dont la civilisation des temps ait jamais pû se glorifier.60 The spirit of generosity expressed in the example above materialized into both practical and moral support for Tristan’s campaign. Throughout her tour of France Flora Tristan was able to use the goodwill factor of doctors to visit hospitals and witness at first hand the misery of the workers. Her distaste for the physical appearance of workers is legendary but her determination to act as the saviour justified her actions. However she was not fully at ease with philanthropists as members of the bourgeoisie. Although she had corresponded warmly with Guyard who persuaded her to make an unscheduled visit to Saint-Étienne and Roanne, she confided her feelings of disappointment and boredom during her visit to his family home. No one was spared from her critique. Nonetheless, in spite of her acerbic comments Tristan met with kindness and although there was a variety of social origins of the correspondents the common focus of the letters was the implementation of her project and its implications for the letter-writers.

Epistolary creativity The second singularity is that although the project was broad, more often than not the letters encompass remarks relating to the immediacy of communication rather than the grand plan of a workers’ union. In the following letter, Reynier begins with a sly dig at his lack of


opportunity of a good education because of his class, a further fine example of a captatio benevolentiae: permetez moi maintenant Madame, conformement à vos désir de vous donnez mon opinion sur votre brochure, surtout n’oubliez pas que c’est un travailleur qui vous la donne et qu’il n’a que sa franchise et sa bonne foi, pour suppléer au manque d’instruction première qui m’a été refusée : ma volonté, mes veilles : m’ont donné ce que je sais.61 Often comments emerge on procedures of correspondence and on Tristan’s style of conducting the campaign. The epistolary expression of the political message then became the bone of contention. The following letter is an example of how such criticism was expressed in the epistolary context and gives an indication of the importance of oral culture for political literacy: Madame et Sœur, Je m’empresse de répondre à votre lettre, afin de vous faire comprendre la vérité. Je vous dirai tout d’abord, ce que j’ai déjà dit dans ma précédente lettre, vous ne connaissez pas les Ouvriers, vous m’accusez d’avoir agi de mon Chef, sans avoir consulté les Sociétaires, mais non seulement toutes vos lettres, mais encore toutes les paroles que ma Mémoire m’a permis de retenir dite par vous en ma présence ont été rapportées à mes Camarades – mais mieux que cela, la lettre que je vous ai répondu a été commentée et dictée par mes Camarades.62 This letter makes it clear that the epistolary campaign was a public one. There were consequences to debates on senstive issues such as classconsciousness and workers who wrote were often the spokespersons for their group: Vous auriez dû vous en appercevoir car j’avais honte de la mettre à la Poste dans l’Etat où elle se trouvait … Si dans ma lettre vous avez crû reconnaitre mon opinion personnelle, il n’y à pas Justice de votre part, car gratuitement vous voulez bien supposer que j’ai manqué à Plusieurs obligations, car je savais que c’Etait à des hommes et non à un que vous écriviez et si j’ai répondu, c’Est qu’il ne pouvait en être autrement si votre proposition n’a pas été lue solennellement dans la Société c’Est qu’elle ne pouvait l’Etre, mais elle l’a été publiquement dans les ateliers. … Vous priant d’agréer mes sentiments respectueux Je suis fraternellement votre Dévoué A. SAIVE. Votre lettre sera lue


publiquement vous pouvez en être sure et ma réponse sera connue aussi. Inutile d’entretenir une correspondance qui ne peut avoir d’utilité désormais.63 The correspondent in this case is claiming collective responsibility for his letter and indicating where it was permissible to read her letter publicly. Between the lines of this letter we can read Tristan’s insisting that her letter should be read in public and discussed. The correspondent is proposing a compromise solution to the problem of exclusion from one public space by finding another. Clearly this did not satisfy Tristan who stated rather fiercely at the end of the letter: Cette lettre est un mensonge depuis le commencement jusqu’à la fin, il est faux que l’avant dernière ait été montrée aux Sociétaires – mais Saive voit qu’il a fait une bêtise … alors il ment et il se fâche – Ceci donne la mesure de la loyauté de l’ouvrier – C’est pitoyable, voilà tout ce qu’on peut dire – Mais ils sont méchants parce qu’ils sont inintelligents et ils sont inintelligents parce qu’ils sont ignorants.64 Consensus and tensions emerged from the outset and at every level. We have already discussed Tristan’s impatience with small-mindedness of activists in Lyons. Her impatience with a ‘worker’ who did not comply with her wishes often bordered on paranoia. In this case she displayed all the signs of the pettiness she so despised in others. The discourse of the epistolary exchanges provides a fascinating insight into Tristan’s personality.

Rival socialist networks and initiatives The third singularity about this epistolary community is that the correspondents were already aware of and involved in other socialist initiatives. The reasons why negative criticism would often emerge was simply loyalty towards another scheme or set of beliefs. The following example pertains to the comparison drawn between Tristan’s design and the Fourierist design for phalansteries: Votre intention est Belle, votre But grandiose, ses résultats important, pouvant fort bien servir d’intermediaire entre la civilisation et l’association intégralle posée par Fourier, But final de tous les efforts divers – car dans vos palais vous faites faire aux vieillards aux enfants aux infirmes ce que nous voulons faire faire à tous dans le phalanstère


C’est bien et je vois avec plaisir que je puis vous classer dans nos rangs quoiqu’il y ai encore quant aux moyens quelques légère dissidences, mais ceci c’est l’affaire du temps.65 Reynier contextualized her scheme further by reminding Tristan of the harsh political reality of the September Laws – government repression of rights of association – as another stumbling block to success: Maintenant, quand au succès du But que vous voulez ateindre il est (selon moi) impraticable en france, tout est simple, tout sexplique fort Bien, mais nos lois de 7[septem]bre en aurait Bientôt (je crois) fait raison, voila Madame mon avis, mais si je ne crois pas au succès complet je ne dis pas que vous deviez vous arreter, non car quelque soient les résultats matériels, ceux morceaux sont imense car vous jetez au sein des masse la vraie parole de vie L’Organisation du Travail, vous détachez l’attention portée jusqu’ici dans les moyens politiques et les rammenez dans la seule voie de salut, le Droit au Travail, très bien mille fois ! !66 The correspondent claimed he would help so long as she adopted legal means for her action but felt he could not trust to a letter the useful information he could impart to her. The letter was a public document for this correspondent: Mon concours vous est acquis et quel que soit les moyens que vous employez pour votre tentative (sil sont légal) je vous promets mon faible concours. Si je pouvais confier au papier, ce que je vous confierai à vous personnellement je vous ferai connaitre tout les ressort de la classe ouvrière lyonnaise sur laquelle j’ai une main secrète ; mais pas d’indiscrétions, si jamais j’ai le bonheur de vous voir je vous promets tête à tête quelques révélations à ce sujet si vous venez à Lyon veuillez m’honorer de votre visite. en attendans ce plaisir et dici la, mes Projets, mes travaux, auront acquis une certaine extension, je serais en mesure de vous aider bien plus activement, quoique je sois obligés d’agir avec prudence : veuillez toujours me faire tenir une 30 ne dexemplaires de votre brochure je tacherai de vous les placer vers mes intimes. Veuillez madame, m’honorer de quelques lettres lorsque vos loisirs vous le permettront et me tenir au courant de vos efforts. Agréez, Madame, la vive simpathie de celui qui se dit avec plaisir votre ami et frère socialiste, REYNIER.67


Here in one letter was an offer of help from an insider to the milieu she was targeting and a frank opinion of her scheme as a potentially worthy but impracticable project. This debate between the means and the ends has long been a vital part of any political formation.

Variety of style The fourth striking aspect of the correspondence is the variety of style and literacy of the writers who are all the while very focused on her work. They bring their own perspective to her ideas. Bellot’s letter gives a detailed breakdown of his opinion of other socialist schemes. His style is coherent and articulate, giving the lie to Tristan’s generalization on the ignorance of workers. He had obviously read her book, commented on its contents, and replied generously to her request for help for her noble project. He positioned himself in relation to recent conversations with Hugont and Vasbenter, fellow militants and Tristan correspondents, about the need to unite workers. He wished to distance himself from Vasbenter who had expressed such strongly held views about women militants and the question of suffrage: Je ne vous ferai pas pour aujourd’hui d’observation sur les idées que vous avez emises dans votre livre mes deux amis a qui vous vous adressiez comme à moi vous ayant Répondu, Je connais leurs opinion je dois vous dire que tout en partageant leurs idées je ne puis suivre Vasbenter il se verse un peu Trop dans la [politique,] je serai plutot en Rapport avec les vues de Hugon[t] encore je Réserve quelques exceptions.68 Although he gives an idea of his political allies his letter attaches more importance to practical questions. He has a sense of urgency in the matter of distributing her work to his entourage: Depuis que j’ai reçu votre lettre et lexemplaire que vous m’avez adressé, je me suis occupé a sonder les esprits de mes confrères j’ai travaillé à faire comprendre votre projet lavantage qu’en procurerait la Realisation à notre malheureuse classe pour laquelle vous avez tant de simpatie. Si Moreau ne m’eut écrit en me proposant de m’envoyer 50 de vos exemplaires je vous en aurai demandé je viens de les recevoir avec sa Reponse à Perdiguier. J’en ay plassé un petit nombre je ne peut les presenter aux libraires ne sachant quelle est la remise que vous offrez veillez je vous prie me le dire sur la Reponce que jose esperer sous peu.69


However he shared Vasbenter’s pessimism about the likelihood of finding an audience among the workers for her project and felt he must tell her the facts: Je me crois oblige madame de vous dire franchement ce que je pense des Resultat que vous avez a esperer connaissant les ouvriers je ne crois pas qu’il sen trouve un grand nombre qui sy interesse C’est triste a dire je le sais mais depuis douze an que je les frequente en voyageant; Surtout depuis Cnq ans que je suis a Lyon ou jai sacrifié Bien du Temps fait tant defforts pour leur faire comprendre leur position et la cause de nos malheurs commun je nay jamais Recu aucune satisfaction je me suis vu Rebuté et Raillé jusqu’a linsolance je persisterai neanmoins à seconder de mon mieux les personnes charitable qui se consacrent a la plus nobles des tâches, sans m’associer aux journaux Le Populaire et L’Atelier.70 He gave a critical running commentary on the reform or opposition press outlets of the day to indicate their indifference to the question of unifying workers’ organizations: Je vois dans monsieur Cabet ce qui est naturel à tous nos prétendus Défenseurs surtout nos fameux journalistes democrates qui sobstinent à ne publier que les articles qui leur convienne encore faut il qu’il leur parviennent de haut lieu de ce nombre est Le Senceur [Le Censeur] la seule feuille qui ait une apparence d’indépandance à lyon : à lappui de ce que j’avance je puis représenter que jai fait passer au redacteur la première Brochure de moreau et son livre de la reforme des abus sans qu’il ait daigne en reproduire le moindre fragment a jugez madame de la tandance au progres chez ces gens qui font dune si noble entreprise un metier propre seulement à gagner de largent voilà la démocratie de nos Soit disant Defenseurs.71 He opined his distaste for the ethics of the Christian-inspired workers’ paper L’Atelier: et ce pauvre atelier ou vat-il chercher ses doctrine si ce nest à Rome ou chez le Superieur de jesuite : que diable pretend t-il avec ses question Religieuses dont il entretient ses abonnés depuis bientot une année ? espère-til avec ce sisteme remplir la tache quil sétait imposees. helas sans doute je ne suis pas trop dans l’erreur sur son compte. Tout en labandonnant entierement je desire ardemment


qu’il change de route sans quoi je craindrais pour son existence pour ne pas dire que je lengage de tout mon cœur a changer de nom il pourait remplacer le mot l’atelier pour celui de la chapelle.72 For Bellot opposition was part of the wider scenario of problems to be surmounted, problems that he considered could be overcome by faith and enthusiasm: La critique que vous font ces deux feuille ne vous effraye sans doute pas car la foi et le zele qui vous anime ne vous abandonnerons pas jen suis persuadé. Vous comprenez trop bien qu’il y a de nombreuse difficultés a surmonter Dailleurs votre œuvre ne peut être inutile bien qu’il ne soit pas possible de la mettre a execution avec le Regime actuel il faudrait je crois une perseverance surnaturelle pour reunir un nombre douvriers ; ce qui est encore a craindre c’est que les nombreux ennemis de l’humanité y verrait un attentat à leur honteuse exploitation, linstruction sans secours à tous ne peut convenir à ceux qui en detient de l’honneur et contre le droit commun persistent à exploiter indignement. Elle paraitrait egalement dangereuse à nos prétendu maitres.73 In a roundabout way he criticized her for not giving more credit to Moreau’s scheme: Je deplore come vous madame linsuffisance des sociétes ouvrières mais sans prévention pour personne je crois que vous auriez du mentionner le projet de moreau il est je crois aussi rationel malgrés que comme on le sait on ne peut guere esperer que le pouvoir vienne en aide à la classe ouvrière ; je fini en vous Remerciant pour moi et pour Tout les ouvriers mes camarades Recevez madame lexpression des sentiments avec lesquels je suis en attendant votre reponse votre Tout dévoué Bellot Lyon le 27 juin 1843. Si vous voulez me confier quelques exemplaires de plus je crois pouvoir les plasser vous pouvez men envoyer ce que vous jugerez a propos. Si vous pouvez menvoyer une douzaine des fameuse lettres de Perdiguier à propos du livre de moreau je vous en tiendrai compte comme de vos livres. J’oubliais aussi de vous dire que votre lettre adressee au Bureau general m’est parvenue comme ayant de nouveau repris la présidence.74 In response to his request for copies of Union ouvrière, Tristan’s businesslike comments written at the end of this letter recorded her


dispatching copies of Union ouvrière to Bellot: J’ai répondu à cette lettre et j’ai écris de nouveau à Bellot le 17 juillet en lui envoyant par le roulage accéléré 100 union ouvrière – dont lui seule me rendra compte.75 There is no opportunity to judge Tristan’s comments on the substance of the letter but the successful outcome of this enthusiastic correspondence was the dispatch of 100 copies of Union ouvrière directly to the correspondent in the expectation that her book would be sold and distributed to workers. The epistolary community was a real one where Tristan received expressions of interest from complete strangers who were nonetheless able to encourage and empathize with her intentions. Remote from her in gender and class terms, the letter provided the means to cross these social boundaries and produce a simultaneous proximity to Tristan. How close they got spiritually often depended on their interpretation of her project and of her role as a political leader. From its tone Reynier’s letter implied that he took it for granted that Tristan as a woman had the right to campaign in political matters. Bellot praised her for her energy and offered to distribute her book. Vasbenter wrote an articulate response but preferred not to become involved. Lallemant placed Tristan on a pedestal as did Legrain who wrote to Tristan on 23 July 1844 on behalf of a group of shoemakers while she was staying in Marseilles. He expressed delight that she was in their town. In common with other correspondents we have read, his opening gambit was an excuse for his writing ability. His qualification however was the ability to speak about exclusion from the heart: Madame, J’apprends à l’instant même votre sejour dans cette ville et votre noble entreprise et je m’empresse pour ma part et au nom de mes camarades de vous temoigner notre reconnaissance. Je m’en acquitterai mal sans doute, car vous le savez Madame, nous ne savons point faire de belles phrases mais c’est notre cœur qui parle. Merci, Madame, de venir à nous, de nous tendre une main secourable dans notre malheur, merci surtout de nous consacrer votre existence, votre génie !76 The natural expertise makes up for the lack of education. This letter stages Tristan in a Madonna-like role. Praising her for her devotion to her sacred work for their cause, through their spokesperson Legrain, the shoemakers proclaimed her to be more precious than their mothers who


could not secure life without suffering whereas her mission was to improve the quality of their life and that of their families: Nous vous en supplions, persistez dans votre œuvre sainte, et nous vous devrons plus qu’à nos mères, car si elles nous ont donné la vie elle nous ont aussi légué la souffrance ; mais à vous, Madame, nous devrons plus que la vie, nous vous devrons notre bonheur et celui de nos familles.77 The shoemakers believed her actions to be all the more praiseworthy as she was more interested in their plight than many illustrious men who would scarcely cast them a glance: Oh ! qu’elle est grande, qu’elle est sublime la tâche que vous vous imposez ! qu’elle est digne de l’admiration des grands cœurs ! qu’elle vous rend digne surtout, de notre amour, de notre reconnaissance ! Que nous importe à nous, ces grands hommes dont on vante les talents, les écrits ; c’est à peine s’ils daignent nous jeter un regard de pitié, souvent de mépris.78 The correspondent identified with her, a woman revealing his own gender perceptions; he saw her as a generous and altruistic mother figure who had given so much of her talent to their cause. Furthermore there is a conviction that she was being led by divine inspiration: Mais vous, Madame, vous êtes au dessus de tous ces hommes-là. C’est que pour faire ce que vous faites, il ne fallait pas seulement leur génie, il fallait encore, votre noble cœur de femme qu’embrâse le saint amour de l’humanité cet amour immense et fort qui vient de Dieu comme celui de nos mères, et qu’il n’a pas mis dans le cœur de l’homme.79 The shoemakers willingly accepted the legitimacy of her leadership as a saviour on those terms and proposed to follow her teachings: vous êtes pour nous un nouveau sauveur dans lequel nous placerons toutes nos espérances et dont la parole sera sacrée et les enseignements suivis.80 They believed that her name would go down in history as a result of her courage and love. For all their lack of education, the style is


oratorical in the extreme as they place Flora Tristan on her messianic pedestal: Continuez votre grande et difficile mission et votre nom, croyez-le bien, sera béni parmi nous comme le nom d’une mère cherie ; Nous l’apprendrons à nos enfants avec vénération ; nous leur dirons : c’est à une femme forte et courageuse, qui vous aimait comme votre mère vous aime, a une femme d’une âme grande et généreuse ; C’est à FLORA TRISTAN que vous devez d’être instruits, d’être à l’abri de la misère et d’avoir votre place dans le monde ainsi que Dieu vous la faite.81 In deference they signed off: Veuillez recevoir, Madame, l’assurance de notre profond respect et de notre reconnaissance éternelle MARTIN LEGRAIN dit Normand, ouvrier cordonnier, rue Thiare No. 1 Marseille ; EYCHENNE dit contoi, ouvrier cordonnier ; JEAN SOMBRE PHILIO dit provençal, ouvrier cordonnier ; LESPINAT JEAN dit toulouse ouvrier cordonnier ANRIC dit Perpigain, ouvrier cordonnier ; MEYSSANT dit Bordelais, ouvrier cordonnier ; ARNAUD PAUL, ouvrier cordonnier ; KLEIN MICHEL Marseille.82 Instead of keeping a cool head Tristan lets herself accept the role that is proffered: Cette lettre est fort bien, j’en citerai quelques passages – ils croyent à Dieu et à la femme – il y a à dire.83 As in the case of Lallemant the workers can handle Tristan if they create a female messianic role wherein she is free to talk of love of humanity and interfere in worker politics. We know little or nothing of the signatories to this letter; Legrain was the spokesperson and leader of the group, described in the letter below as the ‘secrétaire du groupe’. The handwriting is clear and fluent. From other correspondence we gather that Legrain and Carpentras worked hard to form a circle in Marseilles as a first step to follow Flora Tristan’s plan for a union. The deference to her as a mother figure continued in subsequent correspondence when there was a further occasion to write: to report the outcome of following her instructions. This time the tone of the letter is different. The correspondent is jumping to conclusions, reading her displeasure


because the epistolary connection had seemingly weakened. He wrote on 5 October 1844: Chère mère Voilà bientôt un mois que nous vous avons adressé une lettre à Toulouse et nous n’avons pas encore recu votre réponse. Il est inutile de vous dire combien est grande notre inquiétude qui le serait encore davantage si nous n’avions pas appris de vos nouvelles indirectement – Mais pourquoi votre silence à notre égard. La lettre que nous vous avons envoyée contenait-elle des choses qui vous auront déplu ? Mais pourquoi, chère mère, si vous avez des reproches à nous faire, ne pas nous les faire à nous même. Mais pourquoi ces reproches ? Nos affaires vont à merveilles, la propagande se fait activement, notre zèle redouble chaque jour, les membres du cercle dépassent le nombre cent et s’accroissent chaque jour davantage. Vous voyez, chère mère, toutes nos incertitudes, nous vous prions de les faire cesser le plus promptement possible. Oh ! rassurez-nous bien vite, dites-nous que vous ne nous abandonnez pas et dès que vous nous aurez eus tranquillisés nous vous rendront un compte exact et détaillé de tous nos travaux et de tous nos projets. En attendant, chère mère, nous vous prions d’agréer l’assurance du respect et de l’amour de vos fils et de vos frères en l’humanité.84 The workers here are also playing the role on stage of her sons and brothers in humanity. Through the correspondence they have articulated a relationship that both broke down class and gender barriers and sustained them. Tristan remained aloof in class and gender terms but the letters gave her the illusion of proximity to workers’ hearts and minds. With hindsight we know the reason for this epistolary silence, that tragically Tristan was not able to follow the continued politicization of this group because illness prevented her from replying. Although we know little of the shoemakers in Marseilles we do know considerably more about the recipient; she was on her deathbed in Bordeaux where she passed away on 14 November 1844. This epistolary dialogue that had started off so euphorically was cut short. Presenting one of the many letters sent to Flora Tristan but left unanswered is not the end of the story, however, as we continue our survey of the Tristan correspondence. The last letter cited is among several that went unanswered; as one of the final letters in Tristan’s correspondence its words quickly became lettres mortes after her death. In order to resuscitate the correspondence it is possible to analyse its content in the light of the circumstances of each letter. It is possible to read the moods of the letters and come to an


understanding of the complexity of their content. However as a political window they function best viewed as a corpus with Tristan at the heart of the correspondence. Notes 1. Letter from Bordeaux Compagnons to Flora Tristan, 17 September 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. 2. Letter from Bordure, Toulon to Flora Tristan, 10 September 1844, Fonds Puech, Castres. 3. Letter from Docteur Jules Damian, Montpellier to Flora Tristan, 25 August 1844, Fonds Puech, Castres. 4. Jules-L. Puech, La Vie et l’œuvre de Flora Tristan, Paris, Marcel Rivière, 1925, p. 145. 5. Ibid., p. 297. 6. Ibid., p. 495. 7. Pauline Roland’s letters with the young Gustave Lefrançois are an example of the survival of intense correspondence but faded memory of the same in later memoirs. See Felicia Gordon and Máire Cross, Early French Feminisms 1830–1940. A Passion for Liberty, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1996, pp. 103–18. 8. First cited in Stéphane Michaud, ‘Flora Tristan : Trente-cinq lettres’, International Review of Social History, 24 (1), 1979, pp. 80–125. 9. Susan Grogan, Flora Tristan. Life Stories, London, Routledge, 1998, pp. 143–4. 10. Ibid., p. 144. 11. Puech, La Vie et l’œuvre de Flora Tristan, Avant-Propos, II. 12. Stéphane Michaud, La Paria et son rêve, Correspondance établie par Stéphane Michaud, Fontenay-aux-Roses, E.N.S. Editions, 1995, p. 123. 13. Ibid. 14. For a reading of gender issues of the revolution see Shirley Elson Roessler, Out of the Shadows. Women and Politics in the French Revolution, 1789–95, Berne, Peter Lang, 1998. 15. Brigitte Diaz, Préface to Manon Roland. Correspondance politique (1790–1793), Paris, Indigo & Côté-femmes éditions, 1995, p. 8. 16. Letter from Manon Roland to Henri Bancal in Clermont, in Diaz, Roland. Correspondance politique, pp. 125–6. 17. Letter from Flora Tristan to the editor-in-chief of Le Censeur, 11 May 1844, cited in Stéphane Michaud, Flora Tristan, Lettres, réunies, présentées et annotées par Stéphane Michaud, Paris, Seuil, 1980, p. 200. 18. Letter from Dupont to Flora Tristan, Lyons, 23 May 1844, Fonds Puech, Castres. 19. Letter from an unidentified correspondent to Flora Tristan, 16 May 1844, Fonds Puech, Castres. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France. Journal inédit 1843–1844, Préface de Michel Collinet, Notes de Jules-L. Puech, Edition de la Tête de Feuilles, 1973, pp. 142–3.

114 The Letter in Flora Tristan’s Politics, 1835–1844 24. For Deroin and Pauline Roland political letters see Gordon and Cross, Early French Feminisms, pp. 59–139. 25. Letter from Flora Tristan to Eléonore Blanc, 6 July 1844, Fonds Puech, Castres. 26. Letter from Hugont to Flora Tristan, 17 June 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres cited in Puech, La Vie et l’œuvre de Flora Tristan, p. 480. 27. Une correspondance saint-simonienne. Angélique Arnaud et Caroline Simon (1833–1838), textes recueillis et présentés par Bernadette Louis, Paris, Côtéfemmes, 1990, p. 9. 28. See for instance the letters of Clorinde Rogé, Fonds Enfantin, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, Paris. 29. Letter from Vasbenter to Flora Tristan, 11 June 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. This letter was cited in full by Puech in his appendix to La Vie et l’œuvre de Flora Tristan, pp. 470–6; listed in Michaud, Lettres, 1980; cited in full in La Paria et son rêve, 1995, pp. 157–64. 30. Letter from Vasbenter to Flora Tristan, 11 June 1843. 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid. 38. Ibid. 39. See Louis Devance, ‘Femme, famille, travail et morale sexuelle dans l’idéologie de 1848’, numéro spécial de Romantisme, Paris, Champion, 1976, pp. 79–103. 40. Letter from Vasbenter to Flora Tristan, 11 June 1843. 41. Ibid. 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid. 44. Note by Flora Tristan at end of letter from Vasbenter, 11 June 1843. 45. Letter from Vasbenter to Flora Tristan, 10 May 1844, Fonds Puech, Castres, cited by Michand in La Paria et son rêve, pp. 209–10. 46. Ibid. 47. Letter from Lallemant to Flora Tristan, 20 April 1844, Dijon, Fonds Puech, Castres. The original letter is now missing. Text is from that established by Puech. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid. 52. Ibid. 53. Ibid. 54. Note by Flora Tristan on letter from Lallemant to Flora Tristan, 20 April 1844, Dijon, Fonds Puech, Castres. 55. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, Collinet edition, p. 82. 56. Letter from Reynier to Flora Tristan, 12 July 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres, cited in Michaud, La Paria et son rêve, 1995, pp. 165–6, and 2003, p. 201.

Speaking from the Heart 115 57. Letter from Reynier to Flora Tristan, 12 July 1843. 58. Letter from Jacques Gosset to Flora Tristan, Paris, January 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres, cited in Michaud, La Paria et son rêve, 1995, p. 128, and 2003, p. 158. 59. Letter from Jacques Gosset to Flora Tristan, Paris, January 1843. 60. Letter from Damian to Flora Tristan, 25 August 1844. 61. Letter from Reynier to Flora Tristan, 12 July 1843. 62. Letter from André Saive to Flora Tristan, Paris, October 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres, cited in Michaud, La Paria et son rêve, 1995, pp. 188–9, and 2003, pp. 224–5. 63. Letter from André Saive to Flora Tristan, Paris, October 1843. 64. Ibid. 65. Letter from Joseph Reynier to Flora Tristan, Paris, 12 July 1843. 66. Ibid. 67. Ibid. 68. Letter from Bellot to Flora Tristan, Paris, 27 June 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. 69. Ibid. 70. Ibid. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid. 73. Ibid. 74. Ibid. 75. Ibid. 76. Letter from Legrain to Flora Tristan, Marseilles, 23 July 1844, Fonds Puech, Castres. 77. Ibid. 78. Ibid. 79. Ibid. 80. Ibid. 81. Ibid. 82. Ibid. 83. Ibid. 84. Letter from Legrain to Flora Tristan, Marseilles, 5 October 1844, Fonds Puech, Castres.

4 Conflicts of Authority in the Epistolary Creation of Union ouvrière

Inutile d’entretenir une correspondance qui ne peut avoir d’utilité désormais. (Letter from André Saive to Flora Tristan, October 1843) In Chapter 3 a selection of Flora Tristan’s correspondence was examined in order to portray the common discourse of communication. The class and gender differences were negotiated by the correspondents’ manipulations around Tristan’s class and gender position. As a result of Flora Tristan’s letter writing, a polyphony of responses informed her role. The workers fed her desire to be considered by them as someone special. They identified with her construction of her role as ‘mother’ of workers or they deferred to Madame Tristan as a distant figure with whose romantic notions of worker solidarity they had little in common. In both instances they kept their distance according to their interpretation of her actions. For some she was divinely inspired, for others she was interfering. Whatever the form of spin put on this daring woman’s tactics of addressing workers and her expectations of compliance there was a convergence of interpretation of her campaign from all sides. We have also seen in the previous chapter that the term ‘worker’ was used loosely by Tristan in different contexts and included sophisticated articulate activists. Chapter 4 discusses the vital role of the letter in the creation of the Union ouvrière project. Flora Tristan placed herself in an ambiguous class position as she sought help beyond the worker activist world particularly as many philanthropists identified with her aspirations to do something to alleviate social exclusion. The correspondence with philanthropists and workers is a yardstick of the success of Union 116

Conflicts of Authority in Union ouvrière 117

ouvrière and a measure of the social ambiguity of her position. This chapter examines Flora Tristan’s skill in building her network of political correspondents among philanthropists and workers. Letters formed a crucial part of Union ouvrière from its very inception in more ways than one. So far as we know its author remained in Paris at 89 rue du Bac for the duration of its drafting and completion in instalments in January and February 1843; from December 1842 she was in regular communication through meetings and correspondence with a select group of activists, Agricol Perdiguier, Achille François, Jean Gosset, Rosenfeld, Jules Vinçard in Paris but also further afield with Pierre Moreau in Auxerre and Charles Poncy in Toulon. These together with activists associated with two worker-newspapers La Ruche populaire and L’Atelier were the launch pad of her career as a ‘workers’ defender’. From the correspondence we know that the book was drafted in stages as Tristan organized and attended meetings. The oddly overlapping structure of the work is testimony to the manner in which it was written. The combination of simultaneous meetings with workers and writing was a two-way process; from the letters it can be established that readers differed with the campaigner Tristan, but Tristan the author did not adjust the key ideas of the manuscript as a result of objections from the workers. She added sections and recorded these objections in her diary but did not redraft the completed sections of the book. First she sought information from the activists about existing schemes, second she sought further contacts and third she sought support for her own scheme. She had few ways of making social contact with non-politicized workers. The starting point for her diary was when she began to attend meetings in Paris in the hope of forming a support group for the implementation of her plan: Paris 4 février – 16 avril 1843. Surchargée de travail comme je le suis en ce moment, je ne puis jeter ici que des notes – qui plus tard me serviront à faire l’ouvrage dont je mets ici le titre. – D’abord toutes mes lettres d’ouvriers qui sont dans le même paquet – puis au fur et à mesure les événements.1 These discussions with the initial group of activists had an impact on the reception of the book. They ensured its rapid and wide distribution.2 Tristan’s parallel activities of research, new encounters and the preparation of the publication and distribution of the book in June 1843 generated letters that we can class into three separate categories. First, there was an intensive correspondence initiated by Tristan with the key


Parisian activists about leadership of the workers’ union. Second, during this same period in the spring of 1843 Tristan wrote letters to a wider social set of contacts outside the workers’ circles in order to enlist their help for her new-found apostolate, in particular for raising funds. Third, from April 1843 onwards as word began to spread about her programme she received unsolicited letters expressing interest in her work. New but unpredictable channels of communication beyond the Parisian set created further possibilities of networks and affirmed her in her new-found role as organizer and propagandist. This chapter examines these three groups of letters that were instrumental in ensuring the successful publication and distribution of her book Union ouvrière.

Letters of investigation The first group is the correspondence with worker writers during the drafting of Union ouvrière. It is from her correspondence that we know that in December 1842 Tristan conceived the idea of a workers’ union through reading the work of Perdiguier, Le Livre du Compagnonnage. According to Daniel Armogathe and Jacques Grandjone, Tristan was inspired to go on the tour of France in imitation of the ancient journeymen tradition still practised by the Compagnons although there is no mention of the planned tour in her correspondence until much later.3 As Armogathe and Grandjonc indicate, the circumstances of Tristan’s first contact with Perdiguier are unclear. They suggest it could be through the publication of the popular edition of her Promenades dans Londres in November 1842. Her newly added dedication ‘to all workers, men and women’ may well have encouraged him to send her a copy of his work first publi-shed in 1840. What is more certain is the content of her letter wherein she assumes he will accept her request for help as a fellow author of a social work: Mon cher Monsieur Faites-moi le plaisir de venir me voir samedi soir, ou dimanche matin – J’ai le plus vif désir de vous connaître, et j’ai beaucoup à causer avec vous de votre Livre du compagnonnage – c’est pourquoi je ne vous dis rien dans cette lettre.4 Wishing to gain credentials for acceptance by the workers’ circles and in the spirit of the cause she signed herself ‘votre sœur en l’humanité’. Claiming a letter was an unsuitable venue for discussion of such an


important question she gave her game away in a postscript when she also enquired about another work on a similar theme: Si vous avez la brochure de M. Moreau d’Auxerre, et d’autres qui traitent du même sujet, faites moi l’amitié de me les apporter. Je voudrais connaître tout ce qui a été dit sur ces sortes d’associations.5 Her discovery of existing schemes of workers’ projects for reform of their own fraternal associations was seemingly quite abrupt. Other than the correspondence Tristan left no trace of the original source – neither of her inspiration nor of the timing of her decision to propose a workers’ association. All the more precious then is this rather brusque letter to Perdiguier wherein we can read directly the manner in which Tristan approached the workers as an outsider; there is almost a hint that she found the existence of similar schemes a nuisance. She acts as if she expects instant compliance, ending with the question: Savez-vous d’une manière exacte le nombre d’ouvriers qu’il y a en France, et combien d’ouvriers sont affilés aux sociétés des diverses associations du compagnonnage ? – Si vous avez ces chiffres, ou si vous savez où vous les procurer, je vous serais obligée de me les donner. – Moi aussi, mon cher Monsieur, je m’occupe beaucoup du sort des ouvriers. C’est pour cette raison que votre livre m’a puissamm[en]t intéressée ; je suis bien fâchée de ne pas l’avoir connu plus tôt.6 We do not have the immediate reply from Perdiguier but from a second letter from Tristan to him on 25 January we know he complied with her request and that his work had considerable influence on ‘her idea’: Mon cher Monsieur J’avance dans mon travail, oh ! C’est une bien grande idée ! – Et c’est en lisant votre livre que cette idée sauveur m’est venue – Combien je vous bénis de me l’avoir envoyée !7 Furthermore she arrogantly assumed that Perdiguier would be delighted to have rendered the service when she added, ‘et combien vous me bénirez à votre tour que je l’ai lu’.8 As he had obliged Tristan immediately with her request, Perdiguier was subsequently understandably very offended by the way Tristan bit the hand that fed her by presenting a critique of his reform of the Compagnonnage in her own


book. We shall return to the Tristan–Perdiguier debate in the correspondence that was conducted throughout the preparation of Union ouvrière. Before seeking out worker writers Tristan was associated with social theorists and philanthropists from aristocratic and intellectual circles in Paris and in London. The letters from Perdiguier and Moreau show their immediate, generous, but guarded, reactions to this sudden interest by a woman from a different social milieu in the reform work of workers’ groups. The highly successful lady author and socialite George Sand generously patronized writers from the same workers’ milieu at around the same time, encouraging them to publish. Tristan was interested in their social reforms not as a writer but for her own purposes as an aspiring social reformer. Having composed works for reading in an educated milieu Tristan now wished to write for the cause of those who could not read at all. Her first task, however, was to read for herself the workers’ proposals for reform and ascertain the nature of the working class in France: hence her request to Perdiguier and Moreau from the outset of her contacts with them. The worker writers deftly handled Tristan’s exacting personality and insistence that she was always right. Moreau in particular responded generously to Tristan’s request for his work. Specifically keeping his social distance by naming Tristan as an outsider who wished to become the workers’ protector he read her letter as a valid question from a writer who had already published on social issues: Madame Je croirais manquer à mon devoir si je ne répondais pas à l’honneur que vous me faîtes, malgré que je me crois incapable de vous fournir de grands renseignements sur notre malheureuse position. Que vous apprendrais-je ? – Ce que tout le monde voit et sait, où ne veut ni voir ni savoir ? Je me rappelle avoir lu dans l’Intelligence et le Journal du Peuple, quelques fragments de vos ouvrages, ou dans le dernier surtout, en mettant à nu la plaie sociale qui dévorent nos frères d’outre-mer.9 (Emphasis added) It was beside this phrase that she jotted down a first impression of disappointment: ‘Tout cela est d’une froideur, d’une sécheresse deséspérante.’ Could it be that she expected more praise for her work? Did she hope to find a similar discourse of passion from worker activists who had been quietly but steadily working for the same aim before she decided to throw her passionate ideals into the melting pot of activism? She surely could not fault the way in which Moreau interpreted her


position as a rare defender of the proletarians. That was the way she portrayed her role and that was how he understood it. He continued, comparing her stand with his own militancy: vous vous faites notre protectrice. Le nombre des défenseurs du Prolétaire est si rare, qu’on ne saurait trop les estimer et les bénir. Je serais heureux de contribuer à une bonne œuvre, mais ma position, mes capacités et mes moyens pécuniaires, ne me permettent pas de m’étendre bien loin. Cependant je finis un travail beaucoup plus étendu que celui que vous avez lu, et que je vous envoie. Dans un mois, j’espère avoir l’honneur de vous l’adresser, et si néanmoins, vous ne trouvez pas encore tous détails que vous désirez connaître, je ferais tout ce qui serait en mon pouvoir pour vous les procurer.10 (Emphasis added) Moreau was prepared to provide her with a copy of his work due for publication and a contact address in a bookshop so that she could send him her previous work, Promenades dans Londres, the contents of which gave her good credentials as a genuine defender of the proletariat: Si par un effort de votre bonté vous voulez m’adresser vos Promenades dans Londres, vous auriez l’obligeance de remettre chez M. Schwartz, libraire quai des Augustins No. 9. et de les adresser au nom de M. Guillaume Maillefer libraire à Auxerre. Il doit lui être fait un envoi, vendredi 27, courant.11 For epistolary protocol the essential rule of etiquette required is legibility. Whether it can be attributed to Tristan’s impatience to complete her study on reform initiatives of workers or the number of letters she was dispatching at this time, the effect was that her handwriting was hard to decipher. The deferential formality of Moreau’s style – quite logical to adopt since he was writing about a serious matter to a total stranger – is quietly subverted in his postscript wherein he commented on her illegible handwriting: P.S. Ayez l’obligeance de faire transcrire vos lettres, ou d’écrire plus lisiblement.12 He was prepared to comply with her impositions but not to be treated as a doormat. From the remarks Tristan scrawled directly on his letter, an epistolary practice she used throughout her campaign and one that is


invaluable to our study, we read her first impressions. In this instance she found the formal style hard to fathom: ‘On ne sait pas trop s’il en est content?’ She did not care for the businesslike manner of the letter and questioned his motive for replying: ‘C’est par devoir que M. Moreau me répond.’ Then she tried to guess his political tendencies. She suspected him of being part of a suffrage reform tendency associated with one of the few permitted opposition newspapers of the July Monarchy of which she was deeply suspicious: ‘Cette lettre est d’une odeur qui sent le National.’ As for his request for better quality handwriting she retorted in a note: Ceci me parait le plus curieux – il me faudra prendre un secrétaire pour transcrire mes lettres aux ouvriers que je fais – bien si tout cela ne me décourage mais je comprends qu’une formelle lettre adressée à n’importe quel homme qui voudrait consacrer sa vie a défendre la cause des ouvriers serait capable de le refroidir.13 She seems to belittle the workers who are attempting to achieve the very task that she had set herself. She then speculated how Moreau would react when he read her chapter in Union ouvrière wherein she was championing economic and social equality for women. This was speculation on her part as Moreau had given no indication that he was antifeminist. Tristan was prejudging Moreau: Il est certain que M. Moreau va jeter les hauts cris quand il va voir mon chapitre sur la femme. – N’importe, mon idée l’union est trop belle et elle doit marcher en dépit de la sécheresse et de la froideur.14 For Tristan, formality in Moreau’s letter meant coldness and lack of commitment; she expected something inferior perhaps. We saw in the previous chapter that she expected workers to stay in their place: Moreau’s formality suggested he was comfortable with the genre of letter writing. Her reaction to an ‘unfriendly’ worker was to talk him down and belittle his letter. Her adverse reaction to an overzealous friendly correspondent was one of horror that a worker should fall in love with her as was the case in Lyons the following year, she, the very Flora Tristan who had come to love humanity. Whatever her interpretation Moreau the letter-writer intended to make the opposite impression of coldness. Tristan’s judgement of what she expected from a specific epistolary style distracted her from her appreciation of commitment that her correspondent had made to her project. It was on the practical subject of handwriting that she began her immediate reply.15 The first


thing was to set him right about her lack of resources to employ a secretary and then to specify the information she needed. Her rhetorical style is one of exaggerated sarcasm: Monsieur Moreau Vous savez, qu’il y a un proverbe qui dit – qu’il faut prendre les gens avec leurs défauts – Moi j’en ai beaucoup et, entre autres, celui de ne pouvoir écrire lisible[men]t – et malheureuse[men]t je ne suis pas dans la position de Victor Hugo qui a autour de lui, des adorateurs qui se croient très honorés de pouvoir transcrire ses lettres. – Ayez donc la bonté de prendre patience avec mon écriture et de me passer la forme en faveur du fond.16 From a subsequent remark by Moreau we know that she took steps to improve the legibility of her work, but only once, since she reverted to her old habits: J’ai reçu votre lettre ce matin, je regrette que vous ne m’ayez fait aucune observation au sujet de mon livre et que vous n’ayez pas fait transcrire votre lettre comme l’avant-dernière.17 The beginning of any epistolary exchange was the start of a new acquaintance and misunderstandings from ignorance could easily occur. Moreau assumed that this aspiring patroness of the working class could take the precaution of engaging secretarial assistance. Tristan’s lack of care in writing letters betrays another trait of arrogance towards the workers. From the archives there is evidence to suggest that Tristan had some sporadic assistance in transcribing letters. In his previous letter Moreau revealed the limitations of his own circumstances: J’approuve votre projet et j’y apporterai mon concours et le peu de forces qui me restent, car il faut que je vous le dise, vous me croyez beaucoup plus de moyens et d’influence que j’en ai réellement. Ce n’est que par l’opiniâtreté au travail et en me privant de tous plaisirs que j’ai pu composer cet imparfait ouvrage et réunir assez d’argent pour le faire imprimer chez un homme qui m’a exploité (460 frs pour 1.000 exemp[laires].). Je n’ai pas comme M. Perdiguier assez de confiance pour obtenir des souscripteurs qui payent mon ouvrage avant d’être imprimé. j’en ai fait la proposition à quelques villes, les unes ne m’ont pas répondu, d’autres m’ont dit qu’ils verraient ce qu’ils feraient quand ils auraient la Brochure : et enfin très peu m’ont promis de m’aider.18


The difficulty of getting their work into print put Moreau and Tristan on the same level of potential influence as activists. Once they were on friendlier terms in their correspondence Moreau confided that his means to combat indifference or prejudice were limited: j’ouvrirai une souscription, j’engagerai nos frères de Lyon et des autres villes (si je peux obtenir leur confiance) à en faire autant. Mais je vois beaucoup de difficultés, Perdiguier fera beaucoup de mal. – Les charpentiers très nombreux seraient d’un grand secours, si on pouvait leur faire comprendre l’utilité et la nécessité de ce projet. – Ils ont une confiance sans bornes, entre eux : il faudrait s’adresser, pour la réussite, à ceux de Paris, car ils exercent beaucoup d’influence sur ceux du tour de France. – Comme vous le voyez, je ne vois pas de grandes difficultés pour l’impression de votre livre par souscription, mais il faut au moins un mois et demi à deux mois, car si je presse mes co-associés, qui ne m’ont pas encore repondu pour le mien, ils se décourageront, et diront qu’ils n’ont pas besoin de tant de livres. – L’apathie ou sont les uns, ceux de l’Union, pas tous il est vrai mais un grand nombre, le fanatisme des autres, est capable de décourager les esprits les plus forts.19 Moreau’s letters follow a pattern similar to those of other correspondents with whom Tristan exchanged letters. Having begun on formal terms, once a certain degree of trust was established an epistolary pact came into being: Vous vous trompez aussi beaucoup sur mon caractère. Je n’ai pas la fermeté et le sang froid qui est nécessaire pour ma mission. Je suis d’une frêle et petite constitution ; ayant beaucoup de difficulté à m’exprimer. Je crois avoir fait tout ce que mon intelligence et mes moyens pouvaient faire. D’un autre côté, j’ai ma mère qui est veuve et peu heureuse, beaucoup de frères et sœurs qui ne gagnent pas beaucoup, et je suis quelquefois obligé d’y envoyer quelques secours. De plus, elle me rappelle auprès d’elle, depuis longtemps.20 From a geographical distance – Moreau was in Auxerre – a meeting of minds in a strong pact led to additional confidences about political hopes and disappointments: l’organisation du travail, le droit au travail, la charité aux travailleurs (on ne devrait pas nous faire la charité, nous travaillons, nous la faisons tous les jours aux oisifs), me paraissent des rêves creux ou une plus


grande humilité pour nous, sans le droit de citoyen (suffrage universel). Mais pour l’obtenir, il faut tracer ou indiquer la route où il conduira, et de l’union. Agréez, chère sœur, ma vive sympathie et l’assurance de tout mon zèle pour la réussite de votre sainte entreprise.21 In her diary and elsewhere in her correspondence of 1844 Tristan rarely mentioned her own family and despaired of potential allies whose family duties intruded on their time. In Moreau’s case when he mentioned family difficulties Tristan was so engrossed by the ideal she chose not to comment on his personal difficulties. Regardless of his personal hardships Moreau was in a different milieu in the working world and could provide information about a new phenomenon as he had already begun the work of uniting old fraternal organizations into an umbrella organization called une société d’union. Tristan had asked: Les renseignements que je voudrais avoir sont : – combien votre société de l’union renferme d’associés ? Et combien ils dépensent par an pour les frais de leurs sociétés et quels sont les avantages qu’ils en retirent ? – Je voudrais les mêmes renseignements sur les autres sociétés que vous connaissez.22 Moreau proved to be a willing research assistant although he took two months to reply to Tristan’s question. As well as providing her with some figures on workers’ associations he approved of her work Promenades dans Londres as a realistic study of society. He preferred her utilitarian approach to travels of the imagination: j’ai lu votre ouvrage, mais j’avais l’esprit trop occupé pour que cette lecture me profite ; je recommencerai. Je crois incapable de juger une œuvre d’une aussi grande importance. Je vois que vous avez écri ce que vous avez vu, et que vous ne faites pas les voyages imaginaires. Partout ou se trouve l’opprimé, le paria, sois dans les ateliers, dans étroites et sales rues ou l’air manque pour vivre, soit dans les prisons ou en tout autre endroit, vous reclamez pour que justice lui soit rendue. Vous méritez réellement l’estime du Prolétaire qui ne vous lit pas assez.23 He approved of her reference to workers being pariahs and used the politically loaded term ‘proletarian’. In passing he indicated where he disagreed with her but assured her that this was a minor difference of principle between them. He gave his own views of the role of women in


society. His expressed opinion that women in public outside the home raised the question of immorality for men was the going ideal for workers. He considered that women were more suited to the work of housework and children than to his kind of work. He was a locksmith. As she had predicted he disagreed about the role of women in work but not quite to the extent of taking offence: Néanmoins, j’ai cru entrevoir, que vous sacrifiez quelquefois l’égalité à la liberté ! L’indépendance a pour vous beaucoup d’attraits. C’est beau, c’est admirable, l’indépendance, mais il ne peut y en avoir pour le pauvre, si le riche en jouit. C’est incompatible, suivant moi, avec le bonheur des masses. Je craindrais aussi que l’égalité absolue de la femme n’engendre une plus grande immoralité ; Vous conviendrez au moins qu’elle est plus propre aux travaux du ménage, à soigner et élever les enfants qu’à nos travaux. Ne tenez aucun compte de ces objections car ma tête n’est pas assez calme ; et ne craignez pas de me faire les vôtres.24 This sudden ‘interjection’ of the woman question did not stir up a contentious debate within their correspondence. We have seen that Tristan received similar comments from Vasbenter. Moreau could take Tristan’s arguments much further than mere remonstrating against her gender politics. Independence, he said, was an empty slogan for the excluded. Tristan’s way of handling his rebukes was to complain. It was the reserved style of Moreau’s letter that dismayed the passionaria Tristan. But his response was anything but lukewarm. After the first letter the opening salutation changed. The letter of 28 April greeted her with the words ‘chère sœur et amie’. He was responding to her appeal from a sister in humanity. His letters show that he offered to do all in his power to spread word about her new book and proposal for the organization of the union ouvrière. As he himself had experience of getting a book published about and for the working class, he knew about some of the hurdles Tristan faced. He was enthusiastic in his support and helped collect the subscriptions required for the cost of printing. Furthermore he defended Tristan when she was criticized by others. Their epistolary exchange is a testimony to the success of their collaboration. Tristan subsequently advised Moreau about keeping a cool head in the dispute with Perdiguier. Within a few months she had established a working relationship with an articulate but self-effacing activist who became a key contributor to spreading her ideas among workers and making possible her tour of France. The gender-specific equality of Tristan’s union did not deter him. In the last known letter he looked forward to meeting her in Auxerre.


P.S. Vous aurez l’obligeance de m’avertir quelques jours avant votre arrivée. Je vous attends avec impatience. Je n’ai pas vu le libraire, mais je garantis qu’il acceptera le dépôt.25 Through their correspondence Tristan had empathized with a leading member of a new network. The letters written to Tristan are equally a testimony to the close epistolary rapport between the members of the network, Moreau, Perdiguier, Gosset, François and Rosenfeld. The successful epistolary dialogue was not always stimulated by political harmony. Although connected by common political goals Tristan was soon to become embroiled in their disputes. However, their first loyalty was to the ideal of the interest of the workers and for this cause they were prepared to engage in dialogue with Flora Tristan. In her letters with these initial contacts she passed very quickly from the stage of begging for help to dictating her terms. This first group of letters show the dialogue in the transition from Tristan the fact-finder to her position of Tristan the dispenser of orders. She assumed those providing the sources of information would allow her to help herself to their labours, accept her criticisms and allow her to direct them in the construction of the imagined community of the workers’ union. If there were disputes ahead Tristan was prepared to take up her pen or attend meetings to thrash out differences, as she recorded in her journal. However, it was not easy to remain on good terms if only through epistolary connections. As the epistolary friendship warmed, Tristan and Moreau exchanged views on a matter that was to take up a considerable amount of letter space: that was the matter of a disagreement between themselves and their fellow activist Perdiguier. Reading her critique of what she considered the outmoded journeymen’s guilds in an extract of her book, Moreau had readily accepted her critique of his own society. Completely unaware of them a few months previously she had procured enough information on workers’ groups from three key works, of which one was Moreau’s, to be able to measure their inadequacies and suggest her own version of reform in an important chapter entitled, ‘De l’insuffisance des Sociétés de Secours, Compagnonnage, etc.’ in her book Union ouvrière. It begins with an acknowledgement of the dramatic influence of the work done by others: C’est en lisant le Livre de Compagnonnage de M. Agricol Perdiguier, ouvrier menuisier, – la petite brochure de M. Pierre Moreau, ouvrier serrurier, – le Projet de régénération du Compagnonnage, par M. Gosset, père des forgerons, que mon esprit fut frappé, illuminé par cette grande idée de l’Union universelle des ouvriers et des ouvrières.26


In a telling footnote about the speed at which she had drafted her ideas, she added that Moreau’s work, De la réforme des abus du compagnonnage et de l’amélioration du sort des travailleurs, had not been accessible when she had first drafted her chapter.27 Moreau was in complete agreement with her about the need for reform and did not baulk at associating himself with her. Note the change of address from Madame; she had become not sister but ‘Citoyenne’. The address sets the tone for a considered rapprochement through his formal rhetorical style of letter: CHER CONCITOYENNE J’ai reçu votre dernière [lettre] et l’épreuve des 3 premiers chapitres de votre nouvelle production, insérés dans La Ruche. Je les ai lues avec le plus d’attention possible, et je n’ai pas besoin de vous dire (mon livre doit parler pour moi), nous sommes d’accord sur plusieurs points, surtout sur l’insuffisance des sociétés de compagnonnage et de secours mutuels.28 Perdiguier on the other hand took great exception to the way he had been represented and conveyed this instantly to Tristan: in a letter written in Paris on 29 March 1843: Madame J’ai reçu les trois premiers chapitres de votre Union ouvrière, je les ai lus avec attention, et il faut que je vous le dise, je n’en suis pas satisfait. vous manquez de justice de prime abord, vous froissez, vous brisez ceux qui vous ont été utiles et qui pourraient encore vous servir d’appui.29 From the outset he wastes no time in presenting his criticism that is deliberately directed against Tristan’s insensitive treatment of the worker writers willing to help her and on whom she relied so heavily. His first loyalty was to his own kind, his fellow worker activists. His wellcrafted letter of criticism then included a systematic response to her three published chapter drafts for her book Union ouvrière, quoting back to her the disparaging phrase that she had used referring to the length of time during which her predecessors and contemporaries had struggled to bring about reform of the state of the working class: depuis vingt-cinq ans, dites vous, les hommes les plus intelligents et les plus dévoués, les Saint-simoniens, les owenistes, les fouriéristes,


etc., etc., ont, par des écrits, des discours, des rapports, des mémoires, etc., prouvé au gouvernement et aux riches, qu’il fallait organiser le travail et venir au secours de la classe ouvrière. vous ajoutez un peu plus loin que, maintenant, tout est dit, tout est su, qu’on a assez parlé, assez écrit, qu’il, ne restait qu’une seule chose à faire : agir.30 He provided an informed response to her rejection of all other socialists and chided her for dismissing their achievements so easily. Like many fellow socialists he was well informed of the current developments and saw many examples of where a very specific link existed from an idea to practical action. He named many examples to counter her ridiculous claim that no one other than Flora Tristan had ever thought of acting instead of talking and writing. He berated her for her intolerance of other projects and indirectly chided her for ignoring the substantive part of his work: mais permettez-moi une observation : les Saint-simoniens n’ont-ils pas habité Ménilmontant ou tout était commun entre eux, et, de là répendu des prédicateurs dans paris et dans les provinces ? les owenistes n’ont-ils rien fait de positif dans l’écosse et dans l’amérique ? les fouriéristes, n’ont-ils pas créé un établissement considérable près de dijon et envoyé des phalanges jusque dans le brésil ? Je ne veux ici, ni louer, ni blâmer leurs systemes, je constate, et rien de plus, que non seulement ils ont écrit et parlé, mais qu’ils ont agi, qu’ils ont mis leurs théories en pratique autant qu’il a dépendu d’eux de le faire. Si donc vous reconnaissez ce que je dis pour vrai, si vous vous rappelez comme moi que Saint-Simon, owen, fourier, leurs disciples, et d’autres encore, ont agi dans toute l’étendue du mot, pourquoi ne pas le dire ? Pourquoi ne pas leur en tenir compte ?31 Perdiguier is not condemning Tristan completely but he is angry that she should try to dissociate herself from other socialist projects. After all, solidarity, he wrote, is much better than criticism and isolation: Non, non, ne fermons pas les yeux sur les travaux des autres si nous voulons que l’on soit sensible à nos efforts.32 Then he comes to her criticism of the worker writers, a separate category from that of the socialist philanthropists, les ouvriers écrivains, of


whom he is one: Vous avez manqué de justice envers ceux dont je viens de parler, vous n’avez pas été plus juste envers les ouvriers écrivains qui ont voulu détruire les préjugés, les haines des associations de compagnonnage.33 She is equally unjust to this category for a different reason. After showing her examples of the practical schemes of action of socialist intellectuals he is bolder in his critique of her fault-finding of his own network. He insists that she has claimed for herself what has already been proposed by worker writers. The solutions to end bitter rivalry among existing workers’ societies of different types are not mere palliatives as Tristan would seem to indicate. Furthermore he very astutely throws back in her face her scientific claim that after studying the state of existing workers’ groups (through contacting the likes of Perdiguier and Moreau) she argued that she had been inspired by the gaps or deficiencies of the worker writer reform programmes. Tristan’s naming of the precise area of imperfection enabled Perdiguier to identify tangible evidence to refute her. His critique is a deliberate challenge to Tristan to alter her faulty critique before publishing. He includes a quote from an independent source to back up his assertion: Ce qui vous a frappé, dites vous, c’est de voir que parmi les améliorations proposées par eux, aucune n’était de nature à apporter une amélioration véritable et positive à la situation morale et matérielle de la classe ouvrière. Vous supposer même que, si, selon le vœu de M. Perdiguier, les compagnons ne se battaient plus entre eux, que si, selon le vœu de M. Moreau toute distinction de métiers avait disparu, que si, selon le vœu de M. Gosset les compagnons n’étaient plus exploités par les cabaretiers ; tout cela ne serait rien, absolument rien. à vous en croire, aucun de nous trois n’a proposé un plan d’union générale, et ce n’est absolument que cet oubli qui vous a illuminé et inspiré cette grande pensée de l’union universelle des ouvriers et ouvrieres. ainsi, ce n’est pas ce qui se trouve dans leurs ouvrages qui vous a éclairée c’est précisement ce qui ne si trouve pas.34 For Perdiguier the dignity of the worker writers and their intellectual ownership of the idea of a universal union were at stake. In summarizing the achievements of his contemporaries Perdiguier identified the tight-knit circle that Tristan was trying to enter and condemn at the


same time. He reproached Tristan for not being truthful about what had inspired her great idea. He provided her with the moral authority of a third person to back up his claim that he was saying exactly what Tristan had found missing in her contemporaries’ proposals and claimed to have discovered for herself: Je laisse M.M. Gosset et Moreau répondre ce qu’ils jugeront à propos sur ce qui les concerne, quant à moi, je mettrai sous vos yeux ce que M. Lerminier a inséré dans La Revue des Deux Mondes, No. du 15 décembre 1841. Ce sera là ma réponse : « Le livre du Compagnonnage, n’est pas seulement l’œuvre d’un historien ; le compagnon qui l’a publié a une ambition plus vaste ; il s’annonce en réformateur. avignonnais la Vertu, c’est le nom d’Agricol perdiguier, voudrait faire des diverses associations du compagnonnage une seule et grande association … » Comment cela se fait-il, Madame que là où vous avez vu absence totale d’union générale d’autres aient trouvé un projet d’association si formidable ?35 Perdiguier objected to her forging ahead without adequate consultation with fellow union activists and with a wistful reproach suggested that workers were not asking for praise but that she could give recognition for the origins of the great idea to where it was due. In his eyes she had not acted honourably, she was taking the credit for something that had already been mooted in his publication and moreover, had been reported by the press: Non, Madame, nous ne vous demandions point de louanges, mais vous auriez du, au lieu de méconnaitre nos efforts et d’amoindrir l’utilité et la portée de nos travaux, vous appuyer sur nous et nous pouvions vous être d’un grand secours. il fallait s’abstenir quelque peu de critiques particulière et générale, et exposer, et développer de la manière la plus claire, la plus brève votre idée, qui est vraiment noble et belle. Il fallait parler aux ouvriers et s’en faire comprendre ; il fallait surtout éviter ce qui peut les blesser sans aucune utilité.36 We know from the remarks Tristan added to this letter that she considered using his reply as an epistolary weapon of attack: Eh bien ! Ouvriers, que pensez vous de cette lettre ? – voila, mes amis ce que l’on gagne à vous flatter un homme – à la vérité ceux qui ont flatter Perdiguier se sont servi de lui : ouvriers ! Souvenez vous que de


flatter les grands, s’est une bassesse – mais flatter le peuple : – c’est commettre un crime ! ! Flora.37 Tristan’s intended public display of Perdiguier’s letter reminds us that it was current practice to circulate letters of mutual interest among acquaintances and associates. The direction of this political debate depended on the willingness of each party to negotiate their differences, a cherished right for Moreau who nevertheless lamented the divisions that were spreading among activists who had the same goal. Arguments and misunderstandings, inevitable among political activists, determine the shape of politics. By March 1843, when these letters were written, tensions were running high among the worker activists in Paris. They refused to comply with the outrageous demands of Flora Tristan who expected them to fall in with her scheme and abandon their own identity that they cherished so dearly simply for her honour and glory as a writer, admittedly a socialist one but an outsider all the same. Try as she might she could not bring herself to become completely immersed in their way of thinking or acting. Comments from her diary make that abundantly clear. The letters illustrate the social gap in an indirect way through the question of militancy. They illustrate here how differences flared up and how they were resolved. This letter provided ammunition for Tristan in her denunciation of what she termed flattery to worker poets by their social superiors. Perdiguier’s reference to praise aroused her passion. She despised the way worker writers had been fêted by the likes of George Sand who was giving them ideas beyond their station.38 She considered she had a duty to tell him the truth and that if he was not prepared to put the cause before his personal interests she threatened to denounce him to his fellow workers by showing them his letter. Tristan and Perdiguier fell out with one another but each, anxious to maintain their own position of moral superiority within their own spheres of influence, continued to write, and the exchanges in their letters became quite heated: Pourrait-on croire, Perdiguier ? – Comment ! – Je vous envoie un travail qui contient une idée qui, par sa vérité, sa force et sa puissance est de nature à sortir la classe ouvrière de la misère et de l’ignorance, est de nature à la sauver, et au lieu d’être frappé de l’idée, de ne voir que l’idée, vous ouvrier, vous qui vous dites au service de la classe ouvrière, vous ne voyez dans mon travail qu’une seule chose, le manque


d’éloge que vous croyez mériter. – et vous m’écrivez une lettre de 4 grandes pages où il ne se trouve pas un mot sur la valeur de l’idée que j’apporte. L’idée vous échappe : vous me parlez de vous, puis de vous et encore de vous ! … Je veux vous servir, et non me servir de vous ; par conséquent je vous dirai franchement, nettement et rudement la vérité. – Si vous n’êtes pas capable de l’entendre … tant pis pour vous, et pour la cause, – car, dans ce cas, on ne doit plus vous compter parmi les défenseurs de la classe ouvrière, – et votre mission est achevée.39 The rhetorical style of a dogmatic ideologue had become her weapon for the denunciation of competitive projects and of those who dared criticize Flora Tristan: Si vous persistez dans votre personnalité, alors il sera de mon devoir de montrer votre lettre à vos camarades, les ouvriers, afin qu’il sachent pourquoi vous refusez votre coopération à l’œuvre de l’union ouvrière.40 Bitter arguments were sparked off by other factors from this epistolary disagreement involving Gosset, François and Vinçard. This polemic eventually resolved itself without either of them conceding defeat, not without some gloating on her part when she received a further letter from him. Indeed Tristan believed she had a victory on her hands: Voici une lettre qui est un vrai triomphe pour moi – Il faut que je rapproche celle ci de cette grande épouvantable de vanité, que Perdiguier m’a écrit après avoir lu l’épreuve – Voila un homme qui était a jamais perdu dans la vanité, la haine la méchanceté – Je suis allée à lui, j’ai fait là un acte de charité en action, j’ai parlé à cet h.[omme] (pendant 2 h[eures]) je lui ai écrit et enfin j’ai tant fait que Perd. est revenu a des sentiments tout fraternels, bons et humble, puis qu’aujourd’hui il m’écrit cette lettre. – Voila comment j’entends la charité. – Ceci est très bon trait parmi ceux que je fais car la vanité de Perd. m’avait révolté – et il m’en a beaucoup coûté pour aller vers lui.41 The content of the letter from Perdiguier however, indicates that he was not giving anything away: vous faites là, ma sœur, trop bon marché du but de nos efforts, car, si je ne me trompe, du moment que les hommes s’aimeront les uns les autres comme des bons frères, il n’y aura plus d’ambitions égoïstes et


plus des misères parmi eux ; et s’il est alors nécessaire d’avoir des lois on sera certain que ces lois faites par de bons freres seront justes et a l’avantage de tous : elles auront même peu de chose à commander, vu que le cœur commandera pour elles. donc, si en prêchant la fraternité aux compagnons, nous avons quelque peu contribué à la pro[pa]gation de ce sentiment, gardez vous de dire que nos efforts ne tendent à rien ! Vous commettriez un erreur et de plus vous nous rendriez un mauvais service ; parce que ceux qui ont déjà entendu notre parole pourraient nous dire : « votre fraternité est une chimère, elle ne peut point nous rendre heureux : à quoi nous servirait donc de vous écouter davantage ? » vous sentez bien, ma sœur, qu’il n’est pas bon de laisser croire que l’amour et la fraternité ne menent à rien, puisqu’ils sont au contraire la source de tous les biens.42 Letters were the perfect location for the expression of personal differences and incompatibility of views. Moreau’s loyalty was put to the test when it came to internal disputes that inevitably developed about control over the Paris committee. Perdiguier, who was willing to help Tristan with information and contacts, had no hesitation in providing letters of introduction. There were dissonances in the parallel and multiple voices in the correspondence. However, just as the Tristan and Moreau correspondence resulted in mutual encouragement and support for one another, so too did the Tristan–Perdiguier antagonistic correspondence have the same outcome, a multiplication of contacts within the worker activists’ network. Moreau then became an ally for Tristan in the Perdiguier dispute. The correspondence between Moreau and Tristan shows that they developed a certain affinity in cooperation as Moreau was most obliging. Perdiguier advised Tristan to keep her counsel to avoid squabbles. Tristan used her journal as an outlet for expressing her critique of socialist workers. Even though she needed information and was dependent on the experts she did not modify her criticism, as she believed this was an essential part of her political role. She did not hesitate to articulate her comments on the nature of their workers’ organizations in the publication of Union ouvrière. She had discovered them at a fortuitous time. Consequently she was not going to have an easy relationship with these authors, as the correspondence indicates. Three editions of this work were published – the first in late May or early June 1843, the second and third in 1844. At first Tristan had hoped that the workers’ newspaper La Ruche would publish it in early 1843 but its committee voted narrowly against its acceptance. Extracts of it were


published prior to its full publication in Considérant’s Fourierist newspaper La Phalange, which surprised and delighted Tristan.

Letters from notables The second group of letters is from a publisher, parliamentary deputies, a socialist, a bourgeois lady and an archbishop. Dating from the first six months of 1843, they are the letters Tristan received from contacts outside the workers’ circles as a result of approaching them for assistance to publish, to raise funds and to distribute the book. As was the case for the first category of letters already discussed these were epistolary contacts chosen by Flora Tristan. If she was also seeking affirmation from her peers for her new-found apostolate she was not disappointed. Such was the quality of the replies that she had no difficulty in transferring extracts of this correspondence into her work; it became instant new material for her propaganda, included in the prefaces to the first and second editions of Union ouvrière. The following letters illustrate how Tristan used the epistolary form as an integral part of another genre, the political tract. By their distinctive shape the letters retained their structural identities within the text but were subsumed into her wider agenda of propaganda beyond the reasons for the original communications. She actually created a genre, a letter within a text that would allow her to engage with the reader in a three-way dialogue. That she was able to do so is a reflection on the versatility of her propaganda and writing skills as well as the versatility of the epistolary form. Even a letter of refusal addressed to her as an aspiring missionary for the workers could become useful material to advance her arguments. Although the aim of the political tract was to produce an action plan for a working-class union, the whole experience of the production of the book taught Tristan a number of lessons about potential and fruitless partnerships in political militancy. Her real intention was to denounce publicly those who had not been of any assistance. Her declared ‘innocent’ aim was to pass those valuable teachings on to workers, assuming she was communicating with the socially inept who could possibly read, write and draw up political programmes but who had no contact with the publishing world. Their first lesson was to be able to identify the access, or lack of it, to the written word. She decided to include an account of her own struggle of getting into print as an integral part of the union ouvrière campaign in a preface to the first edition.


First, there was her experience of being rejected by a publisher. She considered significant the discrepancy between the political reputation of a publisher sympathetic to the cause of the people and their unwillingness to cooperate with her project: A en juger d’après la réputation établie, le livre de l’UNION OUVRIÈRE ne devait-il pas être édité par le seul éditeur populaire qui nous reste, – M. Pagnerre ? En effet, tout le monde me disait : M. Pagnerre est le seul éditeur qui puisse se charger de votre ouvrage.43 Although she did not specify who was this ‘tout le monde’, she cited Pagnerre’s letter of response to her request: Madame J’ai l’honneur de vous adresser les épreuves que vous avez bien voulu me confier ; je regrette que les opérations auxquelles je suis obligé de donner mon temps et tous mes soins ne me permettent pas de concourir à la publication de votre travail. Le but que vous vous proposez est louable et généreux, et bien que je ne partage pas toutes vos opinions sur les moyens d’améliorer la situation des travailleurs, je n’en fais pas moins des vœux bien sincères pour que tous les projets qui tendent à ce résultat, soient examinés, discutés sérieusement et mis en pratique, s’il y a lieu. Veuillez agréer, Madame, avec l’expression de mes regrets, mes salutations respectueuses. Pagnerre.44 She then explained that there were three reasons for including his letter. First, she wished to explain once and for all to the numerous people who had suggested Pagnerre as the ideal choice why she was not using his services. Second, she intended to reveal the gulf between the established reputation of a public personality and the reality of what she had experienced: Ensuite ce refus renferme un grand enseignement. Il prouve combien souvent sont fausses les réputation établies. – Dans cent ans qui écriront le règne de Louis-Philippe présenteront M. Pagnerre comme étant l’éditeur populaire de l’époque.45 The judgement of posterity is indeed that this publisher was a defender of political reform and there is ample evidence from his subsequent political career up to 1848 to commend him for his democratic and republican principles. According to the Maitron dictionary,


Laurent-Antoine Pagnerre was indeed a reputable publisher for the Left. He started his publishing career in Paris in 1824. As a participant in the July 1830 revolution he was one of those keen to proclaim a republic and took part in further uprisings in Paris in 1833 and 1834. He did in fact have a reputation as a publisher of democratic writers, publishing Louis Blanc’s Histoire de dix ans, Lamennais’s pamphlets, and works by members of the parliamentary Left. He was often fined for subversive publications as he was consistently a part of opposition struggles of the July Monarchy. He was a member of Aide-toi, le ciel t’aidera, president of the Association républicaine pour l’éducation du peuple, commissioner of various sections of the Société des droits de l’homme, secretary of the Association pour la liberté de la presse, and in 1845 organized the central committee for the voters of the Seine département and many of the reform banquets. He created the Comptoir d’escompte and the Cercle de la librairie. He shared the same political opinions as the newspaper the National. In February 1848 he became deputy mayor of Paris and general secretary of the provisional government, and served briefly as an elected member for the duration of the 1848 constituent assembly where he sat as a moderate republican. He lost his seat during the legislative elections of 1849. Subsequently he shunned public service and returned to his publishing business.46 Tristan’s judgement of him, however, was in connection with the impossible task for a reformist of her ilk in getting into print: Pauvre peuple ! aujourd’hui il n’a pas même un seul éditeur qui consente à publier un petit livre, dont le but est de défendre les intérêts de la classe ouvrière.47 Tristan recorded her negotiations with three publishers in her diary. Pagnerre disappointed her because of his Leftist sympathies but the conversation with one of the other two gave her further material for her book, this time as an example of indifference to the workers, in what she termed typical bourgeois class mentality. The following extract indicates how quickly Tristan jumped to an antagonistic position in conversations and in her conclusions about people: J’ai eu une longue conversation avec M. Paul Renouard, que je connaissais déjà. – Il est résulté de cela que je ferai à la fin de mon livre mon allocution aux bourgeois de main de maître. – J’intitule cela « Aux sourds et aveugles ». – J’ai parlé deux heures à M. Renouard – pour lui faire comprendre que si on ne permettait pas aux ouvriers de


réclamer au nom de leur droit, ils réclameraient au nom de leurs forces, qu’il était de l’intérêt bien entendu des bourgeois que le peuple soit instruit, qu’il ait le droit de vivre … Enfin il m’a dit cette parole terrible « que voulez-vous que je vous dise, si nous n’en sommes pas encore arrivés à nous détester mutuellement (les bourgeois et les ouvriers), nous en sommes arrivés au moins à une complète indifférence l’un pour l’autre ». Ces paroles sont caractéristiques, elles peignent parfaitement l’esprit des bourgeois. – Il se dit : Le sort de l’ouvrier ne me regarde pas ; il se dit : qu’est-ce que cela me fait qu’il vive ou qu’il meure de faim, cela ne me regarde pas. – On ne peut pas pousser plus loin l’inintelligence, la sottise.48 Tristan’s indignation at Renouard’s refusal to comply with her wishes is channelled into the words ‘inintelligence’ and ‘sottise’ and without much foundation for justifying it. The publisher Paul Renouard had been a keen follower of the 1789 revolution and had published several economics pamphlets. Here too is a case of a discrepancy between reputation and reality, this time in the opposite sense. Whether or not Renouard was playing the devil’s advocate in his discussion with Tristan we do not know. He donated five francs according to the list of subscribers to Union ouvrière that Tristan published in the preface to the first edition. The third reason why she cited the letter within the introduction was so that she could explain her next move. She was able to portray herself as one whose publishing chances seemed dim. Grogan states: ‘This refusal left Tristan with few options.’49 In fact Tristan turned adversity to advantage and began door-to-door campaigning for funds to get the book published privately and then organized its distribution. As Armogathe and Grandjonc pointed out this total immersion into the creation of the product from its composition to ensuring its delivery to the consumer was unique: Ce qui se conçoit, étant donné d’une part que, grâce à la souscription, elle a fait l’avance de la totalité des frais d’impression et de tirage du volume qui, d’autre part, est à ses yeux un outil de propagation d’une véritable foi, celle du salut de la classe ouvrière par elle-même et, audelà, de l’humanité par la classe ouvrière.50 Grogan has explained that it was not unusual to publish privately, neither was it exceptional for publishers to sell by subscription to a work in advance of production. ‘What was unusual was the amalgamation of these two practices.’51


In the next part of the preface the resolution of her predicament as a writer without a publisher is related to her readers as a quasi-religious experience. Rejection is transformed into success. With typical hyperbole Tristan relates her attempt to publish as if it were a crusade. The preface became the space for Tristan to reveal her method in her quest for funds. To whom did she address her request for money? Je faisais une quête pour l’impression d’un livre destiné à instruire la classe ouvrière ; il était tout naturel qu’après avoir demandé à mes amis je m’adressasse d’abord à tous ceux qui se posent en vrais amis et en ardents défenseurs du peuple.52 What better way of explaining to the readers than to insert some of the epistolary responses into the second edition? Tristan included eight letters, beginning with her own in a footnote that she had sent, she explained, as a cover letter with her book to all ‘sociétés de compagnonnages des divers devoirs et à celles des sociétaires de l’Union’. That this was at all possible after only five months of contact with this particular network was thanks to her successful epistolary dialogue begun with Moreau and Perdiguier in December 1842. There is little trace of the quantity of cover letters involved: she claimed to have distributed 3,000 prospectuses in Paris workshops.53 This was a significant step in epistolary methods, the equivalent of a targeted mailshot. We do not know if Flora Tristan got her letter printed for that purpose, but by including it in her preface she sent the same message to all. In it she reiterated three important aspects of her position as a militant working on behalf of the working class. First, she was independent of any sect or movement: Je suis en dehors de toute coterie, de toute personnalité. C’est donc uniquement au point de vue du bien général que j’ai traité la question de l’Union entre tous les ouvriers. Pour moi, il n’y a ni gavots, ni dévoirants ; mais seulement des hommes égaux, des citoyens ayant les mêmes droits et les mêmes intérêts, des frères malheureux devant s’aimer et s’unir pour réclamer pacifiquement leurs droits et défendre leurs intérêts.54 To say she was independent was an exaggeration when we remember from the first category of letters that she had begun her career as an isolated activist by closely aligning herself with workers’ organizations that were known to have a definite structure and an agenda of promoting


workers’ unity, and asking the same first contacts to sponsor her in their meetings. Her claim of impartiality is far from true but was an important one to make considering the strain on friendship and goodwill in the epistolary relationships with the workers on whom she had been so utterly dependent at first. Secondly she made a further disingenuous statement when she asked them to ignore the fact that she was a woman and to concentrate on the content: Je vous prie Messieurs, de lire mon petit livre avec impartialité. Ne vous laissez pas aveugler par un préjugé absurde et funeste. Que ma qualité de femme ne soit pas pour vous un motif de répulsion pour mon œuvre. Songez bien que l’amour, l’intelligence, la force n’ont pas de sexe. En lisant le livre de l’UNION-OUVRIÈRE ne vous occupez uniquement que d’étudier la valeur des idées qui s’y trouvent.55 Tristan is striving against the norm where love, intelligence and strength have gendered interpretations; she was stating her ideal world where there would be an androgynous humanity. At the same time she wants it to be apparent that the book Union ouvrière is the work of a woman. Considering the way her correspondents had been reacting so generously to Madame Tristan the author, sharing their political ideas for reform, giving her contacts and money, Tristan staged herself as their superior sister in humanity but wished to be considered an equal as a fellow militant. Tristan was in fact highlighting her gender so that her female authorship would get the idea accepted more easily. She used it as a ploy to conceal her self-publicity and to absolve herself from the petty squabbling that is an inevitable part of politics. She wanted her scheme to be judged on its merits: Si vous les jugez bonnes, rationnelles et réalisables, mettez-moi entièrement de côté et faites qu’elles deviennent vôtres. Ce à quoi j’aspire, ce n’est pas à la vaine gloire d’avoir fait un livre. Non, grâce à Dieu ! Je suis au-dessus de cette petitesse.56 This was in fact exactly what Tristan was doing. She had fallen in love with the idea of becoming a political reformer and expected success for her project on that basis. We have seen how Perdiguier had reacted so forcefully to her idea for a union, insisting she was not the only one to have an idea. Certainly Tristan’s sights were now set on achieving the reputation as the inventor of this idea. In one fell swoop she set herself


in a different category when she differentiated between her differences with activists and those of others. For Tristan anyone who argued with her was wrong or stupid, and any political differences were simply due to petty jealousies. She placed herself centre stage, wedded publicly to the noble aim; anyone attacking her was opposed to the working class: Ce que je veux, ce à quoi je travaille, c’est à servir efficacement la classe la plus nombreuse et la plus utile. Voilà tout ce que je désire et rien de plus.57 Thirdly, as a result of this public role she now craved, she realized she would have to account for her actions as a fund-raiser. The third point of the letter is a precautionary measure: she wished to list the financial transactions so that she could account for the money involved raised from the subscriptions. Her keen business sense turns a noble aim into a commercial transaction with a saintly gloss: Comme vous verrez dans ma préface, je ne fais pas de la vente de ce petit livre une affaire de commerce. L’argent qui en résultera sera employé au service de la cause. 58 The first step in serving this great and noble cause, she argued, was to sell as many copies as possible: C’est pourquoi Messieurs, je viens franchement et fraternellement vous prier de m’aider à placer ce livre parmi les ouvriers. C’est pour la cause que je demande votre appui et non pour moi.59 The penultimate appeal revealed a double aim of maximizing book sales and of achieving a political goal: Si, d’ici à un an, nous parvenons à faire que chaque ouvrier ait le livre de l’UNION OUVRIÈRE au fond de sa casquette, dans trois ans l’union universelle des ouvriers et ouvrières sera possible et alors mes frères, nous serons sauvés.60 Tristan specifically addressed men five times in her letter; men and women workers were mentioned only once. This, as we saw earlier, was a contentious topic among correspondents although not often debated. There is no evidence, however, that Tristan toned down the gender dimension as a result of the opposition to gender egalitarian reform.


The success of her ambition would depend on the response to her call for action. Assuming she would get an answer, Flora Tristan needed to add the vital information for fundraising, the practical arrangements of her campaign, in her letter. These were mentioned at the very end: P.S. Voyez quel sera le nombre d’exemplaires que vous croirez pouvoir placer parmi les ouvriers, et écrivez-le moi, je vous les enverrai par le roulage ou la diligence, afin d’éviter les frais de poste, qui sont énormes. Lorsque le tout sera vendu, vous me ferez passer l’argent provenant de cette vente.61 The instructions are clear and the message is forcefully addressed to workers’ groups. In order to discover the nature of the response to her call for a workers’ organization in the political world beyond the workers’ milieu we can turn to the very sources that Flora Tristan used to illustrate the same point, the impact of her quest on society as a whole: her correspondence. The great surprise for her, she admitted to her readers, was the number and quality of letters from members of the public who were not from the workers’ groups: Je dois dire, à leur louange et à la surprise générale des ouvriers, que j’ai rencontré parmi les bourgeois aide, sympathie, approbation. – Des personnes, hommes et femmes, appartenant à la haute bourgeoisie, à la noblesse et même au clergé, m’ont écrit des lettres bien belles et qui prouvent l’intérêt sincère qu’elles portent à la classe ouvrière. En venant à moi, ces personnes m’ont manifesté le désir qu’elles auraient d’être utiles à la cause des ouvriers. Plusieurs m’ont envoyé des cotisations en me priant de les employer au service de l’œuvre.62 These replies gave her such a boost in confidence that Tristan decided to include some of them from public figures as a means of winning over those not yet convinced by her arguments: Je vais donner ici quelques passages des lettres qui m’ont été adressées à l’occasion de mon livre. En faisant connaître l’approbation donnée à mon idée par des hommes du plus haut mérite, j’espère attirer l’attention des personnes que la logique de mes raisonnements n’a pu convaincre.63 The authors of the letters addressed to her were: Gustave de Beaumont, Considérant, August Audemar, Amélie de D. … L. and Eugène


Sue. She also included comments from epistolary sources that she had obtained indirectly in a letter written by Adolphe Blanqui to a worker in response to his request for advice about the scheme of building palaces for the planned social services for workers’ needs and in a letter from Engelbert, the Cardinal Archbishop of Malines, published in Considérant’s paper, the Démocratie pacifique, because of the recommendation he made to all his curates that the church had a duty to see to the bodily needs of parishioners as well as their spiritual welfare. By including replies from public figures sympathetic to the cause Tristan could add their authority to the project as word spread about the success of the venture. She had another task in mind when approaching public figures who had already shown their devotion to ‘the people’. That was her quest for a defender whom she had proposed in her union ouvrière. According to her plan he would represent the working class in parliament and would receive a stipend. The first correspondent she included was a possible candidate for this role: Gustave de Beaumont, a member of parliament who sat with the Left (la gauche dynastique), was a pioneer in social studies. Tristan had consulted his study on Ireland, L’Irlande sociale, politique et religieuse, published in 1839 (reprinted in 1995), while working on her Promenades dans Londres. She had already been to see him with excellent results as she related in her diary: Je suis allée chez M. Gustave de Beaumont par une pluie battante, je l’ai attendu une heure chez son portier, puis je lui ai dit le parti que j’avais pris, ceci a été bien dit. Il l’a parfaitement compris, approuvé, loué. – Il m’a donné 30 francs.64 De Beaumont expressed his full support for her plan and gave her some financial advice about fundraising, as well as providing her with some clarification on the O’Connell scheme on which Tristan had based her proposals. In his letter he warned her about the need for careful management of funds and suggested that she might find a better class of person to defend the workers if they were to act in a benevolent capacity: soyez sûre, Madame, que les meilleurs avocats de cette noble cause seront ceux qui la défendront gratuitement. Quelques-uns auraient beaucoup de répugnance à recevoir une récompense, d’ailleurs si légitime, de leurs efforts ; et notre société est ainsi faite que la voix des défenseurs serait moins puissante si on la croyait un peu intéressée … Il est certain que rien ne se peut faire au profit de la meilleure cause sans beaucoup d’argent ; mais ce serait l’association seule, si une fois elle était formée, qui devrait recevoir pour agir dans l’intérêt commun.65


De Beaumont suggested that this was a serious matter for further reflection and that he himself was very busy and could not commit himself: Pour moi, Madame, qui suis engagé dans un ordre de travaux qui m’absorbe tout entier, je ne puis m’associer que de loin à des intentions dont je reconnais l’excellence.66 In any case he considered that as the originator of the idea she was its best defender: Je suis, du reste, très convaincu qu’avant de recevoir leur accomplissement pratique les bonnes idées contenues dans votre livre ont besoin d’être livrées à la controverse et de pénétrer ainsi dans le sentiment public, et je connais pas de meilleur apôtre de ces idées que celle qui les a conçues.67 The next person to be included in the hall of fame was Considérant, a leading Fourierist socialist who also campaigned for male suffrage and the right to work. As editor of the newspapers La Phalange and Démocratie pacifique he provided Tristan with invaluable publicity by publishing an extract of her Union ouvrière.68 This gave a tremendous boost to her morale as the diary testifies: Mais parlons de la Phalange. – Voilà un ‘événement inattendue ! – J’envoie un chapitre « Des moyens de constituer la classe ouvrière ». Considérant m’écrit une lettre superbe – Il trouve mon idée grande, puissante, capable de jeter un nouveau jour dans la marche des choses sociales et me demande la permission de consulter ses collaborateurs pour l’insertion que je réclame. – Puis, 4 jours après il insère – avec un en-tête très bien – le 29 mars. – Le 31 le reste, – presque un chapitre. – Il y fait suivre un article où il me place parmi les socialistes pacifiques. En un mot très bien. – Le soir même il m’écrit une lettre très bonne, très affectueuse, mettant sa Phalange à mon service – qui aurait pu s’attendre à cela ! – Tout le monde en est tellement surpris qu’on ne sait qu’en dire.69 In his letter Considérant also encouraged Tristan with tactful advice although he was dubious about the possibility of immediate implementation. He advised caution about condemning the bourgeoisie, reminding her of the desire of many socialists to avoid violence. He and Tristan


shared the position of intermediary between two antagonistic classes. As members of the educated classes their loyalties were divided; they had the interests of the ‘people’ or the ‘workers’ at heart. Considérant expressed this dual loyalty thus: je crois que la production de l’idée est bonne, à condition que vous l’enveloppiez d’un manteau de haute charité sociale et non de révolte. – Entendons-nous : soyez sévère, défendez sévèrement les droits méconnus ; mais pas de haine, pas d’expression de guerre ; – les bourgeois sont aussi des hommes, et il faut que l’émancipation du peuple se fasse plus intelligemment, plus savamment et plus chrétiennement que ne s’est faite celle de la bourgeoisie.70 Tristan does not comment on the advice from Considérant to act in a spirit of Christian reconciliation and avoid the risk of alienation of the bourgeoisie from her scheme; for her purposes the presentation of an extract of his letter was sufficient as a broadcast of his support. In her diary, however, she puts a different gloss on his help. Tristan attributes the appearance of her work in the Fourierist journal as proof of her own legitimacy. By writing a letter Considérant has granted her recognition above other schemes: Considérant s’aperçoit enfin qu’il ne peut rien faire avec les riches, qu’il marche depuis onze ans sans avancer d’un pas, à la fin il s’impatiente, et selon la prédiction qu je lui ai faite il y a sept ans, il commence enfin à vouloir s’appuyer sur la seule et unique force réelle qui existe dans la société – la force du plus grand nombre. – Il fallait mon article pour le déterminer à cela.71 In her diary Tristan betrays her arrogance or self-delusion in thinking that Considérant is going to concede something to her way of thinking. She also reveals an inability to express gratitude, all the while expecting ‘the workers’ to be grateful to her. Nonetheless whether because of or in spite of her forceful personality, offers of assistance continued to arrive in her flat in the rue du Bac. The third letter was from Audemar, a lawyer and prominent philanthropic figure in Toulon. He congratulated Tristan for the brilliance of her plan, which like all great ideas was simple and appealing to all: Ce plan est simple comme toutes les grandes choses : il porte en lui le germe de mille réformes dont la nécessité n’est contestée par


personne en principe. Ils est surtout excellent en ce qu’il peut se réaliser sans secousse violente et sans alarmer les intérêts dominants. – Au contraire, avec un peu de réflexion, on voit aisément que tous ces intérêts devraient se coaliser pour son application ; car l’émancipation graduelle et pacifique du travail doit nécessairement tourner à leur profit, selon les lois les plus simples des sciences économiques.72 Considérant and Audemar both commented that her idea would produce useful results possibly in the long term rather than in the short term. Audemar was a keen supporter of Tristan’s work after subscribing 20 francs to her second edition of Union ouvrière. He kept in touch with her during her tour of France and was an invaluable help as an escort when she visited Toulon the following year. He was one of the many (but what she called exceptional) bourgeois prepared to become political activists to alleviate working-class poverty. She wished to pass on this message of potential help to the workers: D’après l’esprit qui règne dans toutes ces lettres, on le voit si les ouvriers voulaient s’unir, ils pourraient être certains de trouver dans la bourgeoisie une coopération active et puissante.73 After receiving another letter from Audemar while on her tour of France, Tristan was deeply critical of his pessimism about finding any worker enthusiasm for the cause of workers’ unity. She confided to her diary her determination to ignore such an outlook from someone who she thinks should know better: Voilà un bourgeois des plus avancés. Eh bien ! Que ferait-on si on écoutait ces gens-là ? – Rien. Le peuple est bête, ignorant, méchant, certes ce n’est pas difficile à voir, et les bourgeois avancés le voient. Mais ils ne font « rien pour éclairer le peuple ». Alors il restera jusqu’à l’éternité des siècles ignorant, bête, méchant. En vérité c’est pitoyable.74 The letters from Considérant and Audemar underpinned her strategy of including an ‘appeal to the bourgeois’ in her Union ouvrière. The other category of persons from whom Tristan had expressed hope for support was upper-class women who she argued should be potential allies as equally disenfranchised and marginalized from political power. She received at least one response from such a woman who signed herself as Amélie de D. … L. Like Audemar she was struck by the


feasibility of the construction of the palaces: un point m’a frappée, parce que je le crois réalisable, je veux parler des palais. – Selon moi, c’est le côté le plus remarquable de votre œuvre. – L’hôpital ne convient plus à notre siècle ; c’est un mot qui jure à côté de celui de citoyen et le dernier des mendiants est, malgré sa pauvreté, un citoyen. – Le mot seul de palais opposé à l’hôpital, maison de retraite ou toute autre dénomination, me paraît une rénovation.75 This correspondent wished to help but realized there were barriers in the form of lack of esteem among the ‘people’ and their perceived class antagonism that denied her class the opportunity of doing good deeds: Ce qui fait l’abaissement du peuple, c’est qu’il se croit destiné à l’abaissement. – La première chose à faire serait donc de la relever à ses propres yeux. – Le peuple pense que les riches le méprisent ; il a tort : moi je suis des riches, je vis parmi les riches, et je puis vous affirmer que nous avons plus d’estime et de respect pour lui qu’il n’en montre pour lui-même.76 The message that Tristan believed she should hear from a wealthy woman was an offer to become involved to help both the working class and women from all classes. This example was one of the rare letters written by women to Tristan. One was enough to be cited in Union ouvrière as an example of her desire to hear from many social groups: Voyez, Madame, c’est à vous, la créatrice de l’idée, à nous mettre à même de la servir.77 Tristan’s carefully chosen extracts from letters all offered moral support and acted as a counterweight to the antagonism from other quarters and to the apathy of the workers themselves, about which other correspondents had already warned Tristan. They reinforced her political stance and gave her a fresh insight into class relations. In the months following the publication of Union ouvrière the question of bourgeois assistance for the workers’ union was to become a real dilemma in the programme of politicization devised by Flora Tristan.78 Like Flora Tristan, Sue had made the plight of ‘the people’ the subject of his successful novels, among them Les Mystères de Paris published in


1842. The sympathetic manner in which he portrayed socio-economic conditions made his international reputation among socialist intellectuals, worker writers and the establishment literati alike. He subsequently entered parliament in the Second Republic’s new constituent assembly elected in April 1848 but went into exile following the Bonapartist coup d’état of 1852. Sue was inundated with letters after his serialized publication of Les Mystères de Paris by the newspaper Le Journal des débats, many of them requesting money or help.79 To receive approval from him was quite a coup for establishing Tristan’s authority, with her peers and the workers alike. Sue approved of the manner in which Tristan proposed to remain within the law. Like the Irish Repeal Association the workers’ union was to operate legally and was feasible for immediate implementation: L’admirable exemple de l’Irlande prouve à quel ascendant les masses peuvent arriver par l’union, sans sortir de la légalité. Il me semble que plus les classes laborieuses de la société tendront à se rapprocher, à unir leurs efforts, leurs intérêts, leurs moyens d’action, plus elles donneront de poids et d’autorité à leurs légitimes réclamations. C’est en cela, Madame que votre projet relatif à la fondation des PALAIS de l’Union ouvrière me paraît d’autant plus excellent qu’il est réalisable, immédiatement réalisable.80 He recognized its worth as a workers’ initiative: Cette initiative prise par la classe ouvrière aurait, je crois, une portée immense et je puis vous assurer, Madame, que plusieurs de mes amis et moi nous serions fiers et heureux d’apporter à cette louable entreprise nos profondes sympathies, notre ardent concours et les moyens pécuniaires dont nous pourrions disposer, comme souscripteurs à l’édifice du premier palais de l’Union ouvrière.81 The effect of the inclusion of letters in the preface to Union ouvrière was to convey to the readers that the original message had struck a chord in a wider community beyond the working class. Tristan’s project could rally more than those directly targeted. The dispersal of her original message of getting workers to help themselves by raising their own funds to create palaces to house young, sick, old and unemployed had its own political impetus; it produced potential allies beyond Paris and helpers for the future campaign and procured her further publicity. Through the epistolary dialogue the project of union ouvrière was gaining a momentum beyond its publication.


The decision to go it alone and publish had been a risky one but the initial fundraising for publication and distribution had been a success that can be gauged by the publication and sales figures. This is how it has usually been judged. However there is a less obvious but equally important way of assessing the success of the venture and that is in the role of letter writing both for spreading the word and getting feedback on its reception. The letter included in the preface to the first edition enabled her to use her experience with publishers to show the workers the power of those who could refuse to assist her in spite of their reputations. Those she included in the preface to the second edition were the leading figures of the day. Her correspondence gives us a snapshot of the 1843 ‘who’s who’ in philanthropy and socialism. As with the first set, there is a common focus for those names used. There is a bias towards those who had access to the written word, namely politicians, publishers, booksellers and journalists. The lady and the archbishop were the exceptions among them; each represented an important category in Tristan’s scheme for social intervention.

Letters from a widening circle The third group of letters is when the network spreads. Letters come in from a widening circle. We have seen that Tristan was the first to recognize her surprise at the extent of the response to the first edition of Union ouvrière. We have seen that she could measure her success by the quality of the epistolary communications she received; she also cited an impressive quantity of letters in the preface to her second edition. There is a certain bias in the way that she reported the quantity and their content. In the opening section of the preface to the second edition, immediately following the inclusion of her letter of propaganda sent with the first edition of Union ouvrière, Tristan gave the number of letters and visits she had received as a result of her propaganda thus far: Au 10 juillet j’avais déjà reçu quarante-trois lettres d’ouvriers tant de Paris que de la province ; trent-cinq ouvriers appartenant à tous les métiers s’étaient présentés chez moi dans le but de m’offrir leurs services pour la cause.82 Tristan had been so impressed by her first letters that she began by classifying them back in February 1843. By July, however, her accounting of these sources does not quite tally with the surviving sources in the Puech archive where there are more than 43 letters but fewer than


43 authors. The letters included in the publication of the second edition are not in the Puech archive. The evidence of the quantity of letters that Tristan presented in the preface to her second edition of Union ouvrière does not accord with surviving sources. Here we must accept that we shall remain in the dark about what she chose to keep from the year 1843, what she left behind in Paris and took with her on her tour of France in April 1844 and what survived the police raids and was sent to Eléonore Blanc in Lyons after her death. What has been conserved, however, is enough for us to be able to assess several important points about the progression to contact with the workers. The authority of the letter remains as evidence even if the archive is incomplete. Furthermore the starting point for their analysis is the review of them by Tristan in her preface to the second edition. She added further critical remarks in her diary. What we can establish is that the pattern of epistolary communication altered as the network of correspondents expanded considerably after April 1843. From this time onwards letter writing to fellow activists had become a major occupation for Tristan and would remain so until her death. She also encouraged letter writing as an essential activity of the support groups. On 2 April her entry for her diary reads: Aujourd’hui, à 2 heures, je me suis rendue chez Gosset. C’est ma première réunion d’ouvriers – Ils étaient sept. – Certes je n’en ai pas été satisfaite, mais en tenant compte de l’état où ils sont, je n’ai pas lieu d’en être mécontente – Ils ont compris assez bien la question – Ils ne manquent ni d’intelligence ni de bon sens, mais il y a chez eux une absence totale de foi – Cependant plusieurs ont du dévouement, du bon vouloir, mais pas d’enthousiasme, pas de confiance, ni en eux ni aux hommes – ni aux choses. – Ils sont tièdes. – Oh ! c’est très inquiétant. – Il faut croire que ma foi est bien profonde, car aucune de ces déceptions ne me refroidit – au contraire. – J’ai porté la lettre de Perdiguier. – Tout cela s’est fait avec calme – c’est bien – cependant ma présence là a déjà amené un petit résultat. – Je suis parvenue à nommer un Comité de 7 membres, unis par la correspondance – Je leur écrirai des lettres collectives et eux me répondront de même. – Les frais de poste seront payés en commun. – C’est un premier pas.83 According to Tristan’s account of the reception of the letters of this third group she was overwhelmed with replies from workers who


praised the palace idea more than any other. However her account does not match the type that has survived. Checking on the critiques established above we find a mismatch that can be attributed to Tristan’s perceptions of worker identity and her reading of the critique of her work. The discrepancy in the evidence provided by Tristan and our dependence on incomplete archives leaves us guessing about the socio-economic precision of the term ‘worker’. However it is clear from the manner in which Tristan used the word ‘worker’ that she saw it as a political label as well as a socio-economic category; it was an inclusive category to denote identification with a cause in her epistolary calculation. In her preface to her second edition, Tristan claimed that of all the proposals in her book the palace was the only appealing one for all men and women workers: De tous les moyens indiqués dans mon livre pour l’amélioration du sort de la classe ouvrière, un seul a vivement frappé l’attention de tous les ouvriers et ouvrières. Le PALAIS de L’UNION OUVRIÈRE.84 Two pages further on, she reiterated that the palaces are the most important question in the letters she received from workers: ‘Dans toutes les lettres d’ouvriers le Palais fait la question principale.’85 The term ‘palace’ stood for the physical embodiment of union ouvrière. Besides being a scheme to unite workers in a self-help organization it was to result in the construction of a building in every town as a social centre to house ill and old workers and to educate the young. Other than the proposal that the palace was a right for all men and women Tristan left details unspecified. She used the concept as a powerful practical example of the potential force of the working class to assume their own destiny: En venant démontrer aux ouvriers, par un calcul bien simple (leur nombre), qu’ils possédaient en eux une richesse immense, qu’ils pouvaient, s’ils veulent s’unir, faire avec leurs liards, des millions, oui des millions ! qu’une fois en possession de ces richesses ils pourraient faire bâtir, pour eux, de vastes palais–ateliers–fermes à l’aspect grandiose et riant, en leur montrant le trésor qu’ils possèdent, je les ai délivrés de l’humiliation de l’aumône et leur ai fait entrevoir le paradis.86 Later, during her tour of France, after weeks of observing poor housing conditions in French towns when Tristan often fantasized about her


leadership qualities, she considered the architectural potential of the term ‘palace’ in a more precise way in her campaign: Lorsque je serai « servante générale » de l’Europe, j’aurai à ma solde une bande noire dont l’emploi sera d’aller raser certaines villes comme étant le seul et unique moyen d’en faire sortir les prisonniers, les [pauvres galériens] qui l’habitent pour la honte de l’humanité. – Puis j’aurai une autre bande blanche qui suivra toujours la bande noire, celle-là aura pour fonctions d’édifier de magnifiques palaisvilles afin de loger convenablement, proprement et sainement les prop[riétaires] des bicoques rasées.87 Tristan’s analysis of the letters in the preface to the second edition is buoyant as most of those selected were positive towards her project: ‘Toutes ces lettres, sauf quelques-unes, sont rédigées dans le même esprit et exprime les mêmes sentiments.’88 Through her presentation she created a public image of the authority of her project. She was optimistic about the general content although many correspondents were cautious. Epistolary dialogue had produced the idea for the association union ouvrière and as an integral part of the text legitimized the existence of the book Union ouvrière. Furthermore she reinforced her message by describing the responses in letters to what she expected to be the most successful and the least successful elements of her message. While she liked to think the palaces were a good selling point of her programme she explained that the economic and social questions of the right to work were not easily understood: Maintenant il faut bien dire toute la vérité : les hautes et importantes questions d’économie sociale, traitées dans le l’œuvre de l’Union ouvrière, n’ont pas été comprises par les ouvriers (exceptés quelques uns).89 From the correspondence we know that the ‘workers’ understood the economic and social concepts as well as the organizational questions. They understood palaces as Tristan did; they were a pedagogic tool, a rallying point for workers. The provision of welfare services, she suggested, became more significant and a key part of improvements to workingclass living conditions later in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, partially provided by mutual groups and eventually by the state. What is more perplexing about Tristan’s portrayal of the corpus of letters she received is that there are scarcely any surviving letters from


workers that mention the palaces as the most attractive aspect of her political programme. In fact letters from correspondents classified as unqualified workers are unknown in her correspondence. They could have been destroyed as of little relevance to Tristan’s programme but there is a simpler explanation for this discrepancy in Tristan’s account and what survives. Some questions that Tristan considered important at the time of writing were no longer so relevant in the correspondence. There is only one mention of a discussion with workers of her proposed palaces in her diary. In order to carry out the first part of her project of proselytism among the workers Tristan was concerned to make contact with them but her search for those she described as ignorant was elusive. ‘Workers’ letters’ was practically a contradiction in terms if we define workers as the most economically exploited workers who had no prior political commitment or contacts. The hurdle of illiteracy was the biggest barrier to their correspondence. Tristan’s obscure workers make for an interesting dimension to the epistolary dialogue. When Tristan referred to workers who had written she was referring to literate workers most of whom were active in some form of militancy. The following letter is from a skilled worker in the building industry. He had so much to criticize that he ran out of space on his quota of paper for a letter. Gosset had introduced him to her plan: J’ai lu attentivement un fragment de votre ouvrage sur l’union universelle des ouvriers et ouvrières, que m’a prêté le F[orgeron] Gosset. et Certes, votre Idée est grande et Belle et Noble et courageuse.90 He believed the project would fail because of a lack of comprehension and faith. Moreover he was nervous of the idea of further struggles in the light of previous revolutions. The 1789 revolution was more than a historical event: it was a marker for social behaviour. If the people rose up again too soon they would be quashed mercilessly: Mais, hélas ! les Tems ne sont pas venus. Le peuple sait Trop où pas assez ; il sort à peine des Langes de l’ignorance ou Tend à le retenir l’aristocratie de l’or, cette classe qui possède après s’être emparée du Pouvoir que nous l’avons aidé à arracher à la Noblesse ne s’en déssaisira pas sans une Lutte Longue et acharnée. Bien que nos Rangs soient nombreux, Comptez et Voyez nos athlètes la Plupart brisés ou froissés de leurs chûtes dans la Lutte qu’ils ont si courageusement entreprise d’autres abattus sous l’arme du Ridicule et dans notre


France les blessures faites par cette arme sont Presque toujours incurables, Les autres découragés Par les Tracasseries incessantes d’une Ignoble Police, Tous, abandonnés du Peuple dont ils avaient entrepris l’affranchissement. Je le répète, Votre Pensée est Grande et noble – elle sera incomprise.91 Apart from the question of oppression and the failure of previous struggles Morize lucidly mentioned the workers’ scepticism and greed that would prevent them from trusting anyone with the 14 million francs of funds to be amassed and managed on behalf of the workers: Chaque fois que soutenue d’hommes de cœur et de courage vous vous croirez prête d’atteindre le But, vous en serez Repoussée par ceux là mêmes, en faveur de qui, vous ambitionnez de l’atteindre. Sous le Rapport Matériel de plus grands obstacles vous attendent encore ; cependant je ne les considère point comme invincibles. Le Premier, et le plus Sérieux peut-être sera le peu de foi qui nous reste … Mais notre scepticisme d’une Part, de l’autre notre cupidité, qui va s’éveiller à ce beau Résultat de l’Union, chacun va s’inquiéter de se savoir Possesseur d’un Enorme Revenu de 14 millions chacun va se demander, quels sont ceux assez probes assez désintéressés pour administrer cette Masse de capitaux ? Cette arme Première qui peut seule faire notre force ? Nuls ! se répondra-t-on. Vous le voyez la foi Manque.92 Furthermore, Morize argued, it was not in the interests of those in power to allow the formation of such a union. The employers would be horrified at the thought of the workers possessing such economic power. In apocalyptic style he predicts the worst for the workers, a lockout from their jobs: Le second, viendra de ceux là memes qui ont interet a ce que le Travail s’organise pas. Nous accorderont-ils les moyens de Réunir les délégués de chaque corps d’etat et de chaque Partie de la France ? nous accorderont-ils la Jouissance Pleine et entière de ces Capitaux, si nous les réalisons, NON, ils jetteront un cri d’allarme, ce Cri qui fait Trembler jusque dans son Cabinet le Plus Reculé, Tout Producteur qui ne produit rien, COALITION. Nous serons Poursuivis, Traqués, désunis, nos Travaux commencés mis sous le séquestre et nos ouvrages mis à l’index, d’autres empêchemens decoulent naturellement de ces 2 Principaux Mais l’Espace me manque, dans une


Seconde Lettre, si vous me le Permettez, J’envisagerai les autres obstacles qu’il faudra surmonter, semblable en cela au Voyageur Expérimenté qui après avoir ceint ses Reins et Saisi Son Bâton Calcules toutes les aspérités de la Route avant de faire le Premier Pas dans la Carrière. Morize Peintre en bâtimens.93 Tristan’s comments at the foot of the letter were scathing. She was not impressed by an articulate worker who lacked faith in the universal union of men and women workers. For her optimism in a utopian future of an active and well-organized working class capable of organizing itself (with a little help of course from herself for as long a time as necessary to achieve their emancipation) came the pessimistic realist who predicted the worst possible scenario: Cette lettre est impayable ! – elle représente parfait-t [parfaitement] l’ouvrier beau parleur – C’est une chose à remarquer que tous ceux qui font des phrases n’ont pas de foi, pas de force – c’est le doute, la négative – Ce n’est rien du tout que ces brouillons. Je ne fais aucun cas de ces ouvriers là. – Flora.94 The Morize letter was not helpful in the short term but provided her with a counterbalance against which she could justify her actions. It was in her interest to keep this letter. Our gaps in this study of workers’ letters are the same as the limitations to Tristan’s access to workers. We cannot provide evidence of dialogue with totally uneducated workers through letters but in the example of Morize we have someone who was one stage more socially remote than Gosset. Gosset had transmitted her ideas to a wider audience. The letters are evidence of the limitations of the reception. Communication has always been a problem for the least articulate voices in society. They leave little or no trace. From the evidence of the letters reception was better among enlightened bourgeois and among skilled workers. The third group is evidence that Tristan was heard outside the Parisian circles when she received letters from new correspondents at an opportune moment. Just when the Parisian activists took issue with her actions and were inclined to see her as a misguided author or as a meddlesome woman she received letters from a new set of correspondents. Many of them worked in isolation as political activists and some were more accommodating, seeing her as a real friend of the people. From April 1843 onwards as word began to spread about her programme she was


receiving letters expressing interest in her work. This unexpected channel of communication beyond the Parisian set created further possibilities of networks and affirmed her in her new-found role as organizer and propagandist. It also provided further evidence of politicization at grassroots level outside Paris, an important dimension for our study. Take for instance the following letter from a woman who advised her that workers would need educating before they were ready to listen to her message. She herself had read of Union ouvrière in the newspaper La Phalange, and attempted to explain what it meant to be a worker to Tristan the outsider. Mme Soudet ‘ouvrière’ spoke with another type of authority: she could relate the workers’ troubles through her married experience. She could interpret the reactions of workers to the union ouvrière as she was familiar with the mentality of her husband’s colleagues: Madame Je connaissait votre projet par la phalange et souffrait pour y vous tout en l’admirant, persuadée de la valeur mais aussi de l’impossibilité de sa Réalisation. Vous ne connaissez pas les ouvriers, ils ne sont pas encore arrivé a rendre justice aux femmes et a avoir foi en elles. Si mon mari présentait votre idée à ses collegues ils lui rirait au nés, vous les gugéz d’après quelques uns que vous avez vue tous hommes avancés, mais se sont encore de faibles excéptions, et cest les masses qu’ils vous faudrait pour réussir a l’œuvre gigantesque que vous revé se serait trés beau et trés heureux, mais nous n’en sommes pas la malheureusement, je vois avec douleur que vous vous crêé beaucoups de déceptions pardonné ma franchise peut être vous déplaira telle mais plus tard vous me rendréz justice.95 It would seem that Tristan had asked the woman for her opinion of Morize and perhaps for contacts: Je vois peu de monde et ceux que je vois sont phalanstériens et ne veulent pas entendre parler d’autre chose, quand a M. Morisse, je n’ai rien a vous dire puisque vous le voyez. Pour ce qui me regarde je ne puis prendre aucune part à une œuvre que je ne crois pas réalisable tout en la trouvant trés belle mais le tems n’est pas venu ils faut que les hommes s’instruise et nos enfans comprendront mieux leurs droits et leur devoir parce qu’ils seronts plus instruits que nous. je dis nous ouvriers, qui n’avons appris qua travailler par ce que il y a vingt ans que lon navais pas tous les moyens de s’instruire qui existe aujourd’hui, il faut donc atendre avec


patience que les hommes aye bien compris ce qui leur serait le plus avantageux alors ils sentiront le besoin de s’unir. mais je le répète le tems n’est pas venu. lorsque je pourréz disposer de quelques instans j’auréz le plaisir de vous voir en atendant ce moment recevéz lasurance de mon amitié toute a vous femme SOUDET.96 Insisting that so long as workers remained ignorant the time was not ready for action Soudet nonetheless agreed to meet her. Soudet’s letter illustrates further the problems for Tristan in trying to reach workers and create a space for dialogue. There was a cultural incongruity between the intended beneficiaries of her project and the actual audience Tristan succeeded in reaching. The following letter from Durand discusses the discrepancy between the ignorance of the workers and the intelligence of Tristan’s project but warns her of the danger of campaigning on their behalf: Ma chère Flora Votre persévérance à réclamer les droit de la classe à la quelle j’ai l’honneur d’appartenir, et le travail important que vous a inspiré cette préoccupation sont des gloires que vous préparez à votre nom : aussi, quelle que soit l’issue de la mission dangereuse et mille fois honorable que vous avez entreprise, comptez sur moi : je ne déserterai jamais cette cause sacrée que j’ai déjà essayé de déffendre et que j’aurais fait triompher si j’avais eu votre génie.97 Durand reminds her that political activism is not quite as free in the provinces as it may be in Paris: Mais vous ne m’étonnez pas en me disant que vous n’avez pas pu trouver d’éditeur pour L’union ouvrière, ne sommes nous pas en progrès d’égoïsme et d’oppression ? Si vous pensez le contraire c’est que vous habitez la capitale où vous avez encore des journaux indépendans et où la population est sur ses gardes ! Mais dans notre petite ville, c’est bien différent.98 Illiteracy, he suggests, is a weapon for the ruling classes to maintain their hold on the working class: les fonctionnaires publics seuls, sont pour le mieux, dans le melieur des mondes possibles. quand à la classe ouvrière, on la retient forsément dans une espèce d’illotisme grace à l’omnipotence du sous-préfet qui, de concert avec le procureur du Roi, laisse insérer


dans le journal du lieu toutes sortes de balivernes à leurs louanges ; Mais si quelqu’un s’avise d’écrire, non pas une lettre, non pas une phrase, un mot seulement en faveur du peuple, il est aussitôt mandé au parquet, traité de séditieux, d’anarchiste etc. et renvoyé avec menace d’être poursuivi s’il n’efface les mots qui déplaisent à ses messieurs ! Voyez ma chère Flora, s’il est possible d’annoncer L’union ouvrière dans les journaux du dept. de Seine et Marne !99 In contrast to the pessimism of Soudet and Morize the following letter is more optimistic. It is a practical request from the watchmaker Dumesnil for copies of the book Union ouvrière for distribution: Madame, Je n’ai pas le temps d’en dire beaucoup – mais je vous demande 4 à 5 douzaines de l’union ouvrière – ce fait vaut mieux que des paroles. – M. Müllinger, allemand, ouvrier horloger, le mien et mon ami. homme de cœur et de vaste intelligence répand plus que moi même votre gerbe de blé – les champs en seront bientot rempli – Soyez heureuse et pensez aux autres autant comme ils pensent à vous – votre D Dumesnil.100 In a few lines the letter conveys the extension of the network well beyond the Parisian transmitters.

Epistolary authority in politics In presenting the selection of Union ouvrière letters, the intention has been to show how Tristan established her voice of authority for Union ouvrière. The momentum of campaign built up with a corresponding volume of epistolary dialogue. The eloquence of arguments in the letters boosted Tristan’s publication material and provided insight into militancy in Parisian circles and further afield. Her seemingly lightning decisions taken between December 1842 and June 1843 were influenced by the knowledge and feedback gleaned from letters. Her correspondents – now more obscure than she is – did not treat her like a femme messie in Paris but supported her critically especially in the task of publicizing her work. The letters did not dissuade or silence Tristan; on the contrary they prompted her to further action. They gave her intelligence on the biggest hurdle of putting an idea into practice. To say that epistolary communication was essential to political militancy in mid-nineteenth-century France including that of Flora Tristan


is perhaps stating the obvious: just how essential it was is another question. With the spread of social ideas came the desire to act, to intervene and effect change but in a new collective sense. This involved the epistolary construction of a collective debate and of organization that was only possible if there was an exchange of information through meetings or on paper – through the press or by letter. The nineteenth century saw the evolution of political networking among the lower orders unschooled in the niceties of the debating chamber and high-style prose of a sophisticated epistolary style. Nonetheless they had no difficulty in adapting a letter-writing style with their own protocol of referencing letters and circulating them for content. The construction of Union ouvrière occurred against the backdrop of the spread of letter writing. Taking the union ouvrière project as the starting point that it was for Flora Tristan in terms of a new area of interest, new acquaintances and a new political project, we can trace the people behind the progress of the idea who made up the network of correspondence. The correspondents were receptive to Tristan’s suggestions in their own way. They accepted Tristan on their terms, not on hers. Each letter writer spoke with critical authority. As a result letters form an integral part of Tristan’s initiation into the Parisian network of social reformers and boosted her own reform programme in ways she did not quite anticipate. By its nature political campaigning is unpredictable. The letters written between December 1842 and June 1843 contain many aspects of networking and debate. They hinge around the production of Union ouvrière that became simultaneously a political programme for action, a publication and sales project for a campaign pamphlet, a search for a leader of the union, and a full-time campaign schedule. The epistolary dialogue reveals Tristan’s prickly character and her snobbish attitude to workers. It shows how the ‘workers’ coped with her sudden intrusion into their world. The text of the letter enabled them to retain their intellectual dignity and authority as we read these letters at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Although many correspondents are unknown we can read an intimate view of their authority. As the campaign relied on literacy skills the audience was predetermined to a certain extent but spoke on behalf of the workers, the people; they did not wish to remain exclusive. On the contrary: the issue of illiteracy was a serious concern of the letter-writers. The workers who had the ability to read and write were only too conscious of those who did not. Amongst the letters parallel threads of daring and fear, of militancy and apathy, of exclusion and inclusion weave a pattern of polyphonic epistolary dialogue whose narration is complicated by dispersal, destruction and conservation.


Notes 1. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France. Journal inédit 1843–1844, Préface de Michel Collinet, Notes de Jules-L. Puech, Edition de la Tête de Feuilles, 1973, p. 11. 2. Daniel Armogathe and Jacques Grandjonc give the clearest indication of total distribution figures for the work. See the Introduction to their edition of Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Paris, Des femmes, 1984, pp. 18–21. 3. Armogathe and Grandjonc, Introduction to their edition of Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, p. 12. 4. Letter from Flora Tristan to Agricol Perdiguier, December 1842, first cited in Stéphane Michaud, Flora Tristan, Lettres, réunies présentées et annotées par Stéphane Michaud, Paris, Seuil, 1980, pp. 131–2; also in Michaud, La Paria et son rêve, Correspondance établie par Stéphane Michaud, Fontenay-auxRoses, E.N.S. Editions, 1995, pp. 115–16. Armogathe and Grandjonc claim that the dating of the letter from 21 December is not a certainty. See Armogathe and Grandjonc footnotes in their edition of Union ouvrière, p. 298. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Letter from Flora Tristan to Perdiguier, 25 January 1843, cited in Michaud, La Paria et son rêve, p. 129. 8. Letter from Flora Tristan to Perdiguier, 25 January 1843. 9. Letter from Moreau to Flora Tristan, 23 January 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. Michaud was only able to note the discrepancy of dates of the Tristan/Moreau correspondence in the first published collection edition of Tristan’s letters and dated her reply as 23 January 1843 although noting that Moreau’s letter is also dated the same day. See Michaud, Flora Tristan, Lettres, 1980, p. 133. In his 1995 edition of Tristan’s correspondence he included four letters from Tristan to Moreau, all from the period January to June 1843. 16. Letter from Tristan to Moreau dated 23 January 1843, cited in Michaud, La Paria et son rêve, pp. 128–9. 17. Letter from Moreau to Tristan, 28 April 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. 18. Letter from Moreau to Tristan, 9 April 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid. 22. Letter from Tristan to Moreau in Michaud, La Paria et son rêve, p. 129. 23. Letter from Moreau to Tristan, 3 April 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. 24. Ibid. 25. Letter from Moreau to Tristan, 28 April 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. 26. See Flora Tristan’s explanatory note in Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 148, and editors’ note, p. 327. 27. Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 148. 28. Letter from Moreau to Tristan, 9 April 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres.

Conflicts of Authority in Union ouvrière 161 29. Letter from Perdiguier to Flora Tristan, 29 March 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres, cited in La Paria et son rêve, pp. 139–41. 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid. 37. Note on letter from Perdiguier to Flora Tristan, 29 March 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres, cited in Michaud, La Paria et son rêve, p. 141. 38. Equally Flora Tristan admonished George Sand for indulging in playing with the same worker poets. 39. Letter from Flora Tristan to Perdiguier, 30 March 1843, cited in Michaud, La Paria et son rêve, p. 142. 40. Ibid. 41. Note from Tristan on letter from Perdiguier to Flora Tristan, 14 October 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres, cited in Michaud, La Paria et son rêve, pp. 183–4. 42. Letter from Perdiguier to Flora Tristan, 14 October 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. 43. Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 99. 44. Letter from Pagnerre to Flora Tristan, 31 March 1843 (mistakenly dated 1845) cited in Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 100. 45. Flora Tristan, Union Ourvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 101. 46. Le Maitron. Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier français, sous la direction de Claude Pennetier, CD-ROM, Paris, Editions de l’Atelier, 1997. 47. Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 101. 48. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, Collinet edition, pp. 26–7. 49. Susan Grogan, Flora Tristan. Life Stories, London, Routledge, 1998. p. 72. 50. Daniel Armogathe and Jacques Grandjonc, Introduction to Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, pp. 18–19. 51. Grogan, Flora Tristan. Life Stories, p. 72. 52. Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 103. 53. Ibid., p. 115. 54. Ibid., p. 114. 55. Ibid. 56. Ibid. 57. Ibid. 58. Ibid. 59. Ibid. 60. Ibid., pp. 114–15. 61. Ibid., p. 115. 62. Ibid., p. 119. 63. Ibid., p. 120. 64. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, Collinet edition, p. 27. 65. Letter from Gustave de Beaumont to Flora Tristan, cited in Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, pp. 121–2. 66. Ibid. 67. Ibid.

162 The Letter in Flora Tristan’s Politics, 1835–1844 68. La Phalange was one of the Fourierist newspapers run by Considérant. He promoted Flora Tristan very generously in her attempts to spread her message of workers’ unity. They shared a common ideal of the right to work and the appeal for cooperation among rival groups. They did have their differences about the venue for reform as Considérant focused his political work on suffrage reform and campaigned among the wealthy whereas Tristan considered the working class to be the vital cause. Considérant became a deputy in the constituent assembly of the Second Republic in 1848. See Pamela Pilbeam, French Socialists before Marx. Workers, Women and the Social Question in France, Teddington, Acumen, 2000; Jonathan Beecher, Victor Considérant and the Rise and Fall of French Romantic Socialism, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, University of California Press, 2001. 69. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, Collinet edition, p. 24. 70. Letter from Victor Considérant to Flora Tristan cited in Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 122. 71. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, Collinet edition, p. 24. 72. Letter from Auguste Audemar to Flora Tristan, cited in Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, pp.123–4. 73. Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 127. 74. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, Collinet edition, p. 179. 75. Letter from Amélie de D. … L. to Flora Tristan, cited in Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 124. 76. Ibid. 77. Ibid., p. 125. 78. See Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, Collinet edition, pp 70–2. 79. See Jean-Louis Bory, Eugène Sue, dandy, mais socialiste, Paris, Hachette, 1962, republished Paris, Mémoire du livre, 2000, p. 349. 80. Letter from Eugène Sue to Flora Tristan, cited in Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 125. 81. Ibid., p. 126. 82. Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 115, and the same figures are given by Michaud in his introductory sections to Flora Tristan’s correspondence. See his Lettres, 1980, p. 34 and La Paria et son rêve, 1995, p. 126. 83. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, Collinet edition, p. 27. 84. Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 117. 85. Ibid., p. 119. 86. Ibid., pp. 118–19. 87. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, Collinet edition, p. 235. 88. Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, p. 116. 89. Ibid., pp. 116–17. 90. Letter from Morize to Flora Tristan, 31 March 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. 91. Ibid. 92. Ibid. 93. Ibid. 94. Note by Flora Tristan on first page of letter from Morize, 31 March 1843. 95. Letter from Mme Soudet to Flora Tristan, Paris 12 April 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres.

Conflicts of Authority in Union ouvrière 163 96. Ibid. 97. Letter from Durand to Flora Tristan, Fontainebleau 7 April 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. 98. Ibid. 99. Ibid. 100. Letter from Dumesnil to Flora Tristan, Paris, 21 May 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres.

5 Utopia in Flora Tristan’s Letters

… j’ai fait ma correspondance que je néglige faute de temps. – Que de choses précieuses je néglige ! Mais dit le proverbe : qui trop embrasse mal étreint. – Les dévoués auraient besoin de recevoir de temps en temps une lettre pour les réchauffer, et je n’ai pas le temps ! (Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, le 21 août, 1844)

Utopian inspiration for correspondence In this final chapter we examine the presence of the utopian ideal in Flora Tristan’s correspondence. As one of the most enduring themes that inspired socialist creativity during the July Monarchy, it also repelled activists as a dangerously loose construct. The utopian ideal of fraternity compelled Tristan to feel justified in asking for assistance from fellow militants and worker activists and inspired a wealth of epistolary responses from them. The utopian ideal could not legislate for success however. Reactions to Flora Tristan’s politics are as complex as the interpretations of her personality discussed in Chapter 1. By expressing their opinions of the union ouvrière, the correspondents provided a reading of Tristan’s staged role as woman messiah. The letterwriters provided her with evidence of mentalities about fraternity as well as practical offers of help. In Chapter 1 we examined the manner in which her work has been read by scholars. We presented the historians’ reactions to the political tensions of the July Monarchy in Chapter 2. The letters written from the heart examined in Chapter 3 reveal the reactions of her correspondents anxious to communicate with her for 164

Utopia in Flora Tristan’s Letters 165

the sake of an ideal. In our sample survey of some of the letters we have seen how workers and fellow socialist intellectuals carefully crafted their replies to her exacting demands in order to retain their authority over their own schemes. In the polyphony of responses Tristan used ideas and people in a haughty and arrogant way. In Chapter 4 we have seen how she expressed impatience with her critics in a particularly frank manner in her notes on the letters and in her diary and in her responses to some of the letters. Taken in the context of her burning ambition to serve a cause her fanaticism was not atypical of the sects and schools of socialism of her day. Small wonder that she was considered by Puech as among the ‘prophets’ of the nineteenth century announcing the hope of happiness that could be imminently fulfilled. For Puech, Tristan’s gender marked her brand of socialism, this ‘espoir d’un bonheur prochainement réalisable’.1 Unlike other prophets announcing a brave new world, he claimed that Tristan’s version of happiness, her utopia, was inspired by her particular personal circumstances: Au milieu de tous les penseurs et de tous les rêveurs, de tous les réformateurs et de tous les utopistes, elle se distingue cependant par l’agitation romanesque de sa vie, qui lui inspira, en quelque mesure, son nouvel évangile.2 We have only to examine the titles of two publications (Le Paradis – Un peu plus loin and Flora Tristan, La Paria et son rêve), timed to coincide with the bicentenary of her birth on 7 April 2003, to find the most recent example of the fascination for extraordinary life circumstances and the biographical association with her dreams of happiness for humanity. Tristan’s life was indeed eventful. Plunged into poverty at the death of her Spanish-American father, illegitimate, unhappily married, mother of three, feminist traveller, writer, social observer, Flora Tristan was many things during her 41 years. Of all the labels attributed to her activities, the most consistent political one is that of utopian socialist. This concluding chapter will demonstrate that, unlike the feminist anachronism often attributed to her, the term ‘utopian’ was part of the critical discourse of the correspondence. It will show that ‘utopian’ had already been coined as common currency in critical rhetoric in socialism when she took up her pen to correspond with fellow activists. It was consciously used by herself and her correspondents as she sought to construct her own version of a socialist project. It was used in a highly competitive context among activists. In order to complete this study, we have only to examine the tensions surrounding the term ‘utopian’ to


illustrate how Flora Tristan’s ideas merged and clashed with the opinions of her fellow socialists. We shall see how exactly ‘utopian’ matched a certain modus operandi in political militancy. This chapter examines the occasions in the correspondence when Flora Tristan read and wrote the word as part of her epistolary dialogue. The fascination with the essence of utopia in politics pre-dates and post-dates utopian socialism. Since the creation of the political term ‘utopia’, it has been hotly debated around two interlinked predicaments, the end and the means. Its uses and meaning have also evolved. Of all the messages that Tristan tried to drive home, the question that made her most impatient was what utopian socialists wanted and how they hoped to achieve this. In studies on Flora Tristan’s life and work, the general conclusion is that she was an original utopian thinker because she produced a blueprint for socialism that centred on the fundamental questions of gender equality. She shared with other socialists the construction of a plan for implementing immediately the means of self-liberation for the most oppressed.3 She read the coldness of the response from workers as a lack of enthusiasm. It did not occur to her that the correspondents, conscious of the limits of their political freedom, might be equally wary of the messenger because of differences between their own gender and class and hers. Her originality has been appreciated in different ways as priorities in socialism evolved but it has always been recognized that Tristan incorporated a plan for all women’s emancipation in parallel with her scheme of ending the poverty of the workers by the formation of a self-help association open to men and women, a workers’ union that would provide for workers’ needs in sickness, old age and education. This plan would politicize the workers into realizing their entitlement to the inheritance of the 1789 revolution. In so doing their marginality would end and the whole of society would benefit, argued Tristan. Flora Tristan wished to see the legacy of 1789 applied to workers and women but like many fellow utopian socialists repudiated violence or the revolutionary overthrow of the state as a means to achieving the end. We have seen that reference to the French Revolution and ‘utopian’ is important for an understanding of the utopian socialists in France. François Hincker claims that the French Revolution was utopian and if the following definition is used, all revolutionaries were utopian: si l’idéologie utopique se caractérise par : 1. le dessein de construire grâce à de bonnes lois ; 2. une société idéale ; 3. idéale, parce que réalisant l’unité du genre humain ou tout ou moins une portion


géographiquement situé de celui-ci ; 4. et de marquer, ainsi, la fin de l’Histoire ; c’est que tout le discours de tous les révolutionnaires de la Révolution française fut imprégné de cette idéologie. Les révolutionnaires tous compris.4 According to this definition, utopia could be applied to any political programme that claims to want to further human happiness, whether left-wing or right-wing. In the multiple versions of utopian dreams one may well ask how the workers could distinguish between the various prophets’ dreams. There are many inferences attached to the term ‘utopia’. It is a term associated with a blueprint for perfection, the belief in the possibility that, by implementation, a total solution to all unhappiness is possible. In the case under discussion it is associated with the Left but if the definition is limited to a blueprint for a new society it could be applied to the Right, or even the extreme Right.5 In the utopian socialist context the emphasis is on the belief in the possibility of realization of an end goal, that the leap of faith required is possible but through solidarity and not through the fresh start promised after a revolution. One point in common with all utopias but not the only one lies in what exactly is required to produce the leap of faith, the complex relationship between the two factors of the means and the end. What is common to any political activist whether they claim or reject the nomenclature ‘utopian’ is that they expound a theory and then energize followers through speaking and writing in order to generate action. The dreams of utopian socialists have been studied in relation to details of their prophecy and their plans for immediate implementation. Inevitably this brings into question their failure or their naivety. However the energy expounded in communicating their ideas was a magnetic field of creativity and ingenuity. The way that men and women related to one another in constructing utopias is possibly of more interest and relevance for gender studies than an assessment of their achievements or failures. This chapter is an attempt to contribute to an understanding of the sense of communication between Flora Tristan and her associates in her negotiation of a space in political militancy in this magnetic field of creativity under the generic term of ‘utopia’.

Tensions of pragmatism and vision It is claimed that Flora Tristan was both pragmatic and visionary and that she ‘resisted a form of socialism which she saw as lost in abstract theory’.6 Her contribution has been examined in the context of the


theoretical interpretations of utopian socialism and the transition to scientific socialism: With the ascendancy of Marxist socialist parties from the later nineteenth century, in fact, Tristan suffered the fate of other ‘utopians’ of the 1830s and 1840s whose evaluation rested upon the extent to which they might be seen as ‘precursors’ of a later form of socialism. If her defenders have argued that she was an eminently practical socialist, denying the pejorative implications of the ‘utopian’ label, therefore, they have also explored the extent to which she might be seen as a ‘forerunner’ of Marx.7 Grogan mentions her awareness of the limitations of utopia: ‘Furthermore, since Tristan had no faith in a sudden and miraculous leap into utopia her focus in The Workers’ Union was also on transitional processes.’8 Flora Tristan’s pragmatism had made her acutely aware that the success of her scheme would hinge on the organization of a coordinated programme alongside workers’ groups and in direct contact with workers. It was in this spirit that she began her vigorous campaign in January 1843 to galvanize existing worker groups to make a leap of faith in their commitment to her version of utopia. In her diary utopia is mentioned on two occasions, both during the discussion of the implementation of her programme with workers’ leaders. The context of the mention gives an idea of the way the term served as a critique, albeit imprecise but intended to question Flora Tristan’s immediate plan: La lecture du chapitre achevée, tous dirent sans enthousiasme que c’était très beau. – Vinçard demanda la parole. – « Madame Flora, dit-il, votre travail est très beau ! Il contient des idées superbes mais elles ne sont là qu’à l’état d’utopie, car vous n’indiquez pas comment on pourra s’unir. – Et tout est là ».9 Vinçard’s critique was about the absence of the essential element of any good scheme: the practical detail. Criticism created a counter discourse for Tristan to explain further her notion on which her new mission was founded, the basic of socialist principles, the right to work for all. That is the common language between Vinçard and Tristan but their point of conflict is over the means to obtain the right to work. Simultaneously her own reaction as she reports it in her diary is one of surprise, surprise that a fellow socialist should be so critical of her


scheme. Such criticism was easier to accept from the class enemies of the workers. As we have seen, the dogmatism of sects combined with personality struggles produced many disappointments for Tristan. Her obsession with the idea was matched by her narcissistic gaze on her own new role as a political leader: Ma surprise fut grande, je l’avoue, en entendant parler ainsi l’aigle de la troupe. – Je fus dans toute la soirée très contente de moi, ce qui n’arrive pas souvent, je fus moi, franche ardente ferme, et cependant pleine de retenue et de modération. – Je n’aurai jamais cru pouvoir parler aussi bien dans une assemblée publique cela me donna espoir. – « Vinçard, lui répliquai-je, vous vous trompez. – Vous n’avez donc pas compris que dans le chapitre qu’on vient de lire est la chose essentielle, la Loi. » – « Mais qu’importe la loi si on ne peut pas la réaliser. » – Et il nous fit là-dessus un long discours des plus stupides. – Je fus méchante juste ce qu’il fallait pas plus, lorsque je vis que l’auditoire était bien convaincu que Vinçard disait des absurdités, je l’interrompis : – « La Loi ! mais remarquez donc, Vinçard, que tout est là – dans la loi. – Avant de passer à la réalisation il faut d’abord poser la loi. – Le catholicisme n’a été établi définitivement qu’au VIe siècle, et il y avait 600 ans que le Christ avait posé la loi. – La constitution de la classe bourgeoise n’a été établie qu’en 89 et la loi avait été posée aux premiers Etats généraux. – Je vous apporte la loi, quant à la réalisation Dieux sonnera son heure. »10 The tension that surfaced was over the authority to dictate the parameters of the means and the end. The conflict is over the method of implementation of the common goal. Vinçard did not dispute the goal. He did dispute the right to dictate utopian terms. The particular difficulty here for Flora Tristan seemed to be the starting point: how to begin to get her fellows to understand the principle of the right to work. A common goal was not enough of an incentive. By admitting its realization was too remote she believed that there had to be more common ground in the means to implement the action plan. There had to be consensus in the decision to act. The means to achieve the goal had to correspond with what others envisaged. This is why she put enormous efforts into this stage of her plan. During the early months of 1843 these efforts to spread her ideas by getting her plan published produced interesting results to such an extent that she began recording them in her journal. She sought out


leading reformers in the publishing world as well as in worker militancy. Here is the reaction of one as she recorded in her journal: J’ai porté à M. Pernet une épreuve et lui dis en deux mots le but de mon travail – lui demandant s’il lui conviendrait d’imprimer le tout dans sa revue … Il était convenu qu’il m’écrirait en me renvoyant l’épreuve – 3–4 jours, pas de réponse – Je lui écris – Et le jour même je le rencontre dans la rue – tenant une Revue indépendante à la main. – Pour lui c’est son bâton de maréchal. – « Je vous ai écrit », lui dis-je. – Il me dit ne pas avoir reçu la lettre. – Et il devait l’avoir – Et bien ! prenez-vous mon travail ? Voilà le curieux. – Mais je ne crois pas, me dit-il, avec son air important, que cela puisse convenir à la Revue – car je n’ai pas compris quel serait le but de votre travail, ce que vous voulez ? A quoi cela servirait ? Cela me paraît une utopie et vous le sentez, notre revue est trop grave pour qu’on puisse se permettre … (il n’acheva même pas la phrase). – J’avais tellement envie de rire que sans lui répondre je le saluai en disant : Je vous ai écrit, vous aurez la bonté de me répondre – Délicieux ! Le revue de Leroux qui vient dire que mon travail n’a pas de but, qu’on ne sait ce que je veux, que c’est une utopie.11 The negative sense of the word ‘utopia’ coming from fellow socialist intellectuals cut Flora Tristan to the quick. She stages her outrage by mockery of the critic. In an undated letter from Rosenfeld, the lithograph printer associated with the publication La Ruche populaire, he reported the reception at a meeting of his committee of her proposal to form a general workers’ union for men and women. From the content we can deduce that Flora Tristan had asked him for this report of the proceedings. Through the correspondence we can read at first hand the context in which utopia was introduced in the dialogue between would-be proselytizer and associates, some reluctant and some enthusiastic. To what did utopia correspond for them and how was its meaning conveyed from one party to another? In this case the critique of the plan was taking place at the grass-roots level of the socialist movement and not among thinkers for whom Flora Tristan was a competitor and possible plagiarist, two occasions when ‘utopian’ was commonly used as a criticism in socialist circles. We do not have the letter sent by Tristan but the tone of the letter conveys much. Here it is obvious that the correspondent is nervous as he has to report some opposition to her plans and is perhaps more than anxious to give a ‘true’ account of the events


as they unfolded: Chère Dame Votre lettre que je reçois à l’instant même, m’a presque fait peur. Je me suis pris à douter, et à recueillir mes souvenirs sur tout ce que je vous ai rapporté sur les deux séances du Cté [comité] et il en est résulté pour moi la plus grande certitude de vous avoir rendu compte exacte, très exacte de tout ce qui s’est passé.12 Before doing so, however, he had a word of advice about the best way for her to persuade her audience. In the following paragraph there is a suggestion that Tristan should explain further her blueprint for ending the exploitation and poverty of workers. Her request to the committee to help her organize by publishing her plans and helping her find contacts might be too rushed; he prepares her for the worst at the start of his letter and seeks to excuse the committee members’ antagonism, attributing it to their lack of education: Mais avant de vous relater les faits, ainsi que vous le désirez, je vous prie d’observer une chose, et cette chose je la dirais en toute franchise à qui voudrait l’entendre : C’est que les ouvriers, pour la généralité du moins, au lieu d’accueillir avec joie, sinon avec enthousiasme, tout ce qui tend à améliorer leur position, se montrent au contraire fort méfiants et, de bon compte, cela n’est pas extraordinaire quand on songe à l’éducation détestable qu’ils reçoivent pour la plus part Ce sont des enfants qu’il faut mener, ainsi que je vous l’ai déjà dit. Ils ont bien le sens commun, mais il est faussé par l’éducation.13 He went on to say that at the first reading, the extract of her programme union ouvrière and plan to speak to the workers directly enchanted the meeting at first. He claimed that they made a distinction between the two aspects of her programme, the main idea, the end, or le fond, and the means, or la forme: Ce qui les a charmés dans votre 1r article, notez bien ceci, ce n’est pas le fond, ce n’est pas l’idée, mais la forme. Quant à l’idée, et je vous l’ai dit l’autre soir, elle les a trouvés incrédules : Partira-t-elle ? – elle ne partira pas ! – Réussira-t-elle ? – elle ne réussira pas ! Voilà ce qui s’est dit à la 1re séance, dans les conversations particulières.14 However things did not go so well after the reading as there was opposition expressed to such an extent that he was sorry to report that her


idea was considered to be utopian. He expressed reluctance to use the term as if it were an unacceptable axiom and one to dread: Pendant la lecture, ça allait bien. L’impression avait été profonde. Mais après, le mauvais penchant, peu à peu, avait pris le dessus, en sorte que ce qui n’avait fait que l’objet d’un doute, a fini par ne plus paraître (et ma foi je vous le dis tout crû) qu’une utopie.15 Rosenfeld’s expression conveys tension: it is as if he is holding his breath before he utters the word ‘utopia’. Furthermore he has to write in this same letter that Vinçard, the leader of the committee for the newspaper La Ruche, had not held her work in serious esteem during the course of another conversation and was doubtful about the quality of her piece for his publication. For Vinçard, Tristan’s project lacked detail about the means: Et cela est si vrai – entendez bien, Madame, – que Vinçard me disait l’autre soir : « Ah ça, mon cher, la Ruche est une chose sérieuse – et nous ne pouvons pas imprimer un article dont [nous] ne pouvons approuver ou plutôt garantir le sérieux, accepter les calculs, dont [nous] ne pouvons accepter les résultats, qui seraient incomplets – il faut motiver l’insertion » – Et pourtant Vinçard a lu votre article, il en avait paru enchanté – il y avait mis tout ce qu’il pouvait pour le faire adopter. Tout ce que je viens de vous dire est vrai. j’abandonne le reste à vos méditations.16 By way of consolation Rosenfeld is anxious to provide advice about the best approach to adopt in order to avoid further disappointment of rejection from fellow militants. The impact of her enthusiasm, he suggested, was having an adverse effect on her audience that was inclined to be suspicious of anyone who did not flatter them: Mais n’ayez pas peur. Songez bien à une chose : C’est que pour parvenir à être maître de tous ces braves gens là, il est un moyen. Ce moyen est de posséder leur confiance et pour en arriver là, il faut les avoir pratiqués, les connaître, leur en imposer, car ils veulent du prestige. Ces gens là ne sont point des Intelligences ils ne sont que Sensation. Un feu d’artifice leur plait, ainsi que toute chose qui brille. Pauvres Diables ! Ce qui leur faudrait, c’est un feu d’artifice qui dure toujours, et les maintienne en état de contentement et de bonheur. Et c’est justement ce qui leur a manqué jusqu’à ce jour !17


The committee felt, quite understandably, that they had to find out more before committing themselves. They had spent some time considering the tactic to adopt, the first step to take: Ainsi donc, vous comprendrez et de reste, que lorsque avant-hier je leur ai parlé du reste de votre travail, ils préjugeaient d’après le travail qu’il connaissaient et qui avait fini par les trouver dans le doute. Que cela vous étonne, je le veux bien, mais cela est. – Le premier opinant – faisait valoir que cela serait faire exception à la règle qui ne demanda de séance extraordinaire que pour cas urgent, p. e. [par exemple] insuffisance de matière pour le j[ourn]al, et que ce serait là établir un précédent qui pourrait devenir fâcheux. – Un autre : Qu’il fallait lire le travail d’abord, et inviter l’auteur à assister à la discussion des détails, pour ne point gêner leurs opinions sur l’ensemble. Et quand notre ami Vinçard a fait sa motion pr. [pour]lundi, en la motivant ainsi que je vous l’ai dit, nous l’avons emporté sur les dissidens, mais non sans peine.18 Rosenfeld was anxious for the committee to see Flora Tristan in person and to read the whole of her text and informed her to this effect: Voilà, en résumé fidèle, l’historique de la chose. Que faut-il conclure de tout ceci ? D’abord, qu’ils ne sauraient, en vérité, juger une chose qu’ils ne connaissent pas – et ils n’ont pas lu, comme moi, votre travail en entier. Et ensuite, que l’impression (et cela vous a été démontré de votre côté) de votre adresse et celle de vos développements se produit d’une manière toute différente, et je l’ai éprouvé moi-même pour mon propre compte. Ce qui m’a fait juger comme vous, Madame, qu’il valait mieux imprimer le tout à la fois. Maintenant nous verrons ce qu’ils diront de votre travail lundi. Quant à moi je suis bien loin d’avoir changé d’avis à cet égard, c’est-à-dire que je prends votre idée pour une idée capitale, une idée révolutionnaire.19 From a second letter from Rosenfeld and from the account in Flora Tristan’s journal we know that he did succeed in persuading this committee to hold a special session to discover more about her plan. Here, suddenly, gender became an explicit factor in the working relationship. The second letter humorously describes the pompous attitude of the committee and how condescending they are to her as a woman: Bien bonne Dame. Après une discussion assez vive, le comité a décidé que la séance pour la lecture de votre travail, aurait lieu lundi


prochain. J’ai dit après une discussion assez vive, car nos hommes du comité se piquent de dignité, ils ont l’air de siéger sur leurs bancs de bois comme des sénateurs romains Sur leurs chaises curiales, ou comme ces membres de la Constituante au moins. Plus souvent qu’ils feraient quelque concession, qu’ils intervertiraient l’ordre de leurs séances, à moins que la patrie ne soit en danger. Nos séances ont lieu tous les mercredis, eh bien, on ne voulut point consentir à une séance extraordinaire. Alors Vinçard s’est levé – et savez-vous, Madame pour quelle considération on a fait exception pour vous. Je vous le donne à deviner : eh-bien sachez qu’on vous fait une concession, non point comme auteur, mais par ce que vous êtes une Dame, une femme, ou, si vous aimez mieux la Femme Voilà. Vous voyez donc bien, ma bonne dame, Plus je réfléchis sur ce que j’ai lu de votre travail, plus je trouve vraiment que les idées qu’il renferment sont et solides et grandes et nobles et fortes et parfaitement exprimées, déduites, mises à nu et palpitantes de vérité et de logique.20 Flora Tristan’s comments on the usefulness of the letter content – she has plans for using Rosenfeld’s opinions and insights – judiciously written directly on the letter are equally revealing of her reaction to this news: Cette lettre est le premier document qui me servira à la série d’études que je sois forcée de faire sur la classe ouvrière en France – ce quelle signale est tres grave – Il y a 10 jours les 15 h[omme]s. du comité ont acceptés mon adresse avec transport, puis voila 10 jours après les même [h omme s]. qui devraient être curieux impatients de connaitre l’ouvrage, qui se refusent à maccorder une séance extraordinaire – Je ne sais pas le pourquoi de cela il faut que je le trouve. – c’est important. Ce Rosenfeld jusqu’à présent est bien, continuera til ? – Je pense que oui, parce que dans les cas difficiles dieux [sic] me donne toujours quelques anges p[ou]r me servir.21 In the event Rosenfeld did not prove to be a long-serving angel as his support waned when tensions among militants increased and, as was so often the case with militants, relations became too strained among Parisian workers’ associations to continue to support Tristan as much as she would have wished. Tristan’s output was relatively modest compared to the work of her socialist contemporaries, some of whom were prolific letter-writers, authors of brochures, and often journalists and printers; this was the


case for Considérant, Leroux, Auguste Blanqui, Proudhon. The utopians thoroughly scrutinized each other’s plans. Their legacy was then broadcast by the strong tradition of historians of socialism in France beginning in the same decade; we know of the detail of many experimental socialist utopian schemes of early nineteenth-century France, particularly those of Cabet’s Icarie and Fourier’s phalanstère.22 The correspondent Rosenfeld is a lesser-known figure but no less articulate. His use of the term ‘utopian’ corresponded exactly to what we know of the term’s currency. Flora Tristan’s scheme was among that number of early socialists, ‘predecessors’ to Marx and Engels. Between the generations of socialists much has been written about the limitations of one generation measured against the enlightenment of the succeeding one. The utopians were measured and found wanting in relation to the supposed success of scientific socialism. In turn, subsequent generations of socialist militants (especially those dissident from the strict party line) and social historians began to appreciate the enlightened thinking of socialist utopians in gender relations.23 Much has been written on the inherent logic and limitations of the methods of the schemes of the usual suspects, Owen, Fourier and SaintSimon. Less is known about the actual transmission and reception of these ‘dreams of happiness’. We know only so much about what utopia corresponded to in the proposals of little-known ‘worker activists’ as opposed to enlightened bourgeois and intellectuals. Moreau and Perdiguier who influenced Flora Tristan were from the wrong side of the tracks in class terms but they too had socialist dreams of happiness. Historiography of socialism constantly shifts the focus on thinkers, themes, social origins and activists. Even the ranking order of socialist thinkers of the nineteenth century can alter according to the priorities of each generation; Cabet, Auguste Blanqui and Proudhon who were highly regarded in their own lifetimes as socialist innovators have been overtaken by changing ideals of the Left. Their absence of gender discourse can be attributed to the values of the day but what is absent in one is present in another. Tristan’s propaganda in class and gender terms has elevated her work somewhat, if not to the rank of that of a key utopian socialist. The question arises: does she earn this position on the question of gender? How was her utopia considered and was the gender dimension relevant in the debate over means and ends: did it mean anything to be la femme? The question of gender equality in her political programme and book Union ouvrière was critical for Tristan’s innovative version of a socialist programme. As we see from the above, the reactions to her as a female activist were mixed but the critique of


her plan still related to the link between the means and the end. Why was this so critical? The answer lies in the wider context of utopian socialism. The crucial years of Flora Tristan’s militancy were also the crucial years for utopian socialism in France. The existence of the various projects of utopian socialism, such as Flora Tristan’s union ouvrière, can be considered individually or as part of a historical phenomenon with its own inner polemic. Utopian socialism generated a critique from within and without, both of which were fundamental to its dynamic, and have contributed to its historical legacy. David W. Lovell highlights ‘the fundamental confusion over whether “utopianism” is a property of socialists’ means or their goals’.24 He ‘wonders whether the charge of utopian is even a useful one in the conceptual analysis of early socialism or whether it functions in political and historical discourse rather to tell us more about the maker of the charge and the project against which it is directed’.25 In this particular critique Lovell’s analysis looks specifically at means and ends, although he poses an equally relevant question about the confusion over the use and interpretation of utopianism in relation to the historical phenomenon. However, a general critique overlooks the complexity of the detail, as Lovell himself admits. Yet if we take the individual case of Flora Tristan we cannot be sure that any difference from general analysis can emerge. Lovell did not include a gender dimension in his survey. As we have seen from the above examples there was confusion in the way Flora Tristan encountered the term ‘utopia’ and tensions resulted from meetings. Letters were written as an extension of the debating space. Such were the complexities of these tensions that the details of her gendered project did not emerge. Does Tristan’s experience of tensions correspond to the confusion in the term ‘utopia’ as Lovell has identified it? Lovell suggested that while it is partly true that the utopians were criticized because of the lack of discussion of means for achieving their vision of a new society of harmony and plenty, it is the inadequacy of their answers that distinguished them and that once Marx focused on the working-class movement that had come into being any utopian critique of his proposal as inadequate was successfully deflected.26 We need hardly recall that one of the most significant challenges to Marxists came in the late twentieth century when feminist studies challenged their gender blindness.27 To sum up Lovell’s analysis in his own words: On the whole, the early French socialists construed the charge of utopianism as relating to the means for implementing their


proposals – even if the conservative critique was intended to describe their goals – and countered that their means were superior to their (socialist) critics.28 The criticisms directed against Flora Tristan by Vinçard concerned her lack of detail about the means. In the examples considered to date gender has been subsumed into the debate about tactics. One further citation of utopia brings gender to the fore. This time in a letter from one woman to another utopia is again used as a critique about tactics: Madame et sœur, Je suis heureuse d’avoir lue votre livre Je suis surtout heureuse que ce soit une femme qui ait le fond de idées qui me dominent. Non Madame votre livre n’est pas une Illusion ni une Utopie Mais bien une chose réalisable et qui se réalisera. J’ai la foi et Dieu la donne pleine et entière ; l’idée que vous avez produite (à des exceptions près) était mon idée dominante de puis 5 ans ( J’ai 28 ans) Je suis ce qu’on appelle dans toute l’acception du mot fille du peuple élevée parmi le peuple, toujours avec lui Je l’ai étudier et sousvent même était très malheureuse de ces erreurs ; Mais chez lui le cœur est bon, quant il comprend bien il agis bien. Mais la plus grande difficulté est là, Lui faire comprendre.29 This woman correspondent warned Flora Tristan about wanting to rush her plan and compares the potential power of literacy for the masses to the idea of a highly paid defender: Je sais Madame, qu’il est très difficile aux ames très élevée d’aller si lentement et pour ainsi dire en enfant, Mais ce la est indispensable pour réussir. Pourquoi le roman de M. Eugène Sue a-t-il était compris des personnes qui l’on lu (je parle des mystères de Paris), et le serait-il des masses si les masses avaient le temps de lire et pouvaient dépencer en roman 40 sous pour lire l’ouvrage entièrement : C’est que c’est un ouvrage amusant et instruitif qui les amène à leur donner des idées sérieuses. Mais maintenant faire comprendre aux masses qu’elles donnent 500 mille francs à un homme pour les défendre ce serait vouloir l’impossible la méfiance s’en mêlerait. Et en cela je suis parfaitement de l’avis des masses nous ne pouvons avoir pour défenseur un homme salarier Il faut que la partie intellectuelle dominante chez le défenseur du peuple soit le Cœur et non la Science le peuple ne connais pas les sciences Il ne comprends que les actions du cœur, récompenser après l’action, le peuple comprend cela … Je suis donc


très contente que l’idée que je ne pourrais mettre a exécution que dans 10 ans soit entre les mains d’une personne qui peut avec aide l’exécuter ; cela ne peut changer le but et le bonheur de ma vie qui est toute pour l’humanité seulement votre idée l’avance et lui donne un plus grand dévelloppement. Je vous envoie Madame les notte que j’ai prises et du jugement sain qui m’a frappé dans votre livre je compte aller moi même vous voir mais il faudrait que je sache l’heure à la quelle vous trouver car je suis comme tous les ouvriers je n’ai pas le temps.30

Gender presence in Tristan’s utopia The fact that Tristan’s most radical idea was in her association of gender equality with work seemed to cut no ice with her critics who used the term ‘utopian’. If Flora Tristan was criticized or condemned as utopian by her fellows, it was in broad terms about tactics. In the examples found there was no mention of any specifics other than the method of campaign. Yet in other letters details of her exact plans such as the palaces, a fund to pay one defender to represent all the workers in parliament, the proposed collection of two francs per worker, gender equality or the right to work were all susceptible to critique. The complexity of the utopian socialist phenomenon as a historical entity is nowhere more pertinent than in the question of gender but it is not easily conveyed. The gendered utopia is an ‘arlésienne’, an elusive figure with Flora Tristan’s critics. Yet uncovering the gender dimension in utopian socialist projects has been a vital way of recovering the whole historical phenomenon from obscurity. The consequences of the application of utopian to the early socialist era is highlighted by other scholars who include a gender dimension. Le Réel de l’utopie is explained by RiotSarcey as a positive and negative construction of an ideology generating its own dynamic through a series of initiatives coming from many individuals proposing social regeneration, many of which remained obscure or hidden. Their obscurity has been perpetuated by their marginal position to power, defiance of the order that they were challenging and by ‘official’ versions of history. The dynamic emerged from the dual discourse of politics during the July Monarchy: on the one hand the philosophy of progress with order proposed by monarchists, liberals and moderate republicans alike and on the other the dynamic creativity of its subversion by utopians. The former needed the latter to condemn with one voice even if they differed in the details of everyday politics and the latter needed the negative definition of the former to become real. The negative discourse around utopians projected meanings on to


their schemes that they sought to avoid, that of subversives and dangerous elements to society. ‘Utopian’ corresponded to social disorder. It was a conservative condemnatory term used as a blanket definition to label any challenge to the establishment, in particular the sacred cows of family and property. Flora Tristan was aware of this conservative use of the term ‘utopian’. She intentionally discussed the contradiction between the values of the establishment and those challenging it so that she could clarify her own position concerning order, property and family. As a campaigner for a new society she was intent on banishing any inference of disorder in her scheme. An accusation of ‘utopian’ was the perfect opportunity for her to express this contradiction. She therefore presented a letter and its context as a counter-attack. While never denying that she was a utopian, the concept was crucial for her exposé of the dichotomy of interest both from within the bourgeoisie, the enlightened (les intelligents, les voyants), and the conservatives, or the deaf (les sourds), and from within the subversives who were beyond the pale of respectability among fellow enlightened thinkers and militants. In a wonderful example of hyperbole Tristan made her position clear to those fearful of disorder and simultaneously made a sideswipe attack on the discrepancy between the liberal reputations of publishers and press editors and their refusal to publish her programme: Un recueil qui a pris pour titre : Revue Indépendante devait, il semble … se montrer tout a fait indépendant … pour insérer dans son recueil … un chapitre de mon ouvrage … Mais quelle fut ma surprise, ma stupéfaction ! … Je le demande, que penser de semblables accusations venant de la part du directeur du seul recueil démocratique qui nous reste. – C’est à n’y plus rien comprendre. – Je me vois forcée, pour mettre ma véracité à couvert, de donner ici un passage de cette étrange lettre.31 She knew that the message of the letter could be read in many ways as it could correspond to several political points from the enlightened to the conservative or the subversive: Votre projet d’union n’est pas autre chose au fond qu’une association politique. Se cotiser pour stipendier des défenseurs qui doivent demander le renversement de l’ordre économique actuel, se cotiser et s’associer pour fournir à tous les moyens d’une propagande révolutionnaire par la presse, l’éducation et la prédication, n’est-ce pas faire de la politique et de l’agitation, et tout ce que vous voudrez


contre le gouvernement établi ? Commencez par abolir la loi sur les associations, et vous pourrez mettre en avant votre projet d’union. Jusque-là il me semble que tout projet de ce genre, quelque excellent, quelque réalisable que vous le démontriez ne sera qu’une utopie. Le gouvernement a fait poursuivre l’association toute commerciale des ouvriers rubaniers de Saint-Etienne, a fortiori ne laisserait-il pas se former une qui par son but et son importance, le menacerait bien davantage.32 Quoting from this letter she received from the editor of the leading enlightened newspaper La Revue indépendante augmented her authority. She could express the contradiction between dominant discourse and desire for the renewal of society by including the letter in a later section of Union ouvrière, ‘Aux bourgeois’. The above extracts have provided an insight into utopian socialists’ reactions to Tristan’s ideas as well as to her presentation of them. An exploration of the dialogue around ‘utopia’ gives us an insight into the interpretations of Tristan’s politics. In every case the term is used in an intra-socialist context corresponding to the label ‘utopia’ attributed to her by Vinçard. The foregoing instances of ‘utopia’ in discourse are related to the tensions between theory and practice. There is little reference to gender in this context. The main obsession was the pace of action and change. The idea of creating a specific plan to mobilize, politicize and effect change was the most absorbing one in Tristan’s obsessive determination to make her plan work. The use of ‘utopia’ by Flora Tristan indicates that it was not an exclusively male term. Like her fellow militants she wanted to be in control of the pace of change. We shall finish with a letter from Flora Tristan to the committee that she had formed to implement her plan. It indicates that the biggest challenge to Tristan embarking upon a socialist campaign was where and how to start and how quickly to proceed with her momentous idea. It gives some further indication of the tensions surrounding the ‘utopian’ ideal. Flora Tristan was impatient to move quickly but she wanted to retain control of the reception and interpretation of her idea. Spread of the word about union ouvrière had occurred fairly swiftly but in ways that surprised Tristan more often than not. Two months after she had received a letter from Rosenfeld she wrote: Mes Frères, Je vais répondre à votre lettre paragraphe par paragraphe. – 1 – Le Comité pour la Correspondance ne doit pas s’appeler


le Comité de l’union ouvrière – Il est très important en tout de donner à chaque chose son nom propre – ce ne sont pas 8 hommes ou 15 hommes qui formeront l’Union ouvrière, attendez que vous ayez connaissance de la seconde partie de mon travail, p[ou]r savoir comment on formera les Comités de l’Union Ouvrière, jusqu’à là, appelez vous ce que vous êtes, Comité de l’Union pour la Correspondance – 2 – Je vois avec plaisir que vous commencez à bien vous pénétrer de l’idée mère de mon travail, UNIR les ouvriers et ouvrières dans une pensée commune, pour concourir à une œuvre commune, qui est de constituer la classe ouvrière – en corps – afin qu’elle compte pour quelque chose dans l’état et qu’à ce titre elle se fasse représenter devant le pays. – Vous comprenez aussi la nécessité d’avoir un défenseur salarié par vous – voilà le principal de l’affaire. 3 – Quant à la demande que vous me faites de vous remettre mon manuscrit pour qu’il soit examiné, discuté par une Commission ; je ne puis vous l’accorder et en voici les raisons – 1 – l’idée que j’apporte en prenant les intérêts généraux de la classe la plus nombreuse et la plus utile, une idée de cette grandeur, ne peut être soumise à la révision de 8 individus. – Il faut que cette idée, telle que Dieux l’a envoyée dans mon cerveau, se produise, parcour les rangs des classes ouvrières, remplisse sa mission, et ne soit révisée que par le Comité Central de l’Union Ouvrière, c’est à dire par 20 hommes représentant les 8 ou 12 millions d’ouvriers et nommés par eux – ceci est mon opinion bien sincère – 2 – puis du moment où les membres de l’Union pour la correspondance acceptent le fond de l’idée, il est tout à fait inutile qu’ils se préoccupent des moyens que je propose, car il est clair que je ne donne pas mes moyens comme étant les seuls à suivre, mon intention n’est nullement de m’imposer je lance l’idée dans le public, voilà mon œuvre et elle est grande, ensuite si on trouve pour réaliser ma pensée des moyens meilleurs que ceux que je propose, il est évident qu’on devra laisser les miens de côté, et prendre les autres. – Il faut bien nous pénétrer, mes frères, que l’objet de mon ouvrage, est principalement de faire réfléchir l’ouvrier sur sa position, de lui enseigner comment il doit agir pour obtenir ses droits, de bien lui faire comprendre quels espèces de droits il doit réclamer, en un mot, lui apprendre ce qu’il lui faut, ce qu’il doit vouloir pour être heureux, et de quelle manière il doit s’y prendre pour se faire écouter du pouvoir – Vous voyez que la discution de mon manuscrit serait tout à fait inutile parce que je ne vous donne que l’idée. C’est assez pour ma part, à vous frères, appartient de faire le reste.33


The three vital ingredients of early utopian socialism, prophecy, happiness and immediacy, have been subsumed into other themes identified since then as equally significant if not more so. The term ‘utopian’ applied by fellow socialists is part of creativity in political militancy. The responses to Flora Tristan’s proposals in the meetings and correspondence are rich in variety and are a historical record of immediate reactions to her utopian dream. They show how her aspirations corresponded to theirs and where they differed in expectations. Reactions were particularly focused on the question of tactics to the exclusion of the details of her scheme, however original they may be on the question of gender. The specificity of Tristan’s self-constructed role of woman as redemptress of humanity was part of her tactics. Flora Tristan required a leap of faith that included accepting her as a leader as well as the belief in the utopian project. Tristan encountered the conflict between idealism and its practice. Tristan’s campaign contained much that is reminiscent of enlightenment thinking; she had an optimistic belief in progress and in humanity’s ability to improve social conditions through reason and common sense as much as through utopian fervour. Her political unconventionality combined pragmatism and vision and produced an immediate effect on her correspondents. Letter writing enabled her to set the pace in her union ouvrière campaign and bestowed an authority of political ideas on herself and on her correspondents that otherwise would have been lost to posterity. Corresponding on utopia in socialism related to a rich picture of aspirations for men and women in the relationship between the means and the end, a question which remains as perplexing for anyone aspiring to a gendered socialist ideal whose goals seem as relevant and remote as ever to contemporary society.

Notes 1. Jules-L. Puech, La Vie et l’œuvre de Flora Tristan, Paris, Marcel Rivière, 1925, Avant-Propos, p. I. 2. Ibid. 3. See G. D. H. Cole, History of Socialist Thought. Vol. 1: The Forerunners 1789–1850, London, Macmillan, 1953, ch. XVII, pp. 183–8; Joan S. Moon, ‘The Utopian Synthesis of Flora Tristan’, in Marilyn J. Boxer and Jean H. Quataert (eds), Socialist Women: European Socialist Feminism in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, New York, Elsevier, 1978, pp. 19–50; Margaret Talbot, ‘An Emancipated Voice. Flora Tristan and Utopian Allegory’, Feminist Studies, 17 (2), Summer 1991, pp. 219–39; Marguerite Thibert, ‘Feminisme et socialisme d’après Flora Tristan’, Revue d’histoire économique et sociale, Paris, 1921, pp. 115–36.

Utopia in Flora Tristan’s Letters 183 4. François Hincker, ‘L’effet d’utopie de la Révolution française’, in Michèle Riot-Sarcey (sous la direction de) L’Utopie en questions, Paris, Presses universitaires de Vincennes, 2001, pp. 51–64, p. 52. 5. The term is currently applied to any political dream – for instance it was used to describe the political agenda of the notorious far-Right candidate JeanMarie Le Pen about the style of his presidential campaign of 2002 and his electoral appeal suggesting that of all the candidates his programme was the only ‘utopia’. That suggestion was immediately hotly contested by the socialist representative on the programme Le Téléphone sonne, presented by Alain Bedouet, France Inter, 21 April 2003. 6. Susan Grogan, Flora Tristan. Life Stories, London, Routledge, 1998, p. 8. 7. Ibid., pp. 7–8. 8. Ibid., p. 123. 9. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France. Journal inédit 1843–1844, Préface de Michel Collinet, Notes de Jules-L. Puech, Edition de la Tête de Feuilles, 1973, p. 12. 10. Flora Tristan, Le Tour de France, Collinet edition, p. 12. 11. Ibid., pp. 25–6. 12. Undated letter from Rosenfeld to Flora Tristan, 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid. 20. Letter from Rosenfeld to Flora Tristan, 8 February 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres. 21. Note by Flora Tristan on letter from Rosenfeld, 8 February 1843. 22. For works on Tristan’s contemporaries see Paul Corcoran (ed.), Before Marx, Socialism and Communism in France 1830–1848, London, Macmillan, 1983; Christopher Johnson, Utopian Communism in France: Cabet and the Icarians 1839–1851, London, Cornell University Press, 1974; Pamela Pilbeam, French Socialists before Marx. Workers, Women and the Social Question in France, Teddington, Acumen, 2000. 23. For gender challenges to social history of the first half of the nineteenth century, see among others not cited elsewhere in this chapter, Armelle Le BrasChopard, ‘Le Discours socialiste masculin sur la femme dans la première moitié du XIXe siècle’, in Jacques Birnberg (ed.), Les Socialismes français 1796–1866, Paris, Éditions SEDES, 1995, pp. 43–62; Claire Goldberg Moses, French Feminism in the Nineteenth Century, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1984; Michelle Perrot (sous la direction de), Une histoire des femmes est-elle possible ?, Paris, Rivages, 1984; Joan Wallach Scott, Only Paradoxes to Offer. French Feminists and the Rights of Man, Cambridge, Mass. and London, Harvard University Press, 1996. 24. David W. Lovell, ‘Socialism, Utopianism and the “Utopian Socialists” ’, History of European Ideas, 14 (2), pp. 185–201, p. 185. 25. Ibid. 26. He associates Marxian failure with authoritarianism and misery.

184 The Letter in Flora Tristan’s Politics, 1835–1844 27. One of the key texts to challenge Marx’s condemnation of utopian socialism was Barbara Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem, London, Virago, 1983. 28. Lovell, ‘Socialism, Utopianism and the “Utopian Socialists” ’, p. 189. 29. Letter from A. Daniel to Flora Tristan, Batignolles Monceaux, 23 May 1844, Fonds Puech, Castres. 30. Ibid. 31. Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Armogathe and Grandjonc edition, pp. 261–2. 32. Ibid., pp. 262–3. 33. Flora Tristan to the Members of the Correspondence Committee of the Union, 8 April 1843, Fonds Puech, Castres, published in Puech, La Vie et l’œuvre de Flora Tristan, pp. 453–4, and in Flora Tristan, Lettres, réunies, présentées et annotées par Stéphane Michaud, Paris, Seuil, 1980, pp. 153–4, but not in his subsequent editions.

Bibliography The editions and translations of Flora Tristan’s works are followed by books and articles not already cited in the chapter references but that pertain to the context of correspondence and Flora Tristan’s politics.

Flora Tristan’s relevant works cited in chronological order of publication, with their subsequent editions and translations Nécessité de faire bon accueil aux femmes étrangères, Paris, chez Delaunay, 1835; édition présentée et commentée par Denis Cuche, Paris, L’Harmattan, 1988; extract translated in Utopian Feminist. Her Travel Diaries and Personal Crusade, selected, translated and with an introduction by Doris and Paul Beik, Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indianapolis University Press, 1993, pp. 1–8; complete text translated in Felicia Gordon and Máire Cross, Early French Feminisms, 1830–1940, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1996, pp. 27–44. Pétition pour le rétablissement du divorce à Messieurs les Députés, le 20 décembre 1837, translation in Felicia Gordon and Máire Cross, Early French Feminisms, 1830–1940, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1996, pp. 44–6. Pérégrinations d’une paria, 2 vols, Paris, Arthus Bernard, 1838; republished and edited by François Maspero as Les Pérégrinations d’une paria 1833–4, Paris, Librairie François Maspero, 1979; 1838 edition reprinted as Pérégrinations d’une paria, in two volumes, Paris, Indigo et Côté-femmes éditions, 1999; complete 1838 edition reprinted in one volume as Pérégrinations d’une paria, préface, notes et dossier par Stéphane Michaud, Arles, Actes Sud–Babel, 2004; Peregrinations of a Pariah, translated, edited and introduced by Jean Hawkes, London, Virago, 1986; Peregrinations of a Pariah, translated by Charles de Salis, introduction by Joanna Richardson, London, The Folio Society, 1986. Méphis ou le prolétaire, novel, 2 vols, Paris, Ladvocat, 1838; reprinted: Paris, Indigo et Côté-femmes éditions, 1996, 2 vols, [preface by Pascale Hustache, ‘Méphis, entre roman populaire et roman moral’, pp. 7–19, first published in Stéphane Michaud (ed.), Flora Tristan, George Sand, Pauline Roland, Les femmes et l’invention d’une nouvelle morale 1830–48, Paris, Créaphis, 1994, pp. 49–59]; short extracts translated by Doris and Paul Beik in Utopian Feminist. Her Travel Diaries and Personal Crusade, pp. 44–52. Dieu, Franchise et Liberté : Pétition pour l’abolition de la peine de mort à la Chambre des Députés, Paris, Imprimerie de Mme Huzard, 1838, translation in Felicia Gordon and Máire Cross, Early French Feminisms, 1830–1940, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1996, pp. 46–9. Promenades dans Londres, Paris, Delloye and London, Jeffs, 1840; second edition 1840; third edition, La Ville monstre, 1842; fourth edition with new dedication to 185

186 Bibliography French workers, Promenades dans Londres ou l’aristocratie et les prolétaires anglais, Paris, Raymond Boquet, 1842; this last edition was annotated and introduced by François Bédarida, in a re-edition Paris, Maspero, 1978; the fourth edition, of 1842, was reprinted by Indigo et Côté-femmes éditions, 2001; The London Journal of Flora Tristan, translated, annotated and introduced by Jean Hawkes, London, Virago, 1982; Flora Tristan’s London Journal 1840, translated by Dennis Palmer and Giselle Pincetl, London, George Prior Publishers, 1980. Union ouvrière, Paris, chez tous les libraires, 1843; second edition, 1843; third edition, Paris and Lyons, 1844; facsimile of 1844 edition, Paris, Editions d’Histoire sociale, 1967; Union ouvrière, suivie de lettres de Flora Tristan [1844 edition], introduction and notes by Daniel Armogathe and Jacques Grandjonc, Paris, Des femmes, 1986; The Workers’ Union, 1844 edition translated with an introduction by Beverly Livingston, Urbana and Chicago, Ill. and London, University of Illinois Press, 1983. Le Tour de France. Etat actuel de la classe ouvrière sous l’aspect moral, intellectuel et materiel, journal inédit de Flora Tristan, texte et notes établis par Jules-L. Puech, préface de Michel Collinet, Paris, Tête de Feuilles, 1973; Le Tour de France. Etat actuel de la classe ouvrière sous l’aspect moral, intellectuel et materiel, journal inédit de Flora Tristan, texte et notes établis par Jules-L. Puech, préface de Michel Collinet, introduction nouvelle de Stéphane Michaud, 2 vols, Paris, Maspero, 1980; Flora Tristan’s Diary: The Tour of France 1843–1844, translated, annotated and introduced by Máire F. Cross, Bern, Peter Lang, 2002.

Published correspondence in chronological order of publication Puech, Jules-L., La Vie et l’oeuvre de Flora Tristan, Paris, Marcel Rivière, 1925. The appendix entitled ‘Documents Annexes’, pp. 447–86, contains the following letters: Letter from Vinçard to Flora Tristan, undated, pp. 447–8. Letter from Achille François to Flora Tristan in Paris, 31 March 1843, pp. 448–50. Letter from Flora Tristan to Pierre Moreau, 7 April 1843, pp. 450–1. Letter from the Comité de l’Union ouvrière (Vautier, Achille François, Guilhem, J. Gosset) to Flora Tristan, Paris, 7 April 1843, pp. 451–2. Letter from Flora Tristan to the Comité de l’Union ouvrière, 8 April, pp. 453–4. Letter from J. Gosset to Flora Tristan, 10 April 1843, pp. 454–6. Letter from Flora Tristan to Messieurs réunis chez M. Gosset, undated, pp. 456–7. Letter from Belnot to Flora Tristan with Flora Tristan’s comments, 28 April 1843, pp. 456–8. Letter from Achille François to Flora Tristan, 30 April 1843, pp. 458–9. Letter from Agricol Perdiguier to Flora Tristan, 25 March 1843, pp. 459–60. Letter from Agricol Perdiguier to Flora Tristan with Flora Tristan’s comments, 29 March 1843, pp. 460–2. Letter from Flora Tristan to Perdiguier, 30 March 1843, pp. 462–3. Letter from Agricol Perdiguier to Flora Tristan with Flora Tristan’s comments, 30 March 1843, pp. 463–4. Letter from Pierre Moreau in Auxerre to Flora Tristan, 9 April 1843, pp. 464–7. Letter from Jean-Edme Leclaire to Flora Tristan, 26 June 1843, pp. 467–8. Letter from J.-B. Coutant to Flora Tristan, 30 May 1843, pp. 469–70.

Bibliography 187 Letter from L. Vasbenter in Lyons to Flora Tristan with Flora Tristan’s comments, 11 June 1843, pp. 470–6. Letter from S. Hugont in Lyons to Flora Tristan, 17 June 1843, pp. 477–81. Letter from J. Reynier in Lyons to Flora Tristan with Flora Tristan’s comments, pp. 482–3. Police Reports dated January 1845 concerning the Toulon Cercle des Travailleurs, founded by workers during Flora Tristan’s visit and banned by the Minister of the Interior in Paris in his letter to the Prefect dated 4 February 1845, pp. 483–6. Breton, André, ‘Flora Tristan: sept lettres inédites’, Le Surréalisme même, 3, 1957, pp. 4–12. Michaud, Stéphane, ‘Flora Tristan: trente-cinq lettres’, International Review of Social History, 1979, 24 (1), pp. 80–125. These include 25 letters to Olympe Chodzko dated between 8 December 1837 and May 1840 of which five were written from London. Michaud mentioned all 35 letters in his first volume of Tristan’s edited letters, Flora Tristan Lettres, Paris, Seuil, 1980, but replaced the text of a letter from Victor Considérant to Flora Tristan, dated 5 April 1838, in response to her request to attend a commemorative meeting for Fourier, with a summary of what Flora Tristan’s letter may have contained. The emphasis on this first collection of Tristan’s letters was on establishing evidence of her authorship as a correspondent. Flora Tristan. La Paria et son rêve, correspondance établie par Stéphane Michaud, Fontenay/Saint-Cloud, E. N. S. Editions, 1995; re-edition with preface by Mario Vargas Llosa, Paris, Presses Sorbonne nouvelle, 2003.

Unpublished papers The Flora Tristan archives are somewhat scattered. Many letters are in private collections and the following libraries and archives: Archives nationales, Paris Bibliothèque historique de la ville de Paris Bibliothèque Marguérite Durand, Paris Fonds Puech, Centre national et musée Jean Jaurès et Bibliothèque municipale, Castres International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam.

Further reading Books Abensour, Léon, Histoire générale du féminisme : des origines à nos jours, Paris, Slatkine, 1979. Actes du Colloque de Calais 17–19 septembre 1993 (de l’Association interdisciplinaire de recherche sur l’épistolaire), La Lettre et la politique, textes rassemblés et présentés par Pierrette Lebrun–Pézerat et Danièle Poublan, Paris, Honoré Champion, 1996. Agoult, Marie d’, George Sand, Correspondance, édition établie, présentée et annotée par Charles F. Dupêchez, Etrepillym, France, C. de Bartillat, 1995.

188 Bibliography Albert, Pierre (sous la direction de), Correspondre jadis et naguère, Paris, Editions du CTHS, 1997. Angenot, Marc, Topographie du socialisme français, 1889–1890, Montreal, Discours social, 1990. Angenot, Marc, L’Utopie collectiviste. Le grand récit socialiste sous la Deuxième Internationale, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1993. Barry, David, Women and Political Insurgency: France in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1996. Bernstein, Serge, Les Cultures politiques en France, Paris, Seuil, 1999. Braidotti, Rosi, Nomadic Subjects. Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory, New York and Chichester, West Sussex, Columbia University Press, 1994. Briquet, Jean, Agricol Perdiguier, compagnon du Tour de France et représentant du peuple, Paris, Marcel Rivière, 1955. Charle, Christophe, Jacqueline Lalouette, Michel Pigenot and Anne Marie Sohn (eds), La France démocratique. Combats, mentalités, symboles, Mélanges offerts à Maurice Agulhon, Paris, Publication du Collège de France et de la Sorbonne, 1998. Charon-Bordas, Jeannine, Ouvriers et paysans au milieu du XIXe siècle : l’enquête sur le travail de 1848, Paris, Publisud, 1994. Clark, Linda, The Rise of Professional Women in France. Gender and Public Administration since 1830, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Coffin, Judith G., The Politics of Women’s Work: The Paris Garment Trades, 1750–1915, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1996. Cohen, William B., Urban Government and the Rise of the French City: Five Municipalities in the Nineteenth Century, New York, St. Martin’s Press and Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1998. Considérant, Victor (1808–1893), Description du phalanstère et considérations sociales sur l’architectonique (1834, 1848), présentation de Jacques Valette, Paris, Guy Durier, 1979 and Geneva, Slatkine, 1980. Connell, Robert W., Gender and Power. Society, the Person and Sexual Politics, Stanford, Calif., Stanford University Press and Cambridge, Polity Press, 1987. Corbin, Alain, Le Monde retrouvé de Louis François Pingeot. Sur les traces d’un inconnu, 1798–1876, Paris, Flammarion, 1998. Corradin, Irène et Jacqueline Martin (sous la direction de), Les Femmes sujets d’histoire, Toulouse, Presses universitaires du Mirail, 1999. Crossley, Ceri, French Historians and Romanticism, London, Routledge, 1993. Cubitt, Geoffrey, The Jesuit Myth. Conspiracy Theory and Politics in NineteenthCentury France, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1993. Daumard, Adeline, La Bourgeoisie parisienne de 1815 à 1848, Paris, Albin Michel, 1963, 1996. Daumard, Adeline, Les Bourgeois et la bourgeoisie en France depuis 1815, Paris, Aubier Montaigne, 2000. Dauphin, Cécile, Pierrette Lebrun-Pézerat et Danièle Poublan, Ces bonnes lettres : une correspondance familiale au XIXe siècle, Paris, Albin Michel, 1995. Debout, Simone, L’Utopie de Charles Fourier, Paris, Payot, 1978. Demartini, Anne Emmanuelle, L’Affaire Lacenaire, Paris, Aubier, 2001.

Bibliography 189 Duclert, Vincent, Rémi Fabre et Patrick Fridenson, Avenirs et avant-garde en France XIX–XXe siècles. Hommage à Madeleine Rebérioux, Paris, La Découverte, 1999. Farr, James R., Artisans in Europe 1300–1914, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Favret, Mary A., Romantic Correspondence. Women, Politics and the Fiction of Letters, Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 1993. Fontaine, Laurence, Le Voyage et la mémoire. Colporteurs de l’Oisans au XIXe siècle, Lyons, Presses universitaires de Lyon, 1984. Frankel, Boris, The Post-Industrial Utopias, Cambridge, Polity, 1987. Fraser, Nancy, Unruly Practices. Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1989. Fuchs, Rachel G., Poor and Pregnant in Paris. Strategies for Survival in the Nineteenth Century, New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1992. 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, Connecticut and London, Yale University Press, 1994. Goldsmith, Elizabeth C., Publishing Women’s Life Stories in France 1647–1720: From Voice to Print, Aldershot and Burlington, Vermont, Ashgate, 2001. Goodwin, Barbara and Keith Taylor, The Politics of Utopia, London, Melbourne and Auckland, Hutchinson, 1982. Grandjonc, Jacques, Marx et les Communistes allemands à Paris, Paris, Maspero, 1974. Grogan, Susan K., French Socialism and Sexual Difference: Women and the New Society, 1803–44, London, Macmillan, 1991. Gueslin, André, Gens pauvres, pauvres gens dans la France du XIXe siècle, Paris, Aubier, 1998. Hanagan, Michael P., Nascent Proletarians. Class Formation in Post-Revolutionary France, Oxford, Blackwell, 1989. Hemmings, F. W. J., Culture and Society in France 1789–1848, Leicester, Leicester University Press, 1987. Henry, André, Serviteurs d’ldéal. Pionniers et fondateurs, Vol. 1, Paris, Centre federalFEN, Editions de l’Instant, 1987. Hiddleston, Janet, George Sand and Autobiography, Oxford, University of Oxford Research Monographs in French Studies, 1999. L’Huillier, Fernand, Lamartine en politique, Strasbourg, Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 1993. Jacquet-Francillon, F., Naissance de l’école du peuple 1815–1870, Paris, Editions de l’Atelier, 1995. Kelly, George A., The Humane Comedy. Constant, Tocqueville and French Liberalism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992. Kramer, Lloyd S., Threshold of a New World: Intellectuals and the Exile Experience in Paris, 1830–48, Ithaca, NY and London, Cornell University Press, 1988.

190 Bibliography Langford, Rachel and Russell West (eds), Marginal Voices, Marginal Forms. Diaries in European Literature and History, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 1999. Lassere, Pierre, Le Romantisme français. Essai sur la Révolution dans les sentiments et dans les idées au XIXe siècle (1907 edition), Geneva, Slatkine, 2000. Lehning, James R., Peasant and French: Cultural Contact in Rural France during the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 1995. Leroy, Michel, Le Mythe Jésuite. De Béranger à Michelet, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1992. Lucas, Edward Verrall, The Second Post: a Companion to ‘The Gentlest Art’, London, Methuen, 1915. Mailland, Alain, La Communauté des égaux. Le communisme néobabouviste dans la France des années 1840, Paris, Kimé, 1999. Maler, Henri, Congédier l’utopie ? L’utopie selon Karl Marx, Paris, L’Harmattan, 1994. McWilliam, Neil, Dreams of Happiness: Social Art and the French Left, 1830–50, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1993. Melzer, Sara E. and Leslie W. Rabine (eds), Rebel Daughters: Women and the French Revolution, New York, Oxford University Press, 1992. Mollier, Jean-Yves (dir.), Le commerce de la librairie en France au XIXe siècle, Paris, IMEC éditions, 1997. Mucchielli, Laurent, La Découverte du social. Naissance de la sociologie en France, Paris, Découverte, 1998. Muchembled, Robert, Culture populaire et culture des élites dans la France moderne (XVe–XVIIIe siècles), Paris, Flammarion, 1991. Offen, Karen, European Feminisms 1700–1950. A Political History, Stanford Calif., Stanford University Press, 2000. Rancière, Jacques, La Nuit des prolétaires, Paris, Fayard, 1977. Rose, R. B., Tribunes and Amazons. Men and Women of Revolutionary France, 1789–1871, Paddington, Australia, Macleay Press, 1998. Rowbotham, Sheila, Beyond the Fragments: Feminism and the Making of Socialism, London, Merlin, 1980. Russ, Jacqueline, Le Socialisme utopique français, Paris, Bordas, 1988. Sacquin, Michèle, Entre Bossuet et Mauras. L’Anti-protestantisme en France de 1814 à 1870, Paris, Ecole des Chartes, 1998. Schmidt, Nelly, Victor Schoelcher, Paris, Fayard, 1994. Scott, Joan Wallach, Gender and the Politics of History, New York, Columbia University Press, 1988. Seigel, Jerrold, Bohemian Paris. Culture, Politics and the Boundaries of Bourgeois Life 1830–1930, New York, Penguin, 1987. Smith, Bonnie G., The Gender of History: Men, Women and Historical Practice, Cambridge, Mass. and London, Harvard University Press, 1998. Stern, Daniel, Histoire de la Révolution de 1848, Paris, G. Sandré, 1850–53, 3 vols, and Paris, Balland, 1985. Stewart-McDougall, Mary Lynn, The Artisan Republic: Revolution, Reaction, and Resistance in Lyon 1848–51, Kingston, McGill-Queen’s University Press and Gloucester, Sutton, 1984. Stuart, Robert C., Marxism at Work: Ideology, Class and French Socialism during the Third Republic, Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Bibliography 191 Terdiman, Richard, Discourse/Counter-Discourse: The Theory and Practice of Symbolic Resistance in Nineteenth-Century France, Ithaca, NY and London, Cornell University Press, 1985. Thompson, Willie, What Happened to History?, London, Pluto Press, 2000. Voet, Rian, Feminism and Citizenship, London, Sage Publications, 1998. Vigoureux, Clarisse, Parole de Providence, Paris, Bossange, 1834 and Seyssel, Éditions Champ Vallon, 1993. Vovelle, Michel, Idéologies et mentalités, Paris, Découverte, 1985. Wilson, Elizabeth, The Sphinx in the City. Urban Life and the Control of Disorder and Women, Berkley, Calif. and Oxford, University of California Press, 1991.

Articles Adams, Julia, ‘Working Class Politics in Nineteenth-Century Toulouse, France: Paths of Proletarianization Revisited’, Social Science History, 17, 1993, pp. 195–225. Altman, Janet Gurkin, ‘Political Ideology in the Letter Manual (France, England, New England)’, Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture, 18, 1988, pp. 105–22. L’Atelier, 1844 Facsimile edition with an introduction by Maurice Agulhon, Paris, EDHIS, 3 vols, 1978. Bédarida, François, ‘Une invitation à penser l’histoire’, Revue historique, 305, 2001, pp. 731–9. Calhoun, Craig, ‘ “New Social Movements” of the Early Nineteenth Century’, Social Science History, Pittsburgh, 17 (3), fall 1993, pp. 385–427. Calhoun, Craig, ‘Classical Social Theory and the French Revolution of 1848’, Sociological Theory, 7 (2) 1993, pp. 210–25. Caron, Jean-Claude, Maurice Agulhon, Jean-Pierre Chaline, Alain Corbin, Claude Langlois, Philippe Vigier, Alain Plessis, Jean Yves Mollier, ‘Le XIXe siècle en question’, Table ronde, décembre 1989, 1848 Révolutions et mutations au XIXe siècle, 1990, pp. 19–38. Carroll, David, ‘The Art of the People: Aesthetic Transcendence and National Identity in Jules Michelet’, Boundary, 225, spring–summer 1–2, 1998, pp. 111–37. Chartier, Roger, ‘Culture écrite et littéraire à l’âge moderne’, Annales, Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 56 (4–5), 2001, pp. 783–802. Clark, Elizabeth, ‘The Lady Vanishes: Dilemmas of a Feminist Historian after the “Linguistic Turn” ’, The American Society of Church History, 67 (1), 1998, pp. 1–31. Cowans Jon, ‘Habermas and French History. The Public Sphere and the problem of Political Legitimacy’, French History, 13 (2), 1999, pp. 134–60. Cox, M., ‘Tocqueville’s Bourgeois Revolution’, Historical Reflections, 19, 1993, pp. 279–307. Cunliffe, J. and G. Erreygers, ‘The Enigmatic Legacy of Charles Fourier: Joseph Charlier and Basic Income’, History of Political Economy, 33, 2001, pp. 459–84. Day, B., ‘Political Dissent and Napoleonic Representations during the Restoration Monarchy’, Historical Reflections, 19, 1993, pp. 409–32. De Groat, Judith, ‘The Public Nature of Women’s Work. Definitions and Debates during the Revolution of 1848’, French Historical Studies, 20 (1), 1997, pp. 31–47.

192 Bibliography Desan, Suzanne, ‘What’s after Political Culture? Recent French Revolutionary Historiography’, French Historical Studies, 23 (1), winter 2000, pp. 163–96. Dougherty, Patricia M., ‘The French Catholic and the July Revolution’, French History, 12 (4), pp. 403–28. Ewald, François, ‘ “Nationaliser le social”, La question sociale’, Annales, Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 51 (3), 1996, pp. 605–10. Fletcher, Ian Christopher, ‘Rethinking the History of Working People: Class, Gender, and Identities in an Age of Industry and Empire’, Radical History Review, 56, 1993, pp. 85–98. Forbes, Amy Wise, ‘ “Let’s Add the Stomach”: Satire, Absurdity, and July Monarchy Politics in Proudhon’s What is Property?’, French Historical Studies, 24 (4), fall 2001, pp. 679–705. Fortescue, William, ‘Morality and Monarchy: Corruption and the Fall of the Regime of Louis-Philippe in 1848, French History, 16 (1), March 2002, pp. 83–100. Gemie, Sharif, ‘Balzac and the Moral Crisis of the July Monarchy’, European History Quarterly, 19, 1989, pp. 469–94. Goldstein, ‘Early Feminist Themes in French Utopian Socialism: The SaintSimonians and Fourier’, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. XVIII, 1, January–March 1982, pp. 91–108. Goldstein, Robert Justin, ‘Political Mobilization in Nineteenth-Century Europe’, European History Quarterly, 32 (2), 2002, pp. 233–50. Goodman, Dana, ‘More than Paradoxes to Offer: Feminist History as Critical Practice’, History and Theory, 36, 1997, pp. 392–405. Gossez, Remi, ‘Presse parisienne à destination des ouvriers 1848–51’, La Presse ouvrière, Société d’histoire de la révolution de 1848, Paris, CNRS, 1966, pp. 123–90. Grogan, Susan, ‘Philanthropic Women and the State: The société de charité maternelle in Avignon 1802–1917’, French History, 14 (3), September 2000, pp. 295–321. Harrison, Carol E., ‘Unsociable Frenchmen: Associations and Democracy in Historical Perspective’, La Revue Tocqueville/The Tocqueville Review, XVII (2), 1996, pp. 37–56. Heywood, Colin, ‘Mobilizing the Workers in fin-de-siècle France: the parti ouvrier in Troyes’, French History, 12 (2), June 1998, pp. 172–94. Joyce, Patrick, ‘The End of Social History?’, Social History, 20 (1), January 1995, pp. 73–91. Kale, Steven D., ‘French Legitimists and the Politics of Abstention 1830–70’, French Historical Studies, 20 (4), fall 1997, pp. 664–701. Lalouette, Jacqueline, ‘Les femmes dans les banquets politiques en France’, Clio. Histoire femmes et sociétés, 14, 2001, pp. 77–91. Landes, Joan, ‘Women and the French Revolution’, Gender and History, 6 (2), August 1994, pp. 281–91. Lepetit, Bernard, ‘Le Travail de l’histoire’, le sociologue et l’historien, Annales, Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 51 (3), 1996, pp. 525–38.

Bibliography 193 Levy, Darline and Harriet B. Applewhite, ‘Women, Radicalization, and the Fall of the French Monarchy’ in Harriet B. Applewhite, and Darline S. Levy, Women and Politics in the Age of the Democratic Revolution, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1990, pp. 81–107. Livingstone, Beverly, ‘George Sand and Flora Tristan’, A Journal of the Liberal Arts, Washington, 35, 1985, pp. 38–44. Livsey, James, ‘Speaking the Nation: Radical Republicans and the Failure of Political Communications in 1848’, French Historical Studies, 20 (3), summer 1997, pp. 459–80. Lovell, David W., ‘The French Revolution and the Origins of Socialism: the Case of Early French Socialism’, French History, 6 (2), June 1992, pp. 185–205. Lyons, Martyn, ‘La culture littéraire des travailleurs: Autobiographies ouvrières dans l’Europe du XIXe siècle’, Annales, Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 56 (4–5), 2001, pp. 927–46. Lyons, Martyn, ‘Fires of Expiation: Book Burnings and Catholic Missions in Restoration France’, French History, 10 (2), 1996, pp. 240–66. Martin, Jean-Clément, ‘Histoire, mémoire et oubli. Pour un autre régime d’historicité’, Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, 47 (4), octobre–décembre 2000, pp. 783–803. Moses, Claire Goldberg, ‘Saint-Simonian Men/Saint-Simonian Women: The Transformation of Feminist Thought in 1830s France’, Journal of Modern History, 54, June 1982, pp. 240–67. Muller, Christain Alain, ‘Du « peuple égaré » au « peuple enfant ». Le discours politique révolutionnaire à l’épreuve de la révolte populaire en 1793’, Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, 47 (1), janvier–mars 2000. Pigenet, Michel, ‘A propos de l’aristocratie ouvrière. Elites professionnelles et militantes au XIXe siècle dans le département du Cher’, Romantisme, 70, 1990, pp. 91–102. Pilbeam, Pamela, ‘Un aristocrate précurseur des socialistes: Henri de Saint-Simon’, in Chantal Grell et Arnaud Ramière de Fortanier, Le second ordre: l’idéal nobiliaire, Hommage à Ellery Schalk, Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris, 1999, pp. 349–57. Pilbeam, Pamela, ‘Republicanism in Early Nineteenth-Century France, 1814–1835’, French History, 5 (1), March 1991, pp. 30–47. Rabine, Leslie, ‘Des Rebellions parallèles. The 60s Generation. Dominique Desanti and Flora Tristan in California’, Dalhousie French Studies, 54, 2001, pp. 56–66. Rancière, Jacques, ‘L’Histoire « des » femmes entre subjectivation et représentation’ Annales, Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 48 (4), 1993, pp. 1011–18. Ratcliffe, Barrie M., ‘Workers and Religion in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Paris: The Evidence from the Timings of Weddings and Baptisms’, Historical Reflexions, 24 (2), pp. 283–327. Reid, Donald, ‘In the Name of the Father: a Language of Labour Relations in Nineteenth-Century France’, History Workshop Journal, 1996, pp. 1–22. Riot-Sarcey, Michèle, ‘L’historiographie française et le concept de « genre »’, Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, 47 (4), octobre–décembre 2000, pp. 805–14.

194 Bibliography Saunier, Pierre-Yves, ‘Représentations sociales de l’espace et histoire urbaine : les questions d’une grande ville française. Lyon au XIXe siècle’, Histoire sociale, 29 (57), 1996, pp. 23–52. Stadtler, Katharina, ‘Coming Home to a Foreign Land. Flora Tristan’s Pérégrinations d’une paria’, American Journal of Cultural Histories and Theories, 17 (42–43), 1992, pp. 215–31. Sullerot, Evelyne, ‘Journaux féminins et lutte ouvrière 1848–1949’, in whole issue on ‘La Presse ouvriére’, Société d’histoire de la révolution de 1848, Paris, CNRS, 1966, pp. 88–122. Tilly, Charles, ‘Citizenship, Identity and Social History’, International Review of Social History, 40, Supplement 3, 1995, pp. 1–17. Turner, Patricia, ‘Hostile Participants? Working Class Militancy, Associational Life, and the “Distinctiveness” of the Prewar French Labor Movement’, The Journal of Modern History, 71, March 1999, pp. 28–55. Viard, ‘Pierre Leroux: une critique « socialiste » de la Terreur’, Romantisme, 91 (1), 1996, pp. 79–87. Ward, Patricia, ‘The Sublime and Revolutionary Oratory: Themes and Myths of the Restoration and July Monarchy’, Nineteenth-Century French Studies, Vol. 22, 1993, pp. 15–28.

Index

Ackroyd, Peter, 31 Adler, Laure, 68 Adrien, H.M., 29 Agosin, Marjorie, 29 Agulhon, Maurice, 4, 27, 67, 68 Aide-toi, le ciel t’aidera, 137 Aisenberg, Andrew R., 47, 70 Allart, Hortense (1801–79), 15 Allen, James Smith, 67 Alvarez-Detrell, Tamara, 29 Ambrière, Francis, 31 America, Latin, 4, 29, 30 see also Latin America America, North, 6, 11 amérique, 129 Aminzade, Ronald, 43, 69 Amsterdam Institute of Social History, 63 Andalusian, 1 Angenot, Marc, 38, 69, 71 Angleterre, 60, 84 see also England, Britain Anric, dit Perpigain, 111 Anton, Sonia, 72 Aréquipa, 1 Armogathe, Daniel, 31, 118, 138, 160, 161 Arnaud, Angelique, 114 Arnaud, Paul, 111 artisan, 44 Asie, 54 Association pour la liberté de la presse, 137 Association républicaine pour l’éducation du peuple, 137 atelier, 2, 103, 125, 151 Atelier, L’, 91, 92, 107, 108, 117 Athènes, 56 Audemar, Auguste (1815–82), 142, 145, 146, 162 Auxerre, 66, 117, 119, 121, 124, 126 Avignonnais la Vertu, 131 Bacacorzo, Gustavo, 28 Baker, Alan, 68 Baker, Keith Michael, 49, 70

Balzac, Honoré de (1799–1850) Mémoires de deux jeunes mariées, 81 Barbès, Armand (1809–70), 11 Bayard, Jean-Pierre, 68 Beaumont, Gustave de (1802–66), 142–4, 161 Bédarida, François, 4, 27 Bedouet, Alain, 183 Beecher, Jonathan, 69, 162 Bellot, 106, 108, 109 Belnot, 7 Bensoussan, Albert, 72 Berenson, Edward, 69, 70 Berne, 47, 71, 113 Bilbao, 1 biography, 2, 4, 7–10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 62, 63, 71, 73, 78, 165 Birnberg, Jacques, 183 Blanc, Eléonore (1819–?), 4, 23, 25, 27, 63, 74, 88, 114 Blanc, Louis (1811–82), 11, 41, 91, 137 Bland, Caroline, 31, 71 Blanqui, Adolphe (1798–1854), 143 Blanqui, Auguste (1805–81), 11, 175 Bloch-Dano, Evelyne, 5, 27, 30, 31 Blunden, Katharine, 69 Boetcher Joeres, Ruth Ellen, 29 Bolivar, Simon (1783–1830), 31 Booker, John T., 29 Bordeaux, 2, 22, 25, 64, 75, 79, 112, 113 Bordure, 76, 113 Bory, Jean Louis, 162 Bourbon, Monarchy, 45 bourgeois, 19, 36, 42, 44, 47, 66, 67, 135, 137, 138, 142, 145–7, 155, 175, 180 bourgeoisie, 25, 58, 59, 65, 102, 142, 144–6, 179 Boxer, Marilyn J., 182 Braudeau, Michel, 28 Breton, André (1896–1966), 27, 31 Brion, Hélène (1882–1962), 60, 61, 71 Brisson, 72 195

196 Index Brissot de Warville, Jacques Pierre (1754–93), 82 Britain, 26, 37, 48 see also Angleterre, England Brive, Marie-France, 31 brochure, 51–3, 100, 103, 105, 107, 119, 127 Bron, Jean, 38, 69 Bryce-Chenique, Alfredo, 5 Buchez, Philippe (1796–1865), 65 Buisson, Virginie, 71 Cabet, Etienne (1788–1856), 25, 41, 65, 107, 175, 183 Cabetist, 38 cafés, 49, 50, 68 campaign, 3, 6, 9–11, 14, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27, 40–2, 61, 63–6, 73, 94, 95, 100, 102, 103, 109, 116, 121, 135, 142, 148, 152, 158, 159, 168, 178, 180, 182, 183 Carlisle, Robert B., 69 Caron, Jean-Claude, 68, 69 Carpentras (1798–?), 111 Casès, Anne-Marie, 72 Castres, Tarn, 63, 71, 72, 113–15, 160–3, 183, 184 Catholic, 58 Censeur, Le, 107, 113 Cercle de la librairie, 137 Chaline, Jean-Pierre, 68 Charivari, Le, 41 Chartier, Roger, 47, 50, 69 Chazal, Aline (1825–67), 1 Chazal, André (1796–1860), 1, 16, 23 Chile, 13 Chodzko, Olympe (1797–1889), 78, 79 Christian, 69, 71, 107, 145 Christianity, 58 Church, Catholic, 58 citizen, 68 citoyen, 83, 89, 125, 139, 147 citoyenne, 128 Civil Code, 2 class antagonism, 147 class collaboration, 58, 75 class conflict, 46 class struggle, 46, 48, 58 classe, la, 25, 29, 38, 54, 68, 105, 106, 108, 129–33, 137–9, 141, 142, 144, 148, 151, 153, 157, 169, 174, 181 Clévenot, Michel, 31

Coalition, 154 Cole, G.D.H., 29, 182 Collinet Michel, 27, 32, 63, 72, 113, 160, 183 Comité, Le, 150, 180, 181 committee, 64, 91, 134, 137, 170–3, 180 Communarde, 87 Commune, La, 70, 71 Communist Manifesto, 52 compagnon, 131 Compagnonnage, 68, 118, 119, 127, 128, 130, 131 Comptoir d’escompte, 137 Considérant, Victor (1809–93), 61, 65, 135, 142–6, 162, 175 Constituante, La, 174 Corbin, Alain, 30 Corcoran, Paul, 183 Coutant, 7 craftsmen, 47 Cross, Máire, 28, 30, 31, 71, 113, 114 Cuche, Denys, 71 Cyzba, Lucette, 5, 27 D. … L., Amélie de, 142, 146, 162 Damian, Dr Jules, 76, 113, 115 Daniel, A., 184 Danton, Georges Jacques (1757–94), 82 Darnton, Robert, 50 Dauphin, Cécile, 70 David, Marcel, 72, 176 De Beaufort, Raphaël Ledos, 31 Defosse, Mary Rice-, 31 Démier, Francis, 35, 67 democracy, 34, 43, 57 democrat, 37, 96, 99 democratic, 13, 16, 34, 38, 42, 43, 49, 67, 88, 95, 136, 137 Démocratie pacifique, 143 Denegri, Francesca, 12, 29 Deroin, Jeanne (1805–94), 41, 80, 87, 114 Desanti, Dominique, 4, 7, 27, 28, 30 Devance, Louis, 114 Diaz, Brigitte, 82, 113 Diaz, José-Luis, 72 Dictionnaire des postes, Le, 48 Dieu, 52, 97–9, 110, 111, 140, 177 see also God Dieux, 66, 169, 181 see also God Dijkstra, Sandra, 28, 30

Index 197 Dijon, 97, 99, 114, 129 doctor, 77 Doherty, John (1798–1854), 60 droit au travail, le, 89, 105, 124 see also right to work droits, les, 145, 157 Duchène, 88 Dumesnil, D., 158, 163 Durand, 157, 163 Earle, Rebecca, 72 écosse, l’, 129 Egypt, 59 emancipation, 8, 12, 21, 40, 41, 50–2, 59, 60, 90, 155, 166 empirical, 4, 7, 61 Enfantin, Prosper (1796–1864), 41, 61, 90, 97, 98 Engelbert, Cardinal Archbishop of Malines, 143 Engels, Friedrich (1820–95), 175 England, 20, 43, 56, 61, 100 see also Angleterre, Britain Europe, 4, 37, 44, 46, 47, 54, 69, 70, 152 Eychenne, 111 faith, 3, 53, 98, 99, 108, 153, 155, 167, 168, 182 see also foi, la family, 1, 2, 5, 13, 16, 22–5, 40, 63, 82, 94, 102, 125, 179 Fauré, Christine, 31 feminism, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 18, 21, 33, 37, 40, 61, 68 feminists, 4, 8, 61 femme messie, la, 14, 27, 28, 158 see also Messiah First Republic (1792–99), 34 flâneurs, 4 foi, la, 31, 80, 98, 99, 103, 108, 138, 150, 154–6, 172, 177 see also faith Fourier, Charles (1772–1837), 2, 37, 41, 61, 69, 78, 93, 97, 104, 129, 175 Fourierists, 38, 104, 128, 129, 135, 144, 145, 162 franchise, women’s, masculine, 40, 103, 156, 171 François, Achille (1814–74), 7, 117, 127, 133 Fuller, Margaret (1810–50), 31 Furet, François, 42, 48, 49, 68, 69

Gabaude, Florence, 30 Ganneau, 80 Garaud, Christoph, 71 Gauguin, Clovis (1814–49), 1 Gauguin, Paul (1848–1903), 1–3, 27, 72 gender, 2, 6–9, 11, 12, 15–18, 21, 26, 27, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 60, 65–7, 70, 74, 80, 82, 98, 109, 110, 112, 113, 116, 126, 140, 141, 165–7, 173, 175–8, 180, 182, 183 Gérard, Alice, 27 Germany, 26 see also Prussia Girard, Pierre, 67 Girondins, 82, 83, 87 Globe, Le, 90 God, 3, 39 see also Dieu, Dieux Goldberg Moses, Claire, 68, 183 Goldberger, Avriel H., 29 Gordon, Felicia, 113, 114 Gorriti, Juana Manuela (1819–92), 12 Gosselin, Ronald, 68 Gosset, Jacques, or Jean, père des forgerons (1806–?), 61, 100, 101, 115, 117, 127, 130, 131, 133, 150, 153, 155 Gould, Roger, 44, 45, 46, 70 Grandjonc, Jacques, 31, 118, 138, 160, 161 Gray, Tim, 28 Grogan, Susan, 8, 9, 17, 28, 31, 78, 79, 138, 168 Guizot, François (1787–1874), 34–6, 42, 67, 88 guizotiste, 39 Gunther, Renate, 30 Guyard, 102 Guyot, 48 Habermas, Jürgen, 50, 70 Haine, W. Scott, 68 Hämmerle, Christa, 72 Harrison, Carol E., 68 Hart, Kathleen, 27, 29 Hincker, François, 166, 182 Histoire de dix ans, 137 see also Blanc, Louis historian, 7, 17, 23, 46, 49, 87 Hoock-Demarle, Marie-Claire, 29 Hugo, Victor (1802–85), 123 Hugont, 7, 88, 106, 114 Huguenin, Pierre, 13

198 Index humanity, 8, 25, 27, 39, 43, 44, 47, 51–3, 58, 59, 65, 74, 98, 99, 111, 112, 122, 126, 140, 165, 182 Hunt, Lynn, 68 Hustache, Pascale, 28 Hyde Park, 56 Icarie, 175 illiteracy, 47, 157 International Workers’ Associations, 58 Ireland, 47, 95, 143, 148 Irigoin, Janine, 71 Jacobins, 87 Jeanne d’Arc, 97 Jésus, 25, 54, 86, 97, 98 Jesus Christ, 39, 59, 86, 169 Johnson, Christopher, 183 Johnson, Douglas, 28 Jones, Colin, 49 journal, 3, 6, 10, 18, 22, 61, 63, 76, 78, 79, 83, 87, 92, 127, 134, 145, 158, 169, 170, 173 Journal des débats, 148 July Monarchy, 3, 11, 18–21, 31, 34, 36–9, 41, 43, 47, 49, 67, 91, 122, 137, 164, 178 juste milieu, 34 Kabulis, Jeanne, 30 Kenwood, Alun, 28 Kerr, David S., 68 Klein, Michel, 111 Kramer, Lloyd, 28 Kuhnheim, Jill S., 29 labour, 35, 37, 39, 42, 47, 61, 68, 89 Laisney, Thérèse (1772–1842?), 1 Lallemant, 97–9, 109, 111, 114 Lalouette, Jacqueline, 30 Lamennais or La Mennais, Félicité Robert de (1782–1854), 65, 137 Landes, Joan, 70 Latin America, 4, 10, 29–31 Laure, Jules, 83 Le Bras-Chopard, Armelle, 183 Le Pen, Jean-Marie, 183 leadership, 39, 41, 110, 118, 152 Lebrun-Pezerat, Pierrette, 70 Leeds, 60 Lees, Andrew, 27 Left, the, 58, 87, 91, 137, 143, 167, 175

Legrain, Martin, 73, 109, 111, 115 Lemonnier, Charles (1806–91), 25 Lemonnier, Elisa (1805–65), 25 Leo, Gerhard, 27, 28 Lerminier, 131 Leroux, Pierre (1797–1871), 57, 61, 65, 91, 170, 175 Lespinat, Jean, 111 Lettres persanes, 81 Lettres philosophiques, 81 Lettres provinciales, 81 Levitta-Baldi, Margareth, 29 lieux habités de France, Les, 48 literacy, 16, 17, 19, 20, 33, 36, 41, 46, 47, 50, 70, 76, 77, 85, 96, 103, 106, 159, 177 Livre du compagnonnage, 118 Lohmann, Christoph, 71 London, 4, 18, 22, 31, 56, 57, 59, 60, 91, 100, 120 Londres, 55–7 Louis, Bernadette, 90, 114 Louis-Philippe, roi des Français 1830–48 (1773–1850), 11, 33, 34, 36, 88, 136 Lovell, David W., 176, 183 Lyon, 84, 86, 99, 105, 107, 108, 124 Lyons, 11, 22, 25, 38, 45, 74, 83, 84, 86, 89, 91, 96, 100, 104, 122, 150 Maclean, Marie, 30 Magraw, Roger, 68 Maillefer, Guillaume, 121 Maitron, Jean (1910–87), 24, 136 Maitron, Le, 31, 161 Marat, Jean-Paul (1743–93), 82, 88 Margadant, Jo Burr, 7, 9, 28, 31 Marseille, 75, 111 Marseilles, 75, 77, 109, 111, 112 Marx, Karl (1818–83), 2, 21, 37, 44, 46, 52, 61, 162, 168, 175, 176, 183 Marxian, 183 Marxist, 4, 10, 42, 44, 46, 168 Masonic lodges, 49 McMillan, James F., 68 Mémoires de deux jeunes mariées, 81 Ménilmontant, 98, 129 Méphis, 4, 6, 28, 30 Mercier, Christophe, 28 Mercier, Pascal, 28 mère, 111, 112, 124, 181

Index 199 Messiah, 3, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 29, 65, 66, 96, 164 see also femme messie Meyer, Doris, 29 Meyssant, dit Bordelais, 111 Michaud, Stéphane, 5, 23, 24–8, 31, 32, 63, 66, 80, 113, 114, 160, 184 Michel Ange, 56 Michel, Louise (1830?–1905), 27–9, 31, 56, 63, 69, 72, 87, 113, 160, 183 Miguel, Ana de, 28 militants, 7, 14, 19, 22, 38, 42, 43, 46, 58, 69, 106, 164, 172, 174, 175, 179, 180 Mills, Sara, 30 Mittman, Elizabeth, 29 monarchists, 178 Moniteur, Le, 88 Montesquieu (1689–1755), Lettres persanes, 81 Montpellier, 79, 113, 115 Moon, Joan S., 182 Moreau, Pierre (1811–72), 7, 61, 66, 91, 106–8, 117, 119–28, 130–2, 134, 139, 160, 175 Morisse, 156 see also Morize Morize, 154–6, 158, 162 see also Morisse Mornet, Daniel, 50 Moses, Claire Goldberg, 68, 183 Mother of the workers, 17 Motte, Dean de la, 69 Mystères de Paris, Les, 147, 148 Nadaud, Martin (1815–90), 91 Napoléon Bonaparte (1769–1821), 98 National, Le, 122 Nécessité de faire bon acceuil aux femmes étrangères, 13, 51, 71 Nesci, Catherine, 30 New World, 59 Niboyet, Eugénie (1796–1883), 61, 66, 80 nineteenth century, 3–5, 8, 9, 12, 23, 34, 42, 44, 46, 47, 72, 75, 82, 158, 175 Nord, Philip, 67 North America, 6, 11 notables, 35, 38, 39, 135 O’Connell, Daniel (1795–1847), 84, 95, 143

Old World, 59 Orleanist, 11 see also July Monarchy ouvriers écrivains, 129, 130 Owen, Robert (1771–1858), 2, 37, 41, 61, 78, 129, 175 Ozouf, Jacques, 68 Pagnerre, Laurent-Antoine (1805–54), 136, 137, 161 palace, 77, 101, 102, 151, 152 palais, 76, 102, 104, 147, 148, 151, 152 pamphlet, 159 Paren-Lardeur, Françoise, 68 paria, 2, 4, 6, 27–30, 54, 71, 74, 80, 125, 160, 161 pariah, 16, 17, 24 Paris, 1, 3, 13, 20–2, 32, 38, 53, 55, 59, 60, 64, 66, 74, 75, 82, 89, 91, 100, 117, 120, 124, 128, 129, 132, 134, 137, 139, 148–50, 156–8 Parisian, 1, 18, 63, 70, 83, 91, 100, 101, 118, 155, 156, 158, 159, 174 parisienne, 55 Parry, D.L.L., 67 Pascal, Blaise (1623–62) Lettres provinciales, 28, 81 Pasco, Allen H., 29 Paulson, Michael, 29 Pecquer, Constantin (1801–87), 65 Pennetier, Claude, 31, 161 people, the, 3, 25, 27, 35, 42, 58, 89, 96, 136, 143, 147, 153, 155, 159 see also peuple, le Perdiguier, Agricol (1805–75), 7, 13, 61, 66, 106, 108, 117–20, 123, 124, 126–34, 139, 140, 150, 160, 161, 175 see also Avignonnais la Vertu Pérégrinations d’une paria, 2, 6, 29, 30, 54, 74 Pérelle, 99 Pernet, 170 Pérou, 54, 55 Perrot, Michelle, 183 Peru, 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 18, 22, 28, 55 Peruvian, 1, 5, 16, 54, 55, 57, 63, 72 Pessin, Alain, 31 peuple, le, 25, 54, 56, 58, 82, 85, 89, 97, 99, 132, 138, 146, 177 see also people, the Phalange, La, 135, 144, 156, 162 phanlansteries, 104, 175

200 Index philanthropist, 77, 97, 102, 116, 117, 120, 129 Philio, Jean Sombre, 111 Pilbeam, Pamela, 162, 183 police, 65, 83, 84, 150, 154 Poncy, Charles (1821–91), 117 Popkin, Jeremy D., 68 Populaire, Le, 38, 107 Portal, Magda, 28 postal service, 16, 41, 47, 48, 64, 77 Poublan, Danièle, 69, 70 printemps de la fraternité, le, 65 prison, 2, 59, 87 proletariat, 21, 58, 121 Promenades dans Londres, 4, 6, 25, 27, 28, 57, 59, 65, 74, 100, 118, 121, 125, 143 prostitutes, 4 Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1809–65), 2, 3, 65, 72, 91, 175 Prussia, 37 see also Germany Przyblyski, Jeannene M., 69 psychoanalytical, 4 publisher, 53, 135–9 Puech, Jules-L. (Jules-Louis) (1870–1956), 4, 6, 7, 17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 59, 60, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 78–80, 149, 150, 165 Puech, Marie-Louise, 59, 60

Revue des Deux Mondes, La, 131 Revue indépendante, La, 170, 179, 180 Reynier, Joseph (1811–92), 7, 61, 100, 102, 105, 109, 114 Rice-Defosse, Mary, 31 right to work, 27, 37, 39, 41, 46, 87, 89, 144, 152, 162, 168, 169, 178 see also droit au travail rights, political, 46 Rimmer, Robert, 31 Riot-Sarcey, Michèle, 30, 178, 182 Rittier, 86, 87 Roanne, 86, 102 Robespierre, Maximilian de (1758–94), 82, 88 Roessler, Shirley Elson, 113 Roland, Manon (1754–93), 82, 83, 87, 88, 113 Roland, Pauline (1805–52), 28, 31, 41, 61, 80, 87, 113, 114 Rome, 84, 107 Romero, Rosalia, 28 Rosanvallon, Pierre, 34, 35, 67 Rosenfeld, 66, 117, 127, 170, 172–5, 180, 183 Rowbotham, Sheila, 70 Ruche populaire, La, 117, 128, 134, 170, 172 rue du Bac, la, 83, 117, 145 Russia, 47, 59

Quataert, Jean H., 182

Saint James Park, 56 Saint-Étienne, 86, 102 Saint-Just, Louis Antoine de (1767–94), 88 Saint-Simon, Claude Henri, comte de (1760–1825), 37, 41, 59, 69, 78, 93, 129, 175 Saint-Simonianism, 11, 90, 99, 114 Saive, André, 103, 104, 115, 116 salons, 49, 50 Sand, George (1804–76), 13–16, 28–31, 61, 65, 120, 132, 161 sauveur, 110, 119 saviour, 100, 102, 110 Schechter, Ronald, 49, 50, 69, 70 Scott, Joan Wallach, 28, 49, 183 Scurrah, Martin, 28 Second Republic (1848–52), 34, 41, 65, 87, 148, 162 Second World War, 9 September Laws of 1835, 11, 105 Sewell, William H. Jr, 45, 68 Sheridan, George, 68

Rabine, Leslie, 14, 27 radical, 8, 11, 34, 43, 71, 87, 88, 93, 94, 178 radicalism, 35 Rancière, Jacques, 68 reform, electoral, 35 reform, social, 47, 99, 120, 159 Regent’s Park, 56 Renouard, Paul (1765–1853), 137, 138 Représentant du peuple, Le, 91 Republic, First (1792–99), 34 Republic, Second (1848–52), 34, 41, 65, 87, 148, 162 Republic, Third (1877–1940), 34, 47, 87 republican, 1, 8, 11, 35, 37, 41–3, 96, 136, 137 Rérolle, Raphaëlle, 28 Revolution of 1789, 33–40, 49, 52, 53, 59, 87, 113, 138, 153, 166 revolutionary heritage of 1789, 11 Revue de Paris, La, 55

Index 201 Siess, Jürgen, 72 sister, 126, 128, 140 see also sœur Sivert, Eileen Boyd, 29 sociétaires, 66, 103, 104, 139 Société des droits de l’homme, 137 sociétés de pensée, 49 sœur, 25, 118, 125, 126, 133, 134, 177 see also sister song contest, 64 Soudet, Mme, 156–8, 162 Spanish, 1, 5, 29, 30, 72, 165 Squier, Susan Merrill, 30 Steedman, Carolyn, 72 Stern, Daniel (Marie d’Agoult) (1805–76), 15 Sue, Eugène (1804–57), 143, 147, 148, 162, 177 Suez Canal, 59 suffrage, 8, 11, 19, 34–6, 39, 41, 42, 88, 91, 93, 96, 106, 122, 125, 144, 162 Sweetman, David, 27 Taithe, Bertrand, 30 Talbot, Margaret, 30, 182 Taylor, Barbara, 70, 183 Thibert, Marguerite, 68, 182 Third Republic (1877–1940), 34, 47, 87 Thompson, E.P., 46 Thornton, Tim, 30 Tocqueville, Alexis de (1805–59), 57 Toulon, 75, 76, 117, 145, 146 Toulouse, 112 tour de France, le, 13, 16, 66, 124 Tour de France, Le (Tristan’s journal), 1, 3, 6, 13, 27, 29–31, 33, 72, 113, 114, 160–2, 164, 183 Traugott, Mark, 70 travail, 56, 69, 89, 93, 114, 117, 119, 121, 123, 124, 129, 132, 136, 146, 157, 168, 170, 173, 174, 181 see also work travel writing, 12, 21 travellers, 4, 6, 12, 16, 51 Tristan Y Moscoso, Don Juan Pío de (1773–1860), 16

Tristan Y Moscoso, Don Mariano (?–1807), 1 Truant, Cynthia Maria, 68 twentieth century, 7, 13, 42, 58, 152, 176 twenty-first century, 5, 24 union ouvrière, 20, 27, 41, 52, 64, 75, 88, 92, 126, 133, 135, 143, 148, 151, 152, 156, 159, 164, 171, 176, 180, 181 Union ouvrière, 3, 6, 12, 18, 25, 28, 33, 35, 51, 52, 64–6, 83, 108, 109, 116–18, 120, 122, 127, 128, 134–6, 138, 140, 141, 144, 146–50, 152, 156–60, 175, 180, 184 utopian socialism, 3, 14, 58, 73, 166, 168, 176, 181, 183 utopianism, 176 utopie, 168, 170, 172, 178, 180, 182 Valette, Jacques, 69 Vargas Llosa, Mario, 5, 28, 72 Vasbenter, Louis (1819–?), 7, 61, 90–9, 101, 106, 107, 109, 114, 126 Vinçard, Jules (1796–1879), 7, 33, 61, 117, 133, 168, 169, 172–4, 177, 180 Vincent, David, 47, 70 Vincent, Robert, 70 Voltaire, François Marie (1694–1778), Lettres philosophiques, 81 Walton, Whitney, 8, 29 War, Second World, 9 Webb, Beatrice (1858–1943), 59, 60 West-End, 56 Wheeler, Anna (1785–1848), 59, 60 Willard, Claude, 68 Windebank, Jan, 30 Winock, Michel, 29, 69 working class, 3, 7, 13, 33, 35, 39, 43, 44, 58, 59, 61–3, 91, 92, 100, 120, 123, 126, 128, 139, 141, 143, 147, 148, 151, 155, 157, 162 World, New, 59 World, Old, 59 Wright, Barbara, 72

The Letter in Flora Tristan's Politics, 1835-1844

Flora

The Letter

The Letter

The Letter

The Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

The Letter

The Letter

The Letter

The Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

The Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

Letter voor letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

Letter voor letter

Flora nordica

flora lapponica

Flora Segunda (Flora Segunda of Crackpot Hall)

Colorado Flora

The 24th Letter

The Letter Z

The Sealed Letter

Letter of the Law

The Sealed Letter

The Letter in Flora Tristan's Politics, 1835-1844

Flora

The Letter

The Letter

The Letter

The Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

The Letter

The Letter

The Letter

The Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

The Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

Letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

Letter voor letter

Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter

Letter voor letter

Flora nordica

flora lapponica

Flora Segunda (Flora Segunda of Crackpot Hall)

Colorado Flora

The 24th Letter

The Letter Z

The Sealed Letter

Letter of the Law

The Sealed Letter

Recommend Documents