“The Mysterious Force of Legitimacy”

A vicious circle: legitimacy is the only force that assures lasting government; but for a government to become legitimate it must already have lasted for a long time.

“The revolutionary spirit is correct when it states that the principles of legitimacy are limited, conventional, fluctuating, easily undermined by reason: we, too, admit this.¹¹⁵ And nor is it wrong when it affirms that such principles appear fair and true only because men, in debating them, never go beyond a certain point, past which their weakness would be revealed. But it deceives itself, and shows an ignorance of the world that it periodically reduces to ruin, when it confuses these principles with all the fragile conventions that fill the life of society. These principles, however fragile, do differ from the others because they contain a magical virtue: as soon as men are tempted by the Devil to break them, they are smitten by fear; the sacred fear of the broken rule.”

“The innermost nature of the principles of legitimacy is the power to exorcise fear.”¹¹⁶

On July 25, 1820, Talleyrand wrote to the Duchess of Courland from Valençay, where the legitimate king, whom he had led to the throne, compelled the mind of Talleyrand “not to occupy himself with anything he’s good at doing.” His letter contained an esoteric codicil: “The mysterious force of legitimacy is being lost because it has not been understood.¹¹⁷ All men of revolution reduce it to being a means for preserving the power of kings, whereas it is most of all a factor necessary for the peace and happiness of the people, whereas it is the most solid and, I would say, the only guarantee for the existence of nations and for their continuance. Legitimacy of kings, or rather legitimacy of governments, is the safeguard of nations and that is why it is sacred …”

At the very moment when Talleyrand is expounding the principle of legitimacy, and measures his whole action upon it, he casually fails to put it into practice. The armistice of April 23, 1814, is signed by him without any authority: the King has not yet reached Paris, and the involvement of the Senate is, in everyone’s view, an extremely fragile gimmick. But Talleyrand wants to move ahead of the King, who would make negotiations more difficult for him. His secret thought is la légitimité, c’est moi. Later, there will always be time for sham diversions, such as when he writes in his Mémoires that he had signed the armistice in his quality as minister appointed by the King.

This secret thought was certainly not far from the truth—and nor did it respond to some sort of dark egomania, which would have been contrary to his style. Instead, once again, it anticipated a simple fact. At the Congress of Vienna, Talleyrand realized that Wellington and Castlereagh were indeed finding it difficult to comprehend the meaning of that word “legitimacy.” As for the court of Louis XVIII, it could only resemble that of Ubu, as Bloy would have recognized. But the final confirmation would come a few years later, with the revolution of the parvenus. Louis Philippe, despite being an Orléans, waited nervously to be recognized by the European courts. He had sent colonel Atthalin to St. Petersburg with a signed letter announcing his accession to the throne. Nicholas I let fifteen days pass before replying. What was all that business about barricades, tocsin bells, and shootings? But one day he read in the Moniteur that Talleyrand had been appointed ambassador to London. And that seemed enough for him. He said: “Since Monsieur Talleyrand has sided with the new French government, this government must necessarily have good prospects of lasting.”¹¹⁸ Then, at last, colonel Atthalin was given an answer. The Tsar of all the Russias recognized the new King of the French. He had found his legitimacy in a newspaper article.