'Fénelon’s Cuckoo: Andrew Michael Ramsay and Archbishop Fénelon'

Fénelon’s Cuckoo: Andrew Michael Ramsay and the Archbishop Fénelon

Andrew Mansfield As a former associate of François Fénelon and the editor of his papers and works, An-drew Michael Ramsay was well placed to act as the Archbishop’s first biographer. While Ramsay’s Vie de Fénelon (1723) became the template for nearly two hundred years of later biographers, the work actually reveals Ramsay’s manipulation of Fénelon’s political principles, as he promoted a Jacobite restoration to the British throne. In conjunction with Fénelon’s earlier political works, Ramsay promulgated a vision of Fénelon’s political and spiritual ideas that was misleading. This chapter discusses Ramsay’s impact on the legacy of Fénelon and the motivations for his intervention. This chapter will delineate Andrew Michael Ramsay’s association with the political principles of Archbishop François Fénelon. The Essay de Politique (1719), the Essay philosophique sur le gouvernement civil (1721), and the Histoire de la Vie de Fénelon (1723) were used as a vehicle to link Fénelon with the Jaco-bite ‘Old Pretender,’ James Francis Edward Stuart (1688–1766).1 The politi-cal thought promulgated in both editions of the Essay claimed to have been inspired by Ramsay’s time spent at Cambrai with the Archbishop. This as-sertion was given credence by the Vie de Fénelon, in which Ramsay fondly recounted his time at Cambrai, plus the character and thought of Fénelon. It included a conversation between the prelate and James Stuart on civil gov-ernment; a conversation that Ramsay apparently witnessed. While it was true that the prince and Fénelon did meet, Ramsay could not have witnessed the dialogue between the two men as it occurred before he had met either. This conundrum leads to the inevitable question of what was Ramsay’s motiva-tion for his deception? To answer this question will be the aim of this chap-ter. A consequence of the three works has been a prevalent confusion over the exact influence exerted by Fénelon on the Essay. For many years Ram-say’s promulgation of maxims to tackle the ‘maladies’ of civil government – namely an excess of political liberty in the people stemming from the devel-opment of popular government – were believed to be Fénelonian in es-sence.2 Ramsay’s relationship with Fénelon as a former house guest at Cam- 1 I have excluded Les Voyages de Cyrus (Paris 1727) from this discussion, as Ramsay

deliberately linked the two editions of the Essay and the Vie de Fénelon as a means of supporting Jacobitism. For a discussion of Les Voyages de Cyrus see Doohwan Ahn, ‘From Greece to Babylon: The political thought of Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686–1743)’, History of European Ideas, 37 (2011), 421–437.

2 See Cardinal Louis François de Bausset, The Life of Fénelon (London 1810), II, p. 325; Paul Janet, Fénelon: His Life and Works, transl. by Victor Leuliette (London 1914), p. 280; and Françoise Gallouédec-Genuys, Le Prince selon Fénelon (Paris 1963), p. 290.

Andrew Mansfield 78

brai, his role as editor of the Archbishop’s papers after his death, and posi-tion as Fénelon’s first biographer provided Ramsay’s work with an unchal-lenged veracity.3 It was not until Albert Cherel’s work in the early twentieth century that doubts emerged over the link between the Essay and the politi-cal ideas of Fénelon. By unpacking the theory of the Essay and the subse-quent alterations made in the second edition, it will be possible to reveal a significant divergence in the two men’s principles. This will be married to a discussion of the maxims expressed in the Vie, and Ramsay’s attempt to portray Fénelon as an enthusiast for religious toleration: a contention that was still being dismissed by the Fénelon family later in the eighteenth centu-ry. Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686–1743) was born in Ayr and educated at University in Aberdeen.4 It was here that he began his association with the Garden Circle. The group was led by George and James Garden, consisting of a number of Scottish intellectuals and peers interested in religion, mysti-cism, and science whose intellectual pursuits were deepened by their support for Jacobitism.5 Ramsay’s desire for spiritual knowledge led him from his

Earlier editions of Fénelon’s Œuvres contained the Essay believing it be either his work or an expression of his thought, such as the Œuvres de Fénelon, Archvéque de Cam-brai, Publiées d’aprés les manuscripts originaux et les editions les plus correctes Avec un grand nombre de pieces inédites, ed. by J.–A. Lebel, XXII (Paris 1824).

3 See Jean le Rond d’Alembert, Eulogy of Fénelon (London 1770), Jean François La Harpe, Éloge de François de la Mothe Fénelon (Paris 1810), E.K. Sanders, Fénelon: His Friends and Enemies, 1651–1715 (London 1901), Chanoine Moïse Cagnac, Fénelon: Poli-tique tirée de l’Evangile (Paris 1912), Ély Carcassonne, Fénelon: l’Homme et l’Œuvre (Paris 1946), Françoise Gallouédec-Genuys, Le Prince selon Fénelon (Paris 1963), and James Herbert Davis Jr., Fénelon (Boston 1978). For a period of about 200 years after Féne-lon’s death, many biographers relied upon Ramsay’s Vie de Fénelon as the blueprint for their own biographies.

4 See Albert Cherel, Fénelon au XVIIIe siècle en France (1715–1820): son prestige – son influence (Paris 1917); G.D. Henderson, Chevalier Ramsay (Edinburgh 1952); Scott Mandelbrote, ‘Ramsay, Andrew Michael [The Jacobire Sir Andrew Michael, Baronet] (1686–1743), Philosopher and Jacobite Sympathiser’, Oxford Dictionary of National Bi-ography [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23077, 20.07.2013], and Andrew Mansfield, Ideas of Monarchical Reform: Fénelon, Jacobitism and the political works of the Chevalier Ramsay (Manchester 2014). Ramsay also produced a short autobiography mainly concerning his views on natural philosophy: the Anecdotes de la vie de Messire André Michel de Ramsay… dictés par lui meme peu de jours avant sa mort pressé par les instances réiterées de son Epouze (Aix-en-Provence, Méjanes Bibliotheque, MS. no. 1188).

5 For the Garden Circle see Mystics of the North-East, ed. by G.D. Henderson (Aberdeen 1934); Bruce Lenman, The Jacobite Risings in Britain 1689–1746 (London 1980), p. 25, and Kieran German, ‘Jacobite Politics in Aberdeen and the ‘15’, in Loyalty and Identity. Jacobites at Home and Abroad, ed. by Paul Monod, Murray Pittock and Daniel Szech (Basingstoke 2010), pp. 84f.

Fénelon’s Cuckoo

79

native Scotland to the Continent, where through his connection to the Cir-cle he eventually arrived in France, and began to live at Cambrai in the pal-ace of Archbishop François Fénelon (1651–1715).6 The basis of this associa-tion is unclear. What is certain is that Ramsay stayed with Fénelon for a period of two or three years from August 1710,7 and during that time he was converted to Catholicism by Fénelon. In 1716, Ramsay was offered the role as editor of the Archbishop’s works by his nephew the Marquis de Fénelon through his earlier association and the completion of his Discours de la Poesie Epique, et de l’Excellence du Poeme de Telemaque (1716).8 This role marked the beginning of an important period for Ramsay in which he edited a number of Fénelon’s works, including a two-volume edition of Télémaque (Paris 1717), the Dialogues des Morts (Paris 1718), and the Démonstration de l'existence de Dieu (Paris 1718).9 His time with Fénelon and amongst his papers appears to have inspired a desire to emulate the Archbishop, as Ramsay declared an adherence to his former host’s political views in his works. This depiction by Ramsay was not met with approval by the Fénelon family, and the Marquis de Fénelon dismissed him from his position over unhappiness with the Vie de Fénelon. In order to repair the perceived inaccuracies of the Vie, the Mar-quis commissioned the historian Prosper Marchand to compose a faithful biography of his uncle.10 An enterprise that proved to be fruitless as Ram-say’s work had already become the authoritative account of Fénelon’s life.11 6 Ramsay, Anecdotes, pp. 9f. 7 In the Vie de Fénelon (La Haye 1723) Ramsay recorded the beginning of his stay with

Fénelon at Cambrai as 1710 (p. 110), and Jacques Le Brun places it in August in his Chronologie, Fénelon’s Œuvres (Paris 1983). It is unclear when Ramsay left Cambrai, but a letter from Ramsay dated the 20th March 1714 shows him to be living with Mad-ame Guyon (1648–1717) at Blois. See Mystics of the North-East, ed. by G.D. Hender-son, p. 53.

8 Ramsay’s role as editor is revealed in a letter from the Marquis de Fénelon to Lord Deskford in which he writes, ‘R[amsay] y a fait une preface qui est un chef d’œuvre de l’esprit, et du Cœur, et qui sera un grand ornament pour Telemaque,’ Mystics of the North-East, ed. by G.D. Henderson, pp. 136f.

9 See Albert Cherel, Un Aventurier Religieux au XVIIIe siècle: André-Michel Ramsay (Paris 1926); Henderson, Chevalier Ramsay, Jean Molino, ‘L’‘Essai philosophique sur le gou-vernement civil.’ Ramsay ou Fénelon?’ in La Régence, ed. by Henri Coulet (Paris, 1970), and Gabriel Glickman, ‘Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686–1743), the Jacobite Court and the English Catholic Enlightenment’ in Eighteenth-Century Thought, ed. by Earl Havens and James G. Buickerood, III, (New York 2007).

10 On Ramsay’s dismissal see Henderson, Chevalier Ramsay, p. 67. Prosper Marchand’s biography was written in 1730 and can be found in Proper Heads of Self-Examination for a King. Drawn up for Use for the late Dauphin of France, Father to his present Majesty K. Lewis XV, whilst Duke of Burgundy. By M. De Fénelon, Archbishop and Duke of Cambray. Together with the Author’s Life, A complete Catalogue of His Works, And Memoirs of his Family. Translated from the French.

Andrew Mansfield 80

An important consideration during Ramsay’s time as editor was his bur-geoning involvement in Jacobitism. After the death of Fénelon, Ramsay’s relationship with the Archbishop proved to be very advantageous for the development of connections in Paris. He was admitted into the company of numerous notable intellectuals as a member of the Club de l’Entresol, a group influenced by the political legacy of Fénelon which met to discuss their work while debating the reform of France and other issues.12 Ramsay’s ability to network and his association with Fénelon led the Benedictine Jacobite Thomas Soutchcott to seek Ramsay out after the publication of the Essay’s first edition in 1719.13 Southcott desired to cultivate Ramsay’s Jacobite lean-ings and attachment to Fénelon, whom James Stuart greatly admired.14 This provided him with the opportunity to produce a second improved edition of the Essay followed by the Vie de Fénelon. Both were dedicated to James Stuart through Southcott’s mediation. Ramsay appears to have used the work as a medium for him to state his allegiance to the Jacobites, while propounding an alternate British political system through an attack on the consequences of the 1688 Revolution. Publication of the second edition coincided with the Atterbury Plot: a failed attempt to restore James Stuart to the throne in a planned coup of the British Parliament centered on Francis Atterbury, the Bishop of Rochester (1663–1732) as a figurehead.15 While James Stuart was

under the title ‘A short account of the Life of the late M. Franc. De Salignac de la Mothe Fénelon’ (London 1747).

11 See Cherel, Fénelon, p. 31. 12 See Nick Childs, A Political academy in Paris, 1724–1731 (Oxford 2000). The group

contained members such as the Baron de Montesquieu, the abbé de Saint-Pierre, the Marquis d’Argenson, and Viscount Bolingbroke.

13 See Gabriel Glickman, The English Catholic Community 1688–1745. Politics, Culture and Ideology (Woodbridge 2009), pp. 227f. According to Glickman, Ramsay was not only sought out for his connection to Fénelon but also because of his calls for religious toleration: a viewpoint the Jacobites wanted to associate with James Stuart and promulgate in Britain. Ramsay’s ability to make contacts particularly impressed Soutchcott, who informed James Stuart in a letter that Ramsay possessed: ‘a great deal of merit himself and it were a pity he should not continue to improve his talents which sooner or later cannot fail of being one way or another employed,’ Pauline McLynn, Factionalism among the Exiles in France: The Case of the Chevalier Ramsay and Bishop Atterbury (Huntingdon 1989), p. 3.

14 For an example of their correspondence see 15th November 1709, Correspondance de Fénelon, ed. by Jacques Le Brun et al., 18 vols. (Geneva 1972–2007), XIV. In the let-ter, Fénelon informed the Duc de Bourgogne that he had met James Stuart several times in that year and found him to be of good character.

15 On the Atterbury Plot see G.V. Bennett, The Tory Crisis in Church and State, 1688–1730: The career of Francis Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester (Oxford 1975); also Eveline Cruickshanks and Howard Erskine-Hill, The Atterbury Plot (Basingstoke 2004). For wider discussion of Jacobite activity under James Stuart between 1701 and 1722 see

Fénelon’s Cuckoo

81

not overly enthusiastic regarding Ramsay’s aptitude as a political theorist,16 his efforts were rewarded with the Jacobite Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem in 1723 and a Jacobite baronetcy in 1735. His greatest honor was that of the role of tutor to Prince Charles Edward Stuart (1720–1788) at the Jacobite court in Rome in 1724. This role proved to be calamitous for Ramsay and he appears to have scandalized the court by engaging in a duel.17 Ramsay was forced to return to Paris, and while he maintained many of his Jacobite connections and pension, he re-focused his energies toward writing the hugely successful Le Voyages de Cyrus (1727), followed by works focusing on natural philosophy and education. He was admitted into the British Royal Society in 1729 and was awarded a Doctor of Civil Law from Oxford in 1730.

I. The Essay de politique The Essay de Politique, où l’on traite de la nécessité, de l’Origine, des Droits, des Bornes, et des différentes formes de la Souveraineté. Selon les Principes de l’Auteur de Télémaque (La Haye 1719) claimed to propound the political principles of Fénelon’s phenomenally successful work Télémaque. Télémaque continues to provide the focus for historians of political thought in their discussion of the Archbishop’s doctrine on kingship and political economy.18 Prior to writing the Essay de Politique, Ramsay had edited the new two-volume version of Télémaque (Paris 1717), which had been followed by a combined edition of the Fables et Dialogues des Morts (Paris 1718). These three works comprise the educational works that Fénelon composed for the duc de Bourgogne when the Archbishop was acting as a tutor for the young prince. The works espouse lessons in the form of mythic tales concerning the value of good

Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of Jacobitism 1689–1759, ed. by Eveline Cruickshanks (Edinburgh 1982); Paul Monod, Jacobitism and the English People, 1688–1788 (Cam-bridge 1989), and Daniel Szechi, The Jacobites, Britain and Europe 1688–1788 (Manches-ter 1994).

16 James Stuart was to say of Ramsay’s political work: “Ramsay is not to be in any ways concerned in writing or politics. I know him well enough and shall be able to employ him according to his talents”, James to Murray (3rd April 1724), The Jacobite Court at Rome in 1719: from Original Documents at Fettercairn House and at Windsor Castle, ed. by Henrietta Tayler (Edinburgh 1938), p. 229.

17 McLynn, Functionalism, pp. 5–7. 18 See Istvan Hont, Jealousy of Trade: International Competition and the Nation-State in Histori-

cal Perspective (Harvard 2005); Patrick Riley, ‘Fénelon’s ‘Republican’ Monarchism in Telemachus’, in Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment: Liberty, Patriotism and the Com-mon Good, ed. by Hans Blom, Christian Laursen, and Luis Simonutti (Toronto 2007); Michael Sonenscher, Before the Deluge. Public Debt, Inequality, and the Intellectual Origins of the French Revolution (Princeton 2007), and Paul Schuurman, ‘Fénelon on Luxury, War and Trade in Telemachus,’ in History of European Ideas, 38, (2012), 179–199.

Andrew Mansfield 82

kingship, the value of peace above war, and the danger of commerce in luxury goods. Telemachus is warned by Mentor that there are two grievanc-es of government that a prince must guard against: “La première est une autorité injuste et trop violente dans les rois. La seconde est le luxe, que corrompt les mœurs.”19 These corruptions of the state unseated the king’s capacity to pursue the public good effectively. As a result, a major pre-occupation of both the early educational works and the later reform plans for Bourgogne as an adult dauphin, was the creation of a government that eschewed these grievances.

Such concerns take on a different tone in the Essay de Politique. Ramsay opens the work by declaring that in the history of empires and republics there were two causes of revolution: “L’Amour de l’Autorité sans bornes dans ceux qui gouvernement, & [sic] celui de l’indépendance dans le peuple.”20 Revolutions were instigated by a continual conflict between a sovereign and the people in which the sovereign was jealous for power and desired to possess more, while subjects were fearful of their independence and wished to augment it. Ramsay’s ambition for the work was to “former un plan de Gouvernement” to produce a theory forceful enough to form good subjects, who were “Amateurs de leur Patrie & leurs Souverains, soûmis à l’ordre, sans être Esclaves.”21 Two diametrically opposed positions offered this possibility. The first proposed a view of society where equality and independence flourished, in which self-love and particular interest gov-erned the behavior of men under a government formed from the sovereign-ty of the people. In the other position, society was shaped by a love of order and public good. In this society the people were dependent and unequal. There was no contract between the people and the sovereign as authority passed directly to the monarch from God. This latter form of government, based on the laws of nature, it possessed a vision of society and government that Ramsay favored in the Essay.

Society, according to Ramsay, was natural and based on the sociable na-ture of man provided by God to create union, drawing mankind together through its “indigience de l’homme”, the “ordre admirable de la Propaga-tion”, and “par l’amour de la Patrie.”22 The natural inequality that existed between men in terms of “sagesse, la vertu, & la valeur” was required to create an order of minds and dependence natural to men, thereby conserv-

19 Fénelon, Les Aventures de Télémaque, in Œuvres II, ed. by Jacques Le Brun (Paris 1997), p. 290.

20 Andrew Michael Ramsay, Essay de Politique (La Haye 1719), p. i. 21 Ibid., pp. ii–iii. 22 Ibid., pp. 18–21.

Fénelon’s Cuckoo

83

ing the “ordre de la generation.”23 Children learned to obey their fathers, develop duties of tenderness, acknowledgements of love and submission. Through this relationship the order of generation was nurtured as the indi-vidual learned that they were not equal and that the superiority of others created natural subordination. While supreme sovereign authority was direct from God, it manifested itself initially in the government of the family in tribes, as patriarchy formed the basis of civil society. Pagan society and the Biblical example of Noah’s family revealed that tribes were led by fathers, who ruled through paternal rights and subordinated their children.24 King-ship arose from this relationship. Sustaining society, order and the natural ranks that originated in an unequal society essential to preserve the public good and avert the chaos of equality. For Ramsay, equality reflected the individual’s egoistic pursuit of their passions through an unrestrained self-love and craving for power.25 According to the laws of nature, government was necessary to prevent equality which enabled the tyranny of society as the multitude destroyed virtue while society descended into anarchy and savage liberty.26 To resist this behavior government must therefore always be “absolu”, to uphold ranked society and thwart the control of the multi-tude’s “volonté Despotique”.27 While the king’s will was not arbitrary and was regulated by more than the bridle of his own will, the king did possess the capacity to judge in the “dernier resort” and make the final decision as head of government. The extent of the king’s prerogative empowered the king to control the legislative power, the ability to make war and peace, and control taxation. The sovereign’s prerogatives allowed him to have rights over the actions, persons and good of all subjects if it was judged to be in the public good.28 Such prerogatives permitted Ramsay’s sovereign to sacri-fice the rights of the people while expressly prohibiting the people’s capacity to rebel against a tyrant, thereby qualifying the monarch to act in an arbitrary manner.29

Difficulties subsequently arise in Ramsay’s claim to be adhering to the political principles of Fénelon’s Télémaque, and four fundamental reasons emerge that contradict this contention. Firstly, Fénelon did not expound a system of government that was reliant on natural law for its foundations. Instead, Fénelon suggested a view that provided examples of good and bad 23 Ibid., p. 23. 24 Ibid., pp. 43–46. 25 Ibid., pp. 27ff. 26 Ibid., pp. 29ff. 27 Ibid., pp. 31f. 28 Ibid., pp. 114f. 29 Ibid., p. 86.

Andrew Mansfield 84

kingship, but did not delineate the origins of society and government.30 Secondly, when examining the first of Fénelon’s two grievances of govern-ment31 we can see that Ramsay created a “plan de gouvernement” that was absolute and had great potential to become despotic. Fénelon vociferously argued against such kingship,32 and claimed that a king should be moderate in his behavior,33 sacrificing his own liberty for the public good and liberty of his subjects.34 Absolutism did not enshrine the public good, and demon-strated a weak monarch whose subjects become a slave to his will.35 This leads to a third point, in which Fénelon stated that the result of absolutism was revolution or assassination – rejected as a consideration by Ramsay – implying that such power should be eschewed.36 Finally, the conspicuous absence of any meaningful discussion of the problem of luxury (and of war) undermines Ramsay’s contention that he employed Fénelon’s thought in the Essay, as these themes dominate Télémaque.37 Instead the Essay predominant-ly focused on providing a natural law basis for the existence of government. This was to underpin the need for monarchical government to prevent re-bellion (like 1688) as the subjects were to be feared and controlled. Con-versely, Fénelon promulgated a belief in a public liberty, which reflected a love for the people through the king’s assistance. At bottom, the distinction in the two men’s perspective on kingship was that Ramsay believed the people were there to serve the king, while Fénelon strongly argued that the king should serve the people.

The often confusing nature of Ramsay’s application of Fénelon’s politi-cal ideas was manifest in the final chapter of the Essay. In chapters three, four and five of the second part of the work Ramsay set out the destructive nature of popular government on sovereignty. Ramsay utilized the historical examples of Sparta, Carthage and Rome to demonstrate how the “augmen-tation du pouvoir populaire” witnessed the decline of the state as each inevi-tably collapsed.38 For Ramsay this decline was visibly active in the history of English government. Popular power in England had progressively risen from the signing of the Magna Carta by King John in 1215 through to the inception of Parliament under Henry III in 1265.39 Ramsay believed the 30 Fénelon, Télémaque, in Œuvres II, ed. by Jacques Le Brun, p. 16 and pp. 68f. 31 Ibid., p. 290. 32 Ibid., pp. 168f. 33 Ibid., p. 214. 34 Ibid., p. 72. 35 Ibid., p. 168. 36 Ibid., pp. 290f. 37 See Télémaque, livres III, VII, X and XVII on commerce, and livres II and IX on war. 38 Ramsay, Essay de Politique, p. 145. 39 Ibid., pp. 150ff.

Fénelon’s Cuckoo

85

progress of popular power was a consequence of numerous monarchs erod-ing the power of the nobility. This endeavor was singularly successful under Henry VII (r. 1485–1509). His Sale of Manors allowed commoners with money to purchase aristocratic land (and status) in return for obedience to the king, crushed the powerbase of the barons.40 As a result, the nobility no longer provided a buffer between the monarch and the people forming an internecine dichotomy between them. During the 17th century the latter’s political power was so great that manifested itself in the form of the regicide of Charles I (1649) and the overthrow of James II (1688).41

This evolution of popular government had produced a multiplicity of laws in a corrupted English government as it replicated the decline of Spar-ta, Carthage and Rome42 The solution to this (historical) problem for Ram-say was the return to a government “de la Monarchie moderée par l’Aristocracie”. An aristocratic senate under the power of a monarch that would assist the king in counsel and occupy part of the legislative, as the classical and Northern (Gothic) governments had originally been framed.43 Such co-operation would maintain the subordination of rank and provide order to society, by preventing the multitude from possessing any political power and the means to revolt. The desire to utilize the nobility not only reflected the ancient model of government, it mirrored Fénelon’s own call for the nobility to assist the king. While the quotation employed by Ramsay was not present in Télémaque,44 Fénelon’s belief in the use of the nobility was very real and was particularly prevalent in his later works for the Duc de Bourgogne. Yet Ramsay’s inclusion of the nobility in government was quite different to Fénelon. His aristocratic senate witnessed the centralization and limitation of government to the few as a means to suppress popular gov-ernment and prevent rebellion. For Fénelon, the nobility were a vehicle for reform and the potential expansion of government through the Estates and the decentralization of monarchical power. Again emphasizing the different approach by the two men towards the welfare and governance of the peo-ple.45

40 Ibid., pp. 161f. 41 Ibid., p. 170. 42 Ibid., p. 184. 43 Ibid., pp. 200f. 44 Ibid., p. 198. The citation claims to be taken from p. 466 of Télémaque (livre 12). 45 See Fénelon, Télémaque (p. 64); Examen de conscience sur les devoirs de la royauté (pp. 984f.);

and Tables de Chaulnes (pp. 1089ff.), Œuvres II, ed. by Jacques Le Brun.

Andrew Mansfield 86

II. The Essay philosophique sur le gouvernement civilThe second edition of the work was published in London in 1721 under the title of the Essay philosophique sur le gouvernement civil; and it was a review, cor-rection and expansion of the Essay de Politique. Its dedication makes the edi-tion’s Jacobite allegiance clear from the beginning, despite the fact that much of the work is the same as the first edition.46 Many of the revisions found in the second edition were designed to provide a more trenchant endorsement of Jacobitism on ideological grounds through an augmented attack on “les Amateurs de l’Indépendance”: those who championed popu-lar government and defended the doctrines of the 1688 Revolution.47 This espousal of Jacobitism within the Essay was once again promulgated under the ostensible auspices of Fénelon.

The most perceptible difference between the first and second editions of the Essay was the amendment of the title. While the title of the first edition had credited an adherence to the author of Télémaque, the second edition title attributed its maxims to Fénelon by name. This modification was made for two important reasons, and the first reason signaled Ramsay’s growing in-volvement with the Jacobite movement in Paris. It implied that the Essay was based upon his principles, forging a link between Fénelon and James (through Ramsay) that endorsed Jacobite doctrines of sovereignty. This method facilitated Ramsay’s ostensible reliance upon Fénelon’s European renown, while depicting James Stuart as a contemporary Telemachus. Ram-say dedicated the second edition “au roy de la Grande-Bretagne”, reflecting James’s plight as a king outside of his rightful lands.48 Ramsay likened James’

46 The dedication has led a number of commentators to connect the second edition with Ramsay’s support for Jacobitism. See Cherel, Fénelon au XVIIIe Siècle en France, p. 98, and Molino, ‘L’Essai philosophique sur le gouvernement civil’, p. 282. InChevalier Ramsay, Henderson discusses the promotion of the Jacobite cause in the Es-say (pp. 87–89). He also discusses (p. 74) the removal of a letter by Fénelon included in the original French edition of the Vie de Fénelon (pp. 188–190), which was omitted from the English edition at the behest of the British government due to its apparent support of James Stuart. The letter is dated 15th November 1709 and seemingly en-dorses James Stuart due to his acceptance of Fénelon’s lessons from Télémaque. As will be discussed below, it is Ramsay’s text which states James Stuart accepted the political lessons of Fénelon. Fénelon’s letter actually details the character of “le roi d’Angleterre,” his true title to many connected with the French court. A full version of this letter to the Duc de Bourgogne can be found in the Correspondance de Fénelon, ed. by Jacques Le Brun & Irénée Noye, XIV, pp. 165f.

47 The phrase was used in both editions of the Essay. 48 This dedication is only present in the 1721 French second edition as it was with-

drawn from subsequent editions: the third French edition (reprint) of 1722, plus the two English translations of 1722 and 1732. According to Henderson (Chevalier Ram-say, p. 74) it was removed at the request of the British government due to its censor-

Fénelon’s Cuckoo 87

suffering to that experienced by other ‘heroes’ and great kings, such as Rob-ert I (of Scotland) and Charles II (of England and Scotland). It was a tor-ment fashioned by James’ removal from his own lands and throne, and an “exilez dans les Pays Etrangers”.49 Yet it was a pain borne with “modera-tion” and the knowledge that James was the “vrai Père du Peuple”, Ramsay claimed:

Je n’ai entrepris cet Ouvrage, SIRE, que pour soûtenir vos Droits. Daignez l’agréer comme un Tribut de ma fidelité, comme une marque de mon homage, & comme un gage du très-profond respect avec leque j’ai l’honneur d’être, SIRE, DE VOTRE MAJESTE.50

The second reason for the adjustment of the title was Ramsay’s desire to convey a broadening in scope of Fénelon’s philosophy for his Essay, by not restricting it to Télémaque. From its original publication in 1699 to 1721, there had been six editions of Télémaque including Ramsay’s own edition, so the work was readily accessible to the public. By stating that the work was “selon les principes” of Fénelon, Ramsay could infer the promulgation of a private, and perhaps hitherto unknown knowledge of the Archbishop’s political ideas. This claim was implied in the expanded Preface:

Le seul mérite de l’Auteur est d’avoir été nourri pendant plusiers années de lu-mieres, & des sentimens de feu Messire François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fenelon, Archvêque de Cambray. Il a profité des instructions de cet illustre Prélat, pour écrire cet Essai.51

His time with Fénelon had therefore immersed him in the Archbishop’s political thought, and the Essay would move beyond the use of Télémaque in the first edition to something ‘philosophically’ new in the second.

Ramsay’s “philosophique” approach to his new edition on civil govern-ment was exerted in the extended Preface. The new Preface had a dual func-

ship of works displaying any Jacobite sympathies. For a contextual discussion of Ramsay’s Essay upon Civil Government and its use of French-inspired aristocratic re-form to extirpate both Houses of the British Parliament see, Andrew Mansfield, ‘Aristocratic reform and the extirpation of Parliament in early Georgian Britain: An-drew Michael Ramsay and French ideas of monarchy,’ History of European Ideas (2012), http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01916599.2012.747256 [20.08.2013].

49 Ramsay, Essay philosophique, Dedication. Robert I of Scotland (1274–1329), known as Robert the Bruce was an ancestor of James Stuart and leader of the Scots fight for independence against the English.

50 His dedication was (pseudo-anonymously) signed ‘les très humble, très-fidele & très-obéissant serviteur & Sujet, SAYMAR.’

51 Ramsay, Essay philosophique (London 1721), p. vi.

Andrew Mansfield 88

tion. It claimed to anchor the Essay firmly in the political principles of Féne-lon, and in so doing, attached Fénelon to the work’s (natural law) principle of “Philosophie Divine” and its “Idées de Justice, de Vérité & de Vertu.”52 Ramsay set out a political system dependent upon divine philosophy to uphold the notion that God had instituted an “ordre” in which society and government were determined and fixed by God, not man. According to Ramsay’s philosophy, as the father of mankind God had created man not as an individual but as part of a whole. The happiness of the people and God relied on the subsumption of the individual into the whole, as the public good superseded private interest. The individual merged with his fellows to produce ‘unity’ and provide the foundations for law and the state.53 Through providence, God had shaped the unity of man and society to in-hibit individualistic interests from violating the most sacred rights. Ramsay’s “plan” to correct the maladies of civil government was founded on this notion of divine law to prevent revolution. His approach to controlling the excessive of liberty in both the people and princes, was to appeal to the rigidity of God’s Will when creating the state. Claiming that once established a state’s form could not be changed, as such behaviour was regarded as rebellious assault on providence.54 Ramsay’s “philosophie” therefore saw a reinforcement of the Essay de Politique’s aim to emasculate English popular government that had led to revolution and exiled the rightful king of Britain.

The extended Preface reflected the sharpening of the focus of the Essay in the second edition. Ramsay had moved beyond covert theoretical discussion of the “maladies” of civil government and its excess of liberty, to a pointed attack upon the 1688 Revolution in England. Ramsay maintained that the alteration of the second edition for his “entreprise” was defined by the “im-parfait” nature of the first edition. The method for the second edition was “en a change l’ordre en plusieurs endroits, pour mettre chaque vérité à sa place, & lui donner une nouvelle force par cet Arrangement.” 55 Ramsay had no real need to alter the work greatly as the first edition espoused much of the same content, but part of the original Essay’s imperfection was its struc-ture as a two-part work. The first part was an explanation of the origins of sovereign government, whereas the second part contained a description of the extent, origins, and forms of sovereign authority.56 The second edition removed this division and relied on a single linear discussion of sovereignty as a progressive argument; from the origins of government to justifications 52 Ibid., p. v. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid., pp. 92ff. 55 Ibid., p. v. 56 Ramsay, Essay de Politique, p. 109.

Fénelon’s Cuckoo 89

and historical examples of the internecine danger of popular sovereignty to a solution.

Within this new structure there was a modification of certain chapters. Two chapters were fundamentally unchanged but had their titles amended in the second edition. The Introduction became Des différens Systêmes de Politique, and the Du Roi de Providence switched to Du Roi de Fait & de Droit. These alterations swiftly established that Ramsay’s Essay was in diametric opposi-tion to supporters of ‘les Amateurs de l’Indépendance’ – supporters of revolution and contract theory – and the belief that the monarchical succession in Eng-land could be corrected. The renaming of the Introduction, which contained the same content, achieved this.57 Ramsay’s viewpoint of order, inequality, dependence and no contract in the foundation of government was an at-tempt to rebuff ‘les Amateurs de l’Indépendance’ belief in a pursuit of the indi-vidual and their passions, which led to insecurity and anarchy in civil gov-ernment.58 Ramsay’s altered first chapter title effectively expounded his theoretical position in the new edition, generating an immediate tension between the two opposing theories on the origins of government. From this point onward he marshaled a sustained attack against those who believe in the idea of an original contract. Such support led to a conviction that the people were included in sovereign authority, and thereby empowered the people to subvert the law through rights of property, power and authority which could be defended by rebellion if necessary.59

The adjustment of the 1719 chapter Du Roi de Providence to Du Roi de Fait & de Droit was another example in which both chapters remained the same but were renamed. The chapter discussed ‘Subordination’ and the notion that the individual should submit to all that God permits.60 Subordination must be stressed at all times to sustain the peace within a state and avoid anarchy. Ramsay discussed the obedience due to a king, and cited the exam-

57 Ramsay, Essay philosophique, p. 1. 58 Ibid., p. v. 59 Ibid., pp. 69–77. While adherence to (original) contract theory had been problematic

for Parliament from the 1688 Revolution due to a Tory distaste for its implications of resistance to the monarch, the ideas did have currency and resistance theory had become resurgent as the Whigs dominated Parliament after 1715. See J.P. Kenyon, ‘The Revolution of 1688: Resistance and Contract’ in Historical Perspectives: Studies in English Thought and Society, in honour of J.H. Plumb, ed. by Neil McKendrick (London 1974), H.T. Dickinson, ‘The Eighteenth-Century Debate on the ‘Glorious Revolu-tion’’, History, 61 (1976), 28–45; J.C.D Clark, English Society 1688–1832: Ideology, social structure and political practice during the ancient regime (Cambridge 1985), and Geoffrey Holmes, British Politics in the Age of Anne (London 1987).

60 Ramsay, Essay philosophique, p. 58.

Andrew Mansfield 90

ple of Christ’s obedience to the Emperors of Rome.61 Ramsay’s submission to monarchy reflected a need to support its existence as the frequently cho-sen form of government fixed in perpetuity. This was extended to the peo-ple’s acceptance of both tyrants and usurpers to ensure peace. There could be no rebellion, even against a usurper as it created anarchy. “Il est certain”, wrote Ramsay, “que les actes de jurisdiction qu’exerce un usurpateur qui est en possession, ont le pouvoir d’obliger, non en vertu de son droit; car il n’en a aucun, mais parce que celui qui a le vrai droit sur l’Etat.’’62 A usurper must be obeyed as the de facto head of the state, even though the usurped king remained true sovereign (de jure). Through the new title of the chapter, Ram-say confirmed that he had more overtly entered into the debate previously discussed on de facto and de jure ownership of property and the throne of England in 1719.63 It stressed a greater emphasis on the situation of James Stuart and situated Ramsay in opposition with contract theorists. Ramsay’s use of ‘King de facto’ and ‘de jure’ asserted James Stuart’s position while con-demning the illegality of James’ exile.

The opportunity to mount a more sustained condemnation of those who philosophically defended the Revolution meant that the chapter Du Gou-vernement de Sparte & de Carthage was excised. This permitted a straightfor-ward comparison between the destruction of the once great empire of Rome with the fate of England, revealing the historical consequences of excessive liberty and popular involvement in government.64 After Ramsay’s solution to this problem of a “Monarchie moderée par l’Aristocratie” (chapter xv), two new chapters were added at the end of the new edition: Du Gouvernement purement Populaire and Du Gouvernement où les Loix seules président. The chapters reiterated Ramsay’s confrontation with ‘les Amateurs de l’Indépendance’ and their belief that government was founded upon a free contract.65 Govern-ment was not a free contract according to Ramsay.66 It originated from God’s divine plan in order to control the wicked, selfish passions of men67 and once established it was fixed permanently and could not be distorted through rebellion.68 Sovereign power was visible and living, yet its unity and

61 Ibid., p. 60. 62 Ibid., p. 59. 63 See Ramsay, Essay de Politique, Book I, chapter viii. 64 This comparison is reflected in the English translation of the work: An Essay upon

Civil Government: Wherein is set forth, The Necessity, Origine, Rights, Boundaries, and different Forms of Sovereignty. With Observations on the Ancient Government of Rome and England. Ac-cording to the Principles of the Late Archbishop of Cambray (London 1722).

65 Ramsay, Essay philosophique, pp. 190ff. 66 Ibid., pp. 193f. 67 Ibid., p. 204. 68 Ibid., pp. 205f.

Fénelon’s Cuckoo

91

order did not reside in the people but in the sovereign, and by implication Britain’s de jure sovereign was James Stuart (James III). These sentiments in the work were underlined by scriptural proof provided in the final chapter Des idées que l’Ecriture Sainte nous donne de la politique, moved from the end of the first part in the first edition to add scriptural weight to the overall veraci-ty of the second edition’s argument.

Ramsay’s “Revûë,” “corigée,” and “augmentée” therefore altered little of the original edition’s theory on civil government. It simply offered a more pre-cise and sustained attack upon ‘les Amateurs de l’Indépendance.’ By restructuring his “imparfait” critique on popular sovereignty and the right to rebel, Ram-say was able to offer his own “plan” as a stark contrast to the turmoil of the excessive liberty of the people and the position of the apologists for 1688. By arguing thus, Ramsay rejected the Glorious Revolution and removal of James III from the succession in favor of a return to an older Stuart form of limited monarchy.

III. Ramsay’s Vie de Fénelon Ramsay’s attempt to promote the cause of James Stuart in the two editions of the Essay, made a surprising reappearance in the Vie de Fénelon. The Vie is an odd work, and Fénelon is at times a peripheral figure within his own biography. It concentrated on the plight of Madame Guyon (1647–1717) in the Quietism Affair, Ramsay’s conversion by Fénelon to Catholicism, and a conversation on government between Fénelon and James Stuart. Through this political conversation Ramsay tied Fénelon to the plight of James Stuart and began over two centuries of confusion regarding the origin of the politi-cal principles of the Essay. By binding the Vie retrospectively to the Essay, Ramsay was able to substantiate his earlier claim that the Essay had utilized the political beliefs of Fénelon. These maxims were purportedly taken from a meeting which occurred between the Archbishop and the prince in 1709. They were recounted by Ramsay, who admitted that:

Je me servirai autant que je pourrai de ses propres paroles. Je ne serai que per-fectionner ce qu’il a écrit par ce qu’il m’a dit. Encore une fois je ne raisonne point, je ne fais que raconteur. Ce n’est pas sortir des bornes de ma narration que de faire l’histoire de l’Esprit de Mr. de Cambray en écrivant celle de sa vie.69

69 Andrew Michael Ramsay, Histoire de la vie de Fénelon (Le Haye 1723), p. 147.

Andrew Mansfield 92

The discernible problem with Ramsay’s account of this meeting was that he did not arrive in Cambrai until 1710 and did not meet James until 1724.70 However, Ramsay explained that he would provide an “idée générale de ses principles sur la Politique, répandus dans le Télémaque & dans ses Dia-logues des Morts don’t il entretenoit souvent ce jeune Prince pendant son sejour à Cambray.”71

According to the conversation Fénelon ‘tint, sur la Politique le même langage que Mentor tient à Télémaque, Il lui fit voir les avantages qu’il pouvoit tirer de la forme du Gouvernement de son Païs, & des égards qu’il devoit avoir pour son Sénat.’72

Fénelon stated to James at Cambrai that all nations were from many differ-ent families under God who was the common father, and consequently “l’autorité paternelle est le premier modelle des Gouvernemens.”73 The natural and universal law which governed each family ensured that the pub-lic good was pursued over the private interest of the individual. “L’amour du Peuple, le bien public, l’Intérêt general de la Société est donc la Loi immu-table & universelle des Souverains.”74 A law that was “antécédente à tout contrat” and from which all other laws stem. This law was guaranteed by the supreme authority of a government that could act in the “dernier ressort,” providing the foundation of political unity and civil order. Those that gov-erned must protect this order by serving the public good as ‘il peut tout sur les Peuples.’75 As in the Essay, the happiness of subjects was dependent on their ‘subordination’ and tradition, for “Liberté sans ordre est un Libertinage qui attire le Despotisme. L’Ordre sans la liberté est un Esclavage qui se perd dans l’Anarchie.”76 The answer was to walk a middle path which avoided the chaos and tumult of revolution caused by the battle for supremacy between a king and his subjects. It was the duty of every wise king to desire only to be “l’Executeur des Loix, & d’avoir un Conseil supreme qui modére son autorité.”77 Ramsay concluded Fénelon’s political lesson by stating:

70 See Henderson, Chevalier Ramsay, p. 87 and Glickman, The English Catholic Community

1688–1745, pp. 228ff. 71 Ramsay, Histoire de la vie de Fénelon, p. 182. 72 Ibid., pp. 181f. 73 Ibid., p. 182. 74 Ibid., p. 183. 75 Ibid., p. 184. 76 Ibid., p. 186. 77 Ibid., p. 182.

Fénelon’s Cuckoo

93

C’est par ces maxims, qui conviennent également à tous les Etats, que le sage Mentor le Bonheur de la Patrie, en conservant la subordination des rangs, con-cilioit la liberté du peuple avec l’obéïssance aux Souverains, rendoit les hommes tout ensemble bons Citoyens, & fidelles Sujets, soûmis sans être es-claves, libres sans être effrenez. Le pur amour de l’Ordre est la source de toutes ses vertus politiques aussi bien que de toutes ses vertus divines. La meme régne dans tous ses sentimens.78

In addition to the political sentiments expressed in the Vie, Ramsay further portrayed Fénelon as an advocate of religious toleration. He stated that Fénelon believed a prince should:

Jamais forcer ses sujets à changer leur Religion. Nulle puissance humaine ne peut forcer, lui dit-il, le retranchement impenetrable de la liberté du Coeur. La force ne peut jamais persuader les hommes ; elle ne fait que des hypocrites. Quand les Rois se mêlent de Religion, au lieu de la protéger, ils la mettent en servitude. Accordez, donc, à tous la tolerance civile.79

Ramsay cited this quote from Book XXIII of Télémaque (Paris 1717), and it was employed in both editions of the Essay to inspire religious toleration for the subjects of a king.80 However, this use of Télémaque was contextually inaccurate, as the original text considered the need for a king to remove himself from matters of faith:

Souvenez-vous qu’un Roi doit être soûmis à la Religion, & qu’il ne doit jamais entreprendre de la regler; la Religion vient des Dieux, elle est au-dessus des Rois. Si les Rois se mêlent de la Religion, au lieu de la proteger, ils la mettent en servitude. Les Rois sont si puissans, & les autres hommes sont si foibles, que tout sera en peril d’être alteré au gré des Rois, si on les fait entrer dans les questions qui regardent les choses sacrées. Laissez donc en pleine liberté la de-cision aux amis des Dieux, & bornez-vous à réprimer ceux qui n’obéïroient pas à leur jugement, quand il aura été pronounce.81

Fénelon’s meaning in Télémaque was quite different from that set out in the Vie. In Télémaque, Fénelon discussed the necessity of a king to resist the temptation to subjugate religion and the Church under his temporal power. Men must possess full liberty to pursue God via Catholicism, unless they contravened the laws of the state in which case they should be controlled. Such desires were later expressed in the Tables de Chaulnes (1711). In this later work, Fénelon advocated an “indépendance réciproque des deux puissanc- 78 Ibid., p. 187–188. 79 Ibid., p. 181. 80 See Essay de Politique, p. 113 and Essay philosophique sur le gouvernement civil, p. 113. 81 Fénelon, Les avantures de Télémaque, fils d’Ulysse, II (Paris 1717), p. 481.

Andrew Mansfield 94

es” spiritual and temporal.82 Fénelon wanted to free both institutions of interference from the other, as they knew better how to run their own af-fairs, albeit with a great deal of co-operation and mutual assistance.83 An important part of Fénelon’s Church was its attack on sects and his insistence that it formulated a “plan pour déraciner jansénisme.”84 Fénelon believed in one faith and that people must be returned to Catholicism. This had been his role as a young priest when educating Huguenot girls for the Bishop of Meaux, Jacques-Bégnine Bossuet (1627–1704).85 He sought to root out Jansenism from all levels of the Church to avoid any possibility of schism. To achieve this he wanted the Benedictines to impose doctrinal rule.86 The significance of this belief was that it countered Ramsay’s depiction in the Vie of Fénelon as a bastion of religious toleration.87 A principle promulgated by Ramsay that did not exist in his political works, just as he promoted an ab-solutism that Fénelon criticized in Télémaque. Indeed, Fénelon was pre-occupied by the threat posed in France by the Jansenists and Huguenots in the final years of his life.88

One of the interesting aspects of the biography is Ramsay’s discussion of the process by which he was converted to Catholicism by Fénelon and their discussions on natural religion. Such dialogues underline the Archbishop’s commitment to the Catholic Church. For example, Fénelon compared Ca-tholicism and Deism with Ramsay, stating that in order for the individual to comprehend God’s law they must be Catholic. Full understanding was at-tained through the idea of tradition; a tradition that Catholicism had trans-mitted from the beginning of history through the Jews, Christ, and the

82 Fénelon, Tables de Chaulnes, in Œuvres II, ed. by Jacques Le Brun, p. 1093. 83 See Fénelon, Discours pronounce au sacre de l’Électeur de Cologne, in Œuvres II, ed. by

Jacques Le Brun, pp. 952f. 84 Ibid., p. 1099. 85 See Bausset, The Life of Fénelon, I, pp. 19f. 86 Fénelon, Tables de Chaulnes, in Œuvres II, ed. by Jacques Le Brun, p. 1099. 87 Ramsay included Fénelon’s final letter in the Vie (p. 199), which avowed his lack of

toleration towards Jansenism. The letter was written to Louis XIV on his deathbed (6th January 1715), and asked that the king appoint a successor who was: ‘bon & ferme contre le Jansenisme, lequel est prodigiusement accrédité sur cette frontiére.’ Fénelon’s concern of Jansenism was partly doctrinal, but also reflected the close proximity of his archdio-cese of Cambrai – which included part of the Low Countries – to the origin of Jan-senism (Leuven). Bausset incorporated details of a letter sent to the Mercure (9th De-cember 1780) in which an abbé de Fénelon, a relative, condemned the notion that Fénelon was ‘tolerant’ of all religions, see The Life of Fénelon, II, p. 98.

88 Fénelon to the Duc de Chevreuse (27th February 1712), Selected Letters of Fénelon, ed. and transl. by John McEwen (London 1964), p. 179.

Fénelon’s Cuckoo

95

Apostles to the present time.89 Catholicism was the keeper of the word and laws of God. Through a continued chain of tradition the Catholic Church had empowered humanity to discover the greatness of God’s capacity and knowledge. Religious truth, like “la certitude de nos idées depend de l’univeralité, & de l’immutabilité de l’évidence qui les accompagne : de meme la certitude des faits depend de l’universalité & de l’immutabilité de la Tradition qui les confirme.”90 Time had been the testament to this truth and had been revealed in law through the Bible, as Catholic, luminous and filled with mystery.91 To break with the Church was to lose sight of this message for the individual was no longer within the sanctity of the true faith.

Deism lacked this understanding and Ramsay’s spiritual quest was there-fore found to be wanting through his adherence to deism and a belief in Christian plurality.92 Tradition was lost in deism as it was in other Christian sects (‘Hérétiques’), and under Mahomet and paganism because the true mes-sage became adulterated and broken.93 Furthermore, deism lacked the un-derstanding of what it meant to sacrifice oneself to God, thereby precluding the deist from a real knowledge of God. According to Fénelon, it was essen-tial to “aimer purement, croire humblement, voilà la Religion Catholique. Nous n’avons proprement que deux Articles de foi, l’amour d’un Dieu invi-sible, & l’obéissance à l’Eglise son Oracle vivant.”94 Catholicism over all other religions taught the spiritual poverty essential for pure love: a disinter-ested sacrifice of the self through a total love of God.95 To believe absolute-ly in God and to comprehend the magnificence of faith one must be Catho-lic. “C’est ainsi”, claimed Ramsay, “que Mr. de Cambray me fit sentir, qu’on ne peut être sagement Déiste sans devenir Chrêtien ni philosophiquement Chrêtien sans devenir Catholique.”96 Ramsay’s conversion to Catholicism by Fénelon and their discourses on natural religion further underline the Arch- 89 Ramsay, L’Histoire de la Vie de Fénelon, pp. 128f. Fénelon used Bossuet’s Discours sur

l’histoire universelle (Paris 1681) as an exemplary example of a discussion of this histori-cal relationship.

90 Ibid., p. 138. 91 Ibid., pp. 139f. 92 Ramsay, Anecdotes, p. 6. The Garden Circle had encouraged Ramsay to be critical of

religion and to espouse toleration from his time at Aberdeen University, and based on the evidence of his later works it is debatable whether this instinct ever left him and questionable whether he ever thoroughly embraced Catholicism.

93 Ibid., pp. 132–137. 94 Ibid., p. 142. 95 Ibid., p. 144. Ramsay recommended two works that he had edited to the reader that

expound Fénelon’s natural religion: l’Existence de Dieu (Paris 1718) and Lettres sur la Religion (Paris 1718).

96 Ibid., pp. 145f.

Andrew Mansfield 96

bishop’s unequivocal loyalty to the Catholic Church. From Fénelon’s early career as a priest to his deathbed letter to Louis XIV, the Archbishop did not tolerate schismatic sects. Ramsay’s development of Fénelon’s toleration may have stemmed from a misunderstanding of his discourse with Protestants and mystics such as the Garden Circle, 97 but it became an expe-dient tool to imply that his toleration had been absorbed in lessons by James Stuart. Such an image of a religiously tolerant Catholic king was one that the Jacobites had struggled to transmit to a Protestant British public fearful of the memory of his Catholic father James II.98 Members of the Jacobite court believed that if it could be communicated to the British it may appear more acceptable to restore James Stuart to the throne as James III.

IV. Concluding Remarks Ramsay’s attempt in the Vie de Fénelon to provide a picture of the Archbish-op as a devotee of religious tolerance does not stand up to scrutiny. While Fénelon may have conversed and corresponded with non-Catholics, his wider religious view for the need to convert people to Catholicism remained constant throughout his life. Ramsay’s obfuscation in the Vie drives at the heart of the problem for separating the thought of the two men and his relationship with the political legacy of Fénelon. A legacy that is still very much extant today. A confusion remains over his political theory, the nature of Fénelon’s association with James Stuart, the fixation on Télémaque and the frequent neglect of the later plans for the political reform of the French monarchy. However, closer inspection of all of Fénelon’s political works reveals that there is a great deal of divergence between his thought and that of Ramsay. Ramsay’s view of government was based upon the foundations of natural law. It advocated the use of a sovereign with the potential to be absolute in nature despite its restraint through an aristocratic senate, and under no circumstances would Ramsay countenance any possibility of revo-lution in the people irrespective of tyranny. These were not the views and ideas of Fénelon, who enshrined the public good. Moreover, the absence in the Essay of any concrete discussion of war, commerce and luxury were glaring omissions. While the employment of an aristocracy that had become 97 See Henderson, Chevalier Ramsay, p. 29. Henderson believed that Ramsay’s interpreta-

tion of Fénelon as a man of religious tolerance was a consequence either of a desire for him to have believed in toleration, or through a misunderstanding of the prelate’s spiritual thought. Henderson further claimed that this misunderstanding was the ba-sis for his bastardized view of Fénelon’s political principles in the Essay, pp. 123f.

98 Glickman, The English Catholic Community 1688–1745, p. 251. I would like to thank Doohwan Ahn and Christoph Schmitt-Maass for their helpful comments in writing this chapter.

Fénelon’s Cuckoo

97

diminished may well have had its origin in the thoughts of the Archbishop, there was very little overlap between their thought. Ramsay’s engagement with Fénelon’s political principles was therefore inaccurate. When one ex-amines the Essay and Vie in combination it can certainly be argued that this was deliberate. It is clear that Ramsay retrospectively justified the maxims in both editions of the Essay through the Vie, thereby tying Fénelon to those maxims. In so doing, Ramsay not only tied the prelate to Jacobitism, he tainted future generation’s view of the actual thought of Fénelon regarding government. This endeavor was emphasized by his alteration of citations, quotations, letters, and a belief in toleration to manipulate the extent of Fénelon’s sympathy for James Stuart’s plight. A “plan de gouvernement” that smothered the potential for revolution and popular government which did not reflect Fénelon’s views, but served the purposes of a Jacobite Ram-say.