The Constitutional Church, established by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in July 1790 and destroyed by the Concordat of 1801, has only been studied objectively in the last forty years: the pope condemned it at its birth and prejudiced, hostile criticism was heaped upon it subsequently. The present work is limited in scope, concentrating on the frameworks for calling and organising national councils and the structures created. It contains much information on most of the constitutional bishops and the more important curés, and particularly about national councils, synods and the relationship with Rome. The author has researched a mass of documents in the Bibliothèque de Port Royal in Paris; her work is based on her canon law dissertation for the Catholic Theology Faculty at the Marc Bloch University of Strasbourg.

Tuffery-Andrieu's controversial work criticises harshly the Constitutional Church and the abbé Grégoire. She follows the line established by Rome in 1790, by Sciout (1881), Pisani (1908), Leclercq (1934) and Boussoulade (1950). Her thesis is that Grégoire was an authoritarian Jacobin, like many of the other constitutional bishops, and that the ethos of the Church, its structures and the behaviour of the bishops were expressions of the Jacobin ways of the French Republic. Imbued with Jansenist ideas, they also undermined the richerist ambitions of the lower clergy. Throughout, she interprets personalities and actions to further this thesis. Constant repetition however does not constitute proof. Facts that contradict her judgements are omitted. Obviously, the reader can be misled easily.

The fundamental flaws in the thesis are several. The Constitutional Church was formed under the monarchy, hence was not a Republican creation. Most of the bishops were elected in 1791 and 1792, before the establishment of the Jacobin Republic and its overthrow, and the structures reflected a desire to relaunch a purer Church, where Christian charity and democratic ideals could be practised, very different from the Church created by the Concordat of 1516, with its wealth and abuses. Curiously, Tuffery-Andrieu suggests later (p. 335) that the structures and conduct of the évêques réunis reflected those of the Second Directory that persecuted the Church. Who then among the bishops were Jacobins or Jacobin sympathisers? Yes Grégoire, but who else? To suggest that they were all authoritarian, were influenced by both Jacobin and directorial regimes and that they behaved like centralising Jacobins is not substantiated. Many suffered either the guillotine or imprisonment from these regimes.

The accusation of authoritarianism, repeated so often about Grégoire, is surprising. Not everyone approved of him but his opposition to the ‘despotisme’ of ancien régime prelates and his actions in relation to his own clergy in Loire-et-Cher belie this judgement. The question of the relative importance, authority and place of bishop, priest and layperson was debated seriously from 1789 onwards. The Roman Church, two hundred years on, still has not come to a final judgement. To suggest, as Tuffery-Andrieu does (pp. 133–6), that the meetings of clergy to discuss the national council were organised to enforce uniformity and discipline is speculation. Has she not heard of consultation? To suggest that the real purpose of article 34 on exceptions in the 1797 decree on elections was to promote the authority of the metropolitan bishop, who would appoint by right without reference to clergy and people (p. 67), is untrue. Tuffery-Andrieu points out that the system agreed upon led to the election of numerous bishops in 1798. How many were appointed directly by a Metropolitan bishop without clergy and people? To my knowledge, zero.

It is also false to say that the Constitutional Church was ignored during the negotiations for a new Concordat in 1801. Bonaparte consulted Grégoire at least twice and forced Consalvi and the pope to appoint twelve constitutional bishops to the new Église concordataire, and Talleyrand, Portalis and Fouché attempted to see that the constitutional priests were not constrained to abjure their oath. Bonaparte strongly disapproved of any retraction of an oath. Tuffery-Andrieu also emphasises the opposition of some bishops to the calling of the second council, but fails to mention that they finally accepted the decision of the majority, with Royer, the staunchest critic, opening the council on 29 June 1801, delivering several sermons and speaking in the final session, with a deep apology and in tears for all his opposition.Footnote ¹

Thus, Tuffery-Andrieu's interpretations need to be debated. It could be argued that it is just speculation to decide that the Church would have failed anyway, without the Concordat. The bishops always tried to keep to the forms established by the Church, and there was never any idea of changing the faith, an accusation made against Grégoire and Clément (p. 336). Tuffery-Andrieu claims that the two councils were one, but the fact is that they were designated ‘premier’ and ‘second’. This treatment works perhaps for the study of exterior forms and frameworks but, because of it, the author moves between 1795 and 1801, leaving the reader sometimes confused about timing, with little reference to the political context that informed actions and views. Tuffery-Andrieu seems to ignore the fact that any organisation needs leadership and that democratic procedures were being introduced into an ecclesiastical system led for centuries by authoritarian, even despotic bishops. She also underplays the political and financial difficulties of the time and the work of Clément in 1795 in researching the practice of councils, and probably overvalues the comments of De Torcy, whose letters are almost the only source for much criticism of the bishops. This is a well researched and referenced book, with useful bibliography, annexes and maps, but no index. However, readers will need further guidance from other major published works on the subject.Footnote ²