Transformation of European society from the perspective of radical intellectuals in the period of fin-de-siecle (1890-1914)

Rome, Oh Rome, in thee alone in the circle of thy seven hills, the myriad discords of man will find again an all-embracing and sublime unity. Thou wilt give the new bread, tell the new word [63. P. 167].

Yarrow (1942) connects these words with those echoed by Benito Mussolini in his speech in Trieste on September 20, 1920: «Rome gives the signal of universal civilizations; Rome lays out roads, marks boundaries, and gives to the world the eternal laws of its immutable justice» [64. P. 168].

In the early 1890s D'Annunzio was influenced by the Charles Darwin evolution theory. He quickly absorbed such metaphors of the English naturalist as «selection» and «struggle for life” and perceived them in a very personal way, as a struggle to assert his own identity. In one of his early letters, he demonstrates his determination to make a mark on the world, to «enter well-armed and with strong armor into the great battle of life, into the struggle for life, as Darwin puts it» [65. P. 113]. Later he started applying Darwinism to the analysis of society and competition between countries in international affairs. His essay of 1892, The elective beast does not limit itself to casting the masses as the defeated in the battle for political ascendancy. It also makes reference to a struggle between European and non-European «races»:

In America, entire races have disappeared upon impact with the white man; the inhabitants of Oceania are vanishing, pursued into their very last refugees; the whole of Africa has been invaded. By what right? By the right of the stronger [66. P. 119].

In his the virgins of the rocks (1899) one of the central characters Cantelmo justifies the process of selection that elevates both an elite and an entire populace or «race»:

The highest specimen of consciousness will only appear at the summit of a race that has elevated itself over time through a continual accumulation of forces and deeds: at the summit of a race in which the most beautiful dreams, the most valiant sentiments, the noblest thoughts, the most imperious desires have been created and preserved over a long period of centuries [67. P. 119]

«Racial vocabulary» is willingly shared by Maurice Barres. With much imprecision, he talks of races, mainly for rhetorical reasons though. He clearly differentiates between an Indo-European race and a Semitic one. For Barres there is no French race, but a French nation which continued to develop every day, a French people, a collectivity of political formation in which there was no one rallying point - it consisted of Latins, partly of Gauls, partly of «soldiers of the Church». The French patria existed more assuredly through language than in territory, for it was the possession of the same language and common legends that constituted nationalities. His central idea behind nationalism is the - «the voice of the ancestors», «the prolongation of the dead», the acceptance of a determinism. Making his views apparent in the letter written by Roemerspacher in The Appeal to the Soldier (1900), Barres regards France as the result of a series of historic facts, accumulated resources, and a direction imposed on individual behavior in order to produce a favorable action by individuals and by the nation as a whole. To be a nationalist is the best service that a Frenchman could render to humanity. For Barres the Marseillaise is important not so much for the words as for the mass of emotions it excites in people's subconscious.

In his Nancy electoral program in 1889, Barres tied the Jewish question to the national question. According to him, the Jews had kept their distinctive character and had become dominators in the society. They violated the principles of the Revolution by their isolated action, by their manner of monopolizing, by speculation, and by cosmopolitanism. In the army, the magistrature, the ministries, and all French administrations they sufficiently exceeded the normal proportion to which their number could give them a right [68. P. 213]. This dangerous disproportion has to be corrected and more respect must be given to «true French nationals». Jews appear powerful both in France and abroad, as the evidence of the Panama scandal (1898) had shown.

By 1894, Barres loudly proclaimed himself a socialist. As editor of the superpatriotic short-lived periodical La Cocarde between September 1894 and March 1895, Barres undertook to give his socialism a theoretical foundation. While formally aligning himself with the Socialist Left, he based his doctrine on a mystique of rootedness that was fundamentally conservative. This ambivalence reflected, in part, the ideological disparities that existed on the staff of La Cocarde, a staff composed of writers of the most diverse political convictions, from the anarchist Augustin Hamon at one end of the spectrum to the young royalist Charles Maurras at the other. Barres's attempt to bridge these differences, to conciliate the opposites was part of his continuing effort to unify the Right and the Left under one banner [69. P. 236; P. 276]. At that time Barres managed to give praise to socialist politician and Jean Jaures and ardent anti-Semite Drumont while La Cocarde announced socialist and nationalist political meetings.

By means of demonstrating his leftist stances to state policies Barres advocated the establishment of a series of socialist production enterprises on a voluntary, local, and decentralized basis. In accordance with his doctrine of the earth and the dead», each enterprise needs to be in harmony with the ancestral traditions of the region to which it belonged, an expression of the provincial heritage, along the lines of the idea «federalism» presented by an anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) in which autonomous socialist associations would maintain their individual identities. Such a socialism would be anti-Jacobin, anti-statist, as well as anti-Marxist. Instead of being imposed from above by Parisian bureaucrats «abstractly», it would be organized from below by the workers themselves «spontaneously». Barres points out that he agrees both with Marx and Taine that society is moving in a collectivist direction, but, like Taine, he found Marxist collectivism too centralized and monolithic, a threat to regional diversity and provincial rootedness. Another potentially authoritarian feature of Barres's national socialism announced by him in 1898 was his advocacy of a corporate state. Denouncing the «incompetent» parliamentarianism of the Third Republic, he asserted that voting should be done on an economic and professional rather than on simply a geographical basis, workers forming their own unions or corporations, farmers theirs, small businessmen theirs, and so on [70. P. 238, 245].

The novels written by D'Annunzio and Barres in the 1890s and political statements they made during this period (mostly Barres) served as not only witness of political turmoil in political life of France (Dreyfus Affair, Panama scandal) and Italy (seemingly corrupted political system identified with Giovanni Giolitti) but also as a guide to a new type of action.

War protagonists

French regions Alsace and Lorraine, occupied by Germany during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 was at the core of Barres's political thought and literary activity throughout his life. He always demonstrated his intricate belonging to Lorraine, the region of his birth. The dream about revanche was one of the main reasons why he supported the Boulangist movement from the very start. To his mind, the force of a country was proportional to the number of rifles that its citizens could command. It was vital for France to be strong and to assert itself against the foreigners. In 1884 Barres was writing of the special task of France, which was to recapture the stolen territory, and in particular, Metz and Strasbourg. In this way, the spirit of militarism was linked with the idea of regionalism. But the Nationalist campaign was also designed to put France on guard against the «cosmopolitan», or rather German, socialism which weakened the defence of the country [71]. Barres saw his personal role in preserving French national culture in terms of tradition, protection, and decentralization.

Even on a personal level, relations with the foreigner were undesirable. Barres' heroine, Colette Baudoche, perceived that «between her and the German soldier M. Asmus, it was not a personal question, but a French one». The premise behind this hatred of the foreigner was that France was the highest point of the world civilization, which was now being threatened. In spite of an early flirtation with Wagner, and in spite of his frequent allusions to Goethe, he rejected German culture, as Blum said, because of his Latin taste, Western taste, meridional taste, and his detestation of the man of the north [72. P. 198-199]. As Curtis points out, «Wagner, Nietzsche, the excellent administrative system of the Germans counted little compared with the humiliation of the invasion» to Lorraine in 1870 and later menace». As early as 1884 he was writing of French special task, to recover the stolen territory», and he always believed that French resistance to Germanization was a matter of organic necessity. Not without reason Leon Daudet once called him «the watchman of the frontier» [73. P. 201].

Over the time of the Dreyfus affair (1894-1906) which divided the Third Republic into two political camps Barres made loads of emotional statements some of which were directly associated with ardent anti-Semitism: «We are with the flag against the band of politicians, the governmental world enslaved to Judaism and composed for the most part of notorious traitors who would not let Dreyfus be condemned» [74. P. 204-205].

In 1902, making a speech at the third attendance of the French Homeland League which brought together prominent right-wing intellectuals and anti-dreyfusars, Barres announced:

In that small area (Lorraine -M.C), the bodies of Frenchmen and Germans are heaped together to promote a vigorous growth of vegetation: some thirty trees spring up to heaven. Germany may wish so self-consciously that the spirit of France and the spirit of the Fatherland unite only in the ultimate state of a common humanity, or in the bosom of God. But in reality, they place us beyond the pale, they campaign for the destruction of our tongue and our thought. This is a holy war. In the land of Metz and Strasbourg, Germans, more cruel than orientals, who cut down olive trees and fill up wells, are realizing their dream of destruction. They prevent the minds of little French children from thinking like Frenchmen. They overwhelm them with German novels and German ideas, and like brushwood burying a living source, choke a sensibility which for centuries had refreshed the race and which these children receive from their parents [75. P. 191].

Before World War I Barres published two novels - In the Service of Germany (1905), and Colette Baudoche (1909) in which he raised the dilemma facing people of French culture who had chosen to remain in the occupied territory. Barres was convinced that France was weak against Germany because it makes no effort to resist; but the conquered provinces, reacting against German brutality, maintain their strength and vigor. Thus, the provinces, if they are returned, will be a major force in regenerating the national spirit of France. German culture succeeds only in awakening an aggressive sense of awareness in the majority of the native population. German laws, despite a certain superficial appeal, cannot suborn the French mentality. The reason Barres gives to that is because German laws are aimed at people in a lower state of development than the French. Germans stick strictly to the letter of the law and within these limits act basely and selfishly with no indulgence or regard for others as individuals. The French, on the other hand, possess to a high degree the notion of honor which transcends the letter of the law, the better to impose the spirit of generosity [76. P. 95].

In the novel Uprooted (1898) Barres uses the terms «German», «Protestant» and «barbarian» opposite the terms «Celtic», «Roman», «French», «Catholic» and «civilization». In 1917, three years after the start of the World War I, he justifies the reasons to fight against the German invader in the following terms: «Regionalism and tradition, which is the life of the soul, sustains our armies in the most thorough way» [77. P. 238]. To his mind, Catholics are trying to preserve Catholicism from pernicious German influences of Kantianism, higher criticism, and modernism. German victory would be a triumph for Metternich or Marx and the destruction of that proper French socialist tradition which «seeks forms of harmony with Fourier and forms ofjustice with Proudon» [78. P. 239].

At the start of the First World War Barres called for a union sacree, for his countrymen to forget their differences and to fight as one against the common foe. In 1917, he declared «let us all put ourselves in step, in military step, and then on with the music.” In 1918, he spoke of Joan of Arc as a symbol of French unity, worthy of the «profound veneration» of revolutionaries, royalists, republicans, and Caesarians alike. In her name, he said, «we wish to affirm our reconciliation» and achieve a «collaboration of religion, patriotism, poetry and the spirit of war» [79. P. 273].

Doty notes that the exceptional feature of Barres' career between 1906 and the outbreak of the war is that he increasingly became a part of the political establishment rather than its enemy. It referred to his refusal to support progressive tax reform and nationalization of the railroads. From then he regularly voted for government repression of trade union activity. That gave a reason to characterize his political behavior as a man of the Center. When the war broke out, he welcomed the conflict as the occasion for France's moral rejuvenation and devoted himself to propaganda sustaining morality on the home front. It was no surprise that when during the military campaign prime-minister Clemenceau employed dictatorial measures against war dissenters, Barres was one of his staunchest supporters.

The idea of war was always supported by D'Annunzio as a possibility to assert personal dignity and revive national spirit. His first detailed approach to the evolution of technology in the modern world D'Annunzio connected with the idea of military nationalism. In the articles from the late 1880s he described warships sunk by the newest torpedo boats. In Naval Odes (1892) the poet experimented with poeticizing the torpedo boat, which appeared to be a thing of beauty because it was an instrument of destruction. In the novel Maia, D'Annunzio glorified new machines and inventions since they were applied to aggressive campaigns abroad. In Maybe yes, maybe no (1910) the author's protagonist «drove along the ancient Roman road with a warlike roar similar to the beat of a vast metal drum» [80. P. 80].

Shortly before the start of the World War I D'Annunzio returned to Italy from France (where he lived for several years) and made public speeches in favour of Italy's entry on the side of the Allies. The outbreak of the war gave D'Annunzio the opportunity to personally fulfil the idea of courageous hero he had portrayed in the pages of his novels. He himself was a combatant aboard the torpedo boats. While he could not be relied on by the state authorities to help out in any very strenuous or long-continued campaign, his individual dramatic achievements, such as running the gauntlet of the Austrian fleet in a motor boat, won him sensational publicity throughout the country [81. P. 166]. He undertook several airborne flight missions, and suffered the loss of sight in one eye during a flying accident. Several times he drew up a detailed report for the Italian high command that called for the development of squadrons of torpedo-carrying aircraft. Helping to raise the spirits of the Italian public, still bittered by the Caporetto disaster in 1917, the writer on 9 August 1918, as a commander of the 87th fighter squadron La Serenissima, organized one of the great feats of the war, leading 9 planes in a 700-mile round trip to drop propaganda leaflets on Vienna. The War strengthened D'Annunzio's nationalist and irredentist views and made him one of the most famous representatives of the new interwar political movement which unified active citizens with military background.

Pre-fascists?

Given the enormous accumulation of information about the main two intellectuals of this study, it is still hard to give a precise answer to the question whether Gabriele D'Annunzio and Maurrice Barres were personally responsible for giving birth to political tradition associated with European fascism. Chaitin (2008) nicely points out that such different intellectuals as Auguste Comte, Hippolyte Taine, Emile Durkheim, Gabriel Tarde and Gustave Le Bon all believed in some form of hereditary determinism as well as in the subordination of the individual to the group. Like Schopenhauer, Wilhelm Wundt, and Sigmund Exner and some other thinkers of the period, they also upheld the anti-Cartesian view that affect and instinct take precedence over individual reason and that thought itself is the product of the impersonal forces of a collective unconscious. The anti-individualist social theories of positivism were combined in a strange alliance with the philosophy of the subject derived straight from Kant and the Enlightenment via Condorcet, Quinet, Proudhon, and Renouvier, among others, in order to serve as the ideological basis of opportunist Barres's nationalism [82. P. 79].

It is important to note here how two provincial authors who demonstrated individualist outlook during the sufficient number of years and expressed their disgust with demands of the large public managed to become widely admired. The popularity of Barres peaked due to changes in collective consciousness among French citizens because of political scandals in the last decade of the 19^th century. An American visitor to France in 1914 found Barres spoken of everywhere as the most influential writer of his day: his position was «almost without parallel since Chateaubriand» [83. P. 3]. The final period of Barres's creativity represents his vision of a regenerated nation as a well-articulated ideology of conservative national socialism, comparable in power to activity of D'Annunzio in that period.

During the last decade of the 19^th century the appropriate object for intellectualized attack on politics arrived on the scene in the person of Giovanni Giolitti (1842-1928). Long before fascist writers made him the epitome of all that their antibourgeois revolution would eradicate, he had already become the recognized evil genius of Italian politics, a man without scruples or erudition whose intimate knowledge of bureaucratic machinery had enabled him to fashion permanent parliamentary majorities by means of election rigging. The movement within Italy to purify the nation of this corrupting influence began in the 1890's [84. P. 53-54]. Salomone (1943) argues that the new Italy was born of the clash of intelligence with necessity, of the war waged by desire upon reality, and of the irrepressible conflict between history and myth. Such classical authors as Machiavelli and Vico were vivified and fused with the great currents of European thought and soon they were adopted as secular guides toward a historic transformation, the «redemption» of Italy [85. P. 170]. Thayer (1964) explains the process of Italian transformism in the following way:

Deeper than the fear of being discredited by Italian voters was the realization among many Italian conservatives that no theory of the nation - of the strong and durable State - could succeed if it left out the masses. This was not peculiar to Italian rightist thought. The Action Francaise spoke for the people, and in Germany the leadership principle under National Socialism had to square its elite concept with the popular base as essential to all modern national philosophies. In the hands of young intellectuals who were properly of the generation of the Postrisorgimento, born too late to recall the wars for unification, conservative ideology became subversive and revolutionary [86. P. 132].

The ideas of national redemption and regeneration from decadence are related to the concept of political myth which gained recognition mainly due to the writings of Georges Sorel (1847-1922) at the turn of the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Popular French philosopher of modernism Anri Bergson criticized the sphere of objective science as an optical illusion. In Introduction to Metaphysics (1903), he introduced «of a one kind of knowledge which stops at the relative, and of the second that, wherever possible it attains the absolute» [87. p. 125]. It is artists, states Bergson, who potentially possess such intuitive vision, for they alone are able to perceive the «original harmony», and «the inner life of things». The political effect of Bergsonian philosophy was to promote not a conservative climate but one given to emotional reaction - an activated idealism which radical intellectuals began to elaborate in Italy during the Libyan War (1911-12) and which fit in well with the sense of renewal associated with the Great War. The struggle was backed up by many the representatives of the leftist movement - syndicalists - who regarded it as the equivalent of revolution. The latter were much better “understood” by ultraconservative nationalists of the Giolittian period than by the official Socialists who had become part of the system. By similar reasoning, the World War I was perceived by the radical intellectuals not a war of competing capitalisms, but as a revolutionary war against Prussian oppression. By the end of the war many former syndicalists had gone so far from their original position as to stress, not class struggle, but class collaboration in the interest of the nation as a whole.

In several respects the way to public acceptance of Barres resembles the one of D'Annunzio, and it is worth remembering that the two writers had a long, if not particularly close, friendship. Despite all their prolific writing and experience of political participation, Barres and D'Annunzio were not political philosophers, in the sense of having a systematic approach to political problems. Having come under the spell of the decadent writers during the 1880s, Barres subsequently shifted direction, publishing a series of «novels of national energy» and elaborating a «cult of the ego». These anti-decadent positions closely resemble D'Annunzio's project of national revitalization and his praises of the militant, ruthless new political agenda. By the 1890s both writers could be heard loudly advocating a cultural renewal with aggressively nationalistic overtones. Following the same course as Barres, D'Annunzio replaced the fin-de-siecle decadent pessimism with an optimism based on a conviction in the historic mission of his nation; and he makes himself the voice of energy, youth, and a newly disciplined version of those masses which at the beginning of the 1890s had seemed to him perilously close to dethroning the class of intellectuals [88. P. 148-152]. Power and instinct become the watchwords of this movement, replacing the tedious negotiations of a parliamentary democracy.

The influence of Barres and D'Annunzio on political and social process in their countries in the period of fin-de-siecle is highly debatable. Adamson (1990) argues that while D'Annunzio was widely read by the next generation, «he offered them neither the new faith nor the model of an avant-garde intellectual for which they were searching, and his reputation among them, initially high, steadily declined over the course of the first decade of the 20^th century» [89. P. 370]. Although he still admits that the poet «creatively reshaped the rhetorical strategies of secular-religious, political performance» during the WWI. Yarrow places the emphasis on the practical side of his activity, especially during the period of the Free State of Fiume (1919-20), when D'Annunzio «added poetic license to the accomplishments of a soldier and Mussolini was but a secondary light in the Fascist heavens» [90. P. 166]. The author also calls attention to D'Annunzio's scheme for settling economic conflicts, since it was the first abortive attempt to put into practice some of the ideas that later were talked about under the name of “national syndicalism” [91. P. 168].

The evolution of political thought of Barres from the cult of the self to conservative traditionalism through the period of excitement about «national socialism» is truly spectacular. What he and the nationalists had considered the party of disorder at the time of the Third Republic had become the party of order. As it did, Barres had been forced to seek a new axiom, religion, or prince of men to satisfy his search for selfhood. Boulangism, socialism, the «national socialism» of the 1898 campaign in Nancy, and the fascist-like program he developed for the nationalist leagues had all successively failed either to take power or to analyse his world. There had been no new «prince of men» since Boulanger [92. P. 236]. In 1913, Barres said: «This country wants neither king, nor emperor, nor parliamentary republic, nor socialism. What does it want? I do not know. Something unknown, new, plainly made of eternal materials, but with form. Boulangism was an attempt. A national ministry? It is worth a try, but toward what?» [93. P. 235-236]. It seems like an open- ended question indeed.

Curtis argues that Barres' nationalism had been one of defence and retraction, not of expansion. The period of fin-de-siecle was the time when nationalism began turning inward as a means of internal strength rather than of external power. It was in this period that French nationalism relinquished its always tentative associations with liberalism and became firmly attached to the Right. The spirit of militarism, the hostility to foreign nations, the economic and political, protectionism, but above all, the denial of individual rights in the interests of the nation state, and the proscription of internal opposition and dissent, signified a radical departure from nationalism is its liberal period [94. P. 254]. But does it mean that his political heirs can only be found on the far-right side of political spectrum? Shenton assumes that if Barres had been born forty years later, he would have been the most fervent of Gaullists. His tragedy was that he lived in a time when political leaders were so uninspiring, caught up as they were in the unedifying manoeuvring of parliamentary democracy under the Third Republic [95. P. 35]. Nevertheless, the connection of socialism and nationalism has existed for a long time. Weber (1962) points out that «it is like one of those common law unions which practice and habit render commonplace and extremely unremarkable; an alliance that interests us here and that, as stated, has never lacked supporters in France since the days of Barres» [96. P. 275].

Both D'Annunzio and Barres were interested in an extraordinarily limited number of political issues, were constantly repetitive, often ambivalent and equivocal about those things that they found worth their attention. Charles Maurras spoke of an immobile mask» sticked to Barres, Anatole France gave description to one of his books as «floating and indeterminate», and M. Domenach confessed his difficulty in choosing any of his 56 works as the Barresian work [97. P. 57].

However, they provoked a strong reaction among their contemporaries - intellectuals around the turn of the 20th century. They were read and sometimes imitated by James Joyce, Henry James, Stefan George, and Heinrich and Thomas Mann. For some of them they were consummate poets, prodigiously talented lyrical voices within the current of poetic decadence, for others they represented attractive sensuality and heroic desire for act which could inspire a new generation of Europeans to overcome the destructive consequences of positivism and naturalism in the sphere of art and the ideological influence of liberalism in the sphere of politics. Toward the end of World War I, Thomas Mann declared bitterly that D'Annunzio and other nationalist writers in Europe had created a «treacherously beguiling politics of aestheticism» [98. P. 2]. According to him, these authors offered to lead their audiences in an exhilarating quest for an ideal existence - «sublime, powerful, innocent, victorious, violent, and particularly beautiful life», to be won through ruthless action and through an «amoral and exuberant masculine brutality». Thus, Mann wisely diagnosed the practitioners of this «politics of aestheticism» exploiting the power of art in order to infuse new national ideals into the whole population of a nation.

European fin-de-siecle art was a compound phenomenon in its beliefs, aspirations and basic values which exposed necessity in moving toward an undefined and unpredictable future. The fact of unique and powerful contributions by modernist nationalist writers to the European fascist project of countering «materialist» views (whether capitalist or communist) with an appeal to spirituality seems evident. But one of the most important problems for the researchers examining the emergence of radical ideologies at the beginning of the 20^th century is to grasp the relationship between the modernist writers' aestheticism of fin-de-siecle with their political objectives because the Modernities of political technologies and human liberation often come into inevitable contradiction with each other. And, even more important, we should take into consideration the fact that art modernist groups and political movements of that time were dynamic phenomena which reflected latent ideals of certain social groups of European countries during the transitional period of 1890-1914. That is why it is fascinating to see how writers Maurice Barres and Gabriele D'Annunzio managed to make apparent changes in their prose from individualistic hyper-aestheticism to nationalism combined with overt attacks against reason and liberal humanism. The shift from decadent literature to ardent and somewhat aggressive style of modernist vanguard literature of that time was reflected by the intellectuals who tried to extrapolate modernist ideals of cultural revolt toward the sphere of pragmatic political reality.

References

1. Habermas, J., Ben-Habib, S. Modernity versus Postmodernity. Veir German Critique. Vol. 22, 1981, pp. 3-14.

2. Wilson, E.B. How to Study the Social Aspects of the Depression. Journal of the American Statistical Association. Vol. 33, no. 203, 1938, pp. 505-512.

3. Laqueur, W. Fin-de-siecle: Once More with Feeling. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31, 1996, pp. 5-47.

4. Laqueur, W. Fin-de-siecle: Once More with Feeling. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31, 1996, pp. 5-47.

5. McLeod, H. Secularization in Western Europe, 1848-1914. St. Martin's Press, 2000.

6. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

7. McLeod, H. Secularization in Western Europe, 1848-1914. St. Martin's Press, 2000.

8. Laqueur, W. Fin-de-siecle: Once More with Feeling. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31, 1996, pp. 5-47.

9. Talmon, J.L. Myth of the Nation and Vision of Revolution- Ideological Polarization in the Twentieth Century. London and New York: Routledge, 2017.

10. Thayer, J.A. Italy and the Great War: Politics and Culture 1870-1914. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1964.

11. Adamson, W.L. Modernism and Fascism: The Politics of Culture in Italy, 1903-1922. The American Historical Review, Vol. 95, no. 2, 1990, pp. 359-390.

12. Stern, F. Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rose of the Germanic Ideology. Berkeley: University of California, 1961.

13. Chaitin, G.D. The Enemy Within: Culture Wars and Political Identity in Novels of the French Third Republic. The Ohio State University Press, 2008.

14. Sternhell, Z. National Socialism and Antisemitism: The Case of Maurice Barres. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 8, no. 4, 1973, pp. 47-66. Soucy, R. Fascism in France: The Case of Maurice Barres. University of California Press, 1972. Caroll, D. French Literary Fascism: Nationalism, Anti-Semitism, and the Ideology of Culture. Princeton University Press, 1995.

15. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

16. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

17. Shenton, G. The Fictions of the Self: The Early Works of Maurice Barres. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures, 1979.

18. Shenton, G. The Fictions of the Self: The Early Works of Maurice Barres. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures, 1979.

19. Rose, G.B. Gabriele D'Annunzio. The Sewanee Review, Vol. 5, no. 2, 1897. pp. 146-152.

20. Borgese, G.A. Goliath: The March of Fascism. New York: The Viking Press, 1937.

21. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

22. Adamson, Walter L. Modernism and Fascism: The Politics of Culture in Italy, 1903-1922. The American Historical Review, Vol. 95, no. 2, 1990, pp. 359-390.

23. 23. Lavrin, J. Aspects of Modernism: from Wilde to Pirandello. New York: Free Port, 1968.

24. Perry, C. Reconfiguring Wagner's Tristan: Political Aesthetics in the Works of Maurice Barres. French Forum, Vol. 23, no. 3, 1998, pp. 317-335.

25. Perry, C. Reconfiguring Wagner's Tristan: Political Aesthetics in the Works of Maurice Barres. French Forum, Vol. 23, no. 3, 1998, pp. 317-335.

26. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

27. Shenton, G. The Fictions of the Self: The Early Works of Maurice Barres. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures, 1979.

28. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

29. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

30. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

31. Soucy, R. Fascism in France: the Case of Maurice Barres. University of California Press, 1972.

32. Putnam, G.F. (1954). The Meaning of Barresisme. The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 161-182.

33. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

34. Soucy R. Fascism in France: the Case of Maurice Barres. University of California Press, 1972.

35. Doty, S.C. From Cultural Rebellion to Counterrevolution: the Politics of Maurice Barres. Ohio University Press, 1976.

36. De Felice, R. D'Annunzio politico 1918-1938. Bari Laterza, 1978.

37. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

38. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

39. Alatri, P. Gabriele D'Annunzio. Fayard, 1992.

40. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

41. Alatri, P. Gabriele D'Annunzio. Fayard, 1992.

42. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

43. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

44. Greaves, A. Maurice Barres. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1978.

45. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

46. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

47. Shenton, G. The Fictions of the Self: The Early Works of Maurice Barres. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures, 1979.

48. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

49. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

50. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

51. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

52. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

53. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

54. Soucy, R. Fascism in France: the Case of Maurice Barres. University of California Press, 1972.

55. Soucy, R. Fascism in France: the Case of Maurice Barres. University of California Press, 1972.

56. Infusino, G. D'Annunzio a Napoli, Liguori, 1988.

57. Lavrin, J. Aspects of Modernism: from Wilde to Pirandello. New York: Free Port, 1968.

58. Becker, J.M. D'Annunzio's `Imaginifico': Language and Nationalism in Post-Risorgimento Italy. History of European Ideas, Vol. 16, Issues 1-3, 1993, pp. 177-181.

59. McClelland, J.S. The French Right: from Maistre to Maurras. NY and Evanston: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1970.

60. Doty, S.C. From Cultural Rebellion to Counterrevolution: the Politics of Maurice Barres. Ohio University Press, 1976.

61. Doty, S.C. From Cultural Rebellion to Counterrevolution: the Politics of Maurice Barres. Ohio University Press, 1976.

62. Doty, S.C. From Cultural Rebellion to Counterrevolution: the Politics of Maurice Barres. Ohio University Press, 1976.

63. Yarrow, C.H. The Forging of Fascist Doctrine. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 3, no. 2, 1942, pp. 159-181.

64. Yarrow, C.H. The Forging of Fascist Doctrine. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 3, no. 2, 1942, pp. 159-181.

65. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

66. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

67. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

68. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

69. Soucy, R. Fascism in France: the Case of Maurice Barres. University of California Press, 1972; Weber, E. Nationalism, Socialism, and National-Socialism in France. French Historical Studies, Vol. 2, no. 3, 1962, pp. 273-307.

70. Soucy, R. Fascism in France: the Case of Maurice Barres. University of California Press, 1972.

71. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

72. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

73. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

74. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

75. McClelland, J.S. The French Right: from Maistre to Maurras. NY and Evanston: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1970.

76. Greaves, A. Maurice Barres. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1978.

77. Doty, S.C. From Cultural Rebellion to Counterrevolution: the Politics of Maurice Barres. Ohio University Press, 1976.

78. Doty, S.C. From Cultural Rebellion to Counterrevolution: the Politics of Maurice Barres. Ohio University Press, 1976.

79. Soucy, R. Fascism in France: the Case of Maurice Barres. University of California Press, 1972.

80. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

81. Yarrow, C.H. The Forging of Fascist Doctrine. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 3, no. 2, 1942, pp. 159-181.

82. Chaitin, G.D. The Enemy Within: Culture Wars and Political Identity in Novels of the French Third Republic. The Ohio State University Press, 2008.

83. Soucy, R. Fascism in France: the Case of Maurice Barres. University of California Press, 1972.

84. Thayer, J.A. Italy and the Great War: Politics and Culture 1870-1915. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1964.

85. Salomone, W. Italy in the Giolittian Era. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1945.

86. Thayer, J.A. Italy and the Great War: Politics and Culture 1870-1915. The University of Wisconsin Press, 1964.

87. Anliff, M. Avant-Garde Fascism: The Mobilization of Myth, Art, and Culture in France 1909-39. Duke University Press, 2007.

88. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

89. Adamson, W.L. Modernism and Fascism: The Politics of Culture in Italy, 1903-1922. The American Historical Review, Vol. 95, no. 2, 1990, pp. 359-390.

90. Yarrow, C.H. The Forging of Fascist Doctrine. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 3, no. 2, 1942, pp. 159-181.

91. Yarrow, C.H. The Forging of Fascist Doctrine. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 3, no. 2, 1942, pp. 159-181.

92. Doty, S.C. From Cultural Rebellion to Counterrevolution: the Politics of Maurice Barres. Ohio University Press, 1976.

93. Doty, S.C. From Cultural Rebellion to Counterrevolution: the Politics of Maurice Barres. Ohio University Press, 1976.

94. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

95. Shenton, G. The Fictions of the Self: The Early Works of Maurice Barres. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures, 1979.

96. Weber, E. Nationalism, Socialism, and National-Socialism in France. French Historical Studies, Vol. 2, no. 3, 1962, pp. 273-307.

97. Curtis, M. Three Against the Third Republic: Sorel, Morras, Barres. Princeton University Press, 1959.

98. Becker, J.M. Nationalism and Culture: Gabriele D'Annunzio and Italy after the Risorgimento. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 1994.

Ðàçìåùåíî íà allbest.ru