The emphasis which the Congress of La Rochelle placed on Carbonnet's principles of mobilized cultural sociabilité was not merely theoretical. It fit the sociological character of the institution of freemasonry in France. The Masonic lodge of the late 1830's and 1840's was a social circle: Its existence and activities rested on official ratified regulations, on procedures for accepting new members and electing officials, and on a delimitation of their powers. A delimitation which turned them, in theory, into agents of the regime. The regulations, procedures and practical and intellectual spheres of activity gained qualified and unofficial recognition from the regime, which considered freemasonry to be a tolerated organization. The major handicap that the freemasons worked under was the ban on running deliberations and activities in the fields of religion and politics. Otherwise, they were more or less free to pursue their special activities. These took place in the permanent center of the lodge, and were attended by men only, who naturally joined because of their own free will.

In spite of the numerous restrictions, the freemasons found ways of discussing social problems without damaging their spiritualistic Masonic cover. These discussions were characterized by a great sensitiveness to progressive ideas, a fact which turned the Masonic organization into an ideologically progressive one, in spite of the spiritualistic layer which supposedly cut it off from society at large. The sociological character of the Masonic lodge turned it into something akin to the modern Cercle. During the 1830's and 1840's of the nineteenth century the circle was characterized by its progressive tendencies. Meetings were held somewhere external to the homes of the members, at a permanent location, often the neighborhood cafe. They were based on regulations which in general had been ratified by the local representatives of the regime. In spite of this, the circle's activities were always suspect in the eyes of the regime, because participation was limited to men only and because it often evinced progressive tendencies, which had the potential of rapidly slipping into anti-governmental political activity¹.

The origins of the cercle can be traced to the phenomenon of bourgeois sociabilité which developed during the 1820's among the provincial bourgeoisie. The phenomenon spread and was institutionalized by the grand commercial bourgeoisie in the great harbor cities. The central institution of this sociabilité was a group of men who gathered, usually in cafes, in order to spend some free time together. Such gatherings in cafes continued to be the most common form of sociabilité, even after a considerable part of these groups became organized and approved circles, thus turning into the mature and perfected form. The period of the development, consolidation and decline of the circle more or less overlapped with the period of the relative decline of the aristocratic culture of leisure. At first, it stood for patterns of the progressive social life of a small minority which was imbued with liberal-leftist tendencies and met with the resistance of the conservative right. In the forties this fact was forgotten. The entire bourgeois milieu became saturated with social circles and the organizational framework of the circle became neutral. The innovation which the social circle brought becomes clear when it is compared to the aristocratic salon. While the latter was characterized by clinging to tradition, meetings at home in the family circle, the mixed company of men and women and a morality considered high and apolitical, the social circle was characterized by progressive tendencies, a public activity center outside the home, male exclusivity, a morality which was considered doubtful and a tendency to lapse into political activity. As such, the social circle constituted a part of a general model of sociabilité open to modernism and society as a whole, and based on voluntary male membership, which competed with the older, family oriented sociabilité At the close of the reign of Louis-Philippe, modern sociabilité constituted one of the main channels for disseminating the "esprit d'association" and became a part of the national social structures. The circle maintained ties of rivalry with the aristocratic salon, and of proximity, paternity and sponsorship with cafés, libraries and reading clubs. Proof of this can be found in the data which was compiled by the originators of the idea of a cercle centrale de France, according to which at the end of December, 1843, there were 1601 approved circles with a membership of more than twenty each, and 327 approved circles with a membership of less than twenty, altogether 3,239 members. Therefore, at that time there were in France 1928 circles in all, with 121,858 members.² The cercle centrale never came into being, because the government feared the formation of a national network, but possibly, it was the source of inspiration for the congresses of La Rochelle.

The Masonic lodge was similar to the contemporary social circle in the bourgeois composition of its membership, its legal status, its regulations, its one-sex composition, its location outside the home, etc. At the same time, the lodge differed from the circle in that it did not offer its members party games, newspapers, drinks and cigarettes, but rather activities dealing with Masonic spiritualism. While the latter may be viewed as a kind of leisure activity, it did give the circle a special character, the more so considering the fact that the Masonic lodge was not a lone entity, disconnected with its like throughout France, as were the social circles. Rather, it was the basic group of a national organization, which served as buffer and intermediary between it and the authorities of the central Masonic institutions. And, While the circle had to be approved by the prefet, the GO and other orders gave their approval to the lodge.

The centers of freemasonry in Paris also served as crossroads of communication among the lodges, in which information about activities and ideas of local lodges flowed to the other lodges in most cities in France. The regimes of the Empire, the Restoration and the July Monarchy tried, at times successfully, to utilize the network of Masonic sociabilité for turning the orders into bases of power. But the control which was imposed on the orders did not entirely eliminate the partial autonomy which they had enjoyed. From the end of the 1830's the freemason orders managed to turn themselves into federations of Masonic sociabilité groups. They used the cover of spiritualism and secrecy for the purpose of intellectual and organizational public activities. At the end of the 1830's the freemason orders were then, organizations which adapted to the behavioral patterns of sociabilité circles. But, their numbers were relatively small. The advantage that the freemason orders had over other sociabilité groups lay in their level of organization at the national sphere, which was unique in France, where the law banned the existence of national organizations not being part of the governmental establishment.³

At the beginning of the 1840's, match to the process of the development of the social circle into a politically neutral all-France institution, the phenomenon of Masonic sociabilité began to bring about changes among the freemason lodges. One of the earliest signs of this is "The report on the elimination of beggary in Reims". This booklet heralds the point of departure of Masonic involvement in public affairs, and thus deviating from charity activity. About four years later, there was already a rather broad tendency on the part of lodges to hold regular meetings dedicated to examining matters of politics, society and economics on the national level. The booklets of lectures by Carbonnet and Precorbin bear witness to this. These activities, enjoyed the backing of the Masonic press, which also developed during the first half of the 1840's.

This development was not accompanied by any overt changes, since it was able to be accommodated by the existing legal status of freemasonry, and it can thus be identified only through what was published by the Masonic network. It did not need official approval since it was possible to limit it mainly to Paris, by summoning freemasons to these meetings without having resort to a complex organizational system. Still, one can discern the formation of a new body within the Masonic lodge. The content of the lectures and debates conferred on these meetings the character of an unofficial political club. They discussed state affairs and there was a noticeable wish to influence the structure of the régime through a reorganization of society and the economy by non-violent reform. This political club, camouflaged by the principles of the spiritualistic Masonic protocol, preserved the main characteristics of Masonic sociabilité, which were similar to modern bourgeois sociabilité. As is shown by the content of the debates, one of the reasons for its appearance was the wish to deal with the social crisis, the result of the rapid industrialization which France underwent during the forties. a crisis which took the form of the appearance of poverty and the modern proletariat.

A further reason stems from the fact that the July constitutional monarchy, while granting freedom of political expression, denied the freedom of assembly, which left the lodge as the only semi-legal place in which political discussions could take place. The congress of La Rochelle was an additional development which resembled the transition of the old informal bourgeois social circle to the modern formal circle. It was already a framework separated from the Masonic lodge, which had different regulations, modes of operation and spheres of influence. This was true in spite of the fact that the elected officials were still, by orders from above, those of the host lodge. In contrast to the lodge, the congress met once a year for two or three days of concentrated discussions. The participants represented not only themselves, but also all lodge members who stayed at home, and its declared aim was to deal with comprehensive Masonic issues and national problems. On the other hand, the preservation of the procedural framework pointed to its origin and its being a part of Masonic and bourgeois sociabilité. The formal political Masonic club, or the regional congress, was a novelty within Masonic sociabilité which was based on continuity: It did not negate it nor did it compete with it.

The congress of La Rochelle was attended by 30 representatives who represented some 240 freemasons of the western departments. To the second western congress, held in Rochefort, 22 lodges were invited, but representatives of only 6 arrived, so their number was about 25, and the total number of participants probably did not reach 100. The protocol of the third congress, held in Saintes in 1847, was not published, because of the ban which the GO put on the continued existence of the congresses, but it appears that no significant development took place there. It may therefore be assumed that the number of participants in the western congresses was about 100. This number is higher than the number of registered members of the lodge le Clermont Amitié for instance, but apparently it is similar to the number of freemasons who took part in the special courses, i.e., the informal political clubs of the beginning of the forties. Thus again, the numerical size did not reflect the innovation which was introduced by the congress of La Rochelle. To gain an understanding of it one must take into account the contents of the proceedings of the various congresses.

The western congresses created in fact a new rung in the hierarchy of the GO. Their regular periodic nature turned them into a mediating body between the center in Paris and the individual lodges. The content of their debates bears witness to the fact that they had no intention of being a pipeline for passing down instructions. Quite to the contrary, their aim was to formulate a platform which would eventually, after passing the democratic steps needed for its ratification, be binding on the leadership and the rest of the organization. The congresses were in fact careful to maintain democratic procedures during votes on decisions of the congress, and the direction in which the congresses evolved hints at a tendency to limit the authority of the center at the expense of the periphery. This tendency meant more democratization, contrary to the character of the regime of Louis-Philippe.

The reason that the idea of Masonic congresses was realized in the provinces and not in Paris, although it already had an infrastructure of unofficial Masonic clubs, lay in the difficulty of maintaining such clubs in small provincial towns. In La Rochelle and other small towns there were usually one or two lodges. Assuming that not all members were interested in the issues which the unofficial clubs dealt with, the number of remaining participants was small. It was, therefore, reasonable to develop the Parisian idea of such clubs in the direction of regional Masonic debate clubs, which would include also members from neighboring towns. However, in contrast to Paris, with its small distances and convenient means of transport, in the provinces it was necessary to overcome the problem of great distances and less developed means of transport. A solution to this problem was found by concentrating representatives of neighboring lodges in one of the towns for several days of concentrated discussions. This demanded a relatively advanced organizational system, for the purpose of maintaining contacts, sending the necessary messages and managing the congress itself, which needed special permission from the GO. The lodge l'Union Parfaite, due to the initiative of Beltremieux, who was familiar from his stay in Paris with the activities of the informal clubs there, was not deterred by these obstacles. The efforts it made in organizing the first western congress in La Rochelle brought about a rather widespread movement of Masonic congresses in France.

One may point to further reasons for the appearance of the congresses at La Rochelle of all places. From one hand, as can be seen from Beltremieux's opening speech, the southwestern departements were undergoing an economic crisis accompanied by high unemployment and severe poverty⁴. From the second hand, the city had a harbor which was visited by numerous English merchant ships, which explains the affinity the local people had for English economic liberalism. In addition, as a provincial harbor town, La Rochelle was endowed with qualities which encouraged the formation of a well developed network of modern bourgeois sociabilité groups, a fact which should have given the organizers the basic know-how for organizing the congresses. Thus, the wish to solve socio-economic problems through collective effort, the difficulty of organizing such efforts, the exposure to Anglo-Saxon culture and the existence of a well developed social infrastructure, all combined to bring into existence the congresses of the west.

The number of participants in the western congresses was rather small and tended to grow even smaller, in spite of the efforts of the organizers to raise it. This indicates that opposition to them existed even among the western lodges, perhaps because they feared the reaction of the regime. A first attempt to breach the official but relatively limited institution of the political club was made by the lodge "les Frères-Réunis" in Steinbach, Alsace. A general meeting of the lodge formulated an invitation, written in German and French, to a Masonic congress to be held in Strasbourg in August, 1846. While the protocol of the congress has not been found, one can see that those who formulated the invitation hoped to develop the idea of regional Masonic congresses into national ones. This can be deduced from the fact that the invitation does not mention that the purpose of the congress is to found a congress of the federation of the lodges of the eastern region of the GO. Such an omission cannot be coincidental, when one takes into account the great care taken in the preparations for the congress. preparations which appear fit for an event with many participants. Invitations to the congress were sent to all GO lodges. The regulations of the congress, which were enclosed with the invitations, were based on those of the western congresses, but the location of the annual session was not limited to the east, but only to a town in which there resided delegates to the congress. The purpose of the congress was, as usual, helping to strengthen the influence of the GO "to strengthen the friendly relationships among all members of the great freemason family" and to create "operational links" between the lodges. The congress was to have convened in the lodge Réunion-des-Arts. The deliberations were to have been held strictly in accordance with Masonic protocol: The floor could be given only by the chairman and of course, there was a ban on discussing political or religious issues. There was no limit on the number of delegates, but each delegation was accorded one vote. There was to have been a standing committee whose job it was to receive the delegates, verify their status, issue membership cards without which it was to have been impossible to participate in the congressional debates, and deal with the routine organizational matters of the congress.

The invitations also contained a proposed agenda. It included the following topics: The mission of freemasonry in the fields of social freedoms and cultural progress; freemasonry's contribution toward ameliorating the situation of the working class in view of the failure of charitable institutions to do so; encouraging masons to become involved in the activities of their organization; aid to needy masons, not based on charity; the problem of sponsorship. It is not certain that the Strasbourg Congress was held and what form it finally took. At any rate, the progressive faction among the freemasons did not give up developing the tendency to extricate the regional congresses from functioning as political clubs and turning them into a larger organization. This tendency can be found in the congress of Toulouse.⁵

The Toulouse Congress was held in June 1847. Its size turned it more to a congress of a modern political party then of a local Masonic Federation. It has hosted 310 representatives of neighboring towns and Paris and tended therefore to adopt a national character. The congress lasted six days, three days longer the usual duration of the Masonic congresses. I assembled in a public auditorium and was sustained by the municipality of Toulouse. It was therefor, fully legal. On the agenda there were all ready traditional issues: the history of the Freemasonry and its contribution to the development of human culture, an analysis of the current and the future situation of Freemasonry and a discussion of civil reforms. The most important result of the Toulouse congress was a reform proposal in the GO that would have enhanced the lodge position vis a vis the GO institutions. This same reform proposal reviled a strong desire to turn the new de-centralized GO into an elitist organization that pay a great attention to the selection only of the best as new members.⁶

The Toulouse congress symbolized a step forward in the development of the Masonic regional congresses organization: Its numeric size and parliamentarian procedures turned it into a pre-partisan institution. Still the congress kept its sociabilité characteristics. It adopted official regulations, had attained the municipality legal recognition and based its deliberations on democratic principles. Above all, the congress discussed national issues in a progressive atmosphere. Sociologically speaking, it was attended by the intellectual, administrative and economic local elites. From the geographical point of view, the Toulouse congress expressed another peak. Like the mode of the sociabilité development during the first half of the 19th country, the congresses movement had its roots in the small maritime towns and from there spread inside France. The first congress was held in the harbor city of la Rochelle then passed to Rochfort and Sante, all of them small towns of 30 thousand people. Reaching to Strasbourg with its 50 thousand population, the congresses invaded the medium town category. Toulouse with a population of 100 thousand people should be regarded already as a big city.

The years 1845-1847 witnessed then a development process of the Masonic congresses that moved from the West to the South-East along the Sharont River in the Midi direction. This movement was based on the existing structures of the Bourgeois Sociabilité and gathered force while penetrating into the depths of that region which was an important center of sociabilité. Though the intellectual roots of the congresses lay in the unofficial political club of the lodges of Paris, Reims and Rouen, it was institutionalized only south of the Loire, in the west and the midi. Indeed, the Toulouse congress incarnated the freedom of the congresses vis. a vis. the lodges from one hand and the GO from another hand. As a new political entity, they turned into a framework that encouraged the development of a democratic civil culture characterized by a strong motivation of maintaining a large scale public activity. At the heart of this civil culture was found a collection of social-economic reformist ideas focused on searching for solutions for the 19th century social problem such as rising the existence level of the poor and establishing a national welfare system. But at the end of the day, all these organizational and intellectual efforts were channeled to one target namely, the development of a Democratic regime. Though the sociabilité based political culture of the midi was characterized by social-democratic trends, it didn't hesitate to use capitalistic modes of action when appropriate. This was the source of influence of the Masonic economic initiatives regarding the projects of Grenoble, Marseille and Lyon. Projects that were designed and financed by the Freemasons themselves and were supposed to have at list a balanced budget. They have translated then the capitalistic private initiative into a political social-democratic one that wished to use the freedom of political action in order to monitor the perilous and negative characteristics of the free market economy.

The social-democratic and initiative political culture of the midi, suited the sociological profile of her representatives. They dwelled the small and medium cities of the Midi and were artisans and small business men having an income that let hem dedicate part of their past time to Masonic activity. By free elections this public delegated the privilege of leadership to a minority of well educated liberal professionals in their thirties. This Masonic elite led, half a year before the 1848 revolution, a dynamic regional Masonic congresses movement that was ripped for the invading new parts of France like Rouen.⁷

The mobilizing capacity and the quick pace of the congress movement development, spread fear among the members of the central institutions of the GO, lest the congresses would turn it into an oppositional organization. In order to prevent any governmental act against the GO, it hastened to publish in January 1848, an order that abolished the congresses. The order defined the congresses movement as a "system of large scale conventions acting outside the GO traditional framework". Though their menace was not big, stated the order, they could have caused illegal acts, thereby endangering the very existence of the Order. Also, the congresses could have menaced its unity because their decisions committed only part of the lodges. Because of these reasons the GO decreed his subjects to strictly follow its official regulations that clearly interdicted maintaining direct relationships among lodges and required that any inter-lodges messages pass through its institutions. After the abolishment of the congresses the political energies of the free masons were channeled to the Banquets movement that became the direct motive of the 1848 revolution. But the ideological and organizational know-how regarding the congresses, was stored in the congresses' proceedings and in pamphlets and newspapers and safely kept in libraries and archives of the lodges and the Masonic newspapers. These information sources influenced progressive freemasons during the Second Empire. And they have turned out to be the base for the renewed Masonic congresses movement launched in 1869 in Metz and a source of inspiration for the establishment of mass voluntary organizations like la Ligue de l'enseignement.