Romano-Celtic Revival in revolutionary France?

One way to conceive of French culture is that it can be seen as a blend of an original Celtic (Gaulish) substrate, a first Italic (Roman) adstrate (of which the French language is a major sign), and a second Germanic (Frankish) adstrate (obviously with other more minor regional influences). This kind of cultural taxonomy didn't really come into fashion until the era of 19th romanticism and ethnic nationalism, and in anthropological/linguistic circles today is considered oversimplified and problematic.
However, at the time of the 1789 revolution, could there have been some faction or philosophical circle that began to identify the Ancien Régime (and perhaps by extension all French monarchies) as Germanic interlopers into what was essentially and popularly a Romano-Celtic nation? And, assuming there was such an element among the revolutionaries, and assuming that they managed to gain positions in a revolutionary government (admittedly a big assumption), could they have initiated a program of Romano-Celtic revivalism in French culture? What would this have looked like, and would it have resonated with the French populace?
 
One way to conceive of French culture is that it can be seen as a blend of an original Celtic (Gaulish) substrate, a first Italic (Roman) adstrate (of which the French language is a major sign), and a second Germanic (Frankish) adstrate (obviously with other more minor regional influences).
Historically, that doesn't make that much sense. As Celtic wasn't an original substrate but another layer on a pre-existing population (that didn't reached all of Gaul), that Germanic influence in N-E precedated Roman influence and co-existed with, that Roman superstrate wasn't present in the same say on all the territory (more in South and along the Rhine for instance), and that Germanic influence was more issued from "make believe" of the merovingian times than an hard and homogenous one.

That said.
It was more or less IOTL how people saw the succession of cultures in the revolutionnary era.
Gallo-Romans were seen as the original inhabitants, forming the mass of peasantry; while Franks were seen as foreign conquerors.

You had different schools : one that estimated that freedom values came from Franks, and the other arguing that as nobles claimed to descend from Franks, these were the responsible of the oppression.

But Celts themselves were seen as a bunch of loosers (defeated by Romans and then by Franks), with barbarian customs (human sacrifice, not even able to have real cities) and therefore unworthy to be the spiritual ancestor of french freedom.
Therefore, you had an huge roman revival, with revolutionnary using all a "roman" decorum (being in the continuity of french classicisme)

That was for OTL.

Allohistorically, you'll need a better knowledge of Gallic civilization. Giving up the roman-centered view (maybe using more greek sources, that name gauls as "friends of Hellenes").
Gallic civilisation being largely known trough archeological sources, however, that's not gonna be easy.

Some years ago, I tought about a successful 1795 expedition d'Irlande, leading to a celtomania in Republican France, as the OTL egyptomania during and after the Expedition d'Egypte.

Needless to say, that's gonna be hard.
 
Didn't French culture remain fundamentally "Romano-Celtic" all along? For instance, the Franks adopted the Catholic faith (as opposed to Arianism, and later, Protestantism) and eventually came to be Romance-speaking. What legacies did the Germanic civilizations leave France? Some vocabulary, and perhaps a few sounds in the French language (i'm guessing that the French "e" and "u" are Germanic in origin?) - I guess there could have been some sort of movement to "purify" French of those. But in general, I don't see a huge amount of Germanic influence in French culture.
 
Didn't French culture remain fundamentally "Romano-Celtic" all along? For instance, the Franks adopted the Catholic faith (as opposed to Arianism, and later, Protestantism) and eventually came to be Romance-speaking.
No.

First, we would have to assume that french culture is homogenous. Looking closely, or even not closely, it's quickly obvious that french identity and culture is a merge of different ones (and I'm considering only the metropolitain origins, it would be too easy otherwise).
Some of these had very little Celtic influence (everything south of Loire, roughly speaking), critically in the regions where Celts were absents (Gascony, Languedoc, Provencal coast, Rhine region, etc.).

Then, it's assuming there were a stratification with groups or individuals clearly identified as Germans, Celts, Romans. In reality, these merged quickly. Celts and Romans formed a creolized culture known as Gallo-Romans, and these merged with Franks quickly, up to the word having a social meaning.
Of course, it's not because these merged that huge differences didn't were maintained.

Quoting Cousinier : Take a red-haired picard and a little brownish provencal, and try telling people they're the same race.

Obviously, and as you said, there were a real important effort to "romanize" french language. An exemple among many : Omme (as in occitan òme) > Homme because it was closer from latin "Hominis".
Not talking about the french grammar rules that was elaborated by fetishists of latin.

Gallo-Roman (as an heterogenous denomination) does form an important basis of french culture, but not something "essential" (in the strictest meaning of the word) or fudamental. Well, except in ideologically loaded considerations, of course.

Can I strongly advise you "Myth of Nations" by Patrick J. Geary, on this subject?

What legacies did the Germanic civilizations leave France?

- Catholicism as dominant religion (granted, it would have happened nevertheless)
- Feudalism and its subsequent influence on french socials strata and administrative divisions, and of course french litterature appearing in MA.
- France (as in French state)
- Genetics
- Surnames

Probably other things as well, but that's the main ones.
 
Is there any way systematic archeology could arise earlier? Exchanging and copying Roman art was a major factor in the spread of Renaissance culture from Italy, and the Egyptomania of the early 19th century was driven to a very large extent by the printed reports of archeological exploration. France is full of really interesting Gallic art, especially La Tene metalwork. If the La Tene style was identified with 'nos ancetres les Gaulois', it would not only provide evidence of a sufficiently sophisticated civilisation to be proud of (waiting to be unearthed wherever the liberating armies of the Republic carry their banners - deep into Germany, the Netherlands and Nothern Italy), but could also serve as an inspiration for a sufficiently patriotic and un-aristocratic fashion in jewlry, furniture and art.

Not to mention it's around this time the epic poetry of Britain's Celtic languages is printed. If that catches on, France could easily claim the whole of Europe's folktale tradition as the product of the 'native Gallic genius of narrative' on that strength, rather like the Germans later came to believe they had invented Märchen.
 
Is there any way systematic archeology could arise earlier?
Possibly, but archeological research would be mainly driven at roman ruins and places. Without pre-existing interest on Gauls, you'd have at best a footnote (and interest on Gaul began to appear precisely because of the collapse of Ancien Régime).

You need not only the emergence of archeology, but also the right mindset.
It may have happened eventually, even under a royalist rule (Chataubriand and his Martyrs are an echo of ossianism), but ask for a society where ideological questioning is at least tolerated on a large scale, to make Celts more than an exotic background.

"Nos ancêtres les Gaulois", more precisely, was a way to find a national and popular base for french nation (going as far it was possible before finding the first named population on all the territory).
Taking the nobiliar argumentation (as nobility pretended coming from Franks), popular classes were assumed coming from Gallo-Romans.
"Our ancestors the Gauls" is then a way to say "We, the people".

This evolution itself began, but wasn't dominant during a Revolution that was still really based on Enlightement works. And these weren't too kind about Gauls : "Barbarians", "shame of nature", "we should move our look aside", etc.

As long nec-plus-ultra would be Roman Antiquity (somethign more obvious than poor remains of Gallic peoples), and history based on Romans sources...
Rome, Sparta, Athens would still be more "interesting" models than Gauls depicted as homicids savages.

To resume, you not only needs an earlier archeological and historical school not based on moralism, an interest on Gauls at least on ideological basis, and institutional scepticism.
The whole things put aside a moment in order to mix up.
 
Top