When Silence Creates Memory: Performed Communities in Nineteenth-century Spanish and French Commemorations

INTRODUCTION

This study considers the performative dimension of commemorations and the interconnections between memory and silence through a comparative study of mid-nineteenth-century Spain and France. It focuses on two liberal constitutional monarchies: the regencies of María Cristina (1833–40) and Espartero (1840–43) in Spain (during the minority of Isabel II) and the July Monarchy in France (1830–48), both of which involved the establishment of new constitutional monarchies. In Spain, this occurred with the end of absolutism after the death of Ferdinand VII, and in France with the introduction of the new dynasty of Orleans, with Louis Philippe as king, after the Revolution of 1830 that revised the granted Charter of 1814 to a liberal constitutional text. Both events established regimes based on the sharing of sovereignty between monarchs and parliaments. In each case, they had to create new referents. In France, it was the Trois Glorieuses, the three days of the revolution that changed the political regime from 27 to 29 July 1830, ending with the Restoration period (1814–30) and the installation of a king by popular will rather than as a natural institution. In Spain, despite never achieving widespread acceptance as a strong element of memory, there was an attempt to project the 1837 Constitution as the basis of the union among liberals and between liberals and the monarchy. The text was forged in the context of a civil war against the absolutists which enabled an apparent and fragile union.

The aim of this study is twofold regarding the role of silence in memory: on the one hand, to show that by studying the performative dimension one can see that, despite the rejection of alternative memories in official commemorations, these memories could still be evoked and were ultimately not forgotten; and, on the other hand, the creation of new narratives from the spaces of silence left to interpretation. Firstly, the study explains its purposes through a review of the most recent advances in memory studies. Secondly, it explores official commemorations and their attempts to silence subversive memories — yet, supposedly conflicting memories were also able to merge through ephemeral performances. Finally, the study argues for the existence of silence as an agency in defining narratives, understanding that the deliberate omission of a narrative can become a space for shaping memories.

The tradition of memory studies is significant and dates back to the pioneering work of sociologists such as Maurice Halbwachs (1925Halbwachs, M. (1925) Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire. Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan.) and historians like Marc Bloch (1924Bloch, M. (1924) Les rois thaumaturges. Étude sur le caractère surnaturel attribué à la puissance royale, particulièrement en France et en Angleterre. Paris: Libraire Istra.). These scholars thought about the association between memory and social groups and made meaningful connections with the history of mentalities. In particular, Halbwachs’ works had significant effects on the idea of collective memory, establishing that shared memories are socially constructed in a particular context (Confino, 2008Confino, A. (2008) “Memory and the History of Mentalities”. In: A. Erll and A. Nünning, eds., Cultural Memory Studies. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 77-84.). These contributions belong to the First Phase of memory studies. Displacing collective memory, Assmann (2011Assmann, J. (2011) [1992] Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.) advocated cultural memory as an alternative idea, understanding that some relevant past events can be maintained through institutional communication and practices to fix a common identity. There are two salient issues concerning this Second Phase. First, memory has often been understood as a tangible thing, as if it reflects real events in the past instead of interpretations of those past events (Feindt et al., 2014Feindt, G., Krawatzek, F., Mehler, D., Pestel, F. and Trimçev, R. (2014) “Entangled Memory: Toward a Third Wave in Memory Studies”. History and Theory, 53, pp. 24-44. doi: 10.1111/hith.10693.). Second, some criticisms address the presupposed homogeneity and unity of memory. The dominant cultural analysis has often been associated with the need to understand the culture of a social entity, linked with a perception of static social groups. Moreover, this approach links memory studies to the analysis of national memories (Englund, 1992Englund, S. (1992) “The Ghost of Nation Past”. Journal of Modern History, 64 (2), pp. 299-320. doi: 10.1086/244481). Pierre Nora’s (1984–1992Nora, P., dir. (1984–1992) Les lieux de mémoire. Paris: Gallimard. 3 vols.) lieux de memoire approach serves as the main example and is the perspective from which many contributions added to discussions in the following decades (Reeves, 2018Reeves, K. (2018) “Sites of memory”. In: A. Maerker, S. Sleight and A. Sutcliffe, History, Memory and Public Life: The Past in the Present. London: Routledge, pp. 65-79.). The issue is not regarding a nation’s framework, but rather the presupposition in the conception of collective memory that a society has a homogeneous ethnicity. In the recent Third Phase of memory studies (Erll, 2011Erll, A. (2011) “Travelling Memory”. Parallax, 17 (4), pp. 4–18. doi: 10.1080/13534645.2011.605570), scholars have focused on the constructivist conception of the past and focused on mental representations through the circulation of narratives, forms, and practices. As several authors (Feindt et al., 2014Feindt, G., Krawatzek, F., Mehler, D., Pestel, F. and Trimçev, R. (2014) “Entangled Memory: Toward a Third Wave in Memory Studies”. History and Theory, 53, pp. 24-44. doi: 10.1111/hith.10693.) have proposed, a socially relevant figuration of memory can be designated as a mnemonic signifier, which enables different mnemonic signifieds, either from a diachronic or a synchronic perspective. That is, a certain reality would have as many possible understandings as there are observers of the same reality.

This study aims to connect with the advances in the Third Phase to show that despite the will of official commemorations in France and Spain to project a coherent narrative and silence alternative recounts, neither these subversive narratives were disremembered nor was the official narrative coherently articulated. Fragmented narratives of past events shaped by several agents have been identified by scholars, rather than fixed national images based only on the agency of states and elites (Bouwers, 2012Bouwers, E. G. (2012) Public Pantheons in Revolutionary France: Comparing Cultures of Remembrance, c. 1790-1840. Houndmills: Palgrave.; Luengo, 2014Luengo, J. (2014) Una Sociedad conyugal: Las élites de Valladolid en el espejo de Magdeburgo en el siglo XIX. Valencia: PUV.). Thus, memory is understood as a current and conflicting construction of the past. This perspective is associated with the topic of focus in recent contributions to the field that have looked beyond the State as the only valid agent of commemorations, and thus, as the main actor in the projection of narrative identities. The analysis has identified other actors as active agents in commemorations, namely intermediate sectors or even civil society (Guardia, 2014Guardia, C. D. L. (2014) “Las culturas de la sociabilidad y la transformación de lo político”. In: M. C. Romeo and M. Sierra, coords., La España liberal, 1833-1874. Madrid: Marcial Pons, pp. 189-215.; Valverde, 2015Valverde, B. (2015) El orgullo de la nación: La creación de la identidad nacional en las conmemoraciones culturales españolas (1875-1905). Madrid: CSIC.).

The study will first define an approach to different existing versions of the same official referents, emphasising the prevalent narrative that was consolidated and the narratives that were apparently silenced. It will move on to examine how antagonistic versions merged with official commemorations in the performative sphere, challenging the understood role of silence as forgetting. Finally, the article describes how actors who had silence imposed upon them by the State still had a voice that shaped narratives.

DID OFFICIAL NARRATIVES SILENCE SUBVERSIVE ALTERNATIVES?

The regime of the July Monarchy wanted to commemorate the Trois Glorieuses as a festivity that recalled the basis of the political regime rather than its revolutionary beginnings. That is, a regime with a new monarchical dynasty with Louis Philippe d’Orleans as the king and based on the shared sovereignty law between the monarchy and the parliamentarian institutions.

It is true that, in the beginning, the official celebration of the 1830 Revolution mingled elements with the Storming of the Bastille in 1789 as both events happened in July. Louis Philippe stressed the following at the first July celebration in 1831: “I have also wanted to celebrate the memory of 14 July 1789. Old enough to have seen this great national victory, I enjoy being able today to gather these two anniversaries in the same commemoration”. Those words were pronounced as the king laid the cornerstone of a funerary monument in honour of the revolutionary victims of 1830. At that moment, a project for a monument was inaugurated at the site of the Bastille to commemorate the Revolution of 1789 along with that of 1830. Engraved at the base of the monument were images of the Storming of the Bastille and the capture of the Hôtel de Ville, which evoked revolutionary moments of both 1789 and 1830. However, the other images referred only to the 1830 Revolution, especially the capture of the Louvre and the king’s jury session. Therefore, the narrative of 1789 was replaced with that of 1830, and the legend would entirely be dedicated to the “27, 28, and 29 of July”, preceded by the motif “Charte de 1830” (Le Moniteur universel, 28 July 1831, p. 1).

In other words, the official narrative not only blurred the memory of 14 July 1789 by reinforcing the events of 1830, but also linked the political horizon of the 1830 Revolution to the 1830 Constitution. It could be said then that the official memory looking to be socially assumed was based on a monarchical regime with restricted rights. The most relevant representative of the liberal right-wing doctrinaires, François Guizot (1859Guizot, F. (1859) Memoirs to Illustrate the History of My Time. London: Richard Bentley., p. 165), remembered regarding the founding of the July Monarchy:

Although the king was portrayed during the first months of the regime as a citizen-king (“le roi bourgeois”), over the years the regime repressed revolutionary expression and even the memory of 14 July 1789, which was indeed isolated from official July celebrations. An ordinance issued by the king as early as July 1831 did not mention 14 July in any of its five articles. Conversely, in its first article, it emphasised that “the days of the 27, 28, and 29 of July 1830 will be celebrated as national feasts” (Duvergier, 1838Duvergier, J. B. (1838) Collection Complète des lois, décrets, ordonnances, règlements et avis du conseil-d’état. Paris: Imprimerie de Pommeret et Guénot, vol. 31., p. 338). Both the political authorities and the king desired to erode and blur the capacity of popular power.

Thus, the revolutionary and popular reverberations connected with the Storming of the Bastille in 1789 were gradually dismissed by Louis Philippe’s regime. Since the memory of 14 July was understood for its transformative implications and was denied with increasing frequency, even commemorations that were organised by groups that were hostile to the regime could be repressed. Parisian Patriotic Clubs, an expression of popular political culture independent from the authorities (Caron, 2005Caron, J.-C. (2005) “Les clubs de 1848”. In: J.-J. Becker and G. Candar, dirs., Histoire des Gauches en France. Paris: La Découverte, v. I, pp. 182-188.), tried to commemorate 14 July in 1831, but their attempt to plant a liberty tree was suppressed (Le Moniteur universel, 14 July 1831). Emmanuel Fureix (2012Fureix, E. (2012) “L’arbre de la liberté dans Le Midi: Conflictualité autour d’un signe révolutionnaire (1814-1852)”. Annales du Midi : revue archéologique, historique et philologique de la France méridionale, 124, (280), pp. 455-472. doi: 10.3406/anami.2012.7430) has shown how the planting of liberty trees in nineteenth-century France was a symbol open to multiple interpretations, depending on the historical and political context. There was always, however, an undeniably leftist stamp that usually challenged the authorities. There were controlled planting events, like in Vizille in 1831, that were tolerated, accompanied by music and a parade of the National Guard.¹Archives Nationales (AN), Paris, Serie F/7/6780, dossier 15. These events, however, had to be supervised or blurred when without supervision.

That is what King Louis Philippe tried to do during his reign with the memory of Napoleon. In 1837, paintings of the “Coronation of the Empress Josephine in Notre-Dame de Paris on 2nd December of 1804” and “The Army’s Oath to the Emperor after the Distribution of Eagles on December 5th 1804” by Jacques-Louis David, along with “The Battle of Aboukir” by Antoine-Jean Gros, were hung in the Salle du Sacre at Versailles. As a result of this initiative of the Royal Museum of the History of France, the king ordered a portrait of himself and pictures of the Battles of Valmy and Jemappes, in which he was successful and reached the grades of Colonel and Lieutenant General, respectively. Thus, he also wanted to project himself as a successful military man and with it leave Napoleon’s memory in a less relevant position — neither Louis Philippe nor the government sent any official representation when the remains of Napoleon arrived in Paris in 1840 (Santirso, 2019Santirso, M. (2019) “Under the Uniform: Tyrants and Praetorians in the Aftermath of the Revolution (1829-1854)”. The Journal of Military History, 83 (2), pp. 379-407.).

Furthermore, legitimists who disapproved of the dynasty of Orleans and were in favour of the return of the previous Bourbon dynasty for a monarchical regime were also not identified within the official narrative projected in the July commemorations. They preferred instead the celebration of Saint Henri in homage to the Count of Chambord, grandson of King Charles X, and even declined the official celebration, with one such example the priest of Autels-Saint-Éloi, currently Les Autels-Villevillon (Eure et Loire), who refused to celebrate a special mass in commemoration of the July celebrations in 1834. According to the gendarme of Eure et Loire, the priest dismissed the demand of local authorities and the National Guard, displeasing the local population.²AN, Paris, Série F/7/6780, dossier 5.

A traditional Second Phase approach to these sources would indeed lead us to a binary interpretation. On the one hand, we could see a prevailing coherent national narrative that identified with a monarchical regime based on the 1830 Constitution. On the other hand, this projected narrative would try to impose an erasure of the opponent’s memory, at least in official events: the ones identifying with a continued transformative context that understood 1830 as a point of departure, the ones rejecting the dynasty of Orleans, or the ones in favour of Napoleon. Thus, the silencing of one reality is a narrative failure and a successful attempt to erase alternative narratives, and the evocation of the same reality is a narrative triumph and a failure of attempts to erase alternative narratives.

According to Paul Ricoeur (1999Ricoeur, P. (1999) La lectura del tiempo pasado: Memoria y olvido. Madrid: Arrecife., pp. 53–60), silence is related to oblivion on two levels. First, on the superficial level it is a way in which remembrance includes and excludes specific discourse, where the evocation of one concrete version of an event silences another. However, such silence does not mean that the version has disappeared but only that it is not present within that concrete evocation. Second, and on a deeper level, forgetting the past means an erasure of experience and memory is often seen as a binary to this oblivion; it prevents the loss of the past and often recovers some experience.

The effort of French governments during the Restoration period (1814–30) to impose a repressive erasure (Connerton, 2008Connerton, P. (2008) “Seven types of forgetting”. Memory Studies, 1, pp. 59-71. doi: 10.1177/1750698007083889) on all symbols that were not identified with the regime, such as busts, flags, or emblems, and narratives, is widely known (Fureix, 2019Fureix, E. (2019) L’oeil blessé: Politiques de l’iconoclasmse après la Révolution française. Ceyzérieu: Champ Vallon., pp. 113-198; Kroen, 2000Kroen, S. (2000) Politics and Theatre: The Crisis of Legitimacy in Restoration France, 1815-1830. Los Angeles: University of California Press.). The intention was to consolidate the monarchy and destroy the memory of those previous episodes, in particular of the Revolution and the Empire under Napoleon, which threatened kingship. However, the politics of oubli have been assessed as a failure because seditious objects could not be eliminated from public or, in particular, private spaces. In other words, the official narrative could not recall alternative memories, but beyond those official spaces authorities were not capable of silencing other narratives.

The same dynamics of confronted narratives that apply to nineteenth-century France are suitable for understanding the Spanish commemoration of the 1837 Constitution. Although it was approved by parliament on 23 May 1837, the Spanish Constitution of 1837 did not officially go into effect until 18 June 1837, when the Queen Regent María Cristina and all the deputies swore in the document in a ceremony that closely resembled those established for the State Opening of Parliament. A parade also preceded the ceremony: the Queen Regent and an entourage of courtiers paraded through the streets of Madrid towards the parliamentary venue accompanied by the National Militia. Once there, a delegation of parliamentarians received the royal family and, together, they entered the venue to swear in the document.

As confirmed by the Queen Regent’s reading during the swearing-in of the Constitution of 1837, as written by the government, the Constitution was presented as a symbol of union and a deterrent to the subversive memory of the Constitution of 1812 that was approved in Cádiz:

In fact, some authors have vindicated this constitution as an outcome of the progressive liberal tendency, and it was progressively rejected by moderate liberals in the following years due to its being conceived as a progressive rule. We will stress this in the following sections. Yet, its origins did not stem from division, but union among liberals, at least apparent in and forced by the circumstances. Liberals from different tendencies discussed its contents and agreed on certain points (Varela, 1983-1984Varela Suances-Carpegna, J. (1983–1984) “La Constitución española de 1837: Una constitución transacional”. Revista de derecho político, 20, pp. 95-106.) in a context of civil war which confronted liberals with absolutists, the Carlist War (1833-40), and enabled rapprochement among liberals and between the monarchy and liberals. The Queen Regent rejected liberalism, but under the circumstances of the war and the threat of the reign by absolutists, she was forced to lean on liberals. The new constitution definitively left aside monarchic absolutism in Spain and any reformist way through a Royalist Chart such as the Royal Statute (1834–36), so that absolutism was hindered in official institutions.

But the 1837 Constitution also denoted a rupture with the parliamentary monarchy of 1812, based on national sovereignty, a unicameral system, and reduced competencies to the Crown (Pro, 2010Pro, J. (2010) El Estatuto Real y la Constitución de 1837. Madrid: Iustel., pp. 112-114). At that moment, both moderates and progressives agreed to reject this narrative of popular power. In fact, the new constitution was promoted as a means to remove the memory of the Constitution of 1812 with its invocations of popular sovereignty. Only a year before, in 1836, an uprising enabled a recovery of the regime of 1812 and that led to popular celebrations across the country, mixing the militia with the population and music, and also with shouts in favour of popular sovereignty. Those festivities mingled the uprising with popular joy, and with the constant threat of war and the need to move deeper into liberalism as a way to deter absolutism (Aquillué, 2020Aquillué, D. (2020) Armas y votos: Politización y conflictividad política en España, 1833-1843. Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico., pp. 58-75). The war was the major political problem at that time, absorbing human, military, and economic resources and efforts.

Authorities from progressive liberals needed social mobilization to favour the consolidation of liberalism, but at the same time feared and rejected uprisings. They desired social and political advances, but from within their control. Thus, they adopted national sovereignty in theory, but a conception of individual rights from natural law was not accepted anymore. Hence the reason why the 1837 Constitution was aimed at presenting an alternative to the cult of 2 May 1808, when the Spanish people rose against the French Napoleonic invasion, preceding the Peninsular War (1808–14). Although this commemoration of 2 May was envisaged as a national day of celebration from the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was not made into a formal national holiday during the 1830s (Demange, 2004Demange, C. (2004) El Dos de Mayo: Mito y fiesta nacional (1808-1958). Madrid: Marcial Pons.).

Considering official festivities, the main difference between France and Spain is that the Trois Glorieuses settled to become a social commemoration along with the July Monarchy, whereas in Spain the attempt to do the same with the Constitution of 1837 failed from the outset. First, despite recalling different episodes, Trois Glorieuses were approved among most French liberals. Second, whereas King Louis Philippe took part in the commemoration and celebrated the event, the Spanish Queen Regent María Cristina only participated in 1837 and even refused the constitutional regime. The Crown did not remotely see the constitutional regime as an item of value. Before the death of Ferdinand VII in 1833, absolutism retained its hegemony and liberalism was only introduced during the short experiences of 1810–14 and 1820–23. As Isabel Burdiel (2010Burdiel, I. (2010) Isabel II: Una biografía. Madrid: Taurus., pp. 25-74) has shown, Queen Regent María Cristina, who ruled the country from 1833 to 1840 on behalf of her daughter, Isabel II, tried to hinder liberalism either with French military intervention, as seen in 1823, or by reaching a pact with the Carlists — the option favoured by the absolutists led by Ferdinand’s brother Charles. Both initiatives failed, not because she was unwilling, but because her interlocutors refused to support her. Forced by the events, María Cristina had to accept certain liberal reforms, such as the Constitution of 1812 that was based on national sovereignty, which she assented to in 1836 because her life was in danger after a liberal rebellion. Her fear of liberal revolutionaries explains her refusal to participate in the State Opening of Parliament during a period of civil war, which witnessed conflict between the liberals and absolutists from 1833 to 1840 (Casado, 2018Casado, M. A. (2018) “María Cristina de Borbón-Dos Sicilias. Escándalos y corrupción”. In: B. D. Riquer, J. Ll. Pérez, G. Rubí, Ll. F. Toledano and O. Luján, dirs., La corrupción política en la España contemporánea: Un enfoque interdisciplinary. Madrid: Marcial Pons, pp. 279-292.). María Cristina’s idea of liberalism united political change with disorder and was also influenced by the experience of her husband, Ferdinand VII. He had rejected the Constitution of 1812. In a private correspondence, he expressed his belief that the document aimed to put an end to “all the thrones and the altar” (Parra, 2018Parra, E. L. (2018) Fernando VII: Un rey deseado y detestado. Barcelona: Tusquets., p. 422). Despite implementing shared sovereignty and retaining some of the Crown’s powers — such as the calling and closing of parliament, executing laws, or designating ministers — the Queen Regent was not enthusiastic about the Constitution of 1837 either.

As these examples suggest, a traditional reading of memories linked to those mnemonic signifiers and implied silences would lead to a bidirectional interpretation, where memories and silences reflect fixed patterns of identification. However, these readings would reflect a simple unidirectional understanding of the implied narratives. Such simplified readings would not elucidate the complexities and nuances of the original interpretation, beginning with the fact that the dominance of one interpretation does not necessarily imply the silence of the other and can even integrate the other interpretation into itself.

Matthijs M. Lok (2014Lok, M. M. (2014) “Un oubli total du passé? The Political and Social Construction of Silence in Restoration Europe (1813-1830)”. History and Memory, 26 (2), pp. 40-75. doi: 10.2979/histmemo.26.2.40) has proposed that silence in Restoration Europe can be considered as a third category between memory and forgetting. Thus, it can be understood as an intentionally constructed erasure of the past from both public and personal perspectives. Lok’s understanding of a social construction of silence implies considering forgetting by a multiplicity of agents and via state policy. However, he does not move beyond linking silence to a means of forgetting the past, implying that there is a distance between silence and other narratives. A performative turn has joined the Third Phase with a focus on processes and performances instead of products and the static ideas of remembrance (David and Holland, 2007David, T. C. and Holland, P., eds. (2007) The Performing Century: Nineteenth-Century Theater’s History. New York: Palgrave.). With this approach, the analysis of mnemonic signifiers creates a space for mnemonic practices, as it has accepted the idea that remembering is a social action.

OFFICIAL COMMEMORATIONS IN THE PERFORMATIVE SPHERE

Political leaders of the July Monarchy in France created an inclusive commemorative calendar. According to Rémi Dalisson (2009Dalisson, R. (2009) Célébrer la nation: Les fêtes nationales en France de 1789 à nos jours. Paris: Noveau Monde Éditions.), the July Monarchy was characterised by an eclectic atmosphere surrounding this calendar. On the one hand, the public image of Louis Philippe connected with the traditional festivities of the monarchy, such as the King’s Day on 1 May. On the other hand, the commemoration of the Trois Glorieuses recalled the Revolution of 1830. The celebration of Saint Philippe connected the king with a religious festival which was popularly revived at the end of the 1830s (Franconie, 2009Franconie, G. (2009) “Louis-Philippe et la sacralité royale après 1830”. In: H. Becquet and B. Frederking, dirs., La dignité de roi : Regards sur la royauté au premier XIXe siècle. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, pp. 97-116.). Of course, legitimists and clergymen who identified with the Restoration period were not enthusiastic and such religious events did not preclude their rejection of a king seen as illegitimate (Vauthier, 1917Vauthier, G. (1917) “Le clergé et la fête de Louis-Philippe en 1831.” La Révolution de 1848 et les révolutions du XIXe siècle, 71, pp. 17-23.). However, the celebration enabled a popular connection between the King and the French population beyond the connotations of the revolution. Popular and monarchical associations were initially encouraged during the celebration of the Trois Glorieuses. For example, a special day was dedicated to honour those who had lost their lives in the Revolution of 1830. Whether through a religious ceremony, a funeral march, or the construction of a memorial monument, such as a column at the site of the Bastille, the martyrs of the revolution were the main focus of public remembrance during the initial period.

The Bastille column became a meeting place for the July celebrations in Paris. It was an integration of revolutionary symbolism (for instance, by exhibiting the tricoloured flag, as opposed to the white flags associated with the Bourbon Restoration), and the public that attended was also identified with the martyr cult. At these events, participants were dressed mostly in black as a symbol of grief (Le Moniteur universel, 28 July 1831, p. 1), showing their identification with the dead. While some liberal leftists and republicans rejected the performance, it did have a popular appeal and a degree of inclusivity. A report in Les Tombeaux des Innocents (1831Les Tombeaux des innocents et du Louvre et histoire du chien fidèle au profit des blessés, veuves et orpheli (1831). Paris: Chez Thierry et chez Petit., pp. 2–3) published epitaphs for the dead of the 1830 Revolution and described the mourners:

According to Lucy Riall (2010Riall, L. (2010) “Martyr Cults in Nineteenth-Century Italy”. The Journal of Modern History, 82 (2), pp. 255-287. doi: 10.1086/651534), a martyr was a compelling symbol of collective belonging which made sense of death as a sign of strength, thereby appealing to emotions and awakening a social connection with public performative remembrance. This was also complemented by the parade of combatants from the Honour Legion, decorated for their involvement in the 1830 Revolution (Le Moniteur universel, 30 and 31 July 1838, p. 1).

However, the memories awakened by the National Guard were not restricted to the Revolution of 1830. The Guard could recall other events not necessarily fixed to the official narrative as its members were involved in the Storming of the Bastille in 1789. For Republicans, the National Guard symbolised sovereignty in arms, despite attempts by conservative July authorities to project it as a reinforcement of order rather than as a player in the transformative sphere (Larrère, 2016Larrère, M. (2016) L’urne et le fusil: La garde nationale parisienne de 1830 à 1848. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France., p. 50):

The performative dimension of the July Feasts entailed National Guard troops parading and mingling with the audience, and even playing music (Le Moniteur universel, 28 July 1833, p. 1). These performances were deemed successful because of “the acclamations” received with “an enthusiasm difficult to describe” (Le Moniteur universel, 30 July 1832, p. 1). They also enabled a mnemonic process, by which the involvement of different elements — the National Guard, the monarch, the martyr cult, and the combatants — implied unifying potential controverted memories. Of course, the performance did not express a political consensus and could even project conflicting sentiments, as the same mnemonic signifier — the National Guard, for instance — recalled opposing experiences. However, the performance momentarily projected an ideal of a community.

This happened because popular engagement was balanced by the participation of the monarchy. Both monarchs, Spanish and French, personally applauded during the commemorations, awakened feelings of social protection, and their indissoluble connection with the regimes was also celebrated.

Louis Philippe, dressed in the uniform of the National Guard, projected himself both as an equal among citizens and as the supreme head of state who commanded the army. His parades from the Royal Palace to the site of the Bastille paid homage to the dead revolutionaries and his inspections of the troops caught public attention and correlated well with the image of unity between the regime and monarch. The enthusiasm shown by the public aroused a mixture of feelings, as illustrated by the shouts “for France, for his king, for their liberty” and the acclamations “Hurrah the King”, “Hurrah the National Guard”, and “Hurrah the banlieue!” (Le Moniteur universel, 31 July 1831). This allowed the king to appear as an accessible figure and a symbol of union, order, and freedom (Corbin, 1994Corbin, A. (1994) “L’impossible présence du roi: Fêtes politiques et mises en scène du pouvoir sous la Monarchie de Juillet”. In: A. Corbin, N. Gérôme and D. Tartakowsky, dirs., Les usages politiques des fêtes aux XIXe – XXe siècles. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, pp. 77-116.). During the first months of his reign, he even played an open role, expressing revolutionary enthusiasm, mingling with the people, and appearing to be a citizen-king because he was a product of the revolution.

In Spain, comparable performances accomplished less. There was an official attempt to silence revolutionary memory at the end of María Cristina’s regency. Liberal moderates and progressives rejected both the revolutionary memory assigned to the Constitution of 1812 (based on national sovereignty) and the commemoration of 2 May 1808. However, the performative dimension of the commemoration of the 1837 Constitution still permitted a transformative remembrance, which took place during the oaths of allegiance to the Constitution in 1837 and thus in a more limited context than comparable French ceremonies in the same period, but also, nonetheless, involving the National Militia and the Royal Family. During the ensuing parade, the monarch and an entourage of courtiers walked through the streets of Madrid towards the parliament accompanied by the National Militia, thereby reinforcing social bonds with the monarchy (Luján, 2019Luján, O. (2019). “Escenificaciones de poder en el ceremonial de las aperturas de Cortes españolas del siglo XIX”. Hispania, 79 (261), pp. 99-126. doi: 10.3989/hispania.2019.004).

In an epoch where the dynasty was challenged by the Carlist threat, the Queen Regent and her daughter needed popular legitimisation. The Crown also instrumentalised the proclamation in 1840 that Queen Isabel II was of legal age. Some parades connected monarchical emotions with popular feelings. The 1837 parade is one such example:

Similar to France, the Spanish community was momentarily recognised via a commemoration that recalled the idea of order represented by the Crown and the Constitution of 1837. However, the involvement of the National Militia also evoked an ideal of transformation, its presence embodying a feeling of identification and social engagement with most of the public, according to Government Minister Pío Pita Pizarro:

The National Militia contributed, alongside the regular army, to establishing liberalism in Spain, which was accomplished by defeating absolutism during the Carlist War (1833–40). However, at the same time, the corps or members of the corps had been involved in violent events, even with murders against absolutists. As Aquillué (2020Aquillué, D. (2020) Armas y votos: Politización y conflictividad política en España, 1833-1843. Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico.) has shown, the National Militia was an essential instrument that contributed to the rupture with absolutism and the consolidation of liberalism, and also to defeating Carlists in the war. But this also implied being involved in conflicts — sometimes violent — of a political nature across the country. Its members contributed to shaping an advanced liberal political culture, in favour of an armed National Militia but excluding absolutists and even conservative liberals. That is the reason why, beyond the capital and in particular within liberal moderates, the Militia was not only progressively rejected, but also even feared. In other words, if the involvement of the Militia in official commemorations could evoke some episodes of popular participation and mobilisation and freedom, then for others it might imply violence and repression.

The Spanish Militia gradually came to be conceived as a corps of liberal progressives, especially when the Carlist War ended. Liberal Moderates even dissolved it for this reason when they took over the government in 1844 (Roca, 2020Roca, J. (2020) “La milicia nacional o la ciudadanía armada. El contrapoder revolucionario frente al liberalismo institucional”. Bulletin d’Histoire Contemporaine de l’Espagne, 54. doi: 10.4000/bhce.2598; Veiga, 2020Veiga, X. R. (2020) “La Milicia Nacional en España, 1820-1856”. Claves. Revista de Historia, 6 (11), pp. 203-240. doi: 10.25032/crh.v6i11.8), thereby eliminating an instrument that symbolised more democratic political citizenship. Nor did Liberal Moderate governments continue to promote the celebration of the 1837 Constitution (Pérez, 2016Pérez Núñez, J. (2016) “Conmemorar la nación desde abajo: Las celebraciones patrióticas del Madrid progresista, 1836-1840”. Historia y política: Ideas, procesos y movimientos sociales, 35, pp. 177-202. doi: 10.18042/hp.35.08), rejecting it along with the Militia.

The commemoration of the 1837 Constitution had a remarkably popular response in Madrid in that first year but lost its relevance in the coming years throughout the country. The remembrances held in 1838 and 1839 in Madrid never reached the level of enthusiasm shown in 1837: it was little more than a meal, and even that was rejected by some of the Liberal Progressive authorities who were supposed to be involved. Later, Liberal Moderate governments did not continue to promote the celebration (Pérez, 2016Pérez Núñez, J. (2016) “Conmemorar la nación desde abajo: Las celebraciones patrióticas del Madrid progresista, 1836-1840”. Historia y política: Ideas, procesos y movimientos sociales, 35, pp. 177-202. doi: 10.18042/hp.35.08). Even if the balance could be achieved at the 1837 celebration, this act of commemoration, neither in 1838 nor in 1839, never again merged the Crown’s parade, National Militia participation, and City Council programmes that included public lectures and another parade of civil and military authorities and public dances over several days.

Beyond Madrid, the main problem preventing the consolidation of the official commemoration was twofold: the rejection of the Militia’s involvement by moderate authorities and the Carlist War. The Constitution of 1837 pre-dated the conclusion of the war, during which the climate of fear and uncertainty meant it could not be presented as a cohesive solution. While the Constitution was celebrated in several towns in the province of Cáceres, some towns in the nearby province of Badajoz were simultaneously attacked by Carlist troops. Given these wartime conditions: “The mood was neither calm nor satisfied, and the ceremony was not enough to calm public anxiety” (El Español, 16 July 1837, p. 1). These circumstances prevented the National Militia from participating in most of the celebrations in the provinces since it had to focus on military defence. At best, in some cases, only high officials were involved in these events (El Español, 19 July 1837, p. 4), and there is no evidence of any attempt at celebration in 1838 and 1839.

In short, although both official commemorations could be read as being based on narratives of revolutionary exclusion, in the performative sphere they projected a balance between the principles of monarchy and popular participation. However, their successes were dissimilar and in Spain the narrative failed after 1837.

SILENCE AS A SPACE IN WHICH MEMORIES ARE SHAPED

In the previous sections, it has been argued that even when official commemorations prioritised a concrete narrative, other visions of the same mnemonic signifier were not necessarily forgotten and could even be echoed in the performative sphere. This meant that narratives could be present even when they were not articulated. According to recent contributions from different fields (Acheson, 2007Acheson, K. (2007) “Silence in Dispute”. Annals of the International Communication Association, 31, pp. 2-59. doi: 10.1080/23808985.2007.11679064; Schröter, 2013Schröter, M. (2013) Silence and Concealment in Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.), silence has been defined as an active form of participation in the political sphere. As Theo Jung (2017Jung, T. (2017) “Le silence du peuple: The rhetoric of silence during the French Revolution”. French History, 31 (4), pp. 440-469. doi: 10.1093/fh/crx062) has shown regarding its use in the study of political communication in Revolutionary France, silence did not imply non-communication. It also expressed discontent and signified a mode of political action. Silence maintained this continuity in Restoration France (Fureix, 2009Fureix, E. (2009) La France des Larmes: Deuils Politiques à l’âge romantique (1814-1840). Seyssel: Champ Vallon.).

Furthermore, this section explores a second axis consisting of the agency of silence. In other words, the reaction created by the reception of silence, whether it is state-imposed silence — what Connerton (2008Connerton, P. (2008) “Seven types of forgetting”. Memory Studies, 1, pp. 59-71. doi: 10.1177/1750698007083889) defines as “repressive erasure” — or is supposedly agreed upon by the actors involved, defined by Connerton as “prescriptive forgetting”. These spaces of silenced narratives promoted by states will be analysed as opportunities to shape official memories created through the agency of the State and individuals. The interaction that mobilised citizens, local institutions, and other agents in support of official narratives will show that the space left by supposedly silenced memories led to the transformation of official commemorations’ meanings.

As seen before, different elements contributed to the failure of the commemoration of the 1837 Constitution in Spain: the circumstances of the Carlist War, the change of the political tendency of the governments of Spain — from Liberal Progressives in 1837 to Liberal Moderates between 1838 and 1840 — and the gradual perception of the 1837 Constitution as a progressive law by moderates. This occurred especially in 1840. At that time, moderates wanted to introduce different reforms, most notably including the municipal reform which aimed to remove most of the town council’s competencies and the capacity to be popularly elected and introduce the government’s authority over the Militia (Garrido, 2016Garrido Muro, Luis (2016) Guerra y Paz: Espartero durante la Regencia de María Cristina de Borbón. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales., pp. 279-283). Progressives understood it was against the Constitution and advocated a popular uprising. If until then moderates were not enthusiastic about the 1837 Constitution, then from that moment on they fully rejected it and their memory of the text completely changed according to this new memory. As an example, the deputy Francisco Javier Istúriz, in debating the moderate Constitution of 1845 in parliament, advocated maintaining the Constitution of 1837, but also confessed that he disapproved of its “disloyal” and “spurious” origins.⁴Diario de Sesiones del Congreso de los Diputados de España, legislatura 1844-45, p. 129. That is, the Constitution of 1837 was regarded by Istúriz, based on his opportunity, as a betrayal of the Crown in the context of war and imposed limitations upon the power of the Crown and was in no way a constitution based on consensus.

Far from forgetting its commemoration, Liberal Progressive governments interpreted the situation as a sign that the Constitution needed to be reinterpreted to enhance the popularity of its remembrance. This is similar to Connerton’s (2008Connerton, P. (2008) “Seven types of forgetting”. Memory Studies, 1, pp. 59-71. doi: 10.1177/1750698007083889) third type of silence: forgetting as constitutive of the formation of a new identity. That is, silence was seen as supporting such a process that necessarily discarded other narratives. Yet, the emphasis is placed here on the agency of silence in creating new narratives without discarding other ones.

In Spain, the public silence in response to official celebrations did not imply the oblivion of the 1837 Constitution. Instead, it was a potential space to shape and produce new memories. The Liberal Progressives, who recovered the government after the 1840 Revolution, tried to offer a new interpretation of the Constitution in order to increase social support. In 1840, a new law was introduced that proclaimed 18 June a national holiday.⁵“Ley sancionada por S. M. en Calatayud el 16 de junio de 1840, declarando fiesta nacional la conmemoración del juramento y promulgación de la Constitución de la Monarquía”, documento P-002-00105, Archivo del Congreso de los Diputados (ACD), Madrid.

The second article of the law that made the anniversary of the swearing-in of the 1837 Constitution a national holiday also stipulated that the Constitution would be celebrated “in all the towns and by the army troops with great solemnity”. The State did not provide for expenses, which might have persuaded towns to celebrate this national holiday.⁶Diario de Sesiones del Congreso de los Diputados, legislatura de 1840, pp. 1849-1851. The State hoped that emphasising the vision of the Constitution as an emblem of freedom and a guarantee of respect for individual rights, and not merely as a symbol of union, would be incentive enough to encourage participation. In other words, after the 1840 Revolution, claiming that the 1837 Constitution was an emblem of political union was not possible anymore, so a new reading was needed and progressives tried to appeal to the advanced political sectors.

There were changes in the meaning of the commemoration and a recovery of the involvement of the National Militia and its representation of a broader idea of citizenship was linked to an advanced and radical political culture. For example, in 1841 the celebration was viewed with mixed feelings in Toledo because the province’s political head forced the corps to parade separately from the army (El Correo Nacional, 17 June 1841, p. 2). The following year, the national holiday was celebrated there “with a pomp unseen in previous years”, as the National Militia played a significant part in the activities, even performing music at night (El Eco del Comercio, 24 June 1842, p. 1).

The performance of the celebration aroused excitement among the leftist opposition. However, despite government efforts, radical liberals, especially in Barcelona, still distrusted the 1837 Constitution as a guarantee of respect for individual rights. Thus, they responded to calls for celebration with indifference. The popular disapproval of the Constitution was summarised by the democratic newspaper El Popular (21 June 1841, p. 2): “Have our readers seen anything about this national holiday or any shadow of solemnity? Well, neither have we, despite the sun setting on the third Sunday in June. […] Nobody has remembered the celebration because it is not a true holiday.”

Progressive, and especially radical liberals preferred to celebrate the fall of the moderates during the 1840 Revolution, which led to the exile of the Queen Regent and the accession of the military hero Espartero as the new regent during a period dominated by Liberal Progressive governments (1840–43) (Roca, 2018Roca, J. (2018) “Las fiestas cívicas del trienio progresista (1840-1843): Progresistas enfrentados y desafío a la regencia”. Historia Contemporánea, 56, pp. 7-45. doi: 10.1387/hc.17642). Moreover, the connotations of the official commemoration performance tended to replace or even exclude the recollections awakened by the Crown. It is true that, as previously, these events displayed portraits of Isabel II in significant public places (El Eco del Comercio, 26 June 1842, p. 2); however, the commemoration simultaneously displayed portraits of Regent Espartero in similarly prominent positions. Thus, Espartero projected himself as the country’s main leader. Dressed in the uniform of a captain-general for the public celebrations surrounding his swearing-in as regent, Espartero introduced himself as the head of all military troops, including the National Militia (Shubert, 2018Shubert, A. (2018) Espartero, el Pacificador. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg., pp. 248-249).

It is worth mentioning again that the 1837 Constitution was definitively linked to the progressives, particularly about the crisis and Revolution of 1840. When Espartero arrived in Barcelona to discuss reforms with the Queen Regent, the city was teeming with flags bearing articles of the Constitution, and the town council showed a flag with the article regulating municipal government (Shubert, 2018Shubert, A. (2018) Espartero, el Pacificador. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg., p. 214). Espartero was there to convince the Queen Regent not to introduce the new municipal reform. In other words, he was involved as a supporter of a progressive reading of the 1837 Constitution.

At that time, at the end of the war, both in 1839 and 1840 town councils throughout Spain were occupied with organising reception ceremonies for Espartero, which even took place in his absence (Shubert, 2018Shubert, A. (2018) Espartero, el Pacificador. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg., pp. 222-223). Espartero turned out to be a popular celebrity, to the point of being acclaimed by the masses on his arrival in Barcelona during the crisis of 1840 or even with a three-day celebration upon his return to Madrid, a festivity dedicated to himself. At that juncture his cult had reverberated in Spaniards’ daily lives, and even children were dressed in his style for special occasions or men carried a picture of him in silver cigar cases (Shubert, 2015Shubert, A. (2015) “Being and Staying Famous in 19th-Century Spain: Baldomero Espartero and the Birth of Political Celebrity”. Historia y Política, 34, pp. 211–237. doi: 10.18042/hp.34.08).

Therefore, because the commemoration of the 1837 Constitution throughout the country was based on military parades led by regional military heads, the event seemed to relegate the Crown to a secondary position and with it the feelings that were stirred up in some monarchical sectors. In Málaga, beyond the repeated cheers for the Queen, equally enthusiastic cheers were offered for Espartero. The speech by the military head of the province linked the memory of the 1837 Constitution to the will of the citizens and the action of military forces, omitting the Crown:

This narrative sparked a great deal of criticism from people with a wide range of opinions. At the State Opening of Parliament in 1843, the infante Francis — the uncle of Isabel II and the youngest brother of Ferdinand VII — was absent because he did not want to play a role that was less relevant than Espartero’s (El Heraldo, 5 April 1843, p. 2). Moreover, Liberal Moderates rejected the distance that was publicly projected between the Crown and parliamentary institutions, associating this detachment with the Constitution of 1837. Thus, the 1837 Constitution’s commemoration was finally dismissed with the arrival of the Liberal Moderates to the government in 1844 and the promotion of a new constitution.

Simultaneously, in France, although July Feasts were consolidated nationwide along with the July Monarchy, the place of the Crown and National Guard changed over the years, as did the nature of the memories they evoked. On the one hand, Louis Philippe was not as frequently involved with the population after the early years of the regime. Thus, his contacts with the French were only occasional (Broglie, 2011Broglie, G. D. (2011) La monarchie de Juillet, 1830-1848. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard., p. 133). Usually, he and his family did not reside in Paris. They would arrive at the Tuileries Palace, in the centre of Paris, just before the commemoration of the Trois Glorieuses and would leave the city immediately after the celebration (Le Moniteur universel, 27 July 1837, 31 July 1839, 28 July 1841). On some occasions, Louis Philippe even arrived in Paris when the festival celebrations were half over, and his role was limited to an appearance on the balcony of the Tuileries Palace (Le Moniteur universel, 30 July 1837, 31 July 1837 and 29 July 1838).

On the other hand, the role of the National Guard was weakened. The National Guard indeed attended these events, but as individuals or small groups with no explicit performative role, as, during the final years of the regime, the authorities hardly assembled the corps for official feasts for fear of opposition. The initial parade of troops even ceased to occur. From the very beginning of the July Regime, the authorities were wary of the National Guard because it implied the existence of a corps with both civil and military dimensions. Therefore, authorities wanted to limit the National Guard’s capacity to distribute arms among its members and its capacity to enable popular engagement in the political sphere (Crépin, 2006Crépin, A. (2006) “La Garde nationale, les gauches et l’idéal de la nation armée sous la monarchie de Juillet”. In: S. Bianchi and R. Dupuy, dirs., La Garde nationale entre nation et peuple en armes : Mythes et réalités, 1789-1871. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, pp. 451-462., pp. 451-462).

In other words, the transformative role that could have been evoked by the National Guard in the July Feasts gradually faded. While also omitting the remembrance of 14 July, the official July celebrations placed popular participation in a civic dimension with recreational rather than political involvement (Le Moniteur universel, 30 and 31 July 1845, p. 2). Popular involvement in these events was limited to horse races, concerts, theatre, and leisure, rather than to political activities (Le Moniteur universel, 27 July 1840, p. 1).

As a result, the political transformations linked to 14 July were ignored and even repressed by French authorities when they no longer controlled their public expression. Given these circumstances, an alternative model emerged, embodied by celebratory banquets. These banquets were a means of reclaiming the memory that had been increasingly neglected in the official imagination and a way to actively engage with society and its past, recalling again the sense of community in the performative sphere. In other words, in France silence also spurred the introduction of a new reading of the July festivities. In this case, the new reading derived not from the government but from mobilised individuals who identified with a transformative idea of the 1830 Revolution.

These banquets facilitated the sharing of transformative memories and contained a performative dimension. Indeed, participants would gather in the streets singing and shouting challenges, whether pro-republican or against the authorities. For instance, the Lieutenant of Loudéac explained to the Interior Minister that the population had organised a banquet on 29 July 1832 to commemorate the anniversary of the 1830 Revolution. His report contained criticisms because of the absence of a bust of the king. When a bust was supplied, someone removed its crown because “he does not deserve to be wearing a crown”.⁷AN, Paris, Série F/7/6779, dossier 20. In addition, after the event concluded, people were heard yelling “Long live the Republic” in a nearby café. Similar acts were repeated in different locations that year, such as Dijon, where young people gathered in the Royal Square after a banquet to sing and dance, and cries in favour of the Republic were heard.⁸AN, Paris, Série F/7/6779, dossier 21. Another instance occurred in Castelnaudary, where, after a banquet, some people sang the revolutionary hymn “Ça ira” followed by booing for Louis Philippe.⁹AN, Paris, Série F/7/6779, dossier 10. The act of collective singing implied strengthened social bonds in a relational performance, and thus enabled a sense of community (Watts and Morrissey, 2019Watts, R. J. and Morrissey, F. A. (2019) “Creating Community and Identity Through Song”. In: R. J. Watts and F. A. Morrissey, Language, the Singer and the Song: The Sociolinguistics of Folk Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–112.). However, this ephemeral community did not share monarchical sensibilities, which were not integrated into these performative actions.

Despite spaces that were open for liberal political expressions, during the July Monarchy such banquets provided a space for political participation that had formerly been unavailable as they were usually a means to circumvent the ban on public political meetings. Given these circumstances, the regime’s initial response to those politicised banquets was to regulate their organisation or to ensure the participation of the authorities.¹⁰AN, Paris, Série F/7/6780, dossier 15. When such control was not possible and banquets were seen as potential spaces for political opposition they were subsequently banned. For instance, a banquet planned for 14 July 1840 in Paris was prohibited:

The National Guard embodied these ideas of social engagement in the public sphere and thus enabled the organisation of and participation in acts that stimulated a sense of community. The regime’s fear of losing control over banquets, and, consequently, over the civic and non-transformative narrative of the July festivities, reached such heights that the authorities accused the National Guard of subversive activities and prosecuted it. As the satirical publication Le Charivari (30 July 1845, p. 4) wryly noted in 1845: “The National Guard was refused permission to meet at a banquet for the July festivities. Does the authority want to cut their funds?” According to Amy Wiese (2010Wiese Forbes, A. (2010) The Satiric Decade: Satire and the Rise of Republicanism in France, 1830-1840. Plymouth: Lexington Books.), satire emerged as a form of political criticism during the July Monarchy and had an impact on the public’s engagement in the political sphere.

Therefore, it is unsurprising that in this historical context, with restrictions regarding the legality of association and the freedom of speech and expression, the electoral banquet campaign in 1847 became a citizen struggle for freedom of expression which also overturned the July Monarchy (Robert, 2010Robert, V. (2010) Le temps des banquets: Politique et symbolique d’une generation (1818-1848). Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne.). In the case of France, silence around the memories of transformative events was used by individuals as a means to reinterpret and reshape the July festivities.

CONCLUSIONS

The notion of collective memory, which has characterised the approach to prefixed identities in memory studies, has gradually been replaced by other approaches that address the construction of a particular past event. In doing so, individual perceptions have gained relevance through entanglements and processes that make the complexity of the act of remembrance evident (Lok, 2014Lok, M. M. (2014) “Un oubli total du passé? The Political and Social Construction of Silence in Restoration Europe (1813-1830)”. History and Memory, 26 (2), pp. 40-75. doi: 10.2979/histmemo.26.2.40). With its comparison of French and Spanish cases in the mid-nineteenth century, this study has shown how public narratives, even when projected by states, cannot be taken for granted so easily. It is not only that a coherent official narrative did not exist, even among the authorities, but that a narrative exposed to public scrutiny is always subjected to interactions on the part of multiple agents. That is, memory is not a unidirectional narrative, but is fragmented and subject to multiple entanglements, interactions, and interpretations.

Therefore, silence is not merely reduced to oblivion but can be a place to shape and negotiate memories. Interaction can begin with individuals, as the French case has shown in the example of the banquets and the reconstruction of the narrative associated with the July Feasts. It can also exist with states acting as agents capable of negotiating memories — as the Spanish case made evident with the new official reading of the Constitution of 1837 in 1840 — as agents imposing narratives and repressively erasing memories.

If, at times, a commemorative narrative has social coherence and projects a shared identity, it is not due to a previously fixed coherent national identity; rather, it is owing to a performed community, an ephemeral mnemonic process that consists of a conjunctural recreation. Therefore, understanding memories as more than evidence of collective identities, memory has been proposed here as a way to approach the performative collective construction of the past. According to this proposed view, it is easier to express a mnemonic signifier’s inherently contradictory relations, namely its mnemonic signifieds.