by Philip Dwyer
The second treaty was signed two days later, and concerned Prussia. Once peace was decided, it was simply a question of agreeing on the price. Alexander was faced with a moral dilemma of sorts; he did not want to appear to abandon his ally Frederick William, but he had no real choice.71 Prussia was in no position to continue the campaign, and Russia was not prepared to continue the struggle alone (nor was it able to at this stage), all the more so since Napoleon had been getting cosy with the Ottoman Empire. Frederick William was present at Tilsit, but was not invited to take part in the negotiations. While the two emperors were meeting on the raft, the King of Prussia, on whose land this meeting was taking place, was obliged to wait on the bank of the river, wrapped in a Russian overcoat, to learn the outcome of the discussions.72 After two hours, the Tsar came ashore to inform him that Napoleon would see him, but only on the following day.
Anonymous, Diné donné par Sa Majesté Napoléon I.er . . . à Leurs Majestés Alexandre I.er . . . Frédéric [Guillaume] III . . . Grand Duc de Berg (Dinner offered by His Majesty Napoleon I . . . to Their Majesties Alexander I . . . Frederick [William] III . . . and the Grand Duke of Berg), 1807. In this engraving, Napoleon is the equal of his eastern European counterparts, Alexander I and Frederick William IIII, dining together in an intimate setting, as though they were friends. Such a dinner never occurred, and the scene belies the hostility that Frederick William and to a lesser extent Alexander felt towards Napoleon.
The next day, Frederick William was invited by Napoleon to board the raft for an audience, but he was treated little better than an envoy, and was made to wait in an antechamber while Napoleon and Alexander saw to some unfinished paperwork. When the two finally met, there was no dialogue, no discussions or negotiations. Instead, Napoleon badgered Frederick William about the mistakes he and his generals had made during the campaign. He did not even deign to inform the king what he had decided. A week later, in a desperate and rather pathetic gesture, Frederick William sent his wife, Queen Luise, ‘to save Prussia’, to intervene, to plead with Napoleon not to annex territories that had been with the kingdom for centuries.73 The queen used all the charm and coquettishness that she was capable of, and in her own words ‘cried for the love of humanity’, but to little effect. Napoleon was careful not to say anything that could later be used to wrest concessions from him.
Luise and her husband suffered one humiliation after another; whenever the three monarchs rode in public, Frederick William trotted behind Napoleon and Alexander, as though he were a minor German prince. The Prussian royal couple were put up in a flour mill, one still being used by French troops to grind grain and housing the mules of the miller. ‘It was a competition to see who could make the most noise to interrupt the sleep of the poor King and his beautiful queen.’74 Prussia was reduced to a size on a par with Bavaria, losing half its territory and its population, so that it became little more than a buffer state between the French and Russian empires. Former Prussian territory in the west was incorporated into the newly created Kingdom of Westphalia, with a population of about two million people, while most of the Polish lands in the east went to create the Duchy of Warsaw.
Not only did Napoleon partition the Prussian state, but it had to endure two years of occupation during which the French extorted about 1.4 billion francs, more than sixteen times the Prussian state’s annual revenue.75 And this is not counting the depredations of the troops. Prussia was despoiled in ways that no other French-occupied country had been till then, with a degree of vengeance that lacked humanity. East Prussia in particular suffered from having to feed an army of 350,000 men. Whole villages were destroyed, estates burnt to the ground, livestock decimated and harvests confiscated and often wasted through misuse. The figures are mind-boggling. Between August 1807 and December 1808, more than 100,000 horses were taken from Berlin, and more than 760,000 from the province of Brandenburg. Just about all the livestock was taken; in East Prussia, only 2 to 5 per cent of the pre-war totals were left. The enormous hardships this kind of destruction and exploitation caused cannot be underestimated. Lack of food led to the weakening of people’s immune systems so that the inevitable outbreaks of dysentery, cholera and typhoid resulted in high death tolls. Berlin’s infant mortality rate rose to about 75 per cent in 1807–8.76 Suicide rates went up to six to ten per week in Berlin and Potsdam; unemployment and ‘melancholy’ were the usual motives.
Napoleon’s treatment of Prussia and Frederick William is puzzling. In a letter to Josephine written shortly before Jena, he said that he felt sorry for Frederick William because he was ‘good’.77 Now, however, his behaviour was downright vindictive. Napoleon had considered an alternative – demanding the abdication of Frederick William III in exchange for territorial benefits that he hoped would have brought about the complete loyalty of a new monarch.78 German historians generally argue that Napoleon even considered eliminating the House of Hohenzollern and giving the Prussian throne to his brother Jérôme, but under some pressure from Alexander he agreed to let the kingdom continue to exist.79 Certainly, it would not have been the first time Napoleon had overthrown a ruling house; recall the Bourbon dynasty in Naples being ousted and replaced by Joseph in 1806 (and we will soon see the example of Spain). There is nothing, however, that allows us to draw the conclusion that Napoleon was bent on the destruction of Prussia.80
‘Everybody Hated the French’
Many contemporaries believed that the alliance between the two great powers, France and Russia, could not last. The Austrian ambassador to Paris, Metternich, may have been a little more prescient than most, but he was also convinced that the two emperors would inevitably fall out.81 Given the reaction in Russia to the treaty it is not surprising. If the initial response to the end of the war was one of relief, the Russian political elite was less than impressed by Alexander’s performance on the battlefield.82 As the extent of the alliance began to be revealed in the latter part of 1807, Alexander’s popularity dwindled further. The Russian people, moreover, had trouble coming to terms with the fact that the Tsar had signed a treaty with a man who had been stigmatized as the Antichrist by the Orthodox Church. Rumours were going around that God had punished Alexander for being a parricide.83 The opinions of the ordinary Russian peasant might not have counted for much, but those of the elite did; they were so unhappy that there was talk of plots against Alexander throughout 1807 and 1808, although no serious attempts against his life were made.84 Much of this discontent would have been fanned by French émigrés in Petersburg,85 but it did not take much to convince the conservative political elite that an alliance with France was a bad idea.
Although he was well received by Alexander, when General Savary arrived in Petersburg as the new French ambassador he discovered that a large proportion of the court was in open opposition towards the Tsar’s policies – he reported that France had only two friends in Russia, the Tsar and his foreign minister, Count Nikolai Petrovich Rumiantsev86 – to the extent that, thinking his task futile, Savary asked to be recalled to Paris.87 Savary was a poor choice in the first place. Not only was he a particularly difficult character – as undiplomatic as only a soldier who had spent his whole life campaigning could be – and especially disdainful of Russian ways, he had also been involved in the abduction and murder of the Duc d’Enghien. It would appear to be either a deliberate insult – in the same manner as the appointment of the Francophobe Count Peter Alexandrovich Tolstoy as Paris ambassador at the end of 1807 – or at least an indication of just how unthinking Napoleon could be. Admittedly Savary was recalled and replaced by General Armand de Caulaincourt after only a short time – Caulaincourt was more or less forced into going88 – but the situation remained just as awkward. Although more acceptable to the nobility at Petersburg as an ancien régime noble who had been brought up at the court of Versailles, Caulaincourt was nevertheless shunned at first by Russian society, and was never invited to their balls, while attention was lavished on the Prussian ambassador (thus making it perfectly clea
r where their feelings lay). Alexander, it would appear, was completely isolated in his pro-French stance, so that the English faction, which included the Empress-Mother, Mariia Federovna, predominated at court.89 The Russian military in particular, shocked by the defeats suffered at Austerlitz and Friedland, chafed at the bit and desired nothing more than a chance to get their own back. That first winter, the Tsar tried to appease public opinion by hosting an inordinate number of balls, but not even this could alter the nobility’s animosity towards France.90 When the Prussian royal couple visited in 1809, Petersburg society showed their contempt of the French representative by ostentatiously lavishing attention on them.
In a conversation with the Westphalian ambassador at the court of St Petersburg, Baron Bussche, the American ambassador, John Quincy Adams, reported his saying that ‘everybody hated the French, he [Bussche] partook of that hatred, as being connected with them, though he hated them as much as anybody. I said it did appear as if many people here did not love the French. ’Tis universal, said he. There is the Emperor and Romanzoff on one side, and the whole people on the other.’91 It is no coincidence that Francophobia in Europe often coincided with the rise of romantic nationalism.92 This was also the case in Russia where there was a debate about Gallomania, where plays now began to appear that mocked what was deemed the excessive occidentalization of dress, and where literature began to be critical, if not of the Tsar’s foreign policy, then of Napoleon.93 Where once the Russian elite had made a point of appearing as French as possible – in manners, language and clothes – there was now a conscious desire, at least in certain circles, to embrace Russian culture and history, and to reject any reforms as being too pro-Western. Alexander, therefore, had to contend with opposition at home, and the difficulties involved in reforming a system that did not want to be reformed.94
‘The Heavens Gave Birth to Bonaparte for Victory’
Tilsit was the culmination of ten months of bitter war that had cost tens of thousands of lives, both civilian and military. Napoleon badly needed to redeem his image as a man of peace, especially after the fallout surrounding Eylau, and Tilsit was the type of glorious peace that he could offer the French public.95 News of the treaty in France was greeted with joy; the people accepted the military conquests and victories as the necessary corollary of peace.96 In Rouen in 1807, officials were overwhelmed by the reaction of the crowds when people spontaneously broke into dancing in the streets.97 Colonel Noël, returning to his home province of Lorraine in 1807, was struck by how enthusiastically Napoleon was acclaimed in the belief that a definitive peace was at hand.98 And not only in France. As Napoleon toured through Saxony on his way to meet its newly appointed king, he was greeted everywhere he went with loud cheers.99 Inscriptions decorated houses with the word Friedensbringer (‘Bearer of Peace’) in big capital letters.
When Napoleon returned home after an absence of ten months, he did not go straight to Paris, but rather to his château at Saint-Cloud. He was thirty-eight years of age and had been in power for seven years, and he was, to all intents and purposes, master of Europe. The Franco-Russian accord looked to many as though it was the dawn of a new era that would bring peace to Europe. This moment, perhaps more than any other, represented the height of Napoleon’s popularity with the people of France. He had in that time defeated Austria (twice), defeated Russia, and reduced Prussia to a middle-sized German state, one among many.100 He had dissolved the Holy Roman Empire and replaced it with a Confederation that he controlled. He had created a string of sister monarchies, most of which were ruled by his siblings. To contemporaries, he appeared unstoppable, his power and his ambition disproportionate.
It was not until two weeks later that he went to the capital, where his first public appearance took place on the morning of his birthday. Celebrations were held not only for Napoleon’s birthday but also to celebrate Jena and Tilsit. The prefects were ordered to organize celebrations right down to village level. In the larger towns, parades, fireworks, public speeches and Te Deums were arranged alongside public banquets and dances that went on into the night.101 In Paris, at least, the crowds turned out in great numbers in what would appear to be a genuine manifestation of enthusiasm, a desire to celebrate the man and his reign. Fouché wrote a report that very evening addressed to Napoleon in which he stressed that the people had turned out to celebrate not only the hero, but also the monarch.102 There was a procession, which deliberately recalled the triumphal processions of ancient Rome, of about 10,000 soldiers of the Imperial Guard that went from the Arc de Triomphe (a temporary arch at this stage) down the Champs-Elysées to the Tuileries Palace and the Arc du Carrousel, which had been completed during their absence in central Europe.103 ‘All the windows, all the roofs of the houses in the Faubourg Saint-Martin and boulevards were lined with the curious.’104 Speeches (and pamphlets) glorifying the army (and thereby indirectly Napoleon) were made.105 The Guard was then led back to the Champs-Elysées where a huge banquet had been laid out on tables set up along the length of the avenue. Placards indicated where each of the regiments were to sit; a tent for the general staff was set up at the Rond Point; toasts were made to the Emperor, the city of Paris and the Grande Armée. Poems distributed in the Imperial Guard’s honour compared them to the ‘ten thousand immortals’.106 When the rest of the Grande Armée entered Paris through the Porte de la Villette, Marshal Bessières at its head, through a triumphal arch that had been especially built but not yet completed for the occasion, large numbers of people turned out.107 In Paris, the celebrations were crowned with gigantic firework displays. The festivities continued over the next few days and included balloon flights, wine flowing freely from the fountain at the Marché des Innocents, orchestral music and more fireworks.108
Napoleon became the object of innumerable eulogies, outlandish flattery109 and biographical portraits, some bordering on the ridiculous (‘He sometimes pats dogs, more for their faithfulness, which he admires in them, than for the pleasure he derives from it’).110 His birth was now associated with the appearance of a comet in the skies, as though the heavens had conspired to announce the greatness that destiny had in store for him.111 It was only normal that the gods Jupiter and Mars had taken France under their protection.112 The Civil Code was about to be changed to the Code Napoleon. This acclaim is similar to what happened after Austerlitz, but was perhaps even more intense. Theatres took up the refrain, quickly producing plays to mark the moment, such as Les bateliers du Niémen (The boatmen of the Niemen), a comedy in one act. ‘Here’s an epoch that will hold its place in history,’ exclaims one of the protagonists. Indeed, everyone was conscious of just how significant an event Tilsit was.
Peace was also projected on to Napoleon by some of the religious elite. The Bishop of Cambrai described him as the lieutenant of God who was charged with executing the ‘great work of Heaven’ in order to procure ‘a stable and solid peace for his people’.113 The Abbé Lemoyne wrote in the same vein but also declared that ‘the Heavens gave birth to Bonaparte for victory’.114 They did so not because it was expected of them or out of some sort of reflex that automatically drew an association with their king/emperor and the Bible; they did so because they believed in him, and in his mission.115 That is why the bishops of France, of their own accord, decided to call Napoleon the new Cyrus, after the biblical figure who delivered the Jews from captivity in Babylon, in the hope that he would restore the Church and defeat France’s enemies.116
The Limits of Despotism
On Napoleon’s return from Tilsit, a number of contemporaries remarked on the change that seemed to have come over him. Physically, he had grown more portly, his eyes had lost their vivacity; mentally, he seemed more preoccupied and withdrawn.117 Was he exhausted from the campaign or did he realize that the alliance with Alexander could not last and that war was again inevitable? Had he been marred by the brutality of the campaign and the senseless slaughter of troops? Did he see, after his love affair with Maria Walewska, that his marriage with Jos
ephine could not go on? It is of course impossible to tell – he never expressed any misgivings either in writing or to those in his entourage – but there is little doubt that the campaign in the East had changed him both mentally and physically.
Historians often point to 1807 as a decisive year on the road towards a hardening in Napoleon’s attitudes, and an increase in his ‘despotic’ behaviour.118 Since the Tribunate had been discreetly purged in 1802, relations between it and the Emperor had been cordial if not downright self-serving. This did not save it, however, from extinction. It had largely outlived its purpose, and been unable to secure the complete co-operation of the Legislative Corps when bills were passed.119 The story went around that Napoleon simply went one morning to the hall where the Tribunate deliberated, locked the door and put the key in his pocket.120 The judiciary was also purged; more than 160 magistrates lost their jobs, some for incompetence, others because of their political opposition to the Empire, despite the fact that they had been appointed for life.121
For all that, legal boundaries to Napoleon’s power were not entirely removed. He still had to contend with the Senate and the Legislative Corps where men spoke out against bills if they did not agree with them. Napoleon, however, was not listening and found it objectionable that a small opposition continued in existence. In many respects, 1807 marks the parting of the ways for some in Napoleon’s entourage who did not agree with the tenor and colour of the Empire. Talleyrand, for example, disillusioned with the direction that foreign policy was taking, offered his resignation in August 1807, and quite possibly expected it to be refused. It was not. He was replaced by Jean-Baptiste de Nompère de Champagny, a relative nonentity, devoted to Napoleon, minister of the interior for a while, but who had no experience in foreign affairs. He was exactly the kind of foreign minister Napoleon desired, someone who would do his bidding without nagging about alternative approaches or the consequences of his actions. Increasingly, the legislative bodies were marginalized so that by 1811 the deputies sat for only five weeks, and not at all after that for another eighteen months.