Citizen Emperor

by Philip Dwyer

  56. Welschinger, Le duc d’Enghien, pp. 411–14; and Welschinger, L’Europe et l’exécution du duc d’Enghien, pp. 25–35.

  57. Chandler, Campaigns of Napoleon, p. 328; Schroeder, Transformation of European Politics, pp. 248–51; Charles Esdaile, The Wars of Napoleon (London, 1995), p. 22; Zawadzki, ‘Czartoryski and Napoleonic France’, 262; David Gates, The Napoleonic Wars, 1803–1815 (London, 1997), p. 17.

  58. Cited in Cabanis, Le sacre de Napoléon, p. 79.

  59. François-René de Chateaubriand, Correspondance générale, 8 vols, vol. i: 1789–1807 (Paris, 1977), p. 183 (13 February 1803); Pawel Matyaszewski, ‘Quelques remarques sur l’image de Napoléon chez Chateaubriand’, Annales de lettres et sciences humaines, 37–8 (1989–90), 26.

  60. Cabanis, Le sacre de Napoléon, p. 125.

  61. Lentz, Grand Consulat, pp. 564–5. On the question of the transformation of the Republic into an Empire see Philip Dwyer, ‘Napoleon and the Foundation of the Empire’, Historical Journal, 53 (2010), 339–58.

  62. Cited in Gill, ‘The Relations between England and France’, 62; Morkov to Alexander (1/13 December 1802), in Sbornik, lxx. p. 585.

  63. Sir George Jackson, The Diaries and Letters of Sir George Jackson, 2 vols (London, 1872), i. p. 51.

  64. Thibaudeau, Le Consulat et l’Empire, iii. pp. 1–2.

  65. Thibaudeau, Mémoires sur le Consulat, pp. 236, 238–9.

  66. Joseph Fiévée, Correspondance et relations de J. Fiévée avec Bonaparte premier consul et empereur: pendant onze années, 1802 à 1813, 3 vols (Paris, 1837), i. pp. 11–14, dubbed these people ‘royalistes d’intérêt’, as distinct from ‘royalistes d’opinion’. The latter were pro-Bourbon and would not accept any other form of monarchy; the former were prepared to accept a ‘monarchist system’ regardless of the sovereign. See Polowetzky, A Bond Never Broken, p. 96.

  67. Roederer, Mémoires, pp. 126–7. The conservative journalist Joseph Fiévée was the first to suggest publicly that Bonaparte be allowed to nominate a successor, and this as early as December 1799. See Popkin, ‘Conservatism under Napoleon’, 388.

  68. Girardin, Mémoires, Journal et Souvenirs, i. pp. 268–70; Thierry Lentz, Roederer, 1754–1835 (Metz, 1989), pp. 142–3.

  69. Bailleu (ed.), Preußen und Frankreich, ii. pp. 46–8 (25 May 1801).

  70. According to Jackson, The Diaries and Letters, i. p. 55.

  71. Thibaudeau, Mémoires sur le Consulat, pp. 455–60; Woloch, Napoleon and his Collaborators, pp. 100–1.

  72. Berlier, Précis de la vie politique, p. 87.

  73. Jean Pelet de la Lozère, Opinions de Napoléon sur divers sujets de politique et d’administration (Paris, 1833), pp. 61–2.

  74. Thibaudeau, Mémoires sur le Consulat, p. 461.

  75. Berlier, Précis de la vie politique, p. 93.

  76. Tribunate, 4 May 1804, and proclamation by Senate, 16 May 1804.

  77. Annie Jourdan, L’empire de Napoléon (Paris, 2000), p. 222.

  78. Curée (30 April 1804), in Thierry Lentz and Nathalie Clot (eds), La proclamation du Premier Empire ou Recueil des pièces et actes relatifs à l’établissement du gouvernement impérial héréditaire (Paris, 2001), p. 28. This is a reprint of Recueil des pièces et actes relatifs à l’établissement du gouvernement impérial héréditaire (Paris, 1804). Some of the speeches surrounding the foundation of the empire can also be found in Joseph-François-Nicolas Dusaulchoy de Bergemont, Histoire du couronnement, ou Relation des cérémonies religieuses, politiques et militaires qui ont eu lieu pendant les jours mémorables consacrés à célébrer le sacre et le Couronnement et le Sacre de Sa Majesté Impériale Napoléon Ier, Empereur des Français (Paris, 1805), pp. 3–70.

  79. Lazare Carnot in La proclamation du Premier Empire, pp. 63–9.

  80. On the role of the Senate in the establishment of the Empire see Thiry, Le Sénat de Napoléon, pp. 122–45.

  81. Woloch, Napoleon and his Collaborators, p. 114.

  82. See the memoir attached to the Senate’s response in La Proclamation de l’Empire, pp. 217–21; Annie Jourdan, ‘Le sacre ou le pacte social’, in Napoléon le sacre: Musée Fesch, Ville d’Ajaccio, 23 avril–3 octobre 2004 (Ajaccio, 2004), pp. 25–33.

  83. La proclamation du Premier Empire, p. 143.

  84. Cornet, Souvenirs sénatoriaux, p. 29.

  85. A special commission of ten members, composed of senators, ministers and the three consuls met at Saint-Cloud (11–13 May 1804) to discuss and prepare for the modification of the Constitution.

  86. Englund, Napoleon, p. 248. The constitution of 1791 modified the king’s title from King of France to King of the French.

  87. Moniteur universel, 19 May 1804.

  88. Miot de Mélito, Mémoires, ii. pp. 184–5; Louis-Constant Wairy [known as Constant], Mémoires de Constant, premier valet de l’empereur, sur la vie privée de Napoléon, sa famille et sa cour, 6 vols (Paris, 1830), i. pp. 230–1.

  89. Louis Dubroca, Les quatre fondateurs des dynasties françaises, ou Histoire de l’établissement de la monarchie française, par Clovis . . .pépin et Hugues Capet; et . . . Napoléon-le-Grand . . . (Paris, 1806), p. 327.

  90. See, for example, Jean Chas, Réflexions sur l’hérédité du pouvoir souverain (Paris, 1804); Poème à l’occasion du Sénatus-consulte, qui proclame Napoléon Bonaparte, Empereur des Français (Paris, 1804); Therese Ebbinghaus, Napoleon, England und die Presse, 1800–1803 (Munich, 1914), p. 148; Jean Tulard, Joseph Fiévée, conseiller secret de Napoléon (Paris, 1985), pp. 128–9.

  91. Journal des Débats, 28 July 1804.

  92. Journal des Débats, 19 August 1804.

  93. Journal des Débats, 16, 19 August 1804.

  94. Jacques Godechot, ‘L’Empire napoléonien’, Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, 31 (1973), 433, 434.

  95. Lucette Perol, ‘Ce qu’évoquait le mot “empire” d’après les dictionnaires de 1690–1771’, Siècles. Cahiers du Centre d’histoire ‘Espaces et culture’, 17 (2003), 25–40, here 29, 31.

  96. Jean-Luc Chappey, ‘La notion d’empire et la question de légitimité politique’, Siècles. Cahiers du Centre d’histoire ‘Espaces et culture’, 17 (2003), 111–27, here 116–17.

  97. Godechot, ‘L’Empire napoléonien’, 444.

  98. Moniteur universel, 3 May 1804, p. 1012; Robert Morrissey, ‘Charlemagne et la légende impériale’, in Bonnet (ed.), L’empire des muses, p. 340.

  99. Miot de Mélito, Mémoires, ii. pp. 152–3.

  100. Roederer, Oeuvres, iii. p. 461.

  101. Fouché, Mémoires, i. p. 304.

  102. Edouard Driault, La politique orientale de Napoléon: Sébastiani et Gardane, 1806–1808 (Paris, 1904), pp. 394–5.

  103. Miot de Mélito, Mémoires, ii. p. 217.

  104. Pierre Bertrand (ed.), Lettres inédites de Talleyrand à Napoléon, 1800–1809 (Paris, 1889), p. 99.

  105. Bailleu, Preußen und Frankreich, i. p. 330.

  106. Take, for example, Mathieu Dumas, Précis des événemens militaires, ou Essais historiques sur les campagnes de 1799 à 1814, 19 vols (Paris, 1817–26), viii. p. 454. On the question of heredity see also Natalie Petiteau, ‘Les Français et l’empereur’, in Hélène Becquet and Bettina Frederking (eds), La dignité de roi: regards sur la royauté au premier XIXe siècle (Paris, 2009), pp. 20–2.

  107. It led to the rupture of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Christer Jorgensen, The Anglo-Swedish Alliance against Napoleonic France (Basingstoke, 2004), pp. 23–5.

  108. Zawadzki, ‘Czartoryski and Napoleonic France’, 264.

  109. Paul R. Sweet, Friedrich von Gentz: Defender of the Old Order (Madison, 1941), pp. 97–8; Alexander Von Hase, ‘Friedrich (v.) Gentz: vom Übergang nach Wien bis zu den “Fragmenten des Gleichgewichts” (1802–1806)’, Historische Zeitschrift, 211 (1970), 589–615; Schroeder, Transformation of European Politics, p. 252.

  110. Czartoryski to Razumovsky, 7/19 June 1804, Vneshniaia Politika Rossii XIX I nachala XX veka, Series I, 1801–1815, 8 vols (Moscow, 1960�
��72), ii. n. 31 (19 June 1804).

  111. There is a debate about whether Napoleon dissolved a political entity that was already in its death throes or put an end to a thriving state. See Peter H. Wilson, ‘The Meaning of Empire in Central Europe around 1800’, in Forrest and Wilson (eds), The Bee and the Eagle, p. 22.

  112. Zawadzki, ‘Czartoryski and Napoleonic France’, 265.

  113. Adolf Beer, ‘Österreich und Russland in den Jahren 1804 und 1805’, Archiv fur österreichische Geschichte, 53 (1875), 125–243, here 230 (letter to Stadion, 11 July 1804); Karl A. Roider, ‘The Habsburg Foreign Ministry and Political Reform, 1801–1805’, Central European History, 22:2 (1989), 160–82.

  114. August Fournier, Gentz und Cobenzl: Geschichte der österreichischen Diplomatie in den Jahren 1801–1805 (Vienna, 1880), p. 296 (1 September 1804).

  115. Cobenzl’s memoir in Gero Walter, Der Zusammenbruch des heiligen Römischen Reiches deutscher Nation und die Problematik seiner Restauration in den Jahren 1814–15 (Heidelberg, 1980), pp. 132–44; Wilson, ‘The Meaning of Empire’, pp. 25–6, 30; and Peter H. Wilson, ‘Bolstering the Prestige of the Habsburgs: The End of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806’, International History Review, 28 (2006), 723.

  116. Francis retained the title ‘elected Roman emperor’ but was now also referred to as the ‘hereditary Emperor of Austria’ (Erbkaiser von Österreich).

  117. Wilson, ‘The Meaning of Empire’, p. 26.

  118. Corr. ix. n. 7900 (3 August 1804); Kaiser Franz Akten, Fasz. 203 neu (4 August 1804), cited in Wilson, ‘Bolstering the Prestige of the Habsburgs’, 725. The Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II, thereby became Francis I, Emperor of Austria.

  119. Haegele, Napoléon et Joseph Bonaparte, p. 155.

  120. Miot de Mélito, Mémoires, ii. p. 180; Haegele, Napoléon et Joseph Bonaparte, p. 156. Joseph’s position in the succession was eventually embodied in the imperial Constitution. Articles three and four stated that the succession was to be based on Salic law – that is, the crown could be passed only from one male to the next – and that if Napoleon did not have a legitimate or adopted son (and he could adopt only the son or grandson of one of his brothers), the crown would pass to Joseph.

  121. Miot de Mélito, Mémoires, ii. p. 170.

  122. Miot de Mélito, Mémoires, ii. p. 171.

  123. Miot de Mélito, Mémoires, ii. p. 108; Haegele, Napoléon et Joseph Bonaparte, pp. 167–8.

  124. Corr. ix. n. 7693 (18 April 1804); Masson, Napoléon et sa famille, ii. pp. 376–80.

  125. Recent works on Lucien include: Pietromarchi, Lucien Bonaparte; Martineau, Lucien Bonaparte; Marcello Simonetta and Noga Arikha, Napoleon and the Rebel: A Story of Brotherhood, Passion, and Power (New York, 2011); Maria Teresa Caracciolo (ed.), Lucien Bonaparte: un homme libre (Ajaccio, 2010).

  126. Pietromarchi, Lucien Bonaparte, pp. 79–81.

  127. Miot de Mélito, Mémoires, ii. p. 110.

  128. Miot de Mélito, Mémoires, ii. pp. 110–11.

  129. On this episode see Glenn J. Lamar, Jérôme Bonaparte: The War Years, 1800–1815 (Westport, Conn., 2000), pp. 10–20; Jacques-Olivier Boudon, Le roi Jérôme: frère prodigue de Napoléon, 1784–1860 (Paris, 2008), pp. 82–5, 87–92.

  130. Mémoires et correspondance du roi Jérôme et de la reine Catherine, 7 vols (Paris, 1861–6), i. p. 271.

  131. Corr. x. n. 8614 (23 April 1805); Mémoires et correspondance du roi Jérôme, i. pp. 295–7.

  132. Eugene L. Didier, The Life and Letters of Madame Bonaparte (New York, 1879), pp. 46–8; Sidney Mitchell, A Family Lawsuit: The Story of Elisabeth Patterson and Jérôme Bonaparte (New York, 1958), pp. 101–7; Claude Bourguignon-Frasseto, Betsy Bonaparte ou la Belle de Baltimore (Paris, 1988).

  133. Lucien to Napoleon (25 May 1805), in Mitchell, A Family Lawsuit, p. 96.

  134. Corr. x n. 8691 (6 May 1805); Bernardine Melchior-Bonnet, Jérôme Bonaparte, ou l’envers de l’épopée (Paris, 1979), p. 58.

  135. Chaptal, Mes souvenirs, p. 345.

  136. Mitchell, A Family Lawsuit, p. 116.

  137. Roederer, Mémoires, p. 206; Gabriel Girod de l’Ain, Joseph Bonaparte: le roi malgré lui (Paris, 1970), pp. 109–13.

  138. Fouché, Mémoires, i. p. 279.

  139. Rémusat, Mémoires, i. pp. 394–8 (Mme de Rémusat was not present during this scene. Josephine later told her, so Rémusat’s account has to be taken with a pinch of salt).

  140. Joseph Turquan, L’impératrice Joséphine, d’après les témoignages des contemporains (Paris, 1896), pp. 3–4.

  141. Hortense, Memoirs, i. p. 101; Masson, Napoléon et sa famille, ii. pp. 400–2.

  142. Iung (ed.), Lucien Bonaparte, iii. pp. 4–5.

  143. Masson, Napoléon et sa famille, ii. pp. 414–18.

  144. Henri Gaubert, Le sacre de Napoléon Ier (Paris, 1964), p. 149.

  145. These sentiments are expressed in the speeches of the Tribunate to Napoleon – see, for example, the speeches by Fabre de l’Aude (reprinted in the Moniteur, 1 May); Jaubert (3 May); Faure (4 May) – and indeed in Napoleon’s response to the Senate (6 May 1804).

  146. Jacques-Barthélemy Salgues, Mémoire pour servir à l’histoire de France sous le gouvernement de Napoléon Buonaparte et pendant l’absence de la maison de Bourbon (1760–1830), 9 vols (Paris, 1814–26), vi. pp. 148–9.

  147. David Chanteranne, Le sacre de Napoléon (Paris, 2004), pp. 185–7, on which the following is based. See also Dubroca, Les quatre fondateurs des dynasties françaises, pp. 247–52, 305–6; Jean Chas, Coup d’oeil d’un ami de sa patrie, sur les grandes action de l’empereur Napoléon (Paris, 1804), pp. 1–2.

  148. Chas, Coup d’oeil d’un ami, p. 1; Joseph-Balthazar Bonnet de Treyches, Du gouvernement héréditaire et de l’influence de l’autorité d’un seul sur les arts (Paris, 1804), p. 7.

  149. Dubroca, Les quatre fondateurs des dynasties françaises, p. 325.

  150. Bonnet de Treyches, Du gouvernement héréditaire, pp. 7 and 9.

  151. Katia Sainson, ‘“Le Régénérateur de la France”: Literary Accounts of Napoleonic Regeneration 1799–1805’, Nineteenth-Century French Studies, 30 (2001–2), 9–25, here 17.

  152. Howard Brown, Ending the Revolution, pp. 3–4, argues that the Revolution came to an end in 1802 because it was in that year the regime became ‘structurally secure’ – that is, it no longer faced a serious domestic threat; the government had become stable and was accepted by the political elite. Blanning, Pursuit of Glory, p. 653, argues for 1802 as the year in which the revolutionary wars came to an end.

  8: ‘The First Throne of the Universe’

  1. Recueil des pièces authentiques relatives au suicide de l’ex-général Pichegru (Paris, 1804).

  2. Bertaud, Bonaparte et le duc d’Enghien, pp. 101–2.

  3. Vie privée de Georges Cadoudal, son caractère, ses crimes (Paris, 1804).

  4. Claude-Ambroise Régnier, Liste des brigands chargés, par le Ministère britannique, d’attenter aux jours du Premier Consul (Paris, an XII); Pichegru et Moreau (Paris, 1804); and Moreau et Pichegru au 18 fructidor an V (Paris, an XII), probably written by Roederer on Bonaparte’s orders. It is interesting to note that the Consular government always associated Moreau with that of Pichegru whenever he was mentioned in print.

  5. Acte d’accusation de Georges, Pichegru, Moreau, et autres prévenus de conspiration contre la personne du premier consul et contre la sûreté intérieure et extérieure de la république (Paris, an XII); Recueil des interrogatoires subis par le général Moreau (Paris, an XII).

  6. See, for example, the Lettre du général Moreau, au Premier Consul pour se disculper d’avoir pris part à la conspiration de Cadoudal (Paris, 1804).

  7. Chastenay, Mémoires, i. p. 336.

  8. Moreau, Jean-Victor Moreau, p. 104.

  9. Cabanis, Le sacre de Napoléon, p. 132; Petiteau, Les Français et l’Empire, p. 81.

  10. Dalberg to Edelsheim (6 June 1804), Erdmannsdörffer and Obser (eds), Politische Correspondenz Karl Friedrichs von Baden, v. p
. 83.

  11. According to AN F7 6403, dossier on Armand and Jules Polignac, Armand was condemned to death but pardoned by Napoleon and sent to the prison of Ham and then, after an attempted escape, back to the Temple in Paris.

  12. Lenôtre, Georges Cadoudal, pp. 245–51; Bertaud, Bonaparte et le duc d’Enghien, pp. 409–13.

  13. Corr. ix. n. 7804 (9 June 1804).

  14. Bourrienne, Mémoires, vi. p. 157.

  15. Although the official Correspondance does not contain a letter from Napoleon to Soult (or any other army commander) with this request, there is an allusion to such a document in a letter from Soult to Napoleon in which the former states, ‘You ordered me, general, to report, in the greatest detail, on the opinion of the army . . .’ (Soult to Napoleon, AN AFIV 1599, 27 germinal an XII (16 April 1804)). My thanks to Michael J. Hughes for sharing his archival notes and for pointing me in this direction.

  16. Soult to Napoleon, AN AFIV 1599, 21 germinal an XII (10 April 1804).

  17. Claude-Ambroise Régnier, Rapport du grand-juge au Premier Consul, et communiqué au Sénat dans sa séance de germinal, contenant toutes les pièces de la conspiration tramée par le gouvernement britannique, contre les jours du Premier Consul! (Paris, an XII); Woloch, Napoleon and his Collaborators, p. 111.

  18. At least according to Lentz, Grand Consulat, p. 563, but there does not appear to be a great deal of support for this assertion.

  19. AN BB/II/850B.

  20. AN BB/II/850A, 22 floréal XII. Also cited in Woloch, Napoleon and his Collaborators, p. 112.

  21. For example, Woloch, Napoleon and his Collaborators, p. 114.

  22. Corr. ix. n. 7683 (14 April 1804); Jourdan, ‘Le sacre ou le pacte social’, p. 27; and Annie Jourdan, ‘Le Premier Empire: un nouveau pacte social’, Cités: philosophie, politique, histoire, 20 (2004), 51–64.

  23. A change came about on 21 March 1804, when the editors announced that the petitions being submitted were so numerous that they were going to abandon publishing them in their entirety and instead print extracts. Many of the letters sent to the authorities and not published can be found in the series AN F/1cIII.