Assess the interpretations of French historians and Pieter Geyl on Napoleon.

        

In the 1830’s and 1840’s, the Napoleonic Legend arose in France.  This movement tended to glorify Napoleon, concentrating on the preeminence in which he brought to France.  People had become bored with the July Monarchy, and they yearned for the excitement and adventure of Napoleon. Adolphe Thiers represented the most significant historian who wrote under the influence of the Legend.  While Thiers was not entirely uncritical of Napoleon, he viewed Bonaparte positively and excused his faults. For Thiers, Napoleon represented the consolidator of the Revolution.  In his Codes, Napoleon knew instinctively and exactly where to stop between the old order and the new, pushing the work to completion by the force of his will.  This determination was his genius.  Thiers excused Napoleon’s failure to bring true political liberty to France, asserting that France was not ready for such liberty.  Thiers did not believe that anyone could have formed a lasting political system for such a volatile country as France, which would endure tremendous political turmoil throughout Thiers’ career.  According to Thiers, Napoleon did not fail as a result of egoism or blind ambition, but rather because he could not control his passions.  Indeed Thiers saw the flaw of Napoleon as the same as that of the Revolution itself, a lack of moderation.  Consequently, for Thiers, Napoleon represented the incarnation of the Revolution, in both his successes and his mistakes. Thiers perfectly illustrated the connection between contemporary issues in France and the historiography of Napoleon.  Completing his twenty volume work during the early years of Louis Napoleon’s Second Empire, and disenchanted by first hand experience of the despotism of Louis Napoleon, Thiers became increasingly critical of Napoleon I’s autocratic actions in the later volumes.

        

Louis Napoleon continued to use the memory of his uncle to gain support for his own regime.  A popularly held election following the 1848 revolution had elected Louis Napoleon as the president of the new republic largely on the strength of his name.  Louis Napoleon advocated no particular program.  Instead, he offered the French a return of glory and a restoration of the national unity, which they associated with Napoleon I.  Playing on the nation’s hopes, Louis Napoleon transformed the Second Republic into the Second Empire.  Historians, suspicious of Louis Napoleon, began to reexamine their interpretations of the elder Napoleon, taking a much less forgiving view of his failure to bring political liberty.  Edgar Quinet and Pierre Lanfrey represented the principal historians of this reaction against the Napoleonic Legend.  According to these men, ambition and the lust for power alone motivated Napoleon.  He attempted to make the French people forget about their loss of political freedom by giving them civil order through the Napoleonic Codes and national glory via his foreign conquests.  Quinet perceived Napoleon as a foreigner, driven by his Italian heritage to seek a re-establishment of the Roman Empire.  In his abduction of the Pope, Quinet argued, Napoleon desired spiritual as well as temporal dominion.  During this historiographical period, Napoleon’s detractors blackened every facet of Napoleon.  To Quinet and Lanfrey, the blind ambition and megalomania of the Emperor existed even in the Corsican boy.  By destroying the Napoleonic Legend, these historians sought to undermine the foundation of the Second Empire.

        

As the French government changed, the historiography of Napoleon shifted yet again.  Following the humiliation at the hands of Germany in 1870, and the subsequent instability within the Third Republic, historians began to look on Napoleon more positively.  As France lay in ruins, these historians admired Napoleon as the man who had brought martial glory and domestic stability to the nation.  According to Count Alfred Vandal, Napoleon played no role in the destruction of French liberty. Liberty had died on 18 Fructidor when the Directory (rulers of France from the period 1795-99) nullified popularly held elections, not during Bonaparte’s coup d’etat of 18 Brumaire. Bonaparte succeeded in conciliating the monarchists with the former Jacobins and returning order and unity to France. Vandal saw Napoleon as above the factions, ruling on behalf of a people (like Vandal) weary of the continual power struggles between the various parties.  According to Vandal, had Napoleon granted political liberty, “he would have proved himself superior to his age, superior to himself”. Expanding political freedoms would therefore contradict both Napoleon’s character and the zeitgeist. Vandal agreed with Thiers in asserting that France was not prepared for liberty at the time of Napoleon. Vandal’s work served as the basis for many later authors, such as Jacques Bainville and Louis Madelin.  These historians depicted Napoleon at his most heroic, and their biographies resembled adventure novels more than critical historical work.

        

At the same time a school of professional historians, called universitaires by Pieter Geyl, finally managed to escape from the issues of the Napoleonic Legend, although contemporary matters continued to influence these historians’ interpretations to some degree.  In France, the Dreyfus Affair created a feeling of anti-militarism among many Frenchmen, and historians became less impressed by Napoleon’s martial exploits and more focused on other issues.  Generally, these historians perceived Napoleon in a negative light, but they portrayed a far more balanced picture than their predecessors.  Georges Lefebvre and Alphonse Aulard represented prime examples of this historiographical trend.  According to Aulard, Napoleon repudiated the political results of the revolution by suppressing liberty, but he maintained its social consequences through his Civil Code and the abolition of feudalism.  Although Aulard perceived Napoleon as a despot, Aulard still saw him as a “man of the Revolution” in his maintenance of the social order. Lefebvre placed Napoleon’s origins not in the Revolution, but in the eighteenth century.  In Napoleon, Lefebvre saw the heir of the Enlightened Despots, like Frederick the Great.  Like them, Napoleon codified the laws, fostered legal equality, and introduced religious toleration.  However, Lefebvre detected a duality in Napoleon’s personality.  On one hand, Napoleon possessed one of the most perfect rational minds that ever existed, but simultaneously betrayed a deep Romantic drive for glory.  This Romantic tendency manifested itself in Napoleon’s legendary ambition, which in the end caused his downfall.

        

Both Aulard and Lefebvre tended toward a Leftist view.  Albert Soboul, a pupil of Lefebvre publishing in 1959, surpassed them both in his Marxist interpretation.  According to Soboul, the bourgeoisie who had guided the Revolution similarly brought Bonaparte to power.  Napoleon’s regime represented the political counterpart to the middle class’s social victories during the Revolution.  Soboul diminished the importance of Bonaparte, holding that the social results of the Revolution forced Napoleon to govern for the benefit of the bourgeoisie.

Pieter Geyl, a post-modernist born in Dordrecht, the Netherlands, who is the author of Napoleon: For and Against, received world recognition from historians such as A.J.P Taylor. Geyl in his works compares Hitler with Napoleon maintaining his conviction that “although there is a difference in degree, there is none in principal”. Although Pieter Geyl was not affected by the events in France, as he lived in Holland, contemporary matters affected his historical interpretation. Writing during World War II, Geyls interpretation resembled the general conception of the German dictator Adolph Hitler. Being a victim of Fascism when he was sent to Buchenwald concentration camp, then held in internment from 1941-1944, Geyl inevitably became subjective with the concerns of his own age and so historically expressed his disenchantment of Adolph Hitler through Napoleon. This is further represented as we introspect on Geyls political views, which was a mixture of liberalism and romantic nationalism, therefore becoming a strong opponent of the USSR, which diametrically opposed Napoleons character. Pieter Geyls prejudices “he hated the dictator long before the evil presence of Hitler”and his personal conclusion that “History cannot be conceived, and it cannot be written or communicated, except from a point of view conditioned by the circumstances of the historian” together with the influence of Adolph Hitler, led to the conviction that Napoleon was a dictator who attempted to break with new legislation what resistance was left in the old society, who intensified his power in the State by means of a centralized administration; who suppressed not only all organized influence or control of expression of opinion, but free thought itself, who hated the intellect, and who entered a struggle with the Church which had first attempted enslave, and who thought with censorship, police and propaganda he would be able to fashion the mind to his wish. He was a conqueror with whom it was impossible to live, who could not help turning an ally into a vassal or interpreting the relationship to his own exclusive advantage; who decorated his lust of conquest with the fine-sounding phrases of progress and civilization.

The French have been torn between the portraits of Napoleon as the heir of the Revolution or as the destroyer of the Revolution’s most sacred principles. In both these cases, historical objectivity represented a difficult challenge because of the role of the figure in question as a national icon.  Napoleon became part of the legacy of the French nation, and consequently, his portrait has reflected the feelings of the individual historian regarding the contemporary French state.  This problem did not decrease the merit of these interpretations, but simply illustrates that the contemporary issues of a nation and an individuals personal experiences will inevitably lead history to be painted with the influence of ones context. Thus, in the case of Pieter Geyl and other future historians, readers could see that even an individual cannot escape from contemporary issues surrounding him.    

Process Log 

February: My proposal outlines were to examine why the Russians had defeated the Nazi Germans in World War II. I had researched on the Internet to find more details about the Russians successes.

March: I continued research into the war, and discovered that the Internet sources had indicated to me 2 reasons for Russian victory. The first reason for victory was the will of the Russians to “defend the motherland” against the Germans. The second reason was the failure of the German military machine to exploit opportunities to finally crush Russian resistance. I also looked at the Russian bueratic system and their contribution to the success of Russia.

April: Further research conducted, but this time I have progressed from Internet sources to borrowing 2 books from the local library. The books Russia’s War by Richard Overy and Errors of World War II by Kenneth Macksey helped me develop my argument where I believe that it was German error and Russian patriotism that defeated the Germans. Overy gave an evaluation of Russian resistance and their determination to defeat the Germans. Overy concurs that the reason for Russian victory was the sacrifices the Russian people and soldiers made. I had totally agreed with Overy and decided to evaluate Overy as an historian. Kenneth Mackay believed that Germany’s defeat to Russia was due to its failure to supply it troops with the necessary supplies to continue a prolonged war. I found this view quiet unreasonable as Mackay doesn’t analyze in depth how the Germans failed to supply troops.

May: I began to do more research and discovered, after reading the book Road to Stalingrad by P.Hoyt, that he supported Overy’s view. After evaluating Overy as an historian, I found that his social context had influenced his perspective vastly. While taking that note into consideration, I began to read about Napoleon out of leisure, as he is a figure that has always interested me since I began to study him last year at Punchbowl Boys High School.

June: I began declining from research into my topic and began to read the book A biography of Napoleon and Hitler by Desmond Seaward out of leisure. Once reading the book, I decided to re-read the books that I had purchased last year. I re-read the book Napoleon: For and Against by Pieter Geyl and decided to change my topic to assessing French historians perspective on Napoleon.

July: After extensive research at NSW library, I decided to focus my research on the uniqueness of French historiography. I concluded that the interpretations of Napoleon were, to some degree, a reflection of their emotions toward their government. While still assessing the content in Geyls book, I borrowed the book “The Restoration of Order and National Unity.” Napoleon and His Times: Selected Interpretations, written by Alfred Vandal. While assessing vandal, I began to examine the historians with in Pieter Geyls book, and was fascinated by the interpretations of Georges Lefebvre. I had therefore decided to research Adolph Thiers as my research concluded that Thiers was a prominent historian in writing the Napoleonic Legend.

August 1st – 9th: Continuing my research, this month I had dedicated the most time to my project. I borrowed the book De Stael, Madame. “Dictator.” Napoleon: Historical Enigma written by Mme De Stael as she was one of the earliest primary sources to have written about Napoleon. I have also organized the way my essay will be structured. My question will continue to focus on the uniqueness of French historiography, but have assessed Pieter Geyl, as he is a major source in my essay. I disregarded the source by Desmond Seaward, as he links Napoleon constantly to Hitler. This is not part of my focus question, and disregarded it on the grounds that I need a closer analysis of French historiography on Napoleon, which Pieter Geyl offered. Although he is not part of my project, his analysis of Napoleon and Hitler gave me a greater understanding of my focus question and Pieter Geyls works. It allowed me to emphasis the effectiveness of contemporary issues during the historian’s lifetime and so my essay was structured in the form of assessing the period of the historian’s lifetime then how the historian’s interpretation reflected Napoleons period. This is part of the focus question in the syllabus on how and why approaches to the construction of history changed over time?

August 10th – 17th: I have finished my final draft of my project, and I am further evaluating it in terms of the history course. My project relates to ‘Who are the historians’ and ‘Why approaches to the construction of history have changed over time?’ which are major components of the course. My essay deals with how French historians have to a remarkable degree, been influenced by key events in French history when interpreting Napoleon. It also examines the influence of a significant historian Pieter Geyl and how his individual experiences also led him to be subjective. Overall, I think the essay has become extremely relevant in assessing the nature of French historians and how historians use history to express their own feelings toward a political or social issue or event.

Source Evaluation

Pieter Geyl Napoleon: For and Against New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1949.

An invaluable source- thoroughly researched, relevant, concise and brilliantly insightful. It can be regarded as useful for various reasons. Pieter Geyl wrote over 300 years after Napoleons death and is a respected post-modernist historian. He also has no connection with French historiographical issues and draws a very large base of primary and secondary sources in his thesis.

Pieter Geyls analysis of the early historian Mamme De Stael and the Marxist historian Georges Lefeber is particular relevant for the question. Pieter Geyl draws a variety of sources that examine the periods of French historical opinion and the subsequent perceptions of Napoleon in the period, showing both a vilification and eulogy of Napoleon.  

One of the main weaknesses of Pieter Geyl’s thesis is the neglecting of Emmanuel De La Cases as a primary source who did not write disparagingly of Napoleon. As a historian, it is essential when dealing with historiographical issues to provide both negative and positive perspectives of the issue, something Pieter Geyl lacked when assessing the early historians. The other early historian he uses is Chatueabriand, a conservative who wrote disparagingly on Napoleon, therefore indicating the bias that Pieter Geyl had installed in him.  

Soboul, Albert “A Dictatorship Protecting a New Elite.” Napoleon and His Times: Selected Interpretations.  Ed. Frank A. Kafker and James M. Laux.  Gainesville, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 1989.

A valuable source, which thoroughly assessed the interpretations of the different periods during his era. Soboul gives a background information on the historians and evaluates Napoleons personal characteristics and charisma. He also discusses Napoleon prior to his coming to power, which assisted in understanding Napoleon as a ruler.  

One of the weaknesses of the source is that its an interpretation, and because it’s a interpretation, the editors interpretation would have being colored by their own socio-political context, therefore it would be difficult to read the full content of Soboul’s works.

J. Mavidal and E. Laurent, Archives parlementaires, 1st seris 82 vols. (Paris, 1862–96), Translated by Exploring the French Revolution project staff from original documents in French found in J.M. Roberts, French Revolution Documents (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966).

This source is very useful as it provided me with a translated version of the August Decrees, Rights of Man Declaration and the Napoleonic Codes. The source had provided a translated version of these laws which enabled me to get a greater understanding of the issues that historians were debating.  The source focus’s on the principals of the French Revolution and therefore provides the content of the issues that historians are debating.

The source doesn’t lack any weakness for this project, as all I was searching for was a translated version and a background for the revolution for personal understanding. Because these documents are legal documents from France in 1789, there is no need for an assessment of where it came from as I am only using the content for my project.  

---