Another feature of the Constitution of 1802 was Napoleon’s ‘Legion of Honour’. This was an elitist organisation created to bind powerful men to Napoleon’s regime through patronage - a system of rewards and titles, bribery. In being elitist, the Legion of Honour proved as a betrayal of the revolutionary principles; the Revolution was all to overthrow the elitist group of the ‘First Estate’ and establish equality. But by creating the Legion of Honour, Napoleon had made a new group that received privileges – a new nobility. To quote the historian D.M.G Sutherland, “All the important officers in the state were appointed, often out of the ranks of a new elite – the notables.” This was an indirect abolishment of meritocracy, a system where people were rewarded due to ability and skill – the way which had entitled Napoleon himself to his position of power. The French Revolution had embodied equality and consequently, meritocracy and this was demonstrated in the formation of the army, which was filled with skilled young men instead of old nobility from the First Estate. By maintaining the Legion of Honour, Napoleon also ensured his stay in power; this negated the principle of the Revolution against dictatorships – if it was extremely difficult to rob Napoleon of his position in power, then it meant that his system was not equal; no one else had a fair chance at gaining his position.
Napoleon’s betraying of the revolutionary principle of equality was a recurring component in many of his reforms; for instance, an example is Napoleon’s legal and judicial reform – the Civil Code, or ‘Code Napoleon’. This parroted the more authoritarian Roman laws that emphasised male authority and the father’s rights; this was in accordance to Napoleon’s own views on society and the inferior status of women. The principle of equality that dominated the French Revolution did not make as frequent an appearance in the Civil Code, which stated that a man had total authority over his wife and family - this meant that he could send an adulterous wife or even a defiant child to prison. Consequently, the equality in every household was decreased tenfold and France was slowly shifting backwards, towards the traditional mind-set that was evident under the Ancien Régime; the new modernised idea of equality which the French Revolution had brought was being crushed by the daily inequality in the lives of the French citizens. Nonetheless, equality was not the only revolutionary principle that was overlooked in the Civil Code; liberty was just as absent from this reform. The Civil Code reintroduced slavery – black people were treated extremely poorly and workmen were made subject to close police supervision. Not only did this mean that the gap between the social classes were re-established and intensified, but also that citizens of France did not have their freedom and liberty. Liberty was a key element of the French Revolution, and a principle that was to be upheld after their legacy; the Civil Code betrayed this.
However, the Civil Code was a document that both betrayed and upheld the Revolution, contradicting its own supposed intention in the process. Under the Civil Code, the abolition of feudalism was confirmed – the financial or work obligations imposed on the peasantry by landowners. In the elimination of this, the gap between the rich landowners and the poor peasantry was bridged; and therefore, equality was recognised. Similarly, the Civil Code supported the dechristianisation of France that the Revolution had instigated – it gave fixed legal titles to the people who had purchased confiscated church, crown and émigré property; this guaranteed that the church clergy who had lost their property would not recover it. This was an intention of the French Revolution, and therefore, was an example of the Civil Code upholding a key principle of it. The clergy also had made up the elitist group in France before the Revolution – the First Estate. In ensuring the loss of their property, Napoleon minimised the difference in wealth between the social classes and diminished what chances the First Estate had of recuperating from the Revolution, thereby spreading equality. Another revolutionary principle that was upheld in the Civil Code was partage – the equal division of estates among male heirs instead of primogeniture, which was whereby the eldest son inherited everything. Although this did not mention the women in France, it did establish more equality in the treatment of sons in a family – it was not completely a document of equality, but it did possess parts that promoted it. This describes the Civil Code in general – although it is obvious that it is not a document that exudes complete equality, it does, to a point, maintain some equality, albeit however limited.
In comparison, the Concordat is similar to this; it does both in regards to upholding and betraying the Revolution. Napoleon signed the Concordat as an attempt to consolidate the power. The Concordat solidified the Roman Catholic Church as the majority church of France and brought back most of its civil status; but most importantly, it united the French public. The Concordat was essentially a betrayal of the principles of the French Revolution. The Revolution had sought to destroy all Christianity in France – especially Catholicism; the First Estate was made up of the church clergy, and the revolutionists intensely opposed this. The creation of the Concordat was a public, official, agreement between the government and the church – something that went against all the Revolution’s principles regarding religion. This was also symbolised by the critical involvement of the Pope, someone with whom a supposed supporter of the Revolution should not be associating with, much less make a peaceful deal with. Additionally, most of the terms of the Concordat furthered the betrayal of the Revolution; one of the terms was the confirmation that the separation of church and state had ended – one of the key principles of the Revolution. The historian, D.M.G Sutherland states “the Concordat was close to a restoration of the refractory church, the destruction of which had been a central feature of the great reforms of the National Assembly”. If this fundamental rule was betrayed, then whatever term that followed, even if it upheld the Revolution, would be deemed insignificant in comparison. As well as this, the Concordat stated that public worship had to be “in conformity with police regulations which the government shall deem necessary for public peace”; this ensures the government’s control over religion and is vague enough to leave the government with ultimate control over the Church. Whilst this upholds the revolutionary principle by restricting the Church, it simultaneously betrays the Revolution by initiating a system whereby there is an ultimate power that has control over the other – there is no liberty in this system; the French public are made to comply with the government’s rules when it comes to religion. This is not free, and is a sign of a betrayal within a betrayal. Correspondingly, the Concordat also inaugurated the idea of free worship – Catholic or otherwise; this religious toleration is hard to label as a betrayal or upholding of the revolutionary principles. On one side, Catholicism was banned under the Revolution, something that they attempted to abolish completely. However, on the other hand, the Revolution promoted liberty. Religious freedom or, religious liberty would be considered essential to establish the liberty of a French citizen.
Likewise, the Concordat does indirectly uphold some of the revolutionary principles in its direct betrayal of it. An example of this was that it stated that the Catholic Church had to recognise the Revolution and that no attempt would be made to recover church land that had been lost since 1789. This was a restriction of the power that the church regained; which meant that Napoleon was protecting his own power over the church and confirming that their power would not override his or that of the Revolution. A further point is that the Concordat candidly mentions the Revolution and without elaboration or untruths, forces the Church to acknowledge the Revolution. Not only does this ensure that its legacy lives on, even in religion, but also that it and its principles are accepted by the entire public, including the religious citizens. This is an attempt to cement the Revolution in the minds of everyone and to prolong the life of its legacy, which would be upholding it.
In comparison, the Educational Reform offered an adequate education only to an elite group – the children of notables. This strengthened the difference between the social classes; since it was mostly only the wealthy citizens’ children that received a good education, the chance of achieving a good career further on in life would only be limited to these same children. Accordingly, this showed Napoleon’s neglect in fulfilling the Revolution’s ‘equality’ principle. This inequality was furthered by the reform’s negligence of the education of girls as well as of the subject of Science. Moreover, an ‘Imperial University’ was also established – this was like a Ministry of Education and ensured the uniform of the system that Napoleon had created; what was taught in the school was dictated in accordance with the needs and demands of the government; this resulted in less individuality, which was the spirit of the Revolution, but more unity – instead of the education being focused on each child, it was focused on the government. Consequently, the needs of the children would not have been met – they should have had the right to a good education, but they were not entitled to this, this impacted on the amount of liberty and equality they possessed; especially the ordinary people, who Napoleon believed needed only a simple ‘moral education’ and basic literacy and numeracy. Just in his beliefs, Napoleon had different standards and expectations for different people, and not based on their abilities like in meritocracy, but in their wealth and social class – much like how education was like under the Ancien Régime.
Conversely, there was an element of equality in the Educational Reforms; the system was highly centralised and government-appointed teachers would all teach to a common syllabus from identical textbooks – lessons were all standardised and the students would be taught identical things in near identical ways. This upheld equality – someone in some school would receive the same education as someone from another school. However, this also meant that there was no room for freedom of choice within the state system, or for freedom of thought or expression by pupils or staff; this was a betrayal of the Revolution which revelled in the individuality of its citizens as that is what led to the usage of meritocracy. Napoleon had often declared his belief in equal opportunities for all according to ability and irrespective of birth of wealth, what he called “careers open to talents”, however; he failed in providing this in practice and merely boasted of it in most instances. Nonetheless, meritocracy was not completely extinguished from education; students of high ability were rewarded. This served as an incentive for developed ability and skills which meant that there were slightly less people receiving preferential treatment from their social status and an increase in those who were rewarded due to their own talent and skill. In this, Napoleon had upheld the revolutionary principle of meritocracy which was held in extremely high regard during the French Revolution. In addition to this, parents were given a choice; if they were overwhelmingly unhappy with their child’s education, they did have the choice to send their child to an expensive private Church school – in offering this, less financially appealing, alternative to his own schools, Napoleon, to a degree, upheld ‘liberty’ in his Education Reforms.
From one perspective, one could claim that the Constitution of 1799 was validation for Napoleon’s attempt at upholding the principles of the French Revolution. When he came to power, Napoleon did not declare an outright dictatorship and pronounce himself the ruler of France – whilst this may have been, although probably was not, because he believed in the principles of the French Revolution, it was more possibly because, in doing so, he would have sparked immediate rebellion. If he pushed the French public too far, they would have resorted to violence, as they did with the Revolution. Therefore, Napoleon consolidated his power cleverly; instead of thrusting the declaration of his authority directly onto the public, he first created the position of ‘First Consul’ for himself. Although this was just a facade for the despot dictatorship he was working towards, it concealed his true intentions. It appeared to be fair and just on the surface – there were two other Consuls who both could contribute their input. This gave the illusion of ‘equality’ and that the power was shared between Napoleon and the other two Consuls, but in reality, Napoleon bullied and intimidated the other two Consuls so that he achieved all he wanted and they served no purpose but as mascots of the supposed fairness of the Constitution. D.M.G Sutherland claimed that “The Empire paid only lip service to democracy” – this was proved by Napoleon’s unjust way of retaining power through the Constitution of 1799. He had decided that the election of the governing bodies of the Tribunate and Legislature would be elected by the people, but only the First Consul would appoint the other governing bodies, and the First Consul himself would be neither elected nor appointed. Therefore, the French public did not have the liberty to elect their representatives or ruler – this meant that in creating the position of ‘First Consul’, Napoleon was betraying the revolutionary principle of ‘liberty’. However, although it was corrupt and a top-heavy constitution, Napoleon had still created a constitution that was in accordance with the Law of Brumaire that allowed six million French citizens the vote and had retained a structure of government – a constitution that had abided by the laws leftover from the Revolution.
But what was it that the Revolution represented? Though it is common knowledge that the Revolution embodied the phrase, “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”, did the French Revolution put into practice the principles it claimed to idolise? The historian François Furet believed that “the Revolution had been blown ‘off course’ after the destruction of the monarchy and had become an authoritarian dictatorship, which Napoleon went on to perpetuate”; he claims that the Revolution was corrupted anyway, and by carrying on the dictatorship-like rule, Napoleon was merely upholding whatever corrupt activity that the Revolution had instigated. Similarly, this is supported by Albert Vandal who claims that “Bonaparte could not suppress something which did not exist” since the “death of liberty occurred under the Directory”. Vandal claims that the Directory had corrupted the principles of the Revolution, and Napoleon had not committed a crime when he chose to continue this. Both historians are similar in their opinion that Napoleon’s betrayal of the Revolution was not as severe as his legacy would suggest, since the principles of the Revolution were betrayed years before he came into power and that in continuing their betrayal, Napoleon was upholding the spirit of the Revolution instead of the theory of it.
In conclusion, although in most of the Napoleonic Reforms, Napoleon had betrayed the principles of the French Revolution, he upheld them too, within his betrayals. His reforms are very interweaved and tangled between the milestones of upholding or betraying the principles of the Revolution; there is no complete betrayal or upholding of them – both elements exist in each reform. Instead of there being a ‘black or white’ answer with the betraying or upholding of the Revolution, Napoleon’s reforms are painted with different shades of grey – some lighter and others darker. Some of his reforms consolidated the Revolution; historians like Alfred Cobban claim that “the great gains of the Revolution were preserved”; that the most significant principles of the Revolution were upheld, even if other less important terms were betrayed. This can be compared to Vandal’s view that “Napoleon was able to consolidate many of the most important aspects of the Revolution”. Both historians are making the same conclusion, that Napoleon’s actions and some of his betrayal was for the greater good and had benefited the Revolution in the long term. This contrasts heavily with George Rudé’s opinion which is that “During the Empire, the egalitarianism of the Revolution was abandoned and privilege was restored” – this refers to Napoleon’s reinstating an elite group, this time branded the ‘notables’. This did betray the most basic revolutionary principle of equality; D.M.G Sutherland furthers this by claiming “this [the notables system] was a clear breach with the Revolution”. When the most intrinsic principle of the Revolution is broken, it means the foundation for the Napoleonic government was not built upon revolutionary ideas and therefore, the Empire would not be one that complied with the revolutionary principles. Although many historians do argue for Napoleon and claim that he did, on the whole, consolidated the Revolution, they cannot deny that he had betrayed the most integral laws of it and therefore, in essence, betrayed the Revolution itself. There may have been small parts where Napoleon was upholding the principles, but these were always located in large documents which had essentially betrayed the Revolution on the whole – it is useless picking out small details that supported the Revolution, when the whole of the Napoleonic Reforms, in the bigger picture, had all played a hand in the destruction of the principles of the French Revolution.
