The Power Behind the Face of Government:
A Question of Control and Manipulation of the Parisian Mob
Kyle Larson
Paris is a city which has seen a greater number of violent revolutions than any other in all of Europe. Starting with Henry IV’s brutal siege in 1589 and continuing through regime changes under names such as Louis XIV, Robespierre, and Napoleon, each of the consecutive rulers eventually were unable to hold onto the position of authority they had created for themselves. As the British learned during the American Revolution of 1776, the various French rulers each were taught the same lesson: that one simply cannot hold onto power in Paris unless the people desire them to. Once the die had been cast in 1789 with the first French Revolution the Parisians knew that the power of the mob could dictate the course of French politics. The only way to control France was to control her capitol, Paris, something which became a daunting task.
| The Bourbon monarchy, begun by Henry IV, centered a dynasty around the city of Paris. With each successive ruler in the city, Paris grew into the great European capitol that she has become today. Even prior to Henry IV’s takeover of the throne, however, Paris was the center of every conflict. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572, after which several thousand French Protestants lay dead at the feet of the royal guard, provoked a conflict between the Catholic Henry III and the Protestant Henry IV. The focal point of the conflict was Paris, as one could not legitimately rule France without controlling the city. Even after Henry IV was victorious over his opponent, he could not control Paris due to the overwhelming Catholic opposition. His conversion to Catholicism in 1593 ends the question of his rule, and the famous quote, “[Paris] is well worth a Mass”1 typifies the belief of the Bourbon regime that Paris is the key to any legitimate rule of France, regardless of the cost. Once he had control over the city, he set about adding monuments to his power, such as the Place des Vosges. His construction program would be continued by each of his successors, including the next ruler of Paris, the Cardinal Richelieu. | |
 |
The Cardinal Richelieu acted as the Regent for Louis XIII, Henry IV’s successor. He quickly used his political clout to effectively banish Louis XIII from the decision making process by diverting the wayward King’s attentions towards relatively unimportant matters such as foreign policy while spending his own concentration on the city of Paris itself. Even as he continued the construction of grand structures in Paris, such as the Palais Royal, he was concentrating his power in the city. Richelieu was responsible for bringing great numbers of the aristocracy into the city in order to keep an eye on them, as Richelieu recognized Paris as both the source of all his power and of any threats to his reign. His quote, “In politics, one is impelled far more by the necessity of things than by a pre-established will,”2 is the perfect description of his time as the central authority figure in Paris. In order to ensure his continued rule, Richelieu concentrated everything political into the one place he thought himself able to control: Paris. The would make Paris even more vital to any future ruler, and Richelieu’s success at retaining jurisdiction in France until his death in 1643 would make him the standard to be emulated. |
| Louis XIV would be the next ruler of great note in Paris, and he would indeed mimic Richelieu’s strategy of collecting aristocratic power into a single location, only in this case, the location would be Versailles. Following a long and brutal conflict with the Duke of Condé, Louis XIV began the exodus off to Versailles. One notable result from the political battle between Condé and Louis XIV is a much greater political awareness of the people to the political status of the city. Paris remains the key to political control, but now there is a new concern for anyone looking to hold the city. Not only is the aristocracy extremely important, but both the bourgeois and the working class, or Third Estate, are gaining importance. To help the growth of these new factions, nearly the entire aristocracy is shuffled off to under the watchful eye of Louis XIV in Versailles, and the bourgeois quickly rise to fill the vacuum left in their wake, and as they grow the city grows alongside. Marble facades and new constructions were common, funded by the growing bourgeois. Led by Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Paris took on a new disposition, one more sympathetic to those not privy to the privileges of the aristocracy. “L’état c’est moi”3 continues to be true through all this, as the power of the aristocracy remains undiminished, but the stage is set for a change, whether it be through revolution or reformation. |  |
The change would come in 1789 in the form of a violent revolution, and the process would not cease until many years later. As with all important French political events, it would start in Paris. Paris was the heart of everything French, with the return of the aristocracy following the death of Louis XIV it was again the symbol of the nobility, following the fantastic growth and constructions of the bourgeois it became a testament to their wealth, and it was populated by the working class, the beating heart of the people. Following a disastrous winter and economic catastrophe under Louis XVI and the continued success of the American colonies, Louis XVI consented to call a meeting of the Estates-General for the first time since 1616. This was clearly a motion in the direction of both the bourgeois and working class, and an acceptance of the power they wielded. Both were now given a voice in the government of France, for centuries dominated by the aristocracy. The distrust between them would not soon go away, and Louis XVI severely underestimated the working class when he gathered a number of troops together outside of the city as a resort, should the demands go beyond what he was willing to grant. Fearing a betrayal, the people stormed a symbol of the aristocratic tyranny, the Bastille, and forced the king to accede to their demands. The National Constituent Assembly, founded by the Estates-General to create a new French constitution, drafted the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” in late August. The introduction of this piece was a testament to the shift in the sources of authority in the city.
“The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all.”4
“Representatives of the French people,” have become the deciding power in Paris. Legislation is drafted by the people for the good of the people. The city of Paris, the holder of which is the most powerful figure in French politics, is now in the hands of someone other than the aristocracy. However, the wording of the document is misleading and the results are certainly not what it appeared they would be. Though it was through the might of the working class that the Bourbons fell, it was through the guile of the bourgeois that the new constitution was drafted, and it was now the bourgeois who were the power in Paris, as they had been during Louis XIV’s vacancy from the city.
| The initial attempt to create a constitutional monarchy failed miserably upon the onset of war between the French revolutionaries and the rest of the Europe. Nations such as Austria, Russia, and England, fearing the spread of radical sentiment to their own nations, began military conflict against France, who was in no condition to combat the invaders. Following several disastrous defeats, the Parisian mob once again demonstrated their immense numerical advantages and occupied sections of the Louvre. Known as the September Massacres, the riots are responsible for the deaths of a great portion of the remaining aristocracy. The Assembly, still the ruling power in France, declares the formation of a new French Republic. At last the people have tangible power, a right to vote and participate in decisions that decide their own fate. While the bourgeois remained the true power behind the new government, the Parisians now have achieved their goal: a democratic system of government. Unfortunately, before the Republic could get off the ground the government was commandeered by Maximiliam Robespierre. He and his “Committee of Public Safety,” founded to protect France during these times of strife, decide another path needs to be taken for the duration of the wars. They institute the “Reign of Terror.” |  |
“...We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror.
If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs.
It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed. Let the despot govern by terror his brutalized subjects; he is right, as a despot. Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic.”5
Robespierre’s reign is a demonstration of the opposite of a republic. His twisted interpretation of the revolution is one with temporary authority based upon the continuing wars with other major European powers. Robespierre’s manipulation of the situation to fit his own continuing status as ruler in Paris was effective until the enemies of his Republic were gone. Once the basis of his jurisdiction had disappeared, so did he, going to the same guillotines where he had thousands of Parisians executed. His Machiavellian manipulation was masterful and effective, but Robespierre failed to plan ahead, and it cost him his life, leaving yet another power vacuum in the heart of Paris. This time, the military would occupy it, and at the head was the General Napoleon Bonaparte.
| As with each of the other figures who headed the various French governments, Napoleon was able to rally the people behind him and his cause. And government could remain in power as long as they remained the darling of Paris, the lynchpin of it all. Napoleon won Parisian respect through victories on the field of battle. His government is a symbol of the French prowess on the field of battle and as a result his takeover did not require force, but was driven by popularity. His proclamation of the end of the revolution in 1799 is a sign of stability of his new order. Napoleon quickly begins similar construction projects to leaders such as Henry IV, intended to show off the power of his new government and demonstrate the authority of Napoleon as a ruler. One of these projects was constructing a system of roads radiating out from the city, a physical interpretation of the great importance of Paris. Following his coronation as an Emperor in 1804, he completely restructures the French constitution, not destroying the liberties contained within but simply making the document more logical in structure and composition, by streamlining it and making it easier for the general populous to understand. The Parisians see the changes and recognize them as the spawn of the Revolution, the words they had given so much blood to achieve, and while there was no democracy, but a French Empire, this was more than enough to win their loyalty, at least temporarily. |  |
The Parisians were fickle, however. It is easy to win support, it is much more difficult to keep it, and when France begins to suffer economically because of Napoleon’s massive war efforts, bordering on bankruptcy, only a great victory over Austria in 1809 saved his empire. Military victory won Napoleon his prestige and his position, and he resorts to achieving new victories when the memory of the old ones fade. In 1812, his doomed Russian campaign begins, and the French army quickly found itself devastated by the winter and their Russian opponents. His return to France was one notable due to the lack of an army at his back and cheering spectators waiting inside the gates.
“Soldiers of my Old Guard: I bid you farewell. For twenty years I have constantly accompanied you on the road to honor and glory. In these latter times, as in the days of our prosperity, you have invariably been models of courage and fidelity. With men such as you our cause could not be lost; but the war would have been interminable; it would have been civil war, and that would have entailed deeper misfortunes on France.
I have sacrificed all of my interests to those of the country.
I go, but you, my friends, will continue to serve France. Her happiness was my only thought. It will still be the object of my wishes. Do not regret my fate; if I have consented to survive, it is to serve your glory. I intend to write the history of the great achievements we have performed together. Adieu, my friends. Would I could press you all to my heart.”6
Napoleon’s plea to the people of Paris fell upon deaf ears. His reputation as a servitor of the republic had faded, and when the victorious coalition, led by the Russian cossacks, camped on the Champs-Elysées they were cheered as Napoleon had been at the start of his reign. In the words of Napoleon’s chief architect, Fontaine, “Who could imagine that the actual event would resemble a festival that did not disturb peace and order?”7
Napoleon’s return from exile less than a year later would too be greeted with enthusiasm. The Bourbon nobility, reinstated by the coalition, was not well received by the French, and Napoleon was welcomed back with open arms. Napoleon’s strategy of rule through victorious conquest was incredibly effective for short periods, but the euphoria wore off. Though he was welcomed warmly, his miraculous return also heralded a return to warfare and economic distress. The coalition quickly made a return to Paris to depose Napoleon for a second time in under a year, and once again, the invading army, whether it be French, Austrian, or Russian, is greeted with celebrations. The aristocracy is returned to power under the remnants of the Bourbon monarchy, first under Louis XVIII and then by Charles X. The next fifteen years were, by comparison, stable, without great incident. The return to violence and revolution would be in 1830.
That year the mob was once again incited to revolt. Charles X and his aristocratic government were methodically removing the protections of personal liberty that had been placed into the French constitution. Combined with major agricultural crises, this Parisian population was extremely malcontent, especially with an aristocracy the likes of which they had revolted against violently only forty years before. Their bloodlust revived, the mob followed in the footsteps of those prior to them, storming the Louvre and capturing the city armories. Unlike in the earlier revolutions, there is no particular goal in mind, just a basic desire to protect their liberty. A demand for Charles X’s abdication eventually yields results, and Louis-Phillipe, the great-great-grandson of a regent who ruled for Louis XV takes the throne. A different kind of leader, Louis-Phillipe was a bourgeois wearing the crown of a noble. For the next 18 years Paris would avoid entanglement in revolution, as Louis-Phillipe’s government was able to keep all three participants in French government content in their lot. The aristocracy remained, for the most part, intact, the bourgeois acted as the power behind the throne and laissez-faire capitalism thrived, and the working class was rewarded with the return of the liberties given to them under the Declaration of the Rights of Man.
The stability of a capitol is a constant requirement for the continued success of any government, but in the case of Paris it is extreme. Keeping the Parisian mob happy is the key to the longevity of any French ruler, and when combined with the necessity of maintaining ties with both of the important political groups: the aristocracy and the bourgeois, the task becomes a near impossible one. The mob was unwilling to accept any restriction on the liberties that they had so much blood to gain, and an government which gave the appearance of doing so, for any reason, would find themselves trampled underfoot. This lesson, paid for in blood, is something that spread like wildfire throughout Europe: if the working class desires something, then they cannot be denied for their numerical advantage is simply too great. This lesson would cause change throughout all of Europe, some in the form of violent, radical revolutions and other in the form of controlled reformation of the existing system. In either case, the French had taught Europe an important lesson, and one which would shape the development of the continent.
Return to Index
Bibliography
Avalon Project. Yale Law School. 1996-2003. <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm>.
“French Revolution” Encyclopedia Britannica: Micropedia . Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1994.
Guérard, Albert. France, A Short History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1946.
Horne, Alistair. Seven Ages of Paris. New York: Random House, Inc., 2002.
Internet Modern History Sourcebook Project. Fordham University. 26 January 1996. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall>.
“Napoleon.” Encyclopedia Britannica: Micropedia. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1994.