РефератыИностранный языкCoConstitutional Father Essay Research Paper Emmanuel Joseph

Constitutional Father Essay Research Paper Emmanuel Joseph

Constitutional Father Essay, Research Paper


Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes, better known as Abbe Sieyes, is considered by some


scholars, the leader of the early Revolution in France; however, others consider


him a selfish, jealous man. No matter what one believes, there are some


indisputable facts about Abbe Sieyes. Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes was born on May


3rd, 1748 in Frejus. His father was a postmaster and collector of king’s dues,


while his mother was connected to the lower ranks of nobility. Sieyes’ parents


gave him the best education they could afford, first at home under a tutor, then


in the Jesuits’ College at Frejus. Most graduates of the college attended


military academies and Sieyes expected the same, but was forced into a different


occupation. Emmanuel’s parents pushed him into Holy Orders in the hope that he


would support the family, especially his two brothers. The Bishop of Frejus was


a family friend and helped Emmanuel’s parents send him to Paris to study at the


Seminary of St. Sulpice. His studies lasted for ten years and he was ordained a


priest in 1773. Two years after his ordination, Abbe Sieyes became secretary to


the Bishop of Treguier. His advancement in the priesthood was hindered of


course, because he came from a middle-class family that lacked nobility. Then in


1784, he became vicar general and chancellor to the Bishop of Chartres. Abbe


Sieyes then became a member of the Provincial Assembly of Orleans in 1787. When


the Estates General was called in late 1788, Abbe Sieyes wrote his most famous


pamphlet, Qu’est-ce que le Tiers Etat? "What is the Third Estate?"


With its publishing in January 1789, Sieyes became a prominent figure at the


Estates General. On June 12, 1789, Sieyes brought about the vote to allow the


privileged to join the Third. Then on June 17, he brought about the vote that


transformed the Third into the National Assembly. One year later, Sieyes was


voted president of the Assembly and of the Jacobian Club. During the next three


years, Sieyes simply survived the Terror. Later in his career he was a member of


the Committee of Public Safety, a member of the Council of Five Hundred, and


received membership to the Directory, but denounced it, and finally was named a


Consul in 1799. Sieyes left Paris for the Restoration and returned after the


revolution of 1830. He lived six more years and died on June 20, 1836. That was


Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes’ life, but scholars have written various interpretations


of it and its impact (Clapham 4 – 10). The first scholarly interpretation I


examined was that of John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton. Acton wrote Lectures on


the French Revolution. Acton states that, "Sieyes was essentially a


revolutionist, because he held that political oppression can never be right, and


that resistance to oppression can never be wrong?he (Sieyes) sacrificed


equality by refusing the vote to those who paid no taxes"(Acton 161). Acton


treats Sieyes as an important figure to the Revolution, especially in its early


stages. He makes Sieyes out to be a student of the Locke. He also states that


Sieyes controlled France twice, by sheer political power. This political power


did not derive from public opinion, but from Sieyes’ political thoughts. To


Acton, Sieyes was a political thinker, the best of his time, but he lacked the


pulse of the people and therefore was a poor politician. The next interpretation


I examined was that of J. M. Thompson. Thompson sees Sieyes as a philosopher


with one major flaw. In Leaders of the French Revolution, Thompson states,


"In both those acts (the creation of the National Assembly and the


Constitution of Brumaire) Sieyes did well by his country, and did so because he


was human enough to forget, for the moment, he was a philosopher"(Thompson


15). Thompson interprets this ignorance as Sieyes’ major weakness. He thinks


Sieyes could not philosophically detach himself from a situation. Thompson also


thinks Sieyes was unfit for the priesthood and was closer to the philosophes’


movements. Overall, Thompson believes that Sieyes is responsible for the


National Assembly, the National Guard, and the Departmental System and in effect


a great political thinker. The third interpretation I read was that of Henri


Beraud. In Beraud’s book, Twelve Portraits of the French Revolution, he sees


Sieyes as a secondary figure to the revolution, "a man who internally


struggled with respect for monarchy and the love of liberty"(Beraud 299).


Beraud’s interpretation of Abbe Sieyes differs form the first two because he


sees Sieyes political thoughts as part of his problem. To Beraud, Sieyes was


concerning himself more with his reputation and thoughts, than with his


political power. To Beraud, Sieyes could have helped prevent disastrous times by


taking control, but he acknowledges the fact that Sieyes was not a very good


politician. In conclusion, Beraud sees Sieye

s as a man clouded by his thoughts


and ego. The next scholar I examined was Georges Lefebvre. Lefebvre wrote The


Coming of the French Revolution. This book examines the early revolution and


pays some attention to Abbe Sieyes. Lefebvre believes that "Sieyes was the


theorist of the ‘constitutive power’ and the moving spirit of the judicial


revolution. But being neither a speaker nor a man of action, he was never known


except to the bourgeoisie"(Lefebvre 69). To him, Emmanuel Sieyes was a man


who lacked the ability and conviction to be a leader. Lefebvre also opposes


Thompson’s view that Sieyes’ actions, especially the coup d’etat of 18 Brumaire,


helped France. To Lefebvre, Sieyes was the "gravedigger" to the


political liberty he espoused. Lefebvre sees Sieyes’ life as one contradiction -


becoming part of the priesthood, after another – planning the coup d’etat of 18


Brumaire. The final interpretation I examined was that of J. H. Clapham, the


foremost author of Emmanuel Sieyes. His book, The Abbe Sieyes, was a source for


most of the information I read on Sieyes. Clapham sees Sieyes as a political


genius. "He (Sieyes) had genius, it has been rightly said, for finding the


key to a given political position. Hence, a dangerous tactician, whose influence


both on ideas and on affairs had to be reckoned with at each crisis of the


Revolution" (Clapham 2). To Clapham, Sieyes was hated by his adversaries,


because his ideas and principles changed with the revolution and therefore was


seen as a traitor to each political faction. Sieyes was a "political


metaphysician"-a man who took politics to the abstract level. That was


Sieyes legacy, according to Clapham. He was able to bring politics to a science.


Clapham also sees the contradiction in Sieyes thoughts and occupation. Clapham


acknowledges the fact that Sieyes’ thoughts and ideas contradicted his vocation,


but does not go into any more detail. In conclusion, Clapham believes Sieyes to


be the foremost political thinker of his time who influence the Revolution with


his thoughts, words, and inaction! These five interpretations cover the spectrum


on Sieyes and my personal interpretation falls somewhere in the center. I admit


Sieyes political theories were essential to the Revolution, as well as, his


pamphlet. Sieyes was the leader of the Third when it was looking for an


identity, and he helped create the National Assembly. In his own mind, he had a


vision for a government, which would help France achieve its greatness, but


lacked the leadership to implement it. Sieyes was too concerned with political


theories to take action when action was needed. Sieyes political thought was a


combination of Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. He was not as radical as later


revolutionaries, but was radical for his time in the early Revolution. Sieyes


was a constitutional monarchist. He wanted a constitution to control the power


of the monarch, but believed a monarch was needed. Sieyes never attempted to


destroy the King, he simply attempted to curtail his power. In the end, Sieyes


became a great political thinker, but lacked the courage and leadership to


control France and shape his political thoughts into reality. I think many of


his political theories and actions came out of his deep seeded hatred for the


nobility. He first disliked the priesthood, then the nobility within it because


they hindered his advancement. Sieyes’ ego took that as an insult. I think his


theory of government was created to destroy the nobility’s power. Sieyes did not


hold hatred toward the King. In actually, Sieyes loved monarchy just the same as


he loved liberty. He wanted both liberty and monarchy, but he could not


implement this form government because he lacked the leadership and confidence


to do it. Sieyes’ lack of confidence led many to view him as weak, feeble man,


but I have to disagree. Overall, Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes was a great political


thinker who wanted a constitutional monarch, but lacked the confidence to create


this form of government. A lack of confidence does not create a weak man or a


failure, he is just human. No one can be expexted to be perfect at the perfect


times. Sieyes was essential to the Revolution, he helped create the National


Assembly and the Constitution of Brumaire. No matter how you view his potential


ability, in reality, he did well by his country


Beraud, Henri. Twelve Portraits of the French Revolution. Trans. Madeleine Boyd.


Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1928. Clapham, J.H. The Abbe Sieyes. London:


P.S. King & Son, 1912. Dalberg-Acton, John E.E. Lectures on the French


Revolution. Ed. John Figgis and Reginald Laurence. London: MacMillan and


Company, 1932. Lefebvre, Georges. The Coming of the French Revolution. Trans.


R.R. Palmer. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947. Thompson, J.M. Leaders


of the French Revolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1929.

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Constitutional Father Essay Research Paper Emmanuel Joseph

Слов:1727
Символов:11610
Размер:22.68 Кб.