A Closer look at Napoleon's Coronation

Scene from "Le Sacre" coronation book shows Napoleon I at the moment of self-crowning on 2 December 1804.

The coronation of Napoleon as Emperor of the French on 2 December 1804 was an event as portentous as it was lavish. Though Napoleon had in fact held that title since the middle of the year, the public ceremony, presided over with Pope Pius VII among those present, confirmed to the world the reality of the transformation of the French Revolution by the charismatic soldier-autocrat. What makes it also significant was it was a republic formally adopting imperial titles and pomp, so reminiscent of the discredited and dethroned French monarchy, that participants saw nothing incongruous in wanting to duplicate the enthronement ceremonies of said former Kings.

An important aspect of this `re-treading' of the former monarchy was the role that its ceremonial and regalia would play. This factor has led to obscure but fascinating confusions regarding the famous "self-crowning" by Napoleon, and some of the artists and historians since, in trying to depict or narrate this moment. The most common involve the fact that Napoleon's crown didn't have a traditional look of converging half-arches surmounted by cross or orb, but was a gold laurel wreath - that diadem-like wreath seen in most imperial portraits of Napoleon is his crown. The other confusion is even more subtle; the role of the so-called "Crown of Charlemagne". Having had cause to research this intriguing matter in the early 90's it is because of one such example I encountered that I decided to write this post.

This website contains such a good and detailed description of the coronation that it invites praise, and hopefully this correction will be taken in the spirit that it is intended. For it is precisely the quality and detail of the description that seems convincing, and calls for a modest correction of its facts. It is found in an article on the Napoleon reference site


http://www.georgianindex.net/Napoleon/coronation/coronation.html

which describes the coronation at length and contains this quote:

"According to the precis verbal of the master of ceremonies, Segur, the ceremony took place in accordance with the plans. After taking the crowns and other regalia from the altar and blessing them, the Pope returned them to the altar and then took his seat. Napoleon advanced and took a crown known as the Charlemagne crown, though the actual French Coronation crown known by that name had been destroyed during the French Revolution and this crown was a new crown made to look Medieval, from the altar and placed it on his own head. He then returned to the altar and replaced the so called Charlemagne crown with a laurel wreath made of gold of the type worn by Roman Emperors. Napoleon then once again took up the Charlemagne Crown and walk to the kneeling Josephine. As he held the crown up, Napoleon stated that he was crowning Josephine as his wife, not by her own right. This is the moment illustrated in David's famous painting of the coronation. Napoleon is wearing his personal golden laurel wreath crown and holding up the newly made Coronation or Charlemagne Crown. He then touched the coronation crown to Josephine's head."

Unfortunately this vivid description contains a subtle error. Though it rightly mentions that the gold laurel wreath was Napoleon's personal crown, and the "Crown of Charlemagne" was a replica to resemble a medieval original, it has then confused this replica "Crown of Charlemagne" with the crown placed on Josephine's head. The mention of David's painting clinches the fact of the conflation and confusion. This and other similar oversights occur because there were in fact three, not two, crowns involved in the ceremony, not counting the pope's tiara. These crowns are (1) Napoleon's crown which he crowned himself with, which is not = (2) "Crown of Charlemagne", and (3) Josephine's crown/coronet as Empress.

To understand the background, recall that Napoleon had accepted roughly duplicating the enthronement and consecration rites of the French Kings. Then as now, it can seem odd that the culmination of the French Revolution re-instituted the monarchy, albeit under a different name. Nevertheless, the coronation followed an outline very akin to those of the Bourbon kings. This was no mere dictatorship, or even Consulate (both which applied to Napoleon's earlier phase), but a full-blown re-presentation of monarchical grandeur and consecration. Despite the militantly secular character of the Revolution, it even sought the blessing of the Catholic Church.

However, there were key differences. Notre Dame was chosen as the site for the coronation, rather than the traditional cathedral at Reims (Ex., King Louis XVI had been crowned there on 11 June 1775). It was redecorated and refurbished by Percier and Fontaine. In key places temporary structures were built. At the large western entrance a big four arched portico surmounted by statues representing the towns of France was erected. These statuettes were flanked by King Clovis on one side and Charlemagne on the other side, each monarch holding a scepter in hand. A flagpole between them flew the archaic banner of St Denis.

Changes were also made inside the church. The screen of the choir and two lesser altars were removed, and sloping tiers of wooded seats covered with silk and velvet built on the sides of the nave. At the back of the church, a large twenty-four stepped dais with porch was raised upon which stood the thrones of Napoleon and Josephine. On the left side of the nave a temporary throne with canopy was erected for Pope Pius VII, where he sat for much of the ceremony, though the David painting shows him at the time he came to the high altar to bless the regalia.

This regalia is mentioned in the description of the imperial procession coming to Notre Dame found in Andre Castelot's `Napoleon' : "First came the four ushers-then at a distance of ten paces-came the heralds at arms, the pages, the aides, the master of ceremonies and the grand master carrying his staff, one behind the other. Then, escorted by Josephine's chamberlains and equerries, came three marshals dressed in white satin and aflutter with plumes...the first, Serurier held the Empress's ring on a cushion flanked by General Gardanne and Colonel Fouler...the Second, Moncey, carried the basket of purple velvet twisted and braided with gold and silver-gilt handles to receive her mantle, flanked by Colonel Vatier and M.de Beaumont....finally, the third Marshall, Murat, bore Josephine's crown, having d'Harencourt on his left and M.d'Auubusson on his right. Then came Empress Josephine herself, her mantle carried by Hortense, Julie Clary, Caroline, Elisa and Pauline all supporting the 30 square yard mantle. Each of the princess's had a chamberlain holding their mantle, making a total of 12 persons around Josephine. At the end of the procession came the maids of honor, the mistress of wardrobe and the six ladies in waiting."

Then the Emperor's seemingly endless retinue came next.....It is this point of the description to narrow in on:
"...then came the `regalia of Charlemagne' carried by [Marshals] Kellerman, Lefebvre, and Perignon. Followed by Napoleon, wearing the gold wreath crown and carrying in one hand the the silver scepter capped by eagle, and in the other a rod tipped with the hand of justice. His mantle was carried by Joseph, Louis, Lebrun, and Cambaceres. Then came the marshalls carrying Napoleon's regalia proper-the orb of the world, the silver scepter, and pearl-decorated staff."

Stop there and note. The `regalia of Charlemagne' referred to the surviving pieces -- and copies of those which did not - from the royal regalia of the French kings which had been preserved in the abbey of St. Denis till consumed in the ravages of the French Revolution. Though by the Enlightenment the `regalia' was simply brought out for consecrations of monarchs and not worn (apart from sometimes a very brief donning of the aging crown) it remained very important.

In the description, Marshall Kellerman is the one carrying one such replica, the `Crown of Charlemagne' itself. The crown by this name and other regalia had been associated with Charlemagne since the early Middle Ages and were of great antiquity. They had been stored at the Abbey of St. Denis and were brought out at the consecration of each French king. However, in 1590 the crown and other artifacts were destroyed in a ransacking. A replacement was ordered made, and this one in fact survived all the way till the end of the 18th Century. Then the replacement crown too, was destroyed in its turn by the anti-monarchist forces of the French Revolution. When the time for his coronation drew nigh, since the original crown had been destroyed, Napoleon had commissioned a replica from the goldsmith Martin-Guillame Biennais who worked by designs created and guided by the jeweler Etienne Nitot. Some attempt at realism was evidenced by the use of ivory cameos and only gold and metallic decoration; the profusion of jewels of Bourbon crowns was avoided. Amazingly enough, this crown still survives in the Louvre today, but it is rarely explained that it is not technically "the crown of Napoleon" that people have in mind that he "crowned himself with". It dates from 1804, not Charlemagne's time, or even the Middle Ages. It simply was intended to serve as a prop for the usual symbolic role of the original "Crown of Charlemagne".

We see this as the description goes on. "...at the entrance of Notre Dame Cardinal Cambaceres presented holy water to Josephine, with the dyspeptic Cardinal Archbishop de Belloy offering it to Napoleon-`while the Pope approached the altar and began the Veni Creator'. Then Napoleon `divested himself of his crown, scepter, sword, ring, hand of justice, and imperial robe, all of which were placed on the high altar to be joined by Josephine's robe, ring, and crown.'. Josephine was led under canopy to the small chair in the choir with velvet seat next to Napoleon's. The mistress of the wardrobe and lady of honor took off her heavy mantle and Moncey received it in his basket. Then her honors-crown/coronet, ring and mantle-were placed on the altar with Napoleon's honors."

Notice that Napoleon was already wearing his laurel gold crown and took it off upon reaching the altar. It, with Josephine's, would need to be blessed by the Pope before Napoleon could put it back on and conclude the formal consecration rites.

At this point Napoleon and Josephine knelt at the foot of the altar, and received the ritual of anointing, with the triple unction on heads and palms of hands. The Mass proceeded until the Gradual, when His Holiness signaled for the start of the coronation proper. Pius VII now blessed all the combined Imperial regalia of both Napoleon and Josephine that had been laid atop the altar. Napoleon's sword, scepter, orb, the hand of justice, collar, mantle, gold laurel crown, and ring. Then Josephine's mantle, crown, and ring.

Napoleon then crowned, or rather re-crowned, himself with the gold laurel crown after receiving the ring. Still wearing it, he turned and lifted the smaller crown of the Empress from the altar, turned, and with great dignity, first put it on his own head -- as one said, "as if to imperialize it" -- and then arranged and set it on Josephine's head as she bowed. This is the enchanting moment David chose for his painting, rather than the self-coronation. This not least because the self-crowning was not the dramatic surprise legend would later assign to it. During this time, Marshall Kellerman continued to hold the "Crown of Charlemagne" replica on a cushion in his hands; not placing it on the altar, and this fact was captured not only by David, but by the more literal and detailed depictions of the event in the coronation book of "Le Sacre". As far as known, it wasn't even brought to the altar for blessing.



Having previously crowned himself with gold laurel crown, Napoleon first has placed it on his head, then takes up and prepares to places Josephine's smaller woman's crown upon her head in turn. This is the moment captured in David's famous painting.



After the crowning, Emperor and Empress rose and moved to the rear where a great temporary dais and throne had been set up, that is usually not visible in pictures of the ceremony because at the back. Twenty-four high steps were needed to reach its top, where two thrones stood, Josephine's smaller and one step lower than her husband's, naturally. The Pope followed them there, and at that place after blessing them turned to all assembled and announced "Vivat Imperator in aeternum". This gave rise to a storm of "Long Lives!" from the congregation, while Pius VII returned to the altar and the mass continued to the reading of the Gospels.

When the time came for the gospel, the Bible or missal was carried to Napoleon and Josephine to kiss. The offertory utilized a silver-gilt bowl and ewer used at Louis XVI's own coronation, providing another link. After the mass, Pope Pius VII pointedly exited as arranged, for he did not want to sanction or condone by his presence the secular "liberty of worship" oath which Napoleon was to swear to not to impose any religion. Its words say much: "I swear to maintain the integrity of the territory of the Republic, to respect and cause to be respected the laws of the Concordat and liberty of worship; to respect and cause to be respected equality of rights, political and civil liberty, the irrevocability of the sales of national property, to levy no duty, to impose no tax, except by virtue of the law, to maintain the institution of the Legion of Honor; to govern solely for the interests, happiness and glory of the French People."

There came a rousing trumpet from the herald to close the proceedings: "The most glorious and most august Napoleon, Emperor of the French, is consecrated and enthroned!". It was nearly three o'clock and the long and majestic ceremony was concluding.

In the above, italics draw attention to some facts. Namely, if you note carefully, there are three crowns, not two. These are (1) replica of Charlemagne's' crown, (2) Napoleon's official crown, the crown fashioned like a gold version of a Roman emperor's laurel wreath, and (3) Josephine's own smaller but more delicately and elegantly wrought crown.

The actual 1804 replica of "Charlemagne's crown" designed by jeweler Nitot and fashioned by goldsmith Biennais for Napoloen's coronation ceremony. It sits today in the Louvre. Starting life as a dubious replica, it now has its own singular historic significance and lore.



Here in a painting of c 1500 AD, we see the `Crown of Charlemagne' that Biennais was attempting to re-create in 1804 after its destruction. The resemblance of the "attempt" and also how it fell short, are both clear.





We have seen how there are two main sources of possible confusion regarding crowns in the 1804 coronation of Napoleon. First, the famous `crowning himself' by Napoleon really involved him simply re-donning, that is re-crowning himself with the gold laurel crown after consecration. A crown he had already received before the ceremony. Then he took Josephine's crown from the altar, placed it symbolically on his own head for a moment then with a flourish turned,placed, and arranged it elegantly on Josephine's head. This is the moment David chose to capture in his magnificent painting. The second point is the fact that the replica crown of Charlemagne made by Biennais was not directly used; but served as a symbolic `prop' or link to France's royal history. It can be seen held on a cushion in the black/white engraving at the top of this article if you click on, and look in the lower left corner. (In the same engraving Napoleon is putting on his laurel crown, and Josephine's crown can just be seen on the altar to right). The replica can also be seen carried by Marshall Kellerman on the extreme left of David's painting, peeking over the arms of two figures in front, for it was desired not to emphasize it, for it was not considered a particularly successful feature of the coronation.

- Antony

The replica for 1804 `Crown of Charlemagne' appears in David's painting almost hidden; as a way of being both accurate, but not calling attention to it. Marshall Kellerman, who carried it, is completely obscured. I have placed a right-pointing arrow where you can just see the `dome' of the crown between the two men. Behind them all, is the canopied chair where Pope Pius VII sat for most of the proceedings.

May 22 : An epic anniversary in history....

Today happens to be the 219th anniversary of the beginning of a relatively unknown, yet awe-inspiring event in the annals of civil history and public power to make change for the better.

In the present time of seeming inertia and inability for frustrated citizens to make much impact on government conditions this is a particularly instructive story. There is a little known and truly inspiring aspect of the tragic history of slavery that with our Amero-centric bias, is often overlooked. Forget the example of the United States, which despite its ideals and intentions to promote freedom first had to split in half, and then fight a Civil War just to get rid of slavery, then suffer for almost precisely another century to get rid of the last of its legal legacies. In many ways, this is rightly a discouraging precedent. On the other hand, Great Britain's slavery had already ended in in the 1830's, and without a civil war.

It is how the British Empire's abolition movement began that is truly inspiring and encouraging to any who feel there is no ability to spark change for the better or to reform the entrenched mindsets of politicians owned by lobbyists. A recent book, "Dark Ages America" by Morris Berman(to be reviewed soon) goes so far as to say that the `levers of change' in America, if not the West, are effectively gone and moribund. In effect, implying that there is little the common person of moderate means can do any more. This is not the American ethos, and is fundamentally defeatist, no matter how convincing. And it need not come to be.

When set against such a projection, the tale of how slavery was brought to a halt in the British Empire is positively enthralling and brings new heart. It is all the sadder that the Civil War and Reconstruction here, are the commonly known models, and that this epic chapter in the West is neglected. On May 22, 1787, twelve men gathered in a London book store and print ship at 2 George Yard for roundtable. In many ways, the anti-slavery crusade was born there, though there were many already existing strands of thought on this, and there was tacit consent intellectually that slavery was barbarous and un-Christian, but seen as an economic linchpin at the time. One Thomas Clarkson was the principal organizer, and the movement would attract men such as William Wilberforce, whose evangelical convictions and missionary work toward India would give him strong perspective and leverage in the movement, Olaudah Equiano a former slave who would hand down harrowing eyewitness accounts of how it was to be one, and John Newton, the former slaver who wrote "Amazing Grace" and who also wrote of a slave captain's side of the story and how came to see it immoral.

The renowned de Tocqueville was to write of this movement later, but unlike the subject of some of his more celebrated writings, most Americans remain unaware of this other and more encouraging example of how injustices could come to be abolished. With India currently setting out on the difficult path of enfranchisement of its lowest caste, the lessons of 1787 apply to all cultures, for discrimination and institutionalized inequality was, and is, a worldwide phenomenon and not just a creation of of the age of Imperialism.

De Tocqueville said of the series of events unleashed by their meeting and efforts "was absolutely without precedent...If you pore over the histories of all peoples, I doubt that you will find anything more extraordinary." Its easy to forget that just over two centuries ago, well over three quarters of the world's people were in bondage of one kind or another, slaves in America, Europe, Ottoman Empire, Africa, serfdom in the Russian areas, peasants in debt bondage in China, etc, etc. Of importance here, is the terrible irony that in 1787, "freedom, not slavery, was the peculiar institution"! Yet the swiftness with which it died is an encouraging signal -- by the end of the 1800s it was outlawed almost everywhere, and the anti-slavery movement had achieved its goal in "little more than one lifetime".

In the process of their goal, they pioneered many of the tools of activists or conscience-raiser groups in use today, like posters, and even mass mailings, let alone boycotts and legal proceedings. Like many ills, a lot of the slave trade had actually depended on public ignorance of just how brutal and inhumane the conditions were, and what the real price being paid for certain luxuries was (the parallel today might be the diamond mines of South Africa or the tennis shoes made in Indonesian sweat shops) . Only five years after they began the movement, 300,000 Britons were refusing to eat the sugar that came from the slave trade in lieu of that which didn't, and the House of Commons has passed laws banning the slave trade. But the House of Lords initially voted down this bill, being comprised of the aristocracy backed by the powerful pro-slave interests; the analogs of the plantation owners and pro-slavery politicians of the ante-bellum South portions of the North and Midwest who in America dragged the country into armed confrontation over this when faced with the abolitionist movement.

But the cause refused to fade, and only gained moral and political headway, and though there were were uprisings and outbreaks of violence and upheaval, for the most part, the transformation came by public process. Thus, a half-century later, a slavers whip and chains were formally buried in a Jamaican churchyard in a ceremony for the last (William Knibb) of the `printing shop crusaders' who was still alive and had lived to see that day! The date was July 31, 1838 and there was even a plaque buried saying "Colonial Slavery, died July 31st, 1838, aged 276 years".

Slavery in the British Empire officially ended at midnight on August 1, 1838. Unfortunately, it still persisted in the United States. For a host of reasons, America proved finally unable to end the `peculiar institution' peaceably and by due process of legislation, and would have to fight a Civil War to end it and then a civil rights movement a century afterward. Slavery and institutional underclass structures also continued to persist beyond 1840 in different forms in the rest of the world: in Russia, most of Africa, and in the Islamic world. In fact, in the Islamic world, it still exists today in the ongoing tragedy of Sudan, elsewhere. In India, it is in the process of being confronted. But in 1838, "in the largest empire on earth, it was ended."

In many ways, this may have been one of the finer moments of Western Civilization's capacity to reform and improve itself, without resort to mass revolution and bloodshed. It is timely to recall this encouraging example as we confront the divisions and disarray of the present and feel that little can be done.

- Anthony

(The most recent book about this is now in trade paperback: "Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the fight to free an Empire's slaves" by Adam Hochschild, Mariner Books 2006).
ISBN 0618619070