The reconciliation with the Papacy, which had been one of the principal achievements of the consulate, was broken under the empire. The Papal States were annexed to France, 17 May 1809, by a decree recalling the donation of Constantine, and Rome was declared to be a free imperial town. Pius VII retaliated by excommunicating the despoilers of the Church, and the bull was secretly circulated through the empire. For this act of temerity he was seized 5-6 July 1809, and carried off to Savona, where he was kept a prisoner. Difficulties, however, soon arose. The Pope refused to in stitute the bishops named by Napoleon; and Napoleon failed to coerce him. The cardinals generals of the orders were convoked to n Pas, and the archives of the Roman adminis tration were similarly transferred to the capital of the empire. By a decree of 17 Feb. 1810, the Pope was guaranteed a salary of 2,500,000 francs, given a palace in Pans, while at the same time it was ordained that all future popes should at their enthronement swear to observe the Gallican articles of 1682, which were de clared common to all the churches of the empire. This bold and revolutionary measure aroused great protests. Thirteen cardinals re fused to attend the emperor's marriage with Marie Louise, and were in consequence ban ished to provincial towns and prohibited from wearing the purple. A national council (17 June to 5 July 1819) gave Napoleon no satis faction, but at last a mutilated remnant of the assembly was induced to declare that the right of institution to vacant sees lapsed to the metropolitan in case the Pope failed to grant institution within six months after the see fell vacant. The Pope signed a brief accepting this conclusion, but in a form which was dis tasteful to Napoleon, and the sore remained open. At last, after the Russian disaster, Napo leon was induced (concordat of Fontainebleau 25 Jan. 1813) to renounce his claim to the Catholicity of the Gallican articles, while the Pope on his side confirmed the conciliar decree on the institution of bishoprics. But good feel ing was never restored, and the alienation of the Catholic Church was one of the greatest errors of the Napoleonic Empire.
The downfall of the empire was the nat ural result of Napoleon's ambition. The Penin sula War drained France of her finest troops, relieved the pressure on Prussia and prevented Napoleon from carrying out the designs on the Balkan peninsula, which had been part of the secret arrangement at Tilsit. Other causes con tributed to weaken the Franco-Russian alliance, — Napoleon's encouragement of the Poles, the continent blockade, the Austrian marriage, the annexation of Oldenburg. War broke out in 1812, and Napoleon led a huge army to Mos cow. He retreated among the rigors of a Russian autumn (October-December), lost a quarter of a million men, and shattered his prestige. First Russia, then Austria, ranged themselves on the side of the allies. A crush ing defeat at Leipzig (16-19 October 1813) compelled the evacuation of Germany, and brought about an invasion of France. Though Napoleon fought a brilliant in the valleys of the Marne and the Seine against the Prussian and Austrian armies, the allies eventu ally pressed on to Paris. On 30 March 1814,
the defense of the capital was surrendered by Marmont, and on 6 April Napoleon signed an act of abdication at Fontainebleau, and was allowed to retire to Elba. His dynasty was prescribed. On the advice of Talleyrand, Alexander of Russia, who had entered Paris at the head of the allied armies, resolved to recall the Bourbons. So perished the empire in a blaze of military glory, which France will never forget.
On his return from Elba in 1815, Napoleon, realizing the growth of liberalism, made a pre tense of liberalizing the imperial institutions, and Benjamin Constant, who had led the op position to Louis XVIII, was summoned to draw up a constitution. defeat of Water loo supervened before any serious trial had been made of the Additional Act, which estab lished an hereditary Chamber of Peers, an elected chamber of representatives, and at the same time guaranteed the freedom of the press; but it cannot be doubted that had Napoleon succeeded in re-establishing his powers, he would have made short work of liberals and of liberalism. At Saint Helena, however, he pro fessed that the despotism of the empire had been a transitional expedient, and that the future of liberalism and nationality in Europe were bound up with the fortunes of his house; and this was the creed of the Bonapartist party, and the pretext and apology for the second empire.
Bibliography.— The best short biographies of Napoleon are those by F. R. Seeley (London 1836) ; J. H. Rose (2 vols., London 1902) ; A. Fournier (3 vols., Vienna 1886-89; French tr. Paris 1892). The Modern His tory' (Vol. IX, Cambridge 1906) gives a more extended treatment, and a very full bibliography. Lavisse et Rambaud's (Histoire Generale) (Vol. IX, Paris 1897), is a valuable work of the same type, but slightly less elaborate. H. A. Taine's Regime Modern& (2 vols., Paris 1891-94), gives a striking criticism of the in stitutions. For the empire in Germany, H. A. L. Fisher's 'Studies in Napoleonic Statesmanship: Germany) (Oxford 1903) ; for the empire in Italy, J. F. Driault's (Napoleon en Italie) (Paris 1906), and R. M. Johnston's (The Napo leonic Empire in Southern Italy) (2 vols., Lon don 1904), may he usefully consulted. An elaborate work by F. Masson, (Napoleon et sa famine) (7 vols., Paris 1897), is the best authority on the domestic history of the em peror. For his statesmanship there are few works so illuminating as de la Lozere Opinions de Napoleon I au Conseil d'Etat' (Paris 1833, English tr., London 1837). The text of the most important constitutional docu ments may be consulted in Helie 'Les Consti tutions de la France) (Vol. II). The principal original authority for the period is the corre spondence of the emperor himself, which was published in 32 volumes (1858-70) ; to which great collection must be added some few vol umes of supplementary gleanings, (Lettres inedites ed. Lecestre' (2 vols., Paris 1897) ; (Lewes inedites ed. L. de Brotonne) (Paris 1898) ; and (Dernieres lettres inedites ed. L de Brotonne) (Paris 1903). A handy bibliography has been published by F. Kircheisen (London 1902) but it is distinctly inferior to the bibliog raphy in the 'Cambridge Modern History.'