Questions and Answers: France 1848-1914

1. "The Second Empire (of Napoleon III) stands out as a period of immense and fruitful activity." Discuss.

The Second Empire was a period fall of immense activity both in internal development and external diplomacy. Especially in the early years of the Second Empire, France had attained what could be said as immense and fruitful achievement. But after 1860, Napoleon III's foreign polices met with a series of failure.

For the domestic politics, it seemed that the regime of Napoleon III was a period of stability even up to early 1870. Politically Napoleon III, at first, tried to maintain an absolute rule at home. By the constitution of 1852, Napoleon III was granted the absolute power for a ten year period. The commanded the armed forces and the police and the controlled the Civil Service. Besides, the alone could initiate legislature, declare war and conclude treaties and he could rule by decree.

In order to rule France more efficiently, Napoleon III tried to make the government autocratic in nature. All Senators should take an oath of allegiance to him. Ministers were responsible to Napoleon III, but not to the legislative body. The Legislative Council had the right to accept or reject legislation, but could not introduce or amend it. Besides, individuals political liberty hardly existed. Political association were forbidden and political meetings could be held only in the present of government officials. The press decree of 1852 put a strict control in mass media. State education too, assumed a still more right and discipline character.

No matter how harsh, the measures were, these measure could still said to be fruitful. For the sake of the France, such activities could mention a period of stability in France before 1860. No large uprising against the government appeared in these period. The regime of Napoleon III was in a firm foundation. But all the regimes from 1815-1852 faced from army uprising against the government. We can say such activities was fruitful.

After 1860, Napoleon III granted some liberal concessions to the people. An amnesty was granted to all political exiles. Parliament was granted greater legislative and financial freedom in 1860 and rights of interpolation was included in 1867. In 1869, a responsible ministry was granted an the Legislative Assembly was allowed to purpose laws, to criticize and vote the budget.

It was said that such liberal concession would strengthen the opposition. This was however an exaggeration. In fact, the strength of the Left. Though increasingly stronger. In the election of 1863, the opposition won 35 seats was not enough to challenge the power of Napoleon III. In the election of 1866 it just won 63 seats. Besides, the greatest opposition, the Third Party, was willing to accept the regime of Napoleon III and influence the government by legal means. No uprising aimed at overthrowing the government appeared in the period 1860-1870. The most important evidence of the strength of Napoleon III was shown in the election of 1870. About 7.5 million had approved the liberal measures since 1860, 1.5 million opposed them, while two million had abstained from voting. This was a clear reflection of the fruitful political activities of Napoleon III's regime.

Perhaps the greatest achievements in this period was the economic prosperity. In fact, it was these years that French economic growth was greatest in Europe and sounder than any regime in France before Napoleon III used public bond investment to raise funds, for worthwhile business expression. Suez Cannel was built by a French company. The telegraph network was increased from 2000 to 70,000 kilometers. Scientific farming and selective breeding was encouraged and agricultural societies were organised.

Besides, the city of Paris was reconstructed. Some 20,000 old house were pulled down and more than 40,000 new ones were built; and gas lighting was introduced in Paris. Health condition was thus improved. Free trade was advocated while duties were reduced. Trade agreements were signed with Britain, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. As a result of such measures, the economy of France in the period 1852-70 was one of the most prosperous in French histroy. The production of coal had been increased from 5 million tons in 1850 to 13.3 million while iron production had increased from 0.5 to 1.2 million tons during the same period. Most important of all, total value of the French imports and export trade had rise from 2,615 million francs in 1851 to 8,008 million in 1869. This in the economic field, the period of 1852-70 was a period of fruitful and immense activity.

Socially, the reconstruction and enlargement of Paris caused a series of social effects. The construction of new ones at higher rent forced many workers to the outskirts, several parts of which were already becoming industrialized. Besides, the residents of Paris increased to 1,800,000 in 1890 end the division between bourgeois and working class quarters were much more marked. Besides, intellectual and cultural life of the country continued to flourish. A new realism marked much of the most notable work in this period. The realism of Courbet in the realm of painting was followed by the first picture of the Impressionists led by Manet, play, dramas historical studies and so forth was prosperous in these period. Positivism and realism began to dominate in the mind of many people.

Last, but not the least, were must hate the remarkable achievement of French scientist, aluminum was discovered by Deville. Louis paster also began his work in fermentation and bacteria.

Therefore, the internal activities of France in the period 1852-70 could be said to be immense and fruitful. Political, economic as well as social properties in this period pleased most of the people in France. Thus France experienced a period of prosperity and stability in this period.

Before 1859, most foreign policies of the Empire were successful. The defeat of Russia by France in the Crimean War won prestige for France. At the Congress of Paris, France was the diplomatic centre of Europe and was reorganised as the leading European military power. On the other hand, French overseas expansion also met with great victories, Algeria was completely taken over in 1857. In 1858-60, a successful joint expedition with Britain was sent to Beijing. After the capture of Saigon in Indo-China, three more provinces in Cochin-China were annexed. A protectorate was established acquisitions overseas, the empire tasted the joy of military glory.

However, the empire received her first set-back over the Italian policy. An expedition from was sent to help Italy in a war against Austria. However, the expedition met with failure due to the strong resistance of Austria and Prussian threat in the north frontier. Thus, the Italian question had not won him the support of nationalists in Italy or the liberal at home, but rather offended the clericals. However, France could still gain the territories of Savoy and Nice from Piedmont in this expedition.

It was especially after 1863 the French polices was discredited. In order to placate the Catholics. Napoleon III kept troops in Rome until 1870. This alienated the French liberals and Italian nationalists. Besides, Italy Britain and Austria was also discontented with French actions in Italy.

In Poland, Napoleon III wanted to help the national cause and protest against the Czar's action in suppressing the revolt in 1863. Although he took no positive action, his policy was enough to bring about the collapse of the Franco-Russian Entente of 1856. In 1866, a war between Austria and Prussia seemed imminent. Napoleon III expected the war to be lengthy and France would gain some territories at the end of the war. Austria was quickly defeated and France could not gain any territory. Thus, French prestige suffered a crippling blow. Besides, the dominating position of France in Europe was threatened by Prussian rise in power. Similarly, France failed to obtain Luxembourg in 1867. Luxembourg was declared a neutral state. Thus, French prestige was lowered.

In 1862, French troop was sent to Mexico due partly to the economic factors and Catholic demand at home. But the expense of Mexican expedition was too great that Napoleon III retreated the troop in 1866. But the Mexican venture aroused the Catholic opposition at home and Austrian opposition.

In 1868, the Spanish Queen was expelled by the republicans. A possible candidate for succession was Prince Leopold who was in relative of the Prussian King. In order to eliminate Prussian influence in Spain, France tried to replace Leopold through mediation with Germany. However, due to the failure in the mediation, war was broken out between Germany and France. France was defeated and it marked the end of the Second Empire.

The Second Empire, judged in term of foreign polices, was, in the main, fruitless. As Cobban says "between 1863 and 1867 Louis Napoleon succeeded in alienating practically way state of any importance in Europe." But the Second Empire did profit from having a paternalist government during these years of rapid industrial growth.

2. Do you agree that Napoleon III needed war to sustain his Empire?

Though many historians such as Burry emphasizes that Napoleon III needed war to sustain his empire and he needed military glory to satisfy the French that were long for prestige and glory. I disagree with Bury's opinion. In my opinion, Napoleon III needed no war to sustain empire as internally he could win the people's support by satisfying the people's interest especially the materialistic needs. Moreover, as Cobban remarked all the French were satisfied with Napoleon III's rule and they wanted peace instead of war. War was necessary only by the end of the Empire.

First of all, I emphasize once more that Napoleon III needed no war to sustain his empire until 1871. It was because Napoleon III could draw the masses's support through his internal measures. Just as McManners in his book, Lectures on European History remarks "the Second Empire was like a vaudeville entertainment, there was something to please everyday."

Economically, as Cobban remarks the Second Empire was "an age of materialism" and a period of prosperity. And the people's living standard was high and most of them were satisfied with this prosperity especially the bourgeoisie. This was largely the stimulation and encouragement of Napoleon III's economic policy. As Napoleon III once said "the new ruling class has won political power only in alliance with the people. If it is not to be overthrown in its turn it win have to meet the material demands of the people." And the key to Napoleon III's success was his expansion of credit. Financial-aid organization were set up to float public bond issue for major construction programme and encouraged private investment, for example, the Credit Mobilier, the Credit Foncier. Thus, under government's encouragement, trade and industry proposed with the recovery of Europe economy.

Export and imports more than quadrupled coal and iron production tripled, the value of shares quoted on the Bourse increased nearly five times, the use of horse power in industry quintupled, between 1851 and 1870. And she had almost a network of lines three times as in 1851 by 1870. Moreover, the Suez Canal was built. Furthermore, the proletarians were not swallowed up by the excess of mouth, In addition, Paris was reconstructed and that it became the political centre of the European Powers. Thus, economic prosperity satisfied the French, and there was no reason for them to oppose such a government.

Moreover, it was a period of stability, law and order. The government was a dictatorship which followed the public opinion and there was limited press freedom so that it could not stir the people's revolutionary feeling. Indeed, the map were satisfied that there was no disturbances of republicans who advocated the confiscation of property, assassination.

Furthermore, despite the economic prosperity, Napoleon III tried to satisfy all interest and drew support from all class. To peasant, they were satisfied with the economic prosperity and political satiability. In particular, they welcomed the growing market both internal and external, for their products. To the workers, the government tried to improve their living. They were produced with cheap food. Moreover, workers' co-operative were encouraged, and conseit de prud hommes were set up to settle labour disputes, and strikes were allowed too. To the Catholics, the alliance between the State and the Church provided more support for the government. Napoleon III had increased the contribution of the State to the Church, thus, enabling clerical salaries and pensions to be raised. Legal recognition was accorded to congregation of men. The Pantheon was restored to religious use. Thus, the church grew in size membership of religious orders increased from some 37,000 at the beginning of the Second Empire to nearly 190,000 by the end. To the bourgeoisie, economic prosperity was their greatest hope. Thus, how could the French not satisfy with the Empire. Thus in 1857, elections, the government was supported by over 84% of the voting as against 83% in 1852.

Though Napoleon III's internal policy was successful one may argue that it was the success of Napoleon III's foreign policy combined with its success in internal policy that got the support from the people. In my opinion, Napoleon III was not forced to make war in order to satisfy the people's demand for national glory. On the contrary, historians such as Cobban, McManners points out that instead of glory, the French wanted peace even at the beginning of the Empire. Concerning the Crimean War, Cobban remarks that "the country as a whole entered the Crimean War not only without enthusiasm, but with patent reluctance", other such as the Italian War, Cobban also remarks "at the end of the war", "the peasant.... their departure for the war brought cheering crowds into the streets." Thus, how could the French press Napoleon III to make war for glory?

Furthermore, most of the wars was Napoleon III's own. Being an adventurer and "the son of Romantic era", he liked to make adventure to fulfill his romantic ideas. Take for an instance, the fighting of the Italian War of 1858 was the result of Napoleon III's ideal of an Italian liberation. Thus, Cobban remarks, "the Italian War shows even more clearly, that, any of the other wars of the Second Empire, that they are not to be attributed to pressure from below, or to a French desire for glory, or to a supposed need, to cement the Emperor's authority... the Italian War was essentially the Emperor's own." As a result, the French waited peace and Napoleon III made war for his own purpose, it is clear that the success of foreign policy only added additional support to the Empire but did not from the main support to the Empire by the people.

Even after 1860, Napoleon III's foreign policy became totally a failure that Napoleon III could dress the support from the people through the liberal concessions. There was no need for war. Since 1860, Napoleon III had begun to make his concession as Napoleon III knew that democracy was inevitable. Moreover, since his Empire was at the height of success, concessions would not create harm to his Empire. In 1860, the legislative body and the Senate was welcomed to be criticized. More important in 1870, a government by a cabinet responsible to the parliament was established. And the liberal reforms were approved by 7,358,000 votes against 1,572,000 and Napoleon III had obtained practically the same number of affirmative votes as in 1852. Napoleon III needed no war to sustain his Empire.

But historian, as Bury insisted that the failure of the foreign policy led to the opposition of the people, and that Napoleon III was formed to make liberal concession in order to calm down the opposition zeal. But I agree with Cobban that the opposition force was not so strong to threaten the survival of the Second Empire and that this government was not forced to make concessions. As Cobban remarks "to the end there was no possibility that either (opposition from both left and right) could have obtained a majority in the country, still less have overthrown the regime" and the Empire "was still what divided them least."

Though Napoleon III did not need war to sustain his empire. I do agree that he needed to do so in 1871. Since there was a series of failure in foreign affairs, and France was out-manoeuvred by Prussia too many times, as in the Austro-Prussian War. France was refused by Prussia to get Luxembourg for her neutrality, and her demand was even made known to the Southern German states and Britain that they turned against from France. Now in 1870, the Ems telegrame which concerned the Spanish Succession Question had been doctored by Bismarck and published. The French public opinion could not receive such humiliation any more and they called for a firm stand even for a war. And it seemed that the empire could not survive if accepted the latest humiliation from Prussian. Thus, on July 15, 1870, French declared war on Prussia. But it was all a disaster. And the Second Empire was ended by the War.

All in all, though the national historians emphasize that Napoleon III needed war to sustain his empire and that the failure of them led to the opposition of the people and this weakened the goat. I disagree with them in the sense that Napoleon III's support came from his success of his internal policy and that the success of war only added additional support to the regime. Moreover, though the people demanded liberal concession due to the failure of foreign policy. Napoleon III was not threatened to make concession by a strong opposition and that Napoleon III earned new support from the opposition. As Cobban comments "the series of disasters in foreign and colonial policy ears witness to the strength rather than the weakness of the Second Empire."

3. How can the survival of the Third Republic in this period (1870-1914) be explained?

The collapse of the Second Empire had demised to the French politicians a perplexing issue: the form of government that would divide the country least. The absence of any widely admissible alternative had naturally paved way for the establishment of the Third Republic. Fundamentally, the Republic was weak; and by reason of its weaknesses, it had to surmount scandal after scandal, crisis after crisis that menaced its survival throughout its history. The Third Republic survived until the outbreak of the Second World War as if it was a miracle; perhaps it was really because of the weakness of its enemies rather than its strength that the Third Republic could live to fight another day.

One can easily describe the weakness of the Third Republic than to discover its strength. At the very beginning of its formation, the Third Republic had to deal with the problem of consolidating itself. In administrating a country with rivalry classes, the Republic had to sought a working compromise among these antagonistic classes necessary for the government to function. Such a compromise was by no means a facile task for the Republicans as there were always conspiracies by the Left or the Right to demolish the Republic. Instantly after the suppression of the Paris Commune, the Monarchists attempted, though in vain, to bring about the revival of monarchy. Later, the Republic was constantly challenged by the crises such as the Boulanger Crisis of 1886-89, Panama Scandal of 1892 and the Dreyfus Affairs of 1894-99. The foundation of the Third Republic was thus flimsy and unstable.

The Secret of the miracle of survival laid, perhaps, first in the economic prosperity experienced by the Third Republic. In the field of agriculture, apart from occasional depressions, such as that which produced the outbreak of 1907 in the South, the peasant generally felt satisfaction with the Third Republic, under which they were at last beginning to escape from the depressed conditions of life. In their farmhouses floorboards were replacing beaten earth and tiles the more picturesque thatch; oil lamps and coal stoves were coming in; the blue blouse and sabot were disappearing. The Meline tariff kept the price of agriculture produce high; and because of the railways its transport to the towns was now easier. The opening years of the twentieth century were period of agricultural prosperity. Although agricultural methods were still very backward, France was second only to the United States and Russia in the production of grain, and produced wine than any country except Italy. At the same time, the process of industrialization begun under the Second Empire was continuing under the Third Republic, particularly between 1890 and 1914. The use of steam power in industry multiplied ten times between 1870 and 1914. Between 1880 and 1914 the production of coal doubled, from twenty to forty million tons, that of iron went up nearly four times, and that of steel was multiplied by twelve.

The relatively successful foreign policy of France during this period also played a role in explaining its survival. During the office of Ferry, France experienced to a period of colonial expansion. In 1881 France took over Tunis, while the valuable island of Madagascar was gradually brought over under French control between 1883 and 1886. Simultaneously, the government carried forward Napoleon III's policy in Indo-China by sending French forces there had and bringing large part of the country under French domination. These colonial expansion gave new markets and invaluable source of materials to the traders and financiers who in return gave support to the government. Apart from colonial expansion, France was also able to escape from diplomatic isolation by alliance with Russia and Britain before the First World War. In addition, the Republican government was wise enough to adopt some appeasement policies that could please the nation and succeeded in bringing measures to inculcate loyalty to the Republic. The return of Chamber to Paris in 1879 and the observance of July 14th, the anniversary of the fall of Bastille, as a day of national festival in 1880 pleased all republicans by showing that the Republic was the heir of Great Revolution of 1789. Similarly, the inauguration of an extravagant programme of public works not only showed that the Republic had a care for the well-being of its citizens but also helped to remove discontented elements by giving them work. Moreover, the constitutional revision in 1884 ensured that the presidency should never be opened to any member of a family which had formerly reigned in France. Hence, the position of the Republic was consolidated as the hope of a restoration of monarchy died away. The revision of education laws provided a national system of education which staffed by laymen. Loyalty to the Republic was inculcated in the mind of younger generation. In 1901, Law of Association was passed and was followed by the Law of Separation in 1905 which meant the complete separation between the State and the Church. This was essential to give stability to the Third Republic by reducing its quarrels with the Church.

On the top of that, there was generally the desire for peace and the passion of revenge against Germany among the Frenchmen. After 1871, Experiencing decades of chaos, there generated a strong sense of hated towards instability among the Frenchmen. Most of them desired for peace. In addition, the defeat of France by Germany in 1870 created the passion of revenge against Germany. Though the ideas of revenge did not amount to an attack on Germany, it was sufficient to hold the nation together when it was threatened by another German attack, as proved in World War One.

Apart from this, the Republic could boost of a group of public servants who were both honest and efficient. Their public spirit and efficiency of service were bred by Napoleon III. He established the Council of State. Its members included lawyers, administrators, scientific men, economists of the best quality in the country. This body of experienced men who awed their position to the Emperor did their best to serve the Empire. Their public spirit and efficiency of service was handed down to the public servants of the Republic. Moreover in 1884, the Third Republic established Competitive Examination for the recruitment of men into the various branches of the government. So the result was that honest, efficient public-spirit civil servants ran the administration of the state while the government at the top level was involved into the scandals of corruption.

In fact, the cardinal reason of its survival was the weakness of its opposition from both the Left and the Right which threatened the existence of the Republic. Perhaps the reasons laid in that both the Right and Left were divided. On the Right, the struggle to the throne among Comte De Paris, Comte De Chamboad and the Prince Imperial was a case in point. Though the above three made an agreement late, the hope of restoration was soon withered away when the Comte de Chamboad refused to accept the tricolour flag as the emblem of state in place of the White flag. Even after the death of the Prince Imperial and Comte de Chamboad, the struggle went on and there was only little write among them. In fact, the monarchist majority that existed in 1870 helped to cancel itself out by its own internal rivalries. The subsequent Boulanger Affair and Dreyfus Affair might regarded as the most dangerous threat to the Republic. However, both them failed at last largely because of the weakness of itself. The General Boulanger succeed not solely on the score of his own faint-heartedness; but had comprehended that his supporters were so diverse that they could never have entertained the idea of a coherent issue. The anti-Dreyfusards lacked an effective leader. Though the 'honour of the army' might be a good slogan, too many people suspected army's role as particularly honourable. Event the generals, such as Roget, were not prepared to be used by unscrupulous anti-semites and reactionaries to carry out a coup. The above two crisis might be regarded as an indication that the weakness of its enemies rather than its strength that the Third Republic could live to fight another day.

The ralliament policy of the Church in 1890 also revealed the dissent among the monarchists. Although most monarchist politicians rejected the idea of ralliament, the 1890's Catholic electoral support steadily drained away from monarchist candidates to the advantage to moderate republicans. By and large, the anti-clerical measures, mainly on education, might also helped to eliminating the influence of the Church. On the left, the Radicals showed little attention to a programmes of social and economic action. It was true that the Radicals did talk of a mild income tax and laws to protect labour, but few of them showed any solid programme for reform. Thus the Radicals rallied little from peasants, shopkeepers, artisans and so forth. How could the Radicals challenge the Republic if they had such weak foundation? Moreover, the so called 'Radicals' showed signed of a changing outlook in the 1890s. They followed the example of Gambetta, became more and more moderate. It was also their reason that a more intransigent wing broke away and formed the 'socialist radicals'. It was, therefore, justified to say that they remained lease as a party than a state of mind.

Furthermore, the Radicals also rivaled with the Socialist who were divided among themselves into the Blanquists, the Anarchists, the Possibilities, the Alemanists. They were differed in aims. Some advocated class struggle, some wanted just reforms in society, and they competed for influence with the Socialists. Hence, the government could preserved its position by balance of power among the opposition group. To conclude, the Survival of the Third Republic in face of challenge from both the Right and the Left was really miracles. It was quite astonishing that the Third Republic, with such weak foundation, could exist until World War II. The secret of its survival might perhaps laid, as mentioned above, in the weakness of its enemies.

4. "The Third Republic survived Boulanger and Dreyfus because of the weakness of its enemies" Comment.

The collapse of the Second Empire had demised to the French politicians a perplexing issue; the form of government that would divide the country least. For the last half-century there had been a melancholic tale of the debacle of one regime after another; monarchism and Casecarism were but feckless political experiments. The absence of any widely admissible alternative had naturally paved way for the establishment of the Third Republic. Fundamentally, the Republic was weak; and by reason of its weaknesses, it had to surmount scandal after scandal, crisis after crisis that menaced its survival throughout its history. The Boulanger Crisis, 1886-89 and the Dreyfus Affair, 1894-99 were distinctively tow most controversial riddles for the Republicans. The Third Republic survived Boulanger and Dreyfus as if it was a miracle; perhaps it was really because of the weakness of its enemies rather than its strength that the Third Republic could live to fight another day.

One can easily describe the weakness of the Third Republic than to discover its strength. In administering a country thronged with rivalry classes- one can use no lighter term - embracing the peasants, the workers, the bourgeois, the aristocracy and gentry, the Republic had to sought a working compromise among these antagonistic classes necessary for the government to function. Such a compromise was by no means a facile task for the Republicans as there were conspiracies by the left or the right to demolish the Republic. Instantly after the suppression of the Pairs Commune, the Monarchists occupied a majority in the National Assembly and its was likely that a monarchy would revive. Fortunately, the discard between the legitimate and the Orleanists let alone the Republic to cherish. Subsequently, the Republic was transformed into a permanent institution in 1875 only by the majority of one vote. The foundation of the Third Republic was thus flimsy and unstable; many a intriguer like Boulanger had exploited such fragility of the Republic in sabotaging the Republic.

The Boulanger incident was indeed a plot by the Right to subvert the Republic. Yet, it would be interesting and puzzling as well to see that Boulanger began his career with the patronage from the Opportunist who intended to enhance and make use of Boulanger's reputation to consolidate the republican regime. Prancing about Paris on a black horse, Boulanger tried to give the impression that under his leadership France would fight and win a war of reprisal against Germany. The Opportunists, who had no other aim than compromise and a tranquil life, were on the qui viva. Boulanger was soon dropped from the ministry. Lamentably, Boulanger was now a national figure round whom the whole public began to rally. Revelation of Danial Wilson, the President's son-in-law, being engaged in a scandal utterly discredited the regime and increased Boulanger's reputation. The Right had now taken up Boulanger and saw in his popularity a lever with which they might subjugate the Republic. In view of Boulanger's triumph in the Paris election of January, 1889, his supporters urged him to carry out a coup d'etat. It all seems at this moment that the weak Republic would subside on the brim of a coup d'etat; but Boulanger was even so weak in losing his nerve and finally he fled away and committed suicide. The whole crisis disclosed that the Third Republic was abysmally fragile. If there were no contradiction and miscalculation in the Opportunists' policy toward Boulanger and the alleged scandal of Wilson, Boulanger might not have been a threat to the Republic. Nonetheless, Boulanger succumbed not solely on the score of his own faint-heartedness; but he had comprehended that his supporters were so diverse that they could never have entertained the idea of a coherent issue. It wholly manifested the fundamental strength of the Republic for it was the only on the account of the weaknesses of its enemies but also its virtue in maintaining the nation least sundered. The fleet banishment of Boulanger's popularity and the return of a overwhelming republican majority after the acrimonious crisis aptly justify the creed.

The Dreyfus affair sparked off when in 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus was convicted of a betrayal of confidential information to the German military attack in Paris. Dreyfus was virtually innocent but the very fact that he was a Jew settled his fate. The whole affair seemed to be final with the immaculate Dreyfus being deported to the Devil's island. In 1898, however, when Zola published the famous I'accuse which uncovered the verity of the shocking affair, press and public opinion were aroused and a campaign for revision of the sentence on Dreyfus was started. Meanwhile, the Church, the Monarchists as well as the army remained against any retrial of Dreyfus. The dispute between the Dreyfusards and the anti-Dreyfusards had brought the country on the verge of civil war. What saved it was perhaps that spirit of fonctionnairisme with which the Army was imbued and its officers in the last resort were servants of the state. Apparently, the Army itself yielded on the gateway of overthrowing the Republic. Indeed after the truth about the Dreyfus case became known, the Republicans directed their vengeance on the anti-Dreyfusards primarily against the Church. The government intended as far as possible to spare the high military chiefs who were ultimately responsible for the scandal; the easiest way of diverting public indignation from the army was to turn it against the Catholic and primarily against the already unpopular religious congregations. Seemingly, the Republicans were playing the right card and they thus evaded the feasibility of a civil war. One might say that Boulanger failed for he lost his nerve and the Army in 1899 yielded for it was the servant of the state. Yet, this would be an overall abridged and monolithic picture of the two eristic episodes; it totally ignored the fact that the Republicans were pursuing the right course in each case. It was beyond dispute that the country was flimsy for it was identified with the revolutionary tradition; nay, for it was composed of various conflicting parties. Contrariwise to the general belief, these weaknesses proved ultimately to be the fundamental strength of the Third Republic for the republican mechanism provided for each class a vent to its interests. As a result, the republic survived every crisis throughout its course till the working compromise among the different classes had broke down. Indeed, the regime could hardly cherish without crises and scandals for each of them had in effect strengthened the republican institution. The Republicans had made full use of these crunches to eliminate its enemies; the Boulangist movement was the last upsurge of a Bonapartist spirit in France - a Bonapartism, but without a Bonaparte, and the Dreyfus case destroyed any chance of success which the papal policy of ralliement might have. All in all, the Third Republic survived Boulanger and Dreyfus not only due to the weakness of its enemies but also owing to its strength and the political skills of the Republicans.

5. "During the years which followed the great defeat in 1870, France gradually built up for herself a new political existence." What was the nature of the new political existence?

After the defeat in 1870, France gradually, built up for herself a new political existence. This new political existence was a republic. But unlike the previous government and even the first and second republic, this Third Republic possessed several feature that were new to France. The nature of Third Republic could be summarized by J. T. P. Bury's words it was a "Republic of the Republicans" and "the old aristocracy were never again during the Third Republic to wield power and govern the country as they had in the 70's."

Broadly speaking, the Third Republic could be divided into two period. As Gordon Wright comments that before 1879, it was a Monarchist Republic and after 1879, it was an Opportunist Republic. Immediately after the establishment of the Third Republic, the influence of the monarchist was rather great. In 1873, the Royalist succeeded in voting Marshall MacMahon as President in place of Thiers. The new President was in ardent Royalist, and it seemed likely that a monarchist restoration would take place. But fortunately the conflict between within the monarchist helped to preserve the Republic. Another example which showed the influence of the monarchist was great was the removal of Capital from Bordeaux to Versailles. But the republican gradually gained more influence because the people realised that this republic was a moderate republic. In October, 1877, the Republican gained a majority in the Chamber of Deputies, as Cobban says "the election of 1877 can be regarded as the real foundation of the Third Republic." Moreover, in January 1879, the republican won a majority in the Senate for the first time and at the end of the month, MacMahon required. On the matter, G. Wright comments that "the abdication of MacMahon in 1879 completed the process of putting the republicans in control of the Republic."

After the defeat of monarchist in 1879, a "Republic of the Republican" established. But unlike the first and second Republic, it was a moderate Republic or a "Opportunist Republic". For the next two decades after 1879, almost without a break, political power remained in the hands of the moderate or liberation wing of republicans. This could be justified by Thiers "the republic will be conservative or it won't be at all. " So under Thiers, a series of conservative measures, was adopted. The most outstanding example was the suppression of the Pairs Commune. The suppression helped to convince the property-class that the new regime could be trusted. Together, with the military and economic policy which rebuilt French army and put French economy on sound foundation, Thiers successfully made the Republic become the symbol of order and stability instead of 'the name of terror'.

As it was a Republic, the Republican party was important element of the political existence. Under the previous Republic, by the work of Gambetta, he proposed to unite the moderate republicans in a single party with sufficient power to govern France effectively. As a result, Gambetta rallied a sizable segment of the Jacobin left wing to the moderate, liberalism programme, and thus to avert a potentially disastrous faction fight among republicans over the nature of the republic. It was the first time in France's history that the republicans were so united. As a whole, by the works of Thiers and Gambetta, French republicanism became 'a new look', G. Wright comments.

Thus, on the governmental structure, after 1879, we can summarized by G. Wright's words, "the monarchists were no longer strong enough to threaten the regime, the Radicals on the other wing could not hope to dislodge the Opportunists but only to share government."

The 1875 constitution, although it was a compromise between Republican and Royalist, it was rather the most democratic and granted in France in the nineteenth century. Universal manhood suffrage was granted. On reaching the age of twenty, all men were entitled to a vote in general election for the Chamber of Deputies, property qualification was no longer existed. Thus, the sign of the old revolutionary slogan "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" still existed although the republic was far from revolutionary. Therefore, the Third Republic was a new political existence with parliamentary democracy. This further could be justified by J. P. T. Bury, "all Republican would have hold that one at least of its missions was now to give real content to those words by the establishment of a true political democracy,... no Republican group of any significance in parliament goes seriously beyond this political aim."

But the Third Republic was not a stable government. Unlike the previous government, the reason of instability was come from inside, not from outside. The opposition was not strong enough to overthrow the government. Although by Gambetta, the republic party was more united them before. Hagan says that there were "no tightly organised political parties in France." Instead, there were many political groups, such as conservative, monarchists, extreme left republican, and so on. No deputy felt obliged to give consistent support any group. A cabinet had to depend on loose coalition or 'bloc' consisting of number of such groups. Worse than this, if the vote was unfavourable the whole cabinet was expect to resign. So, the government was changed frequently. The first forty years after 1875 saw fifty changes of government. Therefore, it was difficult to work out a policy which would hold together a 'bloc' in the Chamber of Deputies for very long. Thus, Hagan has truly said that "French cabinets were 'notoriously unstable'". But fortunately, her oppositions were far weaker than her.

Like any other government, the Third Republic also attacked by many groups and suffered from many crises and scandals. But the results of these crises were different from that of the previous government. The most famous crises were Boulanger crisis and the case of Captain Dreyfus. After there two crises, the Republic was a stronger than before. The monarchist was discredited. More extreme left republicans and monarchists realised that it was fruitless to confront against the government which was too strong to be overthrown. As G. Wright comments "each crisis found all republicans joining in defense of the regime" and "the policy of ralliement was responsible for the conversion of the right." As a result, by the end of the 1890's, however, the Moderates were more inclined to form coalition with a segment of the ex-monarchist right. Moreover, one more thing which benefit the Republic was that it gained the supported of the newly raised political force, the Socialist. During the case of Captain Dreyfus, as Gilber comments, it was "the first time in European history Socialist declared their willingness to support 'bourgeois government'". But I would like to stress that the suppression was not like to the strength of the Republic, but due to the weakness of enemies.

Up to now, one may conclude that the foundation of the Third Republic was far stronger than any past government, for example, Louis Philippe's regime, but only accepted by upper bourgeoisie and Louis Napoleon's regime was only tolerated by the people. Unlike all of them, the Third Republic was widely accepted in general. But it still was attacked by some oppositions. Thus, it had to consolidate its victory. In the eye of Republican, illiteracy and clerical influence, in education were the main obstacles in the way of the conversion of France into a free political democracy, Jules Ferry put through a sweeping programme of reform. Undoubtedly, the foremost reforms were educational reforms, in which provided free and compulsory primary education in order to indoctrinate the youth and led them become the lover of republicanism and democracy and politically opposed to the Conservative Catholic. Thus, anti-clericalism some another forefronted policy. Not only by education, the anti-clerical nationalism propaganda was highly organised. The Church and the Conservative were threatened. As J. P. T. Bury says, "in the rise of the modern Republican State, the Church and the Conservatives saw the gravest threat to all that they held most dear." A new civil war seemed to break out. Fortunately, these policy of consolidation was proved succeeded. No new civil war broke out. Fortune enough, a new Pope, Leo XIII came to the throne. He was a pacific man. He liked to settle question by the policy of consolidation help the regime very much instead of weaken the regime, for example, Louis Philippe's repressive policy.

In short, the Third Republic possessed many features that were new to the France, but it also suffered from the traditional weakness that was the conflict between the Republican regime and monarchical traditions. But, indeed of shaking the foundation of the government, it helped to strengthen the regime. On the other hand, the regime gave many things to France. The most outstanding two features were the Opportunists Republic and the 'democratic' constitution.

In the field of foreign affair, the Third Republic was rather inactive if compared with the previous government. The most active colonial policy was practised during the ministries of Jules Ferry. France took over Tunis in 1881 and Madagascar in 1883. But, not all expedition succeeded. In 1885, France's East Asia expedition suffered a defeat.

All in all, the Third Republic was quite a unique regime in the nineteenth century. It was an Opportunist republic instead of a radical republic. The foundation was broad enough to enhance the center-right and center-left and the regime, was the most stable was since 1815. A 'democratic' constitution was granted. But it was not a stable government. The essence of instability was different from the previous government. The main reason of instability came inside --- the frequent change of government, but not from outside --- the attacks from the opposition. As time meant by, the Third Republic was stronger and accepted by masses, than before. Thus, in one word, the Third Republic was quite a 'unique' regime in the nineteenth century.

6. Asses the significance of the Dreyfus case in the history of the Third Republic. The Dreyfus case played an important role in the history of the Third Republic. It brought about the open conflict between the Right and the Left just as J. P. T. Bury, says "Nonetheless, it was profoundly important for the development of the French politics and its effect upon the Third Republic."

In fact, the Dreyfus Case brought about the open conflict between two political groups, the aristocratic monarchical France, and the Republican France. The former represented the anti-Dreyfusards rule stood for old monarchical, conservative France and believed that Dreyfus should lie sacrificed to preserve the army's honour. Far the latter represented the Dreyfusards who stood for radicalism and the ideals of the French Revolution and they were now able to take the offensive.

The anti-Dreyfusards included the army and the Church condemned Dreyfus supporters, for conducting a campaign against the national honour and the honours of the army. They aimed at attacking the Republic and parliamentary democracy. They tended to make use of this case as a means to overthrow the Republic and restored the principles of the Church and monarchy in France.

The Dreyfusards included all the Republican groups and agreed to defend the Republic against those who were comprising the overthrow it. They believed that they were defending the rights of the individual local were fighting against injustice and militarism.

The Republican finally won in this conflict and the power of the conservatives was weakened. The Dreyfus case was a very important event in the history of France. At least it was the first time that all Republican groups including socialist and radicals joined together and fought for a common aim. As Gilbert says "It was the final time in European history, Socialist declared their willingness to support a bourgeois government." In fact, it helped to consolidation the power of the Republicans.

After the Dreyfus Affair, anti-militarist and anti-clerical measures were the main policies of the Third Republic. The Republicans feared that the power of the army and the Church would be restored and it was dangerous to the rule of the Republicans. Therefore, there were many changes in the army high command. Officers who were known monarchists were removed. They were replaced by the men rules loyal to the republic. The power of presentation was also transferred to the Minister of War who was made certain of anti-militarist. The army in fact brought under certain control.

Besides, the anti-militaristic measures, the Republic also carried out, anti-clerical measures. The influence of the Church in education was greatly reduced. In 1904, a law was passed that prohibited all teaching by religious ideas. The outcome of the anti-clerical measures was the separation of church and state in 1906.

It was clear that the Dreyfus case did not weaken the rule of the Republic. In fact, it helped to consolidate its rule. After carrying out anti-clerical and anti-militarist measures there was no longer any force in France that could challenge the Republic. Gilbert says "the Dreyfus Affairs gave to the republic and to the republicans a prestige which they had never possessed before."

But it should be noted that the Affairs also reflected the fact that there were still many anti-Republican forces in France. The rule of the Republic in fact did not get support from the all classes in France. There were still many opponents of the Republic in France.

Despite the conservatives were suppressed their ideology brought great impact to the history of Europe. Their intense nationalism and racism, their attacks against, Jews as an alien internationally mind force, their praise of discipline and military values, their continent far law and right in favour of strength and vitality contained, the germs of Fascist philosophy. They must be counted among the intellectual ancestors of all the anti-literal and anti-democratic movements of the twentieth century.

Moreover, it should be pointed out that the Dreyfus Affairs made the Left become aware that the aims of the French Revolution had not been realized. Individual right was still limited and not realized. The radicals and socialist were aware, that more effort should be put in order to achieve the aim of the French Revolution.

To conclude, the Affairs was the turning point of the history of the Third Republic. It helped to consolidate the rule of the Republic. As Gilbert says "it was the full victory of the right principle over the wrong ones--- of the republican over the authoritarian ideas."