Once seated firmly in his saddle Napoleon proceeded to centralise the whole French administration, and to establish a regime as despotic as that of any of the hereditary monarchs who had preceded him.  But it was a despotism of a very different type from theirs.  Theirs was stupid, and excited the jealousy and hatred of almost every class.  His was intelligent and appealed both to the imagination and to the material interests of every individual Frenchman.  Theirs was based on privilege; his on absolute equality.  “About Napoleon’s throne,” Lady Blennerhassett says, “were gathered Girondists and Jacobins, Royalists and Thermidorians, Plebeians and the one-time Knights of the Holy Ghost, Roman Catholics and Voltaireans.  Kitchen lads became marshals; Drouet, the postmaster of Varennes, became Under-Secretary of State; Fouche, the torturer and wholesale murderer, a duke; the Suabian candidate for the Lutheran Ministry, Reinhard, was appointed an Imperial Ambassador; Murat, son of an innkeeper, a king.”

Death, it has been truly said, is the real measure of greatness.  What now remains of the stupendous fabric erected by Napoleon?  “Of the work of the Conqueror,” Lady Blennerhassett says, “not one stone remains upon another.”  As regards the internal reconstruction of France, the case is very different.  All inquirers are agreed that Napoleon’s work endures.  Taine said that “the machinery of the year VIII.” still remains.  Mr. Fisher, in his work on Napoleonic Statesmanship, says that Napoleon “created a bureaucracy more competent, active, and enlightened than any which Europe had seen.”  Mr. Bodley bears similar testimony.  “The whole centralised administration of France, which, in its stability, has survived every political crisis, was the creation of Napoleon and the keystone of his fabric.”

Napoleon’s administrative creations may, indeed, be criticised from many points of view.  Notably, it may be said that, if he did not initiate, he stimulated that excessive “fonctionnarisme” which is often regarded as the main defect of the French system.  But his creations were adapted to the special character and genius of the nation over which he ruled.  His main title-deed to enduring fame is that, for good or evil, he constructed an edifice which, in its main features, has lasted to this day, which shows no signs of decay, and which has exercised a predominant influence on the administration and judicial systems of neighbouring countries.  Neither the system itself nor the history of its creation can be thoroughly understood without a correct appreciation of the character and political creed of its founder.  It is this consideration which affords an ample justification of the special method adopted by Taine in dealing with the history of the Napoleonic period.