Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès

Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès was born on 3 May 1748, the fifth child of Honoré and Annabelle Sieyès, in the southern French town of Fréjus.^[2] Honoré Sieyès was a local tax collector of modest income; although they claimed some noble blood, the family Sieyès were commoners.^[2] Emmanuel-Joseph received his earliest education from tutors and Jesuits; and later attended the collège of the Doctrinaires of Draguignan.^[2] His ambition to become a professional soldier was thwarted by frail health, which, combined with the piety of his parents, led to pursuing a religious career; to that effect, the vicar-general of Fréjus aided Emmanuel-Joseph, out of obligation to his father, Honoré.^[3]

Education

Sieyès spent ten years at the

Despite Sieyès' embrace of Enlightenment thinking, he was ordained to the priesthood in 1773,

While remaining in ecclesiastical offices, Sieyès maintained a religious cynicism at odds with his position. By the time he determined to enter priesthood, Sieyès had "freed himself from all superstitious sentiments and ideas".[8] Even when corresponding with his deeply religious father, Sieyès showed a severe lack of piety for the man in charge of the diocese of Chartres.^[8] It is theorised that Sieyès accepted a religious career not because he had any sort of strong religious inclination, but because he considered it the only means to advance his career as a political writer.^[5]

What Is the Third Estate?

In 1788,

What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been hitherto in the political order? Nothing. What does it desire to be? Something.

This phrase, which was to remain famous, is said to have been inspired by

Sieyès's pamphlet incited a radical reaction from its audience because it involved the "political issues of the day and twisted them in a more revolutionary direction".[11] In the third chapter of the pamphlet, Sieyès proposed that the Third Estate wanted to be "something". But he also stated that, in allowing the privileged orders to exist, they are asking to become "the least thing possible". The usage of such rhetoric in his pamphlet appealed to common causes to unite the audience. At the same time it influenced them to move beyond simple demands and take a more radical position on the nature of government. In this case, the radical position taken by the Third Estate created a sense of awareness that the problems of France were not simply a matter of addressing "royal tyranny", but that unequal privileges under the law had divided the nation. It was from this point that the Revolution's struggle for fair distribution of power and equal rights began in earnest.

Impact on the Revolution

Sieyès's pamphlet played a key role in shaping the currents of revolutionary thought that propelled France towards the

Whereas the aristocracy defined themselves as an élite ruling class charged with maintaining the social order in France, Sieyès saw the Third Estate as representing the nation whether or not the other two orders were present. The pamphlet placed sovereignty not in the hands of aristocrats but instead defined the nation of France by its productive orders composed of those who would generate services and produce goods for the benefit of the entire society. These included not only those involved in agricultural labor and craftsmanship, but also merchants, brokers, lawyers, financiers and others providing services. Sieyès challenged the hierarchical order of society by redefining who represented the nation. In his pamphlet, he condemns the privileged orders by saying their members were enjoying the best products of society without contributing to their production. Sieyès essentially argued that the aristocracy's privileges established it as an alien body acting outside of the nation of France, and deemed noble privilege "treason to the commonwealth".

Sieyès's pamphlet had a significant influence on the structural concerns that arose surrounding the convocation of the Estates general. Specifically, the Third Estate demanded that the number of deputies for their order be equal to that of the two privileged orders combined, and most controversially "that the States General Vote, Not by Orders, but by Heads". The pamphlet took these issues to the masses and their partial appeasement was met with revolutionary reaction. By addressing the issues of representation directly, Sieyès inspired resentment and agitation that united the third estate against the feudalistic traditions of the Ancien Régime. As a result, the Third Estate demanded the reorganization of the Estates General, but the two other orders proved unable or unwilling to provide a solution. Sieyès proposed that the members of the First and Second order join the Third Estate and become a united body to represent the nation as a whole. He not only suggested an invitation, however, but also stated that the Third Estate had the right to consider those who denied this invitation to be in default of their national responsibility.^[12] The Third Estate adopted this measure on 5 June 1789; by doing so, they assumed the authority to represent the nation. Sieyès convinced the Third Estate to adopt the term National Assembly and was elected by the Assembly to its constitutional committee in July 1789.^[13]

Serving on the constitutional committee, Sieyès argued that the Assembly should not need to seek the King's approval on constitutional matters. Sieyès advocated for equality of voting power, a unicameral legislative body, and the absence of a royal veto over the actions of the legislature.^[13] Taking the position that the National Assembly held absolute power as the only true representative of the nation, Sieyès rejected arguments that the King should be able to initiate new elections for the Assembly or have the power to veto legislation. Sieyès believed that representatives to the Assembly must be free both from influence from above by the King and from influence from below by the people. While voters had the right to put into or take out representatives from power, for the term they were elected, Sieyès held, representatives should be answerable to no one.^[13] In September 1789, Sieyès triumphed over the more moderate members of the Assembly led by Mounier when the Assembly voted for a unicameral legislature by a vote of 849 to 89 with 122 abstaining.^[13]

Assemblies, Convention, and the Terror

Although not noted as a public speaker (he spoke rarely and briefly), Sieyès held major political influence, and he recommended the decision of the Estates to reunite its chamber as the

Ultimately, Sieyès failed to establish the kind of bourgeois revolution he had hoped for, one of representative order "devoted to the peaceful pursuit of material comfort".[16] His initial purpose was to instigate change in a more passive way, and to establish a constitutional monarchy. According to William Sewell, Sieyès' pamphlet set "the tone and direction of The French Revolution … but its author could hardly control the Revolution's course over the long run".^[17] Even after 1791, when the monarchy seemed to many to be doomed, Sieyès "continued to assert his belief in the monarchy", which indicated he did not intend for the Revolution to take the course it did.^[18] During the period he served in the National Assembly, Sieyès wanted to establish a constitution that would guarantee the rights of French men and would uphold equality under the law as the social goal of the Revolution; he was ultimately unable to accomplish his goal.

Directory

After the execution of Robespierre in 1794, Sieyès reemerged as an important political player during the constitutional debates that followed.

The Corps législatif appointed Bonaparte, Sieyès, and Roger Ducos as "Consuls of the French Republic".^[20] In order to once again begin the function of government, these three men took the oath of "Inviolable fidelity to the sovereignty of the people; to the French Republic, one and indivisible; to equality, liberty and the representative system".^[20] Although Sieyès had many ideas, a lot of them were disfavored by Bonaparte and Roger-Ducos. One aspect that was agreed upon was the structure of power. A list of active citizens formed the basis of the proposed political structure. This list was to choose one-tenth of its members to form a communal list eligible for local office; from the communal list, one-tenth of its members were to form a departmental list; finally, one further list was made up from one-tenth of the members of the departmental list to create the national list.^[21] This national list is where the highest officials of the land were to be chosen.

Sieyès envisioned a Tribunat and a College des Conservateurs to act as the shell of the national government. The Tribunat would present laws and discuss ratification of these laws in front of a jury.^[22] This jury would not have any say in terms of what the laws granted consist of, but rather whether or not these laws passed. The College des Conservateurs would be renewed from the national list. The main responsibility of the College des Conservateurs was to choose the members of the two legislative bodies, and protect the constitution by right of absorption. By this curious provision, the College could forcibly elect to its ranks any individual deemed dangerous to the safety of the state, who would then be disqualified from any other office. This was a way to keep a closer eye on anyone who threatened the state. The power of the College des Conservateurs was extended to electing the titular head of government, the Grand-Electeur. The Grand-Electeur would hold office for life but have no power. If the Grand-Electeur threatened to become dangerous, the College des Conservateurs would absorb him.^[22] The central idea of Sieyès' plan was a division of power.

Napoleonic era and final years

Sieyès soon retired from the post of provisional Consul, which he had accepted after 18 Brumaire, and became one of the first members of the

In 1795, Sieyès became one of the first members of what would become the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences of the Institute of France. When the Académie Française was reorganized in 1803, he was elected in the second class, replacing, in chair 31, Jean Sylvain Bailly, who had been guillotined on 12 November 1793 during the Reign of Terror. However, after the second Restoration in 1815, Sieyès was expelled for his role in the execution of King Louis XVI, and was replaced by the Marquis of Lally-Tollendal, who was named to the Academy by a royal decree.

In 1780, Sieyès coined the term sociologie in an unpublished manuscript.^[1] The term was used again fifty years later by the philosopher Auguste Comte to refer to the science of society, which is known in English as sociology.^[25] Sieyès was also among the first to employ the term science sociale.^[26]

Personal life

Sieyès was always considered intellectual and intelligent by his peers and mentors alike. Through the virtue of his own thoughts, he progressed in his ideologies from personal experiences. Starting at a young age, he began to feel repulsion towards the privileges of the nobility. He deemed this advantage gained by noble right as unfair to those of the lower class. This distaste he felt for the privileged class became evident during his time at the Estates of Brittany where he was able to observe, with dissatisfaction, domination by the nobility.^{[citation needed]}

Aside from his opinions towards nobility, Sieyès also had a passion for music. He devoted himself assiduously to cultivating music as he had plenty of spare time.^[3] Along with cultivating music, Sieyes also enjoyed writing reflections concerning these pieces.^[8] Sieyès had a collection of musical pieces he called "la catalogue de ma petite musique".^[27]

Although Sieyès was passionate about his ideologies, he had a rather uninvolved social life. His journals and papers held much information about his studies but almost nothing pertaining to his personal life. His associates referred to him as cold and vain. In particular, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord remarked that "Men are in his eyes chess-pieces to be moved, they occupy his mind but say nothing to his heart."^[28]

Bibliography

• Essai sur les privilèges, 1788
• Qu'est-ce que le tiers état?, 1789
• Vues sur les moyens d'exécution dont les représentants de la France pourront disposer en 1789, 1789
• Préliminaire de la Constitution françoise. Reconnoissance et exposition raisonnée des droits de l'homme & du citoyen, 1789
• Dire de l'abbé Sieyès, sur la question du Veto royal, à la séance du 7 septembre 1789, 1789

See also

• What Is the Third Estate?, a political pamphlet written by Sieyès
• Les Neuf Sœurs, a Parisian Masonic lodge of which Sieyès was a member

References

Works cited

• Fremont-Barnes, Gregory (2007). Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Revolutions and New Ideologies, 1760–1815. Greenwood.
  ISBN 9780313049514
  .
• Guilhaumou, Jean-Claude (2006). "Sieyès et le non-dit de la sociologie : du mot à la chose" [Sieyès and the unspoken aspect of sociologie: from word to thing]. Revue d'histoire des sciences humaines (in French). 15: 117–134.
• Hibbert, Christopher (1980). The days of the French revolution. New York City: William Morrow.
  ISBN 978-0-688-03704-8
  .
• Lalevée, Thomas (30 May 2023). "Three Versions of Social Science in Late Eighteenth-Century France". Modern Intellectual History: 1–21.
  doi:10.1017/S1479244323000100
  .
•  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Rose, John Holland (1911). "Sieyès, Emmanuel-Joseph". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 57–58.
• Meng, John J. (July 1933). "[Review of Sieyes: His Life and His Nationalism, by G. G. Van Deusen]". The Catholic Historical Review. 19 (2): 221–222.
  JSTOR 25013172
  .
• Palmer, Robert Roswell (2014). The age of the democratic revolution: A political history of Europe and America, 1760–1800. Princeton University Press.
  OCLC 1034247736
  .
• Sewell, William H. Jr. (1994). A rhetoric of bourgeois revolution: The Abbé Sieyès and What is the Third Estate?. Durham, North Carolina, United States: Duke University Press.
  ISBN 978-0-8223-1538-4
  .
• Van Deusen, Glyndon Garlock (1970). Sieyes: His life and his nationalism. New York City: AMS Press.
  ISBN 978-0-404-51362-7. Originally published as Van Deusen, Glyndon Garlock (1932). Sieyes: His life and his nationalism
  (PhD thesis). New York City: Columbia University.

Primary sources

• Sieyès, Emmanuel Joseph (1999). Fauré, Christine (ed.). Des manuscrits de Sieyès: 1773-1799. Des manuscrits de Sieyès (in French). Vol. 1. Paris: Honoré Champion.
  ISBN 978-2-7453-0260-1
  .
• Sieyès, Emmanuel Joseph (2007). Fauré, Christine (ed.). Des manuscrits de Sieyès: 1770-1815. Des manuscrits de Sieyès (in French). Vol. 2. Paris: Honoré Champion.
  ISBN 978-2-7453-1588-5
  .

Further reading

• Baczko, Bronislaw (1988). "The social contract of the French: Sieyès and Rousseau". Journal of Modern History: S98–S125.
  JSTOR 1880372
  .
• Fauré, Christine (2008). "Representative Government or Republic? Sieyès on Good Government". The Ashgate Research Companion to the Politics of Democratization in Europe: Concepts and Histories. pp. 75ff.
• Furet, Francois; Ozouf, Mona, eds. (1989). A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution. pp. 313–323.
• Sieyès, Emmanuel Joseph (1963). Finer, Samuel Edward (ed.). What is the Third Estate?. Translated by Blondel, Maurice. London: Pall Mall Press.

External links

Wikiquote has quotations related to Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès.

• Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès at Find a Grave
• Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, What is the Third Estate? (Excerpts)