BECOMINGMODERNNew Nineteenth-CenturyStudies

SERIESEDITORSSarah Way Sherman,Department of English,UniversityofNewHampshireJanet Aikins Yount,Department of English,UniversityofNewHampshireRohan McWilliam, AngliaRuskin University,Cambridge, England Janet

Polasky, Department ofHistory, University of NewHampshire

This book series maps thecomplexity of historicalchange and assesses theformation of ideas,movements, and institutionscrucial to our own time bypublishing books thatexamine the emergence ofmodernity in North AmericaandEurope.Setprimarilybut

not exclusively in thenineteenth century, the seriesshifts attention frommodernity’s twentieth-century forms to its earliermoments of uncertain andoften disputed construction.Seeking books of interest toscholars on both sides of theAtlantic, it therebyencourages the expansion ofnineteenth-century studiesand the exploration of moreglobal patterns of

development.

For a complete list of booksavailable in this series, seewww.upne.com

Brian Joseph Martin,Napoleonic Friendship:Military Fraternity,Intimacy,andSexualityinNineteenth-CenturyFrance

Andrew Taylor, ThinkingAmerica: New England

http://www.upne.com

Intellectuals and theVarieties of AmericanIdentity

ElizabethA.Fay,FashioningFaces: The PortraitiveMode in BritishRomanticism

Katherine Joslin, EdithWharton and the MakingofFashion

Daneen Wardrop, EmilyDickinson and the LaborofClothing

Ronald D. LeBlanc, SlavicSins of the Flesh: Food,Sex, and Carnal Appetitein Nineteenth-CenturyRussianFiction

Barbara Penner, Newlywedson Tour: Honeymooningin Nineteenth-CenturyAmerica

Christine Levecq, Slaveryand Sentiment: ThePolitics of Feeling inBlackAtlanticAntislavery

Writing,1770–1850JenniferJ.Popiel,Rousseau’s

Daughters: Domesticity,Education,andAutonomyinModernFrance

Paula Young Lee, editor,Meat,Modernity, and theRise of theSlaughterhouse

Duncan Faherty,Remodelingthe Nation: TheArchitecture of AmericanIdentity,1776–1858

Jennifer Hall-Witt,Fashionable Acts: Operaand Elite Culture inLondon,1780–1880

Scott Molloy, Trolley Wars:Streetcar Workers on theLine

BRIAN JOSEPHMARTIN

Napoleonic

Friendship

MILITARYFRATERNITY,INTIMACY,

ANDSEXUALITYINNINETEENTH-CENTURYFRANCE

UniversityofNewHampshirePress

Durham,NewHampshirePublishedbyUniversityPressofNewEnglandHanoverandLondon

UNIVERSITYOFNEWHAMPSHIREPRESSPublished by University Press of NewEnglandwww.upne.com©2011UniversityofNewHampshireAllrightsreservedManufactured in the United States ofAmerica

E-BookISBN978-1-58465-944-0

Forpermissiontoreproduceanyofthematerial in this book, contactPermissions, University Press of NewEngland, One Court Street, Suite 250,Lebanon NH 03766; or visitwww.upne.com

http://www.upne.comhttp://www.upne.com

Portions of this book have beenpreviously published and are reprintedhere by permission of the copyrightholders:BrianMartin,“MilitaryBedfellowsand

NapoleonicMentors:IntimacyandFriendship in the Memoirs ofSergeant Bourgogne.” Reprintedwith permission from RomanicReview101.2(May2010).©2010TrusteesofColumbiaUniversityintheCityofNewYork.

Brian Martin, “From Balzac to Iraq:Soldiers, Veterans, and MilitaryAdaptation,” The Comparatist 30(May2006):68–80.

BrianMartin,“CorporalAffairs:FrenchMilitary Fiction from Zola toProust,”inTheFutureofBeautyin

Theatre, Literature, and the Arts,ed. Daniel Meyer-Dinkgräfe(Newcastle, U.K.: CambridgeScholars Publishing, 2005), 103–22. Publishedwith the permissionofCambridgeScholarsPublishing.

My heart was as empty as aloverwhohas lost theobjectof his passion … But now Iam like a lover who hasrediscovered his desire; Ioffermybody to supportHisMajesty. Long live theEmperor!

SOLDIER JEANBORDENAVE(1815)

Isetouttolookforoneofmyfriends, the onewithwhom Iwas most intimately linked,the one with whom I hadnever counted debts; ourpurses were one and thesame.

SERGEANT FRANÇOISBOURGOGNE(1835)

This fraternity of peril had

strengthened friendship forsome and created newfriendships for others.Friendship that forms on thefieldofbattleisoneoflastingduration.

CAPTAIN ELZÉARBLAZE(1837)

I loved him, my bravecomrade,andwouldnotleave

himtotheenemy.

CAPTAIN JEAN-ROCHCOIGNET(1851)

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSPROLOGUEGaysintheMilitary

INTRODUCTIONNapoleonWept

PART IRevolution toEmpire(1789–1815)

1MilitaryFraternityfromtheRevolutiontoNapoleon

2 Napoleonic Friendship atthe TopMarshal Lannes,

General Duroc, GeneralJunot

3 Napoleonic Friendship inthe Ranks GeneralMarbot,CaptainCoignet,SergeantBourgogne

PARTIIWaterloo(1815)4 Wannabes and Waterloo:

Stendhal’s NapoleonicLatecomers

5 Grave Friendship: Hugo’sMiserableWaterloo

6 An Army of Bachelors

NapoleonicVeteransfromBlazetoBalzac

PART III Restoration toSecond Empire (1815–70)

7 Combat Companions andVeteran BedfellowsBalzac’sMajorHulotandColonelChabert

8 Military Daddies andVeteran Rogues Balzac’sMajor Genestas andColonelBridau

9Neo-NapoleonicFriendshipMaupassant, Zola, andtheWarof1870

CONCLUSION HomoMilitaryModernity:

Proust and the FirstWorldWar

EPILOGUEUnknownSoldiers

NOTESBIBLIOGRAPHYINDEX

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

AsIcompletethisbook,I am deeply grateful for thesustained support of mybenefactors, mentors,colleagues, friends, andfamily. For the generousfellowships and grants thatsupported my research and

writinginParis,IamgratefultotheMellonFoundation,theKrupp Foundation, theHellmanFoundation, and theWhiting Foundation, as wellastheHumanitiesCenter,theCenter for European Studies,and the Department ofRomance Languages andLiteratures at HarvardUniversity.Iamalsothankfulfor the support, during thefinalstagesofthisproject,ofa sabbatical leave and an

indexing grant from theOffice of the Dean of theFacultyatWilliamsCollege.I want to thank Emily

Apter,AliceJardine,MarjorieGarber, and TomConley fortheir many years ofmentorship, inspiration, andguidance, and for theirconfidence in this projectfrom its earliest stages. I amindebted to MelanieHawthorne, David Powell,andMargaretWallerfortheir

detailed reading of themanuscript and theirinvaluablesuggestions,whichhave helped to make this amuchbetterbook. IsincerelythankAllanBérubé and JeanTulard for their inspiration,correspondence, andencouragement. For theirwise counsel, sustainedconfidence, and generousadviceonthisproject,Iwanttoexpressmygratitudetomycolleagues in theDepartment

of Romance Languages atWilliams College: KashiaPieprzak, Glyn Norton,Jennifer French, Gene Bell-Villada, Leyla Rouhi,Soledad Fox, and RichardStamelman. For theirexpertise, encouragement,and friendship during therevisionsof themanuscript, Iam grateful to several othercolleagues at Williams,includingChrisWaters,CarolOckman, Gretchen Long,

Denise Buell, AlexandraGarbarini, Regina Kunzel,Katie Kent, ChristineMénard, Steve Fix, BillLenhart, and Bill Wagner.Thanks also go to a numberof colleagues beyond myhome campus who offeredhelpful advice and feedback,including Jarrod Hayes,Daniel Meyer-Dinkgräfe,George Moskos, PhilippeDubois,andVinaySwamy.I want also to thank

Elisabeth Ladenson, GeneralEditor of the RomanicReview, Dorothy Figueira,Editor of The Comparatist,andChrisHumphrey and theeditors of CambridgeScholars Publishing for theirpermissiontoreprintportionsof this text that werepublished in earlier versionsas: “Military Bedfellows andNapoleonic Mentors:Intimacy and Friendship inthe Memoirs of Sergeant

Bourgogne,”RomanicReview101.2 (May 2010); “FromBalzac to Iraq: Soldiers,Veterans, and MilitaryAdaptation,” TheComparatist 30 (May 2006):68–80; “Corporal Affairs:FrenchMilitary Fiction fromZola to Proust,” The Futureof Beauty in Theatre,Literature, and the Arts, ed.Daniel Meyer-Dinkgräfe(Newcastle: CambridgeScholars Publishing, 2005)

103–22.I am enormously grateful

to Phyllis Deutsch, Editor inChief at theUniversity Pressof New England, for herconfidenceinthisproject,andfor her encouragement,patience, and expertise. Imust also thank SarahShermanandtheotherSeriesEditors of “BecomingModern: New Nineteenth-CenturyStudies”atUPNEandthe University of New

Hampshire Press, for theirinvitation to be part of thisinspiringseries.Many thanksalso go to RosemaryWilliams for her carefulcopyediting; toMartinWhitefor his skillful indexing; andto Lys Weiss, Katy Grabill,and Lori Miller at theUniversity Press of NewEngland for their expertise,hardwork,andsupport.This project is the

culminationof an intellectual

passion that began withTheodore Marier, HelenStack, Theodore LevingstonAllen, Nina Seidenman,Bernard Planchon, and AnneSlack, to whom I amprofoundlygrateful.For theirunfailingfriendshipandlong-term support during thewriting of this book andbeyond, I want to thankKristin Kimball, JulieTownsend, Mike Hill, PeterWardle, Keja Valens, Didier

Veloso, Nina Nowak, andSamantha Graff. As I hopethe prologue to this bookmakes clear, I am deeplygrateful for the love andsupport of my family—myparents Nancy and JosephMartin, my brother KevinMartin, and my sister KarenRaymond—whose hardworkand sacrifice inspired thisproject, and to whom it isdedicated. And for his manyyears of intellectual

engagement, thoughtfuladvice, andpatient support, Iammostgrateful to—andfor—Maxime Blanchard. To allofthesebenefactors,mentors,colleagues, friends, andfamily:Mercibeaucoup.

PROLOGUE

Gays in theMilitary

Amid the early debatesonwhatcametobeknownas“Gays in the Military,”General Colin Powell wasinvited to be the honorary

commencement speaker atHarvard University in June1993. Many graduatingstudentswereangeredby theuniversity’sdecisiontoinvitethe Chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff, who wasopposed to President BillClinton’s early proposal toallowgayandlesbiansoldiersto serve openly in theAmerican armed forces.Barely two months after anhistoric lesbian, gay, and

bisexual march onWashington, D.C., in April1993, when hundreds ofthousands of queer peoplefromalloverthenationaskedthe newly inauguratedpresident to live up to hiscampaign promises and fightfor their civil rights, manyHarvard students felt thatGeneral Powell’s positionrepresented institutionalhomophobia in the militaryand viewed his

commencementaddressasaninsulting way to mark theculmination of their collegecareers.In the spring days leading

up to the event, theHarvard-Radcliffe Bisexual, Gay, andLesbian Student Associationquickly organized a protestfor the graduation ceremonythat was intended to expressits opposition to the ban ongaysinthemilitarywhilenotdisrupting the

commencement exercises forthose students and familiesgathered from across theglobetocelebratemanyyearsof study, sacrifice, and hardwork. Festive pink balloonsmarkedwith slogans such as“Lift the Ban” weredistributed to willing facultyand studentsmarching in theprocession. Hundreds ofstudent mortarboards werecovered with pink proteststickers. Academic robes

were adorned with protestpins on which the Americanflag’s white stars had beenreplaced with pink triangles.Andatthemomentduringthemorning exercises whenGeneral Powell was to bepresented with his honorarydegree, graduating studentswere asked to stand on theirfolding chairs, turn theirbacks to the honoree, andholdupoppositionpostersforthegatheredfamilies,alumni,

and journalists sitting in therows behind, under the lushgreentreesinHarvardYard.The protest was a great

success. Rather thanattempting to block theprocession or drown out thespeaker, the protesterssucceeded in conveying aclear message with theirfestive balloons and colorfulposters, and in drawing theattention of the media. Thatweek, prominent articles

appeared in the New YorkTimes,BostonGlobe,andLosAngelesTimes describing theevent as one of many acrossthe nation that spring whereAmericans spoke out againstthe discriminatory militarypolicy that was later knownas “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,Don’tPursue.”1ThatJunedayin1993also

marked an importantmilestone in the relationship

between my military fatherand his gay son. As the firstinmyworking-classfamilytoearn a bachelor’s degree, Iwas acutely aware of whatthisdaymeanttomyparents.The children of immigrantfamilies from Ireland andScandinavia, my father andmotherhadgrownuppoorinBoston tenements andhousing projects, hadstruggled all their adult livesto raise three children, and

werenowcomingtoseetheiryoungest son graduate fromcollege. Like many parentsacross America, mine hadtaken on enormous financialburdens, exhausting overtimework, and hefty long-termloans to pay for my collegeeducation.Yet, inaddition tothesefinancialchallenges,myparentshadsacrificedagreatdealmore in theirstruggle toraiseandeducateagayson.When the GulfWar broke

outin1991duringthewinterofmy sophomore year, therewere heated debates in myfamily about what I and myolder brother, Kevin, woulddointheeventofaprotractedconflict and the return of thedraft.Myfather,whohadlostan entire generation of hispeers to thewar inVietnam,wantedtosparehissonsfromasimilarfate.Asthedaughterof immigrants, however, mymother felt a keen sense of

patriotismandbelievedthatitwas our duty to serve thecountry if drafted intoservice.DespitewhatIsawasan ironic gender disparitybetween a civilian motherwho (like Shakespeare’sVolumnia) expected her sonsto fight and amilitary fatherwho (like many parentsduring the Vietnam era)wantedtosavehisboysfromharm, I understood the logicof my parents’ opposing

positions.Whilemymother’spatriotism grew from anidealistic sense of immigrantgratitude, my fatherintimately understood—aftera lifetime of service in theMassachusettsArmyNationalGuard and theBoston PoliceDepartment—thedangersthata soldier would face incombat.Born in 1939, both of my

parents had vivid memoriesof theirchildhoods inBoston

during the Second WorldWar, including the dailychallenges of materialshortages and ration books,thedeathofmyfather’suncleTommy during combat inGermany, the return of mygrandfather George fromservice in the army, and thevictorycelebrationsinBostonat the endof thewar inbothEurope and the Pacific. Butas adolescents and youngadults, they had also lived

through the tumultuous yearsof the war in Korea—wheremydad’s stepfatherPaulhadserved in the navy—and theVietnam War, when myfather’s military serviceplaced him in the precariouspositionofbeingshippedoutforcombatinSoutheastAsia.Because of his Cold Warduties in domestic defense,my father was spared fromthe killing fields inVietnam.ButasbothanArmyNational

Guardsman and a policeofficer,hespentthewaryearson the front lines of thedomesticconflict,inwhichhewas often forced to confrontcollege students—similar inage but vastly different insocial class and privilege—amidthemassprotestsonandaround the campuses ofBoston’s many universities.Decades later,when theGulfWar broke out in 1990–91,my father’s National Guard

unit was among those to beactivatedfordeployment,buthe was again spared fromcombat due to the brevity ofthe war. He and his fellowofficers, however, faced aneweraofdomesticunrestathomeandanewgenerationofcollege protesters and anti-wardemonstrations.Ivividlyremembertheday

in the winter of 1991 whenmy friend Kristin Kimballand I marched in protest

down Massachusetts Avenuefrom Harvard Square inCambridge to Boston’s CityHall, alongwith hundreds ofother students from Harvard,Tufts, and MIT, and foundourselvesonoppositesidesofthelinesfrommyfather,whohadbeenorderedtopolicethedemonstration. In a nostalgicgesture of early Vietnam-eraflower power (as opposed tolater Vietnam-era rage),Kristin ran up to my

uniformed father and kissedhim on the cheek. Spottingmeinthecrowdshortlyafter,myfathersmiledandassuredmethatherespectedmyrightto protest, but I was carefulnot toembarrasshiminfrontofhisfellowofficers.By the time the Iraq War

began over a decade later in2003, I had returned toHarvard for graduate school—where my undergraduatestudentswerefar lesswilling

to protest this new war thanmy generation had done adecadeearlierortheirparentshad done during Vietnam—and my father had retiredfromboththemilitary(at therankofmastersergeant,afterthirty-six years of service)and from the police (as asenior detective, after thirty-sevenyearsofduty).Yet,asachildofwar,acareersoldier,and a police officer, myfatherunderstoodthedangers

involved in combat. And itwas for this reason that hewasdeterminedbackin1991—despite his own patriotismand sense of duty—to sparehis sons from the horrors ofwarfareintheMiddleEast.The Gulf War, however,

wasnottheonlygravedangerfacingyoungmenintheearly1990s. In the fall of 1991, atthe beginning of my junioryear in college, my brotherKevin told us that he was

dying of AIDS. Having comeoutoftheclosetattheageofeighteen in 1984, Kevinstrove his entire adult life toliveopenlyandhonestlyasagay man. When he wasdiagnosedwithAIDS in 1989,Kevin hid the news from allbut his lover Keith and hisbest friend Frank, in anattempt to shelter his familyandfriendsfromwhatwas,inthat first decade of the AIDScrisis, a fatal disease

stigmatized by shame,homophobia, and grossgovernment inaction. Facingthe collapse of his immunesystem, a new battle withpneumocystis pneumonia,and the rapid wasting of hisbody that fall, my brotherdecided to tell me,my sisterKaren, and my parents hispainfully guarded secret.After three more months ofprogressive suffering andrapid decline, Kevin died on

December 6, 1991. He wastwenty-five.A year and a half later in

June 1993, when Nancy andJoseph Martin arrived inHarvard Yard to see theiryoungest son graduate fromcollege, they had succeededin overcoming their ownchildhood poverty and inraising their three children.But they had paid anenormous price, and it musthave been bittersweet to

watchthecelebrationsofoneson’s successon theheelsofanother son’s burial. It tookmealongtimetounderstandand appreciate how thesacrifices of my brother’sgeneration—those hundredsof thousands of gay mensilenced by AIDS,homophobia,andindifference—made it possible for thoseofmygenerationtoavoidandfight HIV, to live and thrive.And I had only recently

begun to appreciate whymany writers and activistshad, amid great criticism,metaphorized these sacrificesinmilitary terms.2Whatwasclear to me on that Junemorningin1993,asIwalkedin the graduation procession,was that my parents neededand deserved to feel proudthatday.It was thus with some

hesitation that, at the

appointedmoment,Istooduponmychair to turnmybackonColinPowell,holdupmyprotest poster, and face myparentswhoweresittingonlya dozen rows back. Sure ofmy political position butafraid of ruining their day, Iflinched when my eyes metmy father’s. On the point oflosing my nerve, I wasrelieved when I saw hismouth curl up into a smileand his hand thrust into the

air with a big thumbs-up. Iknew that he probablydisagreed with my politicalposition,butIcouldtellfromhisreactionthathewastryingto say something like, “Irespect your guts, kid. Give‘emhell.”Sincemyfreshmanyear, when we first drovethrough the main gate inHarvard Yard (on which theuniversity’ssealandmottoof“Veritas” are embossed), myfatherhad loved to joke, ina

kind of working-class rebuffto establishment privilege,that “When you enter thegates of Harvard, you turnyour back on truth.” Now attheendofmycollegeyears,Icouldseethathewasamusedto see me holding up myprotest sign and sweating itout in my dark robes, butpleasedthatIwasstandingupfor myself and tryingrespectfully to prove himwrong.

After the ceremony, Iwadedthroughthecrowdandapologized tomy parents forall the political drama. Mydadlaughed,huggedme,andsaid “That’s okay, kid. Iknow the story and it’s allrightwithme.IloveyouandI’m proud of you.” Fearingthey had suffered too muchover my brother’s death toabsorb the news of anothergay son, I had neverexplicitly come out to my

parents. And here, on whatwasalreadyanimportantdayin my life, my father cameout for me, let me off thehook, and told me he wasproud. It was anoverwhelming moment, akind of vindication of muchthatwehadsufferedtogether,the emotional highpoint ofmy coming out as a younggayman.After receiving my

diploma in the morning

ceremony, I agreed to returnwithmy father after lunch tohear General Powell’scommencement address.Although I’d planned toboycott the speech, I wantedto honormy father’swish tohear the general speak, afterhe had respectedmy right toprotest. As we listened toColin Powell, I was baffledby what seemed to me twogross contradictions. First, Icould not understand how

General Powell could be soopposed to the openintegration of all Americansinthearmedforces,whenhisown pioneering militarycareer—beginningasanROTCcadetatCityCollegein1954and leading to his historicappointment as Chairman oftheJointChiefsin1989—hadbenefited from both his ownextraordinary talent andPresident Truman’s 1948executiveorderdesegregating

andfully integratingAfrican-Americans in the UnitedStatesmilitary.3 Second, andmore important, I could notreconcile the contradictionbetween this homophobicmilitary policy and what Iperceived as the glaringlyobvious common groundshared by soldiers and gaymen.Foritseemedtomethatfew knew more aboutphysical and emotional

intimacy between men thansoldiers, whose trainingdemanded a communalknowledge of each other’sbodies, and whoseexperiences in combat oftencreated the kind ofaffectionate bonds thatexemplify male love. Iunderstood that much of thehomophobic discoursecoming out of the Pentagonhad todowitha tacit fearofgay sex, a refusal to believe

that gay soldiers can also beeffectiveones,andapanickedconcern about unbridled gaysexuality in close quarters,communal showers, andbarracks bunks. But inemotional terms, militaryfriendships had alwaysseemed to me synonymousand concomitant withmasculine affection. If anyheterosexual man couldempathizewiththeemotionallifeofagayman,Ireasoned,

itwasasoldier.Admittedly, much of what

I knew about military lifecame from war films I hadgrown up watching with myfather. Among the manySecond World War filmswe’d seen together wereclassics such as The GreatEscape, The Dirty Dozen,Stalag17,TheBridgeon theRiver Kwai, and later filmslike Saving Private Ryan,Pearl Harbor, Enemy at the

Gates,andBandofBrothers.Overtheyears,we’dwatchedevery television episode ofM*A*S*H and its depictionof the Korean War multipletimes. And we’d seentogether such landmarkVietnamfilmsasPlatoonandBorn on the Fourth of Julyand more recent militarymovies like Black HawkDownandtheGulfWarfilmsJarhead andCourage UnderFire. In so many of these

films, soldiers had survivedthe hardships of military lifeand the suffering of combatbyrelyingontheaffectionatecare of their buddies andcomrades in the trenches.These homosocial bonds ofsoldier friendship—which Iwould later recognize in theepicwarriorsoftheIliadandthe Song of Roland, the warpoems ofWaltWhitman andWilfred Owen, and thehistorical analysis of Paul

Fussell and Allan Bérubé—seemed to me a ubiquitousand self-evident fact ofmilitary life, from AntiquitytotheMiddleAges,fromtheAmerican Civil War to theFirst and Second WorldWars,fromthewarsinKoreaand Vietnam to those inAfghanistanandIraq.Forme,this implicit connectionexplained in part how mystraight military father hadcome to understand and

accepthistwogaysons.As General Powell

defended his arguments thatdayagainst the integrationofgay men and women in themilitary, I sat next to myfather, smugly clutching mynew diploma but secretlyworried about my loomingstudent loans and whatseemed to be a shamefullyunbankabledegreeinFrench.Hoping to justify thisimpractical major, I tried to

focus my thoughts on myupcoming summer job inFrance, and wondered whatNapoleon would have saidabout gays in the military.Despite his politicaldictatorship and notoriousnepotism, Napoleonchampioned militarymeritocracy, promotedthousands of non-aristocraticsoldiers, and elevated manyto the highest ranks of hisarmy for their demonstrated

skill, bravery, and leadershipon the battlefield. Napoleonunderstood the vital role ofmilitaryfriendshipinsteelingnerves, allaying fear, andcementing loyalty amongfighting men in combat.GivenNapoleon’spartnershipand trust in his SecondConsul and later Arch-Chancellor Cambacérès—theinfamous homosexual whoco-authored the NapoleonicCivil Code decriminalizing

sodomy—I suspected thatNapoleon wouldn’t havecared about a soldier’ssexuality, as long as he wasloyalandfoughtlikehell.A few weeks after

graduation in June 1993,myparents came to visit me inParis, where we sawNapoleon’sArcdeTriompheon the Champs-Élysées,Jacques-Louis David’simperial coronation portraitofNapoleonandJosephinein

the Louvre, and theEmperor’smonumental tombat the Invalides. As welooked at the marble side-chapels flanking themagnificent gilded domeunder which Napoleon rests,my father and I easilyrecognized the tomb ofMarshal Ferdinand Foch(1851–1929), the greatFrench military hero of theFirstWorldWar.Butwehadmore difficulty identifying

Marshal Hubert Lyautey(1854–1934), who is buriedintheadjacentchapel,bathedin the light of sapphire-bluestained glass windows.Despiteourmutualinterestinmilitary history, we had noideawhoLyauteywasorwhythisman—who Iwould laterlearn was one of France’smost notorious militaryhomosexuals—had receivedthe great honor of being laidto rest next to Napoleon, in

the most celebrated militarymausoleuminFrance.Years later in the summer

of 2000, after a year ofdoctoral research in Paris, Iinvited my parents to makeanother trip toFrance,wherewetouredtheD-Daybeaches,battlefields,andcemeteriesinNormandy, before travelingtoBelgiumwheremyfather’suncleTommy isburied inanAmerican military cemeteryamid the rural farmlands of

Henri-Chapelle, thirtykilometers east of Liège.After theNormandy invasionin 1944, Tommy’s battaliontook part in the liberation ofChartres and Verdun, beforemarching into Belgium.Having survived thepunishing winter in theArdennesduringtheBattleoftheBulge,Tommywaskilledfollowing the strategiccapture of the RemagenBridge,spanningtheRhinein

Germany just southofBonn.Only five years old at thetime, my father recalls thedayin1945whenthemilitarytelegram arrived in Bostonannouncing the death of hisuncle and remembers hismother’sgriefoverthelossofher kid brother. For manyyears, my grandmother sentflowers to Tommy’s gravethrough the services of theAmerican Battle MonumentsCommission,butwewerethe

first in our family to visitHenri-Chapelle, fifty-fiveyears after Tommy’s deathduring the Second WorldWar.Ayoungandunmarriedman when he died, CorporalThomasMahoney leftbehindlittle trace of his personalambitions or passions, otherthanthelegacyofhisservice,etched on the white marblecrossmarkinghisgrave.Back in Paris a few days

later,wevisited theTombof

the Unknown Soldier, underNapoleon’s grand Arc deTriomphe on the Champs-Élysées. From the grandiosetombs of Napoleon andLyautey in the Invalides, tothevastmilitarycemeteriesinNormandy and Belgium, tothis honored grave of anamelessFrenchsoldierfromthe First World War, Iwonderedhowmanyofthesemilitary men had secretlyharbored a sense of love and

commitment for one anotheramid the horrors ofnineteenth- and twentieth-century warfare. From theRevolutionary andNapoleonicWars to the FirstandSecondWorldWars,howdid such men conceal orexpress their feelings ofaffection for their fellowsoldiers? How many storiesof military intimacy remainburiedwiththesemen,sealedin these graves, silenced by

combat and history? Amidthe homophobic imperativesof “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”whatmight thehistoricalandliterary record of forgotten“gaysinthemilitary”havetotellifwedaredtoask?

INTRODUCTION

NapoleonWept

Napoleon wept. On theeve of the battle ofWagram,duringhisAustrianCampaignin the spring of 1809, theEmperor received word thathis longtime friend Marshal

JeanLanneshadbeengravelywoundedon thebattlefieldatEssling. Following thegruesome amputation of hisshatteredleft leg,Lanneshadbeen evacuated to a safeposition on Lobau, an islandin the middle of the Danuberiver, six kilometers east ofVienna. Rushing to his sideamid the carnage of arudimentary field hospital,NapoleonembracedhisfriendofsixteenyearsasLanneslay

in agony. An eyewitnessreport by General Marcellinde Marbot, the marshal’schief-of-staff, explains how“The Emperor, kneeling atthefootofthestretcher,criedwhileembracingthemarshal,whosebloodsoonstainedhiswhite cashmere coat.”1Despite his rough militaryexterior and almost twentyyears of battle experience,Napoleon was overcome by

emotion at the sight ofLannes. In an effort tocomfort his bleeding friend,he embraced Lannes andcovered him with tears. Tendays later, after a week ofexcruciating pain, infection,and gangrene, Lannes died.Oncemore,Napoleon rushedto his friend’s side where,despite the overwhelmingodor of putrefaction causedby Lannes’s gangrenouswounds, Napoleon “moved

towards the marshal’s body,which he kissed whilebathing it in tears, sayingseveral times, ‘What a lossforFranceandforme!’”2Napoleon’s public grief at

the death of Jean Lannesrepresented a newmodel forsocial relations betweensoldiers in early nineteenth-century France. Weepingoverhisfriend’sbrokenbody,Napoleon demonstrated how

the Revolution and Empirehadmadeitpossiblenotonlyfor an emperor to grieveopenly for a fallen marshal,but for a soldier to love hiscomrade. Thisuncharacteristicexpressionofaffection between Napoleonand Lannes was echoed insimilar relationships betweenofficers and foot soldiers inNapoleon’s armies. Militarymemoirs of the First Empirebearwitness to awide range

of intimate relationshipsamonggenerals,colonels,andcaptainsaswell as sergeants,corporals, and grunts(grognards), the infantrysoldiers who made up themajority of the imperialarmies. Napoleon’s love forLannesmight thusbe said torepresentabroadspectrumofmasculine affection andintimacy in the ranks of theGrandeArmée,orwhatcouldbe called Napoleonic

friendship.In the larger scope of

French military history, thefriendship betweenNapoleonandLannesreflectedboththepastandthefuture.Recallingthe classical model of theIliad, the chivalric model ofthe Song of Roland, and thefraternal model of theRevolution, their friendshipset the tone fornewkindsofsocial relations betweensoldiers during the Empire

and in post-1815 France. Atthe beginning of a centuryoverwhelmed by militaryconflict—from theNapoleonic Wars (1796–1815),totheFranco-PrussianWar (1870–71), and thedecades preceding the FirstWorld War (1914–18)—Napoleon and Lannesprovidedanabidingmodelofmilitary friendship. By theendofthenineteenthcentury,when universal conscription

required every able-bodiedFrenchman to be a soldier,this early model ofNapoleonic friendship wouldpersist on a more uniformlevel. As France prepareditself for another century ofbrutal warfare, theNapoleonicoriginsofmodernmilitary friendshipmay havebeen forgotten, but theireffectsremainedembeddedinthe institutionalized notionthat to serve one’s country

wastoliveanddieinthecareofothermen.

CombatCompanions andWarrior Loversfrom Antiquity toMedievalFrance

Antiquity’s earliest oraltales,epicpoems,andliterarytextscelebratethecentralroleof combat companions andwarrior lovers. This ancienttradition stretches back to

GilgameshandEnkidu in theSumerianEpic of Gilgamesh(c. 2100 BC), David andJonathaninthebiblicalBookof Samuel (c. 625 BC),Achilles and Patroclus inHomer’s Iliad (c. 800–750BC), Nisus and Euryalus inVirgil’s Aeneid (19 BC), andthehistoricalSacredBandofThebes(378–338BC)inspiredbyPlato’sSymposium(c.385BC) and later described inPlutarch’s Life of Pelopidas

(c. 75 AD).3 In theSymposium, Plato proposeshis idea for an “armyconsisting of lovers,” inwhich men would fight withgreater courage since it is“only lovers who are willingto die for someone else.”4Plato’sproposalrepresentsanearly homoerotic theory ofeffective combat: “The lastperson a lover could bear tobe seenby,when leavinghis

place in the battle-line orabandoning his weapons, ishis [lover]; instead, he’dprefer to diemany times.Asfor abandoning his [lover] orfailing to help him in danger—no one is such a cowardthat he could not be inspiredinto courage by love.”5Plato’s theoreticalmodelwaslater put into practice by theTheban General Gorgidaswho in 378 BC created his

“Sacred Band,” an army ofthree hundred lovers pairedoffintoonehundredandfiftycouples, whose militarysuccesswasattributedtotheirfierce devotion to oneanother. While Gorgidasrealized Plato’s vision ofwarrior lovers, theSymposium inturnechoedanearlier model of combatcompanionsintheIliad.In his epic poem on the

Trojan War, Homer

foregrounds the heroicfriendship of Achilles andPatroclus,whoseloveforoneanother is exemplified byAchilles’s overwhelminggrief at the death of hiscompanionincombat:

[T]he black cloudofsorrowclosedonAchilleus. In bothhands he caught upthegrimydust, andpoured it over his

head and face, andfouled hishandsomecountenance andthe black asheswere scattered overhis immortal tunic.And he himself,mightily in hismight, in the dustlay at length, andtook and tore hishairwithhishands,anddefiledit.

(18.23–27)6

Consoled by his mother, thedespondentAchillesanswers,“Butwhatisthistome,sincemy dear companion hasperished, /Patroclus,whomIloved beyond all othercompanions, / as well asmyown life” (18.80–81).Achilles’s personal griefleads to national mourning.While his fellow “Achaiansmourned all night in

lamentation over Patroclus”(18.314–15),Achilleshimself“led the thronging chant oftheir lamentation, / and laidhis manslaughtering handsover the chest of his dearfriend / with outbursts ofincessant grief” (18.316–18).By publicly expressing hislove for Patroclus, Achilleshonorshis fallen friend, theirlives as combat companions,and their homoerotic model

ofmilitaryfriendship.7In the French literary

tradition, theloveofAchillesandPatroclusresonatesinthechivalric friendship betweenthe medieval knights Rolandand Olivier in the Song ofRoland. Written between theeleventhandtwelfthcenturiesand based on an even olderoral tradition, this epic poemorchanson de geste recountsCharlemagne’s defeat to the

Saracens at the battle ofRoncevauxinthePyreneesin778.8 Like the Oaths ofStrasbourg (842), a treatybetween Charlemagne’sgrandsons that is consideredthe oldest extant text in theFrench language, theSongofRoland is celebrated as theoldest poetic text in Franceand a foundational narrativein French literature.9 In itsepic account of

Charlemagne’s devotion toRoland and Roland’saffection for Olivier, thisinaugural text celebrateschivalric loyalty and combatcompanionship.10Charlemagne’s love for

Roland is dramatized by hisinconsolablegriefatthedeathof his beloved nephew.Having conquered a vastempire stretching fromSpainand France to the Frankish

kingdoms of Germany, thismythic warrior weeps andfaints on the body of hisfallenknight:

Heseeshisnephewlyingonthegrass:itisnosurprisethatCharlemagne is inpain.He dismounts, andrunstohim.Hetakeshiminhisarms

And he faints onhim, from anguishandgrief.

(205.2876–80)11

As Charlemagne mourns forRoland, his knights andsoldiers also grieve for theirfallen comrades: “OnehundredthousandFranksfeelsuch pain / that there is notone who does not crybitterly” (207.2892, 2906–8).Amid the carnage on the

battlefield at Roncevaux, the“extraordinary suffering, /and somanydead,wounded,bloodiedmen / lying one ontop of another” (125.1655–57), Charlemagne’s menabandon their weapons andweep for their friends. In anecho of the Iliad, thislandscape of grief juxtaposesthe violence and brutality ofwarwiththetendernessofitsmourningwarriors.As with Achilles on the

death of Patroclus, Rolandmourns the death of hisbeloved Olivier whom hecalls his “[g]ood [l]ord” and“dear companion”(147.1976–77).WhenOlivierismortallywounded, Rolandrushes to him, takes him inhisarms,and“oneagainsttheother, they lie down”(149.2008–9). As Olivierdies, the two companionsembrace “full of love”(149.2009, 268.3710) and

Roland tellshis fallen friend,“Lord companion, you havefought so hard for yourmisfortune! / We have beentogetherforyearsanddays: /youneverdidmeanyharm,Inever did you any wrong. /Since you are dead, it ispainful for me to live”(151.2024–30). Devastatedby Olivier’s death, Rolandembraces his companion andopenly expresses his love.Like the institution of

marriage, “love” betweenknights, vassals, and theirlords in twelfth-centuryFrance represented acontractual oath of politicalalliance, economiccooperation, and feudalloyalty.12 And as in othertwelfth-century romans andchansons de geste, theconventions of courtly lovedemanded chastity. Thesehistorical distinctions,

however, do not lessen theemotional power or partingtenderness between theseCarolingiancompanions.Collapsing on Olivier’s

body, “The valiant Rolandcries and mourns him” withsuchintensity,thetextinsists,that “neveron earthwill youhear a man more afflicted”(150.2022–23). Despite thismoving hyperbole, Roland’sgriefatthedeathofOlivierisnot a unique or isolated loss.

The love of these medievalcombat companions echoesthe warrior lovers of theancientpastandestablishesafounding trope of Frenchmilitary friendship for thefuture. Just as Achillesmourned Patroclus, andRoland grieved for Olivier,Napoleon would weep forLannes.Despite considerable

historicaldifferencesbetweenthese ancient, medieval, and

Napoleoniccontexts,Achillesand Roland were repeatedlyinvoked in early nineteenth-century France to describeLannes and his friendshipwith Napoleon.13Rather thanevoking any continuousevolution in militaryfriendshipfromtheTrojan tothe Napoleonic Wars, thesecomparisons amplified thepathos of the deathbedintimacy between Napoleon

and Lannes, whose openexpressions of affectionreflected a more recentevolution in military cultureduringtheRevolutionandtheEmpire. After centuries ofantagonism and abusebetween aristocratic officersand subordinate soldiers inthe Royal Army of theAncien Régime, theRevolutionary andNapoleonic armies radicallytransformed their systems of

recruitment andpromotion toreflect themeritocratic idealsof the Revolution and themilitary ambitions of theEmpire.14 Echoing both thetheoretical and practicalmodels of Plato andGorgidas, this transformationin Napoleon’s armiesreflected these practicalreforms in the Revolutionaryarmies as well as a growingbelief—or emerging military

theory—innineteenth-centuryFrance that friendshipbetween soldiers could be aneffective strategy forregimentalunity.15

MilitaryFriendship andCombatTheory inNineteenth-CenturyFrance

In their collective work ofmilitary theory, GeneralNapoleon Bonaparte (1769–

1821), Colonel CharlesArdant du Picq (1819–70),andMarshal Hubert Lyautey(1854–1934) all argue thatincreased intimacy, mutualrespect, and fraternal supportamong soldiers ultimatelylead to stronger armies andgreater success in combat.Often overshadowed by themilitary theories of theircontemporaries General Carlvon Clausewitz (1780–1831)andMarshal Ferdinand Foch

(1851–1929), these threecelebrated strategistsproduced a small body oftheoretical work whoseemphasis on solidaritybetween soldiers and officersrepresents the legacy ofancient-medieval discourseson combat companions andwarrior lovers, a break withtherigidsocialstructuresandinequalities in the RoyalArmyof theAncienRégime,andanewnineteenth-century

focus on the tacticaladvantages of militaryfriendship. Conceivedindependently at thebeginning,middle,andendofthe century, the militarytheoriesofBonaparte,Ardantdu Picq, and Lyautey couldbeconsideredacollectiveandsustained theoreticalargument on the strategicimportance of militaryfriendship in the armies ofnineteenth-centuryFrance.

Although Napoleon leftbehind no unified work ofcombat theory, the militarymaxims and tactical theoriesexpressed in his voluminouscorrespondence and speecheshave been collected andanthologized in numerousmilitarymemoirsandstudies,such as Honoré de Balzac’sMaxims and Thoughts ofNapoleon(1838)andGeneralPaul Adolphe Grisot’sNapoleonic Maxims (1897–

1901).16 ConsideringNapoleon’s celebratedconsolidation of military andpolitical power, it is perhapsnot surprising that hebelieved that “[t]he unity ofcommand is the mostimportant thing in war,” that“[t]hepresenceofthegeneralis indispensable,”andthat“itwasnottheRomanarmythatconquered Gaul, butCaesar.”17 These images of

central authority are alsoadvocatedbyClausewitzwhoarguesinOnWar (1832) that“[a]s the forces in oneindividual after another dieaway and can no longer beexcitedandmaintainedbyhisownwill,thewholeinertiaofthe mass gradually rests itsweight on the will of thecommander.”18 ClausewitzalsoconcurswithNapoleon’stheoryofcentralcommandas

anantidotetofearincombat:“Above all, the highest spiritintheworldchangesonlytooeasily with the firstmisfortune into depression,andonemightsayintoakindofgasconadeoffear…Suchan army can only achievesomething through itsleader.”19 As both Napoleonand Clausewitz make clear,thesecombatmodelsattributethe success and failure of an

army to the skill of itscommander.Napoleon argues

elsewhere, however, thatcombat success depends onrelationships of mutualrespect, support, andsolidarity between soldiersand their officers. Reasoningthat “[o]ne is only brave forothers” and that “[a]n orderfrom a beloved general isworth more than the mostbeautiful speech,” Napoleon

contends that fear in combatis overcome by soldiers’sense of communalresponsibility and evenaffection for their fellowcomrades and leaders.20Successful combat officers,heargues,must thusgainthetrust and affection of theirsoldiers. In his words to theFrencharmiesandnavalfleeton their departure for theEgyptian Campaign in 1798,

General Bonaparte remindedhis men that their Romanancestorshadbeen“patientinenduring fatigue, disciplined,and united amongthemselves.”21Inthisspiritofmilitary solidarity, Bonapartethus commanded his men to“beunited;rememberthatonthedayofbattle,youallneedone another.”22 Building onthis ancientmodel ofRomanunity in combat, Napoleon

encouraged his soldiers andsailors to work together andsupport one another inhardship.While Napoleon evoked

thelegacyof theancientpastand its emphasis on militaryunity,hisinsistenceongroupsolidarity represented aradical departure from themore recent past in France,where rigid class divisionsduring theeighteenthcenturypresentedenormousobstacles

to mutual respect andcooperation among soldiers.Theradicalsocialchangesofthe Revolution and themilitary meritocracyadvocated by Napoleonfosteredanewethosofmoreequal rights andresponsibilities in the ranks.With this newmodel, sharedsuffering and success incombat depended on greatertrust and intimacy betweensoldiersintheGrandeArmée

orwhat canmorebroadlybecalledNapoleonic friendship.Even after the fall ofNapoleon and amid frequentregimechangesinFrance,theinfluence of this Napoleonicmodel irrevocablytransformed French militarycultureandpervadedmilitarylife during the later decadesofthenineteenthcentury.Over half a century after

Napoleon’s defeat atWaterloo in 1815 and on the

eve of Napoleon III’s fallfrom power during theFranco-PrussianWarin1870,Colonel Charles Ardant duPicq’slatenineteenth-centurytheories of group solidarityrepresented the legacy ofNapoleonic friendship in aneo-Napoleonicempire.Bornin 1821, the same year asNapoleon’s death in exile onSaintHelena,CharlesArdantduPicqstudiedatthemilitaryacademy of Saint-Cyr and

served as an infantry officerin the Crimean War (1854–55), during which he wastaken prisoner at Sebastopol.Afterservice inSyria (1860–61) and colonial Algeria(1864–66), Ardant du PicqfoughtintheFranco-PrussianWar at Metz, where he waskilled in 1870. A decoratedofficer of the Légiond’Honneur, Colonel Ardantdu Picq is also the author oftwo influential works of

military theory: AncientCombat (1868), whichappeared shortly before hisdeath, and Modern Combat(1876–80), which waspublished posthumously.Later combined into a singlevolumetitledCombatStudies(1880), Ardant du Picq’senormously influentialtheories on the psychologicaleffects of combat and theimportance of cohesionamong soldiers were later

taught at the École Militairein Paris where they inspirednew generations of militaryleaders during the decadesleading to the First WorldWar. Grounded in thenineteenth-centuryNapoleonicmilitarytradition,Ardant du Picq’s workcontinued to exert influenceon military theorists both inand outside France, from thebeginning to the end of thetwentiethcentury.

ArdantduPicq’s theoryofcombat solidarity relies on arealistic understanding ofhumanfear.Incontrasttothenotion that soldiers can bemade to fight throughdiscipline, Ardant du Picqacknowledges the limits ofdisciplinary training inovercoming fear in combat:“Discipline’s goal is towagewar on fear by creating aneven larger fear, that ofpunishment and shame. But

therealwayscomesamomentwhen natural fearoverwhelms discipline, andthe combatant flees.”23Ardant du Picq explains thatwhile “the severe laws ofdiscipline” (52) often fail tohelp soldiers overcome theirnatural and overwhelmingfear of death, “powerfulpassions” (52) are moreeffective in inspiring soldierstofight.Arguingthatsoldiers

are less likely to fight forabstractions—like honor orthe nation—than for thefriend standing beside them,Ardant du Picq advocates asystem of affectionateresponsibility in which“everyone’s eyes should beon everyone else” andwhere“each group should be madeupofpeoplewhoknoweachotherwellandunderstandthis[mutual] surveillance as arightanddutyofthecommon

good”(52).For Ardant du Picq, the

shared suffering of warfarecreatesbondsofaffectionandfeelings of mutualresponsibilityamongsoldiers,forwhom“thehabitoflivingtogether, obeying the sameleaders, commanding thesame men, sharing fatigueand privations” produces asense of “fraternity, union,professionalism, palpableemotions, in a word, and

intelligentsolidarity”(53). Inthis way, he reasons, “whenfaced with the enemy, eachperson understands that thetask is not an individualburden but a collective one”(53). In what resonates as alate nineteenth-centuryversion of Plato’s vision foranarmyof lovers,ArdantduPicq’s theory of combatsolidarity argues that menwhocare forone another aremore effective combatants.

Although he was killedbefore Ancient Combat andModernCombat had reacheda wider audience, Ardant duPicq’s ideas on militarysolidarity were admired,taught, and integrated byMarshal Ferdinand Foch—who writes in his Principlesof War (1903) about the“Immense task of commandwhich … is rarely managedby one man, but rather by aplurality”— and were later

evokedbyAmericanmilitarytheorists in their debates on“gays in the military” at theend of the twentiethcentury.24Building on Napoleon’s

andArdantduPicq’stheoriesof combat unity andsolidarity, Marshal LouisHubert Lyautey proposed atthe end of the nineteenthcentury a theory ofaffectionate leadership

between commandingofficers and their men. Bornin1854,Lyauteywasmovedby theFrenchdefeat in1870to enroll in the militaryacademy of Saint-Cyr in1873. Following in thefootsteps of the academy’sfounderNapoleonand fellowSaint-Cyriens like Ardant duPicq, Lyautey thus began anillustrious fifty-two yearcareer as a French officer,serving in colonial Algeria,

Indochina, Madagascar, andMorocco,whereheservedforalmost two decades as bothmilitary and colonialgovernor (1907–25).Appointed the French WarMinister (1916–17) duringtheFirstWorldWar,Lyauteywas named a Marshal ofFrancein1921.Followinghisdeath in Lorraine in 1934,Marshal Lyautey was firstburied in Morocco but waslaterinterred—inhonorofhis

distinguished military career—alongside Napoleon in anopulent marble and stained-glass chapel under the domeoftheInvalidesinParis.In The Social Role of the

Officer (1891), Lyauteyargues that officers mustgarnertherespectandloveoftheir troops by workingclosely with their men andpaying attention to theirabilities and needs. ForLyautey,anofficer’seffective

leadership depends on hiscapacity to “first love themand conquer their affection”by the experience of “havingintimatelymingledwiththesebrave men, by the force ofcircumstance, duringmaneuvers, while marching,andonbivouac,toknowtheircapacity for devotion andtheir affectionate concern forthe officer who has gainedtheir confidence.”25 Insisting

that young officers developtheir “military heart” as wellas their “militaryintelligence,” Lyauteyexplains that foot soldiers“love the one that lovesthem” (22) and that theyadmire those officers who“sharewithouthesitationtheirprivations and their fatigue”(26). Echoing Napoleon’sbelief that“[a]norder fromabeloved general is worthmore than themost beautiful

speech,” Lyautey explicitlycites love as a factor ofeffective leadership. WhileArdant du Picq advocateslateralorhorizontalaffectionsbetween soldiers, Lyauteyadvocates hierarchical orvertical affection betweensoldiers and officers, as amodel for military order andcombatsuccess:“Byshowinghis concern and proving hispersonal interest in his men,not by words, but by direct

actions drawn fromknowledgeoftheirindividualneeds, an officer eventuallygains their affection andconfidence”(27–28).A decorated marshal,

minister,andmemberbothofthe French Academy andLegion of Honor, Lyautey isperhaps France’s mostdistinguished—or infamous—military homosexual.26Speaking of Lyautey, Prime

Minister GeorgesClemenceau once quipped,“Here is an admirable andcourageous man who alwayshad balls… evenwhen theywere not his own.”27 Alongwith the popular fiction ofPierre Loti—the pseudonymof the French naval captainJulien Viaud (1850–1923)whose novels eroticize thelives of colonial sailors—Lyautey’s notoriety played a

role in perpetuating theassociation of homosexualitywith the French colonialmilitary.28 Referring tosodomyintheFrencharmies,Marshal Patrice deMacMahon admitted, “InMorocco, we were all[homosexual]; only Lyauteyremained so.”29 Reflectingmore than a century ofdiscourse on homoeroticismand homosexual tourism in

thecolonialandpost-colonialMaghreb, MacMahon’s gibealso supports the speculationthat Lyautey may haveprovided the model for thecelebratedhomosexualBarondeCharlusinMarcelProust’sInSearchofLostTime.30Lyautey’s theory of

affectionate leadership,however, cannot be easilyexplained or essentialized asa product of his own

homoerotic desire. Nor canone simplistically trace theemergence of homosexualsoldiers in early twentieth-century France to thearbitrary influence of a fewprominent militaryhomosexuals. Much morebroadly, Lyautey’s insistenceon affectionate leadership inTheSocialRoleoftheOfficerrepresents the culmination ofan entire century ofNapoleonic theory and

practice that not onlyencouragedaffectionbetweensoldiers and officers but alsoelevatedmilitaryfriendshiptothe level of strategy andpolicy.Thecollectivemilitarytheory of Napoleon, Ardantdu Picq, and Lyautey thusrepresents the gradualdevelopment of militaryfriendship in France over thelongcourseof thenineteenthcentury, from the First andSecond Empires to the

decades leading up to theFirstWorldWar.

MilitaryFriendship andthe First WorldWar

In an interview titled“FriendshipasaWayofLife”(1981), Michel Foucaultdiscusses the role ofmilitaryfriendship in theevolutionofhomosexual modernity.31Building on the tradition of

Plato’s Symposium, Cicero’sDeAmicitia,andMontaigne’sOn Friendship, Foucaultconsiders the conventions ofmale friendship as a way ofunderstanding the emotionallife of gay men. By shiftingthe focus from sexuality tosociality, he defines gayrelationships in terms ofshared affection and mutualsupport. Before his death in1984, Foucault had plannedto write a history of the

French military. Like hishistories of the clinic, theprison, madness, andsexuality, Foucault’s militaryhistory might have offerednew ways of thinking aboutinstitutionalpowerandanewvocabulary for discussingsocialrelationsbetweenmen.Foucault’s biographer DidierEribon writes that “Foucaultspoke several times ofundertaking a history of warafterhisHistoryofSexuality.

Orperhapsmoreaccurately,ahistory of the army. Andthereisnodoubtthatmilitaryorwarriorformsofmasculinesociability, or ‘friendship’between men, would havebeen one of the axes of thisstudy.”32In“FriendshipasaWayof

Life,” Foucault offers aglimpse of what his militaryhistorymighthaveexamined,byasking,“Howisitpossible

for men to be together? Tolive together, to share theirtime,meals,bedroom,leisure,sorrows, knowledge,confidences?” (163–64).Acknowledging the role ofshared bedrooms, Foucaultbroadens his conception ofgay relationships as not onlyan erotic but an emotionalway of life built on dailyliving and long-termintimacy. Surprisingly,Foucaultargues,thisfocuson

affection over sexuality is aradical idea: “I think that iswhatmakeshomosexualityso‘troubling’: the homosexualway of life more than thesexual act itself. To think ofsexual acts that do notconformtolawornature,thatis not what bothers people.Butwhen individuals start toloveoneanother,thenthere’sa problem” (164). Despitehomophobic discourseobsessed with sodomy, gay

male sex is in fact lessshocking than masculineaffection, tenderness, andintimacy,especially for thosewhohavecometoexpect thestereotype of what Foucaultdescribesas“twoyoungmenmeeting each other on thestreet, seducing each otherwith a glance, putting theirhands on each other’s ass,and hooking up fifteenminutes later” (164). Theseimages perpetuate what

Foucault calls a “neat andtidyimageofhomosexuality”that thoroughly “negateseverythingthathastodowithaffection, tenderness,friendship, fidelity,camaraderie, andcompanionship, which anuptight society cannot acceptwithoutfearthatthiswillleadtonewandunforeseen formsof alliance and association”(164). Foucault thus definesgay relationships as a radical

form of camaraderie andcompanionship, fidelity andfriendship.Institutionally, Foucault

traces the modern origins ofthisradicalmalefriendshiptothe army, where “lovebetween men is incessantlyinvoked and honored” (164).In contrast to civilian life,where “[m]en’s bodies wereforbidden to each other in amore drastic way,” Foucaultargues that “it is only during

certain periods and since thenineteenth century that lifebetween men was not onlytolerated, but rigorouslyobligatory: quite simply,duringwar” (166–67). Facedwith the suffering anddangers of combat, soldiersformintimaterelationshipsofmutualsupportandaffection.Morethanamereby-productofwar,theserelationshipsareactively encouraged by themilitary in order to create

more effective armies.Friendship thereforebecomesa military technique forindividual survival andcollective success in combat,wheremenaretrainedtoloveand protect their fellowcomrades in order to betterhateandkilltheirenemies.33For Foucault, masculine

affectionandfriendshipenterinto modern militarydiscourse during the

nineteenth century andculminate with the FirstWorld War. Comparing theshared intimacy of thebarracks to the mutualsuffering of the trenches in1914–18, Foucault writes,“Youhadsoldiersandyoungofficers who had spentmonths, years together.During the Great War, menlived together completely,one with another; and forthem,thiswasnosmallthing,

inthesensethatdeathwasallaround, and that theirdevotion to one another wasnecessitatedbyagameoflifeordeath” (167).Amid“thesegrotesque wars and infernalmassacres,” Foucaultexplains, soldiers cared fortheir comrades and mournedtheir buddies, in an openexpression of “emotionaltornadoes” and “tempests ofthe heart” (167). In focusingon the emotional lives of

soldiers during the FirstWorldWar,Foucaultconcurswith Paul Fussell and AllanBérubé who—in theirlandmark work on militaryhomosexuality during theFirstandSecondWorldWars—demonstrate how theviolence of combat createsgreater physical andemotional intimacy betweensoldiers, and how the massmobilization of war oftenbrings together homosexuals

who might never have metone another in their isolatedtowns, rural villages, andcivilianlives.34Combat thus creates an

atmosphere where masculineaffection is tolerated andunderstood. Even for menwith divergent feelings ofhomoerotic and heteroeroticdesire,combatsufferingoftenleads to mutual feelings ofmale affection. Foucault

qualifies this distinctionbetween eroticism andemotion by insisting “I don’twant to say that it wasbecause they were in lovewith one another that theycontinuedtofight.Buthonor,courage, not losing face,sacrifice, leaving the trenchwithone’sbuddy, in frontofone’s buddy, this implies avery intense emotionalrelationship” (167). Whiledifferent soldiers will

continue to desire bothwomen and men, the sharedtraumaofwarinspiresmutualunderstanding, support, andintimacy where maleaffections are acknowledgedand normalized: “This is notto say: ‘Aha! Here ishomosexuality!’ I hate thatsort of reasoning. But this isone of… the conditions thatmade this infernal lifepossible,during theweeksofslogging through mud,

cadavers, shit” (167). Fromthe horrors of the trenchesduring the First World War,reciprocal love thus emergedas an intelligible andprovisionallyacceptableformof male sociability whosemodern military originsstretchbacktothenineteenthcentury.

NapoleonicFriendship

Thisbookattemptstotrace

a history of intimatefriendship in French militaryliterature from Napoleon totheFirstWorldWar.Throughan investigation of militarymemoirs and fiction,Napoleonic Friendshipargues that the emergence ofhomosexual soldiers in thetrenches of early twentieth-century France is linked tothe dramatic evolution ofmilitaryfriendshipduring thenineteenth century, from the

Revolutionary andNapoleonic Wars (1792–1815) to the Franco-PrussianWar (1870–71) and the FirstWorld War (1914–18).Following the rigid socialstructure of the Royal Armyduring the Ancien Régimeandmajormilitaryreformsinthearmiesof theRevolution,a new emphasis on fraternityand meritocracy fostered anunprecedented sense ofcamaraderie among soldiers

in the armies of Napoleon.For many, the hardships ofcombat led to intimatefriendships based on mutualcomfort and support. Forsome, the homosociality ofmilitary life inspired feelingsof great affection, lifelongcommitment, and homoeroticdesire.From Charlemagne to

CharlesdeGaulle,theFrenchhistorical record is rich inanecdotal tales of military

camaraderie and friendship.During the period between1789 and 1916, however,radical military reformstransformed social relationsonaninstitutionallevelintheFrench armies and set inmotion a gradual evolutiontoward greater intimacyamong soldiers. This processbegan with the Revolution’sinvocationoffraternityastheinaugural theme and centralprinciple of republican

military service. As theFrench Republic movedtoward Empire, this fraternalmilitary ideal was integratedinto the ranks of the GrandeArmée whose officers andsoldiers set an example ofNapoleonic friendshipfor thecenturythatfollowed.This example began at the

top, as soldiers looked toNapoleon’s own intimatefriendshipswithMarshalJeanLannes, General Gérard

Christophe Duroc, andGeneral Jean-Andoche Junoton the battlefields of theNapoleonic Wars. Fromsenior officers to men in theranks, this model ofNapoleonic friendshipinspired an entire generationof combat soldiers whosestories of shared sufferingand survival are documentedin the moving memoirs ofGeneralMarcellindeMarbot,Captain Jean-Roch Coignet,

and Sergeant FrançoisBourgogne. From militarymemoirs to novels, Stendhaland Victor Hugo dramatizethe survival of NapoleonicfriendshipamidthedisastrousdefeatatWaterloo.InHonoréde Balzac’s military fiction,Napoleonic veterans face themiseries and humiliations ofthe Restoration and JulyMonarchy in supportivecouplesandpairs.Intheneo-NapoleonicfictionofGuyde

Maupassant and Émile Zola,combat buddies look to oneanother for emotional anderotic intimacy in thedefeated armies of NapoleonIII and the prison camps ofthe Franco-Prussian War.AndasFranceenteredanewcentury of warfare andunprecedented militaryviolence, Marcel Proustdocuments the emergence ofthehomosexualsoldierinthebrothels and trenches of the

FirstWorldWar.Themilitarynovels of Stendhal, Hugo,and Balzac and the warfiction of Maupassant, Zola,and Proust thus bear witnessto the legacy of Napoleonicfriendship among soldiers inpost-1815 France, from thebattlesofWaterloo(1815),toSedan(1870),andtheSomme(1916).In their collectiveworkon

military friendship, thesewriters participate in three

important literary traditions.First, they echo an ancientand medieval tradition ofwarrior lovers and combatcompanions. Second, theyrepresent an entire genre ofNapoleonic literature, frommilitary memoirs, toNapoleonic novels, and neo-Napoleonic fiction. Third,theypresage theproliferationof homoerotic texts duringthe First World War.35 The

memoirs ofMarbot,Coignet,andBourgogne,thenovelsofStendhal, Hugo, and Balzac,and the fiction of Zola,Maupassant, and Proust thuscreate a literary bridgebetween the epic devotion ofancient and medievalwarriors, the evolution ofRevolutionary fraternity intoNapoleonic friendship, andtheemergenceofhomosexualmilitarymodernityduringtheFirstWorldWar.

NAPOLEONICFRIENDSHIP is organized intothreepartsandninechapters.Part I traces the evolution ofNapoleonic friendship fromthe beginning of theRevolutionin1789totheendof Napoleon’s Empire in1815. Through aninvestigation of historicalsources, Chapter 1 looks athow the Enlightenmentprinciples of federation and

fraternity emergedduring themilitary festivals of theRevolution and inspiredmajorreformsinrecruitment,integration, promotion, andtraining that transformed thesocial antagonism in theRoyal Army of the AncienRégime into fraternalcamaraderie in the armies ofthe Revolution and Empire.Chapter 2 considers theintimate friendships betweenNapoleon and three of his

senior officers—MarshalLannes, General Duroc, andGeneral Junot—asmodels ofNapoleonic friendship formen in the lower ranks. Bycomparison, Chapter 3analyzes the friendshipsbetween junior officers andfoot soldiers in theNapoleonicmilitarymemoirsof General Marbot, CaptainCoignet, and SergeantBourgogne. In describingtheir military mentors,

bedfellows, buddies, andfriends,Marbot,Coignet,andBourgogne bear witness tothe lifesaving support offellowsoldiersandprovideanew vocabulary for the greatdiversity of Napoleonicfriendship.MovingfromtheEmpireto

theRestoration, fromcombatsoldierstoveterans,andfromNapoleonic memoirs tonovels, Part II examines thechallenges to Napoleonic

friendshipamidthefalloftheEmpire atWaterloo in 1815.Chapter 4 argues thatStendhal’s The Red and theBlack (1830) and TheCharterhouse of Parma(1839) can be read asallegories of the militarycloset in which theNapoleonic latecomers JulienSorel and Fabrice delDongostruggle to understand—atWaterloo and beyond—boththe pleasures and

responsibilitiesofNapoleonicfriendship. In analyzingVictor Hugo’s epic accountof Waterloo in LesMisérables (1862),Chapter5documents the survival ofNapoleonic friendship in theaftermath ofWaterloo when,despite the abuse of veteranslike Colonel Pontmercy andSergeant Thénardier, a newgeneration of soldiers likeGavroche symbolizes therebirth of revolutionary and

military fraternity. Chapter 6recounts the transition frommilitary retreat to civilianretirement for thousands ofNapoleonic soldiers amid thepolitical disfavor of theRestoration (1815–30) andJuly Monarchy (1830–48),when veterans were reducedto an army of bachelors,invalids,vagrants,androgueswho continued to depend onone another for comfort andcompanionship.

Part III investigates thelegacy of Napoleonicfriendship in post-1815France, from thebeleagueredveterans of the First Empirewho faced the miseries ofdefeat in supportive pairs, tothe neo-Napoleonic soldiersof the Second Empire whoshared even greaterintimacies in the trenches ofthe Franco-Prussian War(1870). Chapter 7 considerstheNapoleonic friendships in

Balzac’s military novels TheChouans (1829) andColonelChabert (1832), in whichMajor Hulot and HyacintheChabert spend their entiremilitary careers andretirement in the care offellow soldiers and veterans.Chapter 8 argues thatBalzac’s veteran novels TheCountry Doctor (1833) andthe third volume of TheBachelors (1840–43)demonstrate radical new

forms of militaryhomosociality: while theNapoleonic couple Gondrinand Goguelat and theircomrades Benassis andGenestas form a collectiveco-parenting family, theveteranroguePhilippeBridaubetrays his Napoleoniccomrades to join anunderworld of perversecriminality and sexuality.And in its analysis of neo-Napoleonic friendship during

the Franco-Prussian War,Chapter 9 looks athomoerotic military fictionfrom Guy de Maupassant toÉmileZola,whosewarnovelThe Debacle (1892) and itscombat companions JeanMacquart and MauriceLevasseursignalbothareturnto the warrior lovers ofantiquity and a step towardhomosexual militarymodernity. NapoleonicFriendship concludes with a

discussionofMarcelProust’sTime Regained (1927), inwhich the emotional anderotic life of the Frenchofficer Robert de Saint-Loupin1916represents the legacyofNapoleonic friendship andthe emergence of thehomosexual soldier from themilitary closet during theFirstWorldWar.

THE FRENCH

HISTORIAN Jean Tulard hasfamously argued thatNapoleonis“aninexhaustiblemyth open to all‘readings.’”36Acknowledging that“homosexuality is, of course,only allusive in [Napoleonic]memoirs,” Tulard advisesthat, to find evidenceof lovebetweenNapoleon’s soldiers,“One must read between thelines.”37Thisbook traces the

evolution of Napoleonicfriendship by readingbetween numerous historicaland literary lines, from theline of tears streaming downthegrievingfaceofNapoleonon the deathbed of hisbelovedfriendLannes, to thefront lines of Waterloo andSedan, to the narrative linesof Napoleonic memoirs andnovels. More than aninvitation to read whatRolandBartheshascalledthe

infinite “plural” of a text,Tulard’s suggestion to “readbetweenthelines”canalsobeunderstood as a call for aninterdisciplinary investigationof Napoleonic literature thatmight productively cross thedisciplinary lines ofhistorical, literary, military,and queer studies.38 Incrossing and analyzing thesemultiple lines, NapoleonicFriendship examines the

gradual evolution fromNapoleon’s tears on thebattlefields of nineteenth-century Europe to theemergence ofmilitary queersin the trenches of twentieth-centuryFrance.

PARTI

Revolutionto

Empire1789–1815

CHAPTER1

MilitaryFraternity

fromtheRevolutiontoNapoleon

The rain felland thesoldiers swore. On July 14,1790, in celebration of thefirst anniversary of thestorming of the Bastille andthe beginning of the French

Revolution, GeneralLafayettestoodbeforealmosthalf a million soldiers andcitizens gathered on theChamp de Mars in Paris forthe Fête de la Fédération, amassive Revolutionaryfestivalwhichwastouniteallof France’s soldiers into onefederatedbody.Here,infrontoftheÉcoleMilitaire,amidasoaking summer downpour,Lafayette administered to theassembled soldiers the

fraternal oath: “To remainunitedwithall theFrenchbythe indissoluble bonds offraternity.”1 Having traveledonfootandhorsefromeverycommune in France, thesoldiers stood in soggyformation on the militaryfield between a grandtriumphal arch and a centralaltar from which Lafayetteshouted out the federativeoath.Inonechoralvoice, the

soldiersansweredLafayette’scall to fraternal federationwith a resounding “I swear!”as multiple cannon fired inechoof their resolve.2 In thisritual oath, the Fête de laFédération baptized a newRevolutionary Army, basedon the notion of fraternitybetween soldiers, united intheir defense of France anddevotiontooneanother.Founded on the principle

of fraternité, thetransformationofthemilitaryduring theFrenchRevolution—from the sociallysegregatedRoyalArmyoftheAncien Régime to the moreintegrated and egalitarianarmies of the Revolution—created the conditions formore intimate relationshipsbetween soldiers. Thismilitary transformationcoincided with Bonaparte’srisetopower.Educatedatthe

Royal Military School inBrienne (1779–84) and theÉcole Militaire in Paris(1784–85), Napoleon wastrained as an officer of theRoyal Army during theAncien Régime, but rose tonational prominence in thearmies of the Revolutionbefore assuming power asFirst Consul in 1799 andEmperor in 1804. His earlyRevolutionary victories overEnglishandSpanish invaders

at Toulon in 1793 and overFrench royalists in Paris in1795rapidlypropelledhimtothe rank of general and tonational fame. Evenwith hisprivileged social status andmilitary education,Napoleon’s meteoric risemightnothavebeenpossiblewithout the Revolutionaryarmies’majorideologicalandmeritocratic reforms.Bornofthe Revolution’s new focuson military fraternity,

Napoleonic friendship grewout of these fundamentalchanges in ideology andpolicy in the armies of theRevolution (1789–99),Consulate (1799–1804), andEmpire(1804–15).The origins of military

fraternity can be traced backtoAntiquity,theRenaissance,and theEnlightenment,but itwasduringthefestivalsoftheRevolution that fraternityentered theRepublicanmotto

of liberté, égalité, fraternité,as a distinctly militaryprinciple. The ceremonialrites at the Fête de laFédération, the journalism ofCamilleDesmoulins, and thepaintings of Jacques-LouisDavid established a ritual,literary, and iconographicvocabulary that celebratedhomosocial and homoeroticexpressions of militaryfraternity. In turn, theideological power of

Revolutionary fraternityinspired practical policyreforms in militaryrecruitment, integration,promotion, and training,which collectivelytransformed the Royal ArmyoftheAncienRégimeintotheRevolutionary andNapoleonic Armies duringthe period betweenLafayette’s fraternal oath in1790 and Napoleon’s rise toFirst Consul in 1799. From

their initial campaigns ofdefense against Austrian andPrussian invaders to theirlater campaigns of conquestinAustria,Prussia, Italy, andEgypt, the RevolutionaryWars (1792–99) lay thefoundationfortheNapoleonicWars (1799–1815), whenFrench soldiers depended onone another for fraternalcomfortandsupport.

Origins of

FraternalIdeologyThe Revolutionary

principle of fraternité findsits immediate origins in theEnlightenment,notablyintheencyclopedic work of DenisDiderotandhiscollaborators,the political discourse ofJean-Jacques Rousseau, andthe ritual traditions of theMasons.3 Since its earliestincarnation, the civic idea offraternity has been linked to

the military notion of“fraternity in arms” amongknights,soldiers,andcitizensin defense of the nation.AccordingtotheChevalierdeJaucourt in Diderot’sEncyclopédie (1751–72),fraternity in arms is definedas “the association betweentwo knights for a nobleenterprise … they pledge toeach other to share both thelaborsandglory,dangersandprofit, and not to abandon

each other as long as theyhave need of one another.”4Based on medieval courtlytraditions, these images ofmutual devotion betweenknights are exemplified bythe military exploits ofCharlemagne, Roland, andOlivier in the early twelfth-century Song of Roland andby the Arthurian legends ofLancelot,Yvain,andPercevalin the later twelfth-century

romans of Chrétien deTroyes. In tracing theoriginsof fraternity to relationshipsbetween medieval warriors,the Enlightenmentencyclopédistes definedfraternity as a particularlymilitaryconcept.While Diderot and his

collaborators trace fraternityback tomilitary traditions ofthe medieval court, Jean-JacquesRousseau’snotionoffraternity is modeled on the

civic duties of RenaissancefriendshipdefinedbyÉtiennede la Boétie and Michel deMontaigne. Building onCicero’s treatise OnFriendship(44BC),LaBoétiewrites in his Discourse onVoluntary Servitude (1549)thatnature“hascreatedallofus the same and formed usfromthesamemold,inorderto show us that we are allequals, or rather brothers.”5

In his own essay OnFriendship (1580),Montaigneinturndefineshisfriendship with La Boétie asan intimate brotherhood orfraternalbond:“It is in truth,under the beautiful andsignificant name of brotherthatweformed,heandI,ouralliance.”6And inOnVanity(1588), Montaigne extendsthisnotionoffriendshiptoallmen, as a kind of universal

brotherhood: “[I] esteem allmen my compatriots, andembrace a Pole as I do aFrenchman, deferring thisnational liaison to theuniversal and the communal…Iknowthatfriendshiphasarms long enough for us tohold one another and jointogether from one corner ofthis world to the other” (3:186–88). Here, Montaigne’ssense of fraternity expandsfrom his neighbor to the

nation, from the national totheglobal,fromtheparticulartotheuniversal.7In his Discourse on

Inequality (1755), Rousseaudefines fraternity in similarterms, by expanding thefraternal from familial tonational citizenship: “Mydear fellow citizens or rathermy brothers… the bonds ofbloodandlawunitealmostallofus.”8Rousseaulaterargues

intheSocialContract (1762)that familial and religiousbonds also instill a sense ofcivic fraternal responsibility,as a kind of “sublimereligion, by which men,childrenof thesameGod,allrecognize one another asbrothers” (3: 464). Buildingon La Boétie’s andMontaigne’sconceptsofcivicfriendship,Rousseau’snotionof fraternity thus shifts fromthe needs of the family to

those of the nation. In hisDiscourse on PoliticalEconomy (1755), Rousseauargues that as brothers,citizens must come togetherto defend national interests:“Let us not doubt that theywill thus learn to hold eachotherdearasbrothers,andtowant only thatwhich societywants… and to become thedefenders and fathers of thenation.”9 Rousseau thus

defines fraternity as a call tocitizenship, but his referenceto defenders and defensenevertheless illustrates thepersistent link in fraternaldiscourse between civilianandsoldierlyduty.Rousseau’s concepts of

military and civic fraternitywerealsofoundintheritualsoffraternalorganizationsliketheMasonswho,accordingtoa 1735 manual of FrenchFreemasonry, pledged to

“cultivate brotherlyfriendship between them, thebasis andgloryof an ancientand respectable fraternity.”10Itisperhapsthroughthispre-Revolutionary invocation ofbrotherhood in fraternalassociations like the Masonsthat fraternité later became acatchword for Revolutionarypolitical clubs like theMontagnards, Girondins, andJacobins, who were known

for their fraternal forms ofaddress: “brothers andfriends,” “brothers andcitizens,” and “salutationsand fraternity.”11 Rooted inmedieval knighthood andRenaissance friendship,fraternity thus became aubiquitous catchword in thepolitical and social discourseof the Enlightenment, whichinspired the later ritualizationof military fraternity during

theRevolution.

Liberty,Equality,Fraternity

In a slow and gradualprocess, the Revolutionelevated fraternity to aposition of prominencealongsidethemoreprominentRepublican ideals of libertyandequality.12Evenamid itsconstant invocation duringthe Revolution, however,

fraternity did not attain anofficial, legislative statusuntil much later. Althoughfraternity was invoked byLouis XVI at the openingsessionoftheEstatesGeneralon May 5, 1789 andmentionedintheConstitutionof September 3, 1791,fraternité was not officiallyadded to the earlyRevolutionary motto libertéet égalité even after theabolitionof themonarchyon

August 10, 1792, when anearlier Revolutionary slogan,“Nation,Law,andKing”wassubstituted with “Nation,Liberty,Equality.”And therewere many Revolutionarymottos in 1790 that did notinclude the notion offraternity at all, including“Union, Strength, Virtue,”“Strength, Liberty, Peace,”and “Country, Laws, andLiberty.”Infact,thenotionoffraternity was absent in the

Declaration of the Rights ofMan and of the Citizen(1789),onlysecondaryintheConstitution of 1791, whollyomittedintheConstitutionof1793, andwouldnot becomepart of the official motto oftheFrenchRepublic—liberté,égalité, fraternité—untilmuch later in1848.The lackofofficialstatusforfraternityduring the Revolution,however,belieditsubiquitousinvocation during the

1790s.13Inadditiontobecomingthe

salutary catchword of theJacobins, fraternity wasinvoked frequently byRevolutionary leaders. In1789, Honoré Gabriel deMirabeauhopedthatfraternaldemocracy would create anew “history of men, ofbrothers.”14 In 1790,Maximilien de Robespierreproposed to the National

Assembly that fraternité beinscribedontheuniformsandregimental flags of theNationalGuard.Andin1792,the Girondin leader Jean-Marie Roland told thedelegates at the ConventionthatfoundingaRepublicwas“one and the same thing asfraternity.”15 Perhaps themost dramatic invocation offraternity during the earlyyears of the Revolution,

however, took place atpopular provincial militaryfestivals, whereRevolutionary soldiers andcitizens pledged fraternaloaths to the nation and oneanother.

FraternalFestivals andFederation

After 1789, it becamepopular among fervent newvolunteers of the National

Guard to make public oathsof fraternity in rural townsand villages all over France.While these Revolutionaryoaths found their origins infeudal pledges betweenvassals and lords, they wereintended to bind citizens, asbrothers and equals, into arelationshipofmutualrespectand support. On November19, 1789, ten thousandsoldiers from opposite banksoftheRhôneintheDauphiné

regionofsoutheasternFrancepledgedas“brothersinarms”tobefederatedtooneanotherand maintain their unionforever.16 During the fall of1789 and winter of 1790,dozens of similar oaths offederationwereswornbytensof thousands of citizens andNationalGuardsmen in citiesand towns from Lyon andMarseilles in the south toAnjou and Brittany in the

north. The historian SimonSchamahascharacterizedthisfraternal frenzy or“revolutionaryobsessionwithoath swearing” as the “newrevolutionary religion—thecult of Federation” (502).And according to thehistorian Mona Ozouf,fraternal federation wasprimarily a militarypreoccupation, fêted in thecontext of a “completelymilitaryfestival”(52).

Thiscelebrationofmilitaryfraternity in the provincessoonspreadtothecapital.OnJune 4, 1790, the Parisianmayor Jean-Sylvain Baillyproposed to the ConstituentAssembly that the Frenchcapital host a great nationalfestival of federation on July14, 1790 to mark the firstanniversary of the fall of theBastille and the beginning ofthe Revolution. CitizenCharon, the president of the

Paris commune,wrote to theAssemblytoaskthattheoathfor this national Fête de laFédération be both militaryandcivilianinnature,opentoboth soldiers and citizens:“All citizens are soldiers, nodoubt, but it is as much [intheir role] as citizens as it is[in their role]as soldiers thattheFrenchshouldbecalledtomakeanoathoffraternity.”17Rejecting Charon’s request,

the Constituent Assemblynonetheless approved MayorBailly’s proposal on thecondition that this festival offederation be a particularlymilitary occasion. Civiliansandcitizenswouldbeinvitedtoattend,butonly soldiers—or those deputized as such—could be official delegatesand allowed to take thefederative oath. AsTalleyrandwroteonbehalfoftheAssembly,“ItisFranceas

an army that is going togathertogether,notFranceasadeliberatingbody.”18Despite their official

exclusion, civilian citizensexpressed their federativezeal in the enormouspreparations for the greatfestival.Withvery little timeto prepare between Bailly’sinitial request on June 4, theAssembly’sapprovalonJune21, and the approaching

anniversaryoftheBastilleonJuly 14, thousands of citizenvolunteers joined in themassive effort to prepare themilitary field on the Champde Mars, construct anelaborate triumphal arch forthe procession, and build agreataltarfortheswearingofthe federative oath. WhileParisianstoiledinthecapital,citizensandsoldiersintownsand villages all over Francebegan the complex task of

selecting military delegates,helping these representativesmake the long journey toParis,andpreparingtheirownlocal federative festivals, sothatatnoononJuly14,allofFrance’s soldiers wouldsimultaneously pledge inunison their oath of fraternalfederation.Noonehadplannedonthe

rain. In his eyewitnessaccount of the Fête de laFédération, the journalist

Camille Desmoulinsdescribeshow“thewindwasglacial and an intermittentrain fell in torrents” on thecrowd of almost half amillion spectators anddelegates in Paris.19Reporting for his journal,Revolutions of France andBrabant (1789–91),Desmoulins also quips at thetedium of the lengthyprocession, which began at

dawn and concluded at oneo’clock. In his description ofthe more than one hundredand fifty thousand delegates— which included soldiers,sailors, cavalrymen,grenadiers, veterans, andchildren’s battalions, plusinvited notables,representatives of the Pariscommune,anddeputiesoftheNational Assembly—Desmoulins writes, “Ourreaderswillforgiveusfornot

describing the federalprocession … [which] soonexhausted all curiosity” (35:501). Because of the lengthydelays caused by theprocession, Desmoulinsadmits, “The oath that wetookonthe14that3o’clock,all of France had alreadypronounced at noon” (35:524).20 Despite the pouringrain, the interminableprocession, and the

unceremonious delays,however, nothing coulddampen the symbolic poweroftheoathitself.GeneralLafayettehadbeen

appointed to administer theoath.Despitehisnobilityandtraining as a Royal Armyofficer, Lafayettewas a heroof the American Revolutionwho symbolized a bridgebetweentheAncienRégime’sRoyal Army and theRevolution’sNationalGuard.

When he called upon thesesoldiers, crowded around theceremonial altar on theChampdeMars,topledgeanoathoffraternalfederationtoone another, Lafayette’svoicewasechoedbyrelay tothe hundred and fiftythousand military delegates,four hundred thousandspectators,and—bysymbolicextension—millions ofsoldiers and citizensthroughout France. Although

their timing was ov, thesoldiers’ solemn oath at theFêtedelaFédérationin1790represented the unisonaffirmation and massritualization of militaryfraternity in RevolutionaryFrance.

FraternalOaths andEmbraces

One year earlier,Revolutionary fraternity had

been spontaneously invokedduring the storming of theBastille. On July 17, 1789,only three days after theprison uprising, severalrevolutionarieshadattemptedto pacify the Bastille guardsbyinvitingthem,inthenameof fraternal brotherhood, toleave the ranks of LouisXVI’s Royal Army and jointhe Revolutionary cause,arguing “Brave soldiers,mingle with your brothers,

receive their embraces. Youare our friends, our fellowcitizens, and soldiers of thepatrie.”21 At the veryinception of the Revolutionwithin the Bastille walls in1789, spontaneous embraceswere thus extended asgestures of fraternalfellowshipbetweensoldiers.Morethanamereoath,the

fraternal embrace became acorporal expression of

brotherly solidarity. In thisdistinct shift from verbal tophysical fraternity, soldierspledged to one another boththeir fraternal spirit and theirbodies, in an act ofhomosocial fellowship andaffection. As the fraternalembrace became a commoncompanion to the fraternaloath, the embrace played acentralroleintheideologicaldissemination of militaryfraternité in popular culture,

most notably in thejournalism of CamilleDesmoulinsandthepaintingsof Jacques-Louis David.Desmoulins, whose dramaticreports on fraternal embracesat the Bastille in 1789 werefollowed by even juicieraccounts at the Fête de laFédération in 1790, has beencredited as the first knownwriter to articulate thetripartite slogan liberté,

égalité, fraternité in print.22David dramatized fraternaloaths and embraces inneoclassical paintings thatcreated a visual vocabularyfor homosocial andhomoerotic militaryfraternity, from the AncienRégime to the Revolution,Consulate,a