[PDF](+31👁️) Télécharger The Memoirs Of Napoleon— 1797, V 1, pdf

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Memoirs of Napoleon — 1797, vl, by
Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne


This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the
terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org


Tide: The Memoirs of Napoleon — 1797, vl
Author: Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne

Posting Date: July 16, 2011 [EBook #3551] Release Date: December, 2002
[The actual date this file first posted = 04/20/01]


Language: English


*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MEMOIRS OF
NAPOLEON— 1797, Vl ***


Produced by David Widger <widger@cecomet.net>



MEMOIRS OF NAPOLEON
BONAPARTE, VOLUME 1.


By LOUIS ANTOINE FAUVELET DE BOURRIENNE

His Private Secretary

Edited by R. W. Phipps
Colonel, Late Royal Artillery

1891


CONTENTS:

Preface,

Notes and Introduction
Chapter I. to Chapter IV., 1797



PREFACE


BYTHE EDITORS OF THE 1836 EDITION.

In introducing the present edition of M. de Bourrienne's Memoirs to the public
we are bound, as Editors, to say a few Words on the subject. Agreeing,
however, with Horace Walpole that an editor should not dwell for any length of
time on the merits of his author, we shall touch but lighdy on this part of the
matter. We are the more ready to abstain since the great success in England of
the former editions of these Memoirs, and the high reputation they have
acquired on the European Continent, and in every part of the civilised world
where the fame of Bonaparte has ever reached, sufficiendy establish the merits
of M. de Bourrienne as a biographer. These merits seem to us to consist chiefly
in an anxious desire to be impartial, to point out the defects as well as the
merits of a most wonderful man; and in a peculiarly graphic power of relating
facts and anecdotes. With this happy faculty Bourrienne would have made the
life of almost any active individual interesting; but the subject of which the
most favourable circumstances permitted him to treat was full of events and of
the most extraordinary facts. The hero of his story was such a being as the
world has produced only on the rarest occasions, and the complete counterpart
to whom has, probably, never existed; for there are broad shades of difference
between Napoleon and Alexander, Caesar, and Charlemagne; neither will
modern history furnish more exact parallels, since Gustavus Adolphus,
Frederick the Great, Cromwell, Washington, or Bolivar bear but a small
resemblance to Bonaparte either in character, fortune, or extent of enterprise.
For fourteen years, to say nothing of his projects in the East, the history of
Bonaparte was the history of all Europe!

With the copious materials he possessed, M. de Bourrienne has produced a
work which, for deep interest, excitement, and amusement, can scarcely be
paralleled by any of the numerous and excellent memoirs for which the
literature of France is so jusdy celebrated.



M. de Bourrienne shows us the hero of Marengo and Austerlitz in his night-
gown and slippers — with a 'trait de plume' he, in a hundred instances, places the
real man before us, with all his personal habits and peculiarities of manner,
temper, and conversation.

The friendship between Bonaparte and Bourrienne began in boyhood, at the
school of Brienne, and their unreserved intimacy continued during the most
brilliant part of Napoleon's career. We have said enough, the motives for his
writing this work and his competency for the task will be best explained in M.
de Bourrienne's own words, which the reader will find in the Introductory
Chapter.

M. de Bourrienne says little of Napoleon after his first abdication and
retirement to Elba in 1814: we have endeavoured to fill up the chasm thus left
by following his hero through the remaining seven years of his life, to the "last
scenes of all" that ended his "strange, eventful history," — to his deathbed and
alien grave at St. Helena. A completeness will thus be given to the work which
it did not before possess, and which we hope will, with the other additions and
improvements already alluded to, tend to give it a place in every well-selected
library, as one of the most satisfactory of all the lives of Napoleon.

LONDON, 1836.


PREFACE


BYTHE EDITOR OF THE 1885 EDITION.



The Memoirs of the time of Napoleon may be divided into two classes — those
by marshals and officers, of which Suchet's is a good example, chiefly devoted
to military movements, and those by persons employed in the administration
and in the Court, giving us not only materials for history, but also valuable
details of the personal and inner life of the great Emperor and of his
immediate surroundings. Of this latter class the Memoirs of Bourrienne are
among the most important.

Long the intimate and personal friend of Napoleon both at school and from the
end of the Italian campaigns in 1797 till 1802 — working in the same room with
him, using the same purse, the confidant of most of his schemes, and, as his
secretary, having the largest part of all the official and private correspondence
of the time passed through his hands, Bourrienne occupied an invaluable
position for storing and recording materials for history. The Memoirs of his
successor, Meneval, are more those of an esteemed private secretary; yet,
valuable and interesting as they are, they want the peculiarity of position which
marks those of Bourrienne, who was a compound of secretary, minister, and
friend. The accounts of such men as Miot de Melito, Raederer, etc., are most
valuable, but these writers were not in that close contact with Napoleon enjoyed
by Bourrienne. Bourrienne's position was simply unique, and we can only
regret that he did not occupy it till the end of the Empire. Thus it is natural that
his Memoirs should have been largely used by historians, and to properly
understand the history of the time, they must be read by all students. They are
indeed full of interest for every one. But they also require to be read with great
caution. When we meet with praise of Napoleon, we may generally believe it,
for, as Thiers (Consulat., ii. 279) says, Bourrienne need be little suspected on
this side, for although he owed everything to Napoleon, he has not seemed to
remember it. But very often in passages in which blame is thrown on
Napoleon, Bourrienne speaks, pardy with much of the natural bitterness of a
former and discarded friend, and partly with the curious mixed feeling which
even the brothers of Napoleon display in their Memoirs, pride in the wonderful
abilities evinced by the man with whom he was allied, and jealousy at the way
in which he was outshone by the man he had in youth regarded as inferior to
himself. Sometimes also we may even suspect the praise. Thus when
Bourrienne defends Napoleon for giving, as he alleges, poison to the sick at
Jaffa, a doubt arises whether his object was to really defend what to most
Englishmen of this day, with remembrances of the deeds and resolutions of the
Indian Mutiny, will seem an act to be pardoned, if not approved; or whether he
was more anxious to fix the committal of the act on Napoleon at a time when



public opinion loudly blamed it. The same may be said of his defence of the
massacre of the prisoners of Jaffa.

Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne was born in 1769, that is, in the same
year as Napoleon Bonaparte, and he was the friend and companion of the
future Emperor at the military school of Brienne-le-Chateau till 1784, when
Napoleon, one of the sixty pupils maintained at the expense of the State, was
passed on to the Military School of Paris. The friends again met in 1792 and in
1795, when Napoleon was hanging about Paris, and when Bourrienne looked
on the vague dreams of his old schoolmate as only so much folly. In 1796, as
soon as Napoleon had assured his position at the head of the army of Italy,
anxious as ever to surround himself with known faces, he sent for Bourrienne
to be his secretary. Bourrienne had been appointed in 1792 as secretary of the
Legation at Stuttgart, and had, probably wisely, disobeyed the orders given him
to return, thus escaping the dangers of the Revolution. He only came back to
Paris in 1795, having thus become an emigre. He joined Napoleon in 1797,
after the Austrians had been beaten out of Italy, and at once assumed the office
of secretary which he held for so long. He had sufficient tact to forbear
treating the haughty young General with any assumption of familiarity in
public, and he was indefatigable enough to please even the never-resting
Napoleon. Talent Bourrienne had in abundance; indeed he is careful to hint that
at school if any one had been asked to predict greatness for any pupil, it was
Bourrienne, not Napoleon, who would have been fixed on as the future star. He
went with his General to Egypt, and returned with him to France. While
Napoleon was making his formal entry into the Tuilleries, Bourrienne was
preparing the cabinet he was still to share with the Consul. In this cabinet — our
cabinet, as he is careful to call it — he worked with the First Consul till 1802.

During all this time the pair lead lives on terms of equality and friendship
creditable to both. The secretary neither asked for nor received any salary:
when he required money, he simply dipped into the cash-box of the First
Consul. As the whole power of the State gradually passed into the hands of the
Consul, the labours of the secretary became heavier. His successor broke down
under a lighter load, and had to receive assistance; but, perhaps borne up by the
absorbing interest of the work and the great influence given by his post,
Bourrienne stuck to his place, and to all appearance might, except for himself,
have come down to us as the companion of Napoleon during his whole life. He
had enemies, and one of them — [Boulay de la Meurthe.] — has not shrunk from
describing their gratification at the disgrace of the trusted secretary. Any one in



favour, or indeed in office, under Napoleon was the sure mark of calumny for
all aspirants to place; yet Bourrienne might have weathered any temporary
storm raised by unfounded reports as successfully as Meneval, who followed
him. But Bourrienne's hands were not clean in money matters, and that was an
unpardonable sin in any one who desired to be in real intimacy with Napoleon.
He became involved in the affairs of the House of Coulon, which failed, as will
be seen in the notes, at the time of his disgrace; and in October 1802 he was
called on to hand over his office to Meneval, who retained it till invalided after
the Russian campaign.

As has been said, Bourrienne would naturally be the mark for many
accusations, but the conclusive proof of his misconduct — at least for any one
acquainted with Napoleon's objection and dislike to changes in office, whether
from his strong belief in the effects of training, or his equally strong dislike of
new faces round him — is that he was never again employed near his old
comrade; indeed he really never saw the Emperor again at any private
interview, except when granted the naval official reception in 1805, before
leaving to take up his post at Hamburg, which he held till 1810. We know that
his re-employment was urged by Josephine and several of his former
companions. Savary himself says he tried his advocacy; but Napoleon was
inexorable to those who, in his own phrase, had sacrificed to the golden calf.

Sent, as we have said, to Hamburg in 1805, as Minister Plenipotentiary to the
Duke of Brunswick, the Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and to the Hanse
towns, Bourrienne knew how to make his post an important one. He was at one
of the great seats of the commerce which suffered so fearfully from the
Continental system of the Emperor, and he was charged to watch over the
German press. How well he fulfilled this duty we learn from Metternich, who
writes in 1805: "I have sent an article to the newspaper editors in Berlin and to
M. de Hofer at Hamburg. I do not know whether it has been accepted, for M.
Bourrienne still exercises an authority so severe over these journals that they
are always submitted to him before they appear, that he may erase or alter the
articles which do not please him."

His position at Hamburg gave him great opportunities for both financial and
political intrigues. In his Memoirs, as Meneval remarks, he or his editor is not
ashamed to boast of being thanked by Louis XVIII. at St. Ouen for services
rendered while he was the minister of Napoleon at Hamburg. He was recalled
in 1810, when the Hanse towns were united, or, to use the phrase of the day, re-



united to the Empire. He then hung about Paris, keeping on good terms with
some of the ministers — Savary, not the most reputable of them, for example. In
1814 he was to be found at the office of Lavallette, the head of the posts,
disguising, his enemies said, his delight at the bad news which was pouring in,
by exaggerated expressions of devotion. He is accused of a close and
suspicious connection with Talleyrand, and it is odd that when Talleyrand
became head of the Provisional Government in 1814, Bourrienne of all
persons should have been put at the head of the posts. Received in the most
flattering manner by Louis XVIII, he was as astonished as poor Beugnot was in
1815, to find himself on 13th May suddenly ejected from office, having,
however, had time to furnish post-horses to Manbreuil for the mysterious
expedition, said to have been at least known to Talleyrand, and intended
certainly for the robbery of the Queen of Westphalia, and probably for the
murder of Napoleon.

In the extraordinary scurry before the Bourbons scutded out of Paris in 1814,
Bourrienne was made Prefet of the Police for a few days, his tenure of that post
being signalised by the abortive attempt to arrest Fouche, the only effect of
which was to drive that wily minister into the arms of the Bonapartists.

He fled with the King, and was exempted from the amnesty proclaimed by
Napoleon. On the return from Ghent he was made a Minister of State without
portfolio, and also became one of the Council. The ruin of his finances drove
him out of France, but he eventually died in a madhouse at Caen.

When the Memoirs first appeared in 1829 they made a great sensation. Till
then in most writings Napoleon had been treated as either a demon or as a
demi-god. The real facts of the case were not suited to the tastes of either his
enemies or his admirers. While the monarchs of Europe had been disputing
among themselves about the division of the spoils to be obtained from France
and from the unsetdement of the Continent, there had arisen an extraordinarily
clever and unscrupulous man who, by alternately bribing and overthrowing the
great monarchies, had soon made himself master of the mainland. His
admirers were unwilling to admit the part played in his success by the jealousy
of his foes of each other's share in the booty, and they delighted to invest him
with every great quality which man could possess. His enemies were ready
enough to allow his military talents, but they wished to attribute the first
success of his not very deep policy to a marvellous duplicity, apparendy
considered by them the more wicked as possessed by a parvenu emperor, and



far removed, in a moral point of view, from the statecraft so allowable in an
ancient monarchy. But for Napoleon himself and his family and Court there
was literally no limit to the really marvellous inventions of his enemies. He
might enter every capital on the Continent, but there was some consolation in
believing that he himself was a monster of wickedness, and his Court but the
scene of one long protracted orgie.

There was enough against the Emperor in the Memoirs to make them
comfortable reading for his opponents, though very many of the old calumnies
were disposed of in them. They contained indeed the nearest approximation to
the truth which had yet appeared. Metternich, who must have been a good
judge, as no man was better acquainted with what he himself calls the "age of
Napoleon," says of the Memoirs: "If you want something to read, both
interesting and amusing, get the Memoires de Bourrienne. These are the only
authentic Memoirs of Napoleon which have yet appeared. The style is not
brilliant, but that only makes them the more trustworthy." Indeed, Metternich
himself in his own Memoirs often follows a good deal in the line of
Bourrienne: among many formal attacks, every now and then he lapses into
half involuntary and indirect praise of his great antagonist, especially where he
compares the men he had to deal with in aftertimes with his former rapid and
talented interlocutor. To some even among the Bonapartists, Bourrienne was
not altogether distasteful. Lucien Bonaparte, remarking that the time in which
Bourrienne treated with Napoleon as equal with equal did not last long enough
for the secretary, says he has taken a little revenge in his Memoirs, just as a
lover, after a break with his mistress, reveals all her defects. But Lucien
considers that Bourrienne gives us a good enough idea of the young officer of
the artillery, of the great General, and of the First Consul. Of the Emperor, says
Lucien, he was too much in retirement to be able to judge equally well. But
Lucien was not a fair representative of the Bonapartists; indeed he had never
really thought well of his brother or of his actions since Lucien, the former
"Brutus" Bonaparte, had ceased to be the adviser of the Consul. It was well for
Lucien himself to amass a fortune from the presents of a corrupt court, and to
be made a Prince and Duke by the Pope, but he was too sincere a republican not
to disapprove of the imperial system. The real Bonapartists were naturally and
inevitably furious with the Memoirs. They were not true, they were not the
work of Bourrienne, Bourrienne himself was a traitor, a purloiner of
manuscripts, his memory was as bad as his principles, he was not even entided
to the de before his name. If the Memoirs were at all to be pardoned, it was
because his share was only really a few notes wrung from him by large



pecuniary offers at a time when he was pursued by his creditors, and when his
brain was already affected.


The Bonapartist attack on the Memoirs was delivered in full form, in two
volumes, 'Bourrienne et ses Erreurs, Volontaires et Involontaires'

(Paris, Heideloff, 1830), edited by the Comte d'Aure, the Ordonnateur en
Chef of the Egyptian expedition, and containing communications from
Joseph Bonaparte, Gourgaud, Stein, etc.'

— [In the notes in this present edition these volumes are referred
to in brief 'Erreurs'.] —


Part of the system of attack was to call in question the authenticity of the Memoirs, and this was
the more easy as Bourrienne, losing his fortune, died in 1834 in a state of imbecility. But this plan
is not systematically followed, and the very reproaches addressed to the writer of the Memoirs
often show that it was believed they were really written by Bourrienne. They undoubtedly
contain plenty of faults. The editor (Villemarest, it is said) probably had a large share in the
work, and Bourrienne must have forgotten or misplaced many dates and occurrences. In such a
work, undertaken so many years after the events, it was inevitable that many errors should be
made, and that many statements should be at least debatable. But on close investigation the work
stands the attack in a way that would be impossible unless it had really been written by a person
in the peculiar position occupied by Bourrienne. He has assuredly not exaggerated that position:
he really, says Lucie n Bonaparte, treated as equal with equal with Napoleon during a part of his
career, and he certainly was the nearest friend and confidant that Napoleon ever had in his life.


Where he fails, or where the Bonapartist fire is most telling, is in the account
of the Egyptian expedition. It may seem odd that he should have forgotten, even
in some thirty years, details such as the way in which the sick were removed;
but such matters were not in his province; and it would be easy to match
similar omissions in other works, such as the accounts of the Crimea, and still
more of the Peninsula. It is with his personal relations with Napoleon that we
are most concerned, and it is in them that his account receives most
corroboration.

It may be interesting to see what has been said of the Memoirs by other writers.
We have quoted Metternich, and Lucien Bonaparte; let us hear Meneval, his
successor, who remained faithful to his master to the end: "Absolute
confidence cannot be given to statements contained in Memoirs published
under the name of a man who has not composed them. It is known that the
editor of these Memoirs offered to M. de Bourrienne, who had then taken
refuge in Holstein from his creditors, a sum said to be thirty thousand francs to
obtain his signature to them, with some notes and addenda. M. de Bourrienne



was already attacked by the disease from which he died a few years latter in a
maison de sante at Caen. Many literary men co-operated in the preparation of
his Memoirs. In 1825 I met M. de Bourrienne in Paris. He told me it had been
suggested to him to write against the Emperor. 'Notwithstanding the harm he
has done me,' said he, 'I would never do so. Sooner may my hand be withered.'
If M. de Bourrienne had prepared his Memoirs himself, he would not have
stated that while he was the Emperor's minister at Hamburg he worked with the
agents of the Comte de Lille (Louis XVIII.) at the preparation of proclamations
in favour of that Prince, and that in 1814 he accepted the thanks of the King,
Louis XVIII., for doing so; he would not have said that Napoleon had confided
to him in 1805 that he had never conceived the idea of an expedition into
England, and that the plan of a landing, the preparations for which he gave
such publicity to, was only a snare to amuse fools. The Emperor well knew that
never was there a plan more seriously conceived or more positively setded. M.
de Bourrienne would not have spoken of his private interviews with Napoleon,
nor of the alleged confidences entrusted to him, while really Napoleon had no
longer received him after the 20th October 1802. When the Emperor, in 1805,
forgetting his faults, named him Minister Plenipotentiary at Hamburg, he
granted him the customary audience, but to this favour he did not add the return
of his former friendship. Both before and afterwards he constandy refused to
receive him, and he did not correspond with him "(Meneval, ii. 378-79). And in
another passage Meneval says: "Besides, it would be wrong to regard these
Memoirs as the work of the man whose name they bear. The bitter resentment
M. de Bourrienne had nourished for his disgrace, the enfeeblement of his
faculties, and the poverty he was reduced to, rendered him accessible to the
pecuniary offers made to him. He consented to give the authority of his name
to Memoirs in whose composition he had only co-operated by incomplete,
confused, and often inexact notes, materials which an editor was employed to
put in order." And Meneval (iii. 29-30) goes on to quote what he himself had
written in the Spectateur Militaire, in which he makes much the same
assertions, and especially objects to the account of conversations with the
Emperor after 1802, except always the one audience on taking leave for
Hamburg. Meneval also says that Napoleon, when he wished to obtain
intelligence from Hamburg, did not correspond with Bourrienne, but deputed
him, Meneval, to ask Bourrienne for what was wanted. But he corroborates
Bourrienne on the subject of the efforts made, among others by Josephine, for
his reappointment.


Such are the statements of the Bonaparists pure; and the reader, as has been



said, can judge for himself how far the attack is good. Bourrienne, or his
editor, may well have confused the date of his interviews, but he will not be
found much astray on many points. His account of the conversation of
Josephine after the death of the Due d'Eughien may be compared with what we
know from Madame de Remusat, who, by the way, would have been horrified
if she had known that he considered her to resemble the Empress Josephine in
character.

We now come to the views of Savary, the Due de Rovigo, who avowedly
remained on good terms with Bourrienne after his disgrace, though the
friendship of Savary was not exaedy a thing that most men would have much
prided themselves on. "Bourrienne had a prodigious memory; he spoke and
wrote in several languages, and his pen ran as quickly as one could speak. Nor
were these the only advantages he possessed. He knew the routine of public
business and public law. His activity and devotion made him indispensable to
the First Consul. I knew the qualities which won for him the unlimited
confidence of his chief, but I cannot speak with the same assurance of the faults
which made him lose it. Bourrienne had many enemies, both on account of his
character and of his place" (Savary, i. 418-19).

Marmont ought to be an impartial critic of the Memoirs. He says, "Bourrienne .
. . had a very great capacity, but he is a striking example of the great truth that
our passions are always bad counsellors. By inspiring us with an immoderate
ardour to reach a fixed end, they often make us miss it. Bourrienne had an
immoderate love of money. With his talents and his position near Bonaparte at
the first dawn of greatness, with the confidence and real good-will which
Bonaparte felt for him, in a few years he would have gained everything in
fortune and in social position. But his eager impatience mined his career at the
moment when it might have developed and increased" (Marmont, i. 64). The
criticism appears just. As to the Memoirs, Marmont says (ii. 224), "In general,
these Memoirs are of great veracity and powerful interest so long as they treat
of what the author has seen and heard; but when he speaks of others, his work
is only an assemblage of gratuitous suppositions and of false facts put forward
for special purposes."

The Comte Alexandre de Puymaigre, who arrived at Hamburg soon after
Bourrienne had left it in 1810, says (page 135) of the part of the Memoirs
which relates to Hamburg, "I must acknowledge that generally his assertions
are well founded. This former companion of Napoleon has only forgotten to



speak of the opinion that they had of him in this town.


"The truth is, that he was believed to have made much money there."

Thus we may take Bourrienne as a clever, able man, who would have risen to
the highest honours under the Empire had not his short-sighted grasping after
lucre driven him from office, and prevented him from ever regaining it under
Napoleon.

In the present edition the translation has been carefully compared with the
original French text. Where in the original text information is given which has
now become mere matter of history, and where Bourrienne merely quotes the
documents well enough known at this day, his possession of which forms part
of the charges of his opponents, advantage has been taken to lighten the mass
of the Memoirs. This has been done especially where they deal with what the
writer did not himself see or hear, the part of the Memoirs which are of least
value and of which Marmont's opinion has just been quoted. But in the personal
and more valuable part of the Memoirs, where we have the actual knowledge
of the secretary himself, the original text has been either fully retained, or
some few passages previously omitted restored. Illustrative notes have been
added from the Memoirs of the successor of Bourrienne, Meneval, Madame de
Remusat, the works of Colonel Jung on 'Bonaparte et Son Temps', and on
'Lucien Bonaparte', etc., and other books. Attention has also been paid to the
attacks of the 'Erreurs', and wherever these criticisms are more than a mere
expression of disagreement, their purport has been recorded with, where
possible, some judgment of the evidence. Thus the reader will have before him
the materials for deciding himself how far Bourrienne's statements are in
agreement with the facts and with the accounts of other writers.

At the present time too much attention has been paid to the Memoirs of
Madame de Remusat. She, as also Madame Junot, was the wife of a man on
whom the full shower of imperial favours did not descend, and, womanlike,
she saw and thought only of the Court life of the great man who was never less
great than in his Court. She is equally astonished and indignant that the
Emperor, coming straight from long hours of work with his ministers and with
his secretary, could not find soft words for the ladies of the Court, and that, a
horrible thing in the eyes of a Frenchwoman, when a mistress threw herself
into his arms, he first thought of what political knowledge he could obtain
from her. Bourrienne, on the other hand, shows us the other and the really



important side of Napoleon's character. He tells us of the long hours in the
Cabinet, of the never-resting activity of the Consul, of Napoleon's dreams, no
ignoble dreams and often realised, of great labours of peace as well as of war.
He is a witness, and the more valuable as a reluctant one, to the marvellous
powers of the man who, if not the greatest, was at least the one most fully
endowed with every great quality of mind and body the world has ever seen.


R. W. P.


AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION.


The trading upon an illustrious name can alone have given birth to the
multitude of publications under the tides of historical memoirs, secret
memoirs, and other rhapsodies which have appeared respecting Napoleon. On
looking into them it is difficult to determine whether the impudence of the
writers or the simplicity of certain readers is most astonishing. Yet these rude
and ill digested compilations, filled with absurd anecdotes, fabricated speeches,
fictitious crimes or virtues, and disfigured by numerous anachronisms, instead
of being consigned to just contempt and speedy oblivion, have been pushed
into notice by speculators, and have found zealous partisans and enthusiastic
apologists.

— [This Introduction has been reprinted as bearing upon the character
of the work, but refers very often to events of the day at the time of its
first appearance.] —


For a time I entertained the idea of noticing, one by one, the numerous errors
which have been written respecting Napoleon; but I have renounced a task



which would have been too laborious to myself, and very tedious to the reader.
I shall therefore only correct those which come within the plan of my work,
and which are connected with those facts, to a more accurate knowledge of
which than any other person can possess I may lay claim. There are men who
imagine that nothing done by Napoleon will ever be forgotten; but must not the
slow but inevitable influence of time be expected to operate with respect to
him? The effect of that influence is, that the most important event of an epoch
soon sinks, almost imperceptibly and almost disregarded, into the immense
mass of historical facts. Time, in its progress, diminishes the probability as
well as the interest of such an event, as it gradually wears away the most
durable monuments.

I attach only a relative importance to what I am about to lay before the public. I
shall give authentic documents. If all persons who have approached Napoleon,
at any time and in any place, would candidly record what they saw and heard,
without passion, the future historian would be rich in materials. It is my wish
that he who may undertake the difficult task of writing the history of Napoleon
shall find in my notes information useful to the perfection of his work. There
he will at least find truth. I have not the ambition to wish that what I state should
be taken as absolute authority; but I hope that it will always be consulted.

I have never before published anything respecting Napoleon. That malevolence
which fastens itself upon men who have the misfortune to be somewhat
separated from the crowd has, because there is always more profit in saying ill
than good, attributed to me several works on Bonaparte; among others, 'Les

Memoires secrets d'un Homme qui ne l'a pas quitte', par M. B , and

'Memoires secrets sur Napoleon Bonaparte, par M. de B , and 'Le Precis

Historique sur Napoleon'. The initial of my name has served to propagate this
error. The incredible ignorance which runs through those memoirs, the
absurdities and inconceivable silliness with which they abound, do not permit a
man of honour and common sense to allow such wretched rhapsodies to be
imputed to him. I declared in 1816, and at later periods in the French and
foreign journals, that I had no hand in those publications, and I here formally
repeat this declaration.

But it may be said to me, Why should we place more confidence in you than in
those who have written before you?

My reply shall be plain. I enter the lists one of the last. I have read all that my



predecessors have published confident that all I state is true. I have no interest
in deceiving, no disgrace to fear, no reward to expect. I neither wish to obscure
nor embellish his glory. However great Napoleon may have been, was he not
also liable to pay his tribute to the weakness of human nature? I speak of
Napoleon such as I have seen him, known him, frequendy admired and
sometimes blamed him. I state what I saw, heard, wrote, and thought at the time,
under each circumstance that occurred. I have not allowed myself to be carried
away by the illusions of the imagination, nor to be influenced by friendship or
hatred. I shall not insert a single reflection which did not occur to me at the
very moment of the event which gave it birth. How many transactions and
documents were there over which I could but lament! — how many measures,
contrary to my views, to my principles, and to my character! — while the best
intentions were incapable of overcoming difficulties which a most powerful
and decided will rendered almost insurmountable.

I also wish the future historian to compare what I say with what others have
related or may relate. But it will be necessary for him to attend to dates,
circumstances, difference of situation, change of temperament, and age, — for
age has much influence over men. We do not think and act at fifty as at twenty-
five. By exercising this caution he will be able to discover the truth, and to
establish an opinion for posterity.

The reader must not expect to find in these Memoirs an uninterrupted series of
all the events which marked the great career of Napoleon; nor details of all
those battles, with the recital of which so many eminent men have usefully and
ably occupied themselves. I shall say little about whatever I did not see or hear,
and which is not supported by official documents.

Perhaps I shall succeed in confirming truths which have been doubted, and in
correcting errors which have been adopted. If I sometimes differ from the
observations and statements of Napoleon at St. Helena, I am far from
supposing that those who undertook to be the medium of communication
between him and the public have misrepresented what he said. I am well
convinced that none of the writers of St. Helena can be taxed with the slightest
deception; disinterested zeal and nobleness of character are undoubted pledges
of their veracity. It appears to me perfecdy certain that Napoleon stated,
dictated, or corrected all they have published. Their honour is unquestionable;
no one can doubt it. That they wrote what he communicated must therefore be
believed; but it cannot with equal confidence be credited that what he



communicated was nothing but the truth. He seems often to have related as a
fact what was really only an idea, — an idea, too, brought forth at St. Helena, the
child of misfortune, and transported by his imagination to Europe in the time
of his prosperity. His favourite phrase, which was every moment on his lips,
must not be forgotten — "What will history say — what will posterity think?"

This passion for leaving behind him a celebrated name is one which belongs to
the constitution of the human mind; and with Napoleon its influence was
excessive. In his first Italian campaign he wrote thus to General Clarke: "That
ambition and the occupation of high offices were not sufficient for his
satisfaction and happiness, which he had early placed in the opinion of Europe
and the esteem of posterity." He often observed to me that with him the opinion
of posterity was the real immortality of the soul.

It may easily be conceived that Napoleon wished to give to the documents
which he knew historians would consult a favourable colour, and to direct,
according to his own views, the judgment of posterity on his actions: But it is
only by the impartial comparison of periods, positions, and age that a well
founded decision will be given. About his fortieth year the physical
constitution of Napoleon sustained considerable change; and it may be
presumed that his moral qualities were affected by that change. It is particularly
important not to lose sight of the premature decay of his health, which,
perhaps, did not permit him always to possess the vigour of memory otherwise
consistent enough with his age. The state of our organisation often modifies
our recollections, our feelings, our manner of viewing objects, and the
impressions we receive. This will be taken into consideration by judicious and
thinking men; and for them I write.

What M. de Las Casas states Napoleon to have said in May 1816 on the manner
of writing his history corroborates the opinion I have expressed. It proves that
all the facts and observations he communicated or dictated were meant to serve
as materials. We learn from the Memorial that M. de Las Casas wrote daily, and
that the manuscript was read over by Napoleon, who often made corrections
with his own hand. The idea of a journal pleased him gready. He fancied it
would be a work of which the world could afford no other example. But there
are passages in which the order of events is deranged; in others facts are
misrepresented and erroneous assertions are made, I apprehend, not altogether
involuntarily.


I have paid particular attention to all that has been published by the noble



participators of the imperial captivity. Nothing, however, could induce me to
change a word in these Memoirs, because nothing could take from me my
conviction of the truth of what I personally heard and saw. It will be found that
Napoleon in his private conversations often confirms what I state; but we
sometimes differ, and the public must judge between us. However, I must here
make one observation.

When Napoleon dictated or related to his friends in St. Helena the facts which
they have reported he was out of the world, — he had played his part. Fortune,
which, according to his notions, had conferred on him all his power and
greatness, had recalled all her gifts before he sank into the tomb. His ruling
passion would induce him to think that it was due to his glory to clear up
certain facts which might prove an unfavourable escort if they accompanied
him to posterity. This was his fixed idea. But is there not some ground for
suspecting the fidelity of him who writes or dictates his own history? Why
might he not impose on a few persons in St. Helena, when he was able to
impose on France and Europe, respecting many acts which emanated from him
during the long duration of his power? The life of Napoleon would be very
unfaithfully written were the author to adopt as true all his bulletins and
proclamations, and all the declarations he made at St. Helena. Such a history
would frequendy be in contradiction to facts; and such only is that which might
be entided, 'The History of Napoleon, written by Himself'.

I have said this much because it is my wish that the principles which have
guided me in the composition of these Memoirs may be understood. I am
aware that they will not please every reader; that is a success to which I cannot
pretend. Some merit, however, may be allowed me on account of the labour I
have undergone. It has neither been of a slight nor an agreeable kind. I made it
a rule to read everything that has been written respecting Napoleon, and I have
had to decipher many of his autograph documents, though no longer so
familiar with his scrawl as formerly. I say decipher, because a real cipher
might often be much more readily understood than the handwriting of
Napoleon. My own notes, too, which were often very hastily made, in the hand
I wrote in my youth, have sometimes also much embarrassed me.

My long and intimate connection with Bonaparte from boyhood, my close
relations with him when General, Consul, and Emperor, enabled me to see and
appreciate all that was projected and all that was done during that considerable
and momentous period of time. I not only had the opportunity of being present



at the conception and the execution of the extraordinary deeds of one of the
ablest men nature ever formed, but, notwithstanding an almost unceasing
application to business, I found means to employ the few moments of leisure
which Bonaparte left at my disposal in making notes, collecting documents,
and in recording for history facts respecting which the truth could otherwise
with difficulty be ascertained; and more particularly in collecting those ideas,
often profound, brilliant, and striking, but always remarkable, to which
Bonaparte gave expression in the overflowing frankness of confidential
intimacy.

The knowledge that I possessed much important information has exposed me
to many inquiries, and wherever I have resided since my retirement from
public affairs much of my time has been spent in replying to questions. The
wish to be acquainted with the most minute details of the life of a man formed
on an unexampled model [?? D.W.] is very natural; and the observation on my
replies by those who heard them always was, "You should publish your
Memoirs!"

I had certainly always in view the publication of my Memoirs; but, at the same
time, I was firmly resolved not to publish them until a period should arrive in
which I might tell the truth, and the whole truth. While Napoleon was in the
possession of power I felt it right to resist the urgent applications made to me
on this subject by some persons of the highest distinction. Truth would then
have sometimes appeared flattery, and sometimes, also, it might not have been
without danger. Afterwards, when the progress of events removed Bonaparte to
a far distant island in the midst of the ocean, silence was imposed on me by
other considerations, -by considerations of propriety and feeling.

After the death of Bonaparte, at St. Helena, reasons of a different nature
retarded the execution of my plan. The tranquillity of a secluded retreat was
indispensable for preparing and putting in order the abundant materials in my
possession. I found it also necessary to read a great number of works, in order
to rectify important errors to which the want of authentic documents had
induced the authors to give credit. This much-desired retreat was found. I had
the good fortune to be introduced, through a friend, to the Duchesse de
Brancas, and that lady invited me to pass some time on one of her estates in
Hainault. Received with the most agreeable hospitality, I have there enjoyed
that tranquillity which could alone have rendered the publication of these
volumes practicable.



FAUVELET DE BOURRIENNE



NOTE.


The Editor of the 1836 edition had added to the Memoirs several chapters
taken from or founded on other works of the time, so as to make a more
complete history of the period. These materials have been mosdy retained, but
with the corrections which later publications have made necessary. A chapter
has now been added to give a brief account of the part played by the chief
historical personages during the Cent Jours, and another at the end to include
the removal of the body of Napoleon from St. Helena to France.

Two special improvements have, it is hoped, been made in this edition. Great
care has been taken to get names, dates, and figures righdy given, — points
much neglected in most translations, though in some few cases, such as
Davoust, the ordinary but not stricdy correct spelling has been followed to suit
the general reader. The number of references to other works which are given
in the notes will, it is believed, be of use to any one wishing to continue the
study of the history of Napoleon, and may preserve them from many of the
errors too often committed. The present Editor has had the great advantage of
having his work shared by Mr. Richard Bendey, who has brought his
knowledge of the period to bear, and who has found, as only a busy man could
do, the time to minutely enter into every fresh detail, with the ardour which
soon seizes any one who long follows that enticing pursuit, the special study of
an historical period.

January 1885
R. W. P.



MEMOIRS

of

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.


CHAPTER 1

1769-1783.

Authentic date of Bonaparte's birth — His family ruined by the
Jesuits — His taste for military amusements — Sham siege at the
College of Brienne — The porter's wife and Napoleon — My intimacy with
Bonaparte at college — His love for the mathematics, and his dislike
of Latin — He defends Paoli and blames his father — He is ridiculed by
his comrades — Ignorance of the monks — Distribution of prizes at
Brienne — Madame de Montesson and the Duke of Orleans — Report of M.
Keralio on Bonaparte — He leaves Brienne.


NAPOLEON BONAPARTE was born at Ajaccio, in Corsica, on the 15th of
August 1769; the original orthography of his name was Buonaparte, but he
suppressed the u during his first campaign in Italy. His motives for so doing
were merely to render the spelling conformable with the pronunciation, and to
abridge his signature. He signed Buonaparte even after the famous 13th
Vendemiaire.

It has been affirmed that he was born in 1768, and that he represented himself
to be a year younger than he really was. This is untrue. He always told me the
9th of August was his birthday, and, as I was born on the 9th of July 1769, our
proximity of age served to strengthen our union and friendship when we were
both at the Military College of Brienne.

The false and absurd charge of Bonaparte having misrepresented his age, is
decidedly refuted by a note in the register of M. Berton, sub- principal of the
College of Brienne, in which it is stated that M. Napoleon de Buonaparte,
ecuyer, born in the city of Ajaccio, in Corsica, on the 15th of August 1769, left
the Royal Military College of Brienne on the 17th October 1784.


The stories about his low extraction are alike devoid of foundation. His family
was poor, and he was educated at the public expense, an advantage of which



many honourable families availed themselves. A memorial addressed by his
father, Charles Buonaparte, to the Minister of War states that his fortune had
been reduced by the failure of some enterprise in which he had engaged, and
by the injustice of the Jesuits, by whom he had been deprived of an inheritance.
The object of this memorial was to solicit a sub-lieutenant's commission for
Napoleon, who was then fourteen years of age, and to get Lucien entered a
pupil of the Military College. The Minister wrote on the back of the memorial,
"Give the usual answer, if there be a vacancy;" and on the margin are these
words — "This gendeman has been informed that his request is inadmissible as
long as his second son remains at the school of Brienne. Two brothers cannot
be placed at the same time in the military schools." When Napoleon was fifteen
he was sent to Paris until he should attain the requisite age for entering the
army. Lucien was not received into the College of Brienne, at least not until his
brother had quitted the Military School of Paris.

Bonaparte was undoubtedly a man of good family. I have seen an authentic
account of his genealogy, which he obtained from Tuscany. A great deal has
been said about the civil dissensions which forced his family to quit Italy and
take refuge in Corsica. On this subject I shall say nothing.

Many and various accounts have been given of Bonaparte's youth.

— [The following interesting trait of Napoleon's childhood is derived
from the 'Memoirs of the Duchesse d'Arbranes': — "He was one day
accused by one of his sisters of having eaten a basketful of grapes,
figs, and citrons, which had come from the garden of his uncle the
Canon. None but those who were acquainted with the Bonaparte
family can form any idea of the enormity of this offence. To eat fruit
belonging to the uncle the Canon was infinitely more criminal than to
eat grapes and figs which might be claimed by anybody else. An
inquiry took place. Napoleon denied the fact, and was whipped. He
was told that if he would beg pardon he should be forgiven. He
protested that he was innocent, but he was not believed. If I recollect
righdy, his mother was at the time on a visit to M. de Marbeuf, or
some other friend. The result of Napoleon's obstinacy was, that he
was kept three whole days on bread and cheese, and that cheese was
not 'broccio'. However, he would not cry: he was dull, but not sulky.

At length, on the fourth day of his punishment a little friend of
Marianne Bonaparte returned from the country, and on hearing of



Napoleon's disgrace she confessed that she and Marianne had eaten
the fruit. It was now Marianne's turn to be punished. When Napoleon
was asked why he had not accused his sister, he replied that though he
suspected that she was guilty, yet out of consideration to her little
friend, who had no share in the falsehood, he had said nothing. He
was then only seven years of age" (vol. i. p. 9, edit. 1883).] —

He has been described in terms of enthusiastic praise and exaggerated
condemnation. It is ever thus with individuals who by talent or favourable
circumstances are raised above their fellow-creatures. Bonaparte himself
laughed at all the stories which were got up for the purpose of embellishing or
blackening his character in early life. An anonymous publication, entided the
'History of Napoleon Bonaparte', from his Birth to his last abdication, contains
perhaps the greatest collection of false and ridiculous details about his
boyhood. Among other things, it is stated that he fortified a garden to protect
himself from the attacks of his comrades, who, a few lines lower down, are
described as treating him with esteem and respect. I remember the
circumstances which, probably, gave rise to the fabrication inserted in the
work just mentioned; they were as follows.

During the winter of 1783-
Lire la suite

• Taille
  324.71 KB
• Nombre de pages
  15