|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 26
I have expressed my dislike of Fouche; and the reason of that feeling
was, that I could not endure his system of making the police a government
within a government. He had left Paris before my return thither, but I
had frequent occasion to speak of that famous personage to Savary, whom,
for the reason above assigned, I do not always term Duc de Rovigo.
Savary knew better than any one the fallacious measures of Fouche's
administration, since he was his successor. Fouche, under pretence of
encouraging men of letters, though well aware that the Emperor was
hostile to them, intended only to bring them into contempt by making them
write verses at command. It was easily seen that Napoleon nourished a
profound dislike of literary men, though we must not conclude that he
wished the public to be aware of that dislike. Those, besides, who
devoted their pens to blazon his glory and his power were sure to be
received by him with distinction. On the other hand, as Charlemagne and
Louis XIV. owed a portion of the splendour of their reigns to the lustre
reflected on them by literature, he wished to appear to patronise
authors, provided that they never discussed questions relating to
philosophy, the independence of mankind, and civil and political rights.
With regard to men of science it was wholly different; those he held in
real estimation; but men of letters, properly so called, were considered
by him merely as a sprig in his Imperial crown.
The marriage of the Emperor with an Archduchess of Austria had set all
the Court poets to work, and in this contest of praise and flattery it
must be confessed that the false gods were vanquished by the true God;
for, in spite of their fulsome verses, not one of the disciples of Apollo
could exceed the extravagance of the Bishops in their pastoral letters.
At a time when so many were striving to force themselves into notice
there still existed a feeling of esteem in the public mind for men of
superior talent who remained independent amidst the general corruption;
such was M. Lemercier, such was M. de Chateaubriand. I was in Paris in
the spring of 1811, at the period of Chenier's death, when the numerous
friends whom Chateaubriand possessed in the second class of the Institute
looked to him as the successor of Chenier. This was more than a mere
literary question, not only on account of the high literary reputation
M. de Chateaubriand already possessed, but of the recollection of his
noble conduct at the period of Duc d'Enghien's death, which was yet fresh
in the memory of every one; and, besides, no person could be ignorant of
the immeasurable difference of opinion between Chenier and M. de
Chateaubriand.
M. de Chateaubriand obtained a great majority of votes, and was elected a
Member of the Institute. This opened a wide field for conjecture in
Paris. Every one was anxious to see how the author of the Genie du
Christianisme, the faithful defender of the Bourbons, would bend his
eloquence to pronounce the eulogium of a regicide. The time for the
admission of the new Member of the Institute arrived, but in his
discourse, copies of which were circulated in Paris, he had ventured to
allude to the death of Louis XVI., and to raise his voice against the
regicides. This did not displease Napoleon; but M. de Chateaubriand also
made a profession of faith in favour of liberty, which, he said, found
refuge amongst men of letters when banished from the politic body. This
was great boldness for the time; for though Bonaparte was secretly
gratified at seeing the judges of Louis XVI. scourged by an heroic pen,
yet those men held the highest situations under the Government.
Cambaceres filled the second place in the Empire, although at a great
distance from the first; Merlin de Douai was also in power; and it is
known how much liberty was stifled and hidden beneath the dazzling
illusion of what is termed glory. A commission was named to examine the
discourse of Chateaubriand. MM. Suard, de Segur, de Fontanes, and two or
three other members of the same class of the Institute whose names I
cannot recollect, were of opinion that the discourse should be read; but
it was opposed by the majority.
When Napoleon was informed of what had passed he demanded a sight of the
address, which was presented to him by M. Daru. After having perused it
he exclaimed; "Had this discourse been delivered I would have shut the
gates of the Institute, and thrown M. de Chateaubriand into a dungeon for
life." The storm long raged; at length means of conciliation were tried.
The Emperor required M. de Chateaubriand to prepare another discourse,
which the latter refused to do, in spite of every menace. Madame Gay
applied to Madame Regnault de St. Jean d'Angely, who interested her
husband in favour of the author of the Genie du Christianisme. M. de
Montalivet and Savary also acted on this occasion in the most
praiseworthy manner, and succeeded in appeasing the first transports of
the Emperor's rage. But the name of Chateaubriand constantly called to
mind the circumstances which had occasioned him to give in his
resignation; and, besides, Napoleon had another complaint against him.
He had published in the 'Merceure' an article on a work of M. Alexandre
de Laborde. In that article, which was eagerly read in Paris, and which
caused the suppression of the 'Merceure', occurred the famous phrase
which has been since so often repeated: "In vain a Nero triumphs: Tacitus
is already born in his Empire." This quotation leads me to repeat an
observation, which, I believe, I have already made, viz. that it is a
manifest misconception to compare Bonaparte to Nero. Napoleon's ambition
might blind his vision to political crimes, but in private life no man
could evince less disposition to cruelty or bloodshed. A proof that he
bore little resemblance to Nero is that his anger against the author of
the article in question vented itself in mere words. "What!" exclaimed
he, "does Chateaubriand think I am a fool, and that I do not know what he
means? If he goes on this way I will have him sabred on the steps of the
Tuileries." This language is quite characteristic of Bonaparte, but it
was uttered in the first ebullition of his wrath. Napoleon merely
threatened, but Nero would have made good his threat; and in such a case
there is surely some difference between words and deeds.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|