[A]It is, I believe, a fact never previously published that the first post-mortem certificate drawn up by the doctors responsible was rejected by Sir Hudson Lowe. It contained the words “the liver was perhaps a little larger than natural,” and this remark naturally did not commend itself to Lowe, in consequence of the fierce quarrels he had had with Napoleon on this very subject. The post-mortem certificate in the English Record Office does not contain these words, but the Rev. Canon E. Brook Jackson, Rector of Streatham, has in his possession the earlier certificate, signed by the doctors concerned, with the footnote “N.B.—The words obliterated were suppressed by order of Sir Hudson Lowe. Signed, Thomas Short, P.M.O.” The words referred to are clearly legible and are those given above.
[A]
It is, I believe, a fact never previously published that the first post-mortem certificate drawn up by the doctors responsible was rejected by Sir Hudson Lowe. It contained the words “the liver was perhaps a little larger than natural,” and this remark naturally did not commend itself to Lowe, in consequence of the fierce quarrels he had had with Napoleon on this very subject. The post-mortem certificate in the English Record Office does not contain these words, but the Rev. Canon E. Brook Jackson, Rector of Streatham, has in his possession the earlier certificate, signed by the doctors concerned, with the footnote “N.B.—The words obliterated were suppressed by order of Sir Hudson Lowe. Signed, Thomas Short, P.M.O.” The words referred to are clearly legible and are those given above.
Napoleon failed during his lifetime, but he was triumphant after death. His gallant fight at St. Helena against overwhelming odds was remembered with pride by every Frenchman. Men hearing garbled versions of his sufferings felt a pricking of their consciences that they had abandoned him in 1814 and 1815. The helpless policy of Louis XVIII. and Charles X., and the humdrum policy of Louis Philippe set all minds thinking of the glorious days, not so very long ago, when France had been Queen of the Continent. Louis Napoleon skilfully employed the revulsion of feeling to his own advantage, and the glory of Austerlitz and Jena was sufficient to hide the absurdities of Boulogne and Strasbourg. But it was the six years’ struggle of St. Helena which made so refulgent that glory of Austerlitz.
What the British Government could have done to prevent the formation of a St. Helena legend cannot easily be decided. They were in terror lest he should escape again, and severe ordinances werenecessary to prevent this. Had they treated him luxuriously, public opinion in England would have been roused to a dangerous pitch. They had originally tried to get out of the difficulty by handing him over to Louis XVIII. for execution, but Louis XVIII. had no real case against him. A state trial would have given Napoleon unbounded opportunities for the rhetoric in which he delighted, and which had so often rallied France to his side. Napoleon might well have pleaded, with perfect truth, that in the descent from Elba he was no rebel, but the Emperor of Elba making war upon the King of France; but so tame a plea would hardly have been employed. Napoleon would have proclaimed himself the purest altruist come to see that the French people obtained their rights, or to save France from the machinations of tyrants. Louis was wise in refusing the offer. The custody of Napoleon was thus thrust upon the British Government. If remarkably far-sighted, they might have lapped him in every luxury; have treated him subserviently as if he was Emperor in fact as well as in name; they might have encouraged him to debauchery as wild as Tiberius’ at Capri; and then by subtle propaganda they might have exhibited him to a scornful world as a man who cared nothing for his lost greatness, or for the dependence of his position. Such a scheme appealed favourably to the imagination, but there was an insuperable obstacle—Napoleon. Napoleon had a definite plan of campaign. He was going to complain about everything and everybody with whom he came in contact. He was going to clamour unceasingly against the brutality and arbitrariness of his gaolers. Without regard for truth he was going to proclaim continually that he was being ill-treated and martyred, and he would have done it whatever had been his treatment, and, being Napoleon, he wouldhave done it well. The error of the British Government lay in their affording him so many opportunities, not in their affording him any at all.
And after he was dead there followed the events which he had foreseen and over whose engendering he had laboured so diligently. Little by little the evil features of the Imperial régime were forgotten; the glory of his victories blazed more brightly in comparison with the exhaustion of France under the Bourbons and the pettifogging Algerian razzias of Louis Philippe. The literature of St. Helena, both the spurious and the inspired, induced men to believe that Napoleon was the exact opposite of what he really was. It gave him credit for the achievements of Carnot; it shifted the disgrace of failure on to the shoulders of helpless scapegoats. It proved to the satisfaction of the uninquiring that Napoleon stood for democracy, for the principle of nationality, and even for peace. It raised to the Imperial throne the man who said “the Empire means peace.” The whole legend which developed was a flagrant denial of patent facts, but it was a denial sufficiently reiterated to be believed. The belief is not yet dead.
LOUIS NAPOLEON, KING OF HOLLAND
LOUIS NAPOLEON, KING OF HOLLAND
APPENDIXINCIDENTS AND AUTHORITIES
IT is much more than a hundred years since Napoleon lived; since his time we have witnessed cataclysms more vast than were the Napoleonic wars; the Europe of that period seems to us as unfamiliar and as profitless a study as Siam or primitive Australia. Perhaps this is so. Perhaps the lessons to be drawn from the Napoleonic era are now exhausted. Perhaps the epoch ushered in by Marengo is slight and unimportant compared to that which follows the Marne. Perhaps Englishmen will forget the men who stood firm in the squares at Waterloo, and will only remember those who stood firm at Ypres and the Second Marne. Perhaps the Congress of Vienna will lapse into insignificance when compared with the Congress of Versailles. But this is inconceivable. Previously, perhaps, too much importance has been attached to the Napoleonic era, but that is because it had no parallel; it was unique. Similarly the period pivoting about the Great War of 1914-18 might be said to be unique, but it is not so. The two epochs are very closely related, very closely indeed. Much may be gained from the study of either, but this is nothing to be compared with the gain resulting from the study and comparison of the two together. In this way the Napoleonic era becomes more significant even than it was before the great war, and this without considering how much of the great war was directly due to arrangements made as a consequence of Napoleon’s career.
But apart from all such considerations, the study of the period is one from which a great deal of purely personal pleasure can be derived. Even nowadays one cannot help a thrill of excitement when reading of the advance of the British infantry at Albuera; one cannot help feeling a surge of emotion on reading how Alvarez at the siege of Gerona moaned “No surrender! No surrender!” although he was dying of fever and half the populace lay dead in the streets, while the other half still fought on against all the might of Reille and St. Cyr. Even the best novel compares unfavourably with Ségur’s account of the Russian campaign; and although there is no French biographer quite as good as Boswell, yet there are scores of memoirs and biographies of the period which rank very nearly as high, and which are pleasant to read at all times. Marbot may be untruthful, but he is delightful reading; Madame Junot gives a picture of her times and of the people whom she met which is honestly worthy of comparison with Dickens and Thackeray; while to track down in their memoirs Fouché’s and Talleyrand’s carefully concealed mistakes is as interesting a pastime as ever was the attempt to guess the dénouement in a modern detective novel.
The literature of the time is full of happy anecdotes, some of which have attained the supreme honour of being taken out bodily, furnished with modern trimmings, and published in twentieth century magazines, without acknowledgment, as modern humour. But many have escaped this fate, partly because they are untranslatable, and partly because they bear the definite imprint of the period. Thus there is the story of the fat and pursy King of Würtemberg, who once kept waiting a committee of the Congress of Vienna. At last he arrived, and as his portly majesty came bustling through the door, Talleyrand remarked, “Here comes the King of Würtemberg,ventre à terre.” In a grimmer vein is the story of the reception held on the night after Ney was shot. The companywere mournfully discussing the tragedy, when a certain M. Lemaréchal was announced. As this gentleman had a son of mature years, the announcement was worded “M. Lemaréchal ainé”—which the panic-stricken assembly heard as “M. le Maréchal Ney.”
Some of the heroes of that time have had the bad luck to be misrepresented not only in literature but even in portraits and in sculpture. Napoleon had at one time the plan of placing statues of all his generals in the Louvre, but he abdicated before the work was anywhere near completion, and left its continuation to his successors. Louis and Charles did nothing towards it, and the parsimonious Louis Philippe, when he came to the throne, decided as a measure of economy only to represent the most famous. But some of the statues of junior officers were already finished. Louis Philippe saw his chance of still greater economy. For Lasalle’s head was substituted Lannes’; for Colbert’s, Mortier’s; while the entire statue of St. Hilaire was simply labelled Masséna and set up without further alteration. These statues are still in the Louvre; no subsequent correction has ever been made.
But the anecdotes are responsible for only a very small part of the interest of Napoleonic literature. Many of the subsequent histories are very nearly models of everything a book ought to be. Napier’s “Peninsular War,” despite its bias and its frequent inaccuracies, has already become a classic; Sir Charles Oman’s work on the same subject is much more striking and makes a far greater appeal. His descriptions of the siege of Gerona and of the cavalry pursuit at Tudela are more moving in their cold eloquence than ever was Napier at his fieriest. One English author whose books have attracted far less attention than they should have done is Mr. F. Loraine Petre; his accurate and impartial histories of the successive Napoleonic campaigns are dramatic enough to hold the interest of the ordinary reader as well as that of the military student. In matters other than military, thewriter whose reputation overtops all others is M. Frédéric Masson. His celebrity is such that it would be almost impertinence to cavil at his writings. For painstaking and careful accumulation of evidence he stands far and away above all his contemporaries. He examines and brings to notice every single detail. A catalogue of an Empress’s chemises interests him as deeply as a list of a Council of State. The trouble is that his catalogue of chemises is merely a catalogue of chemises—as interesting as a laundress’s bill. M. Masson’s books are exceedingly important and invaluable to the student: but that they are important and invaluable is all one can say about them.
The ultimate source of much information is, of course, the endless collection of volumes of Napoleon’s correspondence. Even merely to glance at one of these is a lesson in industry far more thorough than anything achieved by the worthy Dr. Samuel Smiles and his like. Examination of a single day’s correspondence is sufficient to show the complexity of Napoleon’s interests, the extent of his knowledge of each subject, and the nature of the driving power which built up the First Empire. Close study of the Correspondence is necessary to enable one to follow the twists and turns of Napoleon’s policy; the main difficulty is that the bundle of hay is so large that the finding of needles in it is a painfully tedious business. However, the casual reader will find that this spadework has been done for him by a large number of painstaking writers. Even during the present century several English authors have published books upon particular events and persons of the Napoleonic era. Mr. Hilliard Atteridge is an example of those who have done the best work in this direction. But the greater number of these books seem to be struck with the same blight—they are ineffably tedious. Generally they are most correct as to facts; their impartiality is admirable; the knowledge displayed is wide; but they are most terribly boring to read. Theyare useful to familiarize the reader with the various persons described so that their place in the whole period is better understood, for the Napoleonic era is a tangled skein of threads, each of them a different personality, wound round and completely dependent upon the central core, which is Napoleon.
Of biographies and general histories it is impossible to speak definitely. Napoleon can boast hundreds more lives than any cat in fact or fancy. The percentage of lies contained in books on Napoleon varies between ten and ninety—and what is more aggravating is that the picturesque and readable lives are usually those which contain the most inexactitudes. It is perfectly safe to say that no Life of Napoleon has ever been written which combines complete accuracy with genuine readableness. This is of small account, however, for one has only to read enough of the readable and inexact lives to form a fairly correct opinion on most matters of importance at the same time as one enjoys both the reading and the forming of the opinion. The contemporary memoirs are very useful, and are mainly interesting. Bourrienne’s biography is rather overrated usually, for he is unreliable in personal matters, and a great deal of his book is undeniably heavy. One of his most illuminating pictures shows Napoleon driving with him over the countryside, and ignoring the beauty of the scenery in favour of the military features of the landscape. This anecdote receives an additional interest when it is recalled that an exactly similar story is told of von Schlieffen, the German Chief of Staff of the ’nineties, who planned the advance through Belgium which had such vast consequences in 1914. One certainly cannot help thinking that if Napoleon had been at the head of the German army at that date he, too, would have advanced through Belgium, and this tiny parallel offers curious corroboration. Such a move would have been in complete accordance with Napoleon’s character—compare Bernadotte’s marchthrough Anspach in 1805. The way in which Napoleon took enormous risks, such as this, and his method of securing the friendship of other Powers by storming and bluster instead of by finesse, is the most curious trait of his whole curious character. Bourrienne offers several examples; so do Talleyrand, Fouché, Pasquier and Molé.
For some decades after Napoleon’s death an immense amount of spurious or heavily revised reminiscent literature appeared. Constant (the valet), Josephine, and various others, are credited with volumes of ingeniously written memoirs. They are well worth reading, but they contain little worth remembering. In many matters they are demonstrably incorrect, and they are generally prejudiced and misleading. For personal and intimate details one of the best contemporary writers is de Bausset, who certainly wrote the book which bears his name, and who equally certainly was in a position to perceive what he described, for he was a palace official for many years under the Empire.
In military matters the Marshals’ memoirs are peculiarly enlightening, not so much in matters of detail (in fact they are frequently incorrect there) but in exhibiting the characters of the writers themselves. Davout’s book is just what one would expect of him, cold and unrelenting and yet sound and brilliant. Suchet’s is cynical and clever and subtle, and, if necessary, untrue. St. Cyr’s displays his jealousy, suspicion and general unpleasantness along with undoubted proof of talent. Macdonald’s is bluff and honest. There is a whole host of smaller fry, from Marbot downwards, who wrote fascinating little books about the Army and their own personal experiences. Some of them, such as the Reminiscences of Colonel de Gonneville, have appeared in English. They are all obtainable in French. The last authority, of course, on military matters is the Correspondence. There are only one or two doubtful letters in the whole collection, and these are either printed with reserve orbear the proofs of their spuriousness on the face of them.
But no matter how much is written, or published, or read, no two men will ever form quite the same estimate of Napoleon. It is as easy to argue that he only rose through sheer good luck as it is to argue that he only fell through sheer bad luck. He can be compared to Iscariot or to St. Paul, to Alexander or to Wilhelm II. At times he seems a body without a soul; at others, a soul without a body. All this seems to indicate that he was a man of contradictions, but on the other hand he was, admittedly, thoroughly consistent in all his actions. The most one can hope for is to form one’s own conclusions about him; one cannot hope to form other people’s.
INDEX
Abo, Treaty of,32Agincourt,11Alexander (Czar),16,23,47,145Alexandria,11Aspern,30,74,211Atteridge, A. Hilliard,240Auerstädt,20,69Augereau,67,81,91-93Austerlitz,15,20,69,134,208Baciocchi, Elise (néeBonaparte),114-128Barras,14,35,38Bausset, de,13,242Bautzen,16,29,135,189Baylen,15,198Bennigsen,32,77Bernadotte,25,31-33,74Bernadotte, Désirée (néeClary),31,152,167-169Berthier,25,27,50,58,157Bertrand,21Bessières,28,58,149Blücher,193,199Borghese, Pauline (néeBonaparte),57,114-128Borodino,134,176,187Bourrienne,22,241Buenos Ayres,11Catherine of Westphalia,53,110,111,129Charles, Hippolyte,21,39Clausel,138-139Cockburn, Admiral,226Confederation of the Rhine,15Continental System,111,220Corneille,19David,18,19Davout,20,25,58,67-79,85,136,242Dennewitz,29,135Denuelle, Eléonore,158-160Dresden,16,135,191,213Dupont,198-199Duroc,149,157,181Eckmühl,73,83Egypt,14Elba,16Elchingen,29Enghien, d’,15,40,202-204Eugène de Beauharnais,68,74,76,125,169Erlon, d’,146-148Eylau,15,29,93Fouché,58,62,238Fourès, Marguerite,153-155Francis I., Emperor of Austria,48,181Friedland,15,30,134Genoa,82Goethe,19Gourgaud,21Grassini,155-156Grouchy,25,59,145-146Hamburg,77Hauser, Kaspar,171-172Hortense Bonaparte,43,54Isabey,18Jena,15,20,29,69,134Jerome Bonaparte,15,75,106-113,186Joseph Bonaparte,15,18,83,87,96,103-106Josephine, Empress,14,17,21,35-46,57,155,242Jourdain,68,72,210Junot,26,39,84,141-144,238Junot, Madame,141,152Katzbach,33,77Kellermann,140,208Lannes,30,57,58,67,73,131,149,206,211Leclerc,99,116,117Lefebvre,23,26Leipzig,16,77,135Léon (Denuelle),159-160Letizia Bonaparte (Madame Mère),57,129-132Ligny,147,196Louis XVIII.,51,223,234Louis Bonaparte,15,43,96,101-103Lowe, Sir Hudson,121,225-235Lucien Bonaparte,97-101Lützen,16,189Macdonald,33,78,242Mack,15Maida,11Mallet Conspiracy,63Malo-Jaroslavetz,188Marbot,137,197Marengo,14,20,30,207,208Marie Antoinette,49Marie Louise,16,21,47-66,166Marmont,30,68,73,78Masséna,14,20,42,58,59,68,71,73,80-85,154Metternich,26,50,64,158,238Minden,11Montebello, Duchess of,55,62Moore, Sir John,86,105,143,210Montholon,21,232Moreau,14,31,33,81,116Moscow,188Murat, Joachim,15,25,27-28,39,76,118-125Murat, Caroline (néeBonaparte),52,53,57,114-128,159Napier,239Napoleon, I.,9-243Napoleon II.,60,61Napoleon Charles Bonaparte,43Neipperg,21,64-66Ney,29,58,67,78,85,136,189Oman, Sir Charles,239Ossian,19Oudinot,67,78Patterson-Bonaparte, Elizabeth,107,108Petre, F. L.,239Pichegru,204Pius VII.,44,45Poniatowski,25,149Rouget de l’Isle,19Rousseau,19St. Helena,16,223-235St. Cyr,33-34,78,242Salamanca,30,138Savary,58,63,203Schwartzenberg,51,148,193Ségur,59,238Soissons,193Soult,68,71,85-89Staël, Mme. de,19Stéphanie de Beauharnais,170-172Suchet,25,68,88,89-91,138,242Suvaroff,82Talleyrand,56,158,238Tallien, Mme.,37Thiers,177Tilsit, Treaty of,15Ulm,15,29Vandamme,59,73,109,144-145,191Verestchagin,17Victor,143Villeneuve,205Vittoria,106,191Vimiero,15,143Wagram,32,74,84,212Walewska, Marie de,18,21,43,160-165Walewski, Alexander,165-166Waterloo,16,78,79,112,136,217Wellington,11,84,86,87,156Zürich,82
Abo, Treaty of,32
Agincourt,11
Alexander (Czar),16,23,47,145
Alexandria,11
Aspern,30,74,211
Atteridge, A. Hilliard,240
Auerstädt,20,69
Augereau,67,81,91-93
Austerlitz,15,20,69,134,208
Baciocchi, Elise (néeBonaparte),114-128
Barras,14,35,38
Bausset, de,13,242
Bautzen,16,29,135,189
Baylen,15,198
Bennigsen,32,77
Bernadotte,25,31-33,74
Bernadotte, Désirée (néeClary),31,152,167-169
Berthier,25,27,50,58,157
Bertrand,21
Bessières,28,58,149
Blücher,193,199
Borghese, Pauline (néeBonaparte),57,114-128
Borodino,134,176,187
Bourrienne,22,241
Buenos Ayres,11
Catherine of Westphalia,53,110,111,129
Charles, Hippolyte,21,39
Clausel,138-139
Cockburn, Admiral,226
Confederation of the Rhine,15
Continental System,111,220
Corneille,19
David,18,19
Davout,20,25,58,67-79,85,136,242
Dennewitz,29,135
Denuelle, Eléonore,158-160
Dresden,16,135,191,213
Dupont,198-199
Duroc,149,157,181
Eckmühl,73,83
Egypt,14
Elba,16
Elchingen,29
Enghien, d’,15,40,202-204
Eugène de Beauharnais,68,74,76,125,169
Erlon, d’,146-148
Eylau,15,29,93
Fouché,58,62,238
Fourès, Marguerite,153-155
Francis I., Emperor of Austria,48,181
Friedland,15,30,134
Genoa,82
Goethe,19
Gourgaud,21
Grassini,155-156
Grouchy,25,59,145-146
Hamburg,77
Hauser, Kaspar,171-172
Hortense Bonaparte,43,54
Isabey,18
Jena,15,20,29,69,134
Jerome Bonaparte,15,75,106-113,186
Joseph Bonaparte,15,18,83,87,96,103-106
Josephine, Empress,14,17,21,35-46,57,155,242
Jourdain,68,72,210
Junot,26,39,84,141-144,238
Junot, Madame,141,152
Katzbach,33,77
Kellermann,140,208
Lannes,30,57,58,67,73,131,149,206,211
Leclerc,99,116,117
Lefebvre,23,26
Leipzig,16,77,135
Léon (Denuelle),159-160
Letizia Bonaparte (Madame Mère),57,129-132
Ligny,147,196
Louis XVIII.,51,223,234
Louis Bonaparte,15,43,96,101-103
Lowe, Sir Hudson,121,225-235
Lucien Bonaparte,97-101
Lützen,16,189
Macdonald,33,78,242
Mack,15
Maida,11
Mallet Conspiracy,63
Malo-Jaroslavetz,188
Marbot,137,197
Marengo,14,20,30,207,208
Marie Antoinette,49
Marie Louise,16,21,47-66,166
Marmont,30,68,73,78
Masséna,14,20,42,58,59,68,71,73,80-85,154
Metternich,26,50,64,158,238
Minden,11
Montebello, Duchess of,55,62
Moore, Sir John,86,105,143,210
Montholon,21,232
Moreau,14,31,33,81,116
Moscow,188
Murat, Joachim,15,25,27-28,39,76,118-125
Murat, Caroline (néeBonaparte),52,53,57,114-128,159
Napier,239
Napoleon, I.,9-243
Napoleon II.,60,61
Napoleon Charles Bonaparte,43
Neipperg,21,64-66
Ney,29,58,67,78,85,136,189
Oman, Sir Charles,239
Ossian,19
Oudinot,67,78
Patterson-Bonaparte, Elizabeth,107,108
Petre, F. L.,239
Pichegru,204
Pius VII.,44,45
Poniatowski,25,149
Rouget de l’Isle,19
Rousseau,19
St. Helena,16,223-235
St. Cyr,33-34,78,242
Salamanca,30,138
Savary,58,63,203
Schwartzenberg,51,148,193
Ségur,59,238
Soissons,193
Soult,68,71,85-89
Staël, Mme. de,19
Stéphanie de Beauharnais,170-172
Suchet,25,68,88,89-91,138,242
Suvaroff,82
Talleyrand,56,158,238
Tallien, Mme.,37
Thiers,177
Tilsit, Treaty of,15
Ulm,15,29
Vandamme,59,73,109,144-145,191
Verestchagin,17
Victor,143
Villeneuve,205
Vittoria,106,191
Vimiero,15,143
Wagram,32,74,84,212
Walewska, Marie de,18,21,43,160-165
Walewski, Alexander,165-166
Waterloo,16,78,79,112,136,217
Wellington,11,84,86,87,156
Zürich,82