Table Of Content

.L «/t /r^Z/'-Y^'.-'"^ FROM A PAINTING E/ T. GERARD. MEMOIRS PRINCE DE TALLEYRAND EDITED, WITH A PREFACE AND NOTES, BY THE DUC DE BROGLIE OF THE FRENCH ACADEMY TRANSLATED BY Mrs. ANGUS HALL WITH ANINTRODUCTION BV THE HONORABLE WHITELAW REID AMERICAN MINISTER IN PARIS VOLUME V (COMPLETING THE WORK) H^JTH PORTRAITS G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS NEW YORK LONDON 37WESTTWENTY-THIRD STREET 24 BEDFORDSTREET, STRAND S^e ^nicheibocKci ^rcsB 1892 All"! Copyright, i8gi BY G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS ilbc1ttnlcl!crbocl;ct press PREFACE BY THE EDITOR. The fifth and last volume of Prince de Talleyrand's Memoirs concludes the publication which his testamentary executors had bequeathed to their representatives. The Editors have completed the task which they undertook, by depositing with the Director of the Bibliotheque Nationale, the MS. volumes of which the text now printed is the exact reproduction. It will thus be easy to ascertain, that the trust which they have received has not suffered any alteration or abridgment whatever. It is true, that the collection thus placed before the public, not being an autograph, but a copy, certified by the testamentary executors, such authentication can only serve to testify- tothescrupulousgoodfaithofthe Editors, and would notofitself, in the absence of other testimony,be sufficient to put an end to the controversy which has been raised as to the character of the Memoirs themselves. Happily the discussion to which this controversy has given rise, has already sufficed to dispel all doubts. The question of the authenticity of Talleyrand's Memoirs has been thrashed out by the Press, and their originality has been established beyond doubt, by eminent critics and judges, whose authoritycan hardlybe disputed. M. Sorel in the Temps, M. Chuquet in the Revue Critique, M. Sustane Monod and M. Farge in the Revue Historique, have pronounced for it with PREFACE. viii the weight derived from their comparative study of all documents connected with contemporaneous history, and in support of the same decision, M. Pierre Bertrand has brought forward, in the Revue EncyclopMique, curious details respecting the style of Prince de Talleyrand's composition, which he has been able to gather from many of the Prince's inedited letters, published by him. If,therefore,Inowreviveasubjectwhichmayseemexhausted, it is not with the view of adding anything to such conclusive testimony, but simply to offer its reproduction and r^sum^ to those readers, who, not having followed the phases of the controversy, desire to ascertain the true value of the entire work now placed in their hands. A few words will suffice to recall the points on which the dispute was maintained, and the exact limit to which it was confined. No attempt has been made to compare Talleyrand's Memoirs with those apocryphal compositions wbich abound in our literature, veritable historic romances, compiled from all kinds of documents by professional writers and then issued under the name of such and such celebrated personage. The undoubted origin of the documents, and theevidencesofsuperior ability visible in certain portions, do not permit such a supposition. It has only been sought to prove that the original text has been revised and mutilated, and not made public until it had undergonealterationswhich renderitunrecognisable, and in order to justify this, it is asserted, that there have been found either omissions, which appear to be the effect of abridg- ments made by a strange hand after the work was completed, or a confusion of facts and names, which could not have escaped the author's notice, as they would have been the in- troduction of errors with respect to events with which he was personally connected, or with regard to contemporaries, friends, PREFACE. ix or adversaries whom he had personally known. The absence of an autograph manuscript would then account for the intention of those who transcribed it, to remove traces of the modi- fications which theydid not hesitate to introduce. It must be remembered, that in the Memoirs all the events of the author's life, which have long ago appeared in his biography, do not, to say the least, present themselves with the same degree of detail and importance. The narrative progresses rapidly, and without dwelling upon the commence- ment of Talleyrand's political career the part he played in ; the Constituent Assembly; his relations with the illustrious personages of that period; and the missions and public offices which he filledduringthe earlypart oftheRevolution. Without even considering the extent of the narrative, there are but few chapters devoted to these early years, compared with the complete and detailed exposition of the great negotiations of 1814 and 1830. But so far from this difference being surprising, it is only what might be expected, and it presents nothing to us but what is natural. In the course of an almost secular existence, Talleyrand, as- sociated as he was with all the vicissitudes of which Europe and France were the theatre during this turbulent period, had actu- allyseen the whole aspect ofthe worldaround him change and ; as the effect ofsuch long experience, accompanied by repeated disappointment, he aswell as most men ofhis generation, must have found that thesame feelings and ideas which he had shared together with thewisest ofhis contemporaries, no longerexisted. When he took up his pen after the Restoration, to which he hadsopowerfullycontributed. Prince deTalleyrand,representing as he did legitimate Monarchy at Vienna, in the presence of assembled Europe, must have retained but few ideas and traits in common with theAbbe de I'^rigord, sitting on the Leftinthe PREFACE. X Constituent Assembly, and hecouldscarcelyhaverecognizedthis almost effaced likeness ofhimself after so distant a past. He had learnt much, and perhaps also forgotten a little. Many resolutions which he had taken during times ofhope, of disappointment, and ofanxiety must have appeared to him, if not the result ofinfluence,againstvi^hich hewas not proof, at least neces- sitiestowhich he mustsubmit. Would henot thenhavehastened to turn over this page ofhis history, in order to arrive rapidly at that on which were inscribed the eminent services he had just rendered to his country1 How could he linger, to recapitulate with complacency for the benefit ofposterity, impressions which he perhaps no longer retained, which did not even affect him, or in any case revive their memory.? A man who exercised an influence on the political affairs of his time, such as that ascribed to Talleyrand, would not set him- selfto write like an ordinary author, to soothe his old age by recallingthe reminiscences ofhis youth. His constant thought was to obtain full appreciation ofthe efforts he had made to protect the interests that vi^ere confided to him, and the results which he took credit to himselffor having obtained. From this point of view, 1789 recalled nothing to M. de Talleyrand but wasted energy. Is it therefore a matter of astonishment that he should have preferred to concern himself mostwiththeincontestible greatness and utilityoftherole, which heplayedin 1814 and 1830? Noonemoreovercouldhaveoccu- pied so great a position in his time, without being subject to much accusation and censure. The intention of the Memoirs therefore is not to reveal unknown facts, but to prepare matter for a case to be examined by history, and history itself ought to search therein, less for fresh information than for fitting elements to enlighten the judgment which it is called on to pronounce. PREFACE. xi I am well aware that a general impression had been created respecting Talleyrand's Memoirs totally differentto that which a full knowledge of them now conveys. In consequence of the perhaps excessive precautions taken by the testamentary executors to prevent premature publication, people have been inclined to imaginethat the secret would not have been kept so long had not the Memoirs contained facts of a delicate and mysterious nature, and that the veil once lifted,piquante revela- tions, satiricalportrait?,maliciousanecdotes,who knowswhatall ? would be made public perhaps even the facilities which a lax ; morality afforded to the worldly clergy of the Ancien Regime. The grave style ofthenarrative, quite in keeping with thenature ofthe subjects treated, has disappointedthis frivolous curiosity, and from that, to the supposition that everything which would have satisfied it has been intentionally suppressed, is but a step. But it was not necessary to have known M. de Talleyrand ; it was enough to have lived with those who knew him, to prevent the conception of or a beliefin any illusion of the kind. It would even suffice to remember that among allthereproaches ofevery kind that have been laid to his charge, that of want of tact and good taste is perhaps the only one of which he is acquitted. If serious writers have looked for interest of this kind in these Memoirs, and are astonished at not finding it, they have displayed a want of judgment which does not permit them to call themselves historians. Moreover, it is difficult to understand how anyone in the least accustomed to writehistoryfromoriginal documents, could attachanyrealimportance tosucherrors in chronology orproper names as might be found in the Memoirs de Talleyrand. Instead ofregarding them as evidence of forgeries, they ought to be recognized as being, what is plain to everyone, the PREFACE. xii failure ofmemory inevitable at the close of a long life, passed under such varied circumstances. I venture to assert that there are no known Memoirs, not even those whose authenticity is beyond doubt, which do not contain errors more or less grave, and if subjected to criticism would stand the test so well. For instance, I have had occasion, in the course of my labours, to study the memoirs of men who during the sixteenth century played an important part as ministers, generals, or ambassadors, and I will cite amongst others. Marshal de Belle Isle and the Marquis d'Argenson. After comparing their narratives with the correspondence written by them during their life-time, I have found not once, or by accident, but constantly, differences and even contradictions apparently irreconcilable, between the details of facts described by them in their retire- ment and after the events, and their letters written the next or even the same day on which these events occurred. Most of these differences no doubt have arisen from a desire to excuse themselves from certain reproaches, or to enhance the merit of certain services but others are without explanation, except ; that offorgetfulness or involuntary confusion ofideas. Further, two politicians who have occupied an important placeinour contemporaneous history, and of whom one is dead, having kindly placed at my disposal, either in whole or in part, their unpublishedrecollections; I ventured to point out to them in their narration of events, where they figured as principal actors, inaccuracies, doubtless very harmless and very innocent, but much more serious than those of which they accuse Talleyrand's Memoirs, when merely on my observation they expressed an eager desire to admit and correct them. I must add, that having been called upon myselfto publish my father's memoirs, I can show from his own testimony, how 1 PREFACE. xiii the most conscientious man, writing after the lapse of years, ought to mistrust his memory and take precautions to prevent its deceiving him. It is well knownthatthefirstandone ofthemostcharacteris- ticacts ofmyfather'spoliticallife, was thedeterminationhecame toin 18i5,totakehisseatintheChamberofPeersduringMarshal Ney'strial, although he was not legally ofage and wouldnot at- tain hismajority until the day the sentence was pronounced. I have many times heard him relate the particulars of the first sitting in which he took part, and of which an ineffaceable impression ought to haye remained engraven on his memory, from the novelty and gravity of the spectacle before him. The subject of debate on that day, he told me, was the decision of perhaps the most important point in the trial, namely, whether Marshal Ney should be given the benefit of the amjiesty promised to rebels by the capitulation of Paris. Judge of my astonishment at finding in his Memoirs these same details but related with the following reservation : "I took my seat," he writes, "on the 4th December. At 1 o'clock in the morning, I entered the Chamber the members ; were already assembled in the Council Chamber, namely the picture gallery, in which they deliberated in private. I still recollect the position of every member I knew, and the place where I was myself seated on the last bench, but, inconceivable as it mayappear, were I called upon, I would takemyoath, that the subject under deliberation was, to decide whether Marshal Ney could be permitted to plead the capitulation of Paris in extenuation. It is well known that the error, the great error, I would almost say crime, committed by the Chamber, was, in having in this way closed the mouth ofthe accused. I heard M. Mold take one side and Lanjuinais and Porcher de Richebourg the other. This sitting was an epoch in my life. How then